content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
Throughout this paper, graphs are assumed to be finite and simple.
For unexplained concepts and notations, the reader could refer to
\cite{bon}.
Given a graph $G$, we let $V(G)$ be its vertex set, $E(G)$ its edge
set and $n$ its order. The neighborhood of a vertex $x$ in $G$ is
denoted by $N_G(x)$ and defined to be the set of vertices of $G$
adjacent to $x$; the cardinality of this set is called the degree of
$x$ in $G$. For convenience, we denote by $d(x)$ the degree of a vertex
$x$ in $G$; by $\delta$ the minimum degree of $G$ and by $\alpha$ its independence number.
However, if $H$ is a subgraph of $G$ then we write $d_H(x)$;
$\delta_H$ and $\alpha(H)$ respectively for the degree of $x$ in
$H$; the minimum degree and the independence number of $H$. We
denote by $d_G(x,y)$ the distance between $x$ and $y$ in the graph
$G$.
A factor of $G$ is a spanning subgraph of $G$, that is a subgraph
obtained by edge deletions only. If $S$ is the set of deleted edges,
then this subgraph is denoted $G-S$.
If $H$ is a subgraph of $G$, then $G-H$ stands for the subgraph induced by
$V(G)-V(H)$ in $G$. By starting with a disjoint union of two graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ and
adding edges joining every vertex of $G_1$ to every vertex of $G_2$, we
obtain the join of $G_1$ and $G_2$, denoted $G_1+G_2$. For a positive
integer $p$, the graph $pG$ consists of $p$ vertex-disjoint copies
of $G$. In all what follows, we use disjoint to stand for vertex-disjoint.
In \cite{bek}, we defined a pseudo 2-factor of a graph $G$
to be a factor each component of which is a cycle, an edge or a
vertex. It can also be seen as a graph partition by a family of vertices, edges and cycles.
Graph partition problems have been studied in lots of papers. They consist in partitioning the vertex set of $G$
by disjoint subgraphs chosen to have some specific properties. In \cite{EnomotoSurvey}, Enomoto listed a variety
of results dealing with partitions into paths and cycles. The emphasis is generally on the existence of
a given partition however, in our study of pseudo-factors, we take interest in the number of components that
are edges or vertices in a pseudo-factor of $G$. In \cite{bek}, we proved that every graph with minimum degree
$\delta\geq1$ and independence number $\alpha\geq\delta$ possesses a
pseudo 2-factor with at most $\alpha-\delta+1$ edges or vertices and
that this bound is best possible. Motivated by the desire to know what happens in general cases, we define a
\emph{pseudo $[a,b]$-factor} (where $a$ and $b$ are two integers such that $b\geq a\geq 2$) as a factor of $G$
in which each component $C$ on at least three vertices verifies
$a\leq d_C(x)\leq b$, for every $x\in C$. Clearly, a pseudo
$[a,b]$-factor with no component that is an edge or a vertex is
nothing but an $[a,b]$-factor. Surveys on factors and specifically $[a,b]$-factors
and connected factors can be found in \cite{PlummerSurveyFactors, KouiderVestergaard}.
In the present work, we study pseudo $[2,b]$-factors, we consider the case $b\geq4$ and obtain an upper
bound (in function of $\delta$, $\alpha$ and $b$) for the number of
components that are edges or vertices in a pseudo $[2,b]$-factor of
$G$. Note that, from a result by Kouider and Lonc
(\cite{KouiderLonc}), we deduce that if
$\alpha\leq\frac{b(\delta-1)}{2}$ then $G$ has a $[2,b]$-factor.
Laying down the condition $\alpha>\frac{b(\delta-1)}{2}$, the main
result of this paper reads as follows:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
Let $b$ be an integer such that $b\geq4$ and $G$ a graph of minimum
degree $\delta\geq1$ and independence number $\alpha$ with
$\alpha>\frac{b(\delta-1)}{2}$. Then $G$ possesses a pseudo
$[2,b]$-factor with at most
$\alpha-\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor$ components that are
edges or vertices.
\end{theorem}
The bound given in Theorem \ref{thm1} is best possible. Indeed, let
$b$ be an integer such that $b\geq4$ and let $H$ be a nonempty set
of vertices. The graph $G=H+pK_2$, where $p>\frac{b}{2}|H|$, has
minimum degree $\delta=|H|+1$ and independence number $\alpha=p$. We
can easily verify that $G$ possesses a pseudo $[2,b]$-factor with
$\alpha-\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor$ edges and we can not do
better. Also, a simple example reaching the bound of Theorem
\ref{thm1}, is a graph $G$ obtained by taking a graph $H$ on $n$
vertices in which every vertex is of degree between 2 and $b$
($b\geq4$), then taking $n$ additional independent vertices and
joining exactly one isolated vertex to exactly one vertex of $H$.
The graph $G$ has minimum degree $\delta=1$, independence number
$\alpha=n$ and can be partitioned into one component that is $H$ and
$n=\alpha-\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor$ vertices (or simply
$n$ edges) and we can not do better.
Combining Theorem \ref{thm1} with the results of \cite{bek}
and \cite{KouiderLonc}, we obtain
\begin{corollary}
Let $b\geq2$ be an integer such that $b\neq3$. Let $G$ be a graph of
minimum degree $\delta$ and independence number $\alpha$ and without
isolated vertices. Then $G$ possesses a pseudo $[2,b]$-factor with
at most $\max(0,\alpha-\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor)$ edges
or vertices.
\end{corollary}
\section{Independence number, minimum degree and pseudo $[2,b]$-factors}
First of all, we put aside the case $\delta=1$ for which we know
that we have in $G$ a pseudo $[2,b]$-factor with at most $\alpha$
edges or vertices. Indeed, if we regard a cycle as a component each
vertex of which is of degree between $2$ and $b$, then we know that
any graph $G$ can be covered by at most $\alpha$ cycles, edges or
vertices (see for instance \cite{posa}). So the bound
$\alpha-\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor$ holds for $\delta=1$.
From now on, we assume that $G$ has minimum degree $\delta\geq2$.
Let $F$ be a subgraph of $G$ such that $2\leq d_F(x)\leq b$ for all
$x\in V(F)$. For the sake of simplifying the writing, such a
subgraph $F$ will be called a $[2,b]$-subgraph of $G$. Denote by $D$
a smallest component of $G-F$, set $W=G-(D\cup F)$ and choose $F$ in
such a manner that:
$(a)$ $\alpha(G-F)$ is as small as possible;
$(b)$ subject to $(a)$, the number of vertices of $D$ is as small as
possible;
$(c)$ subject to $(a)$ and $(b)$, the number of vertices in $F$ is
as small as possible.
Notice that a subgraph $F$ satisfying the conditions above exists
since $\delta\geq2$. Indeed, let us consider a longest path in $G$
and let $u$ be one of its endpoints. Let $v$ be the farthest
neighbor of $u$ on this path and $P_{uv}$ the segment of $P$ joining
$u$ and $v$. The cycle $C$ formed by the path $P_{uv}$ and the edge $uv$ contains $u$ and all its
neighbors so $\alpha(G-C)<\alpha$. Hence $F$ is not empty.
We shall show the following theorem which yields Theorem \ref{thm1}:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm2}
Let $b$ be an integer such that $b\geq4$. Let $G$ be a graph of
minimum degree $\delta\geq2$ and independence number $\alpha$ such
that $\alpha>\frac{b(\delta-1)}{2}$. Then there exists a pseudo
$[2,b]$-factor of $G$ such that $F$ is the $[2,b]$-subgraph of this
pseudo $[2,b]$-factor and $F$ gives
$\alpha(G-F)\leq\alpha-\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor$.
\end{theorem}
\textbf{Proof of Theorem\ref{thm2}.} Let $F$ be a $[2,b]$-subgraph
of $G$ satisfying the conditions $(a)$, $(b)$ and $(c)$. Denote by
$u_1,...,u_m$ ($m\geq1$) the neighbors of $D$ on $F$ and by $P_{ij}$
a path with internal vertices in $D$ joining two vertices $u_i$ and
$u_j$ with $1\leq i,j\leq m$ and $i\neq j$. The proof of Theorem
\ref{thm2} will be divided into several claims. The following one
which will be intensively used reminds Lemma 1 in
\cite{bek}.
\begin{claim}\label{claim1}
Let $F'$ be a $[2,b]$-subgraph of $G$ which contains the neighbors
of $D$ in $F$ and at least one vertex of $D$. Setting $W'=G-(F'\cup
D)$, we have $\alpha(W')>\alpha(W)$.
\end{claim}
\emph{Proof of Claim \ref{claim1}.} Set $D'=D-F'$.
\\ (1) If $D'=\emptyset$ then by the choice of $F$, we have
$\alpha(G-F)\leq\alpha(G-F')$. But
\\ $\alpha(G-F)=\alpha(W)+\alpha(D)\geq\alpha(W)+1$ and $\alpha(G-F')=\alpha(W')$, so
$\alpha(W)<\alpha(W')$.
\\ (2) If $D'\neq\emptyset$ then $F'$ gives a component $D'$ smaller than $D$, so again by the choice of $F$, we have
$\alpha(W)+\alpha(D)=\alpha(G-F)<\alpha(G-F')=\alpha(W')+\alpha(D')$.
But as $\alpha(D')\leq\alpha(D)$ then we obtain
$\alpha(W)<\alpha(W')$. $\Box$
\vspace{3mm} In the next claims, we try to learn more about the
degrees in $F$ of its vertices.
\begin{claim}\label{claim2}
For every $i$, $1\leq i\leq m$, we have
$N_F(u_i)\cap\{u_1,\ldots,u_m\}=\emptyset$.
\end{claim}
\emph{Proof of Claim \ref{claim2}.} Suppose that for some $i$,
$N_F(u_i)\cap\{u_1,...,u_m\}\neq\emptyset$, then there exists a
vertex $u_j$ ($1\leq j\leq m$ and $j\neq i$) such that $u_iu_j\in
E(F)$. Put $e=u_iu_j$, then $(F-e)\cup P_{ij}$ is a
$[2,b]$-subgraph. Indeed, none of the vertices of $F$ changes its
degree in $(F-e)\cup P_{ij}$ and the internal vertices of $P_{ij}$
are of degree 2. So taking $F'=(F-e)\cup P_{ij}$ in Claim
\ref{claim1} we obtain $\alpha(W)>\alpha(W)$, which is absurd.
$\Box$
\begin{claim}\label{claim3}
$d_F(u_i)\leq b-1$ for at most one vertex $u_i$, $i=1,...,m$.
\end{claim}
\emph{Proof of Claim \ref{claim3}.} Suppose to the contrary that
there exist at least two distinct vertices $u_k$ and $u_l$ such that
$d_F(u_k)\leq b-1$ and $d_F(u_l)\leq b-1$. Then taking $F'=F\cup
P_{kl}$ in Claim \ref{claim1} (notice that in $F'$, $d_F(u_k)$ and
$d_F(u_l)$ are at most $b$, and the internal vertices of $P_{kl}$
are of degree 2 in $F'$ so $F'$ is a $[2,b]$-subgraph of $G$), we
obtain $\alpha(W)<\alpha(W)$ which is absurd. $\Box$
\vspace{3mm}
Let $S$ be the set of vertices $x$ in $\cup_{i=1}^m N_F(u_i)$ such
that $x$ is a common neighbor of at least two vertices in
$\{u_1,...,u_m\}$. We have:
\begin{claim}\label{claim+}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $d_F(x)\leq3$ for every $x\in S$.
\item If $S$ contains a vertex $x$ such that $d_F(x)=3$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item For every $k, 1\leq k\leq m$, we have $d_F(u_k)=b$.
\item For every $y\in \cup_{i=1}^m N_F(u_i)-\{x\}$ we have $d_F(y)=2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{claim}
\emph{Proof of Claim \ref{claim+}.}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that $d_F(x)\geq4$ for some $x\in S$. By definition, $x$
is the neighbor in $F$ of at least two vertices say $u_i$ and $u_j$
with $1\leq i, j\leq m, i\neq j$. Put $e=xu_i$ and $e'=xu_j$. Then
in $F'=(F-e-e')\cup P_{ij}$ only $x$ changes its degree but it
remains at least 2. So $F'$ is a $[2,b]$-subgraph which leads to a
contradiction by Claim \ref{claim1}.
\item Let $x$ be in $N_F(u_i)\cap N_F(u_j)$ ($1\leq i,j\leq m$ and $i\neq j$) such that $d_F(x)=3$.
Suppose that there exists $u_k$ (which will be the only one by Claim
\ref{claim3}) such that $d_F(u_k)\leq b-1$, we can always assume
that $k\neq i$. Then taking $F'=(F-e)\cup P_{ik}$, where $e=xu_i$,
in Claim \ref{claim1} gives a contradiction.
\\ Furthermore, if we suppose that there exists $y\in
N_F(u_k)-\{x\}$, with $1\leq k\leq m$ (we can suppose without loss
of generality that $k\neq i$) such that $d_F(y)\geq3$. Then setting
$e=xu_i$, $e'=yu_k$ and taking $F'=(F-e-e')\cup P_{ik}$ in Claim
\ref{claim1} gives a contradiction. Notice that $F'$ is a
$[2,b]$-subgraph: indeed, only $x$ and $y$ lose 1 in their degree
but they remain of degree at least 2 in $F'$ and the internal
vertices of $P_{ik}$ are of degree 2 in $F'$.$\Box$
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{3mm}
Claim \ref{claim+} implies that $S$ is an independent set in $F$ and
we will deduce later that it is also independent in $G$. But before
that, we take a look at the neighbors of $\{u_1,...,u_m\}$ which are
not in $S$. For each $u_i$ ($i=1,...,m$), set
$N^*_F(u_i)=\{x\in N_F(u_i); x\notin S\}$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim4}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If there exist vertices $x$ in $\cup_{i=1}^m N^*_F(u_i)$ such that
$d_F(x)\geq3$, then these vertices are in the neighborhood of a same
$u_k$, $1\leq k\leq m$.
\item If there exist $k, 1\leq k\leq m$, such that $d_F(u_k)\leq b-1$
and $x\in \cup_{i=1}^m N_F(u_i)$ such that $d_F(x)\geq3$, then $x\in
N^*_F(u_k)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{claim}
\emph{Proof of Claim \ref{claim4}.}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that there exist $x\in N^*_F(u_k)$ such that $d_F(x)\geq3$,
$x'\in N^*_F(u_j)$ such that $d_F(x')\geq3$ and $1\leq j,
k\leq m, j\neq k$. Then the subgraph $(F-e-e')\cup P_{kj}$, where $e=u_kx$
and $e'=u_jx'$ is a $[2,b]$-subgraph of $G$. Taking $F'=(F-e-e')\cup
P_{kj}$ in Claim \ref{claim1}, we obtain a contradiction.
\item Suppose that there exist $k, 1\leq k\leq m$, such that $d_F(u_k)\leq b-1$ and
$x\in \cup_{i=1}^m N_F(u_i)$ with $d_F(x)\geq3$. By Claim
\ref{claim+}(2), $x\notin S$. Suppose that $x\in N^*_F(u_i)$, with
$i\neq k$. Notice that the fact that $d_F(u_k)\leq b-1$ forces
$d_F(u_i)$, by Claim \ref{claim3}, to be equal to $b$. Taking
$F'=(F-e)\cup P_{ik}$, where $e=xu_i$, in Claim \ref{claim1}, we
obtain $\alpha(W)>\alpha(W)$ which is absurd. $\Box$
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{3mm}
Looking more closely at the structure of $D$, we can say
more about the degrees of the vertices in $\cup_{i=1}^m N_F[u_i]$,
where $N_F[u_i]=N_F(u_i)\cup\{u_i\}$ is the closed neighborhood of
$u_i$. First, we remark that $D$ has minimum degree at most 1.
\begin{remark}\label{rmk1}
$\delta_D\leq1$.
\end{remark}
\emph{Proof.} Suppose, by contradiction, that $\delta_D\geq2$ then
taking a longest path in $D$ provides a cycle $C$ which verifies
$\alpha(D-C)<\alpha(D)$. Put $F'=F\cup C$, then $F'$ is a
$[2,b]$-subgraph of $G$. Moreover,
$\alpha(G-F')=\alpha(D-C)+\alpha(W)<\alpha(D)+\alpha(W)=\alpha(G-F)$
and this contradicts the choice of $F$.$\Box$
\vspace{3mm}
Two cases are to consider, the case where $D$ is a tree (a single
vertex is a trivial tree) and the case where $D$ contains a cycle.
The following claim deals with this latter case.
\begin{claim}\label{claimDcycle}
Suppose that $D$ contains a cycle. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $d_F(x)=2$ for all $x\in \cup_{i=1}^m N_F(u_i)$.
\item $d_F(u_i)=b$ for all $i, 1\leq i\leq m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{claim}
\newpage
\emph{Proof of Claim \ref{claimDcycle}.}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that there exists a vertex $x\in N_F(u_i)$ such that
$d_F(x)\geq3$ and let $Q$ be an edge or a path with internal
vertices in $D-C$ joining $u_i$ and $C$. Then taking $F'=(F-e)\cup
Q\cup C$, where $e=xu_i$, in Claim 1 gives a contradiction. Notice
that $d_{F'}(x)\geq2$ and that $u_i$ does not change its degree (nor
do the other vertices of $F$) then $F'$ is a $[2,b]$-subgraph of
$G$.
\item Suppose that
$d_F(u_k)\leq b-1$ for some $k, 1\leq k\leq m$ and let $Q$ be an
edge or a path with internal vertices in $D-C$ joining $u_k$ and
$C$. Then, taking $F'=F\cup Q\cup C$ in Claim 1 gives a
contradiction. $\Box$
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{3mm}
If $D$ is a tree and $\delta_D\neq0$, then $D$ has at least two leaves,
say $x_0$ and $y_0$. We relabel $u_1,...,u_{m_1}$, with $m_1\leq m$,
the vertices in $N_F(x_0)\cup N_F(y_0)$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim7}
Suppose that $D$ is a tree and that there exist two vertices $x_0$
and $y_0$ in $D$ with $d_D(x_0)=d_D(y_0)=1$ such that
$N_F(x_0)=N_F(y_0)$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item For all $k, 1\leq k\leq m_1$, $d_F(u_k)\geq b-1$.
\item If there exists a vertex $x\in \cup_{i=1}^{m_1}
N_F(u_i)$ such that $d_F(x)\geq3$ then it is the only one.
\item If there exists a vertex $u_k$ (with $1\leq k\leq m_1$) such that
$d_F(u_k)=b-1$ then for every vertex $x\in \cup_{i=1}^{m_1}N_F(u_i)$
we have $d_F(x)=2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{claim}
\emph{Proof of Claim \ref{claim7}.} Let $P$ be a path in $D$ joining
$x_0$ to $y_0$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If there exists a vertex $u_i$ ($1\leq i\leq m_1$) such that
$d_F(u_i)\leq b-2$. Then taking $F'=F\cup u_ix_0Py_0u_i$ in Claim
\ref{claim1} gives a contradiction.
\item Suppose that there exists a vertex $x\in \cup_{i=1}^{m_1}N_F(u_i)$ such that $d_F(x)\geq3$.
If $x\in S$ then Claim \ref{claim+} gives what desired. If $x\notin
S$, then $x\in N^*_F(u_k)$ for some $1\leq k\leq m_1$. Suppose that
there exists $y\in\cup_{i=1}^{m_1}N_F(u_i)$ such that $d_F(y)\geq3$
so $y\in N^*_F(u_j)$, for some $1\leq j\leq m_1$. By Claim
\ref{claim4}(1), $j=k$. Taking $F'=(F-e-e')\cup u_kx_0Py_0u_k$,
where $e=xu_k$ and $e'=yu_k$, in Claim \ref{claim1}, we obtain a
contradiction.
\item Finally, suppose that there exist a vertex $u_k$ ($1\leq k\leq m_1$) such that $d_F(u_k)=b-1$
and a vertex $x\in \cup_{i=1}^{m_1}N_F(u_i)$ such that
$d_F(x)\geq3$. By Claim \ref{claim4}(2), $x\in N^*_F(u_k)$. Put
$e=xu_k$. Then taking $F'=(F-e)\cup u_kx_0Py_0$ in Claim
\ref{claim1} gives a contradiction. $\Box$\end{enumerate}
\vspace{3mm} A path $I$ in $F$ with $V(I)\subset V(F)$, $E(I)\subset
E(F)$ and such that every internal vertex $x$ of $I$ has $d_F(x)=2$
is called an interval (or a segment) of $F$. We say that two
disjoint intervals $I^{(1)}$ and $I^{(^2)}$ in $F$ are
\emph{path-independent} if there exists no path internally disjoint
from $F\cup D$ joining a vertex in $I^{(1)}$ to a vertex in
$I^{(2)}$. We say that $t$ intervals $I^{(1)}, I^{(2)},
\ldots,I^{(t)}$ ($t\geq2$) in $F$ are path-independent if they are
pairwise path-independent. The following claim will be very useful.
It is a shorter version of Lemma 2 in \cite{bek} with a
short proof.
\begin{claim}\label{claim*}
Let $I^{(1)}, I^{(2)},\ldots,I^{(t)}$ ($t\geq2$) be $t$
disjoint intervals in $F$, containing no neighbor of $D$ and
such that $\alpha(W\cup I^{(i)})=\alpha(W)$ for every $i=1,...,t$.
If $I^{(1)}, I^{(2)},\ldots,I^{(t)}$ are path-independent, then
$\alpha(D\cup W\cup I^{(1)}\cup I^{(2)}\cup\ldots\cup
I^{(t)})=\alpha(W\cup D)$.
\end{claim}
\emph{Proof of Claim \ref{claim*}.}
Let $W_i$ be the union of components of $W$ with neighbors in
$I^{(i)}$ ($i=1,\ldots,t$). By hypothesis, the intervals $I^{(i)}$
are pairwise path-independent so $W_i\cap W_j=\emptyset$, for all
$1\leq i,j\leq t, i\neq j$. Hence $W-\cup_{i=1}^t W_i,W_1\cup
I^{(1)},\ldots,W_t\cup I^{(t)}$ form a partition of $W\cup
I^{(1)}\cup\ldots\cup I^{(t)}$ and it follows that $\alpha(W\cup
I^{(1)}\cup\ldots\cup I^{(t)})=\alpha(W_1\cup I^{(1)})+\cdots
+\alpha(W_t\cup I^{(t)})+\alpha(W-\cup_{i=1}^t W_i)$. On the other
hand, as $\alpha(W\cup I^{(i)})=\alpha(W)$, for every $i=1,\ldots,t$
then $\alpha(W_i\cup I^{(i)})=\alpha(W_i)$. This yields
$\alpha(W\cup I^{(1)}\cup\ldots\cup
I^{(t)})=\sum_{i=1}^t\alpha(W_i)+ \alpha(W-\cup_{i=1}^t
W_i)=\alpha(W)$. We finally get $\alpha(W\cup D\cup I^{(1)}\cup
\ldots\cup I^{(t)})=\alpha(W\cup D)$ because the intervals $I^{(i)}$
(with $i=1,\ldots,t$) do contain no neighbor of $D$. $\Box$
\vspace{3mm}
Let $s$ be the vertex of $S$ (if it exists) such that $d_F(s)=3$. We
put $s$ aside before applying the procedure described hereafter.
Provided always that $s$ exists, we set $N'_F(u_i)=N_F(u_i)-\{s\}$
if $s\in N_F(u_i)$ and $N'_F(u_i)=N_F(u_i)$ otherwise ($i=1,...,m$).
For $u_k$, $1\leq k\leq m$, denote by $x^k_{i}$
($i=1,...,|N'_F(u_k)|$) its neighbors that belong to $N'_F(u_k)$.
Using this notation, we can have $x^k_i=x^l_j$, for some $1\leq
i\leq|N'_F(u_k)|$ and $1\leq j\leq|N'_F(u_l)|$ ($1\leq k,l\leq m, k\neq l$), in case $x^k_i\in
N'_F(u_k)\cap N'_F(u_l)\subset S$.
From now on, let $m'=m_1$ if $D$ is a tree with at least two leaves
and $m'=m$ otherwise. We choose the sense $u_k\rightarrow x^k_i$, as
a sense of "orientation". Let $u_k$ ($1\leq k\leq m'$) be such that
$d_F(u_k)=b$ and all its neighbors that are in $N'_F(u_k)$ are of
degree 2 in $F$. Starting at $x^k_1$
and following the chosen orientation we go over from a vertex to its
neighbor until meeting a vertex which we call $y^k_1$, such that
$d_F(y^{k,+}_{1})\geq3$ or $y^{k,+}_1=u_j$ for some $j, 1\leq j\leq
m$ (where $y^{k,+}_1$ is the successor of $y^{k}_1$ following the chosen orientation).
This gives an interval $x^k_1...y^k_1$ which we denote by $P_1^k=[x^k_1,y^k_1]_F$.
We repeat the process using the other neighbors of $u_k$ that are in
$N'_F(u_k)$. At the p$^{th}$ step, we consider a vertex $x^k_p\in
X_p= N'_F(u_k)-(\cup_{i=1}^{p-1} V(P^k_i))$ and construct a path
$P^k_p=x_p^k...y_p^k$ containing $x^k_p$ and such that
$d_F(y^{k,+}_p)\geq3$ or $y^{k,+}_p=u_j$ for some $j, 1\leq j\leq
m$. When $X_r$ becomes empty at the r$^{th}$ step ($r\geq p$), then
we consider another vertex $u_l$ ($l\neq k$). We choose as long as
possible, $u_l$ such that $d_F(u_l)=b$ and its neighborhood that are
in $N'_F(u_l)$ are all of degree 2 in $F$. We Choose a vertex
in $N'_F(u_l)-\cup_{i=1}^{r-1} V(P^k_i)$, and we do the same
construction, until the vertices in $N'_F(u_l)$ are all in
$(\cup_{i=1}^{r-1} V(P^k_i))\cup(\cup_{i=1}^{r'-1} V(P^l_i))$.
Denote by $\mathfrak{P}$ the set of paths obtained so far. When it
is no more possible to choose a vertex $u_p$, $1\leq p\leq m'$, such
that $d_F(u_p)=b$ and with all its neighbors that are in $N'_F(u_p)$
having degree 2 in $F$, then we take the vertex $u_q$ of degree at
most $b-1$ or having in its neighborhood $N'_F(u_q)$ vertices of
degree at least $3$ in $F$. Notice that $u_q$ exists only if $s$
does not (see Claim \ref{claim+}(2)) and if both a vertex $u_q$ of
degree at most $b-1$ (which would be the only one by Claim
\ref{claim3}) and vertices $x_i^j$ of degree at least $3$ exist,
then these vertices are in the neighborhood of $u_q$ (see Claim
\ref{claim4}). Put $N_q=\{x^q_i\in N'_F(u_q)-V(\mathfrak{P})$ such
that $d_F(x^q_i)=2\}$. Starting at a vertex $x^q_i\in N_q$, we
repeat the construction described above until $N_q$ becomes empty.
We update the set $\mathfrak{P}$ at each step.
By construction all the vertices of $P^k_i$ are of degree 2 in $F$
so $V(P^k_i)\cap V(P^l_j)=\emptyset$ for every couple $P^k_i, P^l_j$
of paths in $\mathfrak{P}$ (they are disjoint), moreover no
vertex in $P^k_i$ is adjacent in $F$ to a vertex in $P^l_j$, for all
$P^k_i, P^l_j$ in $\mathfrak{P}$.
We divide the set $\mathfrak{P}$ into three subsets, each containing
the paths $P^k_i=[x^k_i,y^k_i]_F$ of Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3,
defined as follows:
\begin{description}
\item[Type 1] If $y^{k,+}_i=u_j$, with $j\neq k$.
\item[Type 2] If $y^{k,+}_i=u_j$, with $j=k$.
\item[Type 3] If $y^{k,+}_i\neq u_j$ for every $j$, $1\leq j\leq m$.
\end{description}
For technical reasons, in case $D$ is a trivial tree or a tree
having no couple of leaves with the same neighborhood in $F$, we
stop the procedure described above when it remains no vertex $u_p$
($1\leq p\leq m'$) such that $d_F(u_p)=b$, or when the remaining
vertex $u_p$ ($1\leq p\leq m'$) has in its neighborhood $N'_F(u_p)$
a vertex of degree at least 3. We consider $\mathfrak{Q}$ the subset
of $\mathfrak{P}$, of paths obtained till then. Let
$\mathfrak{P_1}=\mathfrak{Q}$ in this case and
$\mathfrak{P_1}=\mathfrak{P}$ in the others.
We show in what follows that the addition of a path of
$\mathfrak{P_1}$ to $W\cup D$ augments $\alpha(W\cup D)$ by at least
1.
\begin{claim}\label{claim8}
For each $P^k_i\in\mathfrak{P_1}$, we have $\alpha(W\cup D\cup
P^k_i)>\alpha(W\cup D)$.
\end{claim}
\emph{Proof of Claim \ref{claim8}.} Let $P^k_i$ be a path in
$\mathfrak{P_1}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $D$ contains a cycle, then taking $F'=F-P^k_i$
gives what desired. Indeed, in this case all the vertices $u_i$ are
of degree $b$ (by Claim \ref{claimDcycle}), as $b\geq4$ then after
the deletion of $P^k_i$, the degree of the vertices $u_i$ ($1\leq
i\leq m'$) remains at least $2$. Moreover, by construction of
$P^k_i$, the degree of no vertex in $F$ becomes smaller than $2$,
after deletion of $P^k_i$. So $F'$ is a $[2,b]$-subgraph of $G$.
$F'$ contradicts Condition $(c)$ in the choice of $F$ (because
$|V(F')|<|V(F)|$) so $\alpha(G-F')>\alpha(G-F)$ which yields
$\alpha(W\cup D\cup P^k_i)>\alpha(W\cup D)$.
\item If $D$ is a tree possessing two
vertices $x_0$ and $y_0$ of degree $1$ in $D$, having the same
neighborhood in $F$ ($N_F(x_0)=N_F(y_0)$). Then if $P^k_i$ is of
Type 1 or 3, then we reason as in (1) and we obtain what desired. If
$P^k_i$ is of Type 2, then (1) is no more efficient if
$d_F(u_k)=b-1$ (because the degree of $u_k$ may become smaller than
2 when $P^k_i$ is deleted). So we take $F'=(F-P^k_i)\cup
u_kx_0Py_0u_k$, where $P$ is a path with internal vertices in $D$ joining $x_0$ to $y_0$.
The subgraph $F'$ is a $[2,b]$-subgraph of $G$ (we have
$d_F(u_k)=d_{F'}(u_k)$) which gives by Claim \ref{claim1}, what
desired.
\item In the other cases, as $b\geq4$ and by the choice of the subset $\mathfrak{P_1}$, the deletion of
any path $P^k_i\in\mathfrak{P_1}$, gives a $[2,b]$-subgraph.
Reasoning as in (1), we get what desired. $\Box$
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{3mm}
Notice that as $D$ is independent from $P^k_i$ (by construction) and
from $W$ then $\alpha(W\cup D\cup P^k_i)=\alpha(W\cup
P^k_i)+\alpha(D)$. Hence the conclusion in Claim \ref{claim8} is
equivalent to $\alpha(W\cup P^k_i)>\alpha(W)$. For each path
$P^k_i=[x^k_i,y^k_i]_F$ in $\mathfrak{P_1}$ and following the chosen
orientation, let $v^k_i$ be the first vertex of $P^k_i$ such that
$\alpha(W\cup[x^k_i,v^k_i]_F)>\alpha(W)$. Notice that $v^k_i$ is
well defined by Claim \ref{claim8}. Denote by $P^{'k}_{i}$ the interval
$[x^k_i,v^k_i]_F$ of $P^k_i$ and by $\mathfrak{P'}$ the set of the
intervals $P^{'k}_{i}$. In what follows, we take interest in the
path-independence of the intervals of $\mathfrak{P'}$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim9}
Let $P^{'k}_i$ and $P^{'l}_j$ be two distinct intervals
$[x^k_i,v^k_i]_F$ and $[x^l_j,v^l_j]_F$ in $\mathfrak{P'}$ such that
$1\leq k, l\leq m'$, $k\neq l$. Then, $P^{'k}_i$ and $P^{'l}_j$ are
path-independent.
\end{claim}
\emph{Proof of Claim \ref{claim9}.} By way of contradiction, suppose
that there exist two vertices $a^k_i\in P^{'k}_i$ and $a^l_j\in
P^{'l}_j$ such that $a^k_i$ and $a^l_j$ are joined by $Q$ which is
an edge in $G$ or a path with internal vertices in $W$. Choose
$a^k_i$ and $a^l_j$ so as to minimize the sum
$d_F(x^k_i,a^k_i)+d_F(x^l_j,a^l_j)$. Recall that by construction
$xy\notin E(F)$ for every $x\in P^k_i$ and $y\in P^l_j$.
\\ The segments $[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F$ and
$[x^l_j,a^l_j[_F$ verify the hypothesis of Claim \ref{claim*}.
Indeed, by the choice of $a^k_i$ and $a^l_j$, they are
path-independent. Furthermore, as
$[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\subset[x^k_i,v^k_i[_F$;
$[x^l_j,a^l_j[_F\subset[x^l_j,v^l_j[_F$ and by the choice of $v^k_i$
and $v^l_j$, we have $\alpha(W\cup[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F)=\alpha(W)$ and
$\alpha(W\cup[x^l_j,a^l_j[_F)=\alpha(W)$. So by Claim \ref{claim*},
we obtain
\\ \hspace*{3cm} $\alpha(W\cup[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^l_j,a^l_j[_F)=\alpha(W)$.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$(\star)$
\\ Also, taking the $[2,b]$-subgraph
$F'=(F-([x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^l_j,a^l_j[_F))\cup Q\cup P_{kl}$, in
Claim \ref{claim1}, gives
$\alpha((W-Q)\cup[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^l_j,a^l_j[_F)>\alpha(W)$. But
as
$\alpha(W\cup[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^l_j,a^l_j[_F)\geq\alpha((W-Q)\cup[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^l_j,a^l_j[_F)$
hence we get
$\alpha(W\cup[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^l_j,a^l_j[_F)>\alpha(W)$ which
contradicts $(\star)$.$\Box$
\vspace{3mm} When $k=l$ in the previous claim, then we consider the structure of $D$.
If $D$ contains a cycle or $D$ is a tree
with two leaves $x_0$ and $y_0$ such that $N_F(x_0)=N_F(y_0)$, then the following claim gives the
path-independence of any couple of segments $P^{'k}_i$ and $P^{'k}_j$ in $\mathfrak{P'}$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim10}
Let $P^{'k}_i$ and $P^{'k}_j$ be two distinct segments of
$\mathfrak{P'}$. Suppose that $D$ contains a cycle or $D$ is a tree
with two leaves $x_0$ and $y_0$ such that $N_F(x_0)=N_F(y_0)$. Then
$P^{'k}_i$ and $P^{'k}_j$ are path-independent, for every $k, 1\leq
k\leq m'$.
\end{claim}
\emph{Proof of Claim \ref{claim10}.} Let $P^{'k}_i$ and $P^{'k}_j$
(with $1\leq i, j\leq m'$, $i\neq j$) be two segments in
$\mathfrak{P'}$. By way of contradiction, suppose that there is a
path $Q$ internally disjoint from $F\cup D$ joining a vertex
$a^k_i\in P^{'k}_i$ to a vertex $a^k_j\in P^{'k}_j$ and choose
$a^k_i$ and $a^k_j$ so that the sum
$d_F(x^k_i,a^k_i)+d_F(x^k_j,a^k_j)$ is minimum. \\ The segments
$[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F$ and $[x^k_j,a^k_j[_F$ verify the hypothesis of
Claim \ref{claim*}. Indeed, they are path-independent, by the choice
of $a^k_i$ and $a^k_j$. Furthermore, as
$[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\subset[x^k_i,v^k_i[_F$ and
$[x^k_j,a^k_j[_F\subset[x^k_j,v^k_j[_F$ and by the choice of $v^k_i$
and $v^k_j$ we have $\alpha(W\cup[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F)=\alpha(W)$ and
$\alpha(W\cup[x^k_j,a^k_j[_F)=\alpha(W)$. So by Claim \ref{claim*},
we obtain
\\ \hspace*{3cm} $\alpha(W\cup[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^k_j,a^k_j[_F)=\alpha(W)$.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$(\star\star)$
\\ On the other hand, if $D$ contains a cycle $C$, then let $Q'$ be a
path with internal vertices in $D-C$ joining $u_k$ to a vertex on
$C$. If $D$ is a tree with two leaves $x_0$ and $y_0$ such that
$N_F(x_0)=N_F(y_0)$. Then let $P$ be a path with internal vertices
in $D$ joining $x_0$ to $y_0$. Taking
$F'=(F-([x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^k_j,a^k_j[_F))\cup Q\cup Q'\cup C$ in
the first case and $F'=(F-([x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^k_j,a^k_j[_F))\cup
Q\cup u_kx_0Py_0u_k$ in the second one and using Claim \ref{claim1},
we obtain in both cases
$\alpha(W\cup[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^k_j,a^k_j[_F)\geq\alpha((W-Q)\cup[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^k_j,a^k_j[_F)>\alpha(W)$
which contradicts $(\star\star)$. $\Box$
\vspace{3mm} Suppose now that $D$ is either a trivial tree or $D$
has no leaves with the same neighborhood in $F$.
\begin{itemize}
\item If all couples of
distinct segments $(P^{'k}_i,P^{'k}_j)$ ($k, 1\leq k\leq m'$, $1\leq
i,j\leq|N'_F(u_k)|$) in $\mathfrak{P'}$ are path-independent then we
have finished. It is particularly the case if $s$ exists. Indeed, if
we suppose to the contrary that there exist two distinct segments
$P^{'k}_i$ and $P^{'k}_j$ ($k, 1\leq k\leq m'$, $1\leq
i,j\leq|N'_F(u_k)|$) in $\mathfrak{P'}$ that are path-dependent,
that is there is a path internally disjoint from $D\cup F$ joining a
vertex in $a^k_i\in P^{'k}_i$ to a vertex in $a^k_j\in P^{'k}_j$. We
choose these vertices so as to minimize the sum
$d_F(x^k_i,a^k_i)+d_F(x^k_j,a^k_j)$. Reasoning as in the previous
claims using Claim \ref{claim*} and taking in Claim \ref{claim1}
$F'=(F-[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^k_j,a^k_j[_F)\cup P_{kr}-u_rs$ where
$u_r$ is a neighbor of $s$ such that $r\neq k$, we get a
contradiction.
\\ It is also the case if there exists a vertex
$u_r$ $(1\leq r\leq m)$ that is of degree at most $b-1$ in $F$ or
that has in its neighborhood $N_F(u_r)$ a vertex $x$ such that $d_F(x)\geq3$.
Recall that in our case, this vertex is supposed to be put apart in
the procedure we have used. So, if we suppose that there is a path
internally disjoint from $D\cup F$ joining a vertex in $a^k_i\in
P^{'k}_i$ to a vertex in $a^k_j\in P^{'k}_j$ ($k\neq r$). We choose
these vertices so as to minimize the sum
$d_F(x^k_i,a^k_i)+d_F(x^k_j,a^k_j)$. Here again, using Claim
\ref{claim*} and taking in Claim \ref{claim1},
$F'=(F-[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^k_j,a^k_j[_F)\cup P_{kr}$ if
$d_F(u_r)\leq b-1$ or $F'=(F-[x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^k_j,a^k_j[_F)\cup
P_{kr}-u_rx$ if $d_F(u_r)=b$ and $d_F(x)\geq3$ where $x\in
N'_F(u_r)$, we get a contradiction.
\item If not, then this case is treated in following claim.
\end{itemize}
\begin{claim}\label{claim11}
Suppose that $D$ is a trivial tree or a tree with no leaves having
the same neighborhood in $F$. Suppose moreover that there exist two
distinct segments $P^{'k}_i$ and $P^{'k}_j$ ($k$, $1\leq k\leq m'$,
$1\leq i,j\leq|N'_F(u_k)|$) in $\mathfrak{P'}$ that are
path-dependent. Then there exists no other couple of segments
$(P^{'l}_p,P^{'l}_q)$ ($l\neq k$, $1\leq l\leq m'$, $1\leq
p,q\leq|N'_F(u_l)|$, $p\neq q$) in $\mathfrak{P'}$ that are
path-dependent.
\end{claim}
\emph{Proof of Claim \ref{claim11}.} The proof is basically the same
as the previous. Let $a_i^k$ and $a_j^k$ be two vertices in
$P^{'k}_i$ and $P^{'k}_j$ respectively that are joined by a path
internally disjoint from $F\cup D$ and chosen so as to minimize the
sum $d_F(x^k_i,a^k_i)+d_F(x^k_j,a^k_j)$. Suppose to the contrary
that there exist two distinct segments $P^{'l}_p,P^{'l}_q$ ($l\neq k$, $1\leq
l\leq m'$, $1\leq p,q\leq|N'_F(u_l)|$) and a path internally
disjoint from $F\cup D$ joining a vertex $a_p^l\in P^{'l}_p$ to a
vertex $a_q^l\in P^{'l}_q$ and choose these vertices in such a way
that $d_F(x^l_p,a^l_p)+d_F(x^l_q,a^l_q)$ is minimum. Then using
Claim \ref{claim*} with four intervals and taking
$F'=(F-([x^k_i,a^k_i[_F\cup[x^k_j,a^k_j[_F)-([x^l_p,a^l_p[_F\cup[x^l_q,a^l_q[_F))\cup
P_{kl}$ in Claim \ref{claim1} yields a contradiction. As $k\neq l$,
then Claim \ref{claim9} guarantees the path-independence of the
segments $P^{'k}_r,P^{'l}_t$ for $r\in\{i,j\} , t\in\{p,q\}$. $\Box$
By the claims above, we have that $\mathfrak{P'}$ contains
several segments that are path-independent.
Furthermore, the following remark claims that an additional segment can be considered
when needed, particularly when $S$ contains a vertex of degree 3.
\begin{remark}\label{rmk2}
If there exists a vertex $s\in S$ such that $d_F(s)=3$ ($s$ is
unique by Claim \ref{claim+}(2)). We consider two cases:
\\(i) If $s$ is in the neighborhood of three vertices $u_k$, $u_l$ and $u_p$, with $1\leq k, l, p \leq m$ and $k, l, p$ pairwise distinct.
Then setting $P^*=\{s\}$ we have that $P^*$ is path-independent from
any path in $\mathfrak{P'}$ and $\alpha(W\cup
P^*)>\alpha(W)$.
\\(ii) If $s$ is in the neighborhood of exactly two vertices, say $u_k$ and $u_l$,
$k\neq l, 1\leq l, k\leq m$. If furthermore $\mathfrak{P}$ does not
contain paths of Type 3, then there exists a path $P^*$ that is
path-independent from any segment in $\mathfrak{P'}$ included in a
path of Type 1 or Type 2. Furthermore $\alpha(W\cup P^*)>\alpha(W)$.
\end{remark}
\emph{Proof.}
\\(i) First, taking $F'=(F-\{s\})\cup P_{kl}$ in Claim \ref{claim1}
we obtain $\alpha(W\cup\{s\})>\alpha(W)$. Of course, since by Claim
\ref{claim+}(2) $d_F(u_i)=b$ for all $i=1,...,m$, then we have that
$F'$ is a $[2,b]$-subgarph of $G$. As $s\in
N_F(u_k)\cap N_F(u_l)\cap N_F(u_p)\subset N_F(u_k)\cap N_F(u_l)$
then we can write $\{s\}=P^{k}_i$ or $\{s\}=P^{l}_i$ as suitable to apply Claim \ref{claim9}
and show the path-independence of $\{s\}$ from any segment in $\mathfrak{P'}$.
\\(ii) Let us start from $s$ and go forward following the chosen
orientation from a vertex of degree 2 in $F$ to a vertex of degree 2
in $F$, until coming across a vertex $y$ whose successor $y^+$ is of
degree at least 3. We have that $y^+\notin\{u_1,\ldots,u_m\}$,
otherwise, going in the opposite direction, the segment $[y,s[_F$ (where $s$ is not taken)
is a path of Type 3. Moreover, $y^+\notin\cup_{i=1}^m
N_F(u_i)$ because since $s$ exists then by Claim \ref{claim+} every
vertex in $\cup_{i=1}^m N_F(u_i)$ is of degree 2. So $y^+\in
V(F)-\cup_{i=1}^m N_F[u_i]$. The path $P=s\ldots y$ can be
considered as a path deriving from $u_k$ ($P=P^{'k}_i$) or deriving
from $u_l$ ($P=P^{'l}_i$) and hence reasoning as in Claim
\ref{claim8}, taking $F'=F-P$, we obtain $\alpha(W\cup
P)>\alpha(W)$. Let $v$ be the first vertex of $P$ following the
chosen orientation such that $\alpha(W\cup[s,v]_F)>\alpha(W)$.
Setting $P^*=[s,v]_F$, we can show its path-independence with any
segment in $\mathfrak{P'}$ included in a path of Type 1 or Type 2,
like in Claim\ref{claim9}. $\Box$
\vspace{3mm}
Finally, to count the number of pairwise path-independent segments
in $\mathfrak{P'}$, those whose independence is guaranteed by Claims
\ref{claim9}, \ref{claim10}, and \ref{claim11}, we distinguish
different cases according to the structure of $D$ and get in any
case, at least $\lfloor\frac{b(\delta-1)}{2}\rfloor$ (recall that
$m'\geq\delta-1$) path-independent segments, adding when necessary
the path $P^*$ (in particular when $s$ exists).
Notice that when $\mathfrak{P_1}$
contains paths of Type 3, then in these paths one vertex in $\cup_{i=1}^m N_F(u_i)$
is used at once, so the bound $\lfloor\frac{b(\delta-1)}{2}\rfloor$ holds,
otherwise $P^*$ is added.
The segments in $\mathfrak{P'}\cup\{P^*\}$, when added to $W\cup D$
augment $\alpha(W\cup D)$. Put
$\mathfrak{L}=\mathfrak{P'}\cup\{P^*\}$. Recall that the segments of
$\mathfrak{L}$ are independent from $D$ by construction. For each
$P\in\mathfrak{L}$, let $W_P$ be the union of components of $W$ that
contain a neighbor of $P$.
We have that
\\ $\alpha(W\bigcup\cup_{P\in\mathfrak{L}}P)=\alpha(W-\cup_{P\in\mathfrak{L}}W_{P})
+\sum_{P\in\mathfrak{L}}\alpha(W_{P}\cup P)$
\\ \hspace*{2.9cm}$\geq\alpha(W-\cup_{P\in\mathfrak{L}}W_{P})
+\sum_{P\in\mathfrak{L}}\alpha(W_{P})+|\mathfrak{L}|$
\\
\hspace*{2.9cm}$\geq\alpha(W)+\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor$.
\\Hence
\\ $\alpha=\alpha(G)=\alpha(W\cup D\cup F)\geq\alpha(W\cup
D\bigcup\cup_{P\in\mathfrak{L}}P)$
\\ \hspace*{5.1cm}$\geq\alpha(D)+\alpha(W\bigcup\cup_{P\in\mathfrak{L}}P)$
\\ \hspace*{5.1cm}$\geq\alpha(D)+\alpha(W)+\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor$
\\ \hspace*{5.1cm}$=\alpha(W\cup
D)+\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor$.
\\ So $\alpha(W\cup D)=\alpha(G-F)\leq\alpha-\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor$
and the proof of Theorem \ref{thm2} is achieved. $\blacksquare$
\vspace{3mm}
\textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}.} Since by Theorem \ref{thm2},
$\alpha(G-F)\leq\alpha-\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor$, then
the subgraph of $G$ induced by $V(W\cup D)=V(G-F)$ can be covered by
at most $\alpha-\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor$ cycles, edges
or vertices (see for instance \cite{posa}). Denote by $\mathcal{E}$
the set of cycles, edges or vertices covering $G-F$. The graph
$F\cup \mathcal{E}$ is a pseudo $[2,b]$-factor of $G$ with at most
$\alpha-\lfloor\frac{b}{2}(\delta-1)\rfloor$ edges or vertices. This
completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}. $\blacksquare$
\vspace{2mm}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Bibliography}
|
\section{Introduction}
The Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit (SO) interactions arise in materials which lack either structural or bulk inversion symmetry, respectively\cite{Rashba,Dresselhaus,winkler}. These two kinds of interactions have recently been given a great deal of attention due to their potential role in the generation and manipulation of spin polarized currents, spin filters\cite{Nitta,Ionicioiu,Hatano,SHChen}, spin accumulation\cite{SarmaReview}, and spin optics\cite{BalseiroUsaj}.
Recent proposals have been made for the construction of perfect spin filters based on active Rashba spin orbit media\cite{Hatano}, ballistic spin interferometers\cite{Koga} and the analysis of the persistent spin helix\cite{SHChen,Bernevig2}. Further applications based on the interference concept include quantum logic gates\cite{ZulickeAlone}, bit controlled Stern-Gerlach devices\cite{Ionicioiu} and tunable entanglement\cite{SignalZulicke}. Here we readdress the problem of spin filtering by interferometry explicitly implementing the original concept in reference \cite{Ionicioiu,Hatano}, proposing a quasi two dimensional device, to test the spin filtering concept through an electronic Mach Zehnder interferometer (MZI) within Rashba and Dresselhaus media\cite{Lopez,Berche1}. Generally, spin injection is achieved by drawing currents from oriented ferromagnets, where the majority carriers have a preferred spin orientation. In order to change spin orientation it is then necessary to use strong magnetic fields and depend on spin relaxation times that limit manipulation speeds. The currents drawn by these methods still contain a large fraction of the undesired spin orientation depending on the magnetic field and the density of states. For this reason it is very desirable to achieve a larger fraction of oriented spin albeit not a pure spin current. Conceptually, the proposed device would be able to separate spin-orientation, as in a Stern-Gerlach device, but without magnetic field gradients, and both in the absence (asymmetric interferometer) and presence of a weak magnetic field (symmetric interferometer) coupled to the spin-orbit interaction\cite{Berche1}.
The aim of this work is to generate spin polarized currents making use of a combination of weak magnetic fields (where the Zeeman term contribution is small), the intrinsic Dresselhaus spin-orbit interaction and the tunable structure inversion asymmetry (SIA) Rashba type interaction. The interference of electron precession and phase changes in the wave function render sufficient degrees of control to separate spin components into distinct output channels in a variety of experimental parameter ranges. Within this setup, we obtain precise conditions for spin filtering by numerically deriving the spin polarized electric currents generated by electrons drawn from an unpolarized reservoir as a function of temperature and chemical potentials. The experimental conditions are derived using the Landauer-Buttiker transport formalism within a tight-binding model that incorporates realistic material parameters and the effects of voltage reservoirs. This description affords specific experimental parameters for building the filtering device regarding spatial dimensions, strength of material parameters and of the externally applied fields and biases, in order to achieve optimal spin polarized yields.
It is important to point out that the translation operator approach to this problem in reference \cite{Lopez,Hatano} only provides a conceptual proof that in principle interferometry can yield spin selection. There, exact solutions can be found ignoring many practical drawbacks that should be evaluated for a successful proposal of a device, namely: The treatment presented here accounts for a finite input band of energies due to leads connected to a reservoir and to an output sink. It also accounts for the effect of temperature through the Fermi function at the reservoirs as long as the coherence length does not become shorter than the device size. Finally, finite voltage differences are contemplated so that an actual current can be driven through the device. The latter source of control of the input energies lends itself as an additional tuning parameter to optimize spin filtering, a tuning not accessible in previous more idealized proposals.
We present two general device configurations: i) a symmetric arm configuration, that requires a weak magnetic field and renders an almost flat energy dependence of the polarization conditions and ii) an asymmetric interferometer, that requires no external magnetic field and only Rashba couplings, with a more complex energy dependence that demands specific voltage ranges to filter. This proposal shows the practical possibilities, within a 2D electron gas, of the interferometric concept advanced theoretically by Hatano, Shirasaki and Nakamura\cite{Hatano}\cite{Ting}.
\section{Methods}
We consider a quasi two dimensional electron gas consisting of non interacting electrons subject to both Rashba and Dresselhaus spin orbit interactions. In addition, an external magnetic flux $\Phi_B$, described by a vector potential ${\vec A}$, threads the device transversally. Recent works have shown how to measure and control the Rashba parameter using gate voltages in two dimensional GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas\cite{Nitta2,Shapers,Studer,MillerGoldhaberGordon} and also in other heterojunctions, such as InAs/AlSb and HgTe\cite{HeidaSchultz}. In general the Rashba parameter $\alpha=b\langle E\rangle$, where $\langle E\rangle$ is the expectation value of the electric field at the 2DEG, and $b$ depends on the inverse of both the effective mass and the material gap\cite{Lommer}. Measurements of SO parameters have been made by either Shubnikov-de Haas or weak localization/antilocalization effects. While intrinsic Dresselhaus parameters cannot be changed by a gate potential, they can be tuned by strain effects\cite{LiLi}.
One can address the two dimensional GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas by a single particle Hamiltonian including the previously described couplings by
\begin{equation}\label{Hamiltonian}
{\bf H}= \frac{{\vec {\bf\Pi}}^2}{2m^*} + {\bf U} - \frac{\alpha}{\hbar} (\Pi_x{\pmb{\sigma}}^y-\Pi_y {\pmb{\sigma}}^x)- \frac{\beta}{\hbar}(\Pi_y{\pmb{\sigma}}^y-\Pi_x{\pmb{\sigma}}^x)+ \frac{\hbar \omega_B}{2}{\pmb{\sigma}}^z,
\end{equation}
where ${\vec {\bf\Pi}}=({\vec {p}}+e{\vec A})\ \!\hbox{{\rm 1$\hskip-2.7pt$l}}$ is the kinetic momentum,
${\ \!\hbox{{\rm 1$\hskip-2.7pt$l}}}$ being the $2\times 2$
identity matrix (in spin space). Ordinary vectors are represented with an
over-arrow while $2\times 2$ matrices are written in bold face.
The electron's charge and effective mass are denoted as $-e$ and $m^*$,
${\bf U}=U\ \!\hbox{{\rm 1$\hskip-2.7pt$l}}$ is a substrate lattice periodic potential, ${\pmb{\sigma}}$
is a vector of Pauli matrices, and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are material-dependent parameters characterizing the Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions, respectively\cite{Halperin}.
The simple form for the Dresselhaus term is due to the assumption of strong confinement of the electron gas, so that $k_F << \pi/d$\cite{Halperin} where $k_F$ is the Fermi wavector of in plane electrons and $d$ in the confinement length scale. The condition essentially states that the direction perpendicular to the gas can be averaged, reducing cubic contributions to the dominant linear terms described here. The Dresselhaus term depends on the orientation of the crystal axes, our geometry insures that all interferometer arms are described by the same Hamiltonian.
The last term is the Zeeman energy, which we will ignore in the limit of small magnetic fields (a few flux quanta through a ${\rm 200}\times {\rm 200} \mu {\rm m}^2$ area) where it is much smaller than the spin orbit energy\cite{MillerGoldhaberGordon}\cite{Takayanagi}.
For a GaAs heterostructure $\alpha\sim 3.9\times 10^{-12}{\rm eV~ m}$\cite{DattaDas}, $\beta\sim 2.4\times 10^{-12} {\rm eV~m}$ and $\hbar^2/m^* L\sim 1.7 \times 10^{-12}{\rm eV~ m}$, assuming electron ballistic propagation of length $\sim 1 \mu m$ and an effective mass of $m^*=0.067 m_0$, with $m_0$ the free electron mass. The proposed device configuration is depicted in Fig.\ref{fig1}, a Mach Zehnder Interferometer (MZI) implemented by voltage gating two interfering electron paths. GaAs heterostructures are known to have charge phase coherence lengths of 20$\mu$m at 15mK while spin coherence lengths are larger: $\sim$ 100$\mu$m at 1.6K\cite{Ionicioiu}. Thus, at 15mK both coherence lengths will be larger than a device of 20$\mu$m size.
We are interested in determining the polarized currents $I_{D_i}$ at outgoing channels $D_i$, with $i=1,2$ and to find the conditions for spin filtering\cite{Lopez} at either output channel. We define the spin filter as one acting on any entering polarization and returning a polarized state along a definite axis. This approach will serve to build two polarized spin currents of opposite polarization. The relevant processes within the interferometer are described as follows (see figure \ref{fig1}): Single electrons are assumed to be extracted from the left electron reservoir at voltage +V/2. The electrons then pass through the first beam splitter, implemented by a Schottky gate\cite{OliverYamamoto} labeled (${\rm SG_1}$)\cite{Yamamoto} resulting in two intermediate output beams. These two beams interfere at the second Schottky gate (${\rm SG_2}$), from which two final beams emerge at the output channels.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8 cm]{Figure11.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Electronic Mach Zenhder interferometer setup on a
SO active GaAs/AlGaAs 2D electron gas and the corresponding tight-binding model superposed. The device is biased on the left
at voltage $+V/2$ and the current is collected on the right at the two
reservoirs biased at $-V/2$. The electron beam splitters are implemented
through two Schottky gates with reflection and transmission coefficients $\rho$ and $\tau$ separating electrons between upper $u$ and lower $l$ tight binding arms. There is a magnetic flux $\Phi_B$ perpendicular to the plane. The outgoing currents $I_1$ and $I_2$ are collected at $D_1$ and $D_2$.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
As we consider both Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions, we need to derive general reflection conditions at the Schottky gates. In reference \cite{Yamamoto}, this was done for the Rashba interaction, assuming that small enough spin-orbit strength would yield only a small divergence of the reflected spin states. In this paper we will take the case of $\pi/4$ reflections, that can be controlled experimentally, and lead to simple, spin-orbit independent reflection and transmission matrix elements\cite{Lopez}. If it were not the case and large deviations from such conditions arose the beam splitter would behave differently as the spin-orbit parameters changed and would complicate predicting an appropriate operating regime.
A tight binding model will allow us to quantitatively parametrize for the two dimensional gas and spin-orbit intensities appropriate to a GaAs/AlGaAs
junction.
The tight-binding Hamiltonian for the interferometer SO active region is
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
{H}^{\rm TB}&=&\sum_{{\vec r}}(c^\dag_{\vec r\uparrow}\
c^\dag_{\vec r\downarrow})\begin{pmatrix}\epsilon_{\vec r} &0\\
0&\epsilon_{\vec r}\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}c^\dag_{\vec r\uparrow}\\
c^\dag_{\vec r\downarrow}\end{pmatrix}+
\sum_{{\vec r},\vec{r'}}(c^\dag_{\vec r\uparrow}\
c^\dag_{\vec r\downarrow})\begin{pmatrix}
t_{\vec r\vec{r'}}^{\uparrow\uparrow} &t_{\vec r\vec{r'}}^{\uparrow\downarrow}\\
t_{\vec r\vec{r'}}^{\downarrow\uparrow}&t_{\vec r\vec{r'}}^{\downarrow\downarrow}\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}c^\dag_{\vec {r'}\uparrow}\\
c^\dag_{\vec {r'}\downarrow}\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&=&\su
_{{\vec r}\lambda}\epsilon_{\vec r}{c}^{\dagger}_{{\vec r}\lambda}
{c}_{\vec r\lambda}
+\su
_{{\vec r}\lambda,\vec {r'}\lambda^\prime}
{t}_{{\vec r}\vec {r'}}^{\lambda\lambda^\prime}{c}^{\dag}_{{\vec r}\lambda}{c}_{\vec {r'} \lambda^\prime},\label{eqTB}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
where $\epsilon_{{\vec r}}$ are the site energies, ${c}^{\dagger}_{{\vec r}\lambda}$ creates electrons at site ${\vec r}$ with spin $\lambda=\uparrow,\downarrow$ and ${t}_{{\vec r}\vec {r'}}^{\lambda\lambda^\prime}$ is the transfer integral between sites/spins ${\vec r},\lambda$ and $\vec {r'},\lambda'$. The sum over the sites $\vec r$ draws the legs of the interferometer, like in
Fig.~\ref{fig1}. The states are denoted as $|\dots,n_{\vec r\lambda},\dots\rangle$ with
$n_{{\vec r}\lambda}=0,1$ depending on whether or not an electron with spin $\lambda$
occupies site $\vec r$. The link between equations (\ref{Hamiltonian}) and (\ref{eqTB}) is established
through the definition of the spinor components $\psi^\lambda (\vec r)=\langle\vec r\lambda|\psi\rangle$.
The transfer integral between sites $\vec r$ and $\vec {r'}$
including both field and SO effects measures the phase aquired by the electrons
when they are transported along the interferometer legs.
It can be written in the ``position-spin'' basis $\{|\vec {r}\lambda\rangle\}$
as
\begin{equation}
{t}_{\vec r\vec {r'}}^{\lambda\lambda'}=\langle\vec r\lambda|
t~\!\exp\left[\left(\frac{2 \pi i}{\phi_0}
\right)\vec{\pmb{\cal{A}}}
((\vec{r}+\vec {r'})/2)\cdot (\vec{r}-\vec {r'})\right]|
\vec {r'}\lambda'\rangle,\label{eqt}
\end{equation}
where $t$ is the coupling between sites and it is set to 0.156 eV (see Fig.\ref{fig1}),
in accordance to the Fermi velocity in GaAs, $\phi_0=h/e$
is the flux quantum and
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{\pmb{{\mathcal{A}}}}(x,y)
&=&\left[-\frac{1}{2}B_z y\ \!\hbox{{\rm 1$\hskip-2.7pt$l}}+\frac{m^*}{e} (\beta {\pmb{\sigma}}^x-\alpha {\pmb{\sigma}}^y)
\right]\vec u_x\\
&+& \left[\frac{1}{2}B_z x\ \!\hbox{{\rm 1$\hskip-2.7pt$l}}
+\frac{m^*}{e}(\alpha {\pmb{\sigma}}^x-\beta {\pmb{\sigma}}^y)\right]\vec u_y
\label{eqA}
\end{eqnarray}
accounts for the spin spatial-precession and phase changes due to the SO coupling and the magnetic
field, that operates in between tight binding sites e.g. at the middle of the link which connects sites $\vec r$ and $\vec {r'}$.
We have chosen the simple staggered gauge for the magnetic field vector potential.
Equations~(\ref{eqt}) and (\ref{eqA}) are easily derived
when the SO interaction is described in terms of a minimal
coupling~\cite{Jin,Leurs,Medina,Mineev,Frohlich,Tokatly}.
For the current incoming from the left electron reservoir and outgoing to the detectors, we have transmission and reflection coefficients
$\tau,\rho$ and $\tau',\rho'$ respectively (see Fig.\ref{fig1}), that can be gate controlled. The gate is spin inactive as it constitutes a scalar potential barrier, for both the input and output channels, so that in the notation of Eq.\ref{eqt}, $t_{in,r_{l0}}^{\lambda,\lambda}=\tau$, $t_{in,{\vec r}_{u0}}^{\lambda,\lambda}=\rho$, $t_{{\vec r}_{uN},D_1}^{\lambda,\lambda}=\rho'$, $t_{{\vec r}_{uN},D_2}^{\lambda,\lambda}=\tau'$, $t_{{\vec r}_{lN},D_1}^{\lambda,\lambda}=\tau'$, $t_{{\vec r}_{lN},D_2}^{\lambda,\lambda}=\rho'$ where ${\vec r}_{u0}$ and ${\vec r}_{l0}$ are the first tight-binding sites of the arms and ${\vec r}_{uN}$ and ${\vec r}_{lN}$ are the $N$th sites of the corresponding arms. We choose throughout $\rho=\rho'=i/\sqrt{2}$ and $\tau=\tau'=1/\sqrt{2}$.
The coupling to the metallic reservoirs is described by a self-energy~\cite{Pastawski}. The self energy is derived by solving
the Dyson equation for a chain of sites indexed by $n$ where $\Sigma_n= t\frac{1}{E-\Sigma_{n+1}}t$ and $\Sigma_n=\Sigma_{n+1}$, for site energies chosen to be zero, for an infinite chain. The resulting quadratic equation can be solved and has real and imaginary parts so that
\begin{equation}
{ \Sigma}_{\lambda}^{(lead)}(E)=\frac{E-i\sqrt{4t^2-E^2}}{2}
{c}^\dag_{{\rm lead}\lambda}{c}^{\phantom{\dag}}_{{\rm lead}\lambda},
\label{eq:autoenergia}
\end{equation}
where we have introduced creation and annihilation electron states at each lead of the system i.e. $in$, $D_1$, and $D_2$ for the incoming lead and the two drains, where a metallic lead couples the system to the reservoirs. Three such couplings
will be considered below, at the incoming beam and at the two output leads connecting to detectors.
The transmission between a spin state $\lambda$ at the input and spin state $\tau$ at the output $D_i$, at energy $E$ is given by\cite{Datta}
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{D_j}^{\tau\lambda}&=&{\rm Tr} \left [{ \Gamma}_{\tau}^{D_j}
{ G}(E)~ { \Gamma}_{\lambda}^{in}~{ G}(E)^{\dagger}\right ],
\label{Transmission}
\end{eqnarray}
where the broadening, due to the coupling to the electron reservoirs is given by
${ \Gamma}_{\tau}^{D_j}= i\left [{ \Sigma}_{\tau}^{D_j} -(
{ \Sigma}_{\tau}^{D_j})^{\dagger}\right ]$ and the Green's function is computed as
\begin{equation}
{ G}(E)=\frac{1}{E-{H}^{TB}-({ \Sigma}^{in}+{ \Sigma}^{D_1}
+{ \Sigma}^{D_2})},
\label{Greens}
\end{equation}
where the self energies are diagonal matrices that include all spin orientations at the corresponding leads~\cite{Datta}. The current at each output lead $D_j$ with spin component $\tau$ is computed using
\begin{equation}
I^{\tau}_{D_j}=\frac{e^2}{h}\sum_{\lambda}\int_{band} T^{\tau\lambda}_{D_j}(E)\left ( f^{in}(E)-f^{D_j}(E)\right ) dE.
\label{I-Vequation}
\end{equation}
The Fermi occupation at temperature $T$ is given by $f^i(E)=1/(\exp(\frac{E-E^i_F}{k_BT})+1)$, where $E^i_F=\pm V/2$.
The numerical calculation would proceed in the following way: The incoming and outgoing one dimensional leads, are made up from site energies set to zero as a reference energy and nearest neighbor couplings $t$ set to 0.156 eV. The self energy of such leads can be computed
exactly\cite{Pastawski} leading to an energy contribution at the input and output sites of the interferometer. The Hamiltonian of the interferometer is then computed according to Eq.\ref{eqTB} and the hopping matrix elements in Eq.\ref{eqt}. The spin orbit parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are only different from zero within the interferometer. One can then combine the computed matrices for the Hamiltonian and the self energies, into the Green's function defined by Eq.\ref{Greens} which involves a matrix inversion and contains all the information on the external contacts of the interferometer. Such an expression is also a matrix and is used to compute the transmission between specific spin components through the interferometer by way of Eq.\ref{Transmission}. The transmission is a number once the spin components have been fixed, and it must be computed for each of the energies within the incoming band. From this function, the spin polarized currents can be obtained.
As a measure of the performance of the device we use the transmission
asymmetry at a particular output channel, which is defined as
\begin{equation}
A_{D_j}(\phi,\alpha,\beta)=T_{D_j}^{\uparrow\uparrow}+T_{D_j}^{\downarrow\uparrow}-(T_{D_j}^{\downarrow\downarrow}+T_{D_j}^{\uparrow\downarrow}),
\label{equationasymmetry}
\end{equation}
considering that the states at the input lead are thermal mixed states at temperature $T$. In this case,
the amplitudes do not interfere and the calculation requires summing probabilities.
This measure is used due to the fact that, in contrast to the translation operator approach of previous proposals, we cannot obtain exact conditions for spin filtering when reservoirs are considered, although the arms of the device are one dimensional. Therefore, the conditions for operation must be sought numerically, with an adequate measure for performance.
\section{Results}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=12 cm]{Figure2.eps}
\caption{Transmission asymmetry as a function of the Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit interaction. The clearer shades represent positive asymmetry indicating up spin preference according to Eq.\ref{equationasymmetry}, the values on the lines represent the magnitude of the asymmetry. Left panel: The symmetric interferometer (see inset), where the point of operation is indicated by a $\bigotimes$ at values encountered in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures\cite{Takayanagi} while {\LARGE \bf $\times$} is a representative point for small asymmetry. The magnetic flux at the operation point is $\Phi=0.248 (h/e)$ a field of 10 Gauss through an interferometer of 1$\mu$m$^2$. Right panel: The asymmetric interferometer (see inset) where the point of operation is indicated by a $\bigotimes$. There is no applied magnetic flux at the operation point and the Dresselhaus parameter can be close to zero for an interferometer of 1$\mu$m$^2$.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{fig2} shows the spin filtering asymmetry at output lead $D_1$ as a function of the Rashba and Dresselhaus values for the material. The magnetic field has been chosen so that the spin asymmetry is maximized. The potential points for operation are identified in the figure within less than one flux quantum through the device. Such operation point comprises an asymmetry of more than 99\% so the filter is highly efficient. Furthermore, the sensibility of the filtering asymmetry to changes in the parameters is weak, i.e. a ~15\% change in Rashba coupling only changes the asymmetry in 10\% around the operating point. Thus, tuning around the operation point is by no means beyond experimental accuracy.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8 cm]{Figure3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{a) Transmission probabilities as a function of magnetic flux for the point {\LARGE $\times$} in Fig.\ref{fig2} left panel, off the filtering operating point. b) Transmission probabilities $T_{D_1}^{\uparrow\uparrow}$ and $T_{D_1}^{\downarrow\downarrow}$ at lead $D_1$ at the operation point $\bigotimes$ (see Fig.\ref{fig2} left panel), as a function of the magnetic flux. The transmission coefficients $T_{D_1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}$ and $T_{D_1}^{\downarrow\uparrow}$ are negligible at the operation point. The behavior of the lead $D_2$ is exactly opposite to that of $D_1$ allowing for a separation of opposite components in a single device.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig3} shows the transmission at selected points in the $\alpha,\beta$ parameter space (see Fig.\ref{fig2}) as a function of the magnetic flux through the device from the input to the output channel $D_1$. The top panel depicts an $\alpha,\beta$ choice with negligible filtering properties, where all transmission probabilities are appreciable so that only a weak asymmetry results.
The bottom panel shows the transmission probabilities at the filtering operating point. The figure shows that one can choose the magnetic flux so as to obtain optimal filtering for either spin component (there are two optimal operating points in the range chosen for the SO parameters). The other components for the specific operation point are negligible for all fields shown. The signal at output channel $D_2$ will show the opposite behavior as depicted by the dashed blue lines in the bottom panel $(b)$ of Fig.\ref{fig3} (exchanges $\uparrow\uparrow$ for $\downarrow\downarrow$), so we can simultaneously and separately draw both spin orientations. We note that there are no optimal operating points for either $\alpha~ {\rm or}~ \beta=0$, for which only a small asymmetry results.
An important feature of the proposed device is that, in the symmetric arm configuration, the filtering properties are robustly energy independent in the tight-binding model i.e. the properties remain in the full band width of the incoming channel\cite{Hatano}. Small interferometer arm asymmetries are nevertheless inevitable in a real setup, so
as we will see below, an energy dependence is expected.
Due to the insensitivity of the filtering to the input energy, the polarized current versus applied voltage is linear (see Eq. \ref{I-Vequation}) whenever $k_B T\ll eV$
i.e. the thermal energy is small compared to the potential difference applied to the device.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8 cm]{Figure4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Transmission probabilities $T_{D_2}^{\uparrow\uparrow}$ and $T_{D_2}^{\downarrow\downarrow}$ at lead $D_2$ as a function of energy at the operation point ${\bigotimes}$ in Fig.\ref{fig2} right panel. The transmission coefficients $T_{D_2}^{\uparrow\downarrow}$ and $T_{D_2}^{\downarrow\uparrow}$ are negligible at the operation point. The input gate potential (Fermi energy) is centered at the peak of transmission for the {\it up spin} in $D_2$, then the potential difference between the input and lead is increased as shown.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
The second configuration we analyze consists of an interferometer with a large asymmetry in arm lengths. In this configuration one can filter in the absence of a magnetic field using the difference in translational phase. As we have fixed the length difference, one does not achieve as high a filtering capability as in the symmetric arm configuration. This setup also compromises the energy dependence i.e. it is only for certain ranges of energy, within the input band, that the interferometer will work. Nevertheless, arm lengths could also be tuned to yield a higher asymmetry. Figure \ref{fig2} right panel, shows the transmission probability asymmetry for the second interferometer. Again, one can tune the SO parameters in the same range as in the symmetric arm setup. Nevertheless, for the particular configuration chosen (a 3$\mu$m and a 1$\mu$m arm) the optimal point of operation occurs at zero Dresselhaus coupling. The latter coupling could in principle be achieved by means of strain\cite{LiLi}.
In Figure \ref{fig4} we show the transmission probability as a function of the energy for the spin flipping processes ($\uparrow\rightarrow\downarrow$ and $\downarrow\rightarrow\uparrow$), the other components being negligible. The transmission is no longer optimal in the whole energy range but peaks in certain energy intervals. If one tunes the input Fermi energy and then samples potential difference in the vicinity of the optimal transmission, for a particular output lead, one can obtain a substantial polarized current within a certain bias range. Figure \ref{fig5} shows the polarized current components for the situation depicted in Fig.\ref{fig4}. The figure shows that one can achieve at least four times as much {\it spin up} polarized current as {\it spin down} current contribution within a 0.2 volt bias around an optimal transmission probability.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8 cm]{Figure5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Polarized current components at lead $D_2$ as a function of the potential difference as indicated in Fig.\ref{fig4}. The applied magnetic flux is zero. Above 0.1 V there is an increasing contribution from the opposite spin orientation that degrades polarization. The inset shows the proposed configuration that differs from that of Fig.\ref{fig1} by the position of the output leads.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}
We have proposed a practical spin filtering device based on a Mach-Zehnder type spin interferometer built into a 2D GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas. Spin filtering operation is achieved by separating spin up and spin down components of an incoming thermal mixed state extracted from a biased electrode. Spin filtering is possible by tuning Rashba and/or Dresselhaus spin-orbit contributions by way of an applied gate voltage or strain. The Landauer-Buttiker formulation, properly accounting for coupling to reservoirs at finite temperatures and voltage bias, is used to compute transmissions and polarized currents and demonstrate the robustness of the interference concept for current polarization. Two device modes are discussed that operate at complementary experimental conditions: i) A symmetric device that requires a weak magnetic field and tuning both Dresselhaus and Rashba interactions. Such configuration displays a flat incoming electron energy dependent filtering, and ii) an asymmetric device that only requires tuning of Rashba couplings and operates at specific voltage biases. Such energy dependence makes the latter device a simpler setup but more prone to voltage and temperature sensitivities. Both configurations display the drawing of opposite spin polarized currents at the output leads at the optimal operation point.
While the gate voltage control is well a established mechanism, strain has recently been tested for spin control by building mismatched layers in AlGaAs\cite{Jain} generating spin splittings of the BIA type of around 0.007 meV, and 0.025 meV for the bulk Dresselhaus interaction. Strain can account for a 20\% change in the BIA coupling in mismatched AlGaAs\cite{Bernevig3}. This is within the requirements of the proposed device. An additional tunable parameter is a weak perpendicular external magnetic field that induces effects similar to tuning the interferometer arm lengths. The interferometric setup, proposed here, avoids using ferromagnetic material or strong magnetic fields (Zeeman term or spin torque mediated) to polarize electron spins. The device also operates at broad energy ranges for the incoming electron band, a fact which averts the need for difficult fine tuning of the required parameters.
\acknowledgments
This work was supported by CNRS-Fonacit grant PI-2008000272.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction }
\normalsize \baselineskip=6mm \vspace{6mm}
In recent years a set of insulators with strong spin-orbit coupling and time reversal symmetry has been identified as comprising topological insulating
electronic phases \cite{KaneRMP}. Basically, ideal topological insulators (TOI) have a finite energy gap and are insulating in the bulk while on the surface (or edges in 2D) they are gapless and have protected conducting states. These states had been observed in stoichiometric bulk materials such as $Bi_2Se_3$ and $Bi_2Te_3$ by angular resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) measurements \cite{ARPES}. However, in topological thin films of these chalcogenides, generally, many Se vacancies are present, which make these materials more conducting and even metallic. Further doping of these materials as was recently done in $Bi_2Se_3$ by copper intercalation, renders them superconducting with a transition temperature $T_c$ in the range of 3-4 K \cite{Hor,Ando}. This could result in a phase of matter which is a topological superconductor (TOS) whose hallmark signature would be the presence of Majorana fermions (MF). These MF will lead to the appearance of a clear zero bias conductance peak (ZBCP) in conductance spectra of the TOS, which reflects their zero energy bound state nature \cite{Ando}. Sasaki \textit{et al}. had actually observed such a ZBCP in point contact measurements on superconducting $Cu_xBi_2Se_3$ single crystals, and concluded from comprehensive theoretical considerations that they are due to MF which supports the TOS scenario \cite{Ando}. Similar kind of measurements were performed in parallel by our group, and the results support this conclusion \cite{Tal}. Another way to obtain superconductivity in a TOI is by means of the proximity effect with a known superconductor. Yang \textit{et al.} have used this method and observed a very narrow ZBCP ($\sim$0.1 mV) in junctions of Sn ($T_c\sim 3.8$ K) and $Bi_2Se_3$ single crystal flake at low temperatures \cite{LiLu}. In the present study we used proximity induced superconductivity in topological insulator films, and looked for the Majorana fermion signature in their point contact conductance spectra. Unexpectedly, we found that TOS and MF were observed not only in bilayers of superconducting Bi and $Bi_2Te_2Se$, but also in pure $Bi_2Te_2Se$ and $Bi_2Se_3$ films. We concluded that due to the large amount of Se vacancies in these films, Bi segregation to the surface as well as Bi inclusions led to the observed results.\\
\section{Preparation and characterization of the films }
\normalsize \baselineskip=6mm \vspace{6mm}
\subsection{ $Bi_2Se_3$ films and $Bi-Bi_2Te_2Se$ bilayers}
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=8cm,width=13cm]{Fig1.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) X-ray diffraction results of a 400 nm thick $Bi_2Se_3$ film deposited on (111) $SrTiO_3$ wafer. The insets show AFM images of the surface morphology of this film. }
\end{figure}
First we optimized the deposition temperature of the $Bi_2Se_3$ films by checking their structure using x-ray diffraction, and surface morphology by atomic force microscopy (AFM). Deposition was done by laser ablation under vacuum from a stoichiometric polycrystalline $Bi_2Se_3$ target. We found that in the temperature range of 300-600 $^0$C, the best temperature for the crystallization of the film was 400 $^0$C. We note that this is the heating block temperature to which the wafer was clamped, and this led to an actual deposition temperature of about 200 $^0$C on the surface of the film. Then we optimized the laser fluence on the target, in order to obtain the correct $Bi_2Se_3$ phase of the films. At high laser fluence of about 1 $J/cm^2$, Bi rich films of $Bi_4Se_3$ were obtained and only when the laser fluence was reduced to 0.4 $J/cm^2$ the desired $Bi_2Se_3$ phase was achieved. The lower fluence on the target was needed in order to have less energetic Se atoms and ions in the laser ablated plume, which enhanced their sticking to the film and prevented higher Se losses. The resulting optimized film structure is given by the x-ray diffraction patterns of Figs. 1 and 2 on two different substrates, (111) $SrTiO_3$ and (100) $MgO$, together with AFM images of the surface morphology of the first film. As can be seen in these figures, on both wafers the growth was with the c-axis normal to the wafer with c=2.84 nm. The AFM images in Fig. 1 show that the film on the (111) $SrTiO_3$ wafer was also epitaxial, with clear and ordered in-plane hexagonal structure. Fig. 3 shows x-ray diffraction results measured on a $Bi-Bi_2Te_2Se$ bilayer on (100) $LaAlO_3$ which was used in the proximity effect studies. The results are basically similar to those of Figs. 1 and 2 of the $Bi_2Se_3$ films, but with the additional (0,0,3n) peaks of the hexagonal Bi phase (R$\_$3m:H symmetry with c=1.18 nm). Some other peaks which are unaccounted for in this figure can be due to the other phases of Bi.\\
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=7cm,width=12cm]{Fig2.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) X-ray diffraction results of a 400 nm thick $Bi_2Se_3$ film deposited on (100) $MgO$ wafer. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=7cm,width=12cm]{Fig3.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) X-ray diffraction results of a 100 nm thick Bi layer on top of a 700 nm thick $Bi_2Te_2Se$ (BTS) film deposited on (100) $LaAlO_3$ wafer.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{Fig4.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) Energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) results in atomic \% versus the accelerating voltage of the scanning electron microscope (SEM) of two $Bi_2Se_3$ films on (111) $SrTiO_3$ and (100) $MgO$, and of the $Bi-Bi_2Te_2Se$ bilayer on (100) $LaAlO_3$. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Se loss and Bi segregation to the surface of the films}
Fig. 4 shows energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) data on two $Bi_2Se_3$ films and on the $Bi-Bi_2Te_2Se$ bilayer. The data is given by calibrated atomic percents as a function of the scanning electron microscope (SEM) accelerating voltage. This mimics qualitatively the atomic concentration depth profile of the films, but is clearly less accurate than concentration depth profiles that could be obtain by Auger spectroscopy or secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS). Nevertheless, the EDS data shows that in the bare $Bi_2Se_3$ films, the Se:Bi ratio is lower than the expected 3/2, but is approaching systematically this ratio with increasing acceleration voltage in the SEM (see the two dotted extrapolation lines in Fig. 4). Qualitatively, this indicates that the surface layer is Bi rich, and that this can originate in segregation of Bi to the surface due to losses of the volatile Se from the film. In the $Bi-Bi_2Te_2Se$ bilayer the picture is even more complex. Since the top layer is Bi, at low SEM voltages one sees mostly Bi. With increasing voltage though, the electrons penetrate deeper into the bilayer and the emitted x-rays emanate also from deeper layers. Fig. 4 shows that for the bilayer the Bi concentration goes down with accelerating voltage while the Te and Se concentrations go up. More so for the Te than for the Se, since the Se is much more volatile than Te. Even at 30 kV, the Te:Se ratio is still lower than 2. Note that the high Bi concentration here is due mostly to the Bi cap layer, and thus can not be compared with the $Bi_2Te_2Se$ formula ratios.\\
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{Fig5.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) A depth profile of a contact hole in a 400 nm thick $Bi_2Se_3$ film on (111) $SrTiO_3$ along the line shown in the AFM image of the inset (same film as in Fig. 1). A schematic drawing of the gold coated tip is also outlined.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The point contact junctions}
An array of forty gold coated spring loaded spherical tips of 0.5 mm diameter was pressed onto the films and produced 40 point contact junctions on each wafer. We used 4-probes to measure the resistance versus temperature of the films, and 2-probes to measure their conductance spectra. In all, the conductance spectra were measured on 60 combinations of 2 contacts on each wafer which constituted a reasonable statistics of the 40 point contacts response. Repeated measurement on fresh areas of the same film provided more data with the same statistics. The 60 combinations of 2 contacts also allowed for separation of the small number of "active" contacts which were affected by superconductivity ($<10\%$) from the normal resistive ones. The voltage scale of the conductance spectra of each contact in this study V=$V(contact)$ was always calibrated by using the equation $V(measured)=2V(contact)+V(film)+V(leads)$ which takes into account the voltage drops on the two contacts in series, on the film in between the contacts, and on the leads to the sample. Fig. 5 shows a depth profile of a typical contact hole left behind after the contact tip was removed in the 400 nm thick $Bi_2Se_3$ film on (111) $SrTiO_3$ of Fig. 1. Since the film is brittle, the pressure applied to the contact determined its penetration depth into the film. The profile was taken along the line shown in the AFM image of the inset. The top surface of the film is outlined by the dotted line in this figure while in some points the hole reaches the substrate at its bottom surface. A schematic drawing of the gold coated tip is also shown, in a position of just losing contact with the film when it was pulled out. Clearly, the spring loaded gold coated tip pierced the film, pushed some material to its sides and also pulled some flakes upward, above the surface of the film, when it was pulled out. We thus conclude that the contact between the tip and the film occurs across many much smaller areas (or points) than the overall hole area.\\
\subsection{Conductance spectra of Au-Bi point contact junctions }
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{Fig6.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) Conductance spectra at different temperatures of a point contact junction of gold in contact with a 20 nm thick $Bi$ film deposited on (100) $LaAlO_3$ wafer. No conductance dips were observed above about 3 K, and a typical background conductance is shown while heating between 6 and 9 K.}
\end{figure}
Since superconductivity in Bi is marginal, Bi is not superconducting in the bulk but only in small grains or on surfaces and interfaces \cite{Weitzel,Tian,Baring}, a reference 20 nm thick Bi film was prepared to test its superconducting properties. It was deposited at $\sim$50 K film surface temperature under vacuum on a (100) $LaAlO_3$ wafer, and its transport characteristics were measured. The 4-probe resistance versus temperature result in the range of 300-1.8 K showed quite a constant resistance with no clear signature of superconductivity. Superconductivity however was detected in 2-probe measurements of the conductance spectra of this film. Figs. 6 and 7 show typical results of such spectra and their behavior at different temperatures and under different magnetic fields. One can see that the conductance variations here are quite small, on the order of 0.1-0.2\% of the total conductance. Nevertheless, the conductance spectra of Figs. 6 and 7 show clear conductance dips which indicate that the critical current in the point contact junction was reached \cite{Sheet}. Similar dips have also been observed by Sasaki et al. in $Ag-Cu_xBi_2Se_3$ junctions (FIG. S4 of Ref. \cite{Ando}). Since these dips result from the critical current in the junctions, local superconductivity is clearly present in grains or islands in our Bi films, although no global superconductivity is observed. We note that the peak at low bias in Fig. 6 can also be due to reaching the critical current in weaker superconducting islands in the film, but can just as well result from Andreev scattering. The prominent dips of Fig. 6 disappear at temperatures above 3 K, and vanish under magnetic fields above 2 T as seen in Fig. 7. Thus, typical values of the superconducting critical temperature $T_c$ and the critical field $H_{c2}$ of our Bi films are established, and will be useful in the present study of the proximity induced superconductivity in the $Bi-Bi_2Te_2Se$ bilayer and the $Bi_2Se_3$ films.\\
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{Fig7.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) Conductance spectra at 1.85 K under different magnetic fields of the junction of Fig. 6.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{Fig8.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) Resistance versus
temperature of two films. One with traces of Bi on top of 700 nm thick layer of
$Bi_2Te_2Se$ and the other of a bilayer of 100nm Bi on 700 nm $Bi_2Te_2Se$, together with zoom in on low temperatures in the insets. }
\end{figure}
\section{Results and discussion}
\subsection{Point contacts of gold on a $Bi-Bi_2Te_2Se$ bilayer}
First we prepared a 700 nm thick $Bi_2Te_2Se$ (BTS) film on a whole wafer of (100) LAO. Then we shadow masked 1/3 of this wafer and continued with an \textit{in-situ} deposition of additional 100 nm thick layer of Bi. Fig. 8 shows representative 4-probe resistance versus temperature results of the two different parts of this wafer. Both curves show that these films are metallic. In the Bi/BTS bilayer with the thick Bi layer, no superconductivity was observed within the noise level of the measurement down to 1.8 K (see the bottom inset to Fig. 1). This result is consistent with the fact that bulk Bi is semi-metallic and not superconducting \cite{Weitzel,Tian,Baring}. Thus the 100 nm thick Bi layer in the Bi/BTS bilayer of Fig. 1 can be considered as bulk material. To further check this point, we deposited in a separate experiment a stand alone 100 nm thick film of Bi on (100) LAO and found that it showed no superconductivity down to 1.8 K either. However, a thinner, 10 nm thick Bi film on (100) LAO did show signatures of local superconductivity which appeared as a plateau in the resistance at 4-8 K on an insulating background resistance in one case, and as a sharp resistance drop at 2.3 K in another location on the wafer. The top inset of Fig. 8 shows that in the nominal BTS part of this film superconductivity does occur between superconducting islands with transition temperatures of 6.3 and 2.8 K. These islands are apparently due to either trace amounts of Bi that reached the surface under the shadow mask used when depositing the nearby thick Bi film, or to Bi segregation to the surface from the Bi rich BTS film itself due to the Se loss process. We confirmed this finding by energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) that showed the existence of a Bi rich layer on the surface of the BTS film, with a significant decrease of excess Bi in deeper layers of this film (see Fig. 4). We stress that although bulk Bi is not superconducting, on its surface, and in small clusters, nano-particles or islands it is superconducting \cite{Weitzel,Tian,Baring}. The two transition temperatures observed in the top inset of Fig. 8 can thus be attributed to the Bi islands (6.3 K) and to the proximity induced regions in the nearby TOI (2.8 K), respectively.\\
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{Fig9.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) Normalized point contact junction conductance spectrum on the bilayer of Fig. 8. The inset shows a schematic drawing of the contact
configuration with the proximity induced superconducting islands close to the interface
of the Bi and $Bi_2Te_2Se$ layers. }
\end{figure}
A typical normalized conductance spectrum of one of the point contacts on the Bi/BTS bilayer is shown in Fig. 9 together with a schematic drawing of the contact geometry in the inset. This spectrum shows two prominent features: a pronounced ZBCP of about 2 mV width and a tunneling-like gap at about $\pm$2 mV. The ZBCP is generally attributed to Andreev bound states due to unconventional superconductivity like in the cuprates where the d-wave order parameter changes sign, or to other type or orders such as $p_x+ip_y$ as proposed for the topological superconductors \cite{Tanaka,p-wave,Hao}. The spectrum in Fig. 2 is quite similar to the one calculated in Ref. \cite{Ando} for the $\Delta_4$ pair potential (odd parity with point nodes), but without the asymmetry. The additional dip features in the spectrum signify that the critical current in the superconducting Bi leads to the junction (contact) was reached which is typical in point contact measurements \cite{Sheet}. The fact that a few dips are observed, can be attributed to different values of the critical current in different superconducting Bi islands (grains) at the Bi/BTS interface. Comparing the overall conductance change in Fig. 9 ($\sim$30\%) and Fig. 6 (0.1-0.2\%), one can safely rule out the possibility that the robust ZBCP observed in Fig. 9 originates in the Bi film alone. We therefore conclude that the observed spectrum in Fig. 9 originates in the proximity induced superconducting zones near the interface of the bilayer as depicted in the inset to this figure.\\
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{Fig10.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) Normalized conductance spectra at different temperatures of another point contact junction on the $Bi-Bi_2Te_2Se$ bilayer of Fig. 8. For clarity, the spectra are shifted down compared to one another by 0.01 conductance units. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{Fig11.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) Normalized conductance spectra under different magnetic fields normal to the wafer of the same point contact junction of Fig. 10. }
\end{figure}
Fig. 10 shows the temperature dependence of the normalized conductance spectra of a different point contact on the same Bi/BTS bilayer. Here one observes at 1.83 K two very prominent critical current dips at about $\pm$2 mV which almost coincide with the tunneling-like gap feature and indicate that at least one dominant superconducting Bi island is present at this contact. With increasing temperature the ZBCPs decrease in height and narrow down, while the gap-like features close, and both disappear at 2.8 K. This temperature seems to coincide with the transition temperature of the proximity induced superconductivity of the junction in the TOI as seen in the top inset of Fig. 8. Fig. 11 shows the magnetic field dependence of the normalized conductance spectra of the same junction of Fig. 10 at low temperature (1.8-1.9 K). Basically, increasing the magnetic field has a similar effect to that of increasing temperature, but with a few important differences. First, the prominent critical current dips disappear above 0.2 T and do not reappear after field cycling to 2 T and back to zero field. This could be attributed to trapped flux in the superconducting Bi islands at the interface. Furthermore, these dips did not reappear after an additional temperature cycling to about 10 K and back to 1.8 K, while temperature cycling without the application of fields did not affect them (the 1.9 K spectrum in Fig. 11 was obtained after the temperature cycling of Fig. 10). The spectrum under 0.4 T field is interesting in particular. It is composed of two contributions: a broad, kind of triangular, Andreev conductance peak of $\sim$0.8-1 mV width, and a much narrower ZBCP of $\sim$0.3-0.4 mV width on top of it. In this case, we identify the first peak as due to standard Andreev reflections below the gap energy, and the second peak as due to zero energy Andreev bound states. Generally, when the superconducting gap energy is small, it is hard to distinguish between these two contributions to the Andreev conductance, as is obvious from many other spectra in the present study. Besides the narrowing down and decay of the ZBCP and closing of the gap-like feature until their disappearance under a 2 T field, one can observe a clear enhancement of the ZBCP at 0 T after field cycling. This is a result of decreasing the density of states at high bias (1-2 mV, in the tunneling part of the spectrum) while conserving the integrated density of states. Furthermore, the ZBCP now is clearly composed of three contributions as can be seen by the steps in the spectrum at about $\pm$0.3, $\pm$0.6 and $\pm$0.9 mV. These could be related to to different critical currents in different superconducting Bi islands as depicted in the inset to Fig. 9, or to the trapped vortex or vortices in these grains, but we have no way of supporting any of these hypothesis at the present time. The central part of the ZBCP is quite narrow now, only 0.5-0.6 mV, and the whole width of the ZBCP feature is of about 2 mV. These widths are in the range of typical surface Andreev bound states (SABS) such as found for helical edge states of a 2D TOI \cite{Hsieh,Ando}. For odd parity pairing, some SABS can be considered as Majorana fermions, and therefore the presently observed ZBCP could be due to these particles. In addition, the observed ZBCP enhancement and its staircase shape with the three steps, is possibly related to trapped vortices. Theory predicts that at the interface between an s-wave superconductor (as the Bi here) and a strong TOI in the presence of a vortex, the resulting state supports Majorana bound states in the vortex core \cite{p-wave}. The spectrum in Fig. 11 at 0 T after field cycling could thus be due to Majorana fermions SABS resulting from the presence of a few (three?) trapped vortices. Clearly, further theoretical treatment of the data is needed to support any of the presently suggested interpretations of the results.\\
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{Fig12.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) Normalized conductance spectra at different temperatures of a point contact junction on a $Bi_2Se_3$ film on (111) $SrTiO_3$ wafer. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Point contacts of gold on $Bi_2Se_3$ films}
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{Fig13.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) Normalized conductance spectra of the same point contact junction of Fig. 12 at $\sim$1.9 K under different magnetic fields normal to the wafer. }
\end{figure}
Figs. 12 and 13 show normalized conductance spectra of a point contact junction on the pure epitaxial $Bi_2Se_3$ film grown on (111) STO of Fig. 1. The data of Fig. 12 at different temperatures, and in Fig. 13 under different magnetic fields, is amazingly similar to that observed in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively, although no Bi layer was deposited on the chalcogenide film. The similarity of the results therefore suggests that either Bi segregation to the surface due to Se loss, or creation of Bi inclusions in the film is involved. EDS measurements on this film as seen in Fig. 4 substantiate the surface segregation scenario, but we can not rule out the Bi inclusions scenario at the present time. As before, the resistance versus temperature of this film showed no sign of superconductivity within the noise of the measurement. The symmetric dips in the spectra of Figs. 12 and 13 indicating the critical current effect as explained before \cite{Sheet}, necessitate the existence of superconducting grains in the junction. Thus the presence of local superconductivity here is established. Furthermore, the disappearance of the ZBCP at 2.7 K similar to the result of Figs. 10 and 6, and under magnetic field of about 2 T similar to the results of Figs. 11 and 7, suggests that the same kind of Bi islands are involved. The enhancement of the ZBCP in Fig. 13 after the field cycling up to 2.4 T and back to 0 T is also similar to that observed in Fig. 11, but without the additional staircase structure of the ZBCP as in Fig. 11. Thus we conclude that if the Majorana fermion SABS interpretation of the ZBCP is correct for the Bi-BTS bilayer it should hold also for the blanket $Bi_2Se_3$ film. \\
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{Fig14.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) Conductance spectra of a point contact junction of gold and a $Bi_2Se_3$ film on (100) $MgO$ at zero field and different temperatures.}
\end{figure}
In order to check whether the effect of proximity induced superconductivity in $Bi_2Se_3$ films observed in Figs. 12 and 13 is robust and independent of the substrate, we repeated the conductance measurements on a similar film deposited on (100) $MgO$. The x-ray diffraction data of Fig. 2 shows that this film also has the same structure as that of the film on (111) $SrTiO_3$ (see Fig. 1). Figs. 14 and 15 show conductance spectra of a point contact junction of gold and this film. The data is shown at different temperatures in Fig. 14, and at $\sim$1.85 K under different magnetic fields in Fig. 15. The results are similar to those shown in Figs. 12 and 13 obtained on the $Bi_2Se_3$ film on (111) $SrTiO_3$. The features of the conductance spectra are basically the same for the pure films on both type of substrates, which gives further support for the reproducibility and robustness of the observed effect. It also proves that the effect has nothing to do with the substrate, or any possible local superconductivity which might originate in the $SrTiO_3$ wafer. Detailed inspection of the results of Fig. 14 shows that the ZBCP persists now up to about 4K, while it disappears already at about 3 K in Fig. 12. Fig. 15 shows that the critical current dips disappear at about 2 T, similar to the results in the bare Bi film of Fig. 7. \\
\begin{figure} \hspace{-20mm}
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{Fig15.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm} \caption{\label{fig:epsart} (Color online) Conductance spectra of the same point contact junction of Fig. 14 at $\sim$1.85 K under different magnetic fields.}
\end{figure}
And finally, some food for thought. Suppose one measures a ZBCP and dips in the conductance spectra of junctions of a normal metal or a superconductor with a topological insulator or a topological superconductor of the Bi-Se family. Then, we believe that it is essential to rule out the possibility that the observes effect originates in surface inhomogeneities or phase separation in the topological material, and result from a Bi induced proximity effect as seen here in the blanket $Bi_2Se_3$ films. These inhomogeneities if present, could be due to exposure of the topological insulator to the ambient atmosphere, heating in a patterning process, intercalation chemistry, and so on.\\
In conclusions, point contact spectroscopy was performed on proximity induced superconducting regions in two topological insulators. Prominent zero bias conductance peaks were observed which were attributed to surface Andreev bound states, possibly related to Majorana fermions. The observed conductance dips were used as indicators of local superconductivity at the point contact regions even in the absence of global superconductivity in the films.\\
{\em Acknowledgments:} This research was supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation, the joint German-Israeli DIP project and the Karl Stoll Chair in advanced materials at the Technion.\\
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
SZ Her ($\rm BD+33^{o} 2930$, GSC 2610-1209, HIP 86430, TYC 2610-1209-1) is an Algol-type system with an orbital period of 0.818 d
and was announced to be a variable by Ceraski (1908) and also Dun\'er et al. (1909). Although the first observations of
the system date back to 1902 (Shapley 1913; Russell \& Shapley 1914; Dugan 1923), its properties are poorly known compared to
those of other short-period Algols. To date in the published literature, only one light-curve analysis has been published and
it was presented by Giuricin \& Mardirossian (1981). They analyzed the two-color photoelectric light curves of Broglia et al. (1955)
using the WINK model (Wood 1972) and concluded that the system is a semi-detached Algol-type binary with a mass ratio of $q$=0.4,
an orbital inclination of $i$=87$^\circ$.9, and a temperature difference between the components of $\Delta T$=2,600 K. Recently,
Sz\'ekely (2003) and Dvorak (2009) performed CCD observations in order to locate $\delta$ Scuti-type pulsations but failed
to detect them.
Although the orbital period of SZ Her has been examined several times (Kreiner 1971; Mallama 1980; Zavala et al. 2002),
a detailed study of its orbital period was made by Sz\'ekely (2003) and Soydugan (2008). They reported that the period change
can be described using either a sine curve or a single light-time effect (LITE) ephemeris due to a third body with
implied periods of 66 and 71 yr, respectively. Soydugan (2008) also suggested that the timing residuals from the LITE fit
indicate an additional short-term oscillation with a period within about 20 yr. More than one thousand eclipse timings,
spanning $\sim$ 110 yr, should be sufficient to resolve the confusion regarding the orbital behavior of SZ Her. Nonetheless,
the period variation of this system has not yet been studied as conclusively as required. In this article,
a new photometric study of SZ Her based on modern observations and analyses is presented, and it is demonstrated that
the SZ Her system is likely a quadruple one containing two low-mass companions.
\section{NEW OBSERVATIONS}
We performed new CCD photometry of SZ Her on 13 nights from 2008 February 28 through May 17. The observations were taken with
a SITe 2K CCD camera and a $BVRI$ filter set attached to the 61-cm reflector at Sobaeksan Optical Astronomy Observatory (SOAO)
in Korea. The instrument and reduction method used were the same as those described by Lee et al. (2007, 2010b). GSC 2610-1116
($\rm BD+33^{o} 2925$, TYC 2610-1116-1) and GSC 2610-0821, imaged on the chip at the same time as the program target, were
selected as comparison and check stars, respectively. The 1$\sigma$-values of the dispersions of the magnitude differences
between these stars are within $\pm$0.01 mag for all bandpasses. The coordinates and Tycho magnitudes for the three stars of interest
are given in Table 1. A total of 1,728 individual observations were obtained among the four bandpasses (435 in $B$, 437 in $V$,
439 in $R$, and 417 in $I$) and a sample of them is listed in Table 2. The light curves of SZ Her defined by the SOAO observations
are plotted in Figure 1 as the (V$-$C) differential magnitudes {\it versus} orbital phase, which was computed according to
the ephemeris for our binary model determined later in this article with the Wilson-Devinney synthesis code
(Wilson \& Devinney 1971, hereafter W-D).
In addition to these complete light curves, two eclipse timings were observed in 2004 June and 2011 May using the same telescope.
The 2004 data were collected using the SITe 2K CCD camera and $B$ filter, and the 2011 ones using an FLI IMG4301E CCD camera and
$BV$ filters. GSC 2610-1116 also served as the comparison star for these data collections. Details of the new detector have been
given previously by Lee et al. (2011).
\section{LIGHT-CURVE SYNTHESIS AND ABSOLUTE DIMENSIONS}
The shape of the light curve of SZ Her is very similar to that of Algol type. As shown in Figure 1, the light curve was completely
covered and the depth differences between the primary and secondary eclipses indicate a significant temperature difference
between the two components. In order to understand the physical properties of the system, the $BVRI$ light curves in this study
were analyzed simultaneously in a manner almost identical to those for XX Cep (Lee et al. 2007) and CL Aur (Lee et al. 2010a)
using the 2003 version\footnote {ftp://ftp.astro.ufl.edu/pub/wilson/} of the W-D code and the so-called $q$-search procedure
(cf. Lee et al. 2008). In this paper, the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the primary and secondary stars being eclipsed at Min I
(at phase 0.0) and Min II, respectively.
The surface temperature of the hotter, and presumably more massive, primary star was assumed to be $T_{1}$=7,270 K from Flower's
(1996) table, according to ($B-V$)=$+$0.323$\pm$0.041 in the Tycho-2 Catalog (H\o g et al. 2000) and $E$($B-V$)=$+$0.035
calculated following Schlegel et al. (1998). The gravity-darkening exponents were initialized at standard values of $g_1$=1.0
and $g_2$=0.32 and the bolometric albedos at $A_1$=1.0 and $A_2$=0.5, as surmised from the components' temperatures.
Linear bolometric and monochromatic limb-darkening coefficients were interpolated from the values of van Hamme (1993) in
concert with the model atmosphere option. Furthermore, a synchronous rotation for both components and a circular orbit were adopted
and the detailed reflection effect was considered.
The only photometric solution of SZ Her was reported by Giuricin \& Mardirossian (1981) 30 years ago and a spectroscopic orbit has
not yet been established. Thus, an extensive $q$-search procedure was conducted for a series of models with varying $q$ values.
In this process, we first considered the orbital inclination ($i$), effective temperature ($T$),
dimensionless surface potential ($\Omega$), and luminosity ($L_1$). This procedure showed acceptable photometric solutions for
mode 5 only, which are semi-detached systems for which the less massive secondary stars accurately fill their inner Roche lobes.
As displayed in Figure 2, the $q$-search results indicate that the minimum value of the weighted sum of the squared residuals
($\Sigma$) is approximately $q$=0.49. Then, we treated this $q$ value as an adjustable parameters and included limb-darkening
coefficients, albedos, and gravity darkening exponents as additional free variables. The final values are given in Table 3 and
are plotted in Figure 1 as solid curves. In the figure, the model light curves describe the SOAO multiband data satisfactorily.
Our light-curve synthesis demonstrates that SZ Her is an Algol-type semi-detached system in which the primary component fills
its limiting lobe by approximately 77\% and is slightly larger than the lobe-filling secondary component.
The gravity darkening exponent of the secondary component is consistent with the standard convective $g$ value, while its albedo
is close to the standard radiative $A$ value. In these analyses, we searched for a possible third light source but found that
the parameter remained zero within its error.
The dereddened color ($B-V$)$_0$=$+$0.29 and temperature of the primary component correspond to a normal main-sequence star with
a spectral type of about A9. We estimated the absolute dimensions for the binary system from our photometric solution and
from Harmanec's (1988) relation between the spectral type and stellar mass. These are given in Table 4, where the luminosity ($L$)
and bolometric magnitudes ($M_{\rm bol}$) were computed by adopting $T_{\rm eff}$$_\odot$=5,780 K and $M_{\rm bol}$$_\odot$=+4.73
for solar values. For the absolute visual magnitudes ($M_{\rm V}$), we used the bolometric corrections (BCs) appropriate for
the temperature of each component from the expression between $\log T$ and BC given by Torres (2010). With an apparent visual magnitude
of $V$=+10.06 and the interstellar absorption of $A_{\rm V}$=0.11, we calculated the distance of the system to be 294 pc. This result
is consistent with 306 pc taken from the trigonometric parallax (3.27$\pm$1.09 mas; Perryman et al. 1997).
A comparison of the SZ Her parameters with the mass-radius, mass-luminosity, and Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagrams
(\. Ibano\v{g}lu et al. 2006) clearly demonstrates that the primary component lies in the main-sequence band, while
the secondary is slightly beyond the terminal-age main sequence and its radius and luminosity are about two times oversized
and more than four times overluminous compared with dwarf stars of the same mass. In these diagrams, the locations of
the two components conform to the general pattern of classical Algols. The mass and temperature of the secondary star
correspond to a spectral type of approximately K2 to K3.
\section{ORBITAL PERIOD STUDY}
From the current observations, six new times of minimum light and their errors were determined using the method of
Kwee \& van Woerden (1956) and with the weighted mean for the values in each filter. These are listed in Table 5, wherein
73 additional eclipses were obtained using the data from the WASP (Wide Angle Search for Planets) public archive (Butters et al. 2010).
For ephemeris computations, we have collected a total of 1050 timings (949 visual, 20 photographic, 16 photoelectric and 65 CCD)
from the literature (Kreiner et al. 2001; Baldwin \& Samolyk 2002, 2004; Locher 2002a, 2002b; Baki\c s et al. 2003; Sz\'ekely 2003;
Diethelm 2003, 2004; Nelson 2005; Cook et al. 2005; Kim et al. 2006; Nagai 2004, 2006; H\"ubscher, et al. 2006, 2009;
Senavci et al. 2007; Samolyk 2008a, 2008b; Br\'at et al. 2008; Liakos \& Niarchos 2009; Do\u{g}ru et al. 2009, 2011; Dvorak 2010;
Erkan et al. 2010; H\"ubscher \& Monninger 2011) to add to the current measurements. Most earlier timings were extracted from
the database published by Kreiner et al. (2001). The secondary minima are much shallower than the primary ones and
the $O$--$C$ residuals from the two eclipse types are in phase with each other. Thus, we did not use all secondary eclipses in
the subsequent analysis. Because many timings have been published without errors, the following standard deviations were assigned
to the timing residuals based on an observational technique: $\pm$0.0036 d for visual, $\pm$0.0020 d for photographic, and
$\pm$0.0013 d for photoelectric and CCD minima. Relative weights were then scaled from the inverse squares of these values
(Lee et al. 2007).
Previous researchers (Sz\'ekely 2003; Soydugan 2008) have suggested that the period variations of SZ Her can be represented using
an LITE caused by the presence of a third body in the system. First of all, we fitted the minimum epochs to
the single LITE ephemeris as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
C_1 = T_0 + PE + \tau_3,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau_{3}$ is the LITE due to a hypothetical distant companion to the eclipsing close pair (Irwin 1952, 1959) and includes
five parameters ($a_{12}\sin i_3$, $e$, $\omega$, $n$, $T$). The Levenberg$-$Marquardt (LM) technique (Press et al. 1992) was
used to evaluate the seven parameters of the ephemeris. The results are summarized in column (2) of Table 6, together with
their related quantities. As displayed in Figure 3, the single LITE ephemeris failed to provide a satisfactory result.
Because the timing residuals in the lower panel of the figure indicate the existence of further effects, some combination of long-
and short-term period variations appears possible. Using the PERIOD04 program (Lenz \& Breger 2005),
which can extract individual frequencies from the multi-periodic content of an astronomical time series containing gaps, we looked
to see if the $O$--$C_{1}$ residuals from the linear terms represent multi-periodic variations. As can be seen from Figure 4,
two frequencies of $f_1$=0.0000353 cycle d$^{-1}$ and $f_2$=0.0000706 cycle d$^{-1}$ were detected corresponding to 77.6 yr and
38.8 yr, respectively. Therefore, after considering the two periods and testing several other forms, such as
a quadratic {\it plus} single-LITE ephemeris, a two-LITE ephemeris and a quadratic {\it plus} two-LITE ephemeris, we found that
the times of minimum light are best fitted using the following ephemeris:
\begin{eqnarray}
C_2 = T_0 + PE + \tau_3 + \tau_4.
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau_{3}$ and $\tau_{4}$ are the light times due to a third and fourth body, respectively. The LM method was
applied again in order to simultaneously locate the LITE parameters of the third and newly assumed fourth bodies. The calculations
converged quickly to yield the entries listed in columns (3)--(4) of Table 6. The $O$--$C_{2}$ residuals from the linear terms
are plotted in the top panel of Figure 5. The second and third panels display the $\tau_3$ and $\tau_4$ orbits, respectively,
and the bottom panel represents the residuals from the full ephemeris. The long-term orbit ($\tau_{3}$) are currently
preliminary because about 1.3 cycles of the 86-yr period have been covered, while the short-term orbit ($\tau_{4}$) has
a relatively high determinacy because the observations have already covered about 2.6 cycles.
On the other hand, it is alternatively possible that the $O$--$C$ diagrams may be described by abrupt period changes instead of
continuous period variations. As displayed in Figures 3 and 5, the orbital period of SZ Her seemed to experience period jumps
around years 1920, 1960, 1978, 1987, 2002, and 2008. They could possibly have been produced either by episodic mass transfer events
or by impulsive mass ejections from one (or both) component(s). Assuming constant periods before and after the years,
we applied linear least-squares fits separately to the seven sections. The results are plotted as the thick lines in the top panel
of Figure 5. A combination of the straight lines resulted in a larger $\chi^2$ = 1.031 than the two-LITE ephemeris. As seen in
the figure, the sudden period changes seem to have alternated cyclically in algebraic sign. Then, the alternating sign changes
would require some preferred reciprocating mechanism. However, in view of the semi-detached nature of the binary, no pair of
unstable locales is obvious and then it is difficult for the jumps to produce perfectly smooth and tilted periodic components
in the $O$--$C$ residuals. These might be an indication of sinusoidal variations rather than abrupt period changes.
\section{DISCUSSION}
For the eclipsing binary SZ Her we obtained six times of minimum light from the eclipse light curves using the 61cm-reflector at SOAO.
This data set was further augmented with additional photometric data provided by the WASP public archive. These two data sets
were added to previous measurements of minimum light from earlier epochs. We then carried out a detailed analysis of
the resulting $O$--$C$ diagram by fitting Keplerian LITE models to the data set. The best fit to the data suggests the existence
of two companions with the orbital parameters listed in Table 6. The period ratio of $P_{3}$/$P_{4}$=2.02$\pm$0.06 would
suggest that the two companions are in a 2:1 mean motion orbital resonance. We think that a long-term gravitational interaction
between the two objects would result in capture into the 2:1 resonant configuration (cf. Kley et al. 2004). To our knowledge,
this would be the fourth case when two circumbinary companions would be in or close to any kind of resonance. Lee et al. (2009)
discovered two substellar companions revolving around the sdB+M eclipsing system HW Vir in nearly 5:3 or 2:1 resonant captures and
Beuermann et al. (2010) announced the existence of two planets in a 2:1 (or possibly 5:2) mean motion orbiting
the post-common envelope binary NN Ser. Another interesting case is the W UMa-type binary star WZ Cep: Jeong \& Kim (2011) suggested
that two periodicities of 41.3 yr and 11.8 yr exist in the $O$--$C$ residuals and indicate LITEs due to two circumbinary companions.
The periods are exactly in a commensurable 7:2 relation between their mean motions.
If the two circumbinary objects are on the main sequence and in the orbital plane ($i$=87$^\circ$.57) of the eclipsing pair SZ Her,
the masses of the third and fourth bodies become $M_3$=0.22 M$_\odot$ and $M_4$=0.19 M$_\odot$, respectively. Following
the empirical relations presented by Southworth (2009), the radii and temperatures are calculated to be $R_3$=0.23 R$_\odot$ and
$T_3$=3018 K, and $R_4$=0.20 R$_\odot$ and $T_4$=3008 K for the third and fourth bodies, respectively. These values correspond
to a spectral type of about M6--7 for both bodies and contribute only 0.1\% to the total bolometric luminosity of
the supposed quadruple system. The semi-amplitudes of the systemic radial velocity variation of the eclipsing pair due to
the additional objects are approximately 1 km s$^{-1}$. The two limits indicate that it will be difficult to detect these companions
orbiting the eclipsing binary independently from spectroscopic data. This difficulty is further substantiated due to
the large orbital periods suggested by the derived LITE models. However, the semi-major axes of the third and fourth companions
relative to the binary center of mass are about 26.6 AU and 16.5 AU, respectively, corresponding to the angular sizes of 0.09 arcsec
and 0.05 arcsec. The ($V-K$) color index for such M-type stars is about $+$7.3 mag, so the objects can be as bright as $K \sim$ 13 mag.
Hence, they might be detected by careful observations with infrared photometry and direct speckle imaging interferometry.
In classical Algols, another possible mechanism for the period modulations is a magnetic activity cycle for systems with a secondary
spectral type later than F5 (Hall 1989; Applegate 1992). According to this mechanism, the variable rotational oblateness of a
magnetically active star produces a change in its gravitational quadratic moment, hence forcing a change in the orbital period.
With the periods and amplitudes for the two-LITE listed in Table 6, the model parameters were calculated for the secondary components
from the Applegate formulae. The parameters are listed in Table 7, where the rms luminosity changes ($\Delta m_{\rm rms}$) converted
to magnitude scale were obtained using equation (4) in the paper of Kim et al. (1997). The variations of
the gravitational quadrupole moment ($\Delta Q$) are two orders of magnitude smaller than the typical values of $10^{51}-10^{52}$
for close binaries (Lanza \& Rodono 1999). Recently, Lanza (2006) noted that the Applegate mechanism is not sufficiently adequate
to explain the period modulation of close binaries with a late-type secondary. These suggest that this kind of mechanism cannot
explain the observed period variations of SZ Her.
Because SZ Her is in a semi-detached configuration with the less massive secondary component filling its inner Roche lobe,
from both theoretical and intuitive viewpoints, a period increase could be produced through mass transfer from the secondary to
the primary star. This implies that a long-term secular variation may be hidden in the $O$--$C$ data set and the Algol system
may be in a weak phase of mass transfer. As listed in columns (5)--(6) of Table 6, fitting the eclipse timings to
a quadratic {\it plus} two-LITE ephemeris indicates that the quadratic term ($Q$) represents a continuous period increase with
a rate of d$P$/d$t$ = $+$2.5$\times$10$^{-10}$ d yr$^{-1}$. From these fits, it was found that this contribution is not significant
and a secular term does not adequately describe the timing data, showing a larger $\chi^2$ value. Furthermore, this value
corresponds to a mass transfer rate of 1.4$\times$10$^{-10}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, which is found to be the smallest rate amongst
the classical semi-detached Algol-type systems. No difference in the final fitted parameters is observed when comparing the two-LITE
($\chi^2$ = 1.013) and quadratic {\it plus} two-LITE ($\chi^2$ = 1.014) timing ephemeris. We are therefore left with
the two-LITE ephemeris as a candidate that best explains the compiled timing data set of SZ Her with a possible mass transfer
being negligible in this description. If the existence of the third and fourth components in SZ Her is true, they may have played
an important role in the formation and evolution of the semi-detached eclipsing system, which may ultimately evolve into
a contact configuration by re-distributing most of its angular momentum to the outer circumbinary companions. When more systematic
and continuous observations (e.g., eclipse timings and spectroscopy) are undertaken, all of this is understood better than now and
the absolute dimensions and evolutionary status of this system will be advanced greatly.
\acknowledgments{ }
The authors thank Professor Chun-Hwey Kim for his help using the $O$--$C$ database of eclipsing binaries and the staff of
the Sobaeksan Optical Astronomy Observatory for assistance with our observations. We appreciate the careful reading and valuable comments
of the anonymous referee and Dr. Tobias C. Hinse. This research has made use of the Simbad database maintained at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
We have used data from the WASP public archive in this research. The WASP consortium comprises of the University of Cambridge, Keele University,
University of Leicester, The Open University, The Queen's University Belfast, St. Andrews University and the Isaac Newton Group. Funding
for WASP comes from the consortium universities and from the UK's Science and Technology Facilities Council.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $S^{n-1}$ be the unit sphere in $\mathbb R^n$ ($n\ge2$) equipped with the normalized Lebesgue measure $d\sigma$. A function $\Omega(x,z)$ defined on $\mathbb R^n\times\mathbb R^n$ is said to belong to $L^{\infty}(\mathbb R^n)\times L^r(S^{n-1})$, $r\ge1$, if it satisfies the following conditions:
(1) for all $\lambda>0$ and $x,z\in\mathbb R^n$, $\Omega(x,\lambda z)=\Omega(x,z)$;
(2) for any $x\in\mathbb R^n$, $\int_{S^{n-1}}\Omega(x,z')\,d\sigma(z')=0$;
(3) $\|\Omega\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb R^n)\times L^r(S^{n-1})}:=\sup_{x\in\mathbb R^n}\left(\int_{S^{n-1}}|\Omega(x,z')|^r\,d\sigma(z')\right)^{1/r}<\infty$,
\noindent where $z'=z/{|z|}$ for any $z\in\mathbb R^n\backslash\{0\}$. Set $K(x,z)=\frac{\Omega(x,z')}{|z|^n}$. In this paper, we consider the singular integral operator with variable kernel which is defined by
\begin{equation}
T_{\Omega}f(x)=\mbox{\upshape{P.V.}}\int_{\mathbb R^n}K(x,x-y)f(y)\,dy.
\end{equation}
In \cite{cal1} and \cite{cal2}, Calder\'on and Zygmund investigated the $L^p$ boundedness of singular integral operators with variable kernels. They found that these operators $T_\Omega$ are closely related to the problem about second order elliptic partial differential equations with variable coefficients. We will denote the conjugate exponent of $p>1$ by $p'=p/{(p-1)}$. In \cite{cal3}, Calder\'on and Zygmund proved the following theorem.
\newtheorem*{thma}{Theorem A}
\begin{thma}[\cite{cal3}]
Let $1<p,r<\infty$ satisfy
$(i)$ $\frac1r<\frac1{p'}+\frac1{p'(n-1)}$ if $1<p\le2;$ or
$(ii)$ $\frac1r<\frac1{p'}+\frac{1}{p(n-1)}$ if $2\le p<\infty$.
\noindent Suppose that $\Omega(x,z)\in L^\infty(\mathbb R^n)\times L^r(S^{n-1})$. Then there exists a constant $C>0$ independent of $f$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\|T_{\Omega}(f)\|_{L^p}\le C\|f\|_{L^p}.
\end{equation*}
In particular, $T_{\Omega}$ is bounded on $L^p(\mathbb R^n)$ for all $p\ge r'$.
\end{thma}
In 1971, Muckenhoupt and Wheeden \cite{muckenhoupt2} studied the weighted norm inequalities for $T_{\Omega}$ with power weights. In 2008, Lee et al. \cite{lee1} also considered the weighted boundedness of $T_{\Omega}$ with more general weights, and showed that if the kernel $K(x,y)$ satisfies the $L^r$-H\"ormander condition with respect to $x$ and $y$ variables respectively, then $T_{\Omega}$ is bounded on $L^p_w(\mathbb R^n)$. More precisely, they proved
\newtheorem*{thmb}{Theorem B}
\begin{thmb}[\cite{lee1}]
Let $1<r<\infty$. Suppose that $\Omega(x,z)\in L^\infty(\mathbb R^n)\times L^r(S^{n-1})$ such that the following two inequalities
\begin{equation}
\sup_{x\in\mathbb R^n\atop 0<|y|<R}\sum_{k=1}^\infty\big(2^kR\big)^{n/{r'}}
\bigg(\int_{2^kR\le|z|<2^{k+1}R}\big|K(x,z-y)-K(x,z)\big|^r\,dz\bigg)^{1/r}<\infty
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\sup_{x,y\in\mathbb R^n\atop 0<|x-y|<R}\sum_{k=1}^\infty\big(2^kR\big)^{n/{r'}}
\bigg(\int_{2^kR\le|z|<2^{k+1}R}\big|K(x,z)-K(y,z)\big|^r\,dz\bigg)^{1/r}<\infty
\end{equation}
hold for all $R>0$. If $r'\le p<\infty$ and $w\in A_{p/{r'}}$, then $T_{\Omega}$ is bounded on $L^p_w(\mathbb R^n)$.
\end{thmb}
It should be pointed out that the above $L^r$-H\"ormander conditions on the variable kernels was also considered by Rubio de Francia, Ruiz and Torrea in \cite{rubio}.
In \cite{ding6,ding7}, Ding et al. introduced some definitions about the variable kernel $\Omega(x,z)$ when they studied the $H^1$--$L^1$ boundedness of Marcinkiewicz integral. Replacing the condition (3) mentioned above, they strengthened it to the condition
$(3')$\, $\sup_{x\in\mathbb R^n\atop\rho\ge0}\left(\int_{S^{n-1}}|\Omega(x+\rho z',z')|^r\,d\sigma(z')\right)^{1/r}<\infty$.
For $r\ge1$, a function $\Omega(x,z)$ is said to satisfy the $L^r$-Dini condition if the conditions $(1)$, $(2)$, $(3')$ hold and
\begin{equation}
\int_0^1\frac{\omega_r(\delta)}{\delta}\,d\delta<\infty,
\end{equation}
where $\omega_r(\delta)$ is the integral modulus of continuity of order $r$ of $\Omega$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
\omega_r(\delta):=\sup_{x\in\mathbb R^n\atop\rho\ge0}\bigg(\int_{S^{n-1}}\sup_{y'\in S^{n-1}\atop |y'-z'|\le\delta}\big|\Omega(x+\rho z',y')-\Omega(x+\rho z',z')\big|^rd\sigma(z')\bigg)^{1/r}.
\end{equation*}
In order to obtain the $H^p_w$--$L^p_w$ boundedness of $T_{\Omega}$, Lee et al. \cite{lee1} generalized the $L^r$-Dini condition by replacing (1.4) to the following stronger condition (see also \cite{lin})
\begin{equation}
\int_0^1\frac{\omega_r(\delta)}{\delta^{1+\alpha}}\,d\delta<\infty,\quad 0\le\alpha\le1.
\end{equation}
If $\Omega$ satisfies (1.5) for some $r\ge1$ and $0\le\alpha\le1$, we say that it satisfies the $L^{r,\alpha}$-Dini condition. For the special case $\alpha=0$, it reduces to the $L^r$-Dini condition. For $0\le\beta<\alpha\le1$, if $\Omega$ satisfies the $L^{r,\alpha}$-Dini condition, then it also satisfies the $L^{r,\beta}$-Dini condition. We thus denote by $\mbox{Din}^r_\alpha(S^{n-1})$ the class of all functions which satisfy the $L^{r,\beta}$-Dini condition for all $0<\beta<\alpha$.
\newtheorem*{thmc}{Theorem C}
\begin{thmc}[\cite{lee1}]
Let $0<\alpha\le1$ and $n/{(n+\alpha)}<p<1$. Suppose $\Omega\in\mbox{Din}^r_\alpha(S^{n-1})$ such that $(1.2)$ and $(1.3)$ hold for a certain large number $r>1$. If $w^{r'}\in A_{(p+\frac{p\alpha}{n}-\frac1r)r'}$, then there exists a constant $C>0$ independent of $f$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\|T_\Omega(f)\|_{L^p_w}\le C\|f\|_{H^p_w}.
\end{equation*}
\end{thmc}
It is easy to check that
\begin{equation*}
\mbox{Din}^r_\alpha(S^{n-1})\subset\mbox{Din}^s_\alpha(S^{n-1}), \quad \mbox{if}\;\; 1\le s<r<\infty.
\end{equation*}
Then for $0<\alpha\le1$, we define
\begin{equation}
\mbox{Din}^{\infty}_\alpha(S^{n-1})=\bigcap_{r\ge1}\mbox{Din}^r_\alpha(S^{n-1}).
\end{equation}
The main purpose of this article is to study the corresponding estimates of $T_\Omega$ on the weighted weak Hardy spaces $WH^p_w(\mathbb R^n)$ (see Section 2 for its definition). We now present our main result as follows.
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\begin{theorem}
Let $0<\alpha\le1$, $n/{(n+\alpha)}<p\le1$ and $w\in A_{p(1+\frac{\alpha}{n})}$. Suppose $\Omega\in\mbox{Din}^{\infty}_\alpha(S^{n-1})$ such that $(1.2)$ and $(1.3)$ hold. Then there exists a constant $C>0$ independent of $f$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\|T_\Omega(f)\|_{WL^p_w}\le C\|f\|_{WH^p_w}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\section{Notations and preliminaries}
The definition of $A_p$ class was first used by Muckenhoupt \cite{muckenhoupt1}, Hunt, Muckenhoupt and Wheeden \cite{hunt}, and Coifman and Fefferman \cite{coifman} in the study of weighted
$L^p$ boundedness of Hardy-Littlewood maximal functions and singular integrals. Let $w$ be a nonnegative, locally integrable function defined on $\mathbb R^n$; all cubes are assumed to have their sides parallel to the coordinate axes.
We say that $w\in A_p$, $1<p<\infty$, if
\begin{equation*}
\left(\frac1{|Q|}\int_Q w(x)\,dx\right)\left(\frac1{|Q|}\int_Q w(x)^{-1/{(p-1)}}\,dx\right)^{p-1}\le C, \quad \mbox{for every cube}\; Q\subseteq \mathbb
R^n,
\end{equation*}
where $C$ is a positive constant which is independent of the choice of $Q$. For the case $p=1$, $w\in A_1$, if
\begin{equation*}
\frac1{|Q|}\int_Q w(x)\,dx\le C\cdot\underset{x\in Q}{\mbox{ess\,inf}}\,w(x), \quad \mbox{for every cube}\;Q\subseteq\mathbb R^n.
\end{equation*}
The smallest value of $C>0$ such that the above inequalities hold is called the $A_p$ characteristic constant of $w$ and denoted by $[w]_{A_p}$.
For the case $p=\infty$, $w\in A_\infty$ if it satisfies the $A_p$ condition for some $1<p<\infty$.
A weight function $w$ is said to belong to the reverse H\"older class $RH_s$ if there exist two constants $s>1$ and $C>0$ such that the following reverse H\"older inequality holds
\begin{equation*}
\left(\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_Q w(x)^s\,dx\right)^{1/s}\le C\left(\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_Q w(x)\,dx\right), \quad \mbox{for every cube}\; Q\subseteq \mathbb R^n.
\end{equation*}
It is well known that if $w\in A_p$ with $1<p<\infty$, then $w\in A_r$ for all $r>p$, and $w\in A_q$ for some $1<q<p$. We thus write $q_w\equiv\inf\{q>1:w\in A_q\}$ to denote the critical index of $w$. Moreover, if $w\in A_p$ with $1\le p<\infty$, then there exists $s>1$ such that $w\in RH_s$. It follows directly from H\"older's inequality that $w\in RH_r$ implies $w\in RH_s$ for all $1<s<r$.
Given a cube $Q$ and $\lambda>0$, $\lambda Q$ stands for the cube with the same center as $Q$ whose side length is $\lambda$ times that of $Q$. $Q=Q(x_0,r)$ denotes the cube centered at $x_0$ with side length $r$. For a weight function $w$ and a measurable set $E$, we denote the Lebesgue measure of $E$ by $|E|$ and set the weighted measure $w(E)=\int_E w(x)\,dx$.
We give the following results that will be used in the sequel.
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\begin{lemma}[\cite{garcia2}]
Let $w\in A_q$ with $q\ge1$. Then, for any cube $Q$, there exists an absolute constant $C>0$ such that
$$w(2Q)\le C\,w(Q).$$
In general, for any $\lambda>1$, we have
$$w(\lambda Q)\le C\cdot\lambda^{nq}w(Q),$$
where $C$ does not depend on $Q$ or $\lambda$.
\end{lemma}
Given a weight function $w$ on $\mathbb R^n$, for $0<p<\infty$, we denote by $L^p_w(\mathbb R^n)$ the weighted space of all functions $f$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\|f\|_{L^p_w}=\left(\int_{\mathbb R^n}|f(x)|^pw(x)\,dx\right)^{1/p}<\infty.
\end{equation}
When $p=\infty$, $L^\infty_w(\mathbb R^n)$ will be taken to mean $L^\infty(\mathbb R^n)$, and
\begin{equation}
\|f\|_{L^\infty_w}=\|f\|_{L^\infty}=\underset{x\in\mathbb R^n}{\mbox{ess\,sup}}\,|f(x)|.
\end{equation}
We also denote by $WL^p_w(\mathbb R^n)$ the weighted weak $L^p$ space which is formed by all
measurable functions $f$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\|f\|_{WL^p_w}=\sup_{\lambda>0}\lambda\cdot w\big(\big\{x\in\mathbb R^n:|f(x)|>\lambda \big\}\big)^{1/p}<\infty.
\end{equation}
Let us now turn to the weighted weak Hardy spaces. The (unweighted) weak $H^p$ spaces have first appeared in the work of Fefferman, Rivi\`ere and Sagher \cite{cfefferman}, which are the intermediate spaces between two Hardy spaces through the real method of interpolation. The atomic decomposition characterization of weak $H^1$ space on $\mathbb R^n$ was given by Fefferman and Soria in \cite{rfefferman}. Later, Liu \cite{liu1} established the weak $H^p$ spaces on homogeneous groups for the whole range $0<p\le1$. The corresponding results related to $\mathbb R^n$ can be found in \cite{lu}. For the boundedness properties of some operators on weak Hardy spaces, we refer the readers to \cite{ding1,ding2,ding3,ding4,ding5,liu2,tao}. In 2000, Quek and Yang \cite{quek} introduced the weighted weak Hardy spaces $WH^p_w(\mathbb R^n)$ and established their atomic decompositions. Moreover, by using the atomic decomposition theory of $WH^p_w(\mathbb R^n)$, Quek and Yang \cite{quek} also obtained the boundedness of Calder\'on-Zygmund type operators on these weighted spaces.
We write $\mathscr S(\mathbb R^n)$ to denote the Schwartz space of all rapidly decreasing infinitely differentiable functions and $\mathscr S'(\mathbb R^n)$ to denote the space of all tempered distributions, i.e., the topological dual of $\mathscr S(\mathbb R^n)$. Let $w\in A_\infty$, $0<p\le1$ and $N=[n(q_w/p-1)]$. Define
\begin{equation*}
\mathscr A_{N,w}=\Big\{\varphi\in\mathscr S(\mathbb R^n):\sup_{x\in\mathbb R^n}\sup_{|\alpha|\le N+1}(1+|x|)^{N+n+1}\big|D^\alpha\varphi(x)\big|\le1\Big\},
\end{equation*}
where $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n)\in(\mathbb N\cup\{0\})^n$, $|\alpha|=\alpha_1+\dots+\alpha_n$, and
\begin{equation*}
D^\alpha\varphi=\frac{\partial^{|\alpha|}\varphi}{\partial x^{\alpha_1}_1\cdots\partial x^{\alpha_n}_n}.
\end{equation*}
For any given $f\in\mathscr S'(\mathbb R^n)$, the grand maximal function of $f$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
G_w f(x)=\sup_{\varphi\in\mathscr A_{N,w}}\sup_{|y-x|<t}\big|(\varphi_t*f)(y)\big|.
\end{equation*}
Then we can define the weighted weak Hardy space $WH^p_w(\mathbb R^n)$ by $WH^p_w(\mathbb R^n)=\big\{f\in\mathscr S'(\mathbb R^n):G_w f\in WL^p_w(\mathbb R^n)\big\}$. Moreover, we set $\|f\|_{WH^p_w}=\|G_w f\|_{WL^p_w}$.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{quek}]
Let $0<p\le1$ and $w\in A_\infty$. For every $f\in WH^p_w(\mathbb R^n)$, there exists a sequence of bounded measurable functions $\{f_k\}_{k=-\infty}^\infty$ such that
$(i)$ $f=\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty f_k$ in the sense of distributions.
$(ii)$ Each $f_k$ can be further decomposed into $f_k=\sum_i b^k_i$, where $\{b^k_i\}$ satisfies
\quad $(a)$ Each $b^k_i$ is supported in a cube $Q^k_i$ with $\sum_{i}w\big(Q^k_i\big)\le c2^{-kp}$, and $\sum_i\chi_{Q^k_i}(x)\le c$. Here $\chi_E$ denotes the characteristic function of the set $E$ and $c\sim\big\|f\big\|_{WH^p_w}^p;$
\quad $(b)$ $\big\|b^k_i\big\|_{L^\infty}\le C2^k$, where $C>0$ is independent of $i$ and $k\,;$
\quad $(c)$ $\int_{\mathbb R^n}b^k_i(x)x^\alpha\,dx=0$ for every multi-index $\alpha$ with $|\alpha|\le[n({q_w}/p-1)]$.
Conversely, if $f\in\mathscr S'(\mathbb R^n)$ has a decomposition satisfying $(i)$ and $(ii)$, then $f\in WH^p_w(\mathbb R^n)$. Moreover, we have $\big\|f\big\|_{WH^p_w}^p\sim c.$
\end{theorem}
Throughout this article $C$ always denotes a positive constant, which is independent of the main parameters and not necessarily the same at each occurrence.
\section{Proof of Theorem 1.1}
Following the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma 5 in \cite{kurtz}, we can also establish the following lemma on the variable kernel $\Omega(x,z)$ (See \cite{ding7} and \cite{lee1}).
\begin{lemma}
Let $r\ge1$. Suppose that $\Omega(x,z)\in L^\infty(\mathbb R^n)\times L^r(S^{n-1})$ satisfies the $L^r$-Dini condition in Section $1$. If there exists a constant $0<\gamma\le 1/2$ such that $|y|<\gamma R$, then for any $x_0\in\mathbb R^n$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\bigg(&\int_{R\le|x|<2R}\big|K(x+x_0,x-y)-K(x+x_0,x)\big|^rdx\bigg)^{1/r}\\
&\le C\cdot R^{-n/{r'}}\bigg(\frac{|y|}{R}+\int_{|y|/{2R}}^{|y|/R}\frac{\omega_r(\delta)}{\delta}d\delta\bigg),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where the constant $C>0$ is independent of $R$ and $y$.
\end{lemma}
We are now in a position to give the proof of Theorem 1.1.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 1.1]
For any given $\lambda>0$, we may choose $k_0\in\mathbb Z$ such that $2^{k_0}\le\lambda<2^{k_0+1}$. For every $f\in WH^p_w(\mathbb R^n)$, then by Theorem 2.2, we can write
\begin{equation*}
f=\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty f_k=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{k_0} f_k+\sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty f_k:=F_1+F_2,
\end{equation*}
where $F_1=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{k_0} f_k=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{k_0}\sum_i b^k_i$, $F_2=\sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty f_k=\sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty\sum_i b^k_i$ and $\{b^k_i\}$ satisfies $(a)$--$(c)$ in Theorem 2.2. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\lambda^p\cdot w\big(\big\{x\in\mathbb R^n:|T_{\Omega}(f)(x)|>\lambda\big\}\big)\\
\le\,&\lambda^p\cdot w\big(\big\{x\in\mathbb R^n:|T_{\Omega}(F_1)(x)|>\lambda/2\big\}\big)+\lambda^p\cdot w\big(\big\{x\in\mathbb R^n:|T_{\Omega}(F_2)(x)|>\lambda/2\big\}\big)\\
=\,&I_1+I_2.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
First we claim that the following inequality holds:
\begin{equation}
\big\|F_1\big\|_{L^2_w}\le C\cdot\lambda^{1-p/2}\big\|f\big\|^{p/2}_{WH^p_w}.
\end{equation}
In fact, since supp\,$b^k_i\subseteq Q^k_i=Q\big(x^k_i,r^k_i\big)$ and $\big\|b^k_i\big\|_{L^\infty}\le C 2^k$ according to Theorem 2.2, then it follows directly from Minkowski's inequality that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\big\|F_1\big\|_{L^2_w}&\le\sum_{k=-\infty}^{k_0}\sum_i\big\|b^k_i\big\|_{L^2_w}\\
&\le\sum_{k=-\infty}^{k_0}\sum_i\big\|b^k_i\big\|_{L^\infty}w\big(Q^k_i\big)^{1/2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
For each $k\in\mathbb Z$, by using the bounded overlapping property of the cubes $\{Q^k_i\}$ and the fact that $1-p/2>0$, we thus obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\big\|F_1\big\|_{L^2_w}&\le C\sum_{k=-\infty}^{k_0}2^k\Big(\sum_i w\big(Q^k_i\big)\Big)^{1/2}\\
&\le C\sum_{k=-\infty}^{k_0}2^{k(1-p/2)}\big\|f\big\|^{p/2}_{WH^p_w}\\
&\le C\sum_{k=-\infty}^{k_0}2^{(k-k_0)(1-p/2)}\cdot\lambda^{1-p/2}\big\|f\big\|^{p/2}_{WH^p_w}\\
&\le C\cdot\lambda^{1-p/2}\big\|f\big\|^{p/2}_{WH^p_w}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Since $w\in A_{p(1+\frac{\alpha}{n})}$ and $p(1+\frac{\alpha}{n})\le1+\frac{\alpha}{n}<2$, then we have $w\in A_2$. In this case, we know that there exists a number $s>1$ such that $w\in RH_s$. More specifically, by using the sharp reverse H\"older's inequality for $A_2$ weights obtained recently in \cite{chung}, we find that for $w\in A_2$,
\begin{equation*}
w\in RH_s \quad \mbox{with}\;\; s=1+\frac{1}{2^{n+5}[w]_{A_2}}.
\end{equation*}
Observe that $\Omega\in\mbox{Din}^{\infty}_\alpha(S^{n-1})$, then we are able to find a positive number $r>1$ large enough such that $r>\max\big\{s',{(2n)}/{(n-\alpha)}\big\}$ and $\Omega\in\mbox{Din}^{r}_\alpha(S^{n-1})$. By the choice of $r$, we can easily check that $2/{r'}>1+\alpha/n\ge p(1+\alpha/n)$, which implies $w\in A_{2/{r'}}$. Hence, by using Theorem B, we know that $T_{\Omega}$ is bounded on $L^{2}_w(\mathbb R^n)$. This fact together with Chebyshev's inequality and (3.1) yields
\begin{align}
I_1&\le \lambda^p\cdot\frac{4}{\lambda^2}\big\|T_{\Omega}(F_1)\big\|^2_{L^2_w}\notag\\
&\le C\cdot\lambda^{p-2}\big\|F_1\big\|^2_{L^2_w}\notag\\
&\le C\big\|f\big\|^{p}_{WH^p_w}.
\end{align}
We now turn our attention to the estimate of $I_2$. Setting
\begin{equation*}
A_{k_0}=\bigcup_{k=k_0+1}^\infty\bigcup_i \widetilde{Q^k_i},
\end{equation*}
where $\widetilde{Q^k_i}=Q\big(x^k_i,\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}(2\sqrt n)r^k_i\big)$ and $\tau$ is a fixed positive number such that $1<\tau<2$. Thus, we can further decompose $I_2$ as
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
I_2&\le\lambda^p\cdot w\big(\big\{x\in A_{k_0}:|T_{\Omega}(F_2)(x)|>\lambda/2\big\}\big)+
\lambda^p\cdot w\big(\big\{x\in (A_{k_0})^c:|T_{\Omega}(F_2)(x)|>\lambda/2\big\}\big)\\
&=I'_2+I''_2.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Let us first deal with the term $I'_2$. Since $w\in A_{p(1+\frac{\alpha}{n})}$, then by Lemma 2.1, we can deduce that
\begin{align}
I'_2&\le\lambda^p\sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty\sum_i w\big(\widetilde{Q^k_i}\big)\notag\\
&\le C\cdot\lambda^p\sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty\tau^{(k-k_0)p}\sum_i w\big(Q^k_i\big)\notag\\
&\le C\big\|f\big\|^{p}_{WH^p_w}\sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty\Big(\frac{\tau}{2}\Big)^{(k-k_0)p}\notag\\
&\le C\big\|f\big\|^{p}_{WH^p_w}.
\end{align}
On the other hand, it follows immediately from Chebyshev's inequality that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
I''_2&\le 2^p\int_{(A_{k_0})^c}\big|T_{\Omega}(F_2)(x)\big|^pw(x)\,dx\\
&\le 2^p
\sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty\sum_i\int_{\big(\widetilde{Q^k_i}\big)^c}\big|T_{\Omega}\big(b^k_i\big)(x)\big|^pw(x)\,dx\\
&= 2^p
\sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty\sum_i J^k_i.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Now denote $\tau^k_{i,\ell}=2^{\ell-1}\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}\sqrt{n}r^k_i$, $\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell}}=Q\big(x^k_i,\tau^k_{i,\ell}\big)$ and
$$E^k_{i,\ell}=\big\{x\in\mathbb R^n:\tau^k_{i,\ell}\le|x-x^k_i|<2\tau^k_{i,\ell}\big\},\quad \ell=1,2,\ldots.$$
An application of H\"older's inequality gives us that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
J^k_i&\le\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty\int_{E^k_{i,\ell}}\big|T_{\Omega}\big(b^k_i\big)(x)\big|^pw(x)\,dx\\
&\le\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty\bigg(\int_{E^k_{i,\ell}}w(x)\,dx\bigg)^{1-p}
\bigg(\int_{E^k_{i,\ell}}\big|T_{\Omega}\big(b^k_i\big)(x)\big|w(x)\,dx\bigg)^p.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Let $q=p(1+\frac{\alpha}{n})$ for simplicity. Then for any $n/{(n+\alpha)}<p\le1$ and $w\in A_q$ with $q>1$, we can easily see that $[n(q_w/p-1)]=0$. Hence, by the cancellation condition of $b^k_i\in L^\infty(\mathbb R^n)$, we get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\int_{E^k_{i,\ell}}\big|T_{\Omega}\big(b^k_i\big)(x)\big|w(x)\,dx
&=\int_{E^k_{i,\ell}}\left|\int_{Q^k_i}\Big[K\big(x,x-y\big)-K\big(x,x-x^k_i\big)\Big]b^k_i(y)\,dy\right|w(x)\,dx\\
&\le\int_{Q^k_i}\bigg\{\int_{E^k_{i,\ell}}\Big|K\big(x,x-y\big)-K\big(x,x-x^k_i\big)\Big|w(x)\,dx\bigg\}
\big|b^k_i(y)\big|\,dy\\
&\le\big\|b^k_i\big\|_{L^\infty}\big|Q^k_i\big|
\bigg(\int_{E^k_{i,\ell}}\Big|K\big(x,x-y\big)-K\big(x,x-x^k_i\big)\Big|w(x)\,dx\bigg).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
When $y\in Q^k_i$ and $x\in\big(\widetilde{Q^k_i}\big)^c$, then a trivial computation shows that
\begin{equation}
\big|x-x^k_i\big|\ge\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}\sqrt{n} r^k_i>\sqrt{n} r^k_i\ge 2\big|y-x^k_i\big|.
\end{equation}
We also observe that $w\in RH_s$ and $r>s'$, then $w\in RH_{r'}$. Using H\"older's inequality, the estimate (3.4) and Lemma 3.1, we can see that for any $y\in Q^k_i$, the integral of the above expression is dominated by
\begin{align}
&\bigg(\int_{E^k_{i,\ell}}\Big|K\big(x,x-y\big)-K\big(x,x-x^k_i\big)\Big|^r\,dx\bigg)^{1/r}
\bigg(\int_{E^k_{i,\ell}}w(x)^{r'}\,dx\bigg)^{1/{r'}}\notag\\
\le\, &C\cdot\frac{w\big(\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell+1}}\big)}{\big|\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell+1}}\big|^{1/r}}
\left(\int_{\tau^k_{i,\ell}\le|x|<2\tau^k_{i,\ell}}\Big|K\big(x+x^k_i,x-(y-x^k_i)\big)
-K\big(x+x^k_i,x\big)\Big|^r\,dx\right)^{1/r}\notag\\
\le\, &C\cdot\frac{w\big(\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell+1}}\big)}{\big|\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell+1}}\big|^{1/r}}
\cdot\Big(\tau^k_{i,\ell}\Big)^{-n/{r'}}
\left(\frac{|y-x^k_i|}{\tau^k_{i,\ell}}+
\int_{|y-x^k_i|/{2\tau^k_{i,\ell}}}^{|y-x^k_i|/{\tau^k_{i,\ell}}}\frac{\omega_r(\delta)}{\delta}\,d\delta\right)
\notag\\
\le\, &C\cdot\frac{w\big(\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell+1}}\big)}{\big|\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell+1}}\big|^{1/r}}
\cdot\Big(\tau^k_{i,\ell}\Big)^{-n/{r'}}
\left(\frac{|y-x^k_i|}{\tau^k_{i,\ell}}+\frac{|y-x^k_i|^\alpha}{(\tau^k_{i,\ell})^\alpha}\times
\int_{|y-x^k_i|/{2\tau^k_{i,\ell}}}^{|y-x^k_i|/{\tau^k_{i,\ell}}}
\frac{\omega_r(\delta)}{\delta^{1+\alpha}}\,d\delta\right)
\notag\\
\le\, & C\cdot\frac{w\big(\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell+1}}\big)}{\big|\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell+1}}\big|}
\cdot\left(\frac{1}{2^{\ell}\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}}+
\Big[\frac{1}{2^{\ell}\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}}\Big]^\alpha
\int_{0}^{1}\frac{\omega_r(\delta)}{\delta^{1+\alpha}}\,d\delta\right)
\notag\\
\le\, & C\cdot\left(1+\int_{0}^{1}\frac{\omega_r(\delta)}{\delta^{1+\alpha}}\,d\delta\right)
\cdot\frac{w\big(\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell+1}}\big)}{\big|\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell+1}}\big|}
\left(\frac{1}{2^{\ell}\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}}\right)^\alpha.
\end{align}
Recall that $\big\|b^k_i\big\|_{L^\infty}\le C 2^k$. From the above estimate (3.5), it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
J^k_i&\le C\cdot2^{kp}\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty w\Big(\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell+1}}\Big)
\bigg(\frac{|Q^k_i|}{\big|\widetilde{Q^k_{i,\ell+1}}\big|}\bigg)^p
\left(\frac{1}{2^{\ell}\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}}\right)^{\alpha p}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
In addition, for $w\in A_q$ with $q>1$, then we can take a sufficiently small number $\varepsilon>0$ such that $w\in A_{q-\varepsilon}$. Thus, by using Lemma 2.1 again, we finally obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
J^k_i&\le C\cdot2^{kp}w\big(Q^k_i\big)\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty
\left(2^{\ell}\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}\sqrt n\right)^{n(q-\varepsilon)-np}
\left(\frac{1}{2^{\ell}\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}}\right)^{\alpha p}\\
&\le C\cdot2^{kp}w\big(Q^k_i\big)\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty
\left(2^{\ell}\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}\right)^{-n\varepsilon}\\
&\le C\cdot2^{kp}w\big(Q^k_i\big)\left(\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}\right)^{-n\varepsilon}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Therefore
\begin{align}
I''_2&\le C\sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty\sum_i2^{kp}\Big(\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}\Big)^{-n\varepsilon}w\big(Q^k_i\big)\notag\\
&\le C\big\|f\big\|^{p}_{WH^p_w}\sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty\Big(\tau^{{(k-k_0)}/{(n+\alpha)}}\Big)^{-n\varepsilon}\notag\\
&\le C\big\|f\big\|^{p}_{WH^p_w}.
\end{align}
Combining the above inequality (3.6) with (3.2) and (3.3), and then taking the supremum over all $\lambda>0$, we conclude the proof of Theorem 1.1.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The author would like to thank Professor J. Duoandikoetxea for pointing out the reference \cite{rubio}.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Anderson model, introduced about 50 years ago \cite{Anderson:LocAnderson:PR58},
is the simplest model describing the effects of disorder in a quantum
system in a relatively realistic way. It has however been recognized
rather early that the model probably relied on too strong simplifications
to match the actual behavior of electrons in a crystal: The Anderson
model is a one-particle model at zero temperature. Moreover, the difficulty
of experimental investigations in condensed matter systems \cite{Ramakrishnan:DisorderElectrons:RMP85}
prompted a search for other systems where such effects could be observed
in more favorable conditions, leading to studies of the localization
of electromagnetic waves \cite{Wiersma:LightLoc:N97,Maret:AndersonTransLight:PRL06}
and sound waves \cite{vanTiggelen:AndersonSound:NP08,vanTiggelen:Multifrac:PRL09},
where particle interactions are obviously absent. A breakthrough has
been recently realized by using laser-cooled atoms \cite{Chabe:Anderson:PRL08,Aspect:AndersonBEC:N08,Inguscio:AndersonBEC:N08,Kondov:ThreeDimensionalAnderson:S11,Aspect:Anderson3D:arXiv11,Lignier:Reversibility:PRL05},
a development inscribed in a more general trend of studying many-body
systems with ultracold atoms in optical lattices \cite{Bloch:ManyBodyUltracold:RMP08}.
One of the long-standing questions concerning the Anderson model is
the effect of particle-particle interactions. It was conjectured that
the electron-electron coulomb repulsion would suppress localization.
Including such effects in the model, however, implies going from a
{}``simple'' one-particle picture to a very complex many-body description.
The problem of interactions is very rich in disordered ultracold atomic
systems: For such systems, the interaction strength can be driven
from repulsive to attractive, \emph{via} the so-called Feshbach resonances
\cite{Chin:Feshbach:RMP10}. Moreover, by choosing the atomic species,
the quantum statistics can also be changed from Fermi-Dirac to Bose-Einstein
(see, e.g., \cite{SanchezPalencia:DisorderQGases:NP10} and references
therein). One can conjecture, for example, that attractive interactions
shall \emph{increase} localization in a cold Bose gas, but not in
a Fermi gas. All possible combinations of the sign of interactions
and quantum statistics can be similarly considered~\cite{Crepin:DisorderedOneDimensionalBoseFermi:PRL10}.
Mean-field theories, which simplify considerably the many-body problem,
were generally considered to give a rather poor description of the
electronic many-body problem in a crystal \cite{FetterWalecka:ManyBody:2003}.
However, it became clear in recent years that these theories give,
on the contrary, a very satisfactory description of ultracold Bose
gases with (weak) interactions in a variety of situations \cite{Bloch:ManyBodyUltracold:RMP08}.
This puts into evidence the interest of studying cold atoms in the
presence of disorder.
The first experimental result in this new field was the observation
of {}``dynamical localization'', a manifestation of the Anderson
localization in the momentum space, by Raizen and co-workers, in 1994
\cite{Raizen:LDynFirst:PRL94}. Anderson localization of bosons in
1D \cite{Aspect:AndersonBEC:N08} and 1D localization in the Aubry-Andr\'e
model \cite{Inguscio:AndersonBEC:N08}, have also been observed experimentally,
and, recently, observations of the 3D localization of fermions \cite{Kondov:ThreeDimensionalAnderson:S11}
and bosons \cite{Aspect:Anderson3D:arXiv11} were claimed. The effect
of interactions is also being studied experimentally \cite{Inguscio:AubryAndreInteractions:NP10,Inguscio:InteracBosons:NJP11,Inguscio:SubdiffusionInteract:PRL11}.
Finally, the Anderson metal-insulator transition is being actively
studied with a cold atom {}``quantum simulator'' of the 3D Anderson
model \cite{Casati:IncommFreqsQKR:PRL89}, including, the experimental
determination of its critical exponent \cite{Chabe:Anderson:PRL08,Lemarie:AndersonLong:PRA09,Lopez:ExperimentalTestUniversality:arXiv11}
and the study of its critical state \cite{Lemarie:CriticalStateAndersonTransition:PRL10}.
\section{Frame and scope\label{sec:Frame-and-scope}}
We start by considering the tight-binding description of an one-dimensional
(ordered) lattice of period $d$ obtained by projecting the eigenstates
of the spatially periodic Hamiltonian on a basis of localized functions,
usually Wannier functions $w_{n}(x)$, associated with each site $n$:
\begin{equation}
\psi_{\varepsilon}(x)=\sum_{n}c_{n}w_{n}(x),\label{eq:WannierDecomposition}\end{equation}
which produces a discretized eigenvalue problem\[
V_{n}c_{n}+\sum_{r\neq0}T_{r}c_{n+r}=\varepsilon c_{n}.\]
We use here the (usual) symmetric first-neighbors approximation $T_{r}=-T\delta_{r,\pm1}$
and, as usual, rescale time such that $t\rightarrow\hbar t/T$ (and
energies correspondingly: $E=\varepsilon/T$) in order to obtain the
tight-binding equation:\begin{equation}
v_{n}c_{n}-c_{n-1}-c_{n+1}=Ec_{n}.\label{eq:Htb}\end{equation}
If all sites have the same diagonal energy, one can redefine the energy
origin so that $v_{n}\equiv0$, then \cite{Luck:SystDesord:92,AshkroftMermin:SolidStatePhys:76}:
\begin{eqnarray}
E(q) & = & -2\cos q\label{eq:BandTB}\\
\rho(q) & = & 1/\pi\label{eq:DensityTB}\end{eqnarray}
where $q$ is the quasimomentum, $E(q)$ are the energies on the first
band, $\rho$ is the density of states. The eigenfunctions $\psi_{q}(x)$
are delocalized Bloch waves of quasimomentum $q\in\left[0,\pi\right]$.
The Anderson model postulates that the main effect of crystalline
disorder is to randomize the $v_{n}$ in eq.~(\ref{eq:Htb}) in an
interval $\left[-W/2,W/2\right]$, an approximation known as {}``diagonal
disorder''. The introduction of disorder\textcolor{green}{{} }redistributes
the eigenenergies between the values $-2-W/2$ and $2+W/2$ and, more
importantly, produces a \emph{localization} of the corresponding eigenfunctions
\footnote{In one dimension, \emph{all} eigenfunctions are localized, whatever
the disorder $W$
}. We shall index the eigenfunctions by $\nu=q-\pi/2$ so that $\nu=0$
is at the center $q=\pi/2$ of the energy band. The shape of a given
eigenfunction depends on $E_{\nu}$ and on the realization $\{v_{n}\}$
of the disorder, but if one averages the eigenfunctions in a given
energy interval $[E,E+\Delta E]$ over many realizations of the disorder
one finds an exponential shape\[
\overline{\psi_{\nu}}(n)\sim\exp\left(-\frac{\left|n-n_{\nu}\right|}{\ell_{\nu}(W)}\right)\]
(we use overbars to indicate averages over realizations of the disorder)
where $\ell_{\nu}(W)$ is the \emph{localization length}. In the 1D
case and in the limit of weak disorder one can show that \cite{Luck:SystDesord:92}\begin{equation}
\ell_{\nu}(W)\approx\frac{96}{W^{2}}\cos^{2}\nu,\label{eq:LocalizationLenAnderson}\end{equation}
which vanishes at the borders of the band and has its maximum value
$\ell_{0}\sim96W^{-2}$ at the center of the band. This localization
can be interpreted by noting that, in the absence of disorder, all
sites have identical energies, so the particle can tunnel from a site
to the next one, generating a diffusive motion which leads, asymptotically,
to a complete delocalization in the lattice. In the presence of diagonal
disorder, however, it is unlikely that neighbor sites have close enough
energies, so that in general, the particle can only perform \emph{virtual}
transition to neighbor sites, which leads to a localized exponential
spreading of the eigenfunction.
We take into account interactions by using a mean-field approximation.
The decomposition eq.~(\ref{eq:WannierDecomposition}) is used to
transform
\footnote{In order to do so one generalizes the first-neighbors approximation
by supposing that $\int dxw_{n}^{3}(x)w_{n\pm1}(x)\ll\int dxw_{n}^{4}(x)$
and keeps only the {}``diagonal'' nonlinear term
} the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (or nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation)
in a discrete nonlinear set of equations\begin{equation}
i\dot{c}_{n}=v_{n}c_{n}-c_{n-1}-c_{n+1}+g\left|c_{n}\right|^{2}c_{n}\label{eq:DANSE}\end{equation}
where $g$ is the parameter characterizing atom-atom interactions,
proportional to the $s$-wave diffusion length \cite{Stringari:BECRevTh:RMP99,PethickSmith:BoseEinstein:08}.
Disorder is introduced by randomizing $v_{n}$, as before. This model
is occasionally named DANSE (Discrete Anderson Nonlinear Schr\"odinger
Equation). As we use mean-field theory throughout this work, we shall
use the terms {}``interaction'' and {}``nonlinearity'' interchangeably.
The main question in the problem of interacting disordered systems
is, will interactions destroy localization? The DANSE model has been
used, e.g. by Pikovskii and Shepelyansky \cite{Shepelyansky:DisorderNonlin:PRL08},
to investigate this question. They observed numerically a revival
of diffusion, leading, at very long times ($\sim10^{7}$), to a $\left\langle x^{2}\right\rangle \sim t^{\alpha}$
sub-diffusive behavior with $\alpha\approx0.3$. Other works also
tackled this problem, with somewhat contradictory results. For example,
in~\cite{FlachAubry:DisorderNonlin:PRL08}, the use of the so-called
{}``participation number'' $\left(\sum_{n}\left|c_{n}\right|^{4}\right)^{-1}$
(instead of $\left\langle x^{2}\right\rangle $) as the quantity characterizing
diffusion, lead to the conclusion that localization survives even
in presence of a moderate nonlinearity, but subsequent studies \cite{Flach:DisorderNonlin:PRL09,Flach:DisorderNonlineChaos:EPL10}
confirmed the existence of a subdiffusive dynamics, with an exponent
$\alpha$ that typically depends on the initial state. Experimental
evidence of subdiffusion in the Aubry-Andr\'e model has also been observed
recently \cite{Inguscio:SubdiffusionInteract:PRL11}.
One can formally write the ``diagona''l part of eq.~(\ref{eq:DANSE})
as $\left(v_{n}+g\left|c_{n}\right|^{2}\right)c_{n}$, which allows
us to interpret the nonlinear term $v_{n}^{NL}\equiv g\left|c_{n}\right|^{2}$
as a {}``correction'' (depending on the site population) to the
energy of site $n$
\footnote{Note that $\left\langle v_{n}^{NL}\right\rangle \approx\mu,$ where
$\mu$ is the chemical potential
}. This heuristic picture, although not rigorous, is often useful in
interpreting the behavior of the system.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig1a}\quad{}\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig1b}\quad{}\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig1c}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:Lossesvsg}Survival probability $p(g,t=10^{5})$ as a function
of the nonlinear parameter $g$ for different values of the width
$L_{0}$ of the initial state and disorder (a) $W=2$, (b) $W=3$,
(c) $W=4$. Three regimes can be identified: Quasi-localized for low
$g$; chaotic evolution with destruction of the localization for intermediate
values of $g$; and self-trapping for high $g$. The nonlinearity
destroys the localization almost completely in the chaotic regime,
and self-trapping is more efficient, as expected, for smaller values
of the initial state width $L_{0}$. For low disorder and small initial
state width the localization due to self-trapping becomes much more
efficient than the Anderson localization. Results are averaged typically
over 1000 realizations of the disorder and of the initial phase distribution.
Values of $L_{0}$: 3 (blue squares), 7 (green triangles), 13 (red
diamonds), 21 (cyan stars), 31 (magenta circles), 41 (yellow inverted
triangles).}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fig2a}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fig2b}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:pvst_gneq0}Comparison between numerical simulations (symbols)
of $p(g,t)$ and the fit (solid lines) by eq.~(\ref{eq:p(g,t)})
for $L_{0}=31$ and (a) $g=1$, (b) $g=100$. Values of $W$: 1 (blue
squares), 2 (green triangles) and 3 (red diamonds).}
\end{figure}
Mathematically, much is known about eq.~(\ref{eq:DANSE}) in the
absence of disorder, in different contexts~(see e.g.~\cite{SulemSulem:NonlinSchroedingerEq:99}):
As a special case of the Ginsburg-Landau equation \cite{Annett:SupercondSuperfluidConds:04}
it can describe some aspects of superfluidity, and, in optics, it
describes the Kerr effect in a multimode system~\cite{Yariv:OptElectron:91}.
Two nonlinear effects play a particularly important role in our study.
The first one is the called \emph{self-trapping}, which manifests
itself when a given site $n$ has a much larger population than its
neighbors. In such case, the correction $v_{n}^{NL}$ decouples it
from its neighbors (much as the disorder itself does), thus inhibiting
diffusion. The second effect is the existence of chaotic behaviors
(in a classical sense -- that is, chaos related to sensitivity to
initial conditions), due to the presence of nonlinearity \cite{Thommen:ChaosBEC:PRL03,Smerzi:InstabilityBEC:PRL04,Inguscio:InstabilityBEC:PRL04}.
The chaotic evolution of the amplitudes $c_{n}$ may generate strong
variations of the nonlinear correction $v_{n}^{NL}$, eventually bringing,
even if only for a short time, neighbor sites close to degeneracy,
thus favoring diffusion. In the presence of both disorder and interactions,
different regimes are possible: Localization is expected to survive
(or at least be destroyed only at very long times) if interactions
are weak enough compared to disorder, diffusion (or subdiffusion)
induced by the chaotic evolution is expected if these two effects
are of the same order of magnitude, and self-trapping is expected
to dominate, inhibiting diffusion, in the regime of strong interactions.
These regimes have indeed been observed numerically~\cite{Flach:DisorderNonlineChaos:EPL10,Flach:DisorderNonlin:PRL09}.
It can be tempting to classify these regimes by comparing $v_{n}^{NL}$
to $W$, but one must not forget that, as $v_{n}^{NL}$ depends on
$c_{n}(t)$, the dynamics \emph{depends on the particular trajectory
of the system in the $c_{n}$ space}. Such a classification scheme
is thus useless to define {}``phases'' of the system.
This is an important and - from the point of view of the familiar
\emph{linear} quantum systems -- unusual characteristic of nonlinear
systems: The initial state plays a very important role (much more
than in linear systems) in determining the dynamics. For example,
if one takes, as in \cite{Shepelyansky:DisorderNonlin:PRL08}, an
initial condition $c_{n}(t=0)=\delta_{n0}$, one strongly favors self-trapping,
and thus reduced diffusion. A choice like $c_{n}=1/\sqrt{N}$ for
$|n|<N/2$ favors, for moderate values of $N$, chaotic dynamics,
and thus diffusion. The main goal of the present work is to study
the impact of initial conditions in the dynamics of the DANSE model.
We shall show that this generally forbids a general classification
of the dynamics in the parameter plane $g,W$. In the frame of a simplified
model, introduced in sec.~\ref{sec:The-model}, we shall however
show that one can define an {}``effective wavepacket length'' obeying
scaling laws \emph{with respect to the extent of the initial state}
(sec.~\ref{sec:ScalingLaws}). This allows us to define a generalized
nonlinearity parameter, depending on the initial state, which leads
to a more satisfactory classification of the dynamical behavior in
the weak disorder limit. Finally, we discuss in sec.~\ref{sec:OtherEffects}
the impact of some important neglected effects on our results.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig3a}\quad{}\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig3b}\quad{}\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig3c}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:leffvsg}Effective localization length as a function of
the nonlinearity $g$, for (a) $W=2$, (b) $W=3$ and (c) $W=4$ and
various values of the width $L_{0}$ of the initial state. Note that
for $g\rightarrow0$ we retrieve the linear localization length $\ell_{0}\approx96W^{-2}$
in the weak disorder limit $W\le3$. Same graphic conventions as in
fig.~\ref{fig:Lossesvsg}.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fig4a}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fig4b}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:t2vsg}Activation time $t_{2}$ as a function of the nonlinearity
$g$ for (a) $W=2$ and (b) $W=4$ and various values of the width
$L_{0}$ of the initial state. Same graphic conventions as fig.~\ref{fig:Lossesvsg}.}
\end{figure}
\section{The model\label{sec:The-model}}
The search for asymptotic behaviors of the type $\left\langle x^{2}\right\rangle \sim t^{\alpha}$
in the DANSE model implies describing the system by an array whose
size increases with the evolution, the number of elements typically
increasing as $t^{\alpha/2}$. This is not our aim here: If one starts
with an initial state localized in a relatively small region, the
restoration of (sub-)diffusive dynamics by the nonlinearity should
be apparent on the fact that parts of the wavepacket must continuously
{}``escape'' the initial region. We thus study a disordered lattice
in a box $\mathrm{L}$ containing $L\sim100$ sites, starting from
an initial state of width $L_{0}$. At the frontiers $x=\pm L/2$
of this box we place {}``absorbers'' by adding an imaginary part
$-i\eta_{a}$ to the potential, which increases exponentially over
a distance $L_{a}\sim10$, in order to prevent reflection of the parts
of the wavepacket approaching the limits of the box.
We are interested here in the effect of the spatial extension of the
initial wavepacket. In order to simplify the problem, we use a initial
wavepacket of square shape and width $L_{0}$:\begin{equation}
\left|c_{n}(0)\right|=\begin{cases}
\left(L_{0}\right)^{-1/2} & |n|\le\left(L_{0}-1\right)/2\\
0 & \mathrm{otherwise.}\end{cases}\label{eq:InitialState}\end{equation}
We prevent dominant quantum interference effects by setting random
phases to the $c_{n}$. We shall consider in sec.~\ref{sec:OtherEffects}
the effect of non-random quantum phases.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig5a}\quad{}\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig5b}\quad{}\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig5c}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:Scalinglaw}Scaling law. The same data of fig.~\ref{fig:leffvsg}
is plotted in terms of the scaled quantities $\widetilde{g}=gL_{0}^{-3/4}$
and $\widetilde{\ell}=\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}L_{0}^{-3/4}$ for (a) $W=2$,
(b) $W=3$ and (c) $W=4$. A clear grouping of the curves in the nonlinear
region is observed. Same graphic conventions as fig.~\ref{fig:Lossesvsg}.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[clip,width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig6a}\includegraphics[clip,width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig6b}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:leffvsgtildeW} False colors plot of the scaled effective
wavepacket length $\tilde{\ell}$ as a function of the scaled nonlinearity
$\tilde{g}$ and of the disorder $W$ for (a) $L_{0}=21$ and (b)
$L_{0}=41$. The structure of the parameter space is very similar
for the two values of the initial state width.}
\end{figure*}
The part of the wavepacket that, at time $t$, has remained in the
box $\mathrm{L}$ (that we shall call the {}``survival probability'')
is given by\[
p(g,t)=\sum_{n=-(L-1)/2}^{(L-1)/2}\left|c_{n}(t)\right|^{2}.\]
We display in fig.~\ref{fig:Lossesvsg} $p(g,t)$ calculated at $t=10^{5}$
as a function of the nonlinearity $g$ for various sizes of the initial
state $L_{0}$, for a disorder amplitude $W=2$ (part (a) of fig.~\ref{fig:Lossesvsg}),
$W=3$ (b) and $W=4$ (c). The numerical integration is done by the
Crank-Nicholson method~\cite{NumRec:07}.\textcolor{blue}{{} }The probability
density $|c_{n}|^{2}$ is averaged over\textcolor{green}{{} }typically
1000 realizations of disorder $\{v_{n}\}$ and of the initial phases
$\arg[c_{n}(0)]$. Note that one has $p(g\rightarrow0,t=10^{5})<1$,
due to the fact that the initial state typically projects onto an
ensemble of localized eigenstates with localization lengths given
by eq.~(\ref{eq:LocalizationLenAnderson}). Some of these eigenstates
have localization lengths large enough to {}``touch'' the borders
of the box $\mathrm{L}$, so that the projection itself leads to losses.
One can see by comparing the three plots of fig.~\ref{fig:Lossesvsg}
that these losses decrease with the disorder $W$, and are independent
of $L_{0}$, as expected for the linear regime.
From fig.~\ref{fig:Lossesvsg} one can identify three main dynamical
regimes for increasing nonlinearity parameter $g$: i) A {}``quasi-localized''
dynamical regime in which localization is only weakly perturbed by
the nonlinearity; ii) a dynamical regime in which localization is
destroyed by the chaotic dynamics
\footnote{The study of the site population dynamics, which displays in such
case continuous spectrum, confirms the presence of a chaotic behavior
}, the diffusion is reestablished and the losses increase notably;
iii) self-trapping regime in which diffusion (thus losses) is inhibited
again. It is interesting to note that, for concentrated initial states
$L_{0}\lesssim20$ and weak disorder, self-trapping can be much more
efficient than localization in suppressing diffusion. These dynamical
regimes correspond to those studied e.g. in Laptyeva \emph{et al.}.~\cite{Flach:DisorderNonlineChaos:EPL10}
by considering the long-term behavior of $\left\langle x^{2}\right\rangle $.
Fig.~\ref{fig:Lossesvsg} shows that the crossover between these
regimes strongly depends on the width of the initial state.
In the absence of nonlinearity, the initial state evolves until it
takes an exponentially localized shape of width $\sim\ell_{0}$ and
then {}``freezes''. In the presence of the nonlinearity, one observes
a global enlarging of the wavefunction, which results in a increasing
absorption at the borders of the box $\mathrm{L}$. In the weak disorder
limit we can construct an analytic model for these losses, starting
from the properties of the linear ($g=0$) system. This model, discussed
in appendix~\ref{app:Pnu}, produces an analytical expression describing
the asymptotic behavior of the survival probability $p(g=0,t)$, eq.~(\ref{eq:p(t)asympt}).
Remarkably, a small modification of this expression furnishes also
a function describing the asymptotic behavior \emph{in the nonlinear
case}, for values of $g$ as large as $10^{3}$. This expression is
\begin{widetext}\begin{equation}
p(g,t)=\frac{2}{\pi}\sin^{-1}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2\ell_{a}}{\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}\log(t/t_{2})+2\ell_{a}}}\right)\qquad(t\gg t_{2}),\label{eq:p(g,t)}\end{equation}
\end{widetext}where $\ell_{a}$ is given by eq.~(\ref{eq:la}),
depending on the geometry and on the localization length $\ell_{0}(W)$,
and $\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $t_{2}$ fitting parameters. With respect
to eq.~(\ref{eq:p(t)asympt}) of app.~\ref{app:Pnu} we simply replaced
$\ell_{0}$ by an {}``effective wavepacket length'' $\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}$
which is the second fitting parameter of our model. Fig.~\ref{fig:pvst_gneq0}
shows that the \emph{asymptotic} behavior of the survival probability
is very well fitted by this formula. The quantity $\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}$
plays a major role in the present work, as it can globally characterize
the wavepacket shape. We attribute this somewhat astonishing property
of our model to the fact that, even in presence of the nonlinearity,
the wavepacket displays exponential wings in the asymptotic regime,
as in can be verified numerically.
We display in fig.~\ref{fig:leffvsg} the behavior of the effective
wavepacket length $\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}$ as a function of the nonlinearity,
for disorder parameters $W=1$ {[}plot (a){]}, $W=2$ {[}plot (b){]}, and $W=3$ {[}plot (c){]}
and for various values of the initial state width $L_{0}$. One clearly
identifies the regions corresponding to the three dynamical regimes
discussed above: Quasi-localized regime, characterized by a constant
value of $\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}$, independent of $g$ and $L_{0}$;
chaotic regime, characterized by a marked increasing of $\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}$
with $g$ and strongly dependent on $L_{0}$; and self-trapping regime,
in which $\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}$ decreases again and can even become
smaller than the Anderson localization length $\ell_{0}$, and which
is also dependent on $L_{0}$. Fig.~\ref{fig:t2vsg} shows the behavior
of the {}``activation time'' $t_{2}$ (see App.~\ref{app:Pnu})
for the same set of states and parameters as fig.~\ref{fig:leffvsg}.
This time roughly corresponds the time for the wavepacket to {}``touch''
the border of the box $\mathrm{L}$, when losses become important.
In the quasilocalized regime $t_{2}$ is thus very high. The onset
of the chaotic behavior, favoring diffusion, produces a dramatic decrease
of $t_{2}$ which becomes virtually zero (that is, losses began almost
instantaneously). Self-trapping, inhibiting diffusion, produces an
increase of $t_{2}$. The same three dynamical regimes can hence be
observed also in the behavior of $t_{2}$. This fit parameter, although
necessary to obtain a good agreement with numerical simulation, thus
carries essentially the same information as $\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}$.
For $g\rightarrow\infty$, one expects the wave packet to evolve very
little due to {}``immediate'' self-trapping, that is, its asymptotic
width should be proportional $L_{0}$. In fig.~\ref{fig:leffvsg},
$\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}$ clearly has not attained this large $g$ regime,
but we observed numerically that even for moderate values of $g\sim300$
it is roughly proportional to $L_{0}$: $\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}(g=300)\approx0.25L_{0}$
for $W$ ranging from 2 to 4.
\section{Scaling laws\label{sec:ScalingLaws}}
The curves in fig.~\ref{fig:leffvsg} suggest the existence of scaling
laws. In fig.~\ref{fig:Scalinglaw} we show a plot of the quantity
$\widetilde{\ell}\equiv\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}L_{0}^{-3/4}$ as a function
of the scaled nonlinearity defined by\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{g} & \equiv & gL_{0}^{-3/4}\label{eq:g-tilda}\end{eqnarray}
using the same data of fig.~\ref{fig:leffvsg}. One observes, at
least for the $\widetilde{g}>1$, a clear grouping of the curves,
which indicates that the scaling applies essentially to the nonlinear
part of the behavior, as intuitively expected: Indeed, as $\ell_{\mathrm{eff}}(g=0)\rightarrow\ell_{0}$,
$\tilde{\ell}(g=0)\sim96W^{-2}L_{0}^{-3/4}$ which \emph{is dependent
of} $L_{0}$; this fact simply means that Anderson localization is
not controlled by $g$. On the nonlinearity-dominated region, however,
one\textcolor{green}{{} }would (naively) expect the nonlinear effects
to scale as $\left\langle v_{n}^{NL}\right\rangle \sim gL_{0}^{-1}$
for an initial state uniformly populating $L_{0}$ states. Presently,
we have no convincing explanation for the additional $L_{0}^{1/4}$
factor. We note that the scaling is not perfect for the small values
of $L_{0}$, for which the self-trapping is effective even for low
values of $g$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:Scalinglaw} shows that the scaling allows us to define
crossovers between the three dynamical regimes\emph{ }which\emph{
do not depend on} \emph{$L_{0}$}. This is confirmed in fig.~\ref{fig:leffvsgtildeW},
in which we plotted in false-colors the scaled effective wavepacket
length $\tilde{\ell}$ in the parameter plane $\tilde{g},W$ for $L_{0}=21$
{[}plot (a){]} and for $L_{0}=41$ {[}plot (b){]}. Despite of the
factor 2 in the width of the initial state, the two plots are almost
identical. The crossover between the quasi-localized regime and the
chaotic regime is found to be around $\tilde{g}_{c}\approx0.1$ and
the crossover between the chaotic regime and the self-trapping regime
around $\tilde{g}_{st}\approx5$.
The use of these scaled variables thus allows us to characterize the
nonlinear dynamics independently of the size of the initial state,
which constitutes an important step in the understanding of these
complex dynamics.
\begin{figure}
\centering{}\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fig7}\caption{\label{fig:gaussian}Survival probability at $t=10^{5}$ for a square
initial state (full lines) and a gaussian initial state eq.~(\ref{eq:Gaussian})
(symbols), for $W=1,\: L_{0}=21$ (blue/squares), $W=1,\: L_{0}=41$
(green/triangles), $W=3,\: L_{0}=21$ (red/diamonds) and $W=3,\: L_{0}=41$
(cyan/circles). The dependence on the shape of the initial state is
very small.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fig8}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:IncohvsCoh}Survival probability at $t=10^{5}$ for states
with coherent (empty symbols) and incoherent (full symbols) initial
phases, for $W=2,\, L_{0}=21$ (blue squares) and $W=4,\, L_{0}=21$,
(green triangles). The coherent case presents a marked enhancement
on the transport for $g\approx100$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fig9}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:Sig_g}Effect of the sign of the nonlinearity with $L_{0}=21$
and $W=3$. The curves display the survival probability at $t=10^{5}$
for $g>0$ (blue squares) and $g<0$ (green triangles).}
\end{figure}
\section{Other effects\label{sec:OtherEffects}}
In this section, we consider three potentially significant effects
not taken into account above.
(i) \emph{The shape of the initial state}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:gaussian},
we compared the results discussed above, obtained with the {}``square''
initial state defined by eq.~(\ref{eq:InitialState}) with results
obtained with an initial gaussian state\begin{equation}
|c_{n}(0)|^{2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}e^{-n^{2}/2\sigma^{2}}.\label{eq:Gaussian}\end{equation}
We set $\sigma=\sqrt{(L_{0}-1)(L_{0}+1)/12}$ so that, for a given
$L_{0}$, both square and gaussian initial states have the same second
momentum $\sum n^{2}|c_{n}|^{2}$. We see that the dynamics is independent
of the shape of the initial state to a very good approximation. In
the self-trapping regime, we see that the dynamics depends more on
the size $L_{0}$ than on the shape of the initial state.
(ii) \emph{The effect of the quantum phases of the initial state}.
Our choice of using initial random (incoherent) phases in the initial
state proved useful in allowing us to give a global characterization
of the dynamics. However, a particular coherent combination of $c_{n}$
phases can generate effects of quantum interference with an impact
on the dynamics. This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:IncohvsCoh},
where we compared the dynamics of an initial state of random phases
and an initial state with a constant phase for all $c_{n}$. The latter
one presents a different behavior, with a marked increasing in the
transport for $g\approx100$, which means that chaotic behavior is
highly favored in this case. Our previous result remains however a
valid description of the {}``average'' dynamics.
(iii) \emph{The effect of the sign of the nonlinearity}. In all the
results presented above $g>0$, that is, we have repulsive interactions.
In the limits of our approach, we have seen no significant difference
between attractive and repulsive interactions, see fig.~\ref{fig:Sig_g},
in contrast with some theoretical speculations. This confirms and
generalizes a result obtained in ref.~\cite{Rebuzzini:KRNonlinQuantumRes:PRE05}
in a different context.
Despite the simplifications we made in order to make this problem
tractable, it appears that our conclusions represent very well the
general behavior of the system, independently of most microscopic
parameters. We can thus say that we have characterized the dynamics
in a rather universal way.
\section{Conclusion}
Nonlinear dynamics is, in general, highly sensitive to initial conditions,
and no global characterization of the dynamics can be made unless
one can correctly take into account this dependence. This is particularly
true for the very important system studied in the present work: The
mean-field generalization of the Anderson model, described by the
Gross-Pitaevskii equation. We proposed a quantity providing a global
characterization of the dynamics independent of the size of the initial
state, the scaled effective wavepacket length $\tilde{\ell}$. This
is a first step in the necessary development of a coherent language
describing the effects of nonlinearities in Quantum Mechanics, which
will, most probably, constitute one of the major subjects of atomic
physics in the next years.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors are grateful to D. Delande and V. Zehnl\'e for fruitful
discussions. Laboratoire de Physique des Lasers, Atomes et Mol\'ecules
is UMR 8523 of CNRS. Work partially financed by the Agence Nationale
de la Recherche (MICPAF and LAKRIDI grants).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsubsection*{Note on terminology}
\begin{leftbar}
Some authors prefer alternative terms for jittering, such as ``dithering'' \cite{gerstein,grun09,pazienti07,pazienti08}, ``teetering'' \cite{shmiel05}, or ``artificial jitter'' \cite{rokem}, etc., presumably to distinguish from another use of the word ``jitter'' as the intrinsic temporal variability in individual spikes. For example, in some situations involving highly reliable \cite{billimoria} or simulated or modeled \cite{pazienti07} spike trains, individual spikes can unambiguously be placed in correspondence with one another across trials. In that case, the temporal variability in a spike's timing, under this correspondence, can be quantified directly and is commonly called the ``spike jitter'' \cite{billimoria,tiesinga}. In this paper, we continue to use ``jitter'' in its resampling sense, leaving these two uses of the term to be disambiguated by context.
\end{leftbar}
\subsubsection*{Hypothesis testing and p-values}
The introduction mentions hypothesis testing. Recall that a hypothesis test consists of
\begin{itemize}
\item A null hypothesis, often denoted $H_0$, which is a collection of hypothetical distributions for the data.
\item An alternative hypothesis, often denoted $H_a$ or $H_1$, which is another collection of distributions for the data, disjoint from $H_0$.
\item A critical region or rejection region, say $C$, which is a collection of possible outcomes of the data for which we reject $H_0$ whenever the data is in $C$.
\end{itemize}
We evaluate the performance of a hypothesis test by its error probabilities. For a probability distribution $P\in H_0$, an error (a type I error) is made when the data occurs in the critical region. The probability of a type I error is $P(C)$. For $P\not\in H_0$, including $P\in H_a$, an error (a type II error) is made when the data does not occur in the critical region. The probability of a type II error is $1-P(C)$. The size of a hypothesis test is the maximum error probability for all distributions in $H_0$, i.e., $\max_{P\in H_0} P(C)$. When designing a hypothesis test, one usually tries to keep the size below some prespecified level, say $0.05$. The specification of $H_a$ is useful for choosing among tests whose size does not exceed this level, with the idea being to choose a test that has good power, i.e., low error probabilities, for distributions in $H_a$. Consequently, $H_a$ is important for interpreting a rejection of $H_0$. Note, however, that only $H_0$ is used for quantifying the size of a test. Note also that there may be distributions in neither $H_0$ nor $H_a$, in which case a rejection of $H_0$ is considered the correct decision, even though $H_a$ does not include the data distribution. This is an example of model misspecification and it can lead to erroneous scientific conclusions.
It is common to create a critical region via a test statistic, $T$, which is just a scalar summary of the data, and a critical value, $a$, so that the critical region is the event $C=\{T \geq a\}=\{x:T(x)\geq a\}$ (or some similar set, like $\{T \leq a\}$), where $x$ denotes a dataset. A p-value, say $p$, is a special type of test statistic with the property that a critical region of the form $C=\{p\leq a\}$ always creates a hypothesis test of level $a$, that is, of size $\leq a$, for any $0\leq a\leq 1$. In other words, $P(p\leq a)\leq a$ for all $P\in H_0$. Given an ordinary test statistic $T$ and critical regions of the form $C=\{T\geq a\}$, one can always create a p-value via $p(x) = \max_{P\in H_0} P\bigl(\{x':T(x') \geq T(x)\}\bigr)$, where $x$ and $x'$ denote datasets. P-values are useful for communicating hypothesis tests since each reader can choose his or her desired threshold for maximum probability of type I error. We refer the reader to \cite{lehmann2005testing}, for example, for many more details and examples about hypothesis testing.
\subsubsection*{Poisson processes}
\begin{leftbar}
Poisson processes and their generalizations are the most basic types of point processes. Although jitter methods are applicable for many non-Poisson processes (which is fortunate, since neural spike trains are often poorly approximated by Poisson processes \cite{amarasingham-chen-geman-harrison-sheinberg-poisson,kass-ventura-brown}), we use Poisson processes in many examples because of their simplicity and familiarity.
\end{leftbar}
Imagine partitioning time into extremely fine bins of length $\Delta$. In each bin we (independently) flip a coin with probability $\lambda\Delta$ for heads. Heads means that we observe an event in that time bin. Tails means that we do not. A (homogeneous) Poisson process is the generalization of this procedure for infinitesimally small time bins (that is, holding $\lambda$ fixed and letting $\Delta\to 0$). If the value of $\lambda$ is allowed to vary across time bins, so that we get a function $\lambda(t)$ for infinitesimally small bins, then this is an inhomogeneous Poisson process with intensity (or rate) function $\lambda(t)$. If we first randomly choose the function $\lambda(t)$ itself from some collection of possible functions, then this is a Cox process. We refer the reader to \cite{daley2003introduction}, for example, for details about these and other point process models.
\subsubsection*{Trial-to-trial variability}
\begin{leftbar}
The introduction also mentions ``trial-to-trial variability'' and suggests that trial-to-trial variability may be as much a result of model misspecification as it is a result of non-stationarity in the data. We would like to illustrate this comment with a simple example called ``amplitude variability'' or ``excitability variability'' \cite{brody99b}.
Consider repeated independent trials of a point process. Suppose we generate the data on each trial by first choosing randomly and independently a firing rate, say 50\% of the time the firing rate is 10 Hz and 50\% of the time the firing rate is 20 Hz. Then we generate the spike train as a homogeneous Poisson process with the selected firing rate. On the next trial we randomly choose the rate again from one of the two choices, and then generate the spikes. The resulting process is a Cox process, since each trial is a conditionally Poisson process with a random rate.
Is there ``trial-to-trial variability'' in this example? The answer depends on how we choose to {\em model} the data. If our model class includes Cox processes, then we can view the trials as independent and {\em identically distributed}. There is no non-stationarity, no ``trial-to-trial variability''. Alternatively, if we wanted to model the data as a Poisson process, then the trials cannot be identically distributed, but must have different rates on different trials. The data exhibit ``trial-to-trial variability'' from the point of view of our model class, and we would need to introduce trial-specific parameters to allow the Poisson intensity to change across trials. In this example, ``trial-to-trial variability'' is not an intrinsic feature of the distribution generating the data, but rather appears as a consequence of our modeling assumptions.
Of course, not all trial-to-trial variability results from a misspecified model. If the first 5 trials are almost always 10 Hz and the next 5 are almost always 20 Hz, then the data cannot be both independent and identically distributed (iid) across trials, regardless of the model class. We use the term ``trial-to-trial variability'' rather loosely in the main text. Jitter methods are unaffected by coarse-temporal trial-to-trial variability, regardless of the source.
\end{leftbar}
\section{Spike re-sampling, spike jitter, and conditional inference}
\subsection{Trial shuffles and interval jitter}
\subsubsection*{Permutation tests}
Trial-shuffling corresponds to the statistical concept of a {\em permutation test}. Given a sequence of data $x_1,\dotsc,x_n$, a permutation test is a test of the null hypothesis that there is nothing special about the {\em order} in which we observed $x_1,\dotsc,x_n$. Monte Carlo permutation tests are easy to implement: simply randomly permute the order of the observed data, and do this many times, and check if the observed data looks unusual among the collection of permuted datasets.
There are a variety of interesting null hypotheses that can be tested with a permutation test. For example, suppose that $x_1,\dotsc,x_m$ are iid samples from experimental condition 1 and $x_{m+1},\dotsc,x_n$ are iid samples from experimental condition 2. If there is no difference in conditions, then there is nothing special about the ordering of the $x$'s, so a permutation test can be used to test for differences across conditions.
For another example, suppose that we have iid pairs $(x_1,y_1),\dotsc,(x_n,y_n)$ and we want to test whether $x_i$ and $y_i$ are independent. If they are independent, then the ordering of the $x$'s does not matter, regardless of the ordering of the $y$'s. So a permutation test can be used to test independence. If $x_i$ and $y_i$ are simultaneously recorded spike trains, then this permutation test is the basis for ``shuffle correction'' in cross-correlation analysis. In the text below we refer to trial shuffling as testing independence, but note that it is also testing that the trials are iid.
\subsubsection*{Figure 1}
{\em Data generation.} On trial $k$, we first generate $\mu_{1,k},\dotsc,\mu_{40,k}$ iid uniform$(0,1)$. Then we create the nonnegative function
\[ f_k(t) = \left(10 + \sum_{j=1}^{40} \sum_{\ell=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2\sigma/\sqrt{2}}\exp\left(-\frac{|t+\ell-\mu_{j,k}|}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}}\right)\right){\mathds{1}}\{t\in[0,1)\} \]
which satisfies $\int_0^1 f_k(t) dt = 50$ for any $\sigma > 0$, where ${\mathds{1}}\{A\}$ denotes the indicator (zero/one) function for the event $A$. Each $f_k$ is the sum of a constant baseline function and $40$ different double-exponential probability density functions, which are wrapped around the interval $[0,1)$ to preserve the total integral. For Figure 1 we use $\sigma = 0.05$. Then we generate two independent observations from an inhomogeneous Poisson process with intensity function $f_k(t)$. These are the two spike trains on trial $k$, one for each neuron. (Later we create a third independent observation; the third spike train is used below in Figure 3.) Each of the 100 trials is created in this manner (beginning with new random $\mu$'s). This is a Cox process. Figure 1A shows $f_1,\dotsc,f_5$ and the corresponding spikes on the first 5 trials. Figure 1B, gray line, shows $\sum_{k=1}^{100} f_k(t)/100$.
We concatenated the trials to create a single long spike train for each of the spike trains. (This is not important here --- we did it for algorithmic reasons --- but it does have tiny implications for edge effects at the trial boundaries. It does not affect the validity of any of our statistical conclusions. In particular, edge effects are not an issue for our interval jitter experiments below, because we placed interval boundaries at trial boundaries.) Specifically, we mapped the spike times in trial $k$ from the interval $[0,1)$ to the interval $[k-1,k)$ by simply adding $k-1$ to the spike times. For each neuron, this converts 100 trials of a one second spike train into a single observation of a 100 second spike train over the interval $[0,100)$. Let $N_i$ be the total number of spikes from neuron $i$ and let $Y_{i,1}\leq Y_{i,2}\leq\dotsb\leq Y_{i,N_i}$ be the corresponding observed spike times after trial concatenation. To recover the trial-relative times of a spike, we can use ${Y_{i,k}\bmod 1}$.
{\em PSTHs.} Peri-stimulus time histograms (PSTHs) were constructed using 50 ms box smoothing and averaging across trials. In particular, the PSTH for neuron $i$ at trial-relative time $t\in(0,1)$ was
\[ \frac{1}{100}\sum_{k=1}^{N_i} \frac{{\mathds{1}}\{t-0.025 \leq (Y_{i,k}\bmod 1) < t+0.025\}}{0.050} \]
in units of Hz or spikes/s, where ${\mathds{1}}\{A\}$ is the indicator function of the event $A$, taking the value 1 if $A$ is true and 0 otherwise. PSTHs were plotted using $t$ on a 2 ms grid as the two black lines in Figure 1B.
{\em CCHs and lag-0 synchronies.} Cross-correlation histograms (CCHs) were constructed using 2 ms box smoothing and considering lags up to $\pm 250$ ms. The CCH at lag $\tau$ was
\[ \sum_{k=1}^{N_1}\sum_{\ell=1}^{N_2} {\mathds{1}}\{\tau-.001 \leq Y_{2,\ell}-Y_{1,k} < \tau+.001\} \]
in units of total number of spike pairs across all trials. CCHs were plotted for $\tau\in(.25,.25)$ on a 0.4 ms grid. The CCH value at $\tau=0$ corresponds to the total number of $\pm 1$ ms precise synchronies. Note that reversing the role of neuron $1$ and $2$ merely switches positive lags to negative lags (i.e., reflects the CCH horizontally about lag zero) and does not affect the definition of lag-0 synchronies. The original CCH is shown in Figure 1C (black line). The observed value of $c(0)$ is 575 (almost 6 synchronous pairs per trial).
{\em Shuffle-surrogate CCHs.} A shuffle-surrogate CCH is created by randomly permuting the trial order for spike train 1 (i.e., before concatenating the spikes into a single trial), and then computing the CCH as above between the trial-shuffled version of spike train 1 and the original version of spike train 2. We create a collection of $M=10,000$ such shuffle-surrogate CCHs, each using different independent realizations of random permutations of the trials. We will denote the CCHs as $c_0, c_1,\dotsc, c_{M}$, where $c_0(\tau)$ is the original CCH at lag $\tau$ and $c_m(\tau)$, for $m > 0$, is the $m$th shuffle-surrogate CCH at lag $\tau$.
{\em Lag-0 distribution.} The lag-0 distribution (Figure 1D) is simply a histogram of the values $c_0(0),\dotsc, c_{M}(0)$. The black vertical line in Figure 1D shows where $c_0(0)$ occurs within this histogram. It is well known that the right tail probability of this histogram is a p-value for testing the independence between the two spike trains, namely,
\[ \text{p-value} = \frac{1}{M+1}\sum_{m=0}^M {\mathds{1}}\{c_m(0)\geq c_0(0)\} \] See the discussion of permutation tests above.
{\em Mean shuffle-surrogate CCH.} We also compute the empirical mean CCH after shuffling, that is
\[ \mu(\tau) = \frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^M c_m(\tau) \]
The light gray horizontal curve in the middle of Figure 1C shows the mean shuffle-surrogate CCH as a function of lag. Note that the average CCH after shuffling does not show the broad peak at zero.
The light gray vertical bar in the middle of the histogram in Figure 1D shows where $\mu(0)$ occurs within the lag-0 histogram.
{\em Shuffle-derived pointwise acceptance bands.} To create the acceptance bands, we first sort the elements $c_0(\tau),\dotsc, c_{M}(\tau)$ to get a sequence $c_{(0)}(\tau)\leq \dotsb \leq c_{(M)}(\tau)$. Note that the indexing still starts at zero (corresponding to the minimum), which is not standard for order statistics. Then we set $ a(\tau)= c_{(.025M)}$ and $ b(\tau)= c_{(.975M)}$. The interval $[a(\tau), b(\tau)]$ contains (at least) 95\% of the shuffle-corrected CCH values at lag $\tau$ (including the original). We repeat this separately for each $\tau$. On Figure 1C the dark gray region corresponds to the interval between $[a(\tau),b(\tau)]$ as $\tau$ varies. With $\tau$ chosen a priori (say, $\tau=0$), we can reject at level 0.05 the null hypothesis that the spike trains are independent whenever $c_0(\tau)$ does not land in the interval $[a(\tau), b(\tau)]$. The dark gray region in Figure 1D corresponds to the part of the histogram between $a(0)$ and $b(0)$.
{\em Controlling for multiple comparisons.} If we do not pick $\tau$ a priori (or if we pick more than one $\tau$ a priori), and we look for some $\tau$ where $c_0(\tau)$ is outside of the pointwise acceptance interval, then we cannot reject at level 0.05 and must do something to control for multiple hypothesis tests. Bonferonni is often too conservative. Here is something simple that combines all $\tau$ in order to rigorously test independence that we have found works well in many situations and provides a nice visual display. First, robustly standardize the collection of CCHs at each $\tau$ and then compute the maximum and minimum of each standardized CCH, that is, compute
\[ \begin{gathered} \nu(\tau) = \frac{1}{M-1}\sum_{m=1}^{M-1} c_{(m)}(\tau) \quad\quad\quad
s(\tau) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{M-2}\sum_{m=1}^{M-1} \bigl( c_{(m)}(\tau)- \nu(\tau)\bigr)^2} \\
c^*_m(\tau) = \frac{ c_m(\tau) - \nu(\tau)}{ s(\tau)} \quad\quad\quad c^+_m = \max_\tau c^*_m(\tau) \quad\quad\quad c^-_m = \min_\tau c^*_m(\tau) \end{gathered} \]
(Notice that $\nu(\tau)$ and $s(\tau)$ are computed without the extreme values, and are therefore robust to single outliers in either tail. Notice also that they are based on the sorted values, and so may contain the original CCH.)
Now order the maximums and minimums, i.e., $ c_{(0)}^+ \leq \dotsb \leq c_{(M)}^+$ and $ c_{(0)}^- \leq \dotsb \leq c_{(M)}^-$. If $ c_{0}^* < c_{(0.025M)}^-$ or $ c_{0}^* > c_{(0.975M)}^+$, then we can reject the null hypothesis of independence at level 0.05. Although it takes a while to wade through all of the preprocessing, it is straightforward to verify that the maximum (or minimum) statistics (which combine all time lags) can be shuffled without changing their distribution under the null hypothesis of independence. The reader is referred to \cite{westfall1993resampling, nichols2003controlling} for more details about resampling based multiple testing.
We note that independence is rejected for the data in Figure 1 (as it should be --- the spike trains are correlated on coarse timescales by virtue of sharing the same random intensity function) using this particular method of controlling for multiple comparisons.
{\em Shuffle-derived simultaneous acceptance bands.} The multiple comparisons method described above can be used to create {\em simultaneous} acceptance bands, which provide a nice visual display to augment pointwise bands. They also show which time bin offsets were the most unusual from a multiple comparisons perspective. Define $a^*(\tau)=c_{(0.025M)}^- s(\tau)+ \nu(\tau)$ and $b^*(\tau)=c_{(0.975M)}^+ s(\tau)+ \nu(\tau)$. It is straightforward to verify that we reject the null hypothesis using the multiple comparisons method described above exactly when there exists a $\tau$ for which $c_0(\tau)$ is not in the interval $[a^*(\tau),b^*(\tau)]$. On Figure 1C the light gray region corresponds to the interval between $[a^*(\tau),b^*(\tau)]$ as $\tau$ varies. The CCH exceeds the simultaneous bands, signaling a rejection of the null hypothesis. The light gray region in Figure 1D shows the points between $a^*(0)$ and $b^*(0)$ for easy comparison to Figure 1C, but note that the entire collection of CCHs, not just the lag-0 values, are used in the construction of simultaneous acceptance bands.
{\em Shuffle-corrected CCHs.} For visualization purposes, we show the {\em shuffle-corrected CCH} as a black line in Figure 1E. The shuffle-corrected CCH is the original CCH minus the shuffle mean, i.e., $c_0(\tau)-\mu(\tau)$. Under the null hypothesis of independence, the shuffle-corrected CCH has expected value zero for all $\tau$, so ``large'' variations from zero (solid light gray line in Figure 1E) are evidence against the null. The acceptance bands described above are one way to quantify ``large''. On Figure 1E we also show the shuffle-corrected version of these bands, namely, the dark gray region corresponds to the interval between $[a(\tau)-\mu(\tau),b(\tau)-\mu(\tau)]$ as $\tau$ varies and the light gray region corresponds to the interval between $[a^*(\tau)-\mu(\tau),b^*(\tau)-\mu(\tau)]$ as $\tau$ varies. Note that the shuffle-corrected CCH exceeds the shuffle-corrected bands exactly when the original CCH exceeds the original bands. The ``correction'' is only for visualization purposes.
\subsubsection*{Interval jitter}
\begin{leftbar}
{\em Additional remarks.} As with trial shuffling, interval jitter is a procedure for generating an ensemble of spike processes from a single observed process. The difference is that spikes are jittered within a priori defined windows (``intervals'') rather than shuffled across trials. Thus for a jitter window of $\delta$ ms, the recording is first partitioned into successive $\delta$ ms intervals. An ensemble of spike processes is then generated by relocating each spike, independently, to a random point within its original $\delta$ ms interval. Everything else is the same: a statistic, such as the number of one-millisecond synchronies, is chosen, and the observed value from the original, unperturbed, spike train is compared against the ensemble of values collected through the jitter process. If many statistics are available, such as all of the lags in a CCH, then pointwise and simultaneous acceptance bands, and ``jitter-corrected'' displays can be constructed, as well.
\end{leftbar}
\subsubsection*{Figure 2}
{\em Interval jitter.} The $m$th interval-jitter surrogate for neuron $i$ using jitter windows of length $\delta>0$ is
\[ \bigl(Y^{(m)}_{i,1},\dotsc,Y^{(m)}_{i,N_i}\bigr) = \text{sort}\bigl(\delta\lfloor{Y_{i,1}/\delta}\rfloor+\delta U^{(m)}_{i,1}, \dotsc, \delta \lfloor{Y_{i,N_i}/\delta}\rfloor+\delta U^{(m)}_{i,N_i}\bigr) \]
where $U^{(m)}_{i,k}$ are iid uniform$(0,1)$ random variables for all $i,k,m$, and where $\lfloor{\cdot}\rfloor$ is the floor function (greatest integer less than). In words, $\delta\lfloor{Y_{i,k}/\delta}\rfloor$ moves the $k$th spike of neuron $i$ to the start of its $\delta$-length jitter window. Then we add $\delta U^{(m)}_{i,k}$ to get a uniformly chosen location within that same jitter window. We do this independently for every spike of each spike train. Finally, we sort the results of each spike train so that the spike times are increasing. We used $\delta=0.02$ and repeated this $M=10,000$ times, i.e., $m=1,\dotsc,10,000$, to create $10,000$ surrogate jittered datasets.
{\em Replacing trial-shuffling with interval jitter.} For each of the $M=10,000$ surrogate jittered datasets we computed the CCH between spike train 1 and 2, giving $M$ interval-jitter surrogate CCHs, say, $c_1,\dotsc,c_M$, using the same notation for the shuffle surrogate CCHs described above. As before, it is convenient to let $c_0$ denote the CCH of the original (unjittered) dataset. Now everything proceeds exactly as described above for the collection of shuffled-derived CCHs, except we use the collection of jitter-derived CCHs. The lag-0 values, namely, $c_0(0),c_1(0),\dotsc,c_M(0)$, are still the $\pm 1$ ms synchronies, but now the surrogates correspond to the number of synchronies after jittering (instead of after shuffling). P-values are computed the same way and acceptance bands are computed the same way. The corresponding hypothesis test is described below. For jitter-correction, we subtract the mean, say $\mu(\tau)$, of the jitter-surrogate CCHs from the original CCH and any acceptance bands for easy visualization.
\subsection{Hypothesis Testing and Conditional Inference}
\begin{leftbar}
{\em Interval jitter null hypothesis.} Fix the jitter window length $\delta$. Define
\[ S_i(k) = \#\bigr\{\text{spikes from neuron $i$ in time interval $[\delta(k-1),\delta k)$}\bigl\} \]
where time refers to absolute time, not trial-relative time.
For the data in Figure 1 with $\delta=0.02$, for example, $S_1$ and $S_2$ are each length $5000$ nonnegative integer-valued vectors. The interval jitter null hypothesis is
\begin{itemize}
\item[$H_0$:] The conditional distribution of the data is {\em uniform} given the vectors $S_i$ for all $i$.
\end{itemize}
Notice that $H_0$ depends on $\delta$ via the definition of the $S$'s. $H_0$ makes no assumption about the distribution of the $S$'s, which are coarse-temporal statistics of the spike trains.
Therefore, $H_0$ says nothing about the comparison of two datasets with different interval counts.
On the other hand,
if two datasets have exactly identical $S$'s, even if the precise timings of spikes are completely different, then $H_0$ states that the two datasets are equally likely to have occurred.
If (and only if) the $S$'s are independent Poisson random variables, then the null hypothesis states that the spike trains are independent inhomogeneous Poisson processes with piecewise constant intensity functions that are constant within jitter windows. This is but one of infinitely many classes of point processes that are included in $H_0$. For example, the null hypothesis also includes doubly-stochastic Poisson processes (Cox processes) whose random inhomogeneous intensity function is piecewise-constant over the jitter intervals, in which case the $S$'s are neither independent nor Poisson.
The version of interval jitter used here places jitter window boundaries at the points $\dotsc,-3\delta,-2\delta,-\delta,0,\delta,2\delta,3\delta,\dotsc$. There is nothing special about using these particular jitter window boundaries. Indeed, there is no reason that they need all be the same length. The key for creating a valid hypothesis test is that the jitter window boundaries do not depend on the data and that the boundaries are in the same locations for all jitter surrogates of the same spike train. Of course, the boundaries influence the interpretation of the resulting hypothesis test, since they create the null hypothesis.
\end{leftbar}
There are many variations on this interval jitter theme. A common one is to jitter only neuron 1 (say) and leave all of the other neurons fixed. This tests hypotheses about the temporal resolution of neuron 1 with respect to the others, without imposing assumptions about the temporal resolution of the others. The null hypothesis would be
\begin{itemize}
\item[$H_0$:] The conditional distribution of the data is {\em uniform} given the vector $S_1$, and given the values of all spike times other than those from neuron 1.
\end{itemize}
Since we are conditioning on more aspects of the data, this single neuron version of interval jitter is an even larger null hypothesis than the original. Consequently, tests will tend to be more conservative (harder to reject), but a rejection here implies a rejection of the original null. For computational reasons, we use the single neuron version of interval jitter below when we discuss relaxing the uniformity assumption in the null hypothesis.
\subsection*{Conditional inference}
\begin{leftbar}
{\em Conditional versus unconditional inference.} Jitter and many of the related resampling techniques currently in use in neuroscience are best interpreted as Monte Carlo conditional inference, or perhaps, Monte Carlo approximate conditional inference. We have noted a systematic tendency to blur the distinction between conditional inference and unconditional inference with regard to these jitter-like resampling techniques. Unconditional bootstrap, in particular, seems to be a common (mis)interpretation, perhaps because bootstrap computations are strongly associated with Monte Carlo methods. Mistaking a conditional procedure for an unconditional one can lead to statistical and scientific errors. This seems especially the case for the types of neuroscience examples that we have in mind. In this section we provide a simple simulation example to illustrate the differences between conditional and unconditional inference.
Consider 100 trials, each lasting 1 second, of two simultaneously recorded spike trains. We are interested in precise zero-lag correlations and want to understand the distribution of the statistic $T=c(0)$, defined above as the total number of $\pm 1$ ms synchronous spike pairs. For example, we may want to understand the distribution of $T$ in order to construct accurate critical values for hypothesis testing.
For unconditional inference we want to understand the unconditional distribution of $T$. For example, suppose that the neurons are independent homogeneous Poisson processes with rates 50 Hz (neuron 1) and 25 Hz (neuron 2), respectively, and that trials are iid. We generated $10^5$ datasets from this distribution, computed the value of $T$ on each one, and displayed the resulting empirical distribution in Supplementary Figure S\ref{fig:jit} Panel A. This is an excellent approximation of the true unconditional distribution of $T$ because we used so many Monte Carlo samples (from the true distribution). If we did not know that the neurons were 50 Hz and 25 Hz homogeneous Poisson processes, but were given some data, we might try to use bootstrap to approximate this unconditional distribution of $T$.
For conditional inference we want to understand the conditional distribution of $T$ given some other event. For interval jitter, this other event is the observed sequence of spike counts in all of the jitter windows for all neurons. Supplementary Figure S\ref{fig:jit} Panels B--E show four different examples of conditional distributions of $T$ given different observed sequences of spike counts in 5 ms jitter intervals. Again, each of these is actually an empirical distribution using $10^5$ Monte Carlo samples from the respective conditional distributions. Sampling from the true conditional distribution is easy because the spike times are conditionally uniform given the spike counts. For any given dataset, we will have a specific sequence of spike counts, which gives a specific conditional distribution of $T$, and this (and only this) is the distribution we want to understand.
Notice that the conditional distributions can be quite different from the unconditional distribution. Notice also that these conditional distributions are what interval jitter generates. Finally, notice that a great many distributions (other than 50 Hz and 25 Hz independent homogeneous Poisson processes) give rise to the same conditional distributions of $T$. Most of these processes will have markedly different unconditional distributions of $T$.
\end{leftbar}
\begin{SCfigure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=jitter_fig13}
\caption{ {\bf Unconditional versus conditional distributions.} Panel A shows the distribution of the total number of 1 ms synchronous pairs in 100 iid one-second trials between two independent 50 Hz and 25 Hz homogeneous Poisson processes. This distribution was estimated using $10^5$ Monte Carlo observations. The panels B--E correspond to four different observations, respectively, among the $10^5$ observations used to create panel A. In each case, panels B--E show the conditional distribution of the total number of 1 ms synchronous pairs {\em given the sequence of spike counts in 5 ms windows}. Each of these conditional distributions was approximated with $10^5$ uniform interval jitter Monte Carlo surrogates. Since none of four exemplars have the identical sequence of spike counts, the conditional distributions are different. All of the 5 graphs are on the same scale. The observed synchrony counts for the original data from panels B--E were 225, 253, 274, and 235, respectively. \label{fig:jit}}
\end{SCfigure}
{\color{black}
\subsection{Synchrony as a Test Statistic}
Although any test statistic can be used in conjunction with jitter, we note that the choice of test statistic strongly affects both the statistical power of jitter-based hypothesis tests and the interpretation of any scientific conclusions drawn from jitter about the alternative hypothesis.
}
\subsection{Basic jitter}
{\em Basic jitter.} Basic jitter is a heuristic procedure that jitters spikes in windows {\em centered at the original spikes}. For basic jitter, the $m$th surrogate of spike train $i$ is
\[ \bigl(Y^{(m)}_{i,1},\dotsc,Y^{(m)}_{i,N_i}\bigr) = \text{sort}\bigl(Y_{i,1}+\delta (U^{(m)}_{i,1}-1/2), \dotsc, Y_{i,N_i}+\delta (U^{(m)}_{i,N_i}-1/2)\bigr) \]
Basic jitter does not correspond to Monte Carlo sampling from any conditional distribution. If it did, then the conditioning event would have to specify (either explicitly or implicitly) the center of the jitter windows, which means it would specify the locations of the original spikes, which means the resulting conditional distribution would have no variability (it would be a point mass on the locations of the original spikes). This is true for any type of spike-centered jitter, regardless of the distribution used to jitter spikes (here, uniform, but other authors have used Gaussian or triangular jitter distributions centered at the original spikes). No such procedure should be interpreted as a statistical hypothesis test.
\subsection{Accidental synchrony}
\subsubsection*{Figure 3}
{\em Injected synchrony.} Locations for injected pairs were produced by sampling from the same inhomogeneous Poisson processes used in the original experiments depicted in Figure 1, but with the intensity functions scaled down from 50 Hz to 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 Hz, respectively for the three additional experiments, corresponding to a mean total number of injected synchronous pairs of 25, 50, and 75 over the 100 trials. In order to maintain identical marginal (single-neuron) statistics following the addition of the synchronous pairs, each Poisson spike process was first thinned by subjecting every spike, independently, to random elimination. The actual probability of elimination was, for example, 0.005 for the
experiment with 0.25 Hz injected synchrony, and more generally was $h$ / 50 for the experiment with synchronies injected at $h$ Hz.
Here are the exact details. We refer to the data generation description above for Figure 1. We begin with the identical dataset used in Figures 1 and 2. We also create a third independent spike train from the same distribution, i.e., with intensity function $f_k(t)$ on trial $k$. Let $Z_{i,k,j}$ denote the $j$th trial-relative spike time on the $k$th trial of neuron $i$, where $i=1,2,3$, and $k=1,\dotsc,100$, and $j=1,\dotsc,N_{i,k}$, where $N_{i,k}$ is the number of spikes from neuron $i$ on trial $k$. The spike times (the $Z$'s) for these three spike trains are fixed for each of the different injected synchrony experiments. We will use them to build datasets with differing amounts of synchrony.
Now we generate iid uniform$(0,1)$ random variables $U_{i,j,k}$, one for each spike time $Z_{i,j,k}$. These $U$'s are also fixed for all of the experiments. To generate a dataset with $0 \leq h \leq 50$ Hz injected synchrony, we create two new spike trains as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item The spike times in the new spike train 1 are those $Z_{1,j,k}$ with $U_{1,j,k} \leq 1-h/50$ and also those $Z_{3,j,k}$ with $U_{3,j,k} < h/50$.
\item The spike times in the new spike train 2 are those $Z_{2,j,k}$ with $U_{2,j,k} \leq 1-h/50$ and also those $Z_{3,j,k}$ with $U_{3,j,k} < h/50$.
\end{itemize}
Notice that the two new spike trains share the selected spikes from the third old spike train. It turns out that each of the two new spike trains has the same distribution, individually, as those from the dataset in Figure 1. (This is a result of the fact that thinned Poisson processes and superimposed independent Poisson processes are both still Poisson processes.) When $h=0$, it is the same dataset and the two new spike trains are, of course, still independent. But when $h > 0$ the two spike trains are no longer independent. They share some spikes. We use $h=0.0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75$ in the experiments for Figure 3. All other details are identical to the experiments in Figures 1 and 2.
\begin{leftbar}
The rationale for this method of creating an injected synchrony dataset is that the datasets for different amounts of injected synchrony are as similar as possible, and thus easier to compare. The figures can, however, be misleading because (if they are interpreted as independent datasets) they give the impression of much smaller variability than would be actually observed across different experimental datasets with similar distributions.
\end{leftbar}
\begin{leftbar}
{\em Crude estimate of injected synchrony.} The estimate of injected synchrony mentioned in Section 3.1 of the main text and in the Figure 3 legend is the height of the lag-0 peak in the jitter corrected CCH, namely, $c_0(0) - \mu(0)$, as discussed above in the Supplementary discussion of Figure 2. We note that this estimate has substantial bias that can be improved by taking seriously the model of injected synchrony. A small p-value should always be accompanied by some scientifically interpretable measure of the degree of departure from the null hypothesis. This crude estimate serves just such a purpose for synchrony. It is in units of total number of coincident spike pairs. Dividing by time gives an estimate of the injected synchrony rate. An extremely small injected synchrony rate is unlikely to be scientifically interesting, regardless of how small the p-value is.
\end{leftbar}
For convenience, the injected spike times are identical and could therefore be uniquely identified in the data. Our test statistic, however does not take advantage of this. The test statistic (millisecond-accurate synchrony count) detects 575 synchronous pairs even without any injected synchronies. Indeed, the simulations and estimates are essentially unchanged if the injected spikes are not identical, but are offset by some random amount on the order of 1 ms. This would be more realistic, but adds an additional layer of complication in the simulations, especially if we want to ensure that the marginal (i.e., single spike train) distributions are truly identical across differing amounts of injected synchrony.
\subsection{Temporal resolution}
\subsubsection*{Figure 4}
{\em Data distribution.} We first generated $\mu_1,\dotsc,\mu_{40}$ iid uniform$(0,1)$. The sorted values were 0.032, 0.034, 0.036, 0.046, 0.097, 0.098, 0.127, 0.142, 0.158, 0.171, 0.277, 0.278, 0.317, 0.392, 0.422, 0.485, 0.547, 0.632, 0.655, 0.656, 0.679, 0.695, 0.706, 0.743, 0.758, 0.792, 0.800, 0.815, 0.823, 0.849, 0.906, 0.913, 0.916, 0.934, 0.950, 0.957, 0.958, 0.959, 0.965, 0.971. (These are the same $\mu$'s used on the first trial in the experiments in Figures 1--3.) For the experiments here, these 40 values are fixed for all trials and all data sets.
For a fixed bandwidth $\sigma$, the 100 trials of each neuron are independent and they are each iid samples from an inhomogeneous Poisson process with intensity function
\[ f(t) = \left(10 + \sum_{j=1}^{40} \sum_{\ell=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2\sigma/\sqrt{2}}\exp\left(-\frac{|t+\ell-\mu_{j}|}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}}\right)\right){\mathds{1}}\{t\in[0,1)\} \]
This is the same as Figure 1, but here it is fixed for all trials (and the bandwidth is different for different experiments). Recall that $\int_0^1 f(t) dt = 50$ for all $\sigma > 0$. As $\sigma$ gets smaller, $f(t)$ becomes more concentrated around the $\mu_j$'s. It approaches a constant of 50 as $\sigma$ gets very large, and it approaches a constant baseline of 10 with additional narrow spikes at each $\mu_j$ as $\sigma$ gets very small. Our simulations do not venture to these extreme bandwidths, however.
Figure 4 uses bandwidths of $\sigma = 0.036, 0.020, 0.012, 0.008$, from top to bottom, respectively.
{\em Data generation.} Much like Figure 3, the motivation for this sampling procedure is to make simulated datasets of different bandwidths be as similar as possible. Each spike train is a superposition of many independent Poisson processes that combine together to give the final intensity function $f$ described above. We will describe the process used to generate spike train 1 for each bandwidth. The generation of spike train 2 proceeds identically and independently.
The first piece corresponds to the 10 Hz baseline rate. We generated 100 iid samples from a 10 Hz homogeneous Poisson process over $(0,1)$. Each dataset (with different bandwidth) shares these spike times. Then for each trial ($k=1,\dotsc,100$) and each $\mu_j$ ($j=1,\dotsc,40$) we generated iid Poisson random variables (not processes) with mean $1$. Call these random variables $M_{k,j}$. These $4000$ numbers are fixed and shared across all datasets. For each $\sigma, k, j$ we generated $M_{k,j}$ iid samples from the probability density function (pdf)
\[ \left(\sum_{\ell=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2\sigma/\sqrt{2}}\exp\left(-\frac{|t+\ell-\mu_{j}|}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}}\right)\right){\mathds{1}}\{t\in[0,1)\} \]
The point is that the number of spikes $M_{k,j}$ contributed by a given component $j=1,2,\dotsc,40$ to a given trial $k=1,2,\dotsc,100$ is the same for all bandwidths $\sigma$.
We did this by sampling from the double exponential distribution with pdf $\exp\bigl(|t-\mu_j|/(\sigma/\sqrt{2})\bigr)/\bigl(2\sigma/\sqrt{2}\bigr)$ and then taking the samples modulo 1 (which wraps samples outside of the unit interval back onto it). For bandwidth $\sigma$ and trial $k$ the sorted collection of these samples and the original 10 Hz baseline spike times become the spike times on trial $k$ for neuron 1 in the bandwidth $\sigma$ dataset.
{\em Data processing.} The data processing is identical to that in Figures 1--3.
\subsection{The jitter-corrected cross-correlation histogram}
Jitter-correction is described in the Figure 2 section above. It is exactly analogous to shuffle-correction, except that it uses jitter, instead of trial-shuffling, to create the surrogates. We note that the true expected value CCH after jittering can be computed exactly without using the empirical mean of jittered surrogates. We do not describe the details here, since explicit creation of surrogates seems necessary to construct pointwise and simultaneous acceptance bands.
\section{Variations on the jitter theme}
\subsection{Rate of change of intensity functions}
\begin{leftbar}
Recall that if we consider only inhomogeneous Poisson processes, then interval jitter tests whether the time-varying intensity function is piecewise constant over jitter windows. Sticking to the inhomogeneous Poisson model for motivation, a more realistic and interesting hypothesis about the time-varying intensity function would be that it is (essentially) piecewise linear, with a given bound on the percent change that can occur within any one jitter interval. Supplementary Figure S\ref{fig:piece} reproduces the first intensity function from the experiment discussed in Section 2.1, with a piecewise-constant approximation over 20 ms jitter intervals (panel A), and a piecewise-linear approximation, also over 20 ms intervals, but with the additional constraint that firing rate not change by more than 25\% within any one interval (panel B). Processes generated from the piecewise linear intensity function would be, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from processes generated from the original intensity function.
We provide some details below about how to modify interval jitter to allow for non-uniform jitter distributions, such as piecewise linear up to a certain amount of change as suggested above.
As with interval jitter, the null hypothesis is much more general than the set of Poisson processes with piecewise-linear intensity function. The null hypothesis is in terms of the conditional distribution on spike locations, given the numbers of spikes observed in the $\delta$ ms intervals. Conditioned on these numbers, the placements of spikes are assumed independent, with likelihoods that vary linearly within an interval and have a specified bound on change over the interval. (Uniform relocation is the special case in which the percent change within a jitter interval is bounded by zero.) The hypothesis can be tested in either member of a pair of recorded neurons. Spikes in the selected neuron are randomly relocated; the other neuron's spikes remain fixed. Synchrony is defined with respect to the second (``reference'') neuron: a spike in the selected neuron is synchronous if it falls within one ms of any of the (fixed) spikes in the reference neuron. As with interval jitter, the observed synchrony count is compared to the population of counts generated by the randomization process.
For each jitter interval of the selected neuron, the linear intensity function that maximally promotes synchronies is computed. These ``worst-case'' intensity functions define the spike-relocation distribution (``tilted jitter''). Formulas for computing worst-case intensities under the piecewise-linear hypothesis, and for various generalizations, are provided in Section B of the Mathematical Appendix. The point is that the resulting right-tail probabilities on synchrony counts are at least as big as the tail probabilities for any other local intensity functions that are consistent with the null hypothesis. Therefore, a test performed at a given level of significance under the single conditional hypothesis defined by these particular local intensity functions is simultaneously valid for any other
hypothesis in the compound null. In the search for evidence for fine-temporal structure it is conservative to resample spikes using these worst-case probabilities.
\end{leftbar}
\begin{SCfigure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=jitter_fig5}
\caption{ {\bf Piecewise approximations of a rate function.} The rate function shown in the upper-left panel of Figure 1A is approximated by a piecewise constant (panel A) and piecewise linear (panel B) function, with respect to a fixed 20 ms partitioning (``jitter intervals''). The linear approximation is constrained to change by no more than 25\% within any 20 ms interval. Subject to this constraint, the piecewise linear function shown in B best approximates the original. Spike processes generated from the linear approximation would be nearly indistinguishable from processes generated from the original rate function. \label{fig:piece}}
\end{SCfigure}
{\em Non-uniform interval jitter null hypothesis.} There are many ways to relax uniformity in interval jitter. Formally, we simply replace the word ``uniform'' in the specification of the null hypothesis with the description of another class of distributions that makes sense. For example, we might replace ``uniform'' with ``a distribution that has at most 0.01 total variation distance from uniform''. In practice, however, replacing the uniform distribution with some other class of distributions can create computational challenges. The Mathematical Appendix discusses this in more detail. Here we simply provide the details for the comments about non-uniform jitter in the main text and elsewhere in this supplement.
We experiment with replacing uniform with linear (see Proposition A.6 and Section B of the Mathematical Appendix). For computational reasons, we fix the spike times of neuron 2 and only jitter the spikes of neuron 1. In each jitter window (of each trial for neuron 1), given that there are $s$ spikes in that window, the null hypothesis dictates that these spike times are (conditionally) independent from the spike times in other windows and that the density on these $s$ spike times is iid with common pdf
\[ f_\theta(x) = \frac{1}{\delta}\left(1+\theta\biggl(\frac{x-a}{\delta}-\frac{1}{2}\right)\biggr){\mathds{1}}\{a\leq x < a+\delta\} \quad \quad \quad \text{for some} \quad |\theta|\leq \frac{2\epsilon}{\epsilon+2} \]
where the jitter window is $[a,a+\delta)$ and where $\epsilon\geq 0$ is a bound on the allowable fraction of change in firing rate over any jitter interval. The parameter $\theta$ is allowed to be different in each jitter window, but it cannot exceed the specified bound. The strange looking form of the bound on $|\theta|$ comes from the fact that any such $\theta$ has
\[ \max_{x,y\in[a,a+\delta]} \frac{f_\theta(x)}{f_\theta(y)} - 1 \leq \epsilon \]
The lefthand side ($\times$ 100\%) is the maximum percentage change in firing rate over the jitter interval $[a,a+\delta]$. The null hypothesis constrains this to be less than $\epsilon$ ($\times$ 100\%).
It is easy to verify that $f_\theta(x)\geq 0$ and integrates to one on $[a,a+\delta)$.
The null hypothesis has two parameters that control the scientific interpretation: the jitter window length ($\delta$) and the maximum fractional change in firing rate over any jitter window ($\epsilon$). The case $\epsilon=0$ corresponds exactly to the original uniform null. As $\epsilon$ increases, the null hypothesis enlarges to allow increasingly non-uniform processes.
In Section 3.1 of the main text, we mention allowing for various amounts of percentage change in firing rates within a jitter window. These percentages refer to $\epsilon\times 100$\%.
Also for computational reasons, we modify the synchrony test statistic for non-uniform jitter. It is now (see the supplementary discussion for Figure 2)
\[ \sum_{i=1}^{N_1}{\mathds{1}}\left\{\min_{1\leq j \leq N_2} |Y_{1,i}-Y_{2,j}| \leq 0.001\right\} \]
which is the number of spikes in neuron 1 that participate in a synchronous pair (instead of the total number of synchronous pairs --- these two measures tend to be quite similar). For this test statistic, it is computationally straightforward to choose the $\theta$ in each jitter window that creates the most amount of synchrony while satisfying the chosen $\epsilon$ bound (see Section B of the Mathematical Appendix). Then we can jitter using the corresponding $f_\theta$ in each jitter window (instead of uniform jitter). The resulting jitter distribution of synchrony is maximally conservative, meaning that we get a valid p-value for the non-uniform null hypothesis.
\subsection{Re-sampling patterns}
{\em Patterns.} Fix a parameter $R\geq 0$. Consider a spike train $Y_1\leq \dotsb \leq Y_N$. Define $Y_0=-\infty$ and $Y_{N+1}=\infty$ for notational convenience. We can uniquely partition the spike train into patterns as follows: $Y_j,\dotsc,Y_k$ is a pattern if and only if
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned} & Y_j-Y_{j-1} > R & & \text{and}\\
& Y_{k+1}-Y_k > R & & \text{and} \\
& Y_{i+1}-Y_i \leq R & & \text{whenever $j\leq i < k$}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $1\leq j\leq k \leq N$, in which case $Y_j$ is the starting time of the pattern.
With a slight abuse of terminology, we will say that two patterns are the same if they have the same number of spikes and identical sequences of interspike intervals.
Two spike trains $Y_1\leq \dotsb \leq Y_N$ and $Y'_1\leq \dotsb \leq Y'_{N'}$ have the same sequence of patterns if and only if
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& N = N' & & \text{and} \\
& Y_{i+1}-Y_i = Y'_{i+1}-Y'_i & & \text{whenever $Y_{i+1}-Y_i \leq R$, and} \\
& Y'_{i+1}-Y'_i > R & & \text{whenever $Y_{i+1}-Y_i > R$}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $1\leq i < N$. Notice that $Y$ and $Y'$ have the same patterns if and only if each spike in $Y$ has the same length $R$ history as the corresponding spike in $Y'$, where the length $R$ history of a spike $Y_i$ is the (perhaps empty) list of all spike times relative to $Y_i$ that occur in the $R$-length interval immediately preceding $Y_i$. If there are 3 spikes in this interval, then the history would be $(Y_{i-3}-Y_i,Y_{i-2}-Y_i,Y_{i-1}-Y_i)$.
{\em The pattern-encoding statistic.} If $Y_{i,1}\leq \dotsb \leq Y_{i,N_i}$ is the spike train from neuron $i$, it is straightforward to verify that the following $N_i\times 2$ matrix only encodes the sequence of patterns and the sequence of length $\delta$ interval jitter windows that contain the start of each pattern:
\[ V_i(\ell,1) = {\mathds{1}}\{Y_{i,\ell}-Y_{i,\ell-1} > R\} \quad \quad \text{and} \quad \quad V_i(\ell,2) = \begin{cases} \lfloor{Y_{i,\ell}/\delta}\rfloor & \text{if $V_i(\ell,1)=1$} \\
Y_{i,\ell}-Y_{i,\ell-1} & \text{if $V_i(\ell,1)=0$} \end{cases} \]
for $\ell=1,\dotsc,N_i$, where we define $Y_{i,0}=-\infty$ for notational convenience.
The first column of $V_i$ indicates, with a one as opposed to a zero, which spikes begin a pattern. The second column of $V_i$ gives the jitter window for spikes that begin a pattern and gives the preceding interspike interval for spikes that are within a pattern.
{\em The pattern jitter null.} Fixing the history parameter $R$ and the jitter window length $\delta$, the pattern jitter null is
\begin{itemize}
\item[$H_0$:] The conditional distribution of the data is {\em uniform} given the matrices $V_i$ for all $i$.
\end{itemize}
{\em Monte Carlo pattern jitter.} A fast algorithm for sampling from the pattern jitter null distribution is described in \cite{harrison-geman}. We use the discretized version of the algorithm below, which constrains all spike times to a fine grid. In many real applications, spike times are recorded at some fixed precision, and jitter surrogates should also be constrained to this same precision. Monte Carlo pattern jitter surrogates can be used just like trial-shuffled surrogates or interval jitter surrogates to create p-values, acceptance bands, and visual ``corrections'' of CCHs or other graphical displays.
\subsubsection*{Figure 5}
The observed spikes (top row of each subfigure) are the spike times from neuron N1 (see Section 4) recorded between 3 and 4 seconds after the beginning of the experiment (a few seconds before the beginning of the first trial). They were selected for illustration purposes. The spikes were discretized at $1/30$th ms (30000 bins per second) and the discretized version of the pattern jitter sampling algorithm was used to create the example surrogates for different combinations of $\delta$ and $R$.
{\color{black}
\subsubsection*{Pattern jitter for bursting neurons}
Here we experiment with a modification of the data sets used in Figure 3 (see Section 2.5) to illustrate the utility of pattern jitter for non-Poisson neurons. In particular, we do a cross-correlation analysis of strongly bursting (artificial) neurons and show that pattern jitter is important in this context for preserving the nominal level of hypothesis tests. This is interesting because the {\em expected} number of synchronies should be largely unaffected by the auto-correlation structure of individual neurons. Nevertheless, the {\em distribution} is affected and so the auto-correlation must be accounted for when designing proper hypothesis tests.
We begin with the identical data set used for Figures 1 and 2. The notation that we use here is described above in Section 2.5 for Figure 3. Define $d_{i,k}=\lfloor{N_{i,k}/3}\rfloor$ to be the number of spikes in trial $k$ for spike train $i$ divided by 3 and rounded down to the nearest integer. For each $i=1,2$ and $k=1,\dotsc,100$, we remove $2d_{i,k}$ spikes uniformly at random from that trial and that neuron. Then we choose $d_{i,k}$ of the remaining spikes (again, chosen uniformly at random; this will be all of the remaining spikes if $d_{i,k}$ is a multiple of 3) and make them bursts of 3 spikes: we leave the original spike; we add a new spike uniformly in the interval $(8,9)$ ms after the original spike; we add another new spike uniformly in the interval $(16,17)$ ms after the original spike. In the event that one of the new spikes lands outside of the trial interval, we repeat the entire process for that trial of that neuron. This procedure takes the original data and makes the neurons burst (with high probability) in a succession of three spikes separated by about 8 ms per spike, while leaving the total number of spikes on each trial the same, and while leaving the time-varying, trial-varying intensity of the process largely unchanged. These are highly non-Poisson spike trains.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=patjit-bursts-fig}
\caption{ {\bf Interval versus pattern jitter corrected CCHs for bursting neurons.} Compare with Figure 3 in the main text. The data set for this figure is described in the Supplementary section {\em Pattern jitter for bursting neurons}. \label{fig:patjit-sync}}
\end{figure}
Beginning with this as the baseline dataset for spike trains 1 and 2, and using the same spike train 3, we repeat the thinning/injection procedure of Figure 3 to create datasets with varying degrees of zero-lag injected synchrony. Then we repeat the analysis of Figure 3, both with $\delta = 20$ ms interval jitter (Figure \ref{fig:patjit-sync}A) and with $\delta=20$ ms and $R=10$ ms pattern jitter (Figure \ref{fig:patjit-sync}B). The simultaneous acceptance bands are violated with zero injected synchrony using interval jitter. This is a correct rejection --- the bursting is a type of fine-temporal structure --- but it is not what we normally want with a cross-correlation analysis. Implicit in a cross-correlation analysis is the understanding that the resulting conclusions are about the statistical relationship between two neurons. We wanted to see synchrony (or a lack thereof) without artifacts introduced by the auto-correlation structure of the spike trains. Pattern jitter, by preserving the bursts in the resamples, correctly calibrates the acceptance bands and does not report a rejection for the zero injected case. Again, this is a correct conclusion for pattern jitter, because pattern jitter is a different null hypothesis that allows for certain types of auto-correlation structure (including the types of bursting introduced here). Unlike interval jitter, however, the correct conclusion from pattern jitter corresponds with the standard scientific interpretation of significant correlation.
As we add injected synchronies, pattern jitter behaves similarly to interval jitter from Figure 3 and begins to flag as significant the injected zero-lag synchronies (as it should --- injected synchronies are not in the pattern jitter null hypothesis). Statistically speaking, pattern jitter has similar power as interval jitter for detecting injected synchronies in this case.
There are, of course, much more striking examples for illustrating the importance of pattern jitter, but the role of pattern jitter in these examples tends to be so obvious that detailed simulations are superfluous. In particular, if the test-statistic depends highly on the auto-correlation structure of individual spike trains, such as the repeated spiking motifs of Section 4.1, and if the short-range auto-correlation structure is not of scientific interest, such as refractory periods and bursting, then pattern jitter, or a similar null hypothesis, is obviously important in order to focus inference on the features of interest, while ignoring the short-range auto-correlations of non-interest. See \cite{oram99} for examples.
}
\section{Jitter analysis of three motor-cortical neurons}
\subsubsection*{Neurophysiological methods}
Three neurons (designated N1, N2, and N3) were selected from simultaneous multi-neuronal recordings made in primary motor cortex (MI) of the monkey. Single-unit activity was recorded from a multi-electrode array composed of 100 electrodes (1.0 mm electrode length; 400 $\mu$m inter-electrode separation) that was chronically implanted in the arm area of MI of one macaque monkey (Macaca Mulatto) --- see \cite{nicho2007} for details. During a recording session, signals from up to 96 electrodes were amplified (gain, 5000), band-pass filtered between 0.3 Hz and 7.5 kHz, and recorded digitally (14-bit) at 30 kHz per channel using a Cerebus acquisition system (Cyberkinetics Neurotechnology Systems, Inc., MA). Only waveforms (1.6 ms in duration; 48 sample time points per waveform) that crossed a threshold were stored and spike-sorted using Offline Sorter (Plexon, Inc., Dallas, TX). The monkey was operantly trained to move a cursor appearing above the monkey's hand location to targets projected onto a horizontal, reflective surface in front of the monkey. At any one time, a single target appeared at a random location in the workspace, and the monkey was required to move to it. As soon as the cursor reached the target, the target disappeared and a new target appeared in a new, random location. All of the surgical and behavioral procedures were approved by the University of Chicago�s IACUC and conform to the principles outlined in the {\em Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals} (NIH publication no. 86-23, revised 1985).
\subsubsection*{Figure 6}
Spike times from the first second of each successful trial were selected. This results in 3 simultaneously recorded spike trains, each with 391 one-second trials. Spike times in this data set are discretized to $1/30$th ms. PSTHs and CCHs are computed identically as in Figure 1 (except with 391 trials instead of 100 trials). Trial shuffling and the resulting data processing are also identical to Figure 1.
{\em Interval jitter.} For interval jitter (middle column) we partitioned each trial (i.e., the first second of each trial) into 50 jitter windows of length 20 ms each. (This implies that our jitter analysis is also conditional on the starting times of successfully completed trials, since we used this information to select the data.) Each 20 ms jitter window has 600 time bins of $1/30$th ms each. We jittered each spike by uniformly and independently choosing one of the 600 bins {\em without replacement} in its respective jitter window. (The modeling assumption here is that a time bin cannot have multiple spikes, which is realistic for such small time bins. If the observed data has no time bins with multiple spikes, then sampling without replacement agrees with $R=0$ pattern jitter.)
{\em Pattern jitter.} For pattern jitter (right column) we proceeded as in interval jitter, but used Monte Carlo samples from the $R=0.1$ seconds pattern jitter null. Spike times outside of the first second of each trial were ignored. (In practice, a more careful procedure would be to condition on these ignored spike times --- or better: pattern jitter the entire recording --- so that patterns extending outside of the trial boundaries are still preserved. The differences are negligible in this dataset using the synchrony test statistic. We ignored spikes outside of the first second so that the dataset would remain in the same format as our simulation experiments.)
\subsection{Beyond synchrony: Other measures of precision}
\subsubsection*{Figure 7}
{\em Maximum repeating triplets test statistic.} Let $Y_1\leq \dotsb\leq Y_N$ be the sequence of spike times discretized to $1/30$th ms and {\em measured in units of milliseconds}, so that $\text{round}(Y_\ell-Y_k)$ is the closest integer number of milliseconds that elapse between the $k$th and $\ell$th spike. For each $i,j\in\{0,1,\dotsc,1000\}$, we first compute the number $H(i,j)$ defined as
\[ \begin{aligned} H(i,j) & = \sum_{k=1}^{N-2}\sum_{\ell=k+1}^{N-1}\sum_{m=\ell+1}^{N} {\mathds{1}}\{\text{round}(Y_\ell-Y_k)=i\}{\mathds{1}}\{\text{round}(Y_m-Y_\ell)=j\} \\ & \quad \times {\mathds{1}}\{Y_k,Y_\ell,Y_m \text{ all occur during the same successfully completely trial} \} \end{aligned} \]
which is the total number of three (not necessarily consecutive) increasing spike times such that the sequence of two intervals between the spike times (rounded to the nearest millisecond) is $(i,j)$ ms and such that all of the spike times come from the same successfully completed trial. For computational simplicity, we only consider intervals up to 1000 ms. Each $(i,j)$ pair defines a ``triplet''. $H(i,j)$ counts how many times triplet $(i,j)$ repeats in the data. (The data had an absolute refractory period of more than $1/2$ ms, so $H(i,j)=0$ whenever $i=0$ or $j=0$.)
The test statistic used in Figure 7 is the maximum number of repeating triplets, namely,
\[ \max_{i,j\in\{0,1\dotsc,1000\}} H(i,j) \]
Notice that pattern jitter with $R \geq d+0.5$ milliseconds exactly preserves the value of $H(i,j)$ for $i,j\leq d$.
{\em Pattern jitter.} We generated surrogates from various pattern jitter null hypotheses with differing combinations of $R$ (history length) and $\delta$ (jitter window width) as before. We conditioned on all spike times that were not part of a successfully completed trial, meaning that we held these spike times constant and included them in the definition of a pattern (but they were not included in the test statistic). In fact, we also conditioned on the first and last spike time within in trial, to better ensure that there was no unexpected interaction between our choice of trial boundaries and the test statistic. It turns out that none of the additional conditioning matters in the experiments here, but we feel that it is always good practice to err on the side of caution, especially when using complicated test statistics like the maximum number of repeating triplets.
One can, of course, over-condition to the point that the surrogates do not have enough variability to draw meaningful conclusions (loss of power). For our dataset the maximum value of $H$ was achieved with $(i,j)=(23,27)$, so that $R\geq 27.5$ ensures that $\max H$ can only increase with jittering. We can thus never reject the null with $R\geq 27.5$ using this test statistic (and right-sided rejection regions). Hence, choosing $R\geq 27.5$ certainly results in over-conditioning, and the problem likely begins for somewhat smaller $R$, as well.
\subsection{Temporal resolution and the neural representation of behavior}
\subsubsection*{Likelihood ratio tuning curves}
\begin{leftbar}
One motivation for using likelihood ratio tuning curves
\[ \theta(d) = \frac{P(D=d,S=1)}{P(D=d)P(S=1)} = \frac{P(D=d|S=1)}{P(D=d)} = \frac{P(S=1|D=d)}{P(S=1)} \] is the observation that $\theta(d)$ is proportional to the more familiar tuning curve $P(S=1|D=d)$ through multiplication by $P(S=1)$. Multiplication by $P(S=1)$ conflates synchrony, per say, with directional tuning, and therefore complicates the interpretation of jitter or other resampling methods that might be used to calibrate the relationship between synchrony and direction, or, more generally, between fine-temporal events and other measures of behavior.
A second way to look at the role of likelihood ratios is to think of directional tuning as a collection of binary classification problems, one such problem for every direction $d$. Fix a single direction $d$ and consider the problem of guessing whether or not a certain event has occurred given an observed movement in that direction. The ``event'' could be a spike in a particular neuron or the occurrence of a synchrony across two neurons, at about 100 ms (say) before the observed movement. Formally, the problem is to guess between $S=1$ and $S=0$ when the event of interest is a synchrony of spikes. In both cases, the evidence is the movement direction, $D=d$. These are binary classification problems and by the Neyman-Pearson lemma \cite{neyman1933problem,lehmann2005testing}
the optimal classifier, in terms of the best tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity, is achieved by comparing the likelihood ratio, $\theta(d)$, to a threshold. A particular threshold fixes a particular sensitivity/specificity pair; the set of all thresholds defines the optimal ROC (``receiver operating characteristic'') curve.
For the reader more familiar with classification based on the ratio $P(D=d|S=1)/P(D=d|S=0)$, we note that
\[ \theta(d) = \frac{P(D=d|S=1)}{P(D=d)} = \varphi\biggl( \frac{P(D=d|S=1)}{P(D=d|S=0)} \biggr) \] where $\varphi$ is the monotone function $\varphi(x)=x/\bigl(P(S=0)+P(S=1)x\bigr)$. Hence the ratios are equivalent --- change the threshold and get the identical classifier.
\end{leftbar}
\subsubsection*{Figure 8}
{\em Data preprocessing.} Time was discretized to 1 ms bins. The $(x,y)$ position of the hand (cursor) was smoothed with a Gaussian kernel using a bandwidth (standard deviation) of 25 ms and also shifted back in time 100 ms. The offset of $100$ ms was chosen to approximate the delay between motor cortex and observed kinematics. We will use $(x(t),y(t))$ to denote this smoothed and shifted position vector at time bin $t$. The movement direction $D(t)$ at time bin $t$ was the angle of the vector $(x(t+1)-x(t-1),y(t+1)-y(t-1))$.
For each neuron $i=1,2,3$, let $Y_{i,1},\dotsc,Y_{i,N_i}$ denote the spike times of neuron $i$. For each pair of neurons $i,j$, we use $S_{i,j}(t)$ to denote the zero-one process of spike or no spike from neuron $i$ in time bin $t$ that happens to be within 1 ms of a spike from neuron $j$, namely,
\[ S_{i,j}(t) ={\mathds{1}}\bigl\{\text{$Y_{i,\ell}\in$ time bin $t$ and $|Y_{i,\ell}-Y_{j,k}|\leq 1$ ms for some $\ell=1,\dotsc,N_i$ and $k=1,\dotsc,N_j$}\bigr\} \]
When jittering, we jitter spikes before the 1 ms discretization step (i.e., using the original $1/30$th ms time bins), and then re-compute the $S$ processes (which are discretized at 1 ms bins).
{\em Estimating the likelihood ratio tuning curves.} We abuse notation and use $P(D=d)$, which typically means the probability that $D$ equals $d$, when, in fact, we mean the probability density of $D$ at $d$. The same comment applies for related quantities, like $P(D=d|S=1)$. Note however, that $S$ is discrete, so $P(S=1)$ and related quantities are actual probabilities.
We estimate the density $P(D=d)$ using the list of values
\[ \mathcal{D} = \bigl(D(t):\text{$t$ is within a successfully completed trial}\bigr) \] We use kernel density estimation applied to the list of values in $\mathcal{D}$ with a Gaussian kernel with bandwidth $\sigma=0.1$ radians (which is approximately 6 degrees) that wraps around the interval $[-\pi,\pi)$. Wrapping enforces the natural periodicity in $P(D=d)$ and prevents unnatural tapering for $d$ near $\pm\pi$. The formula for our estimator is
\[ \widehat P(D=d) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}|}\sum_{u\in\mathcal{D}} \sum_{\ell=-\infty}^\infty\frac{1}{\sigma}\phi((d-u+2\pi\ell)/\sigma) {\mathds{1}}\{d\in[-\pi,\pi)\} \]
where $\phi(z)=\exp(-z^2/2)/\sqrt{2\pi}$ is the standard normal density function. This may look complicated, but except for $d$ near $\pm\pi$, it is virtually identical to the standard Gaussian kernel density estimator
\[ \frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}|}\sum_{u\in\mathcal{D}} \frac{1}{\sigma}\phi((d-u)/\sigma) {\mathds{1}}\{d\in[-\pi,\pi)\} \]
In fact, since our bandwidth is small, only $\ell=-1,0,1$ contribute to the sum in the formula for $\widehat P(D=d)$, and a simple trick to compute $\widehat P(D=d)$ is to use standard Gaussian kernel density estimation with the dataset $\mathcal{D} \cup (\mathcal{D}-2\pi) \cup (\mathcal{D}+2\pi)$ (and then multiply the resulting estimator by 3). Note that $\mathcal{D}$ is a list of values, meaning that it can have repeat values.
We estimate $P(D=d|S_{i,j}=1)$ using the list of values
\[ \mathcal{D}_{i,j} = \bigl(D(t):\text{$t$ is within a successfully completed trial and $S_{i,j}(t)=1$}\bigr) \]
again with Gaussian kernel density estimation with bandwidth $0.1$ radians and with wrapping around $[-\pi,\pi)$.
Our final estimates of the likelihood ratio tuning curves are the ratios of these kernel density estimators, namely
\[ \widehat \theta_{i,j}(d) = \frac{\widehat P(D=d|S_{i,j}=1)}{\widehat P(D=d)} \]
Figure 8 shows $\widehat \theta_{1,2}$, $\widehat \theta_{1,3}$, and $\widehat \theta_{2,3}$, respectively, from left to right.
{\em Pattern jitter.} We use the identical pattern jitter procedure from Figure 7, but we independently jitter each of the three spike trains, not just N2. For each jittered dataset, we compute new likelihood ratio estimators $\widehat \theta_{i,j}$ according to the identical procedure. These estimators can potentially change a lot, because jittering can completely change which spikes are synchronous. We created 1000 independent jittered datasets leading to $\widehat \theta_{i,j}^{0},\widehat \theta_{i,j}^{1},\dotsc,\widehat \theta_{i,j}^{1000}$, where $\widehat \theta_{i,j}^{0}$ comes from the original dataset and $\widehat \theta_{i,j}^{k}$ comes from the $k$th jitter-surrogate dataset.
{\em Acceptance bands and p-values.} For the purposes of a test-statistic for hypothesis testing or for the purposes of constructing acceptance bands, there is no fundamental distinction between a CCH, say $c(\tau)$, and an estimator of a tuning curve, say $\widehat\theta(d)$. We constructed acceptance bands for $\widehat\theta$ exactly as for the CCH, with one difference. For the simultaneous acceptance bands, we first transformed $\widehat\theta$ to a logarithmic scale, namely, $\log\widehat\theta$, to remove some of the inherent asymmetry between large and small values of the likelihood ratio (which makes the standardization using $\nu$ and $s$ for the simultaneous bands behave better). We computed simultaneous acceptance bands for $\log\widehat\theta$ and then transformed the bands back to the appropriate scale with an exponential operation. Also, for Figure 8, we do not apply any ``correction'' (i.e., subtracting the mean of the surrogates to aid visualization) because we want to emphasize the the tuning curves vary strongly with direction.
\begin{leftbar}
The pattern jitter null hypothesis was not rejected using the simultaneous test for any of the three neuron pairs. Although the estimated tuning curves do, in fact, exceed the pointwise acceptance bands at a few directions, we had no way to identify these directions a priori before seeing the data, so the simultaneous test is more appropriate. (The situation is somewhat different for CCHs, because lag-0, corresponding to precise synchrony, can be identified as special a priori, and pointwise rejection at lag-0 is better justified.) Even under the null hypothesis there should be some excursions outside of the pointwise bands (which we see, as expected), because each corresponds to a separate test of the same null hypothesis. For the simultaneous bands, however, under the null hypothesis, the probability that the {\em entire} tuning curve falls within the light-grey bands is at least 0.95. We do not expect to see any excursions outside of these bands.
\end{leftbar}
\section{Summary and Discussion}
{\color{black} Additional references can be found in the references section of this Supplement. The list is not meant to be exhaustive.}
\newpage
\section*{Supplementary References}
Supplementary references are broken into categories in the following order: {\it On trial-to-trial variability; On jitter: methodology; On jitter: applications to neurophysiology; On spike timing; Statistical analysis of spike trains; Miscellaneous.} For topics of broad scope, we focus on prominent and/or representative selections that provide context for the main text.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\begin{btSect}{statres_trial}
\subsection*{SR 1. On trial-to-trial variability}
\btPrintAll
\end{btSect}
\begin{btSect}{statres_jitter_meth}
\subsection*{SR 2. On jitter: methodology}
\btPrintAll
\end{btSect}
\begin{btSect}{statres_jitter_app}
\subsection*{SR 3. On jitter: applications to neurophysiology}
\btPrintAll
\end{btSect}
\begin{btSect}{statres_timing}
\subsection*{SR 4. On spike timing}
\btPrintAll
\end{btSect}
\begin{btSect}{statres_statistics}
\subsection*{SR 5. Statistical analysis of spike trains}
\btPrintAll
\end{btSect}
\begin{btSect}{statres}
\subsection*{SR 6. Miscellaneous}
\btPrintAll
\end{btSect}
\begin{comment}
Alonso, J., Usrey, W., and Reid, R. (1996). Precisely correlated firing in cells of the lateral geniculate nucleus. Nature 383, 815�819.
Amarasingham, A., Harrison, M., and Geman, S. (2007). Jitter methods for investigating spike train dependencies. Computational and Systems Neuroscience (COSYNE 07). (Abstract)
Bienenstock, E. (1995). A model of neocortex. Network: Computation in Neural Systems 6, 179�224.
Billimoria, C., DiCaprio, R., Birmingham, J., Abbott, L., and Marder, E. (2006). Neuromodulation of spike-timing precision in sensory neurons. Journal of Neuroscience 26, 5910�5919.
Constantinidis, C., Williams, G., and Goldman-Rakic, P. (2002). A role for inhibition in shaping the temporal flow of information in prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience 5, 175�180.
Czanner, G., Eden, U., Wirth, S., Yanike, M., Suzuki, W., and Brown, E. (2008). Analysis of between-trial and within-trial neural spiking dynamics. J Neurophysiol, 99, 2672�2693.
Date, A., Bienenstock, E., and Geman, S. (1998). On the temporal resolution of neural activity. (Providence, RI: Brown University, Division of Applied Mathematics, Technical Reports).
Dan, Y., Alonso, J., Usrey, W., and Reid, R. (1998). Coding of visual information by precisely correlated spikes in the lateral geniculate nucleus. Nature Neuroscience 1, 501�507.
Ferragamo, M., Haresign, T., and Simmons, J. (1998). Frequency tuning, latencies, and responses to frequency-modulated sweeps in the inferior colliculus of the echolocating bat, eptesicus fuscus. J. Comp. Physiol. A 182, 65�79.
Frostig, R., Frostig, Z., and Harper, R. (1990). Recurring discharge patterns in multiple spike trains: I. detection. Biological Cybernetics 62, 487�493.
Gray, C. (1999). The temporal correlation hypothesis of visual feature integration: Still alive and well. Neuron 24, 31�47.
Hatsopoulos, N., Xu, Q., and Amit, A. (2007). Encoding of movement fragments in the motor cortex. Journal of Neuroscience 27, 5105�5114.
Ito, H., and Tsuji, S. (2000). Model dependence in quantification of spike interdependence by joint peri-stimulus time histogram. Neural Computation 12, 195�217.
Lehmann, E. (1975). Nonparametrics: Statistical methods based on ranks. (San Francisco, CA: Holdren-Day).
Maldonado, P., Babul, C., Singer, W., Rodriguez, E., Berger, D., Gr\"un, S. (2008). Synchronization of neuronal responses in primary visual cortex of monkeys viewing natural images. Journal of Neurophysiology 100, 1523-1532.
Meister, M., and Barry, M. (1999). The Neural Code of the Retina. Neuron 22, 435�450.
Neyman, J., and Pearson, E. (1933). On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A 231, 289�337.
Pazienti, A., Maldonado, P., Diesmann, M., and Gr\"un, S. (2008). Effectiveness of systematic spike dithering depends on the precision of cortical synchronization. Brain Research (in press).
Riesenhuber, M., and Poggio, T. (1999). Are cortical models really bound by the binding problem? Neuron 24, 87�93.
Samonds, J., Zhou, Z., Bernard, M., and Bonds, A. (2006). Synchronous activity in cat visual cortex encodes collinear and cocircular contours. Journal of Neurophysiology 95, 2602�2616.
Singer, W. (1999). Neuronal synchrony: A versatile code for the definition of relations? Neuron 24, 49�65.
Smith, P. (1995). Structural and functional differences distinguish principal from nonprincipal cells in the guinea pig ms0 slice. Neurophysiology 73, 1653�1667.
Villa, A., Tetko, I., Hyland, B., and Najem, A. (1999). Spatiotemporal activity patterns of rat cortical neurons predict responses in a conditioned task. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96, 1106�1111.
von der Malsburg, C. (1999). The what and why of binding: The modelers perspective. Neuron 24, 95�104.
Wasserman, L. (2004). All of statistics: a concise course in statistical inference. (New York, NY: Springer).
Wehr, M., and Laurent, G. (1996). Odour encoding by temporal sequences of firing in oscillating neural assemblies. Nature 384, 162�166.
Yin, T., and Chan, J. (1990). Interaural time sensitivity in medial superior olive of cat. Neurophysiology 64, 465�488.
\end{comment}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Understanding how stars respond when they lose mass is a key ingredient on which binary evolution models depend. This response is particularly important in the context of interacting binaries with a donor filling its Roche lobe on a giant branch. In the oversimplifying case of conservative mass transfer, the orbital separation shrinks if the giant donor is more massive than the companion. If in the meantime the giant star expands or does not contract faster than the orbit shrinks, this positive feedback leads to an increase of the mass transfer rate. The stellar response to mass loss therefore dictates, along with how angular momentum is lost, whether or not a given system enters a common envelope phase \citep{Paczynski1976}. Consequently, it significantly affects the results of population synthesis studies \citep[see, e.g.,][]{PolitanoEtAl2010}.
Also, detailed 3D hydrodynamical simulations of the dynamical common envelope phase have shown that a giant's simulated envelope material is significantly lifted, but most of it does not reach escape velocity under the present modeling assumptions \citep[]{PassyEtAl2012,RickerTaam2012}. \cite{AlphaPaper2011} suggested that an expansion of the giant as a result of mass loss \citep{HjellmingWebbink1987, GeEtAl2010} might contribute to the envelope ejection. Such an expansion of mass-losing giants was recently questioned in a \emph{Letter} by \cite{WoodsIvanova2011}.
Therefore, we study the radius response of mass-losing giants again, with detailed microphysics, using the one-dimensional stellar evolution code MESA \citep[Module for Experiment in Stellar Astrophysics,][]{PaxtonEtAl2011}. Such a tool -- although it neglects three-dimensional effects -- allows to remove one or more simplifying assumptions adopted in some previous studies, which we mention in the next paragraphs.
For a star following a polytropic stratification of index $n$ with an adiabatic index $\gamma = 1+1/n$, the Lane-Emden equation leads to the {\it mass-radius relation} between a standard solution of radius $R_0$ and mass $M_0$, and a perturbed polytrope of radius $R$ and mass $M$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{R}{R_0} = \left( \frac{M}{M_0} \right)^{\frac{1-n}{3-n}}.
\label{eq:mass-radius}
\end{equation}
\noindent Note that Equation~(\ref{eq:mass-radius}) is only valid for a fixed adiabat throughout the stellar interior. For the complete derivation, see, e.g., \cite{HjellmingWebbink1987} or \cite{Carroll}. For an ideal gas equation of state, the specific entropy follows a simple expression:
\begin{equation}
s(m) = s_0 + (1 + 1/n - \gamma)c_v \ln(\rho)
\label{eq:entropy}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $s_0$ is a constant and $c_v$ is the specific heat at constant volume. Perfect monoatomic gases have $\gamma = 5/3$ so a convective region ($ds/dm = 0$) can be modeled with a polytrope of index $n = 3/2$. Using this value in Equation~(\ref{eq:mass-radius}) leads to $R/R_0 = (M/M_0)^{-1/3}$ and the conclusion that fully convective stars expand when they lose mass.
Later on, \cite{HjellmingWebbink1987} investigated the stability of polytropes, condensed polytropes (a polytropic envelope with a core modeled by a point mass) and composite polytropes (an envelope and a core with different polytropic indices) for convective ($\gamma = 1+1/n$) and radiative ($\gamma > 1+1/n$) regions. They evolved their models in the adiabatic regime, which means that they assumed hydrostatic equilibrium and an adiabatic evolution such that the entropy profile remains constant in Lagrangian coordinates. For the condensed polytropes, they showed (their Equation~40) that the {\it
adiabatic radius-mass exponent}, $\xi_{\rm ad}$, asymptotically approaches
\begin{equation}
\xi_{\rm ad} \equiv \left(\frac{d \ln R }{d \ln M }\right)_{\rm ad} = \frac{1}{3-n}\left(1-n+\frac{m_c}{1-m_c}\right)
\label{eq:xi}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $m_c$ is the ratio between the core mass and the total mass of the star. Equation~(\ref{eq:xi}) describes the behavior of $\xi_{\rm ad}$ in the limit $m_c \rightarrow 1$ but one also recovers the appropriate $\xi_{\rm ad}$ for a complete polytrope for any value of $n$ ($m_c=0$, Equation~\ref{eq:mass-radius}). However, the response of stars to very high mass loss rates may not be hydrostatic. Moreover, Equation~(\ref{eq:xi}) is only valid for condensed polytropes which are models that neglect radiation pressure and do not reproduce the superadiabatic regime that is encountered in the outer layers of giants.
\cite{GeEtAl2010} also studied the response of mass-losing stars in the adiabatic limit but used a detailed equation of state instead of a polytropic stratification. The star was assumed to stay in hydrostatic equilibrium, and its response to mass loss was assumed to be fully adiabatic. The entropy and composition profiles were fixed and the local value of these profiles during the evolution was obtained by interpolation from the initial model. For their 1~M$_\odot$ \ giant star model, the stellar radius increased by 30\%. The study concluded that instability in the mass transfer occurs rapidly for donors with a convective envelope, if at all, while donors with a radiative envelope may encounter a delayed dynamical instability. \cite{DeloyeTaam2010} used a similar approach to study the common envelope outcomes of 10~M$_\odot$ \ donors. They found that the mass of the remnant can vary by 20\% depending on when the common envelope phase happens and on the initial mass ratio.
All the models above yield a paradigm in which giants expand as a result of mass loss, such that mass loss that starts in semi-detached binaries with a giant donor tends to be unstable. However, for typical mass loss rates encountered at the onset of a common envelope interaction ($\dot{M} \la 1$~M$_\odot$/yr, \citealt{PassyEtAl2012}), the donor does not stay in hydrostatic equilibrium. Moreover, an adiabatic evolution assumes that mass loss happens on a timescale shorter than the thermal timescale of the mass-losing star throughout its interior.
Recently, \cite{WoodsIvanova2011} showed that the evolution could be locally non-adiabatic, since the outer superadiabatic layer of giant stars has a thermal timescale so short that it might readjust and reconstruct faster than it is stripped away. They present the evolutionary sequence of a 5~M$_\odot$ \ giant star for various mass loss rates, and show that the star grows mildly in radius during its evolution (their Figure~3). They also calculate the critical mass ratio for stable mass transfer for different donors. These values are only indicative but show that the response of the mass-losing star evolves with mass loss and cannot be parametrized using only the binary and stellar parameters.
In this paper we present models of mass-losing stars by removing some of the assumptions made in previous investigations. We obtain these models using the stellar evolution code MESA. The numerical method is described in Section~\ref{sec:numerical}. We present the simulations in Section~\ref{sec:simulations} and verify our method with low-mass zero-age main sequence (ZAMS) models in Section~\ref{sec:lowmass}. We then study in detail the dynamical response of red giant branch (RGB) and asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, and describe the physical processes involved, in Section~\ref{sec:giants}. A summary and conclusions are provided in Section~\ref{sec:summary}.
\section{Numerical method}
\label{sec:numerical}
MESA is a parallel one-dimensional stellar evolution code that uses adaptive mesh refinement and adaptive time stepping. In this section, we outline the basic features of this code. More details can be found in \cite{PaxtonEtAl2011}.
In hydrodynamic mode, the full set of differential equations of stellar evolution is solved in the Lagrangian description:
\begin{equation}
v = r \frac{d\ln{r}}{dt}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\ln{r}}{dm} = \frac{1}{4 \pi r^3 \rho}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{dv}{dt} = - 4 \pi r^2 \frac{d P}{dm} - \frac{G m}{r^2}
\label{eq:momentum}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\ln{T}}{dm} = \frac{d\ln{P}}{dm} \nabla
\label{eq:e_transport}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{d l}{dm} = \epsilon_{\rm nuc} - \epsilon_{\rm \nu} - c_PT \left[ (1-\nabla_{\rm ad} \chi_T)\frac{d \ln{T}}{dt} - \nabla_{\rm ad} \chi_\rho \frac{d \ln{\rho}}{dt} \right]
\label{eq:e_conserve}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the mass $m$ is the independent variable and $r$, $\rho$, $P$, $T$, $l$, $\nabla \equiv d\ln{T} / d\ln{P}$, $\epsilon_{\rm nuc}$, $\epsilon_{\rm \nu}$, $c_P$, $ \nabla_{\rm ad} \equiv \left( d\ln{T} / d\ln{P} \right)_{s}$, $s$, $v$ and $G$ are the radius, the density, the pressure, the temperature, the luminosity, the temperature gradient, the nuclear energy generation rate, the neutrino loss rate, the specific heat at constant pressure, the adiabatic gradient, the specific entropy, the velocity and the gravitational constant, respectively. In addition, $\chi_T \equiv \left( d\ln{P} / d\ln{T} \right)_{\rho}$ and $\chi_\rho \equiv \left( d\ln{P} / d\ln{\rho} \right)_{T}$. To close this set of equations, we obtained the equation of state from a set of tables computed with the {\it FreeEOS}\footnote{http://freeeos.sourceforge.net/} code, developed by Alan Irwin, in the EOS4 configuration.
In order to improve numerical stability we use some artificial viscosity following the treatment by \citet[][their Equation 3]{WeaverEtAl1978}. Aside from providing better stability for the code, artificial viscosity had no effect on the evolution based on comparison of sequences carried out with or without artificial viscosity.
Different options have been explored for modeling stellar mass loss. We first directly set the mass loss rate $\dot{M}$ to a constant value regardless of the evolutionary stage. In order to show the robustness of the results, we also study how the models respond to a variable mass loss rate, for instance a scaled up wind model \citep{Reimers1975}:
\begin{equation}
\dot{M} = \eta_{\rm R} \times 4 \times 10^{-13} \left(\frac{L}{L_\odot}\right) \left(\frac{R}{R_\odot}\right) \left(\frac{M_\odot}{M}\right)~~~[M_\odot/{\rm yr}]
\label{eq:reimers}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $L$ is the luminosity and $\eta_{\rm R}$ is a dimensionless constant. We select values of $\eta_{\rm R}$ to model very high mass loss rates. Typical models for RGB winds use values of $\eta_{\rm R}$ around 0.5.
\section{The simulations}
\label{sec:simulations}
We perform 21 MESA simulations (Table~\ref{tab:runs}). We first investigate the behavior of low-mass ZAMS stars (models 1 to 4) in order to verify our method through a comparison with the results of \cite{GeEtAl2010} for such models. We then study the stellar response of a 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star (models 5 to 9) in hydrodynamic mode for various mass loss rates. Models 10 to 13 are equivalent to models 5 to 8 except that they are carried out in hydrostatic mode, such that dynamical effects are isolated. Additional sequences for a 0.74~M$_\odot$ \ AGB star (models 14 and 15) and for a 5~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star (models 16 to 18) allow comparison with the results of \cite{WoodsIvanova2011}. We also verify that changing the atmosphere boundary conditions from the ``simple atmosphere'' default option to the ``Eddington grey'' option (model 19) does not modify the outcome of our simulations \citep[these options are described in][]{PaxtonEtAl2011}. In order to verify that the initial response of the star is captured accurately in our simulations, we finally examine extra models (models 20 and 21) which are similar to models 8 and 17, but with an initial timestep smaller by an order of magnitude. Time-stepping automatically readjusts and we find no difference between the corresponding models.
\begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccc}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablecaption{The main parameters for the simulations: the model number, the main sequence mass of the star ($M_{\rm MS}$), the stellar ($M_0$) and core ($M_c$) masses, radius ($R_0$), and luminosity ($L_0$) at the start of the mass loss phase, the mass loss rate or Reimers parameter ($\dot{M}$), and whether or not the model is carried out in hydrodynamic mode.}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Model} &
\colhead{$M_{\rm MS}$/M$_\odot$} &
\colhead{$M_0$/M$_\odot$} &
\colhead{$M_c$/M$_\odot$} &
\colhead{$R_0$/R$_\odot$} &
\colhead{$L_0$/L$_\odot$} &
\colhead{$\dot{M}$} &
\colhead{Hydro} }
\startdata
1 & 0.30 & 0.30 & - & 0.28 & $1.3\times10^{-2}$ & $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr & No \\
2 & 0.40 & 0.40 & - & 0.35 & $2.3\times10^{-2}$ & $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr & No \\
3 & 0.50 & 0.50 & - & 0.45 & $4.1\times10^{-2}$ & $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr & No \\
4 & 0.30 & 0.30 & - & 0.28 & $1.3\times10^{-2}$ & $0.1$~M$_\odot$/yr & No \\
\\
5 & 1.00 & 0.89 & 0.41 & 102 & $1.20\times10^3$ & $10^{-3}$~M$_\odot$/yr & Yes \\
6 & 1.00 & 0.89 & 0.41 & 102 & $1.20\times10^3$ & $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr & Yes \\
7 & 1.00 & 0.89 & 0.41 & 102 & $1.20\times10^3$ & $0.1$~M$_\odot$/yr & Yes \\
8 & 1.00 & 0.89 & 0.41 & 102 & $1.20\times10^3$ & $1.0$~M$_\odot$/yr & Yes \\
9 & 1.00 & 0.89 & 0.41 & 102 & $1.20\times10^3$ & $\eta_{\rm R} = 10^6$ & Yes \\
\\
10 & 1.00 & 0.89 & 0.41 & 102 & $1.20\times10^3$ & $10^{-3}$~M$_\odot$/yr & No \\
11 & 1.00 & 0.89 & 0.41 & 102 & $1.20\times10^3$ & $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr & No \\
12 & 1.00 & 0.89 & 0.41 & 102 & $1.20\times10^3$ & $0.1$~M$_\odot$/yr & No \\
13 & 1.00 & 0.89 & 0.41 & 102 & $1.20\times10^3$ & $1.0$~M$_\odot$/yr & No \\
\\
14 & 1.00 & 0.74 & 0.52 & 111 & $1.37\times10^3$ & $0.5$~M$_\odot$/yr & Yes \\
15 & 1.00 & 0.74 & 0.52 & 111 & $1.37\times10^3$ & $1.0$~M$_\odot$/yr & Yes \\
\\
16 & 5.00 & 4.99 & 0.61 & 50 & $8.85\times10^2$ & $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr & Yes \\
17 & 5.00 & 4.99 & 0.61 & 50 & $8.85\times10^2$ & $1.0$~M$_\odot$/yr & Yes \\
18 & 5.00 & 4.99 & 0.61 & 50 & $8.85\times10^2$ & $\eta_{\rm R} = 2\times10^7$ & Yes \\
\\
19\tablenotemark{a} & 1.00 & 0.89 & 0.41 & 102 & $1.20\times10^3$ & $0.1$~M$_\odot$/yr & Yes \\
20\tablenotemark{b} & 1.00 & 0.89 & 0.41 & 102 & $1.20\times10^3$ & $1.0$~M$_\odot$/yr & Yes \\
21\tablenotemark{c} & 5.00 & 4.99 & 0.61 & 50 & $8.85\times10^2$ & $1.0$~M$_\odot$/yr & Yes \\
\enddata
\label{tab:runs}
\tablenotetext{a}{Similar to model 7 but with different boundary conditions.}
\tablenotetext{b}{Similar to model 8 but with an initial timestep ten times smaller.}
\tablenotetext{c}{Similar to model 17 but with an initial timestep ten times smaller.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\section{Low-mass zero age main sequence stars}
\label{sec:lowmass}
Low-mass ZAMS stars provide a simple case to compare our method --- solving the full set of stellar equations --- with the method used in \cite{GeEtAl2010} --- assuming an adiabatic evolution (c.f. Section~\ref{sec:intro}). Indeed, the global thermal timescale of a 0.3~M$_\odot$ \ ZAMS star is
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm KH} \equiv \frac{G M^2}{RL} \approx 7.7 \times 10^8~{\rm years},
\end{equation}
\noindent which is several orders of magnitude longer than the duration of the different sequences for the mass loss rates considered (Table~\ref{tab:runs}). Consequently, the star does not have enough time to readjust thermally throughout its entire interior. Moreover, one can calculate the local thermal timescale of the outer part of the star \citep{WoodsIvanova2011}:
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm KH,loc}(m) \equiv \int_m^M u(m^{'})/L(m^{'})~dm^{'}
\label{eq:thloc}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $u$ is the internal energy per unit mass and $m$ is the mass coordinate. Equation~(\ref{eq:thloc}) implicitly assumes that one can parse the stellar interior at any mass coordinate into an outer and an inner zone, and that the outer zone can thermally readjust independently. This might not strictly be the case in a convective region where convective overturn is usually shorter than the thermal timescale of a given zone, thus stabilizes thermal perturbations on a timescale shorter than the thermal timescale of the zone. Figure~\ref{fig:ZAMSthloc} shows that even the outermost 0.01\% of the mass needs about 1000\,years to thermally readjust to the perturbations induced by mass loss. Again, this timescale is much longer than the duration of the simulations (25 years for the 0.3~M$_\odot$ \ ZAMS star with a mass loss rate of $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr, model 1), and so the outer layers cannot thermally readjust. The evolution of the mass-losing star is thus adiabatic, both locally and globally. Among low-mass ZAMS stars, those with lower mass have deeper convective envelopes. The lowest-mass ZAMS stars ($M\la 0.3$~M$_\odot$) are fully convective, and so should be well approximated by a polytropic expansion ($\xi_{\rm ad} = -1/3$, Equation~\ref{eq:xi}).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{Figure1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{The local thermal timescale (top) and specific entropy (bottom) in the outermost 10\% of the stellar mass for the $M_0=0.3$~M$_\odot$ \ ZAMS star (dashed black, models 1 and 4) and the $M_0=0.89$~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star (solid red, models 5 to 8 and 14).
\label{fig:ZAMSthloc}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We carry out simulations where the mass-losing star is a ZAMS star with a mass ranging from 0.3 to 0.5~M$_\odot$ \ (models 1 to 4). The resolution is approximately 1000 zones. We reproduce the results from \citealt{GeEtAl2010} quite accurately (their Figure~3). For all models, the radius of the mass-losing star increases as mass is lost (Figure~\ref{fig:ZAMSEvolution}), in particular the 0.3~M$_\odot$ \ model, which is almost fully convective and therefore behaves most like a polytrope (Equation~\ref{eq:mass-radius}). One should emphasize that the small difference between the 0.3~M$_\odot$ \ model and the polytropic limit arise from deviations of the stellar structure from a complete polytrope. We try different mass loss rates of $10^{-2}$ and $10^{-1}$~M$_\odot$/yr for the 0.3~M$_\odot$ \ star (models 1 and 4, respectively) and find no difference whatsoever. The evolution for both mass loss rates is much too rapid to allow any local thermal readjustment of the outer parts of the star (Figure~\ref{fig:ZAMSthloc}). In conclusion, the evolution of low-mass ZAMS stars is fully adiabatic. Thus, the approximation by \cite{GeEtAl2010} is appropriate for these low-mass main-sequence stars.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.34]{Figure2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{The evolution of the stellar radius as a function of stellar mass in terms of the initial radius ($R_0$) and mass ($M_0$) of the ZAMS models (1 to 4) with mass loss rates $\dot{M} = 10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr (low) and $\dot{M} = 0.1$~M$_\odot$/yr (high). Also shown is the evolution in the polytropic limit (Equation~\ref{eq:mass-radius}).
\label{fig:ZAMSEvolution}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Giant stars}
\label{sec:giants}
The case of giant stars is somewhat more complicated. Giant stars have a convective envelope in which the entropy profile is flat. For intermediate-mass giant stars, the global thermal timescale of the star is still large in comparison with its dynamical timescale, and so the stellar interior cannot thermally readjust during most simulations. However, intermediate-mass giants also possess a cool, low-density outer layer in which convection is very inefficient. The local thermal timescale of this superadiabatic layer is very short in comparison with the global thermal timescale of the star: the outermost 1\% of the mass thermally readjusts in approximately one year (Figure~\ref{fig:ZAMSthloc}). Therefore, the layer might have enough time to thermally readjust locally, depending on how the local thermal timescale of the superadiabatic layer and the time needed to strip it away compare. Assuming that the layer has a mass $m_{\rm shell}$, its local thermal timescale is $t_{\rm KH,loc}(m_{\rm shell})$ and it takes $m_{\rm shell}/\dot{M}$ to remove it. This leads to a critical mass loss rate:
\begin{equation}
\dot{M}_{\rm crit} \approx \frac{m_{\rm shell}}{t_{\rm KH,loc}(m_{\rm shell})}
\label{eq:mdotcrit}
\end{equation}
\noindent which gives the threshold for the readjustment of the superadiabatic layer. If $\dot{M} \ll \dot{M}_{\rm crit}$, the superadiabaticity cannot be removed and the outer layer thermally readjusts. If $\dot{M} \ga \dot{M}_{\rm crit}$, the outer layer does not have time to readjust and superadiabaticity is lost progressively. The higher the mass loss rate, the sooner the superadiabatic layer disappears entirely, after which the star evolves adiabatically. A similar argument has been made by \cite{WoodsIvanova2011}, except that we consider here the time required to remove the superadiabatic layer rather than the time to strip away the entire star, as they did in their Equation~3. There is no unique definition of this outer layer, but for our 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ RGB model one can estimate from the entropy profile that $m_{\rm shell}$ is about $10^{-3}$~M$_\odot$ \ and $t_{\rm KH,loc}(m_{\rm shell}) \approx 0.04$~year, which leads to a critical value for the mass loss rate $\dot{M}_{\rm crit} \approx 2.5\times10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr.
\vspace{0.5cm}
\subsection{The canonical case of a 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ red giant branch star}
In this section, we first study the canonical case of a 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star, and compare our results to the adiabatic models from \cite{GeEtAl2010}. We carry out hydrodynamic simulations with constant mass loss rates ranging from $10^{-3}$ to 1~M$_\odot$/yr (models 5 to 8) and one model with a varying mass loss rate (model 9). We also carry out their hydrostatic counterparts (models 10 to 13) in order to compare with previously published models, and to demonstrate the error a hydrostatic assumption causes. The resolution for all the one-dimensional models discussed here is approximately 2500 zones.
We plot in Figure~\ref{fig:1M_RGB_Mass} the evolution of the stellar mass and the mass loss rate for models 5 to 9, while the evolution of the stellar radius for models 5 to 14 is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:1M_RGB_Radius}. Mass-losing giants barely expand, if at all. The difference between the hydrodynamic and the hydrostatic models for the lowest mass loss rate ($\dot{M} = 10^{-3}$~M$_\odot$/yr, models 5 and 10) is hardly noticeable. This is due to the fact that for such a low mass loss rate, the star is barely driven out of hydrostatic equilibrium. A comparison between the acceleration ($a=dv/dt$) and the gravitational acceleration ($g=Gm/r^2$) profiles confirms that this model stays in hydrostatic equilibrium (Figure~\ref{fig:accel}). If one increases the mass loss rate to $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr, some marginal differences arise in the very early phase of evolution between the hydrodynamic and the hydrostatic models. This is the threshold for which hydrodynamic effects can no longer be neglected, as the acceleration in the outer parts of the giant represents almost 1\% of the gravitational force at that location. These effects naturally increase as the mass loss rate increases.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{Figure3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{The evolution of the mass (top) and the mass loss rate (bottom) for the 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star with mass loss rates of $10^{-3}$~M$_\odot$/yr (dotted magenta, model 5), $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr (solid blue, model 6), $0.1$~M$_\odot$/yr (dash-dotted red, model 7), $1$~M$_\odot$/yr (solid green, model 8), and variable (dashed black, model 9).
\label{fig:1M_RGB_Mass}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{Figure4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Top: evolution of the stellar radius as a function of stellar mass for the 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star with mass loss rates of $10^{-3}$~M$_\odot$/yr (magenta), $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr (blue), $0.1$~M$_\odot$/yr (red), $1$~M$_\odot$/yr (green), and variable (black). Both hydrodynamic (solid) and hydrostatic sequences (dashed) are shown. Bottom: a close-up of the early evolution of the sequences shown above.
\label{fig:1M_RGB_Radius}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{Figure5-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Ratio between the acceleration and the gravitational acceleration after the 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star star has lost about $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$. The mass loss rate is (from bottom to top) $10^{-3}$~M$_\odot$/yr (dotted magenta, model 5), $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr (solid blue, model 6), $0.1$~M$_\odot$/yr (dash-dotted red, model 7), and $1$~M$_\odot$/yr (solid green, model 8).
\label{fig:accel}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Hydrodynamic models for which dynamical effects cannot be neglected (models 6 to 9) all contract in the early evolutionary phase. The higher the mass loss rate, the more the stellar radius decreases (Figure~\ref{fig:1M_RGB_Radius}). Later on, differences arise as stars with high mass loss rates keep contracting while stars with lower $\dot{M}$ first re-expand slightly and then contract again. For the model with $\dot{M} = 10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr (model 6), the radius of the star grows by less than 5\%. We certainly do not see the $30$\% expansion found in \cite{GeEtAl2010} for a 1~M$_\odot$ \ giant star (their Figure~6). Model 8, for which the shrinkage is most dramatic, considers a typical mass loss rate that is encountered during a common envelope evolution. On the other hand, the equivalent hydrostatic ``test'' models (models 11 to 13) all show an expansion of the radius, with the higher mass loss rates leading to the largest increases. This behavior is similar to sequences by \citet[their Figure~3]{WoodsIvanova2011}. This comparison demonstrates that dynamical aspects play a critical role in the stellar response of our model. Some energy that would be transformed into internal energy or expansion work in the hydrostatic assumption can now go into kinetic energy.
In order to understand the reasons for these different behaviors, we plot in Figure~\ref{fig:1M_RGB_Entropy} entropy profiles at different times for models 6, 7 and 8. The evolution of the entropy differs significantly between cases with different mass loss rates. For the lowest mass loss rate ($\dot{M} = 10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr, model 6), the entire interior has enough time to adjust thermally. After 40\% of the initial stellar mass has been lost, the star has still the entropy profile similar to the one of a giant star stratification. For the intermediate mass loss rate ($\dot{M} = 0.1$~M$_\odot$/yr, model 7), very little of the outer layer loses its superadiabaticity in the early phase. Eventually, the interior of the star has not changed except in the outermost parts. Moreover, the superadiabatic layer is much less prominent than for a regular giant star stratification, and a radiative zone has developed just beneath it. In the highest mass loss rate case ($\dot{M} = 1$~M$_\odot$/yr, model 8), one can see the superadiabaticity being removed very early in the evolution and the build-up of a radiative zone. Eventually, the surface is not superadiabatic anymore. The entropy profile of the interior layers has not changed and the mass for which the entropy drops is negligible. Only a small radiative zone remains on top of the convective zone (Figure~\ref{fig:1M_RGB_Entropy}, middle and bottom panels).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{Figure6-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{Figure7-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{Figure8-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Entropy profiles at the onset of mass loss (dashed black), during the early evolutionary phase (solid colors, right panels) and after the 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star has lost about 40\% of its mass (red, left panels). The mass loss rate is $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr (model 6, top), 0.1~M$_\odot$/yr (model 7, middle) and 1~M$_\odot$/yr (model 8, bottom).
\label{fig:1M_RGB_Entropy}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The evolution of the radius profile as a function of mass for the hydrodynamic case shows that while some material close to the surface always moves out, the radius continuously decreases (Figure~\ref{fig:radius}). A certain kinetic energy is associated with this local outward motion which, in the case of hydrostatic models, goes into expansion work (potential energy). As a result the latter models increase their radius.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{Figure9-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{Figure10-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Radius profiles at the onset of mass loss (dashed black) and during the early evolutionary phase (solid colors) for the 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star and a mass loss rate of 1~M$_\odot$/yr. Both hydrodynamic (top, model 8) and hydrostatic sequences (bottom, model 13) are shown.
\label{fig:radius}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We can try to explain the formation of the radiative layer mentioned above by considering a tiny ``sub-layer'' at a constant mass coordinate, located within the superadiabatic layer of the mass-losing star (Figure~\ref{fig:1M_RGB_RhoT_mcoor}). As the above layers are removed, the sub-layer can as a result more easily radiate some of its energy outwards: the temperature decreases while the local density stays almost constant. The thermal timescale is shorter in this phase than the dynamical timescale. Later on, the density profile readjusts and the density of the sub-layer drops significantly while its temperature only decreases by a small amount. Now the thermal timescale is longer than the local dynamical timescale. These two phases are also seen in the various entropy profiles (Figure~\ref{fig:1M_RGB_S_mcoor}). First, the temperature in the sub-layer decreases while the density stays almost constant, leading to a decrease of the entropy. Then, the density drops while the temperature only marginally decreases, which leads to an increasing entropy. This suggests that the readjustment of the star happens in two (nearly) distinct phases: first a thermal readjustment during which some of the energy of the layers is radiated away, then a dynamical readjustment during which the density in the outer layers decreases leading to the formation of the radiative layer.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.34]{Figure11-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Profiles in the $\rho-T$ diagram for the 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star ($\dot{M} = 1$~M$_\odot$/yr, model 8) at the onset of mass transfer (solid black) and at different times during the early evolution (colors, the total mass is given in the legend). Also plotted is the location of a fixed mass coordinate (dashed black with crosses, from left to right: 0.885, 0.883 and 0.881~M$_\odot$).
\label{fig:1M_RGB_RhoT_mcoor}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{Figure12-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Entropy profiles for the 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star ($\dot{M} = 1$~M$_\odot$/yr, model 8) at the onset of mass transfer (solid black) and at different times during the early evolution (same colors as in Figure~\ref{fig:1M_RGB_RhoT_mcoor}). Also plotted is the location of a fixed mass coordinate (dashed black, from left to right: 0.883 and 0.885~M$_\odot$).
\label{fig:1M_RGB_S_mcoor}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Additional models}
We also carry out evolutionary sequences for a 0.74~M$_\odot$ \ AGB star with two different mass loss rates (models 14 and 15) and for a 5~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star (models 16, 17 and 18) similar to the one used by \cite{WoodsIvanova2011} in order to verify that the behavior seen for the 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star case is not a special case. The evolution of the radius for both stars is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:1M_AGB_RadiusMass} and Figure~\ref{fig:5M_RGB_RadiusMass}, respectively. Again, all the models initially shrink in radius. Models suffering a higher mass loss rate then shrink faster. In the particular case of the 5~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star, our results differ from the findings by \cite{WoodsIvanova2011}. Indeed, their Figure~3 shows that for all mass loss rates except the lowest one ($\dot{M} = 10^{-3}$~M$_\odot$/yr), the mass-losing star slightly expands. The higher the mass loss rate, the larger the star expands. This behavior is quite similar to the one seen in Figure~\ref{fig:1M_RGB_Radius} for the hydrostatic simulations, so it is possible that the results presented in their Figure~3 have been obtained assuming hydrostatic equilibrium. Nevertheless, the stellar radius after 0.6~M$_\odot$ \ has been lost by the star (see their Figure~2) seems quite consistent with ours, although making a more detailed comparison is difficult as their Figure~3 only shows the evolution until the star has lost 0.5\% of its total mass. Our 5~M$_\odot$ \ RGB model has a smaller core mass fraction (0.122) than their model (0.171), which might also lead to differences.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{Figure13-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the stellar radius as a function of stellar mass for the 0.74~M$_\odot$ \ AGB star with mass loss rates of $0.5$~M$_\odot$/yr (black, model 14) and $1$~M$_\odot$/yr (dash-dotted red, model 15).
\label{fig:1M_AGB_RadiusMass}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{Figure14-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Top: evolution of the stellar radius as a function of stellar mass for the 5~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star with mass loss rates of $10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr (black, model 16), $1$~M$_\odot$/yr (dash-dotted red, model 17), and variable (dashed blue, model 18). Bottom: a close-up of the early evolution.
\label{fig:5M_RGB_RadiusMass}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary and Discussion}
\label{sec:summary}
We used the MESA stellar evolution code to carry out one-dimensional hydrostatic and hydrodynamic simulations of mass-losing stars, either low-mass ZAMS stars between 0.3 and 0.5~M$_\odot$, or 1 or 5~M$_\odot$ \ (main sequence mass) giant stars, with several constant and variable mass loss rates up to a few ~M$_\odot$/yr.
We first tested our numerical method against the low-mass ZAMS stars case and reproduced the results of \cite{GeEtAl2010}. Therefore, it is correct to assume that the evolution of the star is adiabatic {\it in this specific case}.
We then investigated the case of a 0.89~M$_\odot$ \ RGB star for five different mass loss rates. We showed that the mass-losing star does not remain in hydrostatic equilibrium for high mass loss rates and that the evolution is not adiabatic, as the outer superadiabatic layer has enough time to thermally relax. Only for low mass loss rates ($\dot{M} \leq 10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$/yr) have both the outer superadiabatic layer and the stellar interior enough time to thermally readjust. The superadiabatic layer progressively reconstructs and survives the entire evolution, making the evolution not adiabatic both locally and globally. For high mass loss rates ($\dot{M} \geq 0.1$~M$_\odot$/yr), the outer part of the star progressively loses its superadiabaticity and the interior does not have enough time to thermally readjust. Even though a fraction of the initial superadiabatic layer might survive, a larger radiative zone emerges below it and the star keeps shrinking during the entire sequence. The evolution of the star is locally non-adiabatic and hydrodynamic, as some energy that is stored in gravitational form in the hydrostatic models is actually in a kinetic form, leading to the star contracting instead of expanding.
We also carried out additional simulations for a 0.74~M$_\odot$ \ AGB star with a core mass of 0.52~M$_\odot$\ and a 5~M$_\odot$\ RGB star. These models are consistent with our previous findings and with the 5~M$_\odot$\ RGB model in \cite{WoodsIvanova2011}. We have also verified that the outcomes of our simulations depend on neither numerical parameters such as the initial timestep adopted, nor on boundary conditions.
According to our stellar evolution models, giants barely expand, if at all. This result impacts the condition for the onset of the common envelope phase. Using the Eddington luminosity limit, one can estimate the mass loss rate above which a dwarf would be unable to accrete material, to be about $10^{-3}$~M$_\odot$/yr. For higher mass loss rates, the hydrostatic assumption is violated and there is no expansion of the giant's envelope. As a consequence, the positive feedback from the mass-losing giant discussed in Section~\ref{sec:intro}, may be reduced. Further investigations are required to quantify how this feedback affects the temporal evolution of the mass transfer rate. Overall, criteria for unstable mass transfer based on adiabatic mass loss models should be re-investigated. Moreover, if giant stars do not expand as a result of mass loss, this process does also not help the envelope ejection during a common envelope interaction, as speculated by \cite{AlphaPaper2011}.
\section{Acknowledgments}
\label{sec:ack}
J-CP acknowledges funding from NSF grant 0607111 and thanks Mordecai-Mark Mac Low for his support. FH acknowledges funding from an NSERC Discovery grant. BP acknowledges funding from NSF grants PHY 05-51164 and AST 07-07633. The authors are grateful to Orsola De Marco for the initial discussions regarding the stellar response to common-envelope-induced mass loss. J-CP thanks Aaron Dotter for his help installing the {\it FreeEOS} tables, and Charli Sakari for proofreading this manuscript.
\bibliographystyle{/Applications/TeX/apj}
|
\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}
\newcommand{\I}{\mathrm i}
\newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
\newcommand{\end{array}}{\end{array}}
\newcommand{\begin{align}}{\begin{align}}
\newcommand{\end{align}}{\end{align}}
\newcommand{\begin{eqnarray}}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\end{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\normalsize}{\normalsize}
\newcommand{\footnotesize}{\footnotesize}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left|#1\right|}
\newcommand{\norma}[1]{\left\Vert#1\right\Vert}
\newcommand{\tam}[1]{{\text {\Large $#1$}}}
\newcommand{\stam}[1]{{\text {\large $#1$}}}
\newcommand{\left( }{\left( }
\newcommand{\right) }{\right) }
\newcommand{\left[ }{\left[ }
\newcommand{\right] }{\right] }
\newcommand{\left\{ }{\left\{ }
\newcommand{\right\} }{\right\} }
\newcommand{\braket}[1]{\langle#1\rangle}
\newcommand{\hspace{2mm}F_{\hspace{-3.8mm}1\hspace{1.9mm}1}}{\hspace{2mm}F_{\hspace{-3.8mm}1\hspace{1.9mm}1}}
\renewcommand{\lim}[2]{\begin{tabular}{c} \vspace{-3mm}lim\\ $_{#1\to #2}$\end{tabular}}
\def\partial{\partial}
\def{\it i.e.}{{\it i.e.}}
\def\slash\hspace{-2.1mm}\partial{\slash\hspace{-2.1mm}\partial}
\def\mathrm{d}{{\rm d}}
\def\alpha{\alpha}
\def\beta{\beta}
\def\chi{\chi}
\def\gamma{\gamma}
\def\g^{\dot 5}{\gamma^{\dot 5}}
\def\Gamma{\Gamma}
\def\delta{\delta}
\def\Delta{\Delta}
\def{\kappa}{{\kappa}}
\def\mu{\mu}
\def\nu{\nu}
\def \hat{\hat}
\def \mathcal{G}{\mathcal{G}}
\def\tau{\tau}
\def\theta{\theta}
\defl{l}
\def\psi{\psi}
\defl{l}
\def\Psi{\Psi}
\def\theta{\theta}
\def\zeta{\zeta}
\def\Theta{\Theta}
\def\lambda{\lambda}
\def\Lambda{\Lambda}
\def\Omega{\Omega}
\def\omega{\omega}
\def\tilde\omega{\tilde\omega}
\def\rho{\rho}
\def\sigma{\sigma}
\def\Sigma{\Sigma}
\def\epsilon{\epsilon}
\def\mathcal{J}{\mathcal{J}}
\def\mathcal{M}{\mathcal{M}}
\def\tilde{\mathcal{M}}{\tilde{\mathcal{M}}}
\def\mathbb{R}{\mathbb{R}}
\def\mathrm{tr}{\mathrm{tr}}
\def\mathrm{Tr}{\mathrm{Tr}}
\def\mathrm {tan}{\mathrm {tan}}
\def\mathrm {sin}{\mathrm {sin}}
\def\mathrm {cos}{\mathrm {cos}}
\def\mathrm {tanh}{\mathrm {tanh}}
\def\mathrm {coth}{\mathrm {coth}}
\def\mathrm {sinh}{\mathrm {sinh}}
\def\mathrm {cosh}{\mathrm {cosh}}
\def\phantom{1}{\phantom{1}}
\def\xi{\xi}
\def{\bf 1}{{\bf 1}}
\def\frac{n}{R}{\frac{n}{R}}
\def\tilde m{\tilde m}
\def{\rm $\tilde n$}{{\rm $\tilde n$}}
\def\mathfrak{n}_f{\mathfrak{n}_f}
\def\mathfrak{e}_{f_h}{\mathfrak{e}_{f_h}}
\def\mathfrak{e}_{f_\nu}{\mathfrak{e}_{f_\nu}}
\def\mathcal Q{\mathcal Q}
\def\mathfrak H{\mathfrak H}
\def\mathfrak f{\mathfrak f}
\def\,\mbox{GeV}{\,\mbox{GeV}}
\def\,\mbox{TeV}{\,\mbox{TeV}}
\def\sfrac#1#2{{\textstyle\frac{#1}{#2}}}
\def\mu_{\rm eff}{\mu_{\rm eff}}
\defB_{\mu,{\rm eff}}{B_{\mu,{\rm eff}}}
\defM_{\rm Pl}{M_{\rm Pl}}
\def\vev#1{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}
\makeatletter
\makeatother
\newcommand{$m_{SUSY}$ \,} \newcommand{\mSUSY}{$m_{SUSY}$ \,}{$m_{SUSY}$ \,} \newcommand{\mSUSY}{$m_{SUSY}$ \,}
\def\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}{\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}}
\def\simgt{\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}}
\begin{document}
\begin{titlepage}
\vskip 2cm
\begin{flushright}
FERMILAB-PUB-11-615-T
\end{flushright}
\begin{center}
\vspace{0.5cm} \Large {\sc Solving the Hierarchy Problem with a Light Singlet and Supersymmetric Mass Terms}
\vspace*{1.5cm}
\normalsize
{\bf Antonio Delgado$^1$},
{\bf Christopher Kolda$^1$},
and {\bf
Alejandro de la Puente$^{1,2}$
}
\smallskip
\medskip
{\it $^1$ Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame,}\\
{\it Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA}\\ ~~\\
{\it $^2$ Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA}
\vskip0.6in \end{center}
\centerline{\large\bf Abstract}
\vspace{.5cm}
\noindent
A generalization of the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Model (NMSSM) is studied in which an explicit $\mu$-term as well as a small supersymmetric mass term for the singlet superfield are incorporated. We study the possibility of raising the Standard Model-like Higgs mass at tree level through its mixing with a light, mostly-singlet, CP-even scalar. We are able to generate Higgs boson masses up to 145 GeV with top squarks below 1.1 TeV and without the need to fine tune parameters in the scalar potential. This model yields light singlet-like scalars and pseudoscalars passing all collider constraints.
\vspace*{2mm}
\end{titlepage}
A long-standing problem for supersymmetric (SUSY) extensions of the Standard Model is how to evade the LEP bound on the mass of the lightest (Standard Model-like) Higgs boson without introducing new sources of fine-tuning into the theory. Within the Minimal SUSY Standard Model (MSSM), the lightest Higgs must lie below the $Z^0$ at tree level, and can only be pushed above the $114\,\mbox{GeV}$ reported by LEP~\cite{LEP} with top squark masses and mixings that appear to reintroduce (albeit in a small way) the hierarchy problems that SUSY is supposed to solve in the first place. Even when extending the Higgs sector of the MSSM in non-minimal directions, the mass of the lightest Higgs is tied inexorably to the $Z^0$ mass times dimensionless couplings; imposing perturbativity on those couplings up to very high scales limits their sizes and so typically preserves the little hierarchy problem.
The prototype for non-minimal SUSY is the Next-to-Minimal SUSY Standard Model (NMSSM)~\cite{NMSSM}, which introduces just one Higgs singlet with responsibility for generating the $\mu$-terms of the MSSM dynamically. The NMSSM is best defined through its superpotential:
\begin{equation}
W=W_{Yukawa}+\lambda SH_{u}H_{d}+\sfrac{1}{3}S^{3}
\end{equation}
where $S$ is the new singlet. Once $S$ obtains a vacuum expectation value (vev), which happens naturally at the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking ($v_s\sim m_W$), a $\mu$-term naturally arises: $\mu=\lambda v_s$. In the so-called Higgs decoupling limit (in which the mass of the pseudoscalar Higgs, $A^0$, goes to infinity), the mass of the Standard Model-like Higgs boson, $h^0$, receives a positive contribution through the new $F$-term, $F_S$:
\begin{equation}
m_{h^0}\approx m_{Z^0}^{2}\cos^{2}2\beta +\lambda^{2}v^{2}\sin^{2}2\beta,
\label{nmssmresult}
\end{equation}
where $v$ is the electroweak vev ($v=174\,\mbox{GeV}$) and $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of the vevs of the usual $H_u$ and $H_d$ doublets.
As already mentioned, such a theory does not typically alleviate the little hierarchy problem much. However it is known that there are regions of parameter space within the NMSSM that {\it do}\/ solve the little hierarchy problem, at the cost of other fine tunings that must be enforced~\cite{Dermisek:2005ar}. In particular, the NMSSM only solves the little hierarchy problem if the SUSY soft-breaking terms can be balanced against the induced $\mu$-term in such a way as to sharply suppress mixing between the singlet and the lightest component of the Higgs doublets. We would argue that the underlying problem is in requiring the singlet field of the NMSSM to solve both the $\mu$-problem and the little hierarchy problem at the same time.
In a recent paper~\cite{smssm1}, we generalized the NMSSM so as to make the solution to the little hierarchy problem more natural, at least within the confines of the low-energy theory itself. Essentially we decoupled the tasks of solving the $\mu$-problem from that of raising the mass of the lightest Higgs above the LEP bound. Whereas the original NMSSM contains only dimensionless parameters within its superpotential, our version, which we called the S-MSSM (``Singlet-extended MSSM"), allows for explicit $\mu$-terms as well as explicit mass terms for the new singlet:
\begin{equation}
W=(\mu+\lambda S)H_{u}H_{d}+\frac{1}{2}\mu_{s}S^{2}.
\end{equation}
In the S-MSSM, we took the mass of the singlet, $\mu_s$, to be quite large (typically $1-3$ TeV), which suppresses $v_s$ and the mixing of the singlet with $h^0$. The singlet vev is then too small to generate the required $\mu$-term and so we included an explicit $\mu$-term as in the MSSM. Of course, in the limit that $\mu_s\to\infty$, the singlet completely decouples and we reproduce the MSSM. But our surprising result was that within the large range $\mu_s\sim 1-3\,\mbox{TeV}$ the singlet $F$-term was still large enough to raise the $h^0$ mass as high as $140\,\mbox{GeV}$ (with top squarks below a TeV), while $v_s$ was too small to mix the singlet into the $h^0$ and thereby pull the mass back down. In a follow-up paper~\cite{smssm2}, we examined the parameter space of this model within a gauge-mediated scenario to make sure that we were not introducing other sources of fine-tuning by our choices of low-energy parameters.
We want to emphasize that our previous work relied on $v_s$ being quite small, often around a GeV or so. Here two effects compete to increase or decrease the light Higgs mass. Because the $F$-term contribution of the NMSSM, Eq.~(\ref{nmssmresult}), assumes $\mu_s=0$, it is replaced by an equivalent expression in the S-MSSM that goes to zero as $\mu_s\to\infty$. But the parameter $\mu_s$ ultimately controls the size of $v_s$, specifically, $v_s\propto 1/\mu_s$. Thus larger $\mu_s$ correspond to smaller $v_s$ but also smaller corrections to the light Higgs mass. On the other hand, $v_s$ controls the mixing of the singlet into the light Higgs, and so as $v_s\to 0$, the mixing disappears, increasing the light Higgs mass. When one accounts for both effects, one finds a wide range of parameter space in which the contribution from $F_S$ is not yet decoupled while the effects of the mixing are insignificant, and here we found a solution to the little hierarchy problem.
In this paper we will consider an entirely different regime, one in which $\mu_s$ is quite small, and show that even in this regime one can find solutions to the little hierarchy problem, though for quite different reasons. Further, this is a region of parameter space in which the phenomenology at the LHC may be significantly richer than for the large $\mu_s$ limit of the S-MSSM. We will find that, in general, this model predicts two scalar states (mostly singlet) with masses bellow the SM like Higgs and, therefore, depending on the parameters new decays could exist for the Higgs which can make the discovery at the LHC quite challenging.
The most general superpotential that can be written for the MSSM with the addition of one gauge singlet, and that preserves $R$-parity, is:
\begin{equation}
W=W_{\rm Yukawa}+(\mu+\lambda S)H_{u}H_{d}+\sfrac{1}{2}\mu_{s}S^{2}+\sfrac{1}{3}\kappa S^{3}+\xi S.
\end{equation}
This superpotential allows $S$ to couple to the $H_uH_d$ bilinear, which will eventually generate the corrections to the masses of the Higgs bosons, but it also allows for an explicit $\mu$-term and an explicit mass term, $\mu_s$, for the $S$-superfield. We can also include a trilinear $S^3$ term; in the NMSSM, this term is required to avoid a $PQ$-symmetry which is broken at the electroweak scale, resulting in a massless pseudoscalar. Here the symmetry is broken (softly) by $\mu,\mu_s\neq0$, and so the $S^3$ terms plays little role except to stabilize the potential far from the origin; for the purposes of this analysis, we simply set $\kappa$ to zero.
In the presence of non-zero $\mu,\mu_s$-terms, $S$ is a true singlet and we cannot prevent the SUSY-preserving tadpole term, $W\sim\xi S$, nor a SUSY-breaking tadpole in our scalar potential, $V\sim \xi' S$. Because the $Z_3$ symmetry that is usually associated with the NMSSM superpotential is broken only softly by the explicit mass terms, we know that $\xi\sim\mu_{(s)}\Lambda$ and $\xi'\sim M_{_{\rm SUSY}}\mu_{(s)}\Lambda$, both suppressed by some power of $16\pi^2$. Here $\Lambda$ is a cutoff beyond which $S$ fails to transform as a true singlet. If $S$ is a true singlet all the way to the Planck scale, then presumably $\Lambda\simeq M_{\rm Pl}$, in which case $v_s$ will become quite large and destabilize the electroweak hierarchy. (One can see this explicitly if we allow $S$ to couple to the hidden sector through non-minimal K\"ahler terms, for example.) However, we will not argue here that $S$ is a singlet all the way to $M_{\rm Pl}$, but rather we will treat the S-MSSM superpotential as simply a low-energy effective theory valid below some cutoff $\Lambda$ which we take to be sufficiently far above $M_{_{\rm SUSY}}$ as to allow our analysis to be sensible.
For the reasons given above, we drop both the tadpole term and the cubic self-interaction, leaving:
\begin{equation}
W=W_{\rm Yukawa}+(\mu+\lambda S)H_{u}H_{d}+\frac{1}{2}\mu_{s}S^{2}.
\end{equation}
We refer to the model described by this superpotential as the S-MSSM.
Despite this being the same superpotential studied in our previous papers~\cite{smssm1,smssm2}, the analysis here will differ in an important way. In our previous analyses, it was assumed that $\mu_s$ was the largest mass scale in the (low-energy) theory, typically a few TeV. Here we will assume the opposite, namely that $\mu_s\ll \lambda v<v$. We will see that this leads to a strikingly different Higgs spectrum, yet one that can naturally evade the LEP bound on the Higgs mass and therefore solve the little hierarchy problem.
A couple comments are in order about this superpotential in the small $\mu_s$ limit. Several papers have studied a singlet-extended MSSM in the so-called PQ limit. This is the limit in which the model possesses an explicit PQ symmetry which is broken by some unknown, high-scale physics, leaving behind a mass for the would-be axion but little else. These models generate $\mu$ solely through the vev of $S$ and have no $\mu_s$ term, and in return have an extremely light axion (actually, the pseudoscalar component of the $S$-field). Refs.~\cite{PQ,schuster,barbieri} specifically studies the limit in which $\mu=\mu_s\simeq 0$. Here we are studying the same class of models, but with the PQ-breaking soft mass terms larger, though still suppressed compared to the weak scale. We will give an example of a Frogatt-Nielsen-inspired implementation of this limit later.
We begin by studying the spectrum of this model. Starting from our superpotential and adding all the allowed soft SUSY-breaking term, the Higgs potential is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
V&=&(m^{2}_{H_{u}}+|\mu+\lambda S|^{2})|H_{u}|^{2}+(m^{2}_{H_{d}}+|\mu+\lambda S|^{2})|H_{d}|^{2}+(m_{s}^{2}+\mu_{s}^{2})|S|^{2} \nonumber \\
&+&[B_{s}S^{2}+(\lambda\mu_{s}S^{\dagger}+B_{\mu}+\lambda A_{\lambda}S)H_{u}H_{d}+h.c.] +\lambda^{2}|H_{u}H_{d}|^{2} \nonumber \\
&+&\frac{1}{8}(g^{2}+g'^{2})(|H_{u}|^{2}-|H_{d}|^{2})^{2}+\frac{1}{2}g^{2}|H_{u}^{\dagger}H_{d}|^{2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $m_{s}^2$, $B_{s}$ and $A_{\lambda}$ are the soft breaking contributions associated with the singlet. Minimization of the scalar potential yields the following three conditions, analogous to those found in the MSSM:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}m_{Z}^{2}=\frac{m_{H_{d}}^{2}-m_{H_{u}}^{2}\tan^{2}\beta}{\tan^{2}\beta-1}-\mu_{\rm eff}^{2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sin2\beta=\frac{2B_{\mu,\rm eff}}{m^2_{H_{u}}+m^2_{H_{d}}+2\mu_{\rm eff}^2+\lambda^{2}v^{2}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\lambda v_{s}=\frac{\lambda^2 v^{2}}{2}\frac{(\mu_{s}+A_{\lambda})\sin2\beta-2\mu}{\lambda^{2}v^{2}+\mu^{2}_{s}+m^{2}_{s}+2B_{s}}, \label{eq:vs}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu_{\rm eff}&=&\mu+\lambda v_{s}, \\
B_{\mu,\rm eff}&=&B_{\mu}+\lambda v_{s}(\mu_{s}+A_{\lambda}).
\end{eqnarray}
We will be considering the case in which $\mu_s$ is small compared to the weak scale: $\mu_s\ll v$. For now let us also consider the limit in which $m_s^2$ and $B_s$ are also small compared to $v^2$; the explicit formulae simplify significantly, and we will put $m_s^2$ and $B_s$ back in for our numerical studies. In this limit, Eq.~(\ref{eq:vs}) simplifies greatly:
\begin{equation}
\lambda v_s\simeq \sfrac12 A_\lambda \sin2\beta - \mu
\end{equation}
which immediately leads to the surprising result that
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\rm eff}\simeq \sfrac12 A_\lambda \sin2\beta,
\end{equation}
which is independent of $\mu$! That is, for small $\mu_s$, $B_s$ and $m_s^2$, the vev of $S$ aligns in such a way as to cancel the explicit $\mu$-term completely, leaving an effective $\mu$-term which is due entirely to $A_\lambda$. Meanwhile the effective $B_\mu$ term becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{\mu,{\rm eff}}&\simeq& B_\mu+\sfrac12 A_\lambda^2\sin2\beta -\mu A_\lambda\\
&\simeq& B_\mu + A_\lambda (\mu_{\rm eff}-\mu) \nonumber
\label{eq:bmueff}
\end{eqnarray}
which, unlike $\mu_{\rm eff}$, does depend on the explicit $\mu$-term.
In the absence of explicit CP-violating phases in the Higgs sector, the physical spectrum of this model includes a single charged Higgs boson ($H^{\pm}$), three neutral scalars which we label \{$h_s,h,H$\}, and two neutral pseudoscalars \{$A_{s},A$\}. The states labelled with the subscript will turn out to be dominantly singlet states, while the non-subscripted states have only a small singlet component and therefore resemble their eponymous MSSM cousins.
For the state most resembling the usual pseudoscalar Higgs, the mass is generated as in the MSSM:
$$m_A^2 = \frac{2B_{\mu,{\rm eff}}}{\sin 2\beta}+\cdots$$
where $B_{\mu,{\rm eff}}$ is given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bmueff}) above. The ellipsis represents terms which are small compared to the weak scale, except when $A^2_\lambda\gg B_\mu,\mu^2$, in which case the leading correction is simply $\delta m_A^2 = \lambda^2 v^2$. Note that we can arrange, by proper choice of $B_\mu$, $A_\lambda$ and $\mu$ to have $\mu_{\rm eff}\sim O(m_Z)$ while $m_A\ll m_Z$. In this way we can arrange for our model to reproduce the parameter space studied by Dermisek and Gunion~\cite{Dermisek:2005ar} in which the Higgs boson lies below the LEP bound but escapes detection by decaying dominantly into $h^0\to A^0A^0$, with $A^0$ below the threshold for decay into a pair of $b$-quarks. However, though this limit does exist, we do not see it as particularly natural or likely in this model.
In order to identify the mass eigenstates of the scalar Higgs bosons, we must diagonalize a symmetric $3\times 3$ mass matrix. It is helpful in this case to forgo the usual $\{H_d,H_u,S\}$ basis and instead rotate the upper $2\times2$ submatrix by the angle $\beta$, thereby working in the basis of
$\{H_d\cos\beta+H_u\sin\beta,H_u\cos\beta-H_d\sin\beta,S\}$. This is the basis in which the upper $2\times2$ submatrix of the $3\times3$ {\it pseudoscalar}\/ mass matrix is diagonalized, or equivalently, the basis in which the scalar masses of the MSSM are diagonalized in the large $m_A$ limit. In this basis, the mass matrix has a simple form:
\begin{equation}
M_H^2 = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} m_Z^2\cos^2 2\beta + \lambda^2 v^2\sin^2 2\beta & (m_Z^2-\lambda^2 v^2)\sin 2\beta \cos 2\beta & 0 \\
& m_A^2 + (m_Z^2-\lambda^2 v^2)\sin^2 2\beta & \lambda v A_\lambda \cos 2\beta \\
& & \lambda^2 v^2 \end{array}\right) \label{massmatrix}
\end{equation}
One observes that, in this basis and in the limit of $\mu_s,m_s^2,B_s\ll \lambda^2 v^2$, there is no mixing of the singlet into the lighter MSSM-like Higgs at lowest order, a fact noticed already in Ref.~\cite{barbieri}. In fact, in the large $m_A$ limit, the mixing vanishes entirely. Yet, the light Higgs ({\it i.e.}, the (1,1) element) still receives the same contribution to its mass from $F_S$ that it picks up in the NMSSM. To leading order in $m_Z^2/m_A^2$, the light Higgs mass is simply:
\begin{equation}
m_h^2 \simeq m_Z^2\cos^2 2\beta + \lambda^2 v^2 \sin^2 2\beta - \frac{(m_Z^2 - \lambda^2 v^2)^2}{m_A^2}\sin^2 2\beta \cos^2 2\beta. \label{hmass}
\end{equation}
The last term above represents the correction from the non-decoupling of the $A^0$, and has almost the same form as in the MSSM except that it is generically smaller than in the MSSM thanks to an expected partial cancellation between $m_Z^2$ and $\lambda^2 v^2$.
The mass of the remaining neutral, MSSM-like Higgs particle is readily derived:
\begin{equation}
m_H^2 \simeq m_A^2 + (m_Z^2-\lambda^2 v^2) \sin^2 2\beta
+\frac{(m_Z^2-\lambda^2 v^2)^2}{m_A^2}\sin^2 2\beta\cos^2 2\beta
- \frac{\lambda^2 v^2 A_\lambda^2}{m_A^2}\sin^2 2\beta
\end{equation}
where we drop terms of $O(\mu_s/\lambda v)$ and $O(m_s^2/\lambda^2 v^2)$. For $\lambda\gsim 0.5$, this state will fall just below the $A^0$ in mass.
Among the states that are mostly singlet-like, there is a scalar and a pseudoscalar:
\begin{eqnarray}
m^2_{A_s} &\simeq& \mu_s^2 +\lambda^2 v^2 -\frac{\lambda^2 v^2 A_\lambda^2}{m_A^2}, \label{mAs}\\
m^2_{h_s} &\simeq& \mu_s^2 + \lambda^2 v^2 -\frac{\lambda^2 v^2 A_\lambda^2}{m_A^2}\cos^2 2\beta.
\end{eqnarray}
Because these states can be quite light, we have shown explicitly the effect of $\mu_s$ on their masses. Notice also that the mostly-singlet scalar is usually heavier (though only slightly) than the mostly-singlet pseudoscalar.
It is worthwhile to compare and contrast this result with the usual NMSSM in which $\mu=\mu_s=0$. In particular, it would appear that this model is hardly different, because we could take $\mu,\mu_s\to0$ and still have a sizable $\mu_{\rm eff}=\lambda v_s$. Further, we find dynamically that $\mu_{\rm eff}\simeq \frac12 A_\lambda \sin 2\beta$, which is exactly the relation one requires in the NMSSM to avoid large mixing of the singlet into the SM-like Higgs, namely~\cite{ellhug}
\begin{equation}
A_\lambda\simeq \frac{2\mu_{\rm eff}}{\sin 2\beta} - 2\kappa v_s,
\end{equation}
in the $\kappa\ll 1$ limit.
In the usual NMSSM, this relation must hold in order to keep the mass of the SM-like Higgs boson above the LEP bound, but it must be added as an additional constraint (or tuning) on the parameters of the model; here we seem to generate it almost for free. This automatic cancellation of the singlet-doublet mixing is also present in the PQ-limit models. In both cases,
this is due to the fact that one can allow $\kappa\to 0$ (or as small as we want) because there is no PQ axion that becomes massless as $\kappa\to 0$ in the S-MSSM. In the PQ models, this is solved by including an explicit mass for the PQ axion, but here the would-be axion gets a mass directly. (As an aside, if one sets $B_\mu=0$ in our model, then Eq.~(\ref{mAs}) simplifies to $m_{A_s} = \mu_s$ and so $\mu_s$ can be thought of as playing the role of the small PQ-breaking that occurs in Refs.~\cite{PQ,schuster,barbieri}.)
An interesting question is whether there is any ultraviolet construction that might lead naturally to the limit of our model we are studying here. Consider the PQ symmetry as it manifests itself in this model, namely with charges $+1$ for $H_u$ and $H_d$, and charge $-2$ for $S$. Under this symmetry, $\lambda$ is neutral and therefore naturally of $O(1)$. But, treated as spurions, the $\mu$-term carries charge $-2$, $\mu_s$ carries charge $4$ and $\kappa$ carries charge $6$ (and likewise for the corresponding $A$- and $B$-terms). We can then treat the low-energy model {\it \`a la}\/ Froggatt and Nielsen~\cite{Froggatt:1993di} and assume that the PQ symmetry is being broken by the vev of some field $\Theta$ with one unit of PQ-charge, and the breaking is being communicated by some heavy field(s) of mass $M$. In that case, it is natural that $\mu\gg\mu_s$ and $\kappa\ll 1$. For example, if $\theta$ carries a PQ charge of $-2$ then holomorphy and the PQ symmetry would together require:
$$\mu\sim\frac{\vev{\Theta}^2}{M}, \quad\quad\mu_s\lsim\frac{\vev{\Theta}^4}{M^4}\,m_{\rm SUSY}, \quad\quad
\kappa\lsim \frac{\vev{\Theta}^6}{M^7}\,m_{\rm SUSY}$$
where one or more powers of the scale $m_{\rm SUSY}\sim m_W$ are necessary to break the holomorphy of the superpotential. For example, one could obtain $\mu_s$ through the operator:
$$\mu_s S^2 \sim \int d^2\bar\theta\, \left(\frac{\Theta^\dagger}{M}\right)^4 \left(\frac{X^\dagger}{{\cal M}}\right) S^2 + h.c. $$
where $X$ is the SUSY-breaking spurion, and ${\cal M}$ is the SUSY-breaking messenger scale, such that $F_X/{\cal M}\sim m_{\rm SUSY}$.
(The corresponding $A$- and $B$-terms would scale as above, multiplied by an additional power of $m_{\rm SUSY}$.)
In this paper, we will restrict ourselves to analyzing the Higgs spectrum of this model, examining in particular whether it is possible to have a spectrum which naturally passes all current constraints. We want to especially ensure that it is possible to keep the SM-like Higgs above the LEP bound without requiring unnaturally large top squark masses or mixing. while minimizing the one loop contribution arising from the top quark and squark. We also include the dominant (and negative) 2-loop contributions to the mass of SM-like Higgs boson using FeynHiggs~\cite{Feyn}. Of particular importance is the coupling $\lambda$, which we maximize under the condition that it remain perturbative up to the apparent grand unification scale of $2\times10^{16}$ GeV; this is equivalent to setting $\lambda$ equal to it infrared pseudo-fixed point value. This leads to an upper bound on the parameter $\lambda$ which varies with $\tan\beta$, but maximizes at $\lambda\simeq 0.7$.
The parameter space of this model is quite different from the usual NMSSM. In particular, the singlet gets a vev through $A_\lambda$ and not by having $m_s^2<0$. By choosing $m_s^2>0$ in the S-MSSM we avoid any potential cosmological problems associated with run-away directions in the potential when the universe's temperature $T\sim 100\,\mbox{GeV}$~\cite{schuster}. In fact, we take $m_s^2=0$ in our analyses that follow, but will comment on non-zero values near the end.
One important constraint on the parameter space is the LEP bound on the chargino mass, $m_{\chi^+}>94\,\mbox{GeV}$, which translates into a bound on $\mu_{\rm eff}$: $|\mu_{\rm eff}|>94\,\mbox{GeV}$. Assuming small $m_s^2$, this translates into a lower bound on $A_\lambda$: $A_\lambda > 190\,\mbox{GeV}/\sin2\beta$. Thus for small $\tan\beta$, $A_\lambda$ is bounded from below by roughly $190\,\mbox{GeV}$; for large $\tan\beta$ the bound on $A_\lambda$ becomes much larger, implying that the electroweak symmetry-breaking in the model is becoming fine-tuned. As we will see, even if we accepted that fine-tuning, the mass of the $h$ falls below the LEP bound for $\tan\beta\gsim 5$ (because the $S$-induced corrections go as $\sin^2 2\beta$), and so the large $\tan\beta$ region is doubly bad. Thus our model predicts that $\tan\beta$ will be small, somewhere less than 5.
We examine this model by scanning over a wide parameter space with $0\le B_{\mu}\le (1000\,\mbox{GeV})^2$, $0\le A_{\lambda}\le 700\,\mbox{GeV}$, and $0\le\mu\le500\,\mbox{GeV}$. We keep $\mu_s$ light: $0\le\mu_{s}\le50\,\mbox{GeV}$. We also simplify the parameter space by setting $m_{s}=B_s=0$.
In Figure~\ref{fig:hscatter} we show the masses of the SM-like Higgs, $h$, and the mostly-singlet scalar, $h_s$, as a function of the MSSM-like pseudoscalar mass, $m_A$ for a sample of models with $\tan\beta=2$ and $\lambda=0.63$. For this figure we have restricted $m_{\tilde t} = 500\,\mbox{GeV}$ and taken $A_t=0$ to minimize the stop mixing. These conditions essentially represent a minimum 1-loop contribution of the top squarks to the light Higgs mass, avoiding any hint of tuning coming from the stop sector. In Figure~\ref{fig:ascatter} we show the corresponding masses of the singlet-like pseudoscalar, $A_s$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{scalar_scattered.pdf}
\caption{Scatter plot of $m_{h}$ (green) and $m_{h_{s}}$ (blue) as function of $m_{A}$ with a stop mass $m_{\tilde{t}}=500\,\mbox{GeV}$ and no stop mixing. See text for additional parameters.}\label{fig:hscatter}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{pseudo_scattered.pdf}
\caption{Scatter plot of $m_{A_{s}}$ as function of $m_{A}$ using same parameter set as in Fig.~\ref{fig:hscatter}. }\label{fig:ascatter}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For every point in the figures, the $h_s$ and $A_s$ masses are consistent with the LEP bound, due to their small coupling to the $Z$. In principle, the region for which $m_h<114\,\mbox{GeV}$ and both $m_{h_{s},A_{s}}<2m_{b}$ is phenomenologically viable~\cite{Dermisek:2005ar}, but we don't find points that fall into that region without fine tuning the parameters in the model, and so we don't display those.
Looking at Fig.~\ref{fig:hscatter}, one sees that, apart from a few point at low $m_A$, the mass of the SM-like Higgs is bounded from below by about $118\,\mbox{GeV}$. This is easy to understand as it follows directly from Eq.~(\ref{hmass}). If $m_A$ is large, the last, negative term decouples, and the Higgs mass is bounded from below at tree level by $(m_Z^2 \cos^2 2\beta + \lambda^2 v^2 \sin^2 2\beta)^{1/2}$. To this are added one- and two-loop corrections that are nearly universal (given a constant $m_{\tilde t}$ and $A_t$). The little bit of scatter above the lower bound is due to the small corrections from the finite $m_A$, the small effects of including non-zero $\mu_s$, and non-universal one-loop corrections, including those that arise from $A_\lambda$.
One also sees from the figures that the singlet-like scalars are expected to be below the SM-like Higgs, with masses that can be as low as a few GeV. We have checked the coupling of these states to the $Z$ and their production cross-section at LEP and excluded any points at which the singlet-like scalars would have been detected. For example, we find that, among the points in the figure, the cross-section for $e^+e^-\to Zh_s$ is at least 10 times smaller than the SM cross-section for $e^+e^-\to Zh$ with $m_h\equiv m_{h_s}$, and often it is many orders smaller.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:compare}, we want to explore the effects of varying the top squark masses and their mixing. We have taken one particular choice of model in the S-MSSM: $\mu_{s}=20\,\mbox{GeV}$, $\mu=B_{\mu}=0$, $A_{\lambda}=280\,\mbox{GeV}$, and $m_{s}^2=0$ for $\tan\beta=2$ and $\lambda=0.63$. We then set the gluino and stop masses to all be equal to $M_{\rm SUSY}$ and vary them from $400$ to $1100\,\mbox{GeV}$. We also vary $A_t$ from 0 to the maximal mixing case ($A_t=\sqrt{6}\,m_{\tilde t}$), and represent this range as the upper band in the figure. In the lower band we show the MSSM for the same choices of $M_{\rm SUSY}$ and $A_t$, with $m_A\to\infty$. As can be seen from the figure for the entire range of $M_{\rm SUSY}$ the S-MSSM prediction for $m_{h^0}$ is above the LEP bound whereas for the same parameters the MSSM can only accommodate masses above the LEP bound for high masses of $M_{\rm SUSY}$. In the S-MSSM one can even have masses for the Higgs very close to the lower bound from the LHC ($\sim$ 150 GeV)~\cite{LHC}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{higgsmass_MSSMcomp.pdf}
\caption{Range of mass for $h_0$ for the S-MSSM and the MSSM as a function of $M_{\rm SUSY}$. See the text for additional parameters.}\label{fig:compare}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{tanbeta_scattered.pdf}
\caption{Scattered plot for $m_h^0$ as a function of $\tan\beta$ for the same parameters as Fig.~\ref{fig:hscatter}..}\label{fig:varytb}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Finally, we show a plot in which we vary $\tan\beta$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:varytb} we show a scatter of random models in the same range of parameters as for Figs.~\ref{fig:hscatter}-\ref{fig:ascatter}, but now with varying $\tan\beta$ (shown along the $x$-axis), and again with $m_{\tilde t}=500\,\mbox{GeV}$ and $A_t=0$. The solid line represents a lower bound on the Higgs mass in all such S-MSSM models.
One sees immediately that the S-MSSM automatically produces SM-like Higgs bosons with masses exceeding the LEP bound for $\tan\beta\lsim 3.8$ (assuming $m_{\tilde t}> 500\,\mbox{GeV}$), with some models having sufficiently heavy Higgs masses for $\tan\beta\lsim5$. At $\tan\beta\gsim5$, the effects of the singlet on the light Higgs mass disappear (they scale as $\sin^2 2\beta\sim 1/\tan^2\beta$), and so we return to an MSSM-like spectrum at moderate to large values of $\tan\beta$. Were we to allow $m_{\tilde t}$ to increase, or to invoke larger stop mixing, the range of allowed of $\tan\beta$ would only increase.
One of the simplifications we have used in examining the parameter space of the S-MSSM has been in setting $m_s^2=0$ throughout. However there is no need for this condition, and it is in fact somewhat unnatural, because there are contributions to the one-loop renormalization group equation for $m_s^2$ that are proportional to $A_\lambda^2$, and so a large $A_\lambda$ will tend to lead to an equally large $m_s^2$ unless the mediation scale for SUSY breaking is not particularly high. One finds several complications as one turns on $m_s^2$, but keeping $\epsilon=m_s^2/(\lambda^2 v^2)\ll 1$. First, the vev of $S$ shifts slightly, which causes $\mu_{\rm eff}$ to pick up a slight dependence on the explicit $\mu$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda v_s &\simeq& \sfrac12 (1-\epsilon)\left(A_\lambda \sin2\beta - \mu\right) \\
\mu_{\rm eff} &\simeq& \sfrac12 (1-\epsilon) A_\lambda \sin2\beta + \epsilon \mu.
\end{eqnarray}
More importantly,
the exact zero in the $(1,3)$-element of the scalar Higgs mass matrix (see Eq.~(\ref{massmatrix})) is no longer zero, picking up terms that scale as $\epsilon$, and thereby inducing a mixing of the $S$-scalar into the SM-like Higgs state. However, these mixings are suppressed by powers of $m_A^2$, and so in the Higgs decoupling limit, the $S$ again decouples from the $h$:
$$\delta m_h^2 \simeq \left(\frac{m_s^2}{m_A^2}\right) 2A_\lambda \sin2\beta(A_\lambda\sin 2\beta-2\mu).$$
Notice that this contribution can have either sign, either raising or lowering the mass of $h$. Were $h$ the lightest eigenstate of the scalar mass matrix, then the mixing could only lower its mass; but here $h$ is the middle eigenstate, and so mixing with a lighter state, $s$, can actually serve to push up the mass of $h$. Either way, the effect is small as $m_A$ becomes large.
In our previous papers, in which we set $\mu_s\sim O(\mbox{TeV})$ in the S-MSSM, we found enhanced Higgs masses but little else for distinctive phenomenology. That was because there were no new light states, and the only real clue to the existence of the singlet was the enhanced Higgs mass itself. However in the light singlet version of the S-MSSM, we find a number of new, light states and some of these can have a profound effect on phenomenology at the LHC.
One source for new phenomenology is the extended scalar sector, in particular the two light states $h_s$ and $A_s$. We have calculated the $ZZh_s$ coupling for all points in our parameter space, and we find it to be generically quite small, as mentioned earlier, due to the suppressed mixing between the Higgs doublets and the singlet. This is likewise true for the $ZA_sh_s$ coupling as well as couplings of the $h_s$ and $A_s$ to SM fermions, making it difficult to directly produce either at the LHC. On the other hand, there are regions of parameter space in which $h$ could decay dominantly into $h_sh_s$ or $A_sA_s$ which will mean that at the LHC the predominant decay of the Higgs will be into multijets, making its discovery quite challenging.
To summarize we have presented a singlet extension of the MSSM, the S-MSSM, in which the singlet field plays no role in the explanation of the $\mu$-problem but, on the other hand, provides a solution to the little hierarchy problem. By including supersymmetric masses for both the Higgs doublets ($\mu$) and the singlet ($\mu_s$), and then taking the limit of small $\mu_s$, we have shown that the model predicts a mass for the SM-like Higgs which are above the LEP bound for a large region of the parameter space of the model without requiring a heavy sparticle spectrum. It can even accommodate masses very close to the current LHC bound so that some regions of the parameter space of this model are going to be probed very soon by the LHC. Finally, in this model one can also find regions of parameter space in which
the main decay of the Higgs is into four jets and therefore the discovery strategies are quite different from those for the SM Higgs.
\section*{Acknowledgements} This work was partly supported by
by the National Science Foundation under grants PHY-0905383-ARRA and PHY-0969445. ADP was supported in part by the Fermilab Fellowship in Theoretical Physics. Fermilab is operated by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC, under Contract DE-AC02-07-CH11359 with the US Department of Energy.
|
\section{Introduction}
The distinctive signatures of $W/Z$+jets production allow for precision tests of perturbative QCD calculations
and are particularly important for high jet multiplicity
events where next-to-leading order (NLO) predictions have recently become available. Measurements of these processes
also provide detailed benchmarks for the tuning of parton-shower (PS) and PS+matrix-element matched Monte Carlo (MC) generators.
$W/Z$+jets final states often dominate the event selections of many other Standard Model processes and new physics signals
predicted at the Tevatron and the LHC, and these measurements can constrain these backgrounds, reducing uncertainties on their modeling.
\section{W+(n)jet cross-sections}
The production of jets in association with a $W$ boson was studied using data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 4.2~fb$^{-1}$ collected with the D\O\ detector
in the semi-leptonic (electron) decay channel.
The following requirements were imposed on the event selection:
electron $p_T^e \ge 15$ GeV and pseudorapidity $|\eta^e| < $ 1.1, {\mbox{$p\kern-0.42em\raise0.15ex\hbox{/}_{T}$}} $>$ 20 GeV, $M_T^W \ge$ 40 GeV, jet $p_T \ge$ 20 GeV and $|y| < $ 3.2.
Jets are reconstructed using the D\O\ RunII Midpoint Cone algorithm
with a cone size of ${\cal R}=0.5$.
The inclusive $W+(n)$jet cross-sections (for $n=0-4$) were measured in the above phase space, as was the $\sigma_{n}$ to $\sigma_{n-1}$ jet cross-section ratio (for $n=1-4$),
where some experimental uncertainties cancel. In addition, the $W+(n)$jet cross-sections are measured differentially as a function of the
$n^\mathrm{th}$ ($p_T$-ordered) jet $p_T$ in the $n^\mathrm{th}$ jet multiplicity bin.
The results are all fully corrected for the effect of finite experimental resolution, detector response, acceptance, and efficiencies back to the particle level,
which includes energy from stable particles, the underlying event, muons, and neutrinos. Full details of the analysis and experimental results can be found in Ref.~\cite{wjets:2011}.
The unfolding procedure is performed using a Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) technique as implemented by the GURU~\cite{Hocker:1996} unfolding program.
Figure~\ref{fig:inclXsec} shows the resultant unfolded total cross-section (times branching fraction) measurements of $W+(n)$jet production in the defined phase space in comparison with
two next-to-leading order (leading order for $W$+4jets) theoretical predictions using the MSTW2008 PDF,
and the $\sigma_{n}/\sigma_{n-1}$ ratios where some systematics cancel.
Fixed-order theoretical predictions provide results only at the parton-level so corrections for non-perturbative hadronization and underlying event effects
are derived using the \textsc{sherpa v1.2.3} MC generator and applied to the theory in order to allow for comparison to measured data.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{inclXsec.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:inclXsec}
(a) Total inclusive $n$-jet cross sections $\sigma_n=\sigma (W(\to e\nu)\ + \geq \hspace{-1mm} n\textrm{ jet;}\; p^{\textrm{jet}}_T>20~\textrm{GeV})$
as a function of inclusive jet multiplicity,
(b) the ratio of the theory predictions to the measurements, and
(c) $\sigma_n/\sigma_{n-1}$ ratios for data, \textsc{blackhat} and \textsc{rocket+mcfm}.
Error bars on data points represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties on measured cross sections. The uncertainties on the theory points in (a) and (c)
and the hashed areas in (b) represent the theoretical uncertainty arising from the choice of renormalization and factorization scale. In (b) the error bars on the points
represent the data uncertainties.
}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:ratios} shows the corrected differential cross-sections of $W$+jet events, as a function of jet $p_T$ for each of the four inclusive jet multiplicity bins studied.
In order to reduce experimental uncertainties the measured differential cross-sections are normalized to the measured $W$ (0-jet) inclusive cross-section.
Comparisons are made to (N)LO pQCD predictions\footnote{\textsc{MCFM(+Rocket)} predictions produced for these plots were produced with \textsc{MCFM v5.3},
which has recently been found have an issue affecting $W$+2jet calculations. This issue is corrected in \textsc{MCFM v6.0}, and results are found to be in closer agreement to predictions
from \textsc{Blackhat}. See Ref.~\protect{\cite{wjets:2011}} for details.} (again corrected for non-perturbative effects using \textsc{sherpa})
and although on the whole theoretical predictions are found to be in agreement with data, areas are identified where some discrepancies are observed.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{jet_pt_1.eps} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{jet_pt_2.eps}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{jet_pt_3.eps}&
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{jet_pt_4.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:ratios} The ratio of pQCD predictions to the measured differential cross sections for the $n^{\mathrm{th}}$ jet $p_T$ in
(a) $W$+1 jet events, (b) $W$+2 jet events, (c) $W$+3 jet events, and (d) $W$+4 jet events.
The data and theory predictions are normalized by the measured inclusive $W$ boson cross section and the predicted inclusive $W$ boson cross sections, respectively.
The inner (red) bars represent the statistical uncertainties of the measurement, while the outer (black) bars represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties
added in quadrature. The shaded areas indicate the theoretical uncertainties due to variations of the factorization and renormalization scale. The central scale choice used
for each prediction is indicated in the figure.
}
\end{tabular}
\end{figure}
\section{Z+b/Z+jet inclusive cross-section fraction}
Measurement of the inclusive cross-section of $Z$ boson production with at least one $b$-quark jet to the inclusive $Z$+jets production cross-section
was performed~\cite{zbratio:2010} with 4.2~fb$^{-1}$ of data collected with the D\O\ detector. Measuring the ratio to inclusive $Z$+jets allows for partial cancellation of
systematic uncertainties, providing a more precise measurement for comparison to theoretical predictions. Both the di-electron and di-muon decay channels
were studied. Events were selected as follows: electron (muon) $p_T>$15 (10)~GeV, pseudorapidity $|\eta_e|<1.1$ OR $1.5<|\eta_e|<2.5$ ($|\eta_\mu|$<2),
jet $p_T \ge$ 20~GeV for the leading jet (and 15~GeV on any subsequent jets) and pseudorapidity $|\eta|<2.5$.
Events with missing transverse energy $>60$~GeV are rejected to suppress the background from $t\bar{t}$ production.
A challenge in this analysis is to extact the relatively small $Z+b$ signal from the overall selection. $Z$ boson candidates with a $b$-jet are separated from light and charm jet
candidates by using a neural network based b-tagging algorithm to distinguish the jet flavors.
The final discriminant, $D^{M_SV}_\mathrm{JLIP}$, encoding all information from the neural network is calculated for each candidate event, and the resultant distribution is
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:zb}.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{Zbjets.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:zb} Distribution of the final neural net discriminant output for events in the combined lepton data sample, and the fitted light, $b$ and $c$ jet (and total) templates.
Uncertainties shown are statistical only.
}
\end{figure}
Templates are built as a function of this variable for light jets (determined from data by inverting the neural network selection requirements to
create a light-jet enriched data sample) and for charm/beauty jets (from MC simulation).
An unbinned maximum likelihood fit of these three templates to the data is performed for each of the di-lepton channels in order to extract the flavor fraction.
Consistent results are observed between both channels, so the data are combined and a new fit performed (see Figure~\ref{fig:zb}).
The result of the combined maximum likelihood fit is
$\sigma(Z+b~\mathrm{jet})/\sigma(Z+\mathrm{jet})= 0.0193 \pm 0.0022~\mathrm{(stat)}\pm 0.0015~\mathrm{(syst)}$
which represents the most precise measurement of this ratio to date.
The largest systematics come from the discriminant template shape (4.2\%) and efficiency uncertainties (3.7\%).
An NLO \textsc{mcfm} prediction for the ratio yields $0.0185\pm 0.0022$ (corrected for hadronization and underlying event effects),
in reasonable agreement with the data measurement.
\section{Z+jets angular correlations}
Results described in Ref.~\cite{zangles:2009} present first measurement of angular correlations between the leading jet and the $Z/\gamma^*$
in $Z/\gamma^*(\to\mu^+\mu^-)$+jet events analyzed from 0.97~fb$^{-1}$ of data collected with the D\O\ detector.
The event selection requires $|\eta_\mu|<1.7$, $p_T(Z)>25~(45)$~GeV, jet $p_T \ge$ 20~GeV and $|y| < $ 2.8.
Differential cross-sections are measured (normalized to the inclusive $Z$ boson cross-section, to reduce uncertainties) as a function of
azimuthal angle, absolute rapidity difference, and the absolute value of the average rapidity of the $Z$ and leading jet.
These variables provide a unique test of pQCD calculations as they are sensitive to effects not probed in e.g. $p_T$ distributions.
Again, measurements are corrected back to particle-level accounting for detector resolution and efficiencies, and compared to
NLO pQCD predictions (with \textsc{pythia}-derived non-perturbative corrections), as well as a selection of parton shower and PS+matrix element MC generators.
Reasonable agreement is observed between NLO and data. Within MC generators studied, \textsc{sherpa} is found to best describe the shapes of the distributions, and areas
are observed where \textsc{alpgen}, \textsc{pythia} and \textsc{herwig} have problems in describing both shape and normalization of the data.
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\bibliographystyle{aipproc}
\section{General Overview}
The \aipcls{} is a \LaTeXe{} document class for conference proceedings
of the American Institute of Physics and other documents with similar
layout requirements. Your file will be used to reproduce
your paper as is, the only modifications done by the publisher are
adding appropriate page numbers and the copyright line. It is
therefore essential that you embed all fonts when saving your file.
This version of the guide explains all features of the class some of
which are only applicable to certain proceeding layouts.
The class provides essentially the same markup as implemented by
\LaTeX's standard
\texttt{article} class. In addition to this it implements the
following:
\begin{itemize}
\item extended set of front matter commands,
\item automatic placement of floats into column or page areas
including turning of table floats by 90\textdegree{} if necessary,
\item allows mixing column and page-wide floats without getting the
numbering out of sync,
\item footnotes will appear below bottom floats,
\item extended set of citation commands if the \texttt{natbib} system
is installed,
\item support for table notes,
\item support for textual page references like ``on the next page''.
\end{itemize}
Due to the extended functionality an article written for \LaTeX{}'s
standard article class might need adjustments in the following places
before it can be used with the \aipcls{}
(a more detailed description is given in later sections):
\begin{itemize}
\item
In the preamble, since the \aipcls{} requires a |\layoutstyle|
declaration.
\item
In the front matter, since the \aipcls{} uses an extended set of
title/author declarations.
\item
In the body of floats, since the \aipcls{} only allows a single
|\caption| command and processes the body in horizontal mode.
\end{itemize}
\section{Checking your \LaTeX{} distribution}
To ensure that your installation of \LaTeX{} contains everything
necessary to successfully use the \aipcls{}, run the file
\texttt{aipcheck.tex} through \LaTeX, e.g.,
\begin{verbatim}
latex aipcheck
\end{verbatim}
It will try to determine if everything
necessary is available and if not, will make recommendations what can
be done about it. In certain cases you might be able to use the class
if you follow the suggestions, in other cases the only solution is to
upgrade your \LaTeX{} installation.
Unfortunately it is impossible to check for all potential problems. If
\texttt{aipcheck.tex} claims everything is fine, but you nevertheless
have difficulties, consult the ``Frequently Asked Question''
(\texttt{FAQ.txt}) and the readme file in the distribution.
\section{Class details}
\subsection{Selecting the target layout}
The class supports different layouts. These are selected by
placing a |\layoutstyle| declaration in the preamble of the document.
\BDefC{layoutstyle}[m]{layout name}
This command is required.
With version 1.3 of the \aipcls{} the
following \Larg{layout name}s can be specified.
\begin{description}
\item[6x9] Layout for the AIP Conference Proceedings with
6 x 9 inches single column format (short name |6s|).
\item[8x11single] Layout for the AIP Conference Proceedings with
8.5 x 11 inches single column format (short name |8s|).
\item[8x11double] Layout for the AIP Conference Proceedings with
8.5 x 11 inches double column format (short name |8d|).
\item[arlo] Layout for the ``Acoustics Research Letters Online'' --- ARLO.
\end{description}
For example, the current guide was produced using the declaration
|\layoutstyle{|\texttt{\selectedlayoutstyle}|}|.
\subsection{Supported options}\label{suppopt}
As the class is based on the article class of standard \LaTeX{} all
reasonable\footnote{Reasonable means not conflicting with fixed
requirements for the AIP class, e.g., as this class requires 10pt body
size option \texttt{11pt} and \texttt{12pt} are ignored and produce a
warning.} options of this class are supported automatically.
In addition there are a number of options unique to the \aipcls.
\subsubsection{Paper selection}
Two options control the placement of the text on the physical
page. Choose the one that corresponds to your printer paper.
\begin{description}
\item[letterpaper] Directs the class to assume that the output is
printed on US letter sized paper (default).
\emph{Please note that the paper format is typically also specified in
the program that turns the \LaTeX{} output into PostScript. For
example, some \texttt{dvips} installations have A4 as their default
paper (typically those in Europe). In that case you have to call the
\texttt{dvips} program with the option \texttt{-t letter} to ensure
that the resulting PostScript file has the correct margins!}
\item[4apaper] Directs the class to assume that the output is
printed on A4 sized paper.
\end{description}
\subsubsection{Font selection}
Five options control the selection of fonts in the document; use at
most one of them.
\begin{description}
\item[mathptmx] Directs the class to use PostScript Times and Symbol
fonts (a few missing glyphs are taken from Computer Modern) for
math by loading the \texttt{mathptmx} package.
This option is the default.
This option does not support the |\boldmath| command since there
exists no PostScript Symbol font in bold. It is possible, however to
use |\mathbf| which allows you to get at least a bold Latin
Alphabet.
\item[mathptm] Directs the class to use PostScript Times and Symbol
fonts but used the older package \texttt{mathptm} which has upright
greek lowercase letters.
This option does not support the |\boldmath| command since there
exists no PostScript Symbol font in bold. It is possible, however to
use |\mathbf| which allows you to get at least a bold Latin
Alphabet.
\item[mathtime] Directs the class to use MathTime fonts for math by
loading the \texttt{mathtime} package. These fonts are commercial so
that this option will not work if you don't own them.
If this option is chosen one can also use the options for this
package as global options to the class.
\item[mtpro] Directs the class to use MathTime Professional fonts for math by
loading the \texttt{mtpro} package. These fonts are commercial (the
successors to the MathTime fonts from the previous option) so
that this option will not work if you don't own them.
If this option is chosen one can also use the options for this
package as global options to the class.
\item[nomathfonts] Directs the class not to set up math fonts (which
means using the installation default which is usually Computer
Modern). This option is intended in case a special math font setup
is loaded in the document preamble.
\item[cmfonts] Directs the class to use standard Computer Modern fonts
for math and text. This does not conform to the specification for this
class and is intended for draft preparation in environments where
the required fonts are unavailable.
\end{description}
\subsubsection{Textual references}
The next options enable textual references; if this is desired select
one of them:
\begin{description}
\item[varioref] Loads the \texttt{varioref} package
(see \cite[p.68ff]{A-W:MG04})
allowing to produce textual page references. See section on
Cross-references~\vpageref{xref} for details.
\item[nonvarioref] Disables the |\reftextvario| command so that the
strings produced by \texttt{varioref} commands will not depend on
the number of references seen so far. Implies the varioref option.
\end{description}
\subsubsection{Table note markers}
Notes to tables can be influenced as follows:
\begin{description}
\item[tnotealph] Produce raised lower case alphabetic marks to
indicate table notes.
\item[tnotesymbol] Use footnote symbols to indicate table notes
(default).
\end{description}
\subsubsection{Citation mode}
The citation mode can be influenced with the following two options:
\begin{description}
\item[numcites] Citations are typeset using numbers. Depending on the
proceeding style these might appear raised or in brackets, etc.~(default).
\item[bibliocites] Citations are typeset using an author/year
scheme. This requires the installation of the \texttt{natbib} system.
\end{description}
In some layout styles these options might be without effect.
\subsubsection{Heading numbers}
Heading numbers can be turned on or off with the following two options:
\begin{description}
\item[numberedheadings] Headings are numbered.
\item[unnumberedheadings] Headings are unnumbered (default).
\end{description}
In some layout styles these options might be without effect.
\subsubsection{Drafts}
Finally there is one standard \texttt{article} class option which has
its functionality extended:
\begin{description}
\item[draft] Allows |\tableofcontents| and similar commands to work
without error message (during development of article). It marks
overfull boxes and
also provides page numbers in the printout.
\textbf{Remove this option when producing the final paper.}
\end{description}
\subsection{Front matter}
The class supports an extended set of front matter commands. These
commands differ from those used by standard \LaTeX's \texttt{article}
class. Thus, if an article already written is adapted to be used with
the \aipcls{}, the front matter has to be modified somewhat.
Some of the commands below
are required only for certain proceedings. Declarations that are not
required will be silently ignored.
\BDefC{title}[om]{short title}{title text}
In standard \LaTeX{} this command has no optional argument. In the
\aipcls{} one can specify an abbreviated title text which is used,
for example, in the running footer in draft mode.
\BDefC{author}[mm]{author name}{author information}
In standard \LaTeX{} this command had only one argument containing
both author name and address information. In this class it has two
arguments and the second argument contains data structured using
key/value pairs separated by commas.
For example, the authors of this paper have been specified as:
\begin{verbatim}
\author{F. Mittelbach}{
address={Zedernweg 62, Mainz},
,email=
{<EMAIL>}}
\author{D. P. Carlisle}{
address={Willow House, Souldern},
,email={<EMAIL>}}
\end{verbatim}
Supported keywords will be \texttt{address}, \texttt{email},
\texttt{altaddress}, \texttt{homepage},
and \texttt{thanks}.
(With release 1.3 of \aipcls{} only
\texttt{address}, \texttt{altaddress} and \texttt{email} should be used; support for the other
keywords will be added later.)
Depending on the layout of the target proceedings
some of the keys may get ignored!
\BDefC{classification}[m]{data}
Some proceedings require classification data, e.g., PACS numbers. If not,
this declaration is ignored.
\BDefC{keywords}[m]{data}
Some layouts require keyword data. If not, this declaration is
ignored.
\BDefC{copyrightholder}[m]{name}
Some layouts require copyright information. Normally a default
is provided by the class. With this declaration the copyright holder
can be overwritten.
\BDefC{copyrightyear}[m]{year}
Some layouts require copyright data. With this declaration the
copyright year can be specified. (If such data is required the current
year is provided as default).
\BDefE{abstract}
In contrast to standard \LaTeX{} the abstract environment has to
appear before the |\maketitle| command.
\BDefC{maketitle}
This command inserts the actual front matter data. It has to follow the
above declarations.
\subsubsection{Multiple authors}
Multiple authors are entered by specifying one |\author| command per
author. Care needs to be taken when specifying shared addresses: they
have to be absolutely identical. Depending on the chosen layout the
class will merge such addresses but will recognize them only as
identical, if the input including spaces is the same!
The |\and| command as defined in the \texttt{article} class to
separate multiple authors is not supported.
\subsubsection{Dates}
\BDefC{received}[m]{date}
\BDefC{revised}[m]{date}
\BDefC{accepted}[m]{date}
Some layouts require specification of date of arrival, revision,
and/or acceptance. The above declarations provide a way to specify such
dates if necessary.
\BDefC{date}[m]{date}
The article class provides the |\date| command which is not used
by \aipcls. If supplied it will be ignored unless the \texttt{draft}
option is specified in which case it will show up in a footer line
together with the title and the page number to ease document
development.
\subsubsection{Other front matter commands}
The |\tableofcontents|, |\listoffigures|, and |\listoftables| commands
are provided but produce (beside output) an error message unless the
\texttt{draft} option was selected. This is done since the \aipcls{}
does not support page numbering and thus the above commands
essentially produce incorrect data.
\subsection{Headings}
The \aipcls{} officially supports three heading levels, i.e.,
|\section|, |\subsection|, and |\subsubsection|.
It also supports the commands |\paragraph| and |\subparagraph|
although the latter heading levels are not part of the \aipcls{}
specification and are therefore discouraged.
In some layouts |\section| headings are changed to UPPERCASE. Special care is
taken not to uppercase math material, but this support is only available if
the package |textcase| is part of the \LaTeX{} distribution.
\subsection{Cross-references}\label{xref}
Cross-references to page numbers are not possible with the \aipcls{}
as the page numbers are determined after production. For this reason
the |\pageref| command of \LaTeX{} is disabled by default.
Since headings in most layouts do not carry numbers they can't be
referenced either.
References to tables, figures, and equations are possible using
the \LaTeX{} commands |\label| and |\ref|.
However if the class option \texttt{varioref} or \texttt{nonvarioref}
is used, references to page numbers are possible again as they will
generate textual references of the form ``on the following page'' or
``on an earlier page'' etc. The produced strings are customizable as
described in detail in the \texttt{varioref} package documentation or
in \cite[p.68ff]{A-W:MG04}.
The class defaults are as follows and can be changed with
|\renewcommand| in the document preamble. The \texttt{varioref}
package normally distinguishes between reference to facing pages and
references to pages that need turning over using different strings in
these cases. However, since with \aipcls{} class page numbers are not
determined at the time of production no assumption can be made that
page $x$ and $x+1$ actually fall onto the same double spread. For this
reason the defaults used here do not produce strings containing the
word ``facing'' or ``opposite''.
\begin{verbatim}
\renewcommand\reftextfaceafter
{on the next page}
\renewcommand\reftextfacebefore
{on the \reftextvario{previous}
{preceding} page}
\renewcommand\reftextafter
{on the \reftextvario{next}
{following} page}
\renewcommand\reftextbefore
{on the \reftextvario{previous
page}{page before}}
\renewcommand\reftextcurrent
{on \reftextvario{this}
{the current} page}
\end{verbatim}
Normally, text for references which are ``far away'' are produced
using |\reftextfaraway| in \texttt{varioref}. However, to produce
textual references without referring to actual page numbers even in
this case, this command was hijacked in the \aipcls{} and redefined to
determine whether or not this is a reference to some earlier or later
page. So instead of changing this command the class provides the
following two commands for customization:
\begin{verbatim}
\renewcommand\reftextearlier
{\reftextvario{on an earlier
page}{earlier on}}
\renewcommand\reftextlater
{\reftextvario{later on}
{further down}}
\end{verbatim}
To illustrate the result of this package all references in this
document are made using |\vref| or |\vpageref|, e.g., references to
Figure~\vref{fig:b} and Figure~\vref{fig:a}. These commands work best
if used only for important references. Be careful when using them
several times close to each other as the automatically generated texts
then may sound strange (as they do in the example in this paragraph).
\BDefC{eqref}[m]{label}
For reference to equation numbers |\eqref| can be used instead of
the standard |\ref| command. The |\eqref| command will automatically add any
frills required by the layout style, while |\ref| will only typeset
the plain number.
For example, in the \texttt{arlo} style it will
print ``Eq.~(1)'' while |\ref| would result in ``1''.
\subsection{Lists}
The \aipcls{} supports all standard list environments like
\texttt{itemize}, \texttt{enumerate}, etc.
\subsection{Graphics support}
Support for including and manipulating graphics is provided as the
standard \LaTeX{} \texttt{graphicx} package is automatically loaded by
the \aipcls. For detailed descriptions of the commands made available
by this package see~\cite{A-W:GMR97} or the package documentation
coming with the \LaTeX{} release. A sufficient introduction is also
given by~\cite{A-W:LLa94} although there only the \texttt{graphics}
package (a subset of the \texttt{graphicx} package) is described.
A typical application is given in the following example where a
picture is resized to span 70\% of one column:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{figure}[!b]
\resizebox{.7\columnwidth}{!}
{\includegraphics{escher}}
\source{Guy Shaw}
\caption{An illustration taken
from~\cite{A-W:MG04}}
\label{fig:a}
\end{figure}
\end{verbatim}
resulting in figure \vref{fig:a}.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\resizebox{.7\columnwidth}{!}
{\includegraphics[draft=false]{escher}}
\source{Guy Shaw}
\caption{An illustration taken
from~\cite{A-W:MG04}}
\label{fig:a}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Floats}
Floats are objects which do not have to stay in sync with the running
text but are allowed to move from their original place to some other
position where they fit better for page breaking reasons. Such objects
they are typically numbered so that they can be referenced from within
the running text.
\LaTeX{} by default supports two float types: figures and
tables. These float types are also supported by the \aipcls{} although
their internal implementation is quite different resulting in a number
of important differences in behavior:\footnote{There exist packages
that extend the number of float types. (This information is given as a
footnote to show that footnotes in this class come out below a bottom
float.)}
\begin{itemize}
\item The position of the float caption is determined automatically,
independently of the placement of the |\caption| command within the
float body.
\item
Depending on its width the float automatically spans two
columns.
In case of a table the whole object (including its caption)
might be rotated automatically if its exceeds |\textwidth|.
\item The body of the float environments are processed in L-R mode and
not in paragraph mode as in standard \LaTeX. This is necessary for
measuring its width. Thus if paragraph mode is needed one has to put
a \texttt{minipage} environment of the appropriate width (e.g.,
|\columnwidth|) into the body.
\item Only one |\caption| command per float is allowed.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Figures}
\BDefE{figure}[o]{pos}
Like with standard \LaTeX{} the optional \Larg{pos} argument can be
used to specify into which float areas this float is allowed to
migrate (default is |tbp|).
The environment \texttt{figure*} is not supported as figures that need
to span both columns are automatically recognized in two column mode.
\BDefC{source}[m]{text}
Command to specify the origin of the picture shown. The \Larg{text}
will be printed in small italics below the illustration.
A typical example of a figure float would be
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{.8\textwidth}{!}
{\includegraphics{outline}}
\caption{PostScript example taken
from~\cite{A-W:MG04}}
\label{fig:b}
\source{F. Mittelbach}
\end{figure}
\end{verbatim}
The result is shown in Figure~\vref{fig:b}.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{.8\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[draft=false]{outline}}
\caption{PostScript example taken from~\cite{A-W:MG04}}
\label{fig:b}
\source{F. Mittelbach}
\end{figure}
\BDefC{spaceforfigure}[mm]{horizontal}{vertical}
If the illustration is to be manually pasted into the final document
one can leave the right amount of space by using this command as
follows:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{figure}
\spaceforfigure{2in}{1cm}
\caption{Caption for a figure to be
pasted in later}
\label{fig:3}
\source{F. Mittelbach}
\end{figure}
\end{verbatim}
All standard \TeX{} units can be used to specify the space needed. The
above example make room for an illustration that is two inches wide and
one centimeter high. The result is shown as Figure~\vref{fig:3}.
\begin{figure}
\spaceforfigure{2in}{1cm}
\caption{Caption for a figure to be
pasted in later}
\label{fig:3}
\source{F. Mittelbach}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Tables}
\BDefE{table}[o]{pos}
Like with standard \LaTeX{} the optional \Larg{pos} argument can be
used to specify into which float areas this float is allowed to
migrate (default is |tbp|).
The environment \texttt{table*} is not supported as tables that need
to span both columns are automatically recognized in two column mode.
Typically the body of the environment would consist of a
\texttt{tabular} environment responsible for producing the actual
table including the table and stub headers.
\BDefC{tablehead}[mmmm]{cols}{h-pos}{v-pos}{heading text}
To ease the production of tables the command |\tablehead| is provided
which is essentially and abbreviation for a |\multicolumn| command
that additionally boldens its text argument. I.e., \Larg{cols}
specifies the number of columns the \Larg{heading text} should span
and \Larg{h-pos} defines the horizontal positioning of the text of the
column(s), e.g., |l|, |r|, |c|, or |p{...}|. In contrast to a simple
|\multicolumn| command the \Larg{heading text} can be split vertically
by using |\\| to denote the line breaks. The \Larg{v-pos} argument
should contain either |t|, |c|, or |b| denoting the vertical placement
of the text in relation to other cells of that row. It is only
relevant if the \Larg{heading text} consists of more than one
line. See the example table \vpageref[below]{tab:source} that
demonstrates the use of this command.
\BDefC{source}[m]{text} Command to specify the origin of the data
given in the table. The \Larg{text} will be printed in small italics
below the table.
\BDefC{tablenote}[m]{text}
Command to produce a note to the table. It can only be used within a
\texttt{table} environment and should be used only at the right
end of a table cell. The command produces a raised footnote symbol at
the place used which sticks into the right margin. As far as \LaTeX{}
is concerned this symbol does not occupy any space. Thus is will not
modify the alignment of table columns. The \Larg{text} will appear
below the table.
In the current release notes to |\caption| or |\source| are not
possible.
\BDefC{tablenote*}[m]{text}
Like |\tablenote| but this time the raised footnote symbol will occupy
space. This version is intended to be used in the middle of cells.
An example showing the use of all commands described above is shown in
Table~\vref{tab:a}. It was produced by the following input:\label{tab:source}
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
\hline
&\tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Single\\outlet}
&\tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Small\tablenote
{2-9 retail outlets}\\multiple}
&\tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Large\\multiple}
&\tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Total} \\
\hline
1982 & 98 & 129 & 620 & 847\\
1987 & 138 & 176 & 1000 & 1314\\
1991 & 173 & 248 & 1230 & 1651\\
1998\tablenote{predicted}
& 200 & 300 & 1500 & 2000\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\source{Central Statistical Office,
UK}
\caption{Average turnover per shop: by
type of retail organisation}
\label{tab:a}
\end{table}
\end{verbatim}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
\hline
& \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Single\\outlet}
& \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Small\tablenote{2-9 retail outlets}\\multiple}
& \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Large\\multiple}
& \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Total} \\
\hline
1982 & 98 & 129 & 620 & 847\\
1987 & 138 & 176 & 1000 & 1314\\
1991 & 173 & 248 & 1230 & 1651\\
1998\tablenote{predicted} & 200 & 300 & 1500 & 2000\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\source{Central Statistical Office, UK}
\caption{Average turnover per shop: by type
of retail organisation}
\label{tab:a}
\end{table}
\BDefC{setlength}[mm]{\texttt{\upshape\string\hlinesep}}{value}
Vertical spacing between horizontal lines produced from |\hline|
inside a tabular environment is controlled by the length parameter
|\hlinesep| in this class. The default value (1pt) gives one point
extra space above such lines and three times as much (i.e. 3pt) extra
space below. This is done to implement the layout requirements for
tables in the AIP proceedings (which are not supposed to have vertical
lines in the tables). If tables with vertical lines are necessary for
some reason, then the value of this parameter should be set to
\texttt{0pt} either globally for the whole document or locally within
the \texttt{table} environment. Otherwise the vertical lines will have
strange gaps whenever a |\hline| command is used to produce a
horizontal line.
\subsubsection{Counters}
The |\alph| and |\fnsymbol| commands to represent counter values have
extended ranges. For example |\alph| will now count up to 52 (zz) and
the |\fnsymbol| command will produce the following symbols
\makeatletter
\@fnsymbol{1},
\@fnsymbol{2},
\@fnsymbol{3},
\@fnsymbol{4},
\@fnsymbol{5},
\@fnsymbol{6},
\@fnsymbol{7},
\@fnsymbol{8},
\@fnsymbol{9},
\@fnsymbol{10},
\@fnsymbol{11},
\@fnsymbol{12},
\@fnsymbol{13},
\@fnsymbol{14},
\@fnsymbol{15}, and
\@fnsymbol{16}.
\makeatother
This will allow for up to 16 table notes per table. For documents that
need a larger number of table notes select the option
\texttt{tnotealph} to switch to lower case alphabetic letters to mark
such notes.
\subsubsection{Long tables}
Tables which are longer than one page cannot be placed into a
\texttt{table} environment as floats cannot have a size larger than a
page. Such tables are supported by the standard \LaTeX{} package
\texttt{longtable} written by David Carlisle. However this package
only works in single column mode.
With two-column layouts, such as the one for the AIP 8x11 double
column proceedings, such tables can only be added at the end of the
paper by preceding the |longtable| environments with a |\onecolumn|
declaration.
The package is supported by the class in the sense that captions
within a \texttt{longtable} environment will be formatted using the
appropriate style; however in contrast to the \texttt{table}
environment it is the responsibility of the user to place the caption
at the top of the table. The commands |\source| and |\tablenote| are
not supported within this environment, but the |\tablehead| command
can be used to produce column heads if desired.
Refer to the \texttt{longtable} package documentation or to
\cite[p.122ff]{A-W:LLa94} for a detailed description of the syntax of
the \texttt{longtable} environment.
A possible alternative is the package \texttt{supertabular} written by
Johannes Braams; however in this case no attempt has been made to
ensure that a table produced with \texttt{supertabular} conforms to
the layout specification for the \aipcls{}. Be aware that this package
defines its own |\tablehead| command (with a completely different
function).
Refer to the package documentation for the syntax description. A
detailed comparison between \texttt{supertabular} and
\texttt{longtable} can be found in Chapter~5 of \cite{A-W:LLa94}.
\subsubsection{Building floats manually}
The original \LaTeX{} environments \texttt{figure} and \texttt{table}
as well as their star forms are still available under the names
\texttt{ltxfigure} and \texttt{ltxtable}. They should not be used in
normal circumstances but are provided in case the automatism of
the \aipcls{} needs overwriting.
Please note that if these environments are used the position of the
|\caption| command determines the placement of the caption within the
float body and that the special commands for figures and tables, e.g.,
|\tablenote|, etc.\ as provided by this class are not available within
these environments.
\begin{table}[!t]
\makeatletter
\if8\expandafter\@car\selectedlayoutstyle\@nil\relax
\else
\fontsize{7}{8}\selectfont
\fi
\makeatother
\begin{tabular}{rrrp{.6\textwidth}}
\hline
\tablehead{1}{r}{b}{File} &
\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Date} &
\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Version} &
\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Description} \\
\hline
aipproc.cls & 2000/08/31 & v1.2a & AIP Proceedings (FMi) \\
fixltx2e.sty & 1999/12/01 & v1.0b & fixes to LaTeX \\
calc.sty & 1998/07/07 & v4.1b & Infix arithmetic (KKT,FJ) \\
ifthen.sty & 1999/09/10 & v1.1b & Standard LaTeX ifthen package (DPC) \\
graphicx.sty & 1999/02/16 & v1.0f & Enhanced LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR) \\
keyval.sty & 1999/03/16 & v1.13 & key=value parser (DPC) \\
graphics.sty & 1999/02/16 & v1.0l & Standard LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR) \\
trig.sty & 1999/03/16 & v1.09 & sin cos tan (DPC) \\
graphics.cfg & \\
dvips.def & 1999/02/16 & v3.0i & Driver-dependant file (DPC,SPQR) \\
url.sty & 1999/03/28 & ver 1.5x & Verb mode for urls, etc. \\
article.cls & 2000/05/19 & v1.4b & Standard LaTeX document class \\
size10.clo & 2000/05/19 & v1.4b & Standard LaTeX file (size option) \\
aipxfm.sty & \\
mathptm.sty & 2000/01/12 &PSNFSS-v8.1 &Times + math package (SPQR) \\
times.sty & 2000/01/12 &PSNFSS-v8.1 &Times font as default roman(SPQR) \\
ot1ptm.fd & 2000/01/12 &PSNFSS-v8.1 & font definitions for OT1/ptm. \\
fontenc.sty & \\
t1enc.def & 2000/08/30 & v1.91 &Standard LaTeX file \\
t1ptm.fd & 2000/01/12 &PSNFSS-v8.1 & font definitions for T1/ptm. \\
textcomp.sty & 2000/08/30 &v1.91 &Standard LaTeX package \\
ts1enc.def & 1998/06/12 & v3.0d & (jk/car/fm) Standard LaTeX file \\
varioref.sty & 1999/12/02 &v1.2c &package for extended references (FMi) \\
aip-8s.clo & \\
ttct0001.sty & \\
shortvrb.sty & 2000/07/04 &v2.0m & Standard LaTeX documentation package
(FMi) \\
hyperref.sty & 2000/05/08 &v6.70f & Hypertext links for LaTeX \\
pd1enc.def & 2000/05/08 &v6.70f & Hyperref: PDFDocEncoding definition
(HO) \\
hyperref.cfg & \\
hdvips.def & 2000/05/08 &v6.70f & Hyperref driver for dvips \\
pdfmark.def & 2000/05/08 &v6.70f & Hyperref definitions for pdfmark
specials \\
ts1cmr.fd & 1999/05/25 &v2.5h & Standard LaTeX font definitions \\
nameref.sty & 2000/05/08 &v2.18 & Cross-referencing by name of section \\
t1pcr.fd & 2000/01/12 &PSNFSS-v8.1 & font definitions for T1/pcr. \\
ot1ptmcm.fd & 2000/01/03 &Fontinst v1.801 & font definitions for
OT1/ptmcm. \\
omlptmcm.fd & 2000/01/03 &Fontinst v1.801 & font definitions for
OML/ptmcm. \\
omspzccm.fd & 2000/01/03 &Fontinst v1.801 & font definitions for
OMS/pzccm. \\
omxpsycm.fd & 2000/01/03 & Fontinst v1.801 &font definitions for
OMX/psycm. \\
ts1ptm.fd & 2000/01/12 & PSNFSS-v8.1 &font definitions for TS1/ptm. \\
escher.eps & && Graphic file (type eps) \\
outline.eps & & & Graphic file (type eps) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Files used by the \aipcls{}}
\label{tab:b}
\source{Output of \texttt{\string\listfiles} when processing
\texttt{aipguide.tex}}
\end{table}
\subsection{Urls}
\BDefC{url}[m]{data}
For documenting URLs and related data the |\url| command is provided.
It allows breaking the URL in certain places and typesets it in an
adequate font and format. Instead of using curly brackets the argument
can be delimited by two identical characters not used in the argument.
\subsection{Bibliography}
Referring to other articles, books, etc.\ can be done using the |\cite|
command of standard \LaTeX{}. The list of references itself can
either be produced using standard \LaTeX{} methods or using
\textsc{Bib}\TeX.
If installed, the \aipcls{} class includes the \texttt{natbib} system
which offers an extended set of citation commands. These commands have
been originally developed to support author/year citation styles but
are also useful with numerical citation styles.
The \texttt{natbib} system has two basic citation commands, |\citet| and
|\citep| for \emph{textual} and \emph{parenthetical} citations, respectively.
There also exist the starred versions |\citet*| and |\citep*| that print
the full author list, and not just the abbreviated one.
All of these may take one or two optional arguments to add some text before
and after the citation. Table~\vref{tab:natbib} shows some examples.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\quad$\Rightarrow$\quad}l}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l}{\bfseries Author/year style} \\
\hline
|\citet{jon90}| & Jones et al. (1990)\\
|\citet[chap.~2]{jon90}| & Jones et al. (1990, chap.~2)\\[0.5ex]
|\citep{jon90}| & (Jones et al., 1990)\\
|\citep[chap.~2]{jon90}| & (Jones et al., 1990, chap.~2)\\
|\citep[see][]{jon90}| & (see Jones et al., 1990)\\
|\citep[see][chap.~2]{jon90}| & (see Jones et al., 1990, chap.~2)\\[0.5ex]
|\citet*{jon90}| & Jones, Baker, and Williams (1990)\\
|\citep*{jon90}| & (Jones, Baker, and Williams, 1990) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l}{\bfseries Numerical style} \\
\hline
|\citet{jon90}| & Jones et al. [21]\\
|\citet[chap.~2]{jon90}| & Jones et al. [21, chap.~2]\\[0.5ex]
|\citep{jon90}| & [21]\\
|\citep[chap.~2]{jon90}| & [21, chap.~2]\\
|\citep[see][]{jon90}| & [see 21]\\
|\citep[see][chap.~2]{jon90}| & [see 21, chap.~2]\\[0.5ex]
|\citep{jon90a,jon90b}| & [21, 32]\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example of \texttt{natbib} commands and their results}
\label{tab:natbib}
\end{table}
There are many more commands and variants, see \cite{man:Daly99a} or
\cite{man:Daly99b} for further details.
\subsubsection{Bibliography produced manually}
\BDefE{thebibliography}[m]{widest-label}
Environment to hold the list of references.
\BDefC{bibitem}[m]{label}
Command to start a bibliographical entry having the label \Larg{label}
for use in |\cite| commands. Refer to the publishers manual, e.g.,
\cite{man:aipproceed}, for information on how to lay out individual
entries. For example:
\begin{verbatim}
\bibitem{Brown2000}
M.~P. Brown and K. Austin,
\emph{The New Physique},
Publisher Name, Publisher City,
2000, pp. 212--213.
\end{verbatim}
If commands from \texttt{natbib} (e.g., from table~\ref{tab:natbib})
should be usable, then additional information has to be passed to the
|\bibitem| via an optional argument.
\BDefC{bibitem}[om]{display-info}{label}
The optional argument \Larg{display-info} should then, and only then,
contain the author(s) name(s) followed by the year in parentheses
without any spaces, for example:
\begin{verbatim}
\bibitem[Brown and Austin(2000)]
{Brown2000}
...
\end{verbatim}
The essential feature is that the label (the part in brackets) consists
of the author names, as they should appear in the citation, with the year
in parentheses following. There must be no space before the opening
parenthesis!
This will be automatically produced if \BibTeX{} is used.
\subsubsection{Bibliography produced using \textsc{Bib}\TeX}
The \aipcls{} is accompanied by \BibTeX{} style files which can be used
to produce compliant reference lists from \BibTeX{} database
files. To use \BibTeX{} one first has to run the source file through
\LaTeX{} then run \BibTeX{} and then rerun \LaTeX{} twice to get all
references resolved. \BibTeX{} is described in more detail in appendix
B of \cite{A-W:LLa94} and in chapter~13 of \cite{A-W:MG04}.
\BDefC{bibliographystyle}[m]{style-name}
This declaration specifies to \BibTeX{} that the style
\Larg{style-name} should be used. It can be placed anywhere within the
document but is usually positioned directly in front of the command
described below.
For a discussion which of the supplied \BibTeX{} styles should be used
for which proceedings see the section ``Special requirements\ldots''
below.
\BDefC{bibliography}[m]{bib-list}
This command denotes the position where the reference list produced by
\BibTeX{} will be included in the document. The \Larg{bib-list} is a
comma separated list of \BibTeX{} database files.
\section{General requirements and restrictions}
This class was designed to work with \LaTeXe{} release 1999/06/01 or a
later version. Earlier releases may work but have not been tested.
With the exception of the packages \texttt{natbib} and \texttt{url} it
only requires files which are part of a standard \LaTeX{}
distribution, i.e., it should work if your installation contains the
following components:
\texttt{base}, \texttt{tools}, \texttt{graphics}, and \texttt{psnfss},
see \vref{tab:b} for files used to produce this document.
The most recent \LaTeX{} distribution as well as \texttt{natbib} and
\texttt{url} can be obtained from CTAN sites (Comprehensive \TeX{}
Archive Network).
Refer to \url{http://www.tug.org} for more information on CTAN and
\TeX{} in general.
A ready to run \TeX{} system for various platforms which has
everything required is available on CD-ROM, look into
\url{http://www.tug.org/texlive.html}.
This \TeX{} implementation is also made available as an add-on to
several books on \LaTeX, e.g., \cite{A-W:KD04,A-W:MG04}.
For loading individual packages from a CTAN archive refer to
\url{http://www.ctan.org} and search for the package name. Please omit
extensions such as \texttt{.sty} when searching, e.g., search for
\texttt{natbib} rather than \texttt{natbib.sty}, as such packages are
often distributed in source form only, e.g., as a \texttt{.dtx} file.
It is also possible to download a complete \TeX/\LaTeX{} installation
from CTAN, e.g., Miktex + Winedit + Ghostview. Finally, it is also
possible to download a CD-ROM image of the \TeX-live CD from CTAN
(roughly 300MB): search for \texttt{texlive} (and make sure you select
a suitable mirror near you).
\section{Special requirements for individual layouts}
\subsection{AIP proceeding layout 6x9}
\begin{itemize}
\raggedright
\item
The entire paper will be reduced 15\% in the printing process. Please
make sure all figures as well as the text within the figures are
large enough in the manuscript to be readable in the finished book.
\item
The use of the |\source| command is discouraged.
\item
Compliant \BibTeX{} styles are \texttt{aipproc} (for use with
\texttt{natbib}) and \texttt{aipprocl} (if \texttt{natbib} is
missing at the site).
\item
The options \texttt{bibliocites} and \texttt{numberedheadings} have
no effect.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{AIP proceeding layout 8x11 single/double}
\begin{itemize}
\raggedright
\item
The use of the |\source| command is discouraged.
\item
Compliant \BibTeX{} styles are \texttt{aipproc} (for use with
\texttt{natbib}) and \texttt{aipprocl} (if \texttt{natbib} is
missing at the site).
\item
The options \texttt{bibliocites} and \texttt{numberedheadings} have
no effect.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{ARLO}
Note: the ARLO layout is no longer supported.
\begin{itemize}
\raggedright
\item
A copyright year (|\copyrightyear|) needs to be provided.
\item
Pacs numbers should be provided (|\classification|).
\item
The \texttt{arlo} layout offers one additional environment to specify
multimedia files:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{multimedia}
\multimediauid{523}
\multimediatype{gif}
\multimediasize{1.2Mb}
\multimediaurl{http://yorktown.%
eng.yale.edu/test/msXXX/}
\multimediacaption{Fancy video}
\label{fv}
\end{multimedia}
\end{verbatim}
References to a multimedia file can be made using |\label| and
|\ref|. Instead of the latter command |\multimediaref| can be used
to automatically get the appropriate frills, e.g., `Mm.~2' instead of
just `2' as produced by |\ref|.
\item
Select the \texttt{draft} option for the initial submission and the
copy-editing stage. Replace it by the \texttt{final} option when
producing the final paper, so that page numbers and other
items are stripped away.
\item
To conform to the layout specification for citations the
\texttt{natbib} system has to be installed.
\item
For ARLO two compliant \BibTeX{} styles are available:
\texttt{arlonum} should be used together with the class option
\texttt{numcites}, while \texttt{arlobib} should be used together with
the option \texttt{bibliocites}.
\item
The options \texttt{bibliocites} and \texttt{numberedheadings} can be
used to switch to author/year citation scheme and numbered headings,
respectively.
\end{itemize}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
We continue investigation of cluster algebras of finite mutation type started in~\cite{FST1} and~\cite{FST2}.
In~\cite{FST1}, we classified all the \emph{skew-symmetric} exchange matrices with finite mutation class. It occurs that all but eleven exceptional mutation classes of skew-symmetric exchange matrices of rank at least $3$ can be obtained from triangulated marked bordered surfaces via construction provided by Fomin, Shapiro and Thurston~\cite{FST}.
In~\cite{FST2}, we completed classification of finite mutation classes of exchange matrices by extending the combinatorial technique of~\cite{FST} to general (i.e., {\it skew-symmetrizable}) case. All but several exceptional finite mutation classes consist of so called {\it s-decomposable} exchange matrices (the precise definitions will be given below).
In this paper, we relate non-exceptional mutation-finite cluster algebras to triangulated orbifolds. Extending the technique of Fomin and Thurston~\cite{FT} to skew-symmetrizable case, we construct geometric realizations for algebras with s-decomposable exchange matrices. In these realizations,
(tagged) triangulations of certain orbifolds form clusters with { (modified)} lambda lengths of arcs serving as cluster variables.
Geometric realization provides various structural results, for example, we prove that exchange graph in cluster algebra with s-decomposable exchange matrices does not depend on coefficients.
One of the tools of~\cite{FST2} was a notion of {\it unfolding} introduced by Zelevinsky (it can be understood as a counterpart of the {\it unfolding procedure} introduced by Lusztig in~\cite{L} for generalized Cartan matrices). In particular, we construct unfoldings for a class of mutation-finite matrices. In the current paper we provide geometric version of unfolding, and construct unfoldings for almost all mutation-finite matrices. We then use unfoldings to compute growth rate of all cluster algebras originating from orbifolds, and for generalization of positivity results by Musiker, Schiffler and Williams~\cite{MSW} to Laurent expansions of corresponding cluster variables.
Another application of the construction is a proof of sign-coherence for $\mathbf{c}$-vectors. In~\cite{FZ4}, Fomin and Zelevinsky conjectured that all the entries of $\mathbf{c}$-vectors are either nonnegative or nonpositive. This conjecture was proved for skew-symmetric cluster algebras by Derksen, Weyman and Zelevinsky~\cite{DWZ}, and for a large class of skew-symmetrizable algebras by Demonet~\cite{D}. We extend the list of algebras for which the conjecture holds by proving sign-coherence for $\mathbf{c}$-vectors for all algebras originating from orbifolds.
\medskip
The paper is organized as follows.
In Section~\ref{cluster}, we recall necessary definitions and basic facts on cluster algebras, exchange matrices, and their diagrams.
Section~\ref{blockdecomp} is devoted to the technique of s-decomposable diagrams. We recall the basic facts and results from~\cite{FST} and~\cite{FST2}, and introduce block decompositions of matrices.
In Section~\ref{orbifolds-s}, we construct a triangulated orbifold for any s-decomposable diagram. The simplicial complex of triangulations of this orbifold coincides with exchange graph of corresponding cluster algebra. The construction is close to the similar construction of Chekhov and Mazzocco~\cite{ChM}.
{
In Section~\ref{sec-geom}, a geometric realization of cluster algebras with s-decomposable exchange matrices is constructed. To do this, we proceed in a way similar to~\cite{FT}, where cluster variables were represented by modified lambda lengths of arcs of triangulations of marked bordered surfaces. However, unlike~\cite{FT}, we need to consider arcs of triangulations not of the given orbifold but of some its modification. We call this modified orbifold an {\it associated orbifold}. This associated orbifold can be constructed for any specific s-decomposable matrix. In some special cases associated orbifold occurs to be a regular surface.
}
In Section~\ref{sec-lam}, we generalize the notion of laminations and shear coordinates to the orbifold case. Sections~\ref{sec-opened} and~\ref{sec-teichm} are devoted to construction of geometric realization of cluster algebras with arbitrary coefficients. Main results are contained in Section~\ref{main}.
In Section~\ref{sec-growth}, we investigate growth of cluster algebras with s-decomposable exchange matrices. We use orbifolds to show that exchange graph of a cluster algebra with an s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable exchange matrix is quasi-isometric to exchange graph of cluster algebra with some block-decomposable skew-symmetric exchange matrix. In this way we classify growth of all cluster algebras with s-decomposable exchange matrices. This gives rise to classification of growth of all cluster algebras, the paper (joint with H.~Thomas) is in preparation.
In Section~\ref{unfolding-s}, we recall a definition of unfolding of skew-symmetrizable matrices introduced by A.~Zelevinsky (personal communication), extend it to a notion of unfolding of a diagram, and recall the results of~\cite{FST2}. Section~\ref{unfolding-fin} is devoted to construction of unfoldings of almost all mutation-finite skew-symmetrizable matrices.
In Section~\ref{sec-pos}, we prove the positivity conjecture for (almost all) cluster algebras originating from orbifolds, namely, for ones with s-decomposable exchange matrices admitting unfolding. This is done by extending the results of~\cite{MSW} to the orbifold case.
Finally, in Section~\ref{signs} we prove sign-coherence of $\mathbf{c}$-vectors for all cluster algebras originating from orbifolds.
\medskip
We would like to thank L.~Chekhov and S.~Fomin for fruitful discussions.
\section{Basics on cluster algebras}
\label{cluster}
\noindent
We briefly remind the definition of cluster algebra.
An integer $n\times n$ matrix $B$ is called \emph{skew-symmetrizable} if there exists an
integer diagonal $n\times n$ matrix $D=diag(d_1,\dots,d_n)$,
such that the product $BD$ is a skew-symmetric matrix, i.e., $b_{ij}d_j=-b_{ji}d_i$.
Let ${\mathbb P}$ be \emph{a tropical semifield } equipped with commutative multiplication $\cdot$ and addition $\oplus$. The multiplicative group of ${\mathbb P}$ is \emph{a coefficient group} of cluster algebra, i.e, it is a free abelian group. ${\mathbb Z}{\mathbb P}$ is the integer group ring, $\mathcal{F}$ is a field of rational functions in $n$ independent
variables with coefficients in the field of fractions of ${\mathbb Z}{\mathbb P}$.
$\mathcal{F}$ is called {\it an ambient field}.
\begin{definition}
\emph{A seed} is a triple $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p},B)$, where
\begin{itemize}
\item[-]
$\mathbf{p}=(p_{x}^\pm)_{x\in\mathbf{x}}$, a $2n$-tuple of elements of ${\mathbb P}$ is a \emph{coefficient tuple} of cluster $\mathbf{x}$;
\item[-]
$\mathbf{x}=\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}$ is a collection of algebraically independent rational functions of $n$ variables which generates $\mathcal{F}$ over the field of fractions of ${\mathbb Z}{\mathbb P}$;
\item[-]
$B$ is a skew-symmetrizable integer matrix (\emph{exchange matrix}).
\end{itemize}
The part $\mathbf{x}$ of seed $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p},B)$ is called \emph{cluster}, elements $x_i$ are called \emph{cluster variables}.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[seed mutation]
For any $k$, $1\le k\le n$ we define \emph{the mutation} of seed $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p},B)$ in direction $k$
as a new seed $(\mathbf{x}',\mathbf{p}',B')$ in the following way:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MatrixMutation}
b'_{ij}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-b_{ij}, & \hbox{ if } i=k \hbox{ or } j=k; \\
b_{ij}+\frac{|b_{ik}|b_{kj}+b_{ik}|b_{kj}|}{2}, & \hbox{ otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ClusterMutation}
x'_i=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
x_i, & \hbox{ if } i\ne k; \\
\frac{p^+_k\prod_{b_{jk}>0} x_j^{b_{jk}}+p^-_k\prod_{b_{ji}<0} x_j^{-b_{ji}}}{x_k}, & \hbox{ otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:CoeffMutation}
p'^\pm_k &=& p^\mp_k \\
\hbox{ for } i\ne k\qquad p'^+_i/p'^-_i &=& \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(p^+_k)^{b_{ki}}p^+_i/p^-_i, & \hbox{ if } b_{ki}\ge 0; \\
(p^-_k)^{b_{ki}}p^+_i/p^-_i, & \hbox{ if } b_{ki}\le 0; \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{definition}
\noindent
We write $(\mathbf{x}',\mathbf{p}',B')=\mu_k\left((\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p},B)\right)$.
Notice that $\mu_k(\mu_k((\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p},B)))=(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p},B)$.
We say that two seeds are \emph{mutation-equivalent}
if one is obtained from the other by a sequence of seed mutations.
Similarly we say that two clusters or two exchange matrices are \emph{mutation-equivalent}.
Notice that exchange matrix mutation~(\ref{eq:MatrixMutation}) depends only on the exchange matrix itself.
The collection of all matrices mutation-equivalent to a given matrix $B$ is called the \emph{mutation class} of $B$.
For any skew-symmetrizable matrix $B$ we define \emph{initial seed} $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p},B)$ as a collection
$(\{x_1,\dots,x_n\},\{p_1^\pm,\ldots,p_n^\pm\},B)$, where $B$ is the \emph{initial exchange matrix}, $\mathbf{x}=\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}$ is the \emph{initial cluster}, $\mathbf{p}=\{p_1^\pm,\ldots,p_n^\pm\}$ is the \emph{initial coefficient tuple}.
{\it Cluster algebra} ${\mathcal A}(B)$ associated with the skew-sym\-met\-ri\-zab\-le $n\times n$ matrix $B$ is a subalgebra of ${\mathbb Q}(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ generated by all cluster variables of the clusters mutation-equivalent
to the initial seed $(x,B)$.
Cluster algebra ${\mathcal A}(B)$ is called \emph{of finite type} if it contains only finitely many
cluster variables. In other words, all clusters mutation-equivalent to initial cluster contain
only finitely many distinct cluster variables in total.
\begin{definition}\label{def:FinMutType} A cluster algebra with only finitely many exchange matrices is called \emph{of finite mutation type}.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark} Since the orbit of an exchange matrix depends on the exchange matrix only, we may speak about skew-symmetrizable matrices of finite mutation type.
\end{remark}
Following~\cite{FZ2}, we encode an $n\times n$ skew-symmetrizable integer matrix $B$ by a finite simplicial $1$-complex $S$ with oriented weighted edges called {\it diagram}. The weights of a diagram are positive integers.
Vertices of $S$ are labeled by $[1,\dots,n]$. If $b_{ij}>0$, we join vertices $i$ and $j$ by an edge directed from $i$ to $j$ and assign to this edge weight $-b_{ij}b_{ji}$. Not every diagram corresponds to a skew-symmetrizable integer matrix: given a diagram $S$ of a skew-symmetrizable integer matrix $B$, a product of weights along any chordless cycle of $S$ is a perfect square (cf.~\cite[Exercise~2.1]{Kac}).
Distinct matrices may have the same diagram. At the same time, it is easy to see that only finitely many matrices may correspond to the same diagram.
All weights of a diagram of a skew-symmetric matrix are perfect squares. Conversely, if all weights of a diagram $S$ are perfect squares, then there exists a skew-symmetric matrix $B$ with diagram $S$.
As it is shown in~\cite{FZ2}, mutations of exchange matrices induce {\it mutations of diagrams}. If $S$ is the diagram corresponding to matrix $B$, and $B'$ is a mutation of $B$ in direction $k$, then we call the diagram $S'$ associated to $B'$ a {\it mutation of $S$ in direction $k$} and denote it by $\mu_k(S)$. A mutation in direction $k$ changes weights of diagram in the way described in Figure~\ref{quivermut} (see~\cite{FZ2}).
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{a}{\small $a$}
\psfrag{b}{\small $b$}
\psfrag{c}{\small $c$}
\psfrag{d}{\small $d$}
\psfrag{k}{\small $k$}
\psfrag{mu}{\small $\mu_k$}
\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/mutdef_new.eps,width=0.4\linewidth}\\
\medskip
$\pm\sqrt{c}\pm\sqrt{d}=\sqrt{ab}$
\caption{Mutations of diagrams. The sign before $\sqrt{c}$ (resp., $\sqrt{d}$) is positive if the three vertices form an oriented cycle, and negative otherwise. Either $c$ or $d$ may vanish. If $ab$ is equal to zero then neither value of $c$ nor orientation of the corresponding edge does change.}
\label{quivermut}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Hence, for a given diagram, the notion of its {\it mutation class} is well-defined. We call a diagram (resp., matrix) {\it mutation-finite} if its mutation class is finite.
\medskip
\section{Block decompositions of diagrams and matrices}
\label{blockdecomp}
First, we remind the definitions from~\cite{FST} and~\cite{FST2}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def-block}
In~\cite{FST}, a {\it block} is a diagram isomorphic to one of the diagrams with black/white colored vertices shown in Fig.~\ref{bloki}, or to a single vertex. Vertices marked in white are called {\it outlets}, we call the black ones {\it dead ends}. A connected skew-symmetric diagram $S$ is called {\it block-decomposable} if it can be obtained from a collection of blocks by identifying outlets of different blocks along some partial matching (matching of outlets of the same block is not allowed), where two single edges with same endpoints and opposite directions cancel out, and two single edges with same endpoints and same directions form an edge of weight $4$. A non-connected diagram $S$ is called block-decomposable either if $S$ satisfies the definition above, or if $S$ is a disjoint union of several diagrams (without any edge joining one to another) satisfying the definition above. If a skew-symmetric diagram $S$ is not block-decomposable then we call $S$ {\it non-decomposable}. Depending on a block, we call it {\it a block of type} $\rm{I}$, $\rm{II}$, $\rm{III}$, $\rm{IV}$, $\rm{V}$, or simply {\it a block of $n$-th type}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{1}{${\rm{I}}$}
\psfrag{2}{${\rm{II}}$}
\psfrag{3a}{${\rm{IIIa}}$}
\psfrag{3b}{${\rm{IIIb}}$}
\psfrag{4}{${\rm{IV}}$}
\psfrag{5}{${\rm{V}}$}
\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/bloki_.eps,width=0.999\linewidth}
\caption{Skew-symmetric blocks. Outlets are colored in white, dead ends are black.}
\label{bloki}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{definition}
Block-decomposable diagrams are in one-to-one correspondence with adjacency matrices of arcs of ideal (tagged) triangulations of bordered two-dimensional surfaces with marked points (see~\cite[Section~13]{FST} for the detailed explanations). Mutations of block-decomposable diagrams correspond to flips of (tagged) triangulations. In particular, this implies that mutation class of any block-decomposable diagram is finite, and any subdiagram of a block-decomposable one is block-decomposable too.
It is proved in~\cite{FST1} that block-decomposable diagrams almost exhaust mutation-finite ones. Namely, any mutation-finite non-decomposable skew-symmetric diagram of order at least $3$ is mutation-equivalent to one of $11$ exceptional diagrams, see~\cite[Theorem~6.1]{FST1}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def-s-block}
To adopt the technique of blocks to general (skew-symmetrizable) case, we introduce new blocks called {\it s-blocks} of types $\mathrm{\widetilde{III}a}$, $\mathrm{\widetilde{III}b}$, $\widetilde{\mathrm{IV}}$, $\widetilde{\mathrm V}_1$, $\widetilde{\mathrm V}_2$, $\widetilde{\mathrm V}_{12}$, and $\widetilde{\mathrm{VI}}$ shown in Table~\ref{newblocks}.
\end{definition}
\begin{table}[!h]
\caption{s-blocks and their local unfoldings (see Sections~\ref{unfolding-s},~\ref{unfolding-fin}). Vertex $v_i$ and the set $E_i$ are marked in the same way. Outlets are colored white.}
\label{newblocks}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
&&&&&&&\\
\begin{tabular}{c}
\raisebox{-0.4cm}{s-blocks}
\end{tabular}
&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\psfrag{3at}{\scriptsize ${\mathrm{\widetilde{III}a}}$}
\parbox[c]{1.4cm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block3at.eps,width=0.99\linewidth}}
&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\psfrag{3bt}{\scriptsize ${\mathrm{\widetilde{III}b}}$}
\parbox[c]{1.4cm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block3bt.eps,width=0.99\linewidth}}
&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\psfrag{4t}{\scriptsize $\widetilde{\mathrm{IV}}$}
\parbox[c]{1.4cm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block4t.eps,width=0.99\linewidth}}
&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\psfrag{51t}{\scriptsize $\widetilde{\mathrm{V}}_1$}
\parbox[c]{1.4cm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block51t.eps,width=0.99\linewidth}}
&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\psfrag{52t}{\scriptsize $\widetilde{\mathrm{V}}_2$}
\parbox[c]{1.4cm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block52t.eps,width=0.99\linewidth}}
&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\psfrag{4}{\tiny $4$}
\psfrag{512t}{\scriptsize $\widetilde{\mathrm{V}}_{12}$}
\parbox[c]{1.4cm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block512t.eps,width=0.99\linewidth}}
&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\psfrag{6t}{\scriptsize $\widetilde{\mathrm{VI}}$}
\parbox[c]{1.4cm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block6t.eps,width=0.99\linewidth}}
\\
&&&&&&&
\\
\hline
&&&&\multicolumn{3}{c|}{}&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{}\\
\begin{tabular}{c}
Unfoldings
\end{tabular}
&
\parbox[c]{1.4cm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block3a.eps,width=0.99\linewidth}}
&
\parbox[c]{1.4cm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block3b.eps,width=0.99\linewidth}}
&
\parbox[c]{1.4cm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block4.eps,width=0.99\linewidth}}
&
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{
\parbox[c]{1.4cm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block5.eps,width=0.99\linewidth}}
}
&
\parbox[c]{1.4cm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/unf6_0.eps,width=0.99\linewidth}}
\\
&&&&\multicolumn{3}{c|}{}&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{definition}
\label{s-dec diagr}
A diagram is called {\it s-decomposable} if it can be obtained from a collection of blocks and s-blocks according to the same rules as block-decomposable diagram (the way of identification remains well-defined since any edge with two white ends has weight one).
We keep the term ``block-decomposable'' for s-decomposable diagrams corresponding to skew-symmetric matrices. A diagram called {\it non-decomposable} if it is not s-decomposable.
\end{definition}
It is proved in~\cite{FST2} that any mutation-finite non-decomposable diagram of order at least $3$ is either skew-symmetric or mutation-equivalent to one of $7$ exceptional diagrams, see~\cite[Theorem~5.13]{FST2}.
Now we can define s-decomposable matrices.
\begin{definition}
\label{s-dec matr}
A skew-symmetrizable matrix is {\it s-decomposable} (respectively, {\it block-de\-com\-posable}) if its diagram is {s-decomposable} (respectively, {block-decomposable})
\end{definition}
Block-decomposable (or s-decomposable) matrices can be indeed decomposed into blocks in the following way. Let $B$ be an s-decomposable $n\times n$ matrix with diagram $\mathsf{D}$. For every block ${\mathcal B}_j$ in $\mathsf{D}$ spanned by vertices $v_{i_1},\dots,v_{i_k}$ consider the following $n\times n$ matrix $B_j$: the matrix corresponding to the block (see Tables~\ref{blocks} and~\ref{all-matrices}) is located on $(i_1,\dots,i_k)$-places of $B_j$, and the other entries are zeros. Then $B$ is the sum of all matrices $B_j$ for all blocks ${\mathcal B}_j$.
\begin{table}
\caption{Skew-symmetric blocks and the corresponding surfaces}
\label{blocks}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Block
&Diagram&Matrix&Surface\\
\hline
\raisebox{5mm}{$\mathrm{{I}}$}&
\raisebox{5mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block1n.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{5mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1\\
-1&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}
&\raisebox{-2mm}[18mm][4mm]{\psfrag{boundary}{\tiny\tap boundary}\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/0.eps,width=0.073\linewidth}}
\\
\hline
\raisebox{4mm}{$\mathrm{{II}}$}&
\raisebox{1mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block2n.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{4mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&-1\\
-1&0&1\\
1&-1&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{-1mm}[16mm][3mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/00.eps,width=0.068\linewidth}}
\\
\hline
\raisebox{5mm}{$\mathrm{{III}a}$}&
\psfrag{3a}{}\raisebox{5mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block3an.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{8mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&-1&-1\\
1&0&0\\
1&0&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny }
\psfrag{v1}{\tiny }
\psfrag{v2}{\tiny }
\raisebox{-1mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/s-block-I.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}
\\
\hline
\raisebox{5mm}{$\mathrm{IIIb}$}&
\psfrag{3b}{}\raisebox{5mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block3bn.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{8mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&0&-1\\
0&0&-1\\
1&1&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny }
\psfrag{v1}{\tiny }
\psfrag{v2}{\tiny }
\raisebox{-1mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/s-block-II.eps,width=0.121\linewidth}}
\\
\hline
\raisebox{6mm}{$\mathrm{{IV}}$}&
\psfrag{4}{}\raisebox{2mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block4n.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{9mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&-1&-1\\
-1&0&1&1\\
1&-1&0&0\\
1&-1&0&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\psfrag{w}{}
\psfrag{u}{}
\psfrag{v1}{}
\psfrag{v2}{}
\psfrag{p1}{}
\psfrag{p2}{}
\raisebox{-0.5mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/s-block-III.eps,width=0.095\linewidth}}
\\
\hline
\raisebox{6mm}{$\mathrm{{V}}$}&
\psfrag{5}{}\raisebox{1.5mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block5n.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{7mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&-1&-1&1\\
-1&0&1&1&0\\
1&-1&0&0&-1\\
1&-1&0&0&-1\\
-1&0&1&1&0
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\psfrag{u}{}
\psfrag{w1}{}
\psfrag{w2}{}
\psfrag{p1}{}
\psfrag{p2}{}
\raisebox{-1mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/s-block-IV.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{s-blocks, their matrices, orbifolds, and associated orbifolds, see Sections~\ref{sec lambda 2} and~\ref{sec_gen}}
\label{all-matrices}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
s-Block
&Diagram&Orbifold&Matrix
&Associated
orbifold
\\
\hline
\raisebox{-4mm}{$\mathrm{\widetilde{III}a}$}&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}\psfrag{3at}{}\raisebox{-10mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block3at.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{-10mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/1.eps,width=0.05\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{2mm}[9mm][5mm]{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&-1\\
2&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{-4mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/8.eps,width=0.05\linewidth}}\\
\hhline{|~|~|~|-|-|}
&&&
\raisebox{5mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&-2\\
1&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/1.eps,width=0.05\linewidth}}
\\
\hline
\raisebox{-4mm}{$\mathrm{\widetilde{III}b}$}&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}\psfrag{3bt}{}\raisebox{-10mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block3bt.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{-10mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/2.eps,width=0.05\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{2mm}[9mm][5mm]{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&-2\\
1&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{-4mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/9.eps,width=0.05\linewidth}}\\
\hhline{|~|~|~|-|-|}
&&&
\raisebox{5mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&-1\\
2&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/2.eps,width=0.05\linewidth}}
\\
\hline
\raisebox{-4mm}{$\mathrm{\widetilde{IV}}$}&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}\psfrag{4t}{}\raisebox{-10mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block4t.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{-10mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/3.eps,width=0.05\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{2mm}[9mm][5mm]{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&-1\\
-1&0&1\\
2&-2&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{-4mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/10.eps,width=0.05\linewidth}}\\
\hhline{|~|~|~|-|-|}
&&&
\raisebox{5mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&-2\\
-1&0&2\\
1&-1&0\\\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/3.eps,width=0.05\linewidth}}\\
\hline
\raisebox{-4mm}{$\mathrm{\widetilde{V}_1}$}&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}\psfrag{51t}{}\raisebox{-17mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block51t.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{-10mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/4.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{0mm}[8mm][5mm]{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&-1&1\\
-1&0&1&0\\
2&-2&0&-2\\
-1&0&1&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{-4mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/11.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}\\
\hhline{|~|~|~|-|-|}
&&&
\raisebox{5mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&-2&1\\
-1&0&2&0\\
1&-1&0&-1\\
-1&0&2&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/4.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}
\\
\hline
\raisebox{-4mm}{$\mathrm{\widetilde{V}_2}$}&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}\psfrag{52t}{}\raisebox{-17mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block52t.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{-10mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/5.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{0mm}[8mm][5mm]{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&2&-2&2\\
-1&0&1&0\\
1&-1&0&-1\\
-1&0&1&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{-4mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/12.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}\\
\hhline{|~|~|~|-|-|}
&&&
\raisebox{4mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&-1&1\\
-2&0&1&0\\
2&-1&0&-1\\
-2&0&1&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/5.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}
\\
\hline
\raisebox{-10mm}[10mm][0mm]{$\mathrm{\widetilde{V}_{12}}$}&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}\psfrag{4}{\tiny $4$}\psfrag{512t}{}\raisebox{-20mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block512t.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{-15mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/6.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{2mm}[7mm][1mm]{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&2&-2\\
-1&0&1\\
2&-2&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/13.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}\\
\hhline{|~|~|~|-|-|}
&&&
\raisebox{4mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&-1\\
-2&0&1\\
4&-2&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/15.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}\\
\hhline{|~|~|~|-|-|}
&&&
\raisebox{4mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&2&-4\\
-1&0&2\\
1&-1&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/16.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}\\
\hhline{|~|~|~|-|-|}
&&&
\raisebox{4mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&-2\\
-2&0&2\\
2&-1&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/6.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}\\
\hline
\raisebox{-4mm}{$\mathrm{\widetilde{VI}}$}&
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}\psfrag{6t}{}\raisebox{-10mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block6t.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{-10mm}[0mm][0mm]{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/7.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}&
\raisebox{4mm}[5mm][0mm]{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&0&1&-1\\
-1&0&-1&0&1\\
0&1&0&1&-1\\
-1&0&-1&0&1\\
2&-2&2&-2&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{-2mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/14.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}\\
\hhline{|~|~|~|-|-|}
&&&
\raisebox{7mm}{\small $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&0&1&-2\\
-1&0&-1&0&2\\
0&1&0&1&-2\\
-1&0&-1&0&2\\
1&-1&1&-1&0\\\end{smallmatrix}\right)$}&
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/7.eps,width=0.07\linewidth}}
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Triangulations of orbifolds}
\label{orbifolds-s}
Let $S$ be a connected oriented 2-dimensional surface with (possibly empty) boundary $\partial S$.
{ By an {\it orbifold} ${\mathcal O}$ we mean a triple ${\mathcal O}=(S,M,Q)$, where $S$ is a bordered surface with a finite set of marked points $M$, and $Q$
is a finite (non-empty) set of special points called {\it orbifold points}, $M\cap Q=\emptyset$. Some marked points may belong to $\partial S$ (moreover, every boundary component must contain at least one marked point; the interior marked points are also called {\it punctures}), while
all orbifold points are interior points of $S$ (later on, as we will supply the orbifold with a metric, the orbifold points will have angle $\pi$). By {\it boundary} $\partial {\mathcal O}$ we mean $\partial S$.
}
An {\it arc} $\gamma$ in ${\mathcal O}$ is a curve in ${\mathcal O}$ considered up to relative isotopy (of ${\mathcal O}\setminus \{M\cup Q\}$) modulo endpoints such that
\begin{itemize}
\item one of the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item either both endpoints of $\gamma$ belong to $M$ (and then $\gamma$ is an {\it ordinary arc})
\item or one endpoint belongs to $M$ and another belongs to $Q$ (then $\gamma$ is called {\it pending arc});
\end{itemize}
\item $\gamma$ has no self-intersections, except that its endpoints may coincide;
\item except for the endpoints, $\gamma$ and $M\cup Q\cup \partial {\mathcal O}$ are disjoint;
\item $\gamma$ does not cut out a monogon not containing points of $M$;
\item $\gamma$ is not homotopic to a boundary segment.
\end{itemize}
Note that we do not allow both endpoints of $\gamma$ to be in $Q$.
Two arcs $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ are {\it compatible} if the following two conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item they do not intersect in the interior of ${\mathcal O}$;
\item if both $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ are pending arcs, then the ends of $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ that are orbifold points do not coincide { (i.e., two pending arcs may share a marked point, but neither an ordinary point nor a orbifold point)}.
\end{itemize}
A {\it triangulation} of ${\mathcal O}$ is a maximal collection of distinct pairwise compatible arcs.
The arcs of a triangulation cut ${\mathcal O}$ into {\it triangles}. We allow self-folded triangles as well as triangles one or two
of whose edges are pending arcs. See Fig.~\ref{triangles} for the list of possible triangles.
The following lemma is evident.
\begin{lemma}
\label{max}
Any set of compatible arcs on an orbifold is contained in some triangulation.
\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=pic/triangles.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}
\caption{Types of triangles admissible for triangulations of orbifolds
(vertices marked by a cross denote orbifold points, bold edges denote pending arcs) }
\label{triangles}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A {\it flip} of an arc $\gamma$ of a triangulation $T$ replaces $\gamma$ by a unique arc $\gamma'\ne \gamma$ such that
$\gamma' \cup (T\setminus \gamma)$ forms a new triangulation of $S$.
In Fig.~\ref{flip-pending} we show flips involving pending arcs.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=pic/fl-pending.eps,width=0.9\linewidth}
\caption{Flips of pending arcs}
\label{flip-pending}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Transitivity of flips on triangulations of orbifolds}
In this section we prove the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{transitivity}
For any orbifold ${\mathcal O}$ flips act transitively on triangulations of ${\mathcal O}$.
\end{theorem}
By a {\it system of pending arcs} of a triangulation $T$ we mean the union of all pending arcs of $T$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{same pending arcs}
Flips act transitively on triangulations with the same system of pending arcs.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Choose a system of pending arcs on ${\mathcal O}$.
To prove the lemma we cut the orbifold ${\mathcal O}$ along all pending arcs (i.e., we replace any pending arc by a hole with one marked point on the boundary) and denote by $S$ the obtained surface. The marked points of $S$ are the same as of ${\mathcal O}$, the orbifold points disappear. Every pending arc of ${\mathcal O}$ produces a boundary component of $S$ with exactly one marked point.
The triangulations of ${\mathcal O}$ containing the chosen system of pending arcs are in one-to-one correspondence with the triangulations of $S$
(and if two triangulations of $S$ are related by a flip in some arc, then the corresponding triangulations of ${\mathcal O}$ are related by
a flip in the corresponding arc). So, the lemma follows from transitivity of flips on triangulations of $S$ (see~\cite{H} and~\cite{FST}).
\end{proof}
A set $\{\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_k\}$ of pending arcs on ${\mathcal O}$ is {\it compatible} if $\gamma_i$ and $\gamma_j$ are compatible for every $i\ne j$.
Every maximal compatible set of pending arcs is a system of pending arcs for some triangulation of ${\mathcal O}$: to see this, we cut ${\mathcal O}$ along all pending
arcs and triangulate the surface. In the sequel we will use the notion of system of pending arcs as a maximal compatible set of pending arcs not related to any triangulation.
An {\it elementary transformation} of a system $\Gamma=\{\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_n\}$ of pending arcs is a substitution of a pending arc $\gamma_i$ by any other pending arc $\gamma_i'$ compatible with the set $\{\cup_j \gamma_j\}\setminus \gamma_i$ and not intersecting interior of $\gamma_i$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{elem}
Let $\Gamma=\{\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_n\}$ be a system of pending arcs on $O$.
Let $\phi_i$ be an elementary transformation of a $\Gamma$ substituting $\gamma_i$ by $\gamma_i'$.
Then there exist triangulations $T$ and $T'$ containing the systems $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'=\phi_i(\Gamma)$ respectively, such that $T'=f_i(T)$ where $f_i$ is a flip in the pending arc $\gamma_i$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $c_i$ be the common orbifold point of $\gamma_i$ and $\gamma_i'$. Let $x_i$ and $x_i'$ be the marked (i.e., non-orbifold) ends of $\gamma_i$ and $\gamma_i'$
(possibly, $x_i=x_i'$). Consider a path $\gamma_i\gamma_i'$ from $x_i$ through $c_i$ to $x_i'$.
Denote by $p_l$ and $p_r$ the paths in ${\mathcal O}$ built as in Fig.~\ref{paths}: $p_l$ goes from $x_i$ to $x_i'$
following the path $\gamma_i\gamma_i'$ and shifted to the left, while $p_r$ is the similar path shifted to the right from $\gamma_i\gamma_i'$.
Since the disc bounded by $p_l$ and $p_r$ contains no singularities except $c_i$, the curves $p_l$,$p_r$ and $\gamma_i$ are sides of
an admissible triangle $\Delta$ on ${\mathcal O}$ (in fact, $p_l$ may coincide with $p_r$ if ${\mathcal O}=\Delta$).
Similarly, $p_l$, $p_r$ and $\gamma_i'$ are sides of a triangle $\Delta'$.
Now, delete the triangle with sides $p_l$, $p_r$, $\gamma_i$ from the orbifold ${\mathcal O}$ and choose any triangulation $T_0$ on ${\mathcal O}\setminus \Delta$
compatible with the set of pending arcs $\cup_j \gamma_j\setminus \gamma_i$. Then $T\cup \Delta$ is a triangulation of ${\mathcal O}$
compatible with the system of pending arcs $\Gamma$. Similarly, $T\cup \Delta'$ is compatible with $\Gamma'$.
It is left to note that the triangulation $T\cup \Delta'$ can be obtained from $T\cup \Delta$ by a flip in the pending arc $\gamma_i$.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{x}{\scriptsize $x$}
\psfrag{x'}{\scriptsize $x'$}
\psfrag{pl}{\scriptsize $p_l$}
\psfrag{pr}{\scriptsize $p_r$}
\psfrag{z'}{\scriptsize $\gamma_i'$}
\psfrag{z}{\scriptsize $\gamma_i$}
\psfrag{c}{\scriptsize $c_i$}
\epsfig{file=pic/path.eps,width=0.5\linewidth}
\caption{}
\label{paths}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Lemmas~\ref{same pending arcs} and~\ref{elem} show that to prove Theorem~\ref{transitivity}it is sufficient to prove the transitivity of action of elementary transformations on the set of systems of pending arcs of ${\mathcal O}$.
A system $\Gamma$ of pending arcs is {\it centered at a marked point $x$} if $x$ is an endpoint of every pending arc of $\Gamma$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{center}
For any system $\Gamma=\{\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_n\}$ of pending arcs on ${\mathcal O}$ and any marked point $x\in {\mathcal O}$ one can find a sequence of at most $n$ elementary transformations which takes $\Gamma$ to a system $\Gamma'$ centered at $x$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For each orbifold point $c_i$ there exists a unique pending arc $\gamma_i$ containing $c_i$, so ${\mathcal O}\setminus \{\cup_j \gamma_j\}$
is connected. This implies that we can perform an elementary transformation that replaces $\gamma_i$ by a pending arc connecting $c_i$ with a chosen fixed marked point $x$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{order}
Let $\Gamma$ and $\widetilde\Gamma$ be two systems of pending arcs, both centered at the same marked point $x$.
Then there exists a sequence of elementary transformations taking $\Gamma$ to $\widetilde\Gamma$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we will show that using elementary transformations we can create a system containing a given pending arc.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Claim~1.}
{\it
Let $\Gamma=\{\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_n \}$ be a system of pending arcs centered at $x$ and let $p$ be a path from $x$ to an orbifold point $c_1$.
Then there exists a system $\Gamma'$ of pending arcs centered at $x$, $p\in \Gamma'$, and a sequence of elementary transformations taking $\Gamma$ to $\Gamma'$.
}
\smallskip
To prove the statement we perturb $p$ so that it intersects $\Gamma$ transversely.
If $p\cap (\Gamma\setminus x)=\emptyset$ then there is nothing to prove: an elementary transformation substituting $\gamma_1$ by $p$ turns $\Gamma$ into
required system $\Gamma'$. So, we assume that $p\cap (\Gamma\setminus x)\ne \emptyset$. Denote by $|p\cap \Gamma|$ the number of points of intersection. We will show that there exists an elementary transformation which takes $\Gamma$ to a system $\Gamma_1$ such that
$|\Gamma_1\cap p |<|\Gamma\cap p|$.
Let $t\in \gamma_i$ be the first intersection point of the path $p$ (from $x$ to $c_1$)
with $\Gamma\setminus x$. Consider a path $\gamma_i'$ composed of the segment $[x,t]$ of the path $p$ and a segment $[t,c_i]$ of the path $\gamma_i$
(and then shift $\gamma_i'$ to minimize the number of intersections with $p$ and $\Gamma$, see Fig.~\ref{claim1}).
Notice that $\gamma_i'\cap (\Gamma\setminus \gamma_i)=\emptyset$, so there exists an elementary transformation of $\Gamma$ substituting $\gamma_i$ by $\gamma_i'$.
On the other hand, the path $p$ intersects system $\Gamma'=\gamma_i'\cup (\Gamma\setminus \gamma_i)$ in all the intersection points of $p\cap \Gamma$
except $t$, so $|\Gamma_1\cap p |=|\Gamma\cap p|-1$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{x}{\scriptsize $x$}
\psfrag{p}{\scriptsize $p$}
\psfrag{t}{\scriptsize $t$}
\psfrag{z'}{\scriptsize $\gamma_i'$}
\psfrag{z}{\scriptsize $\gamma_i$}
\epsfig{file=pic/claim1.eps,width=1.0\linewidth}
\caption{Elementary transformation decreasing the number of intersections $|\Gamma\cap p|$.}
\label{claim1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Thus, elementary transformations of the system of pending arcs allow us to decrease the number of intersection points of $\Gamma$ with $p$
by $1$, which implies that after several elementary transformations we come to the case $p\cap (\Gamma\setminus x)=\emptyset$ which was
treated above. This proves Claim~1.
\medskip
Now we will use elementary transformations to include a given pending arc in a system of pending arcs preserving some subset of the system.
\noindent
{\bf Claim~2.}
{\it
Let $\Gamma=\{\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_{n} \}$ be a system of pending arcs centered at $x$ and let $p$ be a path from $x$ to an orbifold point $c_i$.
Suppose that $p$ does not intersect the curves $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_{k-1}$. Then there exists a system $\Gamma_1$ of pending arcs containing $\{\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_{k-1},p\}$ and a sequence of elementary transformations taking $\Gamma$ to $\Gamma_1$.
}
Indeed, since $p$ does not intersect $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_{k-1}$, elementary transformations described in the proof of Claim~1 never affect
the curves $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_{k-1}$, so, these pending arcs also belong to the resulting collection $\Gamma_1$.
\smallskip
Now, to prove the lemma, it is sufficient to apply Claim~2 several times. Namely, given two systems $\Gamma=\{\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_n\}$ and
$\widetilde\Gamma=\{\gamma_1',\dots, \gamma_n'\}$, we choose $p=\gamma_1'$ and apply Claim~2. As we obtain a system $\Gamma_1$ containing $\gamma_1'$, choose $p=\gamma_2'$ and apply Claim~2 again to obtain a system $\Gamma_2$ containing both $\gamma_1'$ and $\gamma_2'$ (Claim~2 applies since $p=\gamma_2'$ does not intersect $\gamma_1'$).
Applying Claim~2 $n$ times (and choosing $p=\gamma_k'$ at $k$-th iteration) we obtain the required system $\widetilde\Gamma$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem\ref{transitivity}]
We will show that every triangulation $T$ can be transformed by flips into one fixed triangulation $T_0$, the system of pending arcs of which is centered at randomly chosen marked point $x$.
By Lemma~\ref{center}, we can take system $\Gamma$ of pending arcs of $T$ to a system $\Gamma'$ centered at $x$. Applying Lemma~\ref{order}, we can obtain system $\Gamma_0$ of pending arcs of $T_0$. By Lemmas~\ref{same pending arcs}~and~\ref{elem}, all the elementary transformations above can be realized by sequences of flips. Now, applying Lemma~\ref{same pending arcs} another one time, we perform a sequence of flips to obtain triangulation $T_0$.
\end{proof}
Later we will also need the following two easy statements concerning triangulations of orbifolds.
\begin{lemma}
\label{bubbles-even}
Let ${\mathcal O}$ be an orbifold with even number of orbifold points.
Then there exists a triangulation $T$ of ${\mathcal O}$ such that every orbifold point of ${\mathcal O}$ is contained in a monogon with two pending arcs.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To find the required triangulation, first we connect all orbifold points with the same marked point $x$ (Lemma~\ref{center}).
Then we group the pending arcs in disjoint pairs of neighboring arcs, and
for each pair $(e,e')$ we draw a curve $p$ which starts at $x$, goes along $e$, then goes along $e'$
and returns back to $x$ (we assume that $p$ is close enough to $e$ and $e'$ so that $e,e'$ and $p$ compose a triangle).
Notice, that the curves obtained for different pairs of adjacent pending arcs are distinct (excluding the case of a sphere with
exactly one puncture and four orbifold points; in this case we just consider one of the two homotopy equivalent curves).
So, if there are $n=2k$ orbifold points in ${\mathcal O}$ then we build a compatible set of $2k$ pending arcs and $k$ curves enclosing the pairs
of pending arcs in disks. Any triangulation containing this set of arcs satisfies the conditions of the lemma
(such a triangulation does exist in view of Lemma~\ref{max}).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{bubbles-odd}
Let ${\mathcal O}$ be an orbifold with odd number $n=2k+1$ of orbifold points, $k\ge 1$.
Then there exists a triangulation $T$ of ${\mathcal O}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $T$ contains $k$ triangles $\Delta_1,\dots,\Delta_k$
with two pending arcs and one triangle $\Delta_0$ with one pending arc (and several triangles without pending arcs);
\item $\Delta_0$ has a common edge with $\Delta_1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to the proof of the previous lemma. First, we find a compatible system of $n=2k+1$
pending arcs connecting all orbifold points with the same marked point $x$. Then we enclose $k$ pairs of adjacent pending arcs by curves $p_1,\dots,p_k$
and add one extra curve $p_0$ enclosing the extra pending arc together with one of the discs above (as in Fig.~\ref{bubbles}).
Similarly to the case of even number of orbifold points, there are several exclusions: namely,
if ${\mathcal O}$ is a sphere with only one puncture and at most $5$ orbifold points, then the curve $p_0$ coincides with one of the $p_i$).
Now, we are left to take any triangulation containing all the curves described above.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{D0}{\scriptsize $\Delta_0$}
\psfrag{D1}{\scriptsize $\Delta_1$}
\psfrag{D2}{\scriptsize $\Delta_2$}
\psfrag{x}{\scriptsize $x$}
\psfrag{c'}{\scriptsize $c_0$}
\epsfig{file=pic/bubbles.eps,width=0.4\linewidth}
\caption{To the proof of Lemma~\ref{bubbles-odd}.}
\label{bubbles}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Mutations of diagrams and tagged triangulations of orbifolds}
To every triangulation of an orbifold we associate the following {\it diagram} $\mathsf{D}=\mathsf{D}(T)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item vertices of $\mathsf{D}$ correspond to arcs of $T$ (we denote by $v_i\in \mathsf{D}$ a vertex corresponding to an arc $e_i\in T$);
\item for every non-self-folded triangle $\Delta\in T$ and every pair of sides $(e_i,e_j)$ of $\Delta$ we draw an arrow in $\mathsf{D}$ from $v_i$ to $v_j$ if $e_j$ follows $e_i$ in $\Delta$ in clockwise order;
\item for every self-folded triangle $\Delta\in T$ with sides $(e_i,e_j,e_i)$ and for every arrow from $v_i$ to $v_k$ (from $v_k$ to $v_i$) we draw an arrow from $v_j$ to $v_k$ (respectively, from $v_k$ to $v_j$).
\item arrows between a pending arc and a non-pending arc are labeled by $2$;
\item arrows between two pending arcs are labeled by $4$;
\item if $v_i$ and $v_j$ are connected by two arrows in opposite directions, then these arrows cancel out;
\item if $v_i$ and $v_j$ are connected by two arrows in the same direction, then these two arrows are substituted by one arrow labeled by $4$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{remark}
If there are no orbifold points (i.e., the orbifold is just a bordered surface with marked points), the construction above coincides with the one from~\cite{FST} leading to a quiver associated to a triangulation of a surface.
\end{remark}
As it was shown in~\cite{FST}, block-decomposable quivers are precisely ones corresponding to triangulations of surfaces. We will now generalize this result by establishing similar correspondence between s-decomposable diagrams and triangulations of orbifolds.
\begin{lemma}
Any diagram obtained from triangulation of an orbifold is s-decomposable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Skew-symmetric blocks together with s-blocks represent all possible triangles which may appear in the triangulation.
So, we take the blocks corresponding to the triangles and attach their outlets in accordance with the gluings in the triangulation.
This results in the s-decomposition of the diagram corresponding to given triangulation.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{construction of O}
Any s-decomposable diagram can be obtained from a triangulation of some orbifold.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For each of the blocks we take the corresponding triangulated surface (or orbifold, see Tables~\ref{blocks} and~\ref{all-matrices})
and attach them along the boundary edges in accordance to the gluing of the blocks in the diagram.
\end{proof}
So, block decompositions of s-decomposable diagrams are in one-to-one correspondence with triangulations of orbifolds.
Now we will show that, as in the case of surfaces, the construction of a diagram is consistent with action of flips on triangulations.
If $\mathsf{D}(T)$ is the diagram built by a triangulation $T$ and $f_i$ is a flip of an arc $e_i$ of $T$, we denote by $\mu_i$ the mutation of $\mathsf{D}(T)$ in vertex $v_i$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{flip-mut}
For each flip $f_i$ one has $\mathsf{D}(f_i(T))=\mu_i(\mathsf{D}(T))$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is a straightforward exhaustion of finitely many possibilities for adjacent to $e_i$ triangles.
Notice that one need to verify only the cases when one of the adjacent triangles contains a pending arc
(in view of the similar fact known for the triangulated surfaces, see~\cite{FST}).
\end{proof}
As in the case of surfaces, one can note that not every edge of triangulation can be flipped. More precisely, there is no flip in an interior edge of a self-folded triangle. This difficulty can be resolved by the same trick as in case of surfaces, namely, by introducing {\it tagged} triangulations (see~\cite{FST},~\cite{FT}). The construction is exactly the same as in the surface case, so we do not stop here for the details. We only mention that the ends of a pending arcs being orbifold points are always tagged plain. It is easy to see that Lemma~\ref{flip-mut} holds for tagged triangulations as well.
We summarize the discussion above in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{realization of diagram mut}
Let $\mathsf{D}$ be an s-decomposable diagram, and let ${\mathcal O}$ be an orbifold with tagged triangulation $T$ such that $\mathsf{D}=\mathsf{D}(T)$.
Then a diagram $\mathsf{D}'$ is mutation-equivalent to $\mathsf{D}$ if and only if $\mathsf{D}'$ can be obtained as $\mathsf{D}'=\mathsf{D}'(T')$ for some tagged triangulation $T'$ of ${\mathcal O}$.
Moreover, $\mathsf{D}'=\mu_{i_k}\circ\dots\circ\mu_{i_1}(D)$ if and only if $T'=f_{i_k}\circ\dots\circ f_{i_1}(T)$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Weighted orbifolds and matrix mutations}
\label{w_orb}
In the previous section we established a correspondence between s-decomposable diagrams and triangulated orbifolds. Every s-decomposable diagram $\mathsf{D}$ can be considered as a diagram of some mutation-finite s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrix $B$. In contrast to the skew-symmetric case, such matrix is not uniquely defined: every s-decomposable diagram with at least one edge labeled by $2$ can be constructed by several matrices. In this section, we associate with every s-decomposable matrix a triangulated orbifold with additional structure.
Given an s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrix $B$, denote by $D$ a unique diagonal matrix with positive integer entries $(d_1,\dots,d_n)$ such that $BD$ is skew-symmetric, and the greatest common divisor of the entries of $D$ is one. Given an s-decomposable diagram $\mathsf{D}$ constructed by s-decomposable matrix $B$, we call $d_i$ a {\it weight} of vertex $v_i$. The matrix $D$ is the same for every matrix $B'$ mutation equivalent to $B$, hence the weights of vertices of a diagram do not change under mutations.
\begin{definition}
An s-decomposable diagram $\mathsf{D}$ with a collection of weights $(d_1,\dots,d_n)$ as above is called a {\it weighted diagram} and is denoted by $\mathsf{D}^w$.
Weighted s-decomposable diagrams carry exactly the same information as s-decomposable matrices.
\end{definition}
In other words, weighted s-decomposable diagrams are in one-to-one correspondence with s-decomposable matrices.
It was shown in~\cite[Lemma~6.3]{FST2} that the weights $d_i$ of outlets of all blocks of any weighted s-decomposable connected diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$ are equal. The weight of any outlet is called {\it weight of the regular part} of $\mathsf{D}^w$ and is denoted by $w$.
Now fix an s-decomposable matrix $B$ and corresponding weighted diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$. According to Lemma~\ref{construction of O}, vertices of the diagram correspond to arcs of a triangulation $T$ of some orbifold ${\mathcal O}$. In this way we assign weights to every arc of $T$. In particular, we assign weight to every pending arc.
\begin{definition}
Given a weighted diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$ and corresponding triangulation $T$ of orbifold ${\mathcal O}$, a {\it weighted orbifold} ${\mathcal O}^w$ is the orbifold ${\mathcal O}$ with weights assigned to all its orbifold points according to the following rule: the weight of an orbifold point $c$ is the weight of the pending arc of $T$ incident to $c$ divided by $w$.
\end{definition}
The definition of weighted orbifold is consistent: a flip in any arc of triangulation does not change weight of a pending arc incident to a given orbifold point.
All possible weights of orbifolds points of weighted orbifold are easy to describe. It was proved in~\cite{FST2} that the only weights that can appear in weighted diagram are $1$, $2$, and $4$. In~\cite[ Lemma~6.3]{FST2} we also proved that either $w=1$ or $w=2$, and if $w=1$ then there is no vertex of weight $4$. In terms of weights of orbifolds points, every point has weight either $2$ or $1/2$.
Conversely, given an orbifold ${\mathcal O}$ with $k$ orbifold points, we can construct $2^k$ weighted orbifolds by assigning weights $2$ and $1/2$. Every triangulation of each of these orbifolds can be constructed by some s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrix.
Summarizing the definitions above, for every s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrix $B$ we constructed a weighted orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w$ with a triangulation $T$ via a weighted diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$. Now we are able to give a definition of signed adjacency matrix of a (tagged) triangulation of weighted orbifold.
\begin{definition}
If $({\mathcal O}^w,T)$ is a weighted orbifold and its tagged triangulation corresponds to an s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrix $B$, the matrix $B$ is called {\it signed adjacency matrix} of $T$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm_weight}
Let $B$ be a skew-symmetrizable matrix with weighted s-decomposable diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$. Let ${\mathcal O}^w$ be a weighted orbifold with a triangulation $T$ built by an s-decomposition of $\mathsf{D}^w$. Then a skew-symmetrizable matrix $B'$ is mutation-equivalent to $B$ if and only if $B'$ is a signed adjacency matrix of a tagged triangulation $T'$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$. Moreover, $B'=\mu_{i_k}\circ\dots\circ\mu_{i_1}(B)$ if and only if $T'=f_{i_k}\circ\dots\circ f_{i_1}(T)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
A straightforward verification shows that the matrix analogue of Lemma~\ref{flip-mut} holds, i.e. for each flip $f_i$ one has $B(f_i(T))=\mu_i(B(T))$, where $B(T)$ is a signed adjacency matrix of the tagged triangulation $T$ of weighted orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w$. Now, the theorem follows from Lemma~\ref{realization of diagram mut} combined with the fact that knowing a diagram $\mathsf{D}$ together with the weights of the orbifold points of ${\mathcal O}^w$ one can recover the matrix $B$ (via weighted diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$).
\end{proof}
\section{Geometric realization of cluster algebras}
\label{sec-geom}
\subsection{Lambda lengths as cluster variables}
In~\cite{FT} Fomin and Thurston show that the notion of lambda length introduced by Penner~\cite{P}
works well for obtaining a geometric realization of some cluster algebras. More precisely,
for every skew-symmetric block-decomposable matrix $B$ there exists a borded hyperbolic surface
$S(B)$ { with marked points} such that lambda lengths of arcs of (tagged) triangulations on $S(B)$ serve as cluster variables of some cluster algebra with exchange matrix $B$ in some seed.
In this section, we adjust the basic construction to the case of cluster algebras with s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable exchange matrices.
Let $B$ be a skew-symmetrizable matrix with weighted s-decomposable diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$. Let ${\mathcal O}^w$ be a triangulated weighted orbifold built by
an s-decomposition of $\mathsf{D}^w$. First, we will consider the case when all orbifold points on ${\mathcal O}^w$ are of weight $1/2$. In this case the role of cluster variables will be played by lambda lengths of the arcs of tagged triangulations of ${\mathcal O}^w$.
Next, we will treat the case of orbifolds with all orbifold points of weight $2$. In this case, we will introduce a surface ${\mathcal S}$
``associated'' to the orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w$ (constructed from ${\mathcal O}^w$ by a simple procedure).
The lambda lengths of arcs of tagged triangulations of ${\mathcal S}$ will serve as cluster variables.
Finally, we consider the general case, when both orbifold points of weight $1/2$ and $2$ may appear.
Then the cluster algebra will be modeled by lambda lengths of arcs of tagged triangulations of an ``associated'' orbifold
(an orbifold constructed from ${\mathcal O}^w$ by the same procedure as in previous case).
Notice, that in case of absence of the orbifold points (i.e. in case of skew-symmetric matrix $B$) we obtain exactly
the initial construction described in~\cite{FT}.
\subsection{Orbifolds with orbifold points of weight 1/2}
\label{sec lambda 1/2}
Let $B$ be a matrix with s-decomposable weighted diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$, let ${\mathcal O}^w$ be a corresponding weighted orbifold.
Suppose that all orbifold points in ${\mathcal O}^w$ are of weight $1/2$ (in terms of matrix/weighted diagram this means that all the outlets have weight $2$, and there are no vertices of weight $4$).
We endow ${\mathcal O}^w$ with a hyperbolic structure with cusps in all marked points and with angles $\pi$ in orbifold points. To choose such a structure, one may take any ideal triangulation $T_{{\mathcal O}^w}$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$ and assume that each triangle of $T_{{\mathcal O}^w}$ is an ideal hyperbolic triangle (there is a $1$-parameter freedom in attaching ideal triangles along a given edge). Suppose also that for each marked point $c$ on ${\mathcal O}^w$ we have chosen
a horocycle centered at $c$.
Such structures on ${\mathcal O}^w$ form a {\it decorated Teichm\"uller space} (cf.~\cite{P}): a point of a decorated Teichm\"uller space
$\widetilde {\mathcal T}({\mathcal O}^w)$ is a hyperbolic structure as above with a collection of horocycles, one around each marked point.
It is shown by Chekhov and Mazzocco~\cite{Ch},~\cite{ChM} that ${\mathcal T}({\mathcal O}^w)$ is parametrized by the set of functions ({\it lambda lengths}) assigned to arcs of given triangulation of ${\mathcal O}^w$ (including boundary segments), defined in the following way.
\begin{definition}[{{\it Lambda length}}]
\label{lambda}
For an arc $\gamma$ with both ends in marked points we define a {\it lambda length} as usual (see~\cite{P}):
$$\lambda(\gamma)=exp(l(\gamma)/2),$$
where $l(\gamma)$ is the signed distance along $\gamma$ between the horocycles (positive, if the horoballs bounded by the horocycles do not intersect, and negative otherwise).
If $\gamma$ is a pending arc, we define
$$\lambda(\gamma)=exp(l(\gamma)/2)=exp(l'(\gamma)),$$
where $l'(\gamma)=l(\gamma)/2$ is the signed distance from the orbifold point to the horocycle (negative, if the orbifold point is contained inside
the horoball, and positive otherwise).
\end{definition}
In the definition above $l(\gamma)$ can be understood as the length of the ``round trip'' from the horocycle to the orbifold point and back.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{alpha}{\scriptsize $\alpha$}
\psfrag{beta}{\scriptsize $\beta$}
\psfrag{gamma}{\scriptsize $\gamma$}
\psfrag{delta}{\scriptsize $\delta$}
\psfrag{sigma}{\scriptsize $\sigma$}
\psfrag{theta}{\scriptsize $\theta$}
\psfrag{xi}{\scriptsize $\xi$}
\psfrag{mu}{\scriptsize $\mu$}
\psfrag{nu}{\scriptsize $\nu$}
\psfrag{zeta}{\scriptsize $\zeta$}
\psfrag{eta}{\scriptsize $\eta$}
\psfrag{phi}{\scriptsize $\phi$}
\psfrag{psi}{\scriptsize $\psi$}
\psfrag{hi}{\scriptsize $\chi$}
\psfrag{a}{\small a)}
\psfrag{b}{\small b)}
\psfrag{c}{\small c)}
\psfrag{d}{\small d)}
\epsfig{file=pic/ptolemy.eps,width=0.98\linewidth}
\caption{Notation for Lemma~\ref{Ptolemy-prime}}
\label{ptolemy}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}
\label{Ptolemy-prime}
In the notation of Fig.~\ref{ptolemy} the following Ptolemy relations hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\lambda(\gamma)\lambda(\delta)=\lambda(\alpha)^2+\lambda(\beta)^2$;
\item[(b)] $\lambda(\beta)\lambda(\sigma)=\lambda(\gamma)\lambda(\theta)+\lambda(\alpha)\lambda(\xi)$;
\item[(c)] $\lambda(\nu)\lambda(\zeta)=\lambda(\mu)^2+\lambda(\eta)^2$;
\item[(d)] $\lambda(\eta)\lambda(\chi)=\lambda(\mu)\lambda(\psi)+\lambda(\nu)\lambda(\phi)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we prove the relation (a). We cut the digon shown in Fig~\ref{ptolemy}.a along the pending arc $\gamma$, then glue together
two copies of the obtained triangle as in Fig~\ref{ptolemy-proof}.a (together with the triangle we copy the chosen horocycles).
Since all orbifold points are points with angle $\pi$, we obtain a piece of hyperbolic surface. The relation (a) now follows from
the Ptolemy relation for triangulations of surfaces (together with definitions of lambda lengths on surface and on orbifolds).
The relations (b)--(d) are proved similarly. All of these relations describe some flips of a triangulation $T$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$,
so, we consider a quadrilateral $q$ (i.e.a union of two triangles) of $T$ containing the arcs included in the relation
(or a unique triangle $t$ in case of a flip in a pending arc).
We cut ${\mathcal O}^w$ along all pending arcs of ${\mathcal O}^w$ and along the boundary of the quadrilateral $q$ (respectively, along the boundary of
the triangle $t$), so that we obtain a quadrilateral or a triangle on hyperbolic plane. In case of a flip in a pending arc, we attach
two copies of the triangle $t$ along the image of the pending arc. Hence, in any case we come to a relation inside a quadrilateral on
hyperbolic plane, which follows immediately from the relations shown in~\cite{FT}.
See Fig~\ref{ptolemy-proof}.b--d for the corresponding planar quadrilaterals.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{alpha}{\scriptsize $\alpha$}
\psfrag{beta}{\scriptsize $\beta$}
\psfrag{gamma}{\scriptsize $\gamma$}
\psfrag{delta}{\scriptsize $\delta$}
\psfrag{sigma}{\scriptsize $\sigma$}
\psfrag{theta}{\scriptsize $\theta$}
\psfrag{xi}{\scriptsize $\xi$}
\psfrag{mu}{\scriptsize $\mu$}
\psfrag{nu}{\scriptsize $\nu$}
\psfrag{zeta}{\scriptsize $\zeta$}
\psfrag{eta}{\scriptsize $\eta$}
\psfrag{phi}{\scriptsize $\phi$}
\psfrag{psi}{\scriptsize $\psi$}
\psfrag{hi}{\scriptsize $\chi$}
\psfrag{a}{\small a)}
\psfrag{b}{\small b)}
\psfrag{c}{\small c)}
\psfrag{d}{\small d)}
\epsfig{file=pic/ptolemy-pr.eps,width=0.98\linewidth}
\caption{To the proof of Lemma~\ref{Ptolemy-prime}}
\label{ptolemy-proof}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For a horocycle $h$ centered at interior marked point (puncture) of ${\mathcal O}^w$ denote by $L(h)$ the hyperbolic length of $h$.
Following~\cite{FT} we define a {\it conjugate horocycle} $\bar h$ around the same puncture by
the condition $L(h)L(\bar h)=1$.
As in~\cite{FT}, define a lambda length of a tagged arc using the distance to the conjugate horocycle:
for ends of the arc tagged plain one takes the distance to the initial horocycle, for ends tagged notched one takes
the distance to the conjugate horocycle).
Reasoning as in Lemma~\ref{Ptolemy-prime} one can see that the similar Ptolemy relations hold for lambda lengths of tagged
arcs.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem_ptolemy}
In Lemma~\ref{Ptolemy-prime} we discuss the basic Ptolemy relations only. More relations can be obtained in the same way by gluing some boundary edges
in Fig.~\ref{ptolemy}: some edges at the boundary can be attached to other ones, some edges can be self-identified
producing pending arcs.
\end{remark}
Now, let $T_{{\mathcal O}^w}$ be a triangulation of ${\mathcal O}^w$ with signed adjacency matrix $B=B(T_{{\mathcal O}^w})$. Choose an initial seed as follows
\begin{itemize}
\item $B=B(T_{{\mathcal O}^w})$;
\item ${\bf x}={\bf x}(T_{{\mathcal O}^w})=\{\lambda(\gamma): \gamma\in T_{{\mathcal O}^w}, \gamma\not\subset \partial {\mathcal O}^w\}$;
\item ${\bf p}={\bf p}(T_{{\mathcal O}^w})=\{\lambda(\gamma): \gamma\in T_{{\mathcal O}^w}, \gamma\subset \partial {\mathcal O}^w\}.$
\end{itemize}
Consider the cluster algebra ${\mathcal A}(B(T_{{\mathcal O}^w}),{\bf x}(T_{{\mathcal O}^w}),{\bf p}(T_{{\mathcal O}^w}))$
constructed by the initial seed $(B(T_{{\mathcal O}^w}),{\bf x}(T_{{\mathcal O}^w}),{\bf p}(T_{{\mathcal O}^w}))$.
Lemma~\ref{Ptolemy-prime} combined with Theorem~\ref{thm_weight} lead to the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th_prime}
Let $B$ be an s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrix. Let $({\mathcal O}^w,T_{{\mathcal O}^w})$ be a weighted orbifold and its triangulation constructed by an s-decomposition of $B$. Suppose also that weights of all orbifold points of ${\mathcal O}^w$ are equal to $1/2$.
Then the cluster algebra ${\mathcal A}(B(T_{{\mathcal O}^w}),{\bf x}(T_{{\mathcal O}^w}),{\bf p}(T_{{\mathcal O}^w}))$ satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item the cluster variables of ${\mathcal A}$ are lambda lengths of tagged arcs of triangulations of ${\mathcal O}^w$;
\item the clusters consist of all lambda lengths of tagged arcs contained in the same triangulation of ${\mathcal O}^w$;
\item the coefficients are lambda lengths of the boundary components of ${\mathcal O}^w$
(the coefficient semifield $\mathbb{P}$ is the tropical semifield generated by the lambda lengths of boundary components);
\item the exchange graph of ${\mathcal A}$ coincides with the exchange graph of tagged triangulations of ${\mathcal O}^w$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Orbifolds with orbifold points of weight $2$}
\label{sec lambda 2}
As in the previous section, let $B$ be a matrix with s-decomposable weighted diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$, let ${\mathcal O}^w$ be a corresponding weighted orbifold.
Suppose that all orbifold points in ${\mathcal O}^w$ are of weight $2$ (this corresponds to matrices/weighted diagrams with all the outlets of weight $1$).
In this section, we introduce a new object ${\mathcal S}({\mathcal O}^w)$ (a hyperbolic surface built from the orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w$) and show that the
lambda lengths of tagged arc on ${\mathcal S}({\mathcal O}^w)$ provide a realization of a cluster algebra with exchange matrix $B$.
\begin{definition}[{{\it Associated triangulated surface}}]
\label{ass surface}
Let $T$ be a tagged triangulation of the orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w$. An {\it associated triangulated surface} ${\mathcal S}({\mathcal O}^w)$ is a surface
with tagged triangulation $\hat T $ built as follows:
for each triangle $t\in T$ containing an orbifold point we cut out $t$ and attach a triangulated
disk with marked points as shown in Fig.~\ref{ass}, so that every pending arc in $t$ corresponds to a pair of conjugate arcs in
$\hat T$.
The marked points arising in the procedure will be called {\it special}.
The pairs of conjugate arcs arising in this procedure will be called {\it associated (pairs of) arcs}. Arcs in every associated pair should be flipped
simultaneously.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=pic/ass.eps,width=0.98\linewidth}
\caption{Construction of the associated surface. Special marked points are encircled.}
\label{ass}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}
\label{ex gr ass surf}
The requirement that the associated arcs should be flipped simultaneously guaranties that the associated arcs always remain conjugate.
Therefore, the procedure of building the associated surface from the triangulation $T$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$ commutes with flips of $T$.
This implies that the exchange graph for tagged triangulations of ${\mathcal O}^w$ coincides with the exchange graph for tagged triangulations
of ${\mathcal S}({\mathcal O}^w)$.
\end{remark}
{
Recall that horocycles $h$ and $\bar h$ are conjugate if $L(h)\cdot L(\bar h)=1$, where $L(h)$ is the hyperbolic length of $h$. Given a hyperbolic structure on ${\mathcal S}({\mathcal O}^w)$,
a horocycle $h$ centered at interior marked point on ${\mathcal S}({\mathcal O}^w)$ is {\it self-conjugate} if it coincides with its conjugate $\bar h$, implying $L(h)^2=1$.
}
\begin{definition}[{{\it Decorated Teichm\"uller space for associated surface}}]
A point in a decorated Teichm\"uller space $\widetilde {\mathcal T}({\mathcal S})$ of the associated surface ${\mathcal S}={\mathcal S}({\mathcal O}^w)$
is a hyperbolic structure on ${\mathcal S}$ with a collection of horocycles, one around each marked point,
satisfying the condition that the horocycles centered at special marked points are self-conjugate.
\end{definition}
The lambda lengths of tagged arcs on associated surface are introduced in the usual way.
It follows directly from the definition that the associated arcs have the same lambda lengths.
Therefore, we may substitute a pair of associated tagged arcs $(\gamma',\gamma'')$ by a single tagged arc $\gamma$.
We call this single arc a {\it pending arc}, similar to the orbifold case and
define $\lambda(\gamma)=\lambda(\gamma')(=\lambda(\gamma''))$.
Given an associated surface ${\mathcal S}$ with $m$ special marked points, we can consider a similar surface $S$ whose marked points
are not special.
In the decorated Teichm\"uller space $\widetilde {\mathcal T}(S)$ of $S$ consider a codimension $m$ subspace $\Pi$ defined by any of the
following two equivalent conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] for marked point $x\in S$ corresponding to a special marked point of ${\mathcal S}$, the horocycle centered at $x$ is self-conjugate;
\item[(2)] for each pair of conjugate arcs $(\gamma',\gamma'')$ on $S$ corresponding to a pair of associated arcs of ${\mathcal S}$
holds $\lambda(\gamma)=\lambda(\gamma')$.
\end{itemize}
Clearly, the subspace $\Pi$ coincides with the decorated Teichm\"uller space of the associated surface ${\mathcal S}$.
The condition (2) also implies that the lambda lengths of tagged arcs of triangulations of ${\mathcal S}$ (together with lambda lengths of boundary segments) parametrize $\widetilde {\mathcal T}({\mathcal S})$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{alpha}{\scriptsize $\alpha$}
\psfrag{beta}{\scriptsize $\beta$}
\psfrag{gamma}{\scriptsize $\gamma$}
\psfrag{delta}{\scriptsize $\delta$}
\psfrag{sigma}{\scriptsize $\sigma$}
\psfrag{theta}{\scriptsize $\theta$}
\psfrag{xi}{\scriptsize $\xi$}
\psfrag{mu}{\scriptsize $\mu$}
\psfrag{nu}{\scriptsize $\nu$}
\psfrag{zeta}{\scriptsize $\zeta$}
\psfrag{eta}{\scriptsize $\eta$}
\psfrag{phi}{\scriptsize $\phi$}
\psfrag{psi}{\scriptsize $\psi$}
\psfrag{hi}{\scriptsize $\chi$}
\psfrag{a}{\small a)}
\psfrag{b}{\small b)}
\psfrag{c}{\small c)}
\psfrag{d}{\small d)}
\epsfig{file=pic/ptolemy-loc.eps,width=0.98\linewidth}
\caption{Notation for Lemma~\ref{Ptolemy-local}. Pending arcs are drawn in bold.}
\label{ptolemy-local}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}
\label{Ptolemy-local}
In the notation of Fig.~\ref{ptolemy-local} the following Ptolemy relations hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)] $\lambda(\gamma)\lambda(\delta)=\lambda(\alpha)+\lambda(\beta)$;
\item[b)] $\lambda(\beta)\lambda(\sigma)=\lambda(\gamma)^2\lambda(\theta)+\lambda(\alpha)\lambda(\xi)$;
\item[c)] $\lambda(\nu)\lambda(\zeta)=\lambda(\mu)^2+\lambda(\eta)$;
\item[d)] $\lambda(\eta)\lambda(\chi)=\lambda(\mu)^2\lambda(\psi)+\lambda(\nu)^2\lambda(\phi)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The relations immediately follow from the Ptolemy relations proved in~\cite{FT}.
\end{proof}
It is easy to see that the same Ptolemy relations hold also for tagged arcs.
Reasoning as in the previous section and taking into account Remark~\ref{ex gr ass surf}, we obtain a similar result for matrices providing weighted orbifolds with weights of orbifold points $2$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th_local}
Let $B$ be an s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrix. Let $({\mathcal O}^w,T_{{\mathcal O}^w})$ be a weighted orbifold and its triangulation constructed by an s-decomposition of $B$. Suppose also that weights of all orbifold points of ${\mathcal O}^w$ are equal to $2$.
Let $({\mathcal S}={\mathcal S}({\mathcal O}^w),\hat T_{{\mathcal S}})$ be the corresponding associated surface and its triangulation.
Then the cluster algebra ${\mathcal A}= {\mathcal A}(B(\hat T_{{\mathcal S}}),{\bf x}(\hat T_{{\mathcal S}}),{\bf p}(\hat T_{{\mathcal S}}))$ satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item the cluster variables of ${\mathcal A}$ are lambda lengths of tagged arcs contained in triangulations of ${\mathcal S}$;
\item the clusters consist of all lambda lengths of tagged arcs contained in the same triangulation of ${\mathcal S}$;
\item the coefficients are lambda length of the boundary segments of ${\mathcal S}$
(the coefficient semifield $\mathbb{P}$ is the tropical semifield generated by the lambda lengths of boundary segments);
\item the exchange graph of ${\mathcal A}$ coincides with the exchange graph of the tagged triangulations of ${\mathcal S}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{General case}
\label{sec_gen}
Let $B$ be an s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrix with wei\-ghted diagram $\mathsf{D}=\mathsf{D}(B)$, let ${\mathcal O}^w$ be a corresponding weighted orbifold. In this section, we present a general construction providing a geometric realization of a cluster algebra with exchange matrix $B$. In the partial cases when all orbifold points of ${\mathcal O}^w$ are of the same weight this construction specifies to ones described in Sections~\ref{sec lambda 2} and~\ref{sec lambda 1/2}.
\begin{definition}[{{\it Associated triangulated orbifold}}]
\label{def-ass-gen}
Given a triangulation $T$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$, an {\it associated orbifold} $\hat {\mathcal O}$ is constructed as follows:
for each triangle $t\in T$ containing orbifold points of weight 2 we substitute $t$ by a piece of surface with {\it special marked point}
as in Fig.~\ref{ass1}. Each special marked point is an end of two tagged arcs (with distinct tags at this end),
these tagged arcs are called {\it associated}. The associated arcs in the associated orbifold should be flipped simultaneously
(this ``composite'' flip is considered as one transformation and is shown by one edge in the exchange graph of tagged triangulations of
$\hat {\mathcal O}$). We denote obtained triangulation of $\hat {\mathcal O}$ by $\widetilde T$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{def_tr_assoc}
By {\it triangulation} of associated orbifold $\hat{\mathcal O}$ we mean only tagged triangulations of $\hat{\mathcal O}$ with conjugate pairs in all special marked points.
\end{definition}
One can note that every tagged triangulation of $\hat {\mathcal O}$ (in the sense of the definition above) can be considered as $\widetilde T$ for some triangulation $T$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{1}{\scriptsize 1/2}
\psfrag{2}{\scriptsize 2}
\epsfig{file=pic/ass1.eps,width=0.98\linewidth}
\caption{Construction of the associated orbifold. The numbers show the weights of the orbifold points.
The special marked points are encircled.}
\label{ass1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Reasoning as in case of associated surfaces in Remark~\ref{ex gr ass surf} we obtain the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{graph on O graph o}
The exchange graph of tagged triangulations of ${\mathcal O}^w$ coincides with exchange graph of tagged triangulations of
the associate orbifold $\hat{\mathcal O}$.
\end{lemma}
We define a hyperbolic structure on $\hat{\mathcal O}$ and pairs of conjugate horocycles in a usual way.
\begin{definition}[{{\it Decorated Teichm\"uller space for associated orbifold}}]
\label{dec teichm}
A point in a decorated Teichm\"uller space $\widetilde {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O})$ of the associated orbifold $\hat {\mathcal O}$
is a hyperbolic structure on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ (such that each marked point is turned into a cusp and an angle around each orbifold point equals
$\pi$) together with a collection of horocycles, one around each marked point,
satisfying the condition that the horocycles centered at special marked points are self-conjugate.
\end{definition}
As before, we use the chosen horocycles to define lambda lengths. For ordinary arcs we use the formula
$\lambda(\gamma)=exp(l(\gamma)/2),$ where $l(\gamma)$ is the signed distance along $\gamma$ between the horocycles.
For pending arcs we use the formula $\lambda(\gamma)=exp(l(\gamma)/2)=exp(l'(\gamma)),$
where $l(\gamma)=2l'(\gamma)$, and $l'(\gamma)$ is the signed distance from the horocycle to the orbifold point.
By definition, associated arcs have equal lambda lengths, so we substitute the pair of associated arcs by a single {\it double} arc (with a non-tagged end in the special marked point).
We denote by $\widehat T$ a triangulation $\widetilde T$ of $\hat{\mathcal O}$ with all conjugate pairs at special marked points substituted by double arcs. Flips of $\widehat T$ are obviously well-defined.
\begin{definition}
\label{signed_matr_assoc}
A {\it signed adjacency matrix} for a tagged triangulation $\widehat T$ of the associated orbifold $\hat{\mathcal O}$ is the signed adjacency matrix for the initial
triangulation $T$ of the orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w$.
\end{definition}
According to Lemma~\ref{graph on O graph o}, the signed adjacency matrix is well-defined.
Clearly, the lambda lengths on the associated orbifold satisfy the Ptolemy relations shown in~\cite{FT}, Lemma~\ref{Ptolemy-prime} and
Lemma~\ref{Ptolemy-local}. In addition, the same reasoning as in the proofs of the lemmas cited above (together with the results of the
lemmas) show the following Ptolemy relations.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Ptolemy-gen}
In the notation of Fig.~\ref{ptolemy-gen} the following Ptolemy relations hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\lambda(\nu)\lambda(\zeta)=\lambda(\eta)+\lambda(\mu)$;
\item[(b)] $\lambda(\mu)\lambda(\rho)=\lambda(\eta)^2+\lambda(\nu)^4$;
\item[(c)] $\lambda(\eta)\lambda(\chi)=\lambda(\mu)\lambda(\psi)+\lambda(\nu)^2\lambda(\phi)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{alpha}{\scriptsize $\alpha$}
\psfrag{beta}{\scriptsize $\beta$}
\psfrag{gamma}{\scriptsize $\gamma$}
\psfrag{delta}{\scriptsize $\delta$}
\psfrag{sigma}{\scriptsize $\sigma$}
\psfrag{theta}{\scriptsize $\theta$}
\psfrag{xi}{\scriptsize $\xi$}
\psfrag{mu}{\scriptsize $\mu$}
\psfrag{nu}{\scriptsize $\nu$}
\psfrag{zeta}{\scriptsize $\zeta$}
\psfrag{eta}{\scriptsize $\eta$}
\psfrag{phi}{\scriptsize $\phi$}
\psfrag{psi}{\scriptsize $\psi$}
\psfrag{hi}{\scriptsize $\chi$}
\psfrag{rho}{\scriptsize $\rho$}
\psfrag{a}{\small a)}
\psfrag{b}{\small b)}
\psfrag{c}{\small c)}
\psfrag{d}{\small d)}
\epsfig{file=pic/ptolemy-gen.eps,width=0.98\linewidth}
\caption{Notation for Lemma~\ref{Ptolemy-gen}}
\label{ptolemy-gen}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The same Ptolemy relations hold for tagged arcs as well (with the usual definition of lambda length of tagged
arc).
Now we are able to formulate the main result of the section.
Given a tagged triangulation $\widehat T$ of $\hat{\mathcal O}$,
choose an initial seed as follows
\begin{itemize}
\item $B=B(\widehat T)$ is a signed adjacency matrix of $\widehat T$;
\item ${\bf x}={\bf x}(\widehat T)=\{\lambda(\gamma): \gamma\in \widehat T, \gamma\not\subset\partial\hat{\mathcal O}\}$;
\item ${\bf p}={\bf p}(\widehat T)=\{\lambda(\gamma): \gamma\in \widehat T, \gamma\subset\partial\hat{\mathcal O}\}.$
\end{itemize}
Denote by ${\mathcal A}(B(\hat T),{\bf x}(\hat T),{\bf p}(\hat T))$ the cluster algebra constructed by the initial seed $(B(\hat T),{\bf x}(\hat T),{\bf p}(\hat T)$. By the same arguments as in the previous sections, we get the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm_gen}
Let $B$ be an s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrix. Let $({\mathcal O}^w,T_{{\mathcal O}^w})$ be a weighted orbifold and its triangulation constructed by an s-decomposition of $B$. Suppose also that weights of all orbifold points of ${\mathcal O}^w$ are equal to $2$.
Let $\hat {\mathcal O}$ be the associated orbifold and let $\hat T$ be the corresponding triangulation of $\hat {\mathcal O}$.
Then the cluster algebra ${\mathcal A}= {\mathcal A}(B(\widehat T),{\bf x}(\widehat T),{\bf p}(\widehat T))$
satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item the exchange matrices of ${\mathcal A}$ are signed adjacency matrices of tagged triangulations of $\hat O$;
\item the cluster variables of ${\mathcal A}$ are lambda lengths of tagged arcs contained in triangulations of $\hat {\mathcal O}$;
\item the clusters consist of all lambda lengths of tagged arcs contained in the same triangulation of $\hat {\mathcal O}$;
\item the coefficients are lambda lengths of the boundary segments of $\hat{\mathcal O}$
(the coefficient semifield $\mathbb{P}$ is the tropical semifield generated by the lambda lengths of boundary segments);
\item the exchange graph of ${\mathcal A}$ coincides with the exchange graph of tagged triangulations of $\hat{\mathcal O}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\section{Laminations on the associated orbifold}
\label{sec-lam}
In this section, we define laminations on associated orbifold (cf.~\cite{FG}). Then we follow~\cite{FT} to construct geometric realization for cluster algebras with general coefficients.
\begin{definition}[{{\it Lamination}}]
\label{def-lam}
Let $\hat {\mathcal O}=\hat {\mathcal O}(M,N,Q)$ be an associated orbifold with the set of marked points $M$, the set of special marked points $N$ an the set
of orbifold points $Q$.
An {\it integral unbounded measured lamination} - in this paper just a {\it lamination} - on an associated orbifold $\hat {\mathcal O}$
is a finite collection of non-self-intersecting and pairwise non-intersecting curves on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ modulo isotopy relative to the set
$M\cup N\cup Q$, subject to the restrictions below. Each curve must be one of the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item a closed curve;
\item a non-closed curve each of whose ends in one of the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item an unmarked point of the boundary of $\hat {\mathcal O}$;
\item a spiral around a puncture contained in $M$ (either clockwise or counterclockwise);
\item an orbifold point $q\in Q$;
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
Also, the following is not allowed:
\begin{itemize}
\item a curve that bounds an unpunctured disk or a disk containing a unique point of $M\cup N\cup Q$;
\item a curve with two endpoints on the boundary of $\hat {\mathcal O}$ isotopic to a piece of boundary containing no marked points
or a single marked point;
\item two curves starting at the same orbifold point (or two ends of the same curve starting at the same orbifold point);
\item curve spiraling in or starting at any special marked point $n\in N$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Our next aim is to introduce coordinates on laminations on associated orbifolds using W.~Thurstons's notion of shear coordinates extended
in~\cite{FT} to the case of tagged triangulations of surfaces. We refer to~\cite{FT} for all the details and present here only
the basic idea of shear coordinates on surfaces.
Let $S$ be a marked surface with a triangulation $T$ (containing no self-folded triangles),
let $L$ be a lamination on $S$. For each arc $\gamma$ of $T$ the corresponding
{\it shear coordinate} of $L$ with respect to the triangulation $T$, denoted by $b_\gamma (T,L)$, is defined as a sum of
contributions from all intersections of curves in $L$ with the arc $\gamma$. Such an intersection contributes $+1$ (resp, -1)
to $b_\gamma (T,L)$ if the corresponding segment of the curve in $L$ cuts through the quadrilateral surrounding $\gamma$ as
shown in Fig.~\ref{lam} on the left (resp, on the right).
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{g}{\scriptsize $\gamma$}
\psfrag{1}{\small $+1$}
\psfrag{-1}{\small $-1$}
\epsfig{file=pic/lam.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}
\caption{Defining the shear coordinate $b_\gamma (T,L)$ on surfaces.}
\label{lam}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To adjust this definition to the case of associated orbifolds, we will use the following construction.
\begin{definition}[{{\it Shear coordinates on associated orbifold}}]
\label{def-shear}
Let $\hat {\mathcal O}=\hat {\mathcal O}(M,N,Q)$ be an associated orbifold with the set of marked points $M$, the set of special marked points $N$, and the set
of orbifold points $Q$.
Let $\widehat T$ be a tagged triangulation of $\hat {\mathcal O}$.
Construct a surface $\widetilde{\mathcal O}$ with a tagged triangulation $\widetilde T$ in the following way: substitute each digon or monogon in $\widehat T$ containing an orbifold point or a special marked point
by a digon or monogon containing an ordinary marked point as in Fig.~\ref{ne-unf}.
For each ordinary (i.e. non-pending and non-double) arc $\gamma\in \widehat T$ there exists a unique corresponding arc
$\gamma'\in \widetilde T$, while each pending and each double arc $\gamma\in \widehat T$ corresponds to two conjugate arcs
$\gamma'$ and $\gamma''$ in $\widetilde T$.
Let $L$ be a lamination on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ and let $\widetilde L$ be the image of the this lamination on $\widetilde {\mathcal O}$ (for a curve ending at orbifold point we define its image as spiraling into the corresponding marked point counterclockwise).
Let $b_{\gamma'}(\widetilde T,\widetilde L)$ be shear coordinates of the lamination $\widetilde L$ on the surface $\widetilde {\mathcal O}$
with triangulation $\widetilde T$.
Then the {\it shear coordinates} of the lamination $L$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ are defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item for an ordinary arc $\gamma\in \widehat T$ define $b_\gamma(\widehat T,L)= b_{\gamma'}(\widetilde T,\widetilde L)$;
\item for a pending arc $\gamma\in \widehat T$ define
$b_\gamma(\widehat T,L)= b_{\gamma'}(\widetilde T,\widetilde L)+b_{\gamma''}(\widetilde T,\widetilde L)$;
\item for a double arc $\gamma\in \widehat T$ define
$b_\gamma(\widehat T,L)=\frac{1}{2} [b_{\gamma'}(\widetilde T,\widetilde L)+b_{\gamma''}(\widetilde T,\widetilde L)]$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{g}{\scriptsize $$}
\psfrag{g'}{\tiny $$}
\psfrag{g''}{\tiny $$}
\psfrag{b}{\scriptsize $$}
\psfrag{b'}{\tiny $$}
\psfrag{b''}{\tiny $$}
\epsfig{file=pic/ne-unf.eps,width=0.98\linewidth}
\caption{Defining shear coordinate $b_\gamma (\widehat T,L)$ for laminations on associated orbifolds: construction of the surface $\widetilde {\mathcal O}$
from the orbifold $\hat {\mathcal O}$.}
\label{ne-unf}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}
The definition of $b_\gamma(\widehat T,L)$ for double arcs contains a division by $2$, however,
it is easy to see that $b_\gamma(\widehat T,L)\in {\mathbb Z}$. Indeed, by Definition~\ref{def-lam} no curve of $L$ is spiraling into a special
marked point, which implies that $b_{\gamma'}(\widetilde T,\widetilde L)=b_{\gamma''}(\widetilde T,\widetilde L)$,
see Fig.~\ref{elem-lam} for the values of shear coordinates on the pairs of conjugate arcs.
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{gamma}{\scriptsize $\gamma$}
\psfrag{1}{\scriptsize $(-1,-1)$}
\psfrag{2}{\scriptsize $(1,1)$}
\psfrag{3}{\scriptsize $(0,-1)$}
\psfrag{4}{\scriptsize $(0,1)$}
\psfrag{5}{\scriptsize $(-1,0)$}
\psfrag{6}{\scriptsize $(1,0)$}
\epsfig{file=pic/elem.eps,width=0.98\linewidth}
\caption{``Elementary'' laminations of a once-punctured digon: values of shear coordinates on conjugate arcs
(cf.~\cite[Fig.~32]{FT}; first we write the value for the arc tagged plain, then for the arc tagged notched).
The values coincide unless a curve of the lamination spirals into the puncture. Note that the sum of coordinated does not depend on the direction of spiraling.}
\label{elem-lam}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the same way as in~\cite{FT} we define {\it multi-laminations} and associated {\it extended signed adjacency matrix}.
\begin{definition}
\label{multi,extended}
A {\it multi-lamination}
is a finite set of laminations $\mathbf L=(L_{n+1},\dots,L_m)$. For a tagged triangulation $\widehat T$ of $\hat {\mathcal O}$ define an $m\times n$
{\it extended signed adjacency matrix}
$\tilde B=\tilde B(\widehat T,\mathbf L)= (b_{ij})$ as follows: the top $n\times n$ part of $\tilde B$ is a signed adjacency matrix
$B(\widehat T)=(b_{ij})_{1\le i,j\le n}$, the bottom $m-n$ rows are formed by shear coordinates of the laminations $L_i$ with respect to the triangulation $\widehat T$: $b_{ij}=b_j(\widehat T,L_i), n<i\le m$.
\end{definition}
A straightforward verification shows that, under the flips of $\widehat T$ the matrix $\tilde B(\widehat T,\mathbf L)$ transforms
according to the mutation rules:
\begin{lemma}
Let $\mathbf L$ be a multi-lamination on $\hat {\mathcal O}$. If tagged triangulations $\widehat T$ and $\widehat T_1$ of $\hat {\mathcal O}$ are related by
a flip in tagged arc $k$, then the corresponding matrices $\tilde B(\widehat T,\mathbf L)$ and $\tilde B(\widehat T_1,\mathbf L)$
are related by a mutation in direction $k$.
\end{lemma}
Now, we will show that, given a tagged triangulation $\widehat T$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$,
for each (ordered) $n$-tuple of numbers $(k_1,\dots,k_n)\in{\mathbb Z}^n$
there exists a unique lamination $L$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ such that $b_{\gamma_i}(\widehat T,L)=k_i$, $i=1,\dots, n$.
In Lemma~\ref{ex-uniq-prime} we show this property for the case of associated orbifolds containing no special marked points
(so that $\hat {\mathcal O}={\mathcal O}$ is a usual orbifold). The general case will be derived from this one in Theorem~\ref{ex-uniq}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{ex-uniq-prime}
Let $\hat {\mathcal O}$ be an associated orbifold containing no special marked points.
For a fixed tagged triangulation $\widehat T$ of $\hat {\mathcal O}$, the map
$$ L \to (b_\gamma(\widehat T,L))_{\gamma \in \widehat T}$$
is a bijection between laminations on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ and ${\mathbb Z}^n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is by induction on the number $q$ of orbifold points on $\hat {\mathcal O}$.
If $q=0$, then the statement coincides with~\cite[Theorem~12.4]{FT}.
Suppose that $q>0$.
First, assume that $\widehat T$ contains no monogons with orbifold points.
Let $\gamma$ be a pending arc in $\widehat T$, let $t\in T$ be a digon containing $\gamma$.
Denote by $\hat {\mathcal O}'$ an orbifold obtained from $\hat {\mathcal O}$ by removing $t$ and attaching a one-punctured digon $t'$ instead (as
shown in Fig.~\ref{ne-unf}).
Denote by $\widehat T'$ the obtained tagged triangulation of $\hat {\mathcal O}'$.
Let $\gamma'$ and $\gamma''$ be the conjugated tagged arcs in $t'$. For each arc $\beta\ne \gamma$ in $\widehat T$
we denote by $\beta'$ the corresponding arc in $\widehat T'$. Let $x\in t$ be the orbifold point and $x'\in t'$ be
the corresponding puncture in $\widehat T'$.
Note that there is a natural correspondence between laminations on $\hat{\mathcal O}$ not ending in $x$ and laminations on $\hat{\mathcal O}'$ not spiraling into $x'$. In the sequel, we will identify these laminations.
Choose an indexing $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_n$ of arcs of $\widehat T$ so that $\gamma=\gamma_n$,
and choose an $n$-tuple $(k_1,\dots,k_n)\in {\mathbb Z}^n$.
Our aim is to find a lamination $L$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ such that $b_{\gamma_i}(\hat T,L)=k_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$.
Suppose that $k_n=2\bar k_n$ (resp, $k_n=2\bar k_n+1$).
By inductive assumption, there exists a unique lamination $L'$ on $\hat O'$ such that
$$
\begin{array}{ccl}
b_{\gamma_i'}(\hat T',L') &=& k_i, \ \ \ \text{for \ $i=1,\dots,n-1$};\\
b_{\gamma_n'}(\hat T',L')& = &\bar k_n \\
b_{\gamma_n''}(\hat T',L')& =& k_n-\bar k_n.\\
\end{array}
$$
Consider the elementary laminations on a once punctured digon $t'$ (see Fig.~\ref{elem-lam}): their shear coordinates on the conjugate arcs
$\gamma$ and $\gamma'$
are distinct if and only if the curve is spiraling into a puncture. Moreover, if there exists a curve spiraling into a puncture in
a clockwise direction, then the same lamination can not contain a curve spiraling counter-clockwise into the same puncture.
Since $|b_{\gamma_n''}(\widehat T',L')-b_{\gamma_n'}(\widehat T',L')|\le 1$, the lamination $L'$ either contains a unique curve spiraling into
$x'$ or contains no such a curve. In the latter case define $L=L'$. In the former case we do the same, substituting in addition
the curve spiraling into $x'$ by a curve ending in $x$. It is easy to see that the obtained set of curves $L$ is a lamination on $\hat {\mathcal O}$
and that $b_{\gamma_i}(\widehat T,L)=k_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$.
Therefore, we have shown existence of a lamination on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ with given shear coordinates. It is left to prove the uniqueness.
Suppose that $L_1$ and $L_2$ are two laminations with the same shear coordinates with respect to $\widehat T$.
For each lamination $L_i$, $i=1,2$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ we build (a unique) lamination $L'_i$, $i=1,2$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}'$ in the following way:
if $L$ contains no curve ending at $x$, then we take $L'_i=L_i$; otherwise, we substitute the curve of $L_i$ ending in $x$ by a curve spiraling in $x'$ in a clockwise direction.
Clearly, if $L_1\ne L_2$, then $L_1'\ne L_2'$. On the other hand,
it follows immediately from Definition~\ref{def-shear} that the shear coordinates of $L'_1$ and $L_2'$ coincide.
This contradicts to the inductive assumption (namely, its ``uniqueness'' part).
So, the lemma is proved for the case of triangulations without monogons with orbifold points.
The case of triangulation $\widehat T$ containing monogons is treated in the same way.
\end{proof}
Now we obtain the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{ex-uniq}
Let $\hat {\mathcal O}$ be an associated orbifold.
For a fixed tagged triangulation $\widehat T$ of $\hat {\mathcal O}$, the map
$$ L \to (b_\gamma(\widehat T,L))_{\gamma \in \widehat T}$$
is a bijection between laminations on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ and ${\mathbb Z}^n$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $\hat {\mathcal O}$ contains no special marked points, then the theorem follows from Lemma~\ref{ex-uniq-prime}.
To prove the theorem in the general case, substitute all the special marked points of $\hat{\mathcal O}$ by ordinary punctures, and all double arcs by pairs of conjugate arcs (as in Definition~\ref{def-shear}). Denote the new triangulation by $\tilde T$ and new orbifold by $\tilde {\mathcal O}$.
For every lamination $L$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ we construct in a natural way a unique lamination $\tilde L$ on $\tilde {\mathcal O}$.
Since no lamination is spiraling into a special marked point, one can note that if $\gamma\in\widehat T$ is a double arc and $(\tilde\gamma',\tilde\gamma'')$ is a pair of corresponding conjugate arcs in $\tilde T$, then $b_{\gamma}(\widehat T,L)=b_{\tilde\gamma'}(\tilde T,\tilde L)=b_{\tilde\gamma''}(\tilde T,\tilde L)$ (see Fig.~\ref{elem-lam}). On the other hand,
if $\tilde L_0$ is a lamination on $\tilde {\mathcal O}$ having the same shear coordinates for pair of conjugate arcs $(\tilde\gamma',\tilde\gamma'')$ then $\tilde L_0$ contains no curves spiraling into the endpoint of conjugate arcs with different tags, which implies that $\tilde L_0$ can be obtained from some lamination $L_0$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ by the procedure above.
\end{proof}
\section{Opened associated orbifolds}
\label{sec-opened}
Following~\cite{FT}, our next step to the realization of cluster algebras with general coefficients is
``opening'' of interior marked points of the associated orbifold (resp. of the surface in case of skew-symmetric case).
{
The aim is to prepare the ground for introducing new geometric quantities which will serve as cluster variables satisfying new Ptolemy relations taking into account general coefficients.
}
At this step the construction for the orbifold case coincides with the one for the surfaces.
We briefly reproduce all necessary definitions and refer to~\cite{FT} for the details and examples.
\begin{definition}[{{\it Opening of an associated orbifold}}]
\label{opened}
Let $\hat {\mathcal O}=\hat{\mathcal O}(M,N,Q)$ be an associated orbifold, where $M$ is the set of marked points, $N$ is the set of special marked
points and $Q$ is the set of orbifold points. Let $\overline M=M\setminus \partial {\mathcal O}$ be the set of punctures , i.e. marked points in the interior of $\hat {\mathcal O}$. For a subset $P\subset \overline M$, the corresponding {\it opened associated orbifold} $\hat {\mathcal O}_P$
is obtained from $\hat {\mathcal O}$ by removing a small open disk around each point in $P$. For $p\in P$ let $C_p$ be the boundary
component of $\hat {\mathcal O}_P$ created in this way. For each $C_p$ one introduces a new marked point $z_p\in C_p$ and set
$M_P=(M\setminus P)\cup \{z_p\}_{p\in P}$ creating a new associated orbifold $\hat {\mathcal O}_P=\hat {\mathcal O}_P(M_P,N,Q)$ with
$|\overline M|-|P|$ punctures (here $|X|$ is the cardinality of the set $X$).
\end{definition}
It is easy to see that $\hat {\mathcal O}_P$ can be constructed as an orbifold associated to weighted orbifold ${\mathcal O}_P^w$ obtained from ${\mathcal O}^w$ by opening of the set $P$ of punctures.
We denote by $\hat {\mathcal O}_{\overline M}$ the opened orbifold $\hat {\mathcal O}_P$ in case $P=\overline M$.
\begin{definition}[{{\it Lifts of tagged arcs}}]
\label{lifts}
One can define a natural map $\hat {\mathcal O}_P\to\hat{\mathcal O}$ by collapsing every $C_p$ to a point. Following~\cite{FT}, we call by a {\it lift}
of a curve $\alpha$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ any curve $\bar\alpha$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}_P$ that projects to $\alpha$ under the map above.
A lift may not be unique: if we denote by $\psi_p$ a twist around $C_p$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}_P$, and $\alpha$ ends in $p\in M$, then for given lift $\bar\alpha$ every curve $\psi_p^n\bar\alpha$ will also be a lift. Moreover, if the second end of $\alpha$ does not belong to $P$, then the set
$\{\psi_p^n\bar\alpha\}_{n\in{\mathbb Z}}$ will contain all the lifts of $\alpha$. Similarly, if $\alpha$ ends in two points of $P$, say $p$ and $q$, then all the lifts of $\alpha$ can be written as $\{\psi_p^n\psi_q^m\bar\alpha\}_{n,m\in{\mathbb Z}}$ for some particular lift $\bar\alpha$ of $\alpha$.
The {\it lifts of tagged arcs} have the same tags as their preimages.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{partial teichm}
For a subset $P\subset \overline M$, a {\it partial Teichm\"uller space} ${\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}_P)$,
where $\hat {\mathcal O}_P=\hat {\mathcal O}_P(M_P,N,Q)$,
is the space of all finite-volume complete hyperbolic metrics on $\hat {\mathcal O}_P\setminus (Q\cup N\cup M\setminus P)$
with geodesic boundary and with cone points of angle $\pi$ in $Q$, modulo isotopy. A point of {\it decorated partial Teichm\"uller space}
$\widetilde {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}_P)$ is the space of metrics from ${\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}_P)$ modulo isotopy relative to ${C_p},\,p\in P$,
with a choice of horocycle around each point in $M\setminus P$ and a self-conjugated horocycle around each point of $N$.
\end{definition}
The hyperbolic structure in $\widetilde{\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}_P)$ has a cusp at every point of $N\cup(M\setminus P)$, and an orbifold point with angle $\pi$
at each point of $Q$. The boundary components coming from $\hat {\mathcal O}$ are of infinite length, while the new components $C_p$
($p\in P$) are of finite length: there are no cusps in the points $z_p$ introduced for the new boundary components.
Given $P\subset \overline M$, an orientation on $C_p$ for each $p\in P$ and a decorated hyperbolic structure $\sigma\in \widetilde{\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}_P)$,
one can build for each arc $\gamma$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ a unique non-self-intersecting geodesic $\gamma_\sigma$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}_P$:
if an endpoint of $\gamma$ belongs to $P$, then the corresponding end of $\gamma_\sigma$ spirals around $C_p$ in the direction of orientation of $C_p$, otherwise the end of $\gamma_\sigma$ does the same as the corresponding end of $\gamma$ (i.e. runs into a cusp or ends in an
orbifold point).
The {\it tagged } arcs are represented in the following way: the ends tagged notched are represented by geodesics spiraling against the
chosen direction, while the ends tagged plain are spiraling in the chosen direction.
For each $p\in P$, there is a {\it perpendicular horocyclic segment} $h_p$ near $C_p$: this is a (short) segment of the horocycle from
$z_p\in C_p$ perpendicular to $C_p$ and to all geodesics $\gamma_\sigma$ spiraling into $C_p$.
For the tagged arcs, one also introduces the {\it conjugate} perpendicular horocyclic segment $\bar h_p$ which satisfies the same
requirements as $h_p$ with respect to the geodesics spiraling in the opposite direction.
\begin{definition}[{{\it Lambda length on an opened associated orbifold}}]
\label{lambda opened}
For a tagged arc $\gamma_\sigma$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}_P$ the lambda length is $\lambda(\gamma_\sigma)=e^{l(\gamma_\sigma/2)}$,
where $l(\gamma_\sigma)$ is a distance between appropriate intersections of the geodesic $\gamma_\sigma$ with the horocycles at its two
ends (or, in case of a geodesic ending in an orbifold point, a doubled distance between the orbifold point and the appropriate
intersection with the horocycle at another end). In case of an end spiraling around one of the openings $C_p$ there are
infinitely many intersections of $\gamma_\sigma$ with the perpendicular horocyclic segment $h_p$ (or a conjugate perpendicular horocyclic
segment $\bar h_p$ in case of the notched tagging), so one need to choose the intersection.
To choose the correct intersection (in the case when $\gamma_\sigma$ twists
sufficiently far around the openings),
consider an auxiliary curve $\hat \gamma$ obtained from $\gamma_\sigma$ by deleting the spiraling ends (from a given
point of the intersection with the horosphere) and attaching the segments of the horosphere instead of it.
The points of intersections then should be chosen in a way that $\hat \gamma$ is homotopic to the given lift $\bar \gamma\subset \hat {\mathcal O}_P$.
To extend the definition to all tagged arcs, not only ones that twist sufficiently many times, one uses formula
$$ l(\psi_p\bar \gamma_\sigma)=l(p)+l(\bar \gamma_\sigma),$$
where $\gamma_\sigma$ is an arc spiraling around $C_p$, $p\in P$,
$\psi_p$ is a clockwise twist around the component $C_p$, and
$$l(p)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\text{length of $C_p$} & p\in P, \text{ if $C_p$ is oriented counterclockwise};\\
0 & \text{if $p\notin P$};\\
\text{length of $C_p$} & p\in P, \text{ if $C_p$ is oriented clockwise}. \\
\end{array}
\right.
$$
\end{definition}
The correctness of this definition can be checked directly.
\begin{definition}
\label{complete teichm}
The {\it complete decorated Teichm\"uller space} $\overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O})=\overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}(M,N,Q))$ is
a disjoint union over all subsets $P\subset \overline M$ of $2^{|P|}$ copies of $\widetilde {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}_P)$, one for each choice of
orientation on each boundary circle $C_p$ (so that $\overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O})$ consists of $3^{|\overline M|}$ strata of type
$\widetilde {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}_P)$).
The topology on $\overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O})$ is the weakest in which all the lambda lengths $\lambda(\gamma)$
are continuous. Here $\lambda(\gamma)$ is defined for all $\gamma\in \hat {\mathcal O}_{\overline M}$ at each point of every stratum $\widetilde {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}_P)$ in the following way: we project $\gamma$ to $\hat {\mathcal O}_P$ by contracting remaining circular components $C_q$, $q\notin P$, and compute the lambda length of the obtained arc by Definition~\ref{lambda opened}.
\end{definition}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop 9.5}
Let $\widehat T$ be a tagged triangulation of $\hat {\mathcal O}$. For each $\gamma\in \widehat T$, fix an arc $\bar \gamma\in \hat {\mathcal O}_{\overline M}$
that projects to $\gamma$. Then the map
$$\Phi=\left(\prod_{p\in \overline M}\lambda(p) \right)\times
\left(\prod_{\beta\subset \partial \hat {\mathcal O}}\lambda(\beta) \right) \times
\left(\prod_{\gamma\in T}\lambda(\bar \gamma) \right):
\overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O})\to {\mathbb R}^{n+c+|M|}_{>0}
$$
is a homeomorphism.
\end{prop}
For surfaces the proposition is proved in~\cite[Proposition~9.5]{FT} (more precisely, it is proved for ideal
triangulations and then extended to the case of tagged triangulations). The proposition extends to the case of associated orbifolds
without any changes.
Denote by $\mathbb{P}=\mathbb{P}(\hat {\mathcal O})$ the free abelian multiplicative group generated by the set
\begin{equation}
\label{coefficients}
\{ \lambda(p): p\in \overline M\}\cup \{\lambda(\beta): \beta\subset \partial \hat {\mathcal O} \}
\end{equation}
of lambda lengths of boundary components $\beta$ and circular components $C_p$.
In view of Proposition~\ref{prop 9.5}, these lambda lengths can be viewed either as functions on $\overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O})$ or as formal
variables.
\begin{definition}
The {\it rescaling factors} are defined for the marked points $a\in M_{\overline M}\cup N\cup Q$ on the opened associated orbifold
$\hat {\mathcal O}_{\overline M}$ by
$$ \nu(a)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\sqrt{1-\lambda_+(p)^{-2}} & \text{if $a=z_p$, with $p\in\overline M$;}\\
1& \text{otherwise,}
\end{array}
\right.
$$
where $\lambda_+(p)=\exp((\text{length of $C_p$})/2$.
\end{definition}
For a tagged arc $\bar \gamma\in \hat {\mathcal O}_{\overline M}$ with endpoints $a,b\in M_{\overline M}\cup N\cup Q$
define the {\it rescaled lambda lengths} as
\begin{equation}
\label{rescaled lambda length}
x(\bar \gamma)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\lambda(\bar \gamma)\nu(a)^2\nu(b)^2& \text{if either $a\in Q$ or $b\in Q$;}\\
\lambda(\bar \gamma)\nu(a)\nu(b)& \text{otherwise.}\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
The definition of $x(\bar \gamma)$ is the only place in the current section where we need to introduce some changes for the orbifold
settings. On the other hand, one may interpret pending arcs as ones ``coming to the orbifold point and then going back''.
Then none of the endpoints of the pending arc is an orbifold point, and both ends $a$ and $b$ coincide,
so that the the formula $x(\bar \gamma)=\lambda(\bar \gamma)\nu(a)\nu(b)$ holds for this case as well.
\end{remark}
It is shown in~\cite{FT} that in the surface settings
the rescaled functions $x(\bar \gamma)$ satisfy the same Ptolemy relations as lambda lengths do.
It is a straightforward computation that the same also holds for rescaled functions in the settings of associated orbifolds
(one needs to check the relations listed in Lemmas~\ref{Ptolemy-prime},~\ref{Ptolemy-local} and~\ref{Ptolemy-gen}).
For each tagged arc $\gamma\in \hat {\mathcal O}$ we fix an arbitrary lift $\bar \gamma\in \hat {\mathcal O}_{\overline M}$ (see Definition~\ref{lifts}),
and set $x(\gamma)=x(\bar \gamma)$, where $x(\bar \gamma$) is defined by~(\ref{rescaled lambda length}).
Then for each tagged triangulation $\widehat T$ of the associated orbifold $\hat {\mathcal O}$ define
\begin{equation}
\label{rescaled var}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf x(\widehat T)=
\{x(\bar \gamma):\gamma\in \widehat T\}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Proposition~\ref{prop 9.5} shows that the rescaled lambda lengths in $\mathbf x(\hat T)$ can be treated as formal variables
algebraically independent over the field of fractions of $\mathbb{P}(\hat {\mathcal O})$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm-opened}
For an arbitrary choice of lifts $\bar \gamma$ of tagged arcs $\gamma\in \hat {\mathcal O}$ there exists a (unique) cluster algebra
${\mathcal A}$ with the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item the coefficient group is $\mathbb{P}=\mathbb{P}(\hat {\mathcal O})$ (see~(\ref{coefficients}));
\item the cluster variables are the rescaled lambda lengths $x(\bar \gamma)$ defined by~(\ref{rescaled lambda length});
\item the cluster $\mathbf x(\hat T)$ is given by~(\ref{rescaled var});
\item the ambient field is generated over $\mathbb{P}$ by some (equivalently, any) cluster $\mathbf x(\hat T)$;
\item the exchange matrices are the signed adjacency matrices $B(\hat T)$;
\item the exchange relations out of each seed are relations associated with the corresponding tagged flips, properly rescaled using { Definition~\ref{lambda opened}} to reflect the choices of lifts.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
The proof of the theorem for surfaces is given in~\cite{FT} (see Theorem 10.2), and does not require any changes in the orbifold settings.
\section{Tropical lambda lengths and laminated Teichm\"uller spaces}
\label{sec-teichm}
In this section, we reproduce for reader's convenience the definitions from~\cite{FT} almost with no changes (except for
Definition~\ref{intersections} where we need to generalize the definition of number of intersections to the case of pending and double
arcs on the orbifold).
{ The laminated lambda lengths on opened associated orbifold introduced in this section will serve as cluster variables in geometric realization of cluster algebras with s-decomposable exchange matrices with arbitrary coefficients.}
\begin{definition}[{{\it Lifts of laminations}}]
\label{lift of lam}
In order to lift a lamination $L$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ to a (non-unique) lamination $\bar L$ on an opened orbifold $\hat {\mathcal O}_P$,
for each $p\in P$ we do the following: we replace each curve in $L$ that spirals into $p$ by a new curve in $\bar L$
that run into a point on $C_p$ so that different curves do not intersect and their ends lying on $C_p$ are pairwise distinct and
different from $z_p$. The (ends of) curves in $L$ that do not spiral into opened punctures are lifted ``tautologically''.
A {\it lifted multi-lamination} $\overline {\mathbf L}$ consists of (uncoordinated) lifts of the individual laminations contained in ${\mathbf L}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[{{\it Intersection numbers on opened orbifolds }}]
\label{intersections}
Denote by $|\bar L\cap \gamma|$ the (geometric, i.e. non-negative) number of intersections of a tagged arc
$\gamma\subset \hat {\mathcal O}_{\overline M}$ with the curves of the lifted lamination $\bar L\subset \hat {\mathcal O}_{\overline M}$
(to find the ``number of intersections''
we need to choose the curves in the corresponding homotopy classes that minimize this number, for example, geodesics for
some hyperbolic structure on $\hat O_{\overline M}$).
If $\gamma$ is a pending arc, then each intersection with the inner part of $\gamma$ counts with multiplicity 2,
and an intersection at the orbifold point counts with multiplicity 1.
All intersections with double arcs count with multiplicity 1.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[{{\it Transverse measures}}]
\label{transverse}
For a tagged arc $\gamma\subset \hat {\mathcal O}_{\overline M}\cup \partial \hat {\mathcal O}$ and a lift $\bar L\subset \hat {\mathcal O}_{\overline M}$ of
a lamination $L$, the {\it transverse measure} of $\gamma$ with respect to $\bar L$ is an integer $l_{\bar L}(\gamma)$
defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $l_{\bar L}(C_p)$ is the number of ends of curves in $\bar L$ that lie on $C_p$;
\item if $\gamma$ does not have ends at boundary components $C_p$ ($p\in \overline M$), then
$l_{\bar L}(\gamma)=|\bar L\cap \gamma|$;
\item if $\gamma$ has one or two such ends, and twists sufficiently many times around the opening(s) in the direction consistent with their
orientation (respectively, in the opposite directions if the end is notched), then again,
$l_{\bar L}(\gamma)=|\bar L\cap \gamma|$;
\item otherwise, $l_{\bar L}(\gamma)$ is defined using the cases above and the formula
$$l_{\bar L}(\psi_p\gamma)=(-1)^{t}l_{\bar L}(p)+l_{\bar L}(\gamma),$$
where
\begin{itemize}
\item[$-\ $] $\psi_p$ is a clockwise twist around $C_p$,
\item[$-\ $] $t=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 &\text{if $\gamma$ tagged plain at $z_p$;} \\
1 &\text{if $\gamma$ tagged notched at $z_p$;}
\end{array}
\right.
$
\item[$-\ $]
$
l_{\bar L}(p)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-l_{\bar L}(C_p) &\text{if $p\in \overline M$ and $C_p$ is oriented counterclockwise;} \\
0 & \text{if $p\notin \overline M$};\\
l_{\bar L}(C_p) &\text{if $p\in \overline M$ and $C_p$ is oriented clockwise.} \\
\end{array}
\right.
$
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[{{\it Tropical semifield associated with a multi-lamination}}]
Let $\mathbf L=(L_i)_{i\in I}$ be a multi-lamination on $\hat {\mathcal O}$, here $I$ is a finite indexing set.
Let $q_i$ be a formal variable for each lamination $L_i$, and let
$$\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf L}={\mathrm{Trop}}(q_i: i\in I)$$
be the multiplicative group of Laurent monomials in variables $\{q_i: i\in I\}$.
Addition $\oplus$ is defined by
$$\prod\limits_i q_i^{a_i}\oplus\prod\limits_i q_i^{b_i}=\prod\limits_i q_i^{\min(a_i,b_i)}$$
$\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf L}$ is called {\it tropical semifield} associated with multi-lamination ${\mathbf L}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[{{\it Tropical lambda lengths}}]
\label{tropical lambda}
Let $\overline{\mathbf L}=(\bar L_i)_{i\in I}$ be a lift of a multi-lamination $\mathbf L$.
The {\it tropical lambda length} of a tagged arc $\gamma\subset \hat O_{\overline M}\cup \partial \hat {\mathcal O}$ with respect to
$\overline L$ is
$$
c_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\gamma)=\prod\limits_{i\in I} q^{-l_{\overline L_i}(\gamma)/2}\in \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf L}.
$$
\end{definition}
\noindent
Tropical lambda lengths satisfy the equality
$$
c_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\psi_p\gamma)=c_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(p)^{t}c_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\gamma),
$$
where $t=0$ if $\gamma$ tagged plain and $t=1$ if $\gamma$ tagged notched at $z_p$, and
$$
c_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(p)=c_{\mathbf L}(p)=\prod\limits_{i\in I} q^{-l_{\overline L_i}(p)/2}\in \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf L}.
$$
Tropical lambda lengths of boundary segments, holes, or arcs that are not incident to punctures do not depend on the choice of
a lift $\overline {\mathbf L}$. So, we can use the notation $c_{\mathbf L}(\beta)=c_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\beta)$ for
$\beta\subset \partial \hat {\mathcal O}$, or $c_{\mathbf L}(p)=c_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(p)$ for $p\in \overline M$.
Similarly to ordinary lambda lengths, tropical lambda length of a given arc does not depend on a tagged triangulation containing the arc.
The main property of tropical lambda lengths is that they satisfy the tropical version of Ptolemy relations:
to obtain tropical version of an expression containing operations ``$\cdot$'' and ``$+$''
(multiplication and addition), one substitutes multiplication $c\cdot b$ and addition $a+b$ by addition $a\oplus b$ and
minimum $\min(a,b)$ respectively.
For example, the relation $e\cdot f=a\cdot c+b\cdot d$ turns into $e\oplus f=max(a\oplus c, b\oplus d)$.
It is shown in~\cite{FT} that tropical lambda lengths satisfy tropical versions of Ptolemy relations in the surface settings.
To adjust the statement to the orbifold settings one needs to check the relations listed in Lemmas~\ref{Ptolemy-prime},~\ref{Ptolemy-local} and~\ref{Ptolemy-gen}.
This is a straightforward verification based on the computing of the intersection numbers.
\begin{definition}[{{\it Laminated Teichm\"uller space}}]
\label{laminated teichm}
For a multi-lamination $\mathbf L=(L_i)_{i\in I}$ on $\hat{\mathcal O}$, the {\it laminated Teichm\"uller space}
$\overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}, \mathbf L)$ is defined as follows.
A point $(\sigma,q)\in \overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}, \mathbf L)$ is a decorated hyperbolic structure $\sigma\in \overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O})$
together with a collection of positive real weights $q=(q_i)_{i\in I}$ which are chosen so that the following boundary conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item for each boundary segment $\beta\subset \partial \hat {\mathcal O}$, we have $\lambda_\sigma(\beta)=c_{\mathbf L}(\beta)$;
\item for each hole $C_p$ with $p\in \overline M$, we have $\lambda_\sigma(p)=c_{\mathbf L}(p)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{prop}
\label{14.2}
Let $\mathbf L=(L_i)_{i\in I}$ be a multi-lamination in $\hat {\mathcal O}$ and let $\widehat T$ be a tagged triangulation of $\hat {\mathcal O}$.
Choose a lift $\overline {\mathbf L}=(\overline L_i)$ of $\mathbf L$, and choose a lift of each of the $n$ arcs $\gamma \in \widehat T$
to an arc on $\hat {\mathcal O}_{\overline M}$. Then the map
$$
\Psi: \overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}, \mathbf L)\to {\mathbb R}^{n+|I|}_{>0}
$$
defined by
$$
\Psi(\sigma,q)=(\lambda_\sigma(\bar \gamma))_{\gamma\in \widehat T}\times q
$$
is a homeomorphism. The same is true with the lambda lengths $\lambda(\bar \gamma)$ replaced by their rescaled versions $c(\bar \gamma)$
defined by~(\ref{rescaled lambda length}).
\end{prop}
The proposition follows from Proposition~\ref{prop 9.5} and Definition~\ref{laminated teichm}.
\begin{definition}[{{\it Laminated lambda lengths}}]
\label{laminated lambda}
Fix a lift $\overline {\mathbf L}$ of a multi-lamination $\mathbf L$. For a tagged arc $\gamma$ on $\hat O$, the {\it laminated
lambda length} $x_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\gamma)$ is a function on the laminated Teichm\"uller space $\overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}, \mathbf L)$
defined by
$$
x_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\gamma)=x(\bar \gamma)/c_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\bar \gamma),
$$
where $\bar\gamma$ is an arbitrary lift of $\gamma$, $x(\bar \gamma)$ is a rescaled lambda length defined
by~(\ref{rescaled lambda length}), and $c_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\bar \gamma)$ is the tropical lambda length as in
Definition~\ref{tropical lambda}.
\end{definition}
The value of $x_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\gamma)$ does not depend on the choice of the lift $\bar \gamma$ since
$x(\bar \gamma)$ and $c_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\bar \gamma)$ are rescaled by the same factor $c_{\mathbf L}(p)=\lambda_\sigma(p)$
as $\bar \gamma$ twists around the opening $C_p$.
\begin{cor}
For a tagged triangulation $\widehat T$ of $\hat {\mathcal O}$, the map
$$
\begin{array}{rll}
\overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}, \mathbf L) &\to & {\mathbb R}^{n+|I|}_{>0}\\
(\sigma,q) &\mapsto & (x_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\gamma))_{\gamma\in\widehat T}\times q\\
\end{array}
$$
is a homeomorphism. (As before, $\overline {\mathbf L}$ is a lift of a multi-lamination $\mathbf L$).
\end{cor}
\section{Cluster algebras with arbitrary coefficients associated with orbifolds}
\label{main}
Now, we are ready to present the main construction: a geometric realization of any cluster algebra with $s$-decomposable exchange matrix.
Let us recall the main idea of~\cite{FT}. For
a suitable choice of coefficients the corresponding cluster variables can be identified with lambda lengths (see also Section~\ref{sec-geom}). To introduce principal (and in view of~\cite{FZ4} arbitrary) coefficients special laminations on the surface are used. However, a price needs to be paid for introducing principal coefficients since standard lambda lengths do not satisfy cluster relations with coefficients. In order to compensate disturbance caused by coefficients one needs to replace lambda lengths by \emph{laminated lambda lengths}. Geometric meaning of laminated lambda length is a ratio of lambda length and its tropical limit (see~\cite{FT} and Section~\ref{sec-teichm}). The whole construction can be transferred with almost no changes to orbifolds.
In short, the cluster variables in the construction are interpreted as laminated lambda lengths
$x_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\gamma)$ of tagged arcs on the associated orbifold,
while coefficients $q_i$ are functions on the laminated Teihm\"uller space $\overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}, \mathbf L)$.
Before stating the theorem, we shortly remind the whole construction. The stars label the steps where we need to adjust construction from \cite{FT} to orbifold case (in contrast to the other steps, where the definitions are copied straightforwardly from the surface case).
\begin{itemize}
\item[$1^*.$] Define s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrix via s-decomposable diagrams (see Definitions~\ref{s-dec diagr},~\ref{s-dec matr})).
\item[$2^*.$] Given an s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrix $B$, construct weighted diagram $\mathsf{D}(B)$ and weighted orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w$ (see Definitions~\ref{s-dec diagr},~\ref{s-dec matr}).
\item[$3^*.$] Given a weighted orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w$ build an associated orbifold $\hat {\mathcal O}$ as in Definition~\ref{def-ass-gen}.
\item[$4^*.$] Define lambda length $\lambda(\gamma)$ of an arc $\gamma$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ (see Definition~\ref{lambda}) and a decorated Teichm\"uller
space $\widetilde {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O})$ (Definition~\ref{dec teichm}).
\item[$5^*.$] Define laminations on the associated orbifold (Definition~\ref{def-lam}) and shear coordinates
(Definition~\ref{def-shear}).
\item[$6$.] Define an opened associated orbifold $\hat {\mathcal O}_P$ (Definition~\ref{opened}), and lifts $\bar \gamma$ of an arc
$\gamma\in \hat {\mathcal O}$ and $\overline L$ of a lamination $L$ from $\hat {\mathcal O}$ to $\hat {\mathcal O}_{P}$
(see Definition~\ref{lifts} and~\ref{lift of lam} respectively). Define partial Teichm\"uller space $\widetilde {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O}_P)$
(Definition~\ref{partial teichm}) and complete Teichm\"uller space $\overline T(\hat O)$ (Definition~\ref{complete teichm}).
\item[$7$.] Define lambda length $\lambda(\bar \gamma)$ on the opened orbifold $\hat{\mathcal O}_P$
(Definition~\ref{lambda opened}), as well as rescaled lambda length $x(\bar \gamma)$ (see~(\ref{rescaled lambda length})).
\item[$8$.] Define transverse measure $l_{\bar L}(\gamma)$ (Definition~\ref{transverse}) and tropical lambda length
$c_{\overline {\mathbf L} }(\gamma)$ (Definition~\ref{tropical lambda}).
\item[$9$.]
Define laminated Teichm\"uller space $\overline{\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O},\mathbf L )$ (Definition~\ref{laminated teichm})
and laminated lambda length $x_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\gamma)$ (Definition~\ref{laminated lambda}).
\end{itemize}
Now, we are able to state the main theorems.
\begin{theorem}
\label{14.6}
For a given associated orbifold $\hat {\mathcal O}$ with a given
multi-lamination $\mathbf L=(L_i)_{i\in I}$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$, there exists a unique cluster algebra ${\mathcal A}$ of geometric type
with the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item the coefficient semifield is the tropical semifield $\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf L}=Trop(q_i:i\in I)$;
\item the cluster variables $x_{\mathbf L}(\gamma)$ are labeled by the tagged arcs $\gamma$ on $\hat {\mathcal O}$;
\item the extended exchange matrix $\tilde B(\widehat T,\mathbf L)$ is the extended signed adjacency matrix described in Definition~\ref{multi,extended};
\item the seeds $(\mathbf x(\hat T),\tilde B(\widehat T,\mathbf L))$ are labeled by tagged triangulations $\hat T$ of $\hat {\mathcal O}$;
\item the exchange graph is the graph of flips of tagged triangulations of $\hat{\mathcal O}$.
\end{itemize}
This cluster algebra has a realization by functions on the laminated Teichm\"uller space $\overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O},\mathbf L)$.
To obtain this realization, choose a lift $\overline {\mathbf L}$ of the multi-lamination $\mathbf L$; then represent each cluster
variable $x_{\mathbf L}(\gamma)$ by the corresponding laminated lambda length $x_{\overline {\mathbf L}}(\gamma)$, and each coefficient
variable $q_i$ by the corresponding function on $\overline {\mathcal T}(\hat {\mathcal O},\mathbf L)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{cor}
\label{5.1}
Let $T_0$ be a tagged triangulation consisting of $n$ tagged arcs in $\hat{\mathcal O}$.
Let $\Sigma_0=({\bf x}(T_0),{\bf p}(T_0),B(T_0))$ be a triple such that
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\bf x}(T_0)$ is an $n$-tuple of formal variables labeled by the arcs in $T_0$;
\item ${\bf p}(T_0)$ is an $2n$-tuple of elements $(p^\pm(e))$, $e$ is an edge of $T_0$ of a tropical semifield ${\mathbb P}$ satisfying normalization condition $p^+(e)\oplus p^-(e)=1$ ;
\item $B(T_0)$ is the signed adjacency matrix of $T_0$
\end{itemize}
\noindent Then there is a unique normalized cluster algebra ${\mathcal A}$ with initial seed $\Sigma_0$ whose exchange graph is coincides with the exchange graph of tagged triangulations of $\hat{\mathcal O}$.
Moreover,
\begin{itemize}
\item the seeds are labeled by tagged triangulations of $\hat{\mathcal O}$;
\item the cluster variables are labeled by tagged arcs and each cluster variable $x_\gamma=x_\gamma(T)$ does not depend on tagged triangulation $T$.
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}
\label{5.2}
Let ${\mathcal A}$ be a cluster algebra whose exchange matrix is s-decomposable. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item each seed in ${\mathcal A}$ is uniquely determined by its cluster;
\item the cluster complex and the exchange graph $\mathbf E$ of ${\mathcal A}$ do not depend on the choice of coefficients in ${\mathcal A}$;
\item the seeds containing a given cluster variable form a connected subgraph in $\mathbf E$;
\item several cluster variables appear together in the same cluster if and only if every pair among them does;
\item the cluster complex is the complex of the tagged arcs on the corresponding orbifold.
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}
Proofs of Theorems~\ref{14.6} and Corollaries~\ref{5.1},~\ref{5.2} repeat word-by-word the proofs of~\cite[Theorem~14.6]{FT},~\cite[Theorem~5.1]{FT} and~\cite[Corollary~5.2]{FT}.\\
\section{Growth rate of geometric cluster algebras}
\label{sec-growth}
In this section, we compute growth of cluster algebras arising from orbifolds. Combining with classification of mutation-finite cluster algebras~\cite{FST2}, this determines growth of all but small finite number of exceptional cluster algebras. The work will be completed in the upcoming paper.
A cluster algebra (or the corresponding exchange graph) has {\it polynomial growth} if the number of distinct seeds which can be
obtained from a fixed initial seed by at most $n$ mutations is bounded by a polynomial function of $n$.
A cluster algebra has {\it exponential growth} if the number of such seeds is bounded from below by an
exponentially growing function of $n$.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem_growth}
According to Corollary~\ref{5.2}, exchange graph of cluster algebra with s-decom\-posable exchange matrix depends on the exchange matrix only. Mutations of a matrix, in their turn, are completely determined by mutations of the diagram of the matrix. Thus, while investigating growth of a cluster algebra with exchange matrix $B$ in some seed, we can look instead at cluster algebra with any exchange matrix $B'$ such that $\mathsf{D}(B')=\mathsf{D}(B)$.
\end{remark}
According to remark~\ref{rem_growth}, to determine the growth rate of cluster algebra ${\mathcal A}$ with s-decomposable exchange matrix $B$, we
may assume without loss of generality that the weighted orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w={\mathcal O}^w(B)$ contains orbifold points of weight 2 only.
For such an orbifold, we can build the associated surface ${\mathcal S}={\mathcal S}({\mathcal O}^w)$ as in Definition~\ref{ass surface}
(in other words, the associated orbifold $\hat {\mathcal O}^w$ is a surface in this case).
We will compare the exchange graph of tagged triangulations of ${\mathcal O}^w$ with the exchange graph of tagged triangulations of
${\mathcal S}({\mathcal O}^w)$, whose growth is known due to~\cite[Proposition~11.1]{FST}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{quasiisom}
Let ${\mathcal O}^w$ be a weighted orbifold with orbifold points of weight 2 only. Let ${\mathcal S}({\mathcal O}^w)$ be the associated surface.
Then the exchange graph of tagged triangulations of ${\mathcal O}^w$ is quasi-isometric to the exchange graph of tagged triangulations
of ${\mathcal S}({\mathcal O}^w)$.
\end{theorem}
To prove Theorem~\ref{quasiisom} it is sufficient to show the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{conj pairs}
Let $S$ be a bordered surface with marked points, and let $T$ be a triangulation of $S$. Let ${\mathfrak M}$ be any proper subset of the set of punctures. Then there exists a positive integer $N=N(S,|M|)$ depending on the surface $S$ and the cardinality $|M|$ of the set $M$ only, such that $T$ can be turned via at most $N$ flips into a triangulation $T'$ having a conjugate pair in each vertex $x\in {\mathfrak M}$.
\end{lemma}
Indeed, exchange graph of triangulations of ${\mathcal O}^w$ is isomorphic to exchange graph of triangulations of ${\mathcal S}$ with conjugate pairs in all special marked points, where conjugate pairs should be flipped simultaneously. Lemma~\ref{conj pairs} implies that the latter graph is quasi-isometric to the exchange graph of triangulations of ${\mathcal S}$, and the theorem follows.
We define the notion of {\it valence} in tagged triangulations consistent with one for untagged triangulations.
\begin{definition}
\label{val}
The {\it valence} of a marked point $x\in S$ in triangulation $T$ is the number of ends of arcs incident to $x$, with one exception. If $(\gamma, \gamma')$ is a conjugate pair in $x$, and $y$ is the other end of $\gamma$ (and $\gamma'$), then valence of $x$ is $1$, and the contribution of $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ to the valence of $y$ is equal to $3$.
\end{definition}
To prove Lemma~\ref{conj pairs}, we will need the three technical lemmas. First, we show that we can decrease the valence under some assumptions.
\begin{lemma}
\label{valence}
Let $T$ be a triangulation containing an arc $e$ with ends $x$ and $y$, $x\ne y$.
If there is no conjugate pair in $x$ then there exists an arc $e'\ne e$ incident to $x$ such that the flip in $e'$ decreases the valence
of $x$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the arcs $e_1$ and $e_2$ incident to $x$ and neighboring to $e$ (say, $e_2$ follows $e$ and $e$ follows $e_1$
in the clockwise order, see Fig.~\ref{fig valence}.a ($e_1$ may coincide with $e_2$, see~Fig.~\ref{fig valence}.b).
If $e_1$ coincides with $e_2$ then we have two triangles containing arcs
$e$ and $e_1=e_2$, as in Fig.~\ref{fig valence}.b, so, after a flip in $e_1=e_2$ the valence of $x$ decreases from 2 to 1,
and we obtain a conjugate pair in $x$.
Suppose that $e_1\ne e_2$. Consider a flip $f_1$ in $e_1$. If both ends of $f_1(e_1)$ are distinct from $x$ then the flip $f_1$
decreases the valence of $x$ at least by 1. Suppose that one end of $f_1(e_1)$ coincides with $x$. Then the arc $e_3$ incident to
$x$ and following $e_1$ in a clockwise direction (say $e_3$, see Fig.~\ref{fig valence}.c) has both ends in $x$.
Therefore, if $e_1$ has two distinct ends, then flip in $e_3$ decreases the valence of $x$, otherwise the flip in $e_1$ takes one end of $e_1$ to $y$, so it decreases the valence of $x$ as well (as $x\ne y$).
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{x}{\scriptsize $x$}
\psfrag{y}{\scriptsize $y$}
\psfrag{e}{\scriptsize $e$}
\psfrag{e1}{\scriptsize $e_1$}
\psfrag{e12}{\scriptsize $e_1=e_2$}
\psfrag{e2}{\scriptsize $e_2$}
\psfrag{e3}{\scriptsize $e_3$}
\psfrag{a}{\small a)}
\psfrag{b}{\small b)}
\psfrag{c}{\small c)}
\epsfig{file=pic/valency.eps,width=0.98\linewidth}
\caption{To the proof of Lemma~\ref{valence}}
\label{fig valence}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We will say that a vertex $x\in {\mathfrak M}$ is {\it filled} if there is a conjugate pair in $x$
and the arc incident to $x$ is not incident to other vertices $y\in {\mathfrak M}$.
The second technical lemma concerns the structure on unfilled vertices.
\begin{lemma}
\label{chain}
Let $T$ be a triangulation such that a vertex $x\in{\mathfrak M}$ is not filled. Then there exists a vertex $z\in{\mathfrak M}$ such that $z$ is not filled
and $z$ joined with some vertex $y\notin {\mathfrak M}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since ${\mathfrak M}$ is a proper subset of the set of vertices of $T$, there exists a vertex $y_0\notin {\mathfrak M}$. Consider the shortest path $\alpha=\{e_1,\dots,e_l\}$ connecting $x$ to $y_0$.
Note that no vertex of the path $\alpha$ can be a filled vertex from ${\mathfrak M}$ (the filled vertices are of valence 1).
Since $x\in {\mathfrak M}$ and $y_0\notin {\mathfrak M}$, there exists an arc $e_i\in \alpha$ whose one edge belongs to ${\mathfrak M}$ and the other does not.
Denote by $z$ and $y$ the ends of $e_i$ contained in ${\mathfrak M}$ and the other respectively.
Then $z$ and $y$ satisfy the conditions of the lemma.
\end{proof}
The third lemma shows that every unfilled vertex $x\in{\mathfrak M}$ can be filled in a uniformly bounded number of flips.
\begin{lemma}
\label{next filled}
Let ${\mathfrak M}=\{x_1,\dots,x_m\}$, and let $T$ be a triangulation where $x_1,\dots,x_k$ are filled and the other vertices are not filled.
Let $E$ be the number of arcs in $T$.
Then it is possible to find a vertex $x_j\in \{x_{k+1},\dots,x_m \}$
such that after at most $E$ flips of arcs incident to $x_j$ the vertex $x_j$ becomes filled.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{chain}, there exists a vertex $x_j\in \{x_{k+1},\dots,x_m \}$ which is not filled and is joined with some vertex $y\notin {\mathfrak M}$.
By Lemma~\ref{valence}, it is possible to make a flip in some arc incident to $x_j$ (and distinct from $x_jy$) such that valence of $x_j$
decreases. Applying Lemma~\ref{valence} to $x_j$ several times, we decrease the valence of $x_j$ to 1 in less than $E$ flips.
So, in less than $E$ flips of arcs incident to $x_j$ we obtain a conjugate pair in $x_j$ with the other end of conjugate pair in $y\notin {\mathfrak M}$, so $x_j$ is filled.
\end{proof}
Now, we are able to prove Lemma~\ref{conj pairs}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{conj pairs}]
The proof is by induction on the number of filled vertices. Let ${\mathfrak M}=\{x_1,\dots,x_m\}$ ($m=|{\mathfrak M}|$) and let $E$ be the number of arcs in
the triangulation $T$. Suppose that the vertices $x_1,\dots,x_k$
are filled. By Lemma~\ref{next filled}, we can make one of the vertices $x_{j}\in\{x_{k+1},\dots,x_m \}$ filled
via at most $E$ flips applied only to arcs incident to $x_j$.
Notice that by definition of filled vertex none of the vertices $x_i\in\{ x_1,\dots,x_k\}$ was joined with $x_j$.
This implies that while treating $x_{j}$ we preserve the vertices $x_1,\dots,x_k$ filled, so that after the procedure we
have a triangulation with $k+1$ filled vertices.
Applying this procedure $m$ times we will get $m$ filled vertices in at most $N(S,m=|{\mathfrak M}|)=Em$ flips.
\end{proof}
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{quasiisom}.
In view of Remark~\ref{rem_growth}, Theorem~\ref{quasiisom} together with~\cite[Proposition~11.1]{FST}
lead to the following result.
\begin{theorem}
\label{grows result}
Let ${\mathcal A}$ be a cluster algebra with an s-decomposable exchange matrix $B$. Then ${\mathcal A}$ has a polynomial growth if and
only if it correspond to a diagram $\mathsf{D}(B)$ in the following list:
\begin{itemize}
\item finite type $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$ or $D_n$ (finite);
\item affine type $\widetilde A_n$, $\widetilde B_n$, $\widetilde C_n$ or $\widetilde D_n$ (linear growth);
\item diagram $\Gamma(n_1,n_2)$ ($n_1,n_2\in {\mathbb Z}_{>0}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{growth-diagr} (quadratic growth);
\item diagram $\Delta(n_1,n_2)$ ($n_1,n_2\in {\mathbb Z}_{>0}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{growth-diagr} (quadratic growth);
\item diagram $\Gamma(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ ($n_1,n_2,n_3\in {\mathbb Z}_{>0}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{growth-diagr} (cubic growth).
\end{itemize}
Otherwise ${\mathcal A}$ has exponential growth.
\end{theorem}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{rl}
$\Gamma(n_1,n_2)$&
\psfrag{a1}{\scriptsize $a_1$}
\psfrag{a2}{\scriptsize $a_2$}
\psfrag{an1-}{\scriptsize $a_{n_1-1}$}
\psfrag{an1}{\scriptsize $a_{n_1}$}
\psfrag{b1}{\scriptsize $b_1$}
\psfrag{b2}{\scriptsize $b_2$}
\psfrag{bn2+}{\scriptsize $b_{n_2+1}$}
\psfrag{bn2}{\scriptsize $b_{n_2}$}
\psfrag{b0}{\scriptsize $b_0$}
\psfrag{b0'}{\scriptsize $b_0'$}
\psfrag{c1}{\scriptsize $c_1$}
\psfrag{cn3-}{\scriptsize $c_{n_3-1}$}
\psfrag{cn3}{\scriptsize $c_{n_3}$}
\psfrag{dots}{\scriptsize $\dots$}
\raisebox{-18pt}{
\epsfig{file=pic/growth2.eps,width=0.716\linewidth}
}
\\
$\Gamma(n_1,n_2,n_3)$&
\psfrag{a1}{\scriptsize $a_1$}
\psfrag{a2}{\scriptsize $a_2$}
\psfrag{an1-}{\scriptsize $a_{n_1-1}$}
\psfrag{an1}{\scriptsize $a_{n_1}$}
\psfrag{b1}{\scriptsize $b_1$}
\psfrag{b2}{\scriptsize $b_2$}
\psfrag{bn2+}{\scriptsize $b_{n_2+1}$}
\psfrag{bn2++}{\scriptsize $b_{n_2+2}$}
\psfrag{bn2}{\scriptsize $b_{n_2}$}
\psfrag{b0}{\scriptsize $b_0$}
\psfrag{b0'}{\scriptsize $b_0'$}
\psfrag{c1}{\scriptsize $c_1$}
\psfrag{cn3-}{\scriptsize $c_{n_3-1}$}
\psfrag{cn3}{\scriptsize $c_{n_3}$}
\psfrag{dots}{\scriptsize $\dots$}
\raisebox{-18pt}{
\epsfig{file=pic/growth3.eps,width=0.68\linewidth}
}\\
$\Delta(n_1,n_2)$&
\psfrag{a1}{\scriptsize $a_1$}
\psfrag{a2}{\scriptsize $a_2$}
\psfrag{an1-}{\scriptsize $a_{n_1-1}$}
\psfrag{an1}{\scriptsize $a_{n_1}$}
\psfrag{b1}{\scriptsize $b_1$}
\psfrag{b2}{\scriptsize $b_2$}
\psfrag{bn2+}{\scriptsize $b_{n_2+1}$}
\psfrag{bn2}{\scriptsize $b_{n_2}$}
\psfrag{b0}{\scriptsize $b_0$}
\psfrag{b0'}{\scriptsize $b_0'$}
\psfrag{c1}{\scriptsize $c_1$}
\psfrag{cn3-}{\scriptsize $c_{n_3-1}$}
\psfrag{cn3}{\scriptsize $c_{n_3}$}
\psfrag{dots}{\scriptsize $\dots$}
\psfrag{2}{$2$}
\raisebox{-18pt}{
\epsfig{file=pic/growth23.eps,width=0.68\linewidth}
}\end{tabular}
\caption{Diagrams for the cluster algebras of quadratic and cubic growth. All triangles are oriented. Orientations of the remaining
edges are of no importance. Diagrams $\Gamma(n_1,n_2)$ and $\Gamma(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ are obtained in~\cite{FST} for skew-symmetric case.
}
\label{growth-diagr}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Unfoldings of matrices and diagrams}
\label{unfolding-s}
In this section, we recall basic definitions of unfoldings of matrices and diagrams defined in~\cite{FST2}, and reformulate some constructions of~\cite{FST2} in terms of orbifolds.
\subsection{Definitions}
\label{unf-def}
Let $B$ be an indecomposable $n\times n$ skew-symmetrizable integer matrix, and let $BD$ be a skew-symmetric matrix, where $D=(d_{i})$ is diagonal integer matrix with positive diagonal entries. Notice that for any matrix $\mu_i(B)$ the matrix $\mu_i(B)D$ will be skew-symmetric.
We use the following definition of unfolding of a skew-symmetrizable matrix (communicated to us by A.~Zelevinsky).
Suppose that we have chosen disjoint index sets $E_1,\dots, E_n$ with $|E_i| =d_i$. Denote $m=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n d_i$.
Suppose also that we choose a skew-symmetric integer matrix $C$ of size $m\times m$ with rows and columns indexed by the union of all $E_i$, such that
(1) the sum of entries in each column of each $E_i \times E_j$ block of $C$ equals $b_{ij}$;
(2) if $b_{ij} \geq 0$ then the $E_i \times E_j$ block of $C$ has all entries non-negative.
Define a {\it composite mutation} $\widehat\mu_i = \prod_{\hat\imath \in E_i} \mu_{\hat\imath}$ on $C$. This mutation is well-defined, since all the mutations $\mu_{\hat\imath}$, $\hat\imath\in E_i$, for given $i$ commute.
\begin{definition}
Skew-symmetric matrix $C$ is an {\it unfolding} of skew-symmetrizable matrix $B$ if $C$ satisfies assertions $(1)$ and $(2)$ above, and for any sequence of iterated mutations $\mu_{k_1}\dots\mu_{k_m}(B)$ the matrix $C'=\widehat\mu_{k_1}\dots\widehat\mu_{k_m}(C)$ satisfies assertions $(1)$ and $(2)$ with respect to $B'=\mu_{k_1}\dots\mu_{k_m}(B)$.
\end{definition}
If $C$ is an unfolding of a skew-symmetrizable integer matrix $B$, it is natural to define an {\it unfolding of a diagram} of $B$ as a diagram of $C$. In general, we say that a diagram $\widehat\mathsf{D}$ is an unfolding of a diagram $\mathsf{D}$ if there exist matrices $B$ and $C$ with diagrams $\mathsf{D}$ and $\widehat\mathsf{D}$ respectively, and $C$ is an unfolding of $B$. This definition is equivalent to the following one.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathsf{D}$ be a diagram with vertices $x_1,\dots,x_n$, and let $d_1,\dots,d_n$ be positive integers. Let $\widehat\mathsf{D}$ be a connected skew-symmetric diagram with vertices $x_{\hat\imath}$ indexed by sets $E_i$ of order $d_i$, such that for each $i,j\in\[1\dots n\]$ the following holds:
(A) there are no edges joining vertices inside $E_i$ and $E_j$;
(B) for all $\hat\imath\in E_i$ the sum of weights of all edges joining $x_{\hat\imath}$ with $E_j$ is the same, and all the arrows are oriented simultaneously either from $E_i$ to $E_j$ or from $E_j$ to $E_i$;
(C) the product of total weight of edges joining $x_{\hat\imath}$ with $E_j$ and total weight of edges joining $x_{\hat\jmath}$ with $E_i$ equals the weight of $x_ix_j$.
Define a {\it composite mutation} $\widehat\mu_i = \prod_{\hat\imath \in E_i} \mu_{\hat\imath}$ on $\widehat S$. As in the case of matrices, the mutation is well-defined. We say that $\widehat\mathsf{D}$ is an {\it unfolding} of $\mathsf{D}$ if for any sequence of iterated mutations $\mu_{i_1}\dots\mu_{i_k}$ a pair of diagrams $(\mu_{i_1}\dots\mu_{i_k}\! \mathsf{D},\,\widehat\mu_{i_1}\dots\widehat\mu_{i_k}\!\widehat\mathsf{D}\,)$ satisfies the same conditions as the pair $(\mathsf{D},\widehat\mathsf{D})$ does, i.e. for each $i,j\le n$ the assumptions (A), (B) and (C) hold.
\end{definition}
One can note that unfolding of a diagram may not be unique: if diagram corresponds to more than one matrix, then these matrices may have distinct unfoldings with distinct diagrams.
\subsection{Local unfoldings}
\label{unf-local}
In~\cite{FST2}, we build an unfolding for every s-decomposable diagram $\mathsf{D}$ in the following way: every s-block of $\mathsf{D}$ (see column~2 of Table~\ref{table-loc}) is substituted by a skew-symmetric block located in the same row of Table~\ref{table-loc}. The procedure is well-defined since there is a one-to-one correspondence between s-blocks and their unfoldings. According to~\cite[Section~6]{FST2}, the procedure above results in an unfolding of $\mathsf{D}$.
\begin{definition}
The unfolding constructed above is called {\it local} unfolding.
\end{definition}
In terms of s-decomposable matrices, this procedure provides an unfolding of a skew-symmetrizable matrix $B$ with diagram $\mathsf{D}$ such that weights of all the outlets of weighted diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$ are equal to one.
Local unfolding can be reformulated in terms of orbifolds as well. Consider skew-symmetrizable matrix $B$ as above, and construct a weighted orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w$. Assumptions on $B$ imply that all orbifold points of ${\mathcal O}^w$ have weight $2$. Substituting every orbifold point by a puncture, and every arc by a conjugate pair, we obtain the associated surface (see Definition~\ref{ass surface}), and then take the signed adjacency matrix of the obtained triangulation. In other words, we substitute all elementary orbifolds (Section~\ref{orbifolds-s}) by elementary surfaces depicted in the same row of Table~\ref{table-loc} (cf. Remark~\ref{ex gr ass surf}).
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Triangulations of blocks corresponding to local unfoldings}
\label{table-loc}
\begin{tabular}{cp{0.7cm}cp{0.7cm}c}
Diagram&&Unfolding&&Triangulation\\
\hline
&&&&\\
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{v}{\tiny $v$}
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\raisebox{8mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block3atl.eps,width=0.105\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{v1}{\tiny $v_1$}
\psfrag{v2}{\tiny $v_2$}
\raisebox{4mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block3al.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{v1}{\tiny $v_1$}
\psfrag{v2}{\tiny $v_2$}
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/s-block-I.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}\\
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{v}{\tiny $v$}
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\raisebox{8mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block3btl.eps,width=0.105\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{v1}{\tiny $v_1$}
\psfrag{v2}{\tiny $v_2$}
\raisebox{4mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block3bl.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{v1}{\tiny $v_1$}
\psfrag{v2}{\tiny $v_2$}
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/s-block-II.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}\\
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{v}{\tiny $v$}
\psfrag{w}{\tiny $w$}
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\raisebox{6mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block4tl.eps,width=0.105\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{w}{\tiny $w$}
\psfrag{v1}{\tiny $v_1$}
\psfrag{v2}{\tiny $v_2$}
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block4l.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{w}{\tiny $w$}
\psfrag{v1}{\tiny $v_1$}
\psfrag{v2}{\tiny $v_2$}
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/s-block-III.eps,width=0.09\linewidth}}\\
&&&&\\
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{w}{\tiny $w$}
\psfrag{p}{\tiny $p$}
\psfrag{q}{\tiny $q$}
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block51tl.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{r}{\tiny $q$}
\psfrag{w}{\tiny $w_2$}
\psfrag{p}{\tiny $p$}
\psfrag{q}{\tiny $w_1$}
\raisebox{4mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block5l.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{w1}{\tiny $p$}
\psfrag{w2}{\tiny $q$}
\psfrag{p1}{\tiny $w_1$}
\psfrag{p2}{\tiny $w_2$}
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/s-block-IV.eps,width=0.15\linewidth}}\\
&&&&\\
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{w}{\tiny $w$}
\psfrag{p}{\tiny $p$}
\psfrag{q}{\tiny $q$}
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block52tl.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{r}{\tiny $w_2$}
\psfrag{w}{\tiny $q$}
\psfrag{p}{\tiny $w_1$}
\psfrag{q}{\tiny $p$}
\raisebox{4mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block5l.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{w1}{\tiny $w_1$}
\psfrag{w2}{\tiny $w_2$}
\psfrag{p1}{\tiny $p$}
\psfrag{p2}{\tiny $q$}
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/s-block-VI.eps,width=0.15\linewidth}}\\
&&&&\\
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{w}{\tiny $p$}
\psfrag{p}{\tiny $w$}
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}\psfrag{4}{\tiny $4$}
\raisebox{5mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block512tl.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{r}{\tiny $w_2$}
\psfrag{w}{\tiny $p_2$}
\psfrag{p}{\tiny $w_1$}
\psfrag{q}{\tiny $p_1$}
\raisebox{3mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block5l.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{w1}{\tiny $w_1$}
\psfrag{w2}{\tiny $w_2$}
\psfrag{p1}{\tiny $p_1$}
\psfrag{p2}{\tiny $p_2$}
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/s-block-VI.eps,width=0.15\linewidth}}\\
&&&&\\
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u$}
\psfrag{r}{\tiny $r$}
\psfrag{w}{\tiny $w$}
\psfrag{p}{\tiny $p$}
\psfrag{q}{\tiny $q$}
\psfrag{2-}{\tiny $2$}
\raisebox{6mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block6tl.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{u1}{\tiny $u_1$}
\psfrag{u2}{\tiny $u_2$}
\psfrag{r}{\tiny $r$}
\psfrag{w}{\tiny $w$}
\psfrag{p}{\tiny $p$}
\psfrag{q}{\tiny $q$}
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/block6l.eps,width=0.12\linewidth}}&&
\psfrag{w1}{\tiny $p$}
\psfrag{w2}{\tiny $r$}
\psfrag{u}{\tiny $u_1$}
\psfrag{v}{\tiny $u_2$}
\psfrag{p}{\tiny $w$}
\psfrag{q}{\tiny $q$}
\raisebox{0mm}{\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/s-block-VII.eps,width=0.11\linewidth}}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Unfoldings of mutation-finite matrices}
\label{unfolding-fin}
In this section, we provide unfoldings for s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrices (with exception of one family, see Remark~\ref{unf-ex}). Unfoldings of mutation-finite non-decomposable matrices are constructed in~\cite{FST2}. In other words, we associate with (almost) every triangulated weighted orbifold a triangulated surface, such that flips on the orbifold agree with composite flips on the surface.
Matrix $B$ not admitting local unfolding is characterized by the following property: weights of all outlets in its weighted diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$ are equal to $2$. Further considerations split in two cases depending on the weights of orbifold points of the orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w$: either all the orbifold points are of weight $1/2$ (in this case matrix admits {\it prime unfolding} constructed in Section~\ref{sec-prime}, see also Remark~\ref{unf-ex}), or there are orbifold points of both weights $2$ and $1/2$ (Section~\ref{sec-composite}).
\begin{remark}
\label{unf-ex}
The only series of s-decomposable matrices for which we are not able to construct an unfolding can be described as follows: the corresponding weighted orbifold is of genus zero without boundary, and has exactly one orbifold point of weight $1/2$. The corresponding diagrams are shown in Fig~\ref{fig-ex}. We will exclude these matrices from all considerations in Section~\ref{sec-prime}, see Section~\ref{one}.
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{1}{\scriptsize $c_1$}
\psfrag{2}{\scriptsize $c_2$}
\psfrag{3}{\scriptsize $c_3$}
\psfrag{4}{\scriptsize $c_4$}
\psfrag{5}{\scriptsize $c_5$}
\psfrag{6}{\scriptsize $c_6$}
\psfrag{7}{\scriptsize $c_7$}
\psfrag{8}{\scriptsize $c_8$}
\psfrag{3n3}{\scriptsize $c_{3n+3}$}
\psfrag{3n4}{\scriptsize $c_{3n+4}$}
\psfrag{3n5}{\scriptsize $c_{3n+5}$}
\psfrag{dd}{\scriptsize $\dots$}
\psfrag{2_}{\scriptsize $2$}
\epsfig{file=diagrams_pic/iskl.eps,width=0.78\linewidth}
\caption{Series of diagrams corresponding to closed sphere with one orbifold point and $n+3$ marked points, $n\ge 0$.}
\label{fig-ex}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For the both cases described above we need the following construction.
\begin{definition}
A {\it partial unfolding} of a skew-symmetrizable matrix $B$ is a skew-symmetrizable matrix $C$ satisfying all properties of unfolding except skew-symmetry. A {\it partial unfolding} of a diagram is defined accordingly.
\end{definition}
The following lemma follows immediately from the definition of unfolding.
\begin{lemma}
\label{composition}
A composition of two partial unfoldings is a partial unfolding.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}[{{\it Local partial unfolding}}]
\label{partial local}
In the construction of local unfolding we treat all pending arcs simultaneously. We also can do the same construction for any partial
subset of the set of all pending arcs: we can unfold only one (or several) s-blocks, while the other s-blocks remain unchanged.
Then we obtain a partial unfolding of a diagram (or a matrix), which corresponds to an orbifold with fewer orbifold points than the
initial orbifold has.
In this case we say that we perform a {\it local partial unfolding} in the given set of blocks (or in the given set of corresponding
orbifold points of weight $2$).
\end{remark}
\subsection{Prime unfoldings}
\label{sec-prime}
In this section we build a matrix unfolding for the matrices with weighted orbifolds having all orbifold points of weight $1/2$.
Let us fix s-decomposable matrix $B$, its weighted diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$, and weighted orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w$.
Given weighted orbifold ${\mathcal O}^w$, we will choose a triangulation $T$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$ of special type and build a ramified Galois covering of ${\mathcal O}^w$ by a surface $\hat S$ with branching points exactly in all orbifold points of ${\mathcal O}^w$. In case of even number of orbifold points the covering will be of degree 2, otherwise it will be of degree 4. Then we show that the composite flips of triangulation $\hat T$ of $\hat S$ (obtained as a lift of $T$)
agree with the Galois group of the covering, which allows to derive (Theorem~\ref{cover-unf}) that the properties of unfolding are satisfied.
The unfolding will be constructed for signed adjacency matrix of $T$, which is mutation-equivalent to $B$. By definition of unfolding, this is equivalent to a construction of an unfolding for $B$.
\begin{remark}
\label{ex}
The structure of a prime unfolding differs from the structure of a local unfolding. In case of local unfolding there is a natural bijection between elements of the mutation class of matrix $B$ and elements of the mutation class of its unfolding $\hat B$. This does not hold for prime unfolding: here we have a multivalued map from the mutation class of $B$ to the mutation class of $\hat B$. In other words, the graph of mutations of $\hat B$ covers the graph of mutations of $B$.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection*{Construction of Galois covering}
Denote by $z_1,\dots,z_m$ the orbifold points of ${\mathcal O}^w$.
The construction of the covering depends of the parity of the number of orbifold points on ${\mathcal O}^w$. First, we assume that $m$ is even, i.e. $m=2k$.
By Lemma~\ref{bubbles-even}, there exists a triangulation $T$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$ such that each triangle containing a pending arc
actually contains two pending arcs (all small orbifold pieces are disks with two orbifold points, and all s-blocks in the
corresponding diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$ are blocks of type $\widetilde V_{12}$).
Now, consider the monogons $\Delta_1,\dots,\Delta_k \in T$ containing two pending arcs each.
For each of these monogons we join the two orbifold points by a (non-self-intersecting) segment $s_i$ contained in $\Delta_i$.
We cut ${\mathcal O}^w$ along all $s_i$'s, take two copies ${\mathcal O}^w_1$ and ${\mathcal O}^w_2$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$, and glue the left component of $s_i\in {\mathcal O}^w_1$ to the right component of $s_i\in {\mathcal O}^w_2$, and converse. As a result, we obtain a surface $\hat S$ without orbifold points, which is a ramified covering of ${\mathcal O}^w$ (with branching in all $2k$ orbifold points) of degree $2$.
The surface $\hat S$ is endowed with a triangulation $\hat T$ covering the triangulation $T$. We will show (Theorem~\ref{cover-unf}) that signed adjacency matrix of $\hat T$ provides an unfolding of signed adjacency matrix of $T$.
\begin{remark}
\label{g1}
The covering $\pi: \hat S \to {\mathcal O}$ is a quotient by an involution on $\hat S$ acting as a central
symmetry with respect to the preimage of any orbifold point.
\end{remark}
Now assume that the number of orbifold points is odd, i.e. $m=2k+1$, $k>0$ (see~Section~\ref{one} for the case $k=0$).
This time we choose a triangulation $T$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$ of the type described in Lemma~\ref{bubbles-odd},
namely, $T$ satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item $T$ contains $k$ monogons $\Delta_1,\dots,\Delta_k$
with two pending arcs each and one digon $\Delta_0$ with one pending arc (all other triangles have no pending arcs);
\item $\Delta_0$ has a common side with $\Delta_1$.
\end{itemize}
Denote by $z_i,z_{i+1}$ the orbifold points contained in $\Delta_i$, $i>0$, and by $z_0$ the orbifold point contained in $\Delta_0$.
We construct the covering in two steps.
For each of the monogons $\Delta_1,\dots,\Delta_k$ we join the orbifold points $z_i$ and $z_{i+1}$ by a (non-self-intersecting)
segment $s_i$ contained in $\Delta_i$. Then, similarly to the case of even number of orbifold points we take two copies of
${\mathcal O}^w$, cut it along all $s_i$'s and construct a degree two ramified covering $\widetilde{\mathcal O}$
with branching points in all $2k$ orbifold points.
Note that $\widetilde{\mathcal O}$ is not a surface: it still has two orbifold points $x_0$ and $x_0'$
(which are projected to the same orbifold point $z_0$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$).
Now we can apply the algorithm for even number of orbifold points.
\subsubsection*{Verification of unfolding properties}
As before, ${\mathcal O}^w$ is an orbifold with orbifold points $z_1,\dots,z_m$ of weight $1/2$.
Denote by $\pi:\hat S \to {\mathcal O}$ the ramified Galois covering constructed above, and let $d$ be its degree (as we have seen, $d=2$ or $4$).
Let $T$ be any triangulation of ${\mathcal O}^w$ and denote by $\hat T$ its lift on $\hat S$.
For each flip $f_i$ in an arc $e_i\in T$ we define a composite flip $\hat f_i$ of $\hat T$
as a compositions of flips $f_{ik}$ in all arcs $\hat e_{ik}$ of $\hat T$ projecting to $e_i$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{correctness}
Composite flip is well defined, i.e. for any two arcs $\hat e_{ik}, \hat e_{il}\in \hat T$, such that
$\pi(\hat e_{ik})=\pi(\hat e_{il})=e_i$ one has $f_{ik}f_{il}=f_{il}f_{ik}$.
Furthermore, $\hat f_i(\hat T)=\widehat{(f_i(T))}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We prove the lemma separately for $e_i$ being a pending arc or not.
Suppose that $e_i$ is not a pending arc. Then arcs $\hat e_{i1},\dots,\hat e_{id}\in \hat T$ project to $e_i$ (recall, $d$ is the degree of the covering). Note that for $j\ne k$ two arcs $\hat e_{ij}$ and $\hat e_{ik}$ are not sides of the same triangle
(this follows from the property of the covering that there are no branching points other than orbifold points of ${\mathcal O}^w$).
Thus, the corresponding flips commute.
Now, consider two triangles attached along the common edge $e_i$, these two triangles compose a quadrilateral $q$ with diagonal $e_i$. The quadrilateral $q$ is covered by $d$ copies of $q$. The composite flip $\hat f_i$ on $\hat T$ consists of
$d$ commuting flips (of the diagonals of each of these $d$ quadrilaterals), which implies that the triangulation $\hat f_i(\hat T)$
covers the triangulation $f_i(T)$.
Suppose now that $e_i$ is a pending arc. Consider $e_i$ as a ``round trip'' from a marked point to itself via an orbifold point. Then there are exactly $d/2$ copies of this arc in $\hat T$, no pair of them are sides of one triangle (again, since there is no ramification in marked points).
Every lift $\hat e_{ij}$ of $e_i$ is a diagonal of quadrilateral which consists of two copies of the digon containing $e_i$ (the consideration for monogons is similar). All these $d/2$ quadrilaterals project to the digon containing $e_i$ (see Fig.~\ref{commute}), so we see that the lemma holds for pending arcs as well.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{e}{\scriptsize $e_i$}
\psfrag{ej}{\scriptsize $\hat e_{ij}$}
\psfrag{1}{\scriptsize $1$}
\psfrag{2}{\scriptsize $2$}
\psfrag{f1}{\scriptsize $\hat f_i$}
\psfrag{f2}{\scriptsize $f_i$}
\epsfig{file=pic/commute.eps,width=0.45\linewidth}
\caption{Composite flips and projection (one of $d/2$ congruent quadrilaterals
of $\hat T$ projecting to the digon in $T$)}
\label{commute}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Let $B$ and $C$ be the signed adjacency matrices of the triangulations $T$ and $\hat T$ respectively.
In the following theorem we prove that $C$ is an unfolding of $B$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{cover-unf}
Let ${\mathcal O}^w$ be an orbifold with all orbifold points of weight $1/2$. Let $\pi: \hat S \to {\mathcal O}^w$ be a Galois covering
whose set of branching points coincides with the set of orbifold points of ${\mathcal O}^w$, and suppose that all ramifications are simple.
Let $T$ be a tagged triangulation of ${\mathcal O}^w$ and let $\hat T $ be a tagged triangulation of $\hat S$ covering the triangulation $T$.
Let $B$ and $C$ be the signed adjacency matrices of the triangulations $T$ and $\hat T$ respectively.
Then $C$ is an unfolding of $B$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Denote by $|T|$ the number of arcs of the triangulation $T$, and denote by $d$ the degree of $\pi$.
Define the natural index sets $E_1,\dots,E_{|T|}$ for $C$: $E_i$ is the set of indices of all arcs of $\hat T$ projecting to the given arc of $T$.
Then $|E_i|=d$ for non-pending arcs $e_i\in T$ and $|E_i|=d/2$ for pending arcs $e_i$.
This exactly corresponds to the fact that all orbifold points are of weight $1/2$.
To show that $C$ is an unfolding of $B$ we need to show that for any sequence of iterated mutations
$\mu_{k_1}\dots\mu_{k_m}$ the matrices $B'=\mu_{k_1}\dots\mu_{k_m}B$ and $C'=\hat \mu_{k_1}\dots\hat \mu_{k_m}(C)$
satisfy assertions (1) and (2) of the definition of matrix unfolding.
Note that the notion of composite mutation in the definition of the unfolding coincides at the first step with the notion
of composite flip for the covering (i.e. the same indices are involved).
It follows from Lemma~\ref{correctness} that the same property holds after one composite flip
(i.e. the elements of the index set $E_i$ after one mutation still correspond to the set of arcs projected to the same arc $f_j(e_i)$ of
$f_j(T)$). This implies that the notions coincide after any number of flips and that it is sufficient to check the assertions
(1) and (2) with respect to the matrices $B$ and $C$ only.
For matrices $B$ and $C$ the properties (1) and (2) follow from the fact that $\pi$ has no ramification in the vertices of the triangulation $\hat T$. More precisely, for each angle $\alpha$ in $T$ (it may be formed by one or two arcs)
there are exactly $d$ copies of this angle in $\hat T$, and the Galois group of the covering acts on these copies transitively by orientation preserving transformations.
Therefore, the contributions of these angles to the matrix $C$ are of the same sign, which show both (1) and (2).
\end{proof}
\subsection{General case}
\label{sec-composite}
Suppose now that weighted orbifold contains orbifold points of both weights $2$ and $1/2$. To get the unfolding in this case we do local partial unfolding in all the orbifold points of weight $2$, and then construct prime unfolding of obtained orbifold via Galois covering with branching points in all the remaining orbifold points (they all are of weight $1/2$).
By Lemma~\ref{composition}, the composition of local partial unfolding and prime unfolding is an unfolding. Therefore, as a result of the procedure
we obtain an unfolding of signed adjacency matrix of any triangulation of the initial unfolding. The construction works for each orbifold with at least 2 orbifold points.
\subsection{Orbifolds with a unique orbifold point}
\label{one}
The construction of Section~\ref{sec-composite} works to build an unfolding for each matrix corresponding to an orbifold with at least
two orbifold points. In this section we investigate the case of one orbifold point. We can assume that the weight of the orbifold point is $1/2$, otherwise we construct local unfolding.
First, we give a construction for the case of orbifolds with boundary. Next, we build the unfolding for the case of closed orbifold
topologically different from a sphere. The case of closed sphere with exactly one orbifold point of weight $1/2$ remains open.
\subsubsection*{Orbifolds with boundary}
Let ${\mathcal O}^w$ be a weighted orbifold with one orbifold point $z$ and at least one boundary component. Let $x\in\partial {\mathcal O}^w$ be a marked point.
Take a triangulation $T$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$ such that the pending arc of $T$ is incident to $x$, and the triangle containing the pending arc contains also an edge lying on $\partial{\mathcal O}^w$.
Then we can do the following: cut ${\mathcal O}^w$ along the pending arc, take two copies of obtained surface,
and attach them so that we obtain a 2-sheet covering $\hat S $ branching exactly in $z$ (see Fig~\ref{boundary}).
If we denote by $\hat T$ the triangulation obtained on $\hat S$, then Theorem~\ref{cover-unf} implies that the signed adjacency matrix of $\hat T$ is an unfolding of the signed adjacency matrix of $T$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{2}{\scriptsize $2$}
\psfrag{R}{\scriptsize $R$}
\psfrag{R'}{\scriptsize $R'$}
\psfrag{R''}{\scriptsize $R''$}
\epsfig{file=pic/boundary.eps,width=0.98\linewidth}
\caption{Construction of unfoldings for orbifolds with boundary.}
\label{boundary}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{Closed orbifolds of positive genus}
Let ${\mathcal O}^w$ be a closed weighted orbifold of genus $g>0$ with a unique orbifold point $z$ of weight $1/2$.
Then ${\mathcal O}^w$ contains a closed curve $\gamma$ which does not cut ${\mathcal O}^w$ into two connected components.
We cut ${\mathcal O}^w$ along $\gamma$, take two copies of the obtained surface and attach the sheets so that we obtain a non-ramified 2-sheet covering $\widetilde {\mathcal O}^w$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$. Clearly, $\widetilde {\mathcal O}^w$ has two orbifold points, so we can construct prime unfolding. Combining it with partial unfolding provided by non-ramified covering, we obtain an unfolding of signed adjacency matrix of a triangulation of ${\mathcal O}^w$.
The discussion above leads to the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm-unfolding}
Let $B$ be an s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable matrix.
Let ${\mathcal O}^w$ be a corresponding weighted orbifold. If ${\mathcal O}^w$ is not a closed sphere with a unique orbifold point of weight $1/2$, then $B$ admits an unfolding to a signed adjacency matrix of a triangulated surface.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\label{unf-all}
In~\cite{FST2} unfoldings of all non-decomposable mutation-finite matrices were constructed. In view of Theorem~\ref{thm-unfolding}, signed adjacency matrices of closed sphere with a unique orbifold point of weight $1/2$ are the only mutation-finite matrices for which unfolding is not constructed yet. Diagrams of these matrices are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-ex}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Constructing the diagram of unfolding}
\label{construction}
In this section, given a skew-sym\-met\-riz\-able s-decomposable matrix (or its weighted diagram) admitting an unfolding, we explicitly construct the diagram of the unfolding.
As it was described in previous sections, every unfolding can be understood as a superposition of partial local unfolding and prime unfolding. The way to construct partial local unfolding was explained in Section~\ref{unf-local}. Now we concentrate on prime unfoldings.
Let $\mathsf{D}^w$ be a weighted diagram, ${\mathcal O}^w$ weighted orbifold with all orbifold points of weight $1/2$, and let $T$ be the corresponding triangulation of ${\mathcal O}^w$.
Performing some flips (and mutations), we may assume that each triangle of $T$ (except at most one) containing a pending arc
actually contains two pending arcs (i.e. all s-blocks in the corresponding diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$ are blocks of type $\widetilde V_{12}$).
Given weighted s-decomposable diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$ (or exchange matrix $B$), we call by {\it irregular part} of $\mathsf{D}^w$ (respectively, $B$) the union of s-blocks corresponding to orbifold points of weight $1/2$ (these s-blocks are also called {\it irregular}), and by {\it regular part} the union of all the other blocks. While considering prime unfolding, regular part is obligatory skew-symmetric.
The diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$ consists of its regular part $R$ and $k$ irregular s-blocks $B_0,B_1,\dots,B_k$ of type $\widetilde V_{12}$ with equal weights $w/2=1$ of the dead ends. If the number $k+1$ of irregular blocks is even, we can proceed in the following way.
Denote by $x_i\in D^w$ the outlet of $B_i$.
To construct $\hat D$ we take two copies $R'$ and $R''$ of the regular part $R$ of $\mathsf{D}$.
Then we take for each s-block $B_i$ its unfolding $\hat B_i$ shown in Fig.~\ref{V12}
and attach the two outlets of $\hat B_i$ to two copies of the vertex $x_i$ (one in $R'$ and another in $R''$), see Fig.~\ref{prime-even}.
In view of the symmetry of $\hat B_i$ there is a unique way to attach $\hat B_i$ to these two vertices. The resulting diagram is an unfolding of $\mathsf{D}^w$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{x}{\scriptsize $x$}
\psfrag{a}{\small a)}
\psfrag{b}{\small b)}
\psfrag{2}{\scriptsize $2$}
\psfrag{4}{\scriptsize $4$}
\psfrag{B1}{\scriptsize $B_1$}
\psfrag{Bk}{\scriptsize $B_k$}
\epsfig{file=pic/prime-even.eps,width=0.98\linewidth}
\caption{Prime unfolding for even number of orbifold points: a) diagram $\mathsf{D}$; b) diagram $\hat D$}
\label{prime-even}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In terms of surfaces, this is equivalent to taking two copies of ${\mathcal O}^w\setminus(\cup_{i=1}^k \Delta_i)$, where $\Delta_i$ are monogons corresponding to irregular blocks of $\mathsf{D}^w$, and connecting every hole obtained from $\Delta_i$ by a cylinder obtained from two copies of $\Delta_i$ (see Fig.~\ref{V12}).
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{x}{\scriptsize $x$}
\psfrag{a}{\small a)}
\psfrag{b}{\small b)}
\psfrag{2}{\scriptsize $2$}
\psfrag{c1}{\scriptsize $c_1$}
\psfrag{c2}{\scriptsize $c_2$}
\psfrag{c1'}{\scriptsize $\hat c_1$}
\psfrag{c2'}{\scriptsize $\hat c_2$}
\psfrag{u}{}
\psfrag{u'}{}
\psfrag{u'}{}
\psfrag{x}{\scriptsize $x$}
\psfrag{x1}{\scriptsize $\hat x'$}
\psfrag{x2}{\scriptsize $\hat x''$}
\epsfig{file=pic/v12.eps,width=0.8\linewidth}
\caption{s-block $\widetilde V_{12}$ (on the left) and its unfolding (on the right) with corresponding orbifold and surface}
\label{V12}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
If the number of irregular s-blocks is odd, we assume that $T$ is of the type described in Lemma~\ref{bubbles-odd}, namely, all but one irregular blocks of $\mathsf{D}^w$ correspond to monogons $\Delta_i$, and the last one corresponds to a digon $\Delta_0$ adjacent to a monogon $\Delta_1$.
The s-blocks $B_i$ ($i>0$) are of type $\widetilde V_{12}$, s-block $B_0$ is of type
Now we construct the unfolding in two steps.
First, we take two copies $R'$ and $R''$ of the union of the regular part $R$ of $\mathsf{D}$ and $B_0$, and connect $R'$ with $R''$ by unfoldings of blocks $B_1,\dots,B_k$, see Fig.~\ref{first-cover}. In this way we obtain a diagram with two irregular s-blocks. Now we can apply the procedure for even number of s-blocks.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{R'}{\small $R'$}
\psfrag{R''}{\small $R''$}
\psfrag{u}{}
\psfrag{x}{\scriptsize $x_0$}
\psfrag{x'}{\scriptsize $x_0'$}
\psfrag{x1}{\scriptsize $x_1$}
\psfrag{x2}{\scriptsize $x_2$}
\psfrag{a}{\small a)}
\psfrag{b}{\small b)}
\psfrag{2}{\scriptsize $2$}
\psfrag{4}{\scriptsize $4$}
\psfrag{B1}{\scriptsize $B_1$}
\psfrag{Bk}{\scriptsize $B_k$}
\epsfig{file=pic/first-cover.eps,width=0.98\linewidth}
\caption{First step of the construction of prime unfolding for odd number of orbifold points: orbifold and diagram.
A piece of the orbifold with its diagram and the diagram $\mathsf{D}^w$ (all the dead ends of s-blocks are of weight 1) to the left, covering orbifold and $\hat D$ to the right.}
\label{first-cover}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Positivity}
\label{sec-pos}
In~\cite{FZ1} Fomin and Zelevinsky proved that, given an initial seed of cluster algebra ${\mathcal A}$, any cluster variable of ${\mathcal A}$ can be expressed as a Laurent polynomial of the variables of the initial seed (``Laurent Phenomenon''). The famous positivity conjecture~\cite{FZ1} states that the coefficients of the Laurent polynomials are non-negative integer linear combinations of elements of the coefficient group $\mathbb{P}$.
In~\cite{MSW}, Musiker, Schiffler and Williams show that the positivity conjecture holds for cluster algebras of geometric type originating from surfaces. We will use the unfolding construction to extend this result to algebras with s-decomposable skew-symmetrizable exchange matrices admitting unfoldings.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm-pos}
Let ${\mathcal O}^w$ be a weighted orbifold (distinct from a closed sphere with marked points and a unique orbifold point of weight $1/2$), let ${\mathcal A}$ be a corresponding cluster algebra of geometric type, and let ${\mathbf x}$ be an initial cluster. Then the coefficients of the Laurent expansion of every cluster variable of ${\mathcal A}$ are non-negative.
\end{theorem}
To prove the theorem, we note that, by construction of unfolding (Section~\ref{unfolding-fin}), the collections of lambda lengths of arcs of triangulation $T$ of ${\mathcal O}^w$ and covering triangulation $\widetilde T$ of the resulting covering surface $S$ coincide. Moreover, considering initial seed of ${\mathcal A}$ as a collection of lambda lengths of arcs of some triangulation $T$, we see that the collections of initial cluster variables of ${\mathcal A}$ and of its unfolding coincide as well.
Now we apply the positivity result from~\cite{MSW} to the unfolding and use the fact that all cluster variables of ${\mathcal A}$ are cluster variables of the unfolding.
\section{Sign-coherence}
\label{signs}
In~\cite{FZ4}, Fomin and Zelevinsky conjectured that, when starting with a seed with principal coefficients, the coefficient vectors in every other seed have all coordinates either nonpositive or nonnegative. The conjecture is proved by Derksen, Weyman and Zelevinsky~\cite{DWZ} for skew-symmetric case, and by Demonet~\cite{D} for a large class of skew-symmetrizable algebras. In this section, we prove the conjecture for all algebras from orbifolds.
We reformulate the conjecture in terms of shear coordinates of laminations.
Let $\widehat T$ be a tagged triangulation on associated orbifold $\hat{\mathcal O}$, denote the arcs of $\widehat T$ by $\gamma_i$, $1\le i\le n$. Consider a multi-lamination ${\mathbf L}_{\widehat T}=(L_{n+1},\dots,L_{2n})$ constructed in the following way: every $L_i$ is a single curve with $i$-th shear coordinate $b_{\gamma_i}(\widehat T,L_i)$ equal $1$ and all the others being zero (such a curve is easy to draw: it is spiraling into non-special marked ends of an edge, or ends in orbifold point of a pending edge, see Fig.~\ref{elements}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cp{5mm}cccp{5mm}ccc}
\epsfig{file=pic/elem-i.eps,width=0.15\linewidth}&&
\epsfig{file=pic/elem-j.eps,width=0.098\linewidth}&
\epsfig{file=pic/elem-p.eps,width=0.095\linewidth}&
\epsfig{file=pic/elem-pp.eps,width=0.095\linewidth}&&
\raisebox{-2mm}{\epsfig{file=pic/elem-k.eps,width=0.128\linewidth}}&
\epsfig{file=pic/elem-p.eps,width=0.095\linewidth}&
\epsfig{file=pic/elem-pp.eps,width=0.095\linewidth}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{(a)}&&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{(b)}&&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{(c)}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Construction of laminations ${\mathbf L}_{\widehat T}$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf L}_{\widetilde T}$: (a) $L_i$ for ordinary arc $\gamma_i\in\widehat T$, (b) $L_j$, $\widetilde L_j'$ and $\widetilde L_j''$ for pending arc $\gamma_j\in\widehat T$, (c) $L_k$, $\widetilde L_k'$ and $\widetilde L_k''$ for double arc $\gamma_k\in\widehat T$.}
\label{elements}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}
\label{coherence}
Let $\widehat T^0$ be arbitrary tagged triangulation of $\hat{\mathcal O}$. For every arc $\gamma$ of $\widehat T^0$ the shear coordinates $b_\gamma(\widehat T^0,L_i)$, $n+1\le i\le 2n$, are either all nonpositive or all nonnegative.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Proceeding as in Definition~\ref{def-shear}, we construct a surface $\widetilde{\mathcal O}$ by replacing every orbifold point by a puncture, and triangulations $\widetilde T$ and $\widetilde T^0$ by replacing every pending or double arc $\gamma_i$ in $\widehat T$ and $\widehat T^0$ by conjugate pair of arcs $\widetilde\gamma_i'$ and $\widetilde\gamma_i''$ (we also denote by $\widetilde\gamma_i$ the image of $\gamma_i$ on $\widetilde{\mathcal O}$). We also define new multi-lamination $\widetilde {\mathbf L}=\widetilde {\mathbf L}_{\widetilde T}$ consisting of images $\widetilde L_i$ of $L_i$ if $\gamma_i$ is an ordinary arcs, or pairs $\widetilde L_i',\widetilde L_i''$ if $\gamma_i$ is pending or double arc. Here $b_{\widetilde\gamma_i}(\widetilde T,\widetilde L_i)=1$ ($b_{\widetilde\gamma_i'}(\widetilde T,\widetilde L_i')=1$ or $b_{\widetilde\gamma_i''}(\widetilde T,\widetilde L_i'')=1$ respectively), and all the other shear coordinates are zeros).
The triangulation $\widetilde T^0$ can be obtained from $\widetilde T$ by exactly the same sequence of flips required for obtaining $\widehat T^0$ from $\widehat T$ (applying composite flips in $\widetilde\gamma_i'$ and $\widetilde\gamma_i''$ in case of $\gamma_i$ being double or pending).
According to sign-coherence of $\mathbf{c}$-vectors in skew-symmetric case, we conclude that for given $\widetilde\gamma\in\widetilde T^0$ the shear coordinates $b_{\widetilde\gamma}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_i)$ (or $b_{\widetilde\gamma}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_i')$ and $b_{\widetilde\gamma}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_i'')$ if $\gamma_i$ is pending or double arc) are either all nonpositive or all nonnegative. We will now compare the signs of shear coordinates of laminations ${\mathbf L}_{\widehat T}$ and $\widetilde {\mathbf L}_{\widetilde T}$ with respect to triangulations $\widehat T^0$ and $\widetilde T^0$ respectively.
First, assume $\gamma\in\widehat T^0$ is an ordinary arc. According to Definition~\ref{def-shear}, for every ordinary arc $\gamma_i\in\widehat T$ the coordinates $b_{\widetilde\gamma}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_i)$ and $b_{\gamma}(\widehat T^0,L_i)$ are equal. In particular, all the entries $b_{\gamma}(\widehat T^0,L_i)$ for ordinary arcs $\gamma_i\in\widehat T$ are of the same sign (of course, some of them may vanish).
Consider a pending arc $\gamma_j\in\widehat T$. One of the arcs $\widetilde\gamma_j'$ and $\widetilde\gamma_j''$ (say the former) is tagged plain. Then, by construction of multi-lamination $\widetilde {\mathbf L}$, $b_{\gamma}(\widehat T^0,L_j)=b_{\widetilde\gamma}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_j')$. Therefore, $b_{\gamma}(\widehat T^0,L_j)$ has the same sign as all the other $b_{\gamma}(\widehat T^0,L_i)$ (or zero).
Now consider a double arc $\gamma_k\in\widehat T$. Then one can see that $$b_{\gamma}(\widehat T^0,L_k)=b_{\widetilde\gamma}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_k')+b_{\widetilde\gamma}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_k'')$$. Since the signs agree, the sum is of the same sign as well.
Assume now that $\gamma\in\widehat T^0$ is a pending or double arc. Then $$b_{\gamma}(\widehat T^0,L_i)=b_{\widetilde\gamma'}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_i)+b_{\widetilde\gamma''}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_i)$$ for ordinary arcs $\gamma_i$, and $$b_{\gamma}(\widehat T^0,L_j)=b_{\widetilde\gamma'}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_j')+b_{\widetilde\gamma''}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_j')$$ for pending arcs $\gamma_j$, where $\widetilde\gamma'$ is tagged plain. For double arc $\gamma_k$ we have
$$b_{\gamma}(\widehat T^0,L_k)=\frac{1}{2}(b_{\widetilde\gamma'}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_k')+b_{\widetilde\gamma'}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_k'')+b_{\widetilde\gamma''}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_k')+b_{\widetilde\gamma''}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L_k''))$$.
Denote by $\widetilde L$ one of the laminations $L_i$, $\widetilde L_j'$, $\widetilde L_k'$ or $\widetilde L_k''$. One can note that the difference $|b_{\widetilde\gamma'}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L)-b_{\widetilde\gamma''}(\widetilde T^0,\widetilde L)|$ does not exceed one, cf. proof of Lemma~\ref{ex-uniq-prime}. Moreover, this difference is not zero only if the lamination $\widetilde L$ is spiraling into the end of $\widetilde\gamma'$ and $\widetilde\gamma''$ where their tags are distinct. Thus, this end should originate from a special marked point on $\hat {\mathcal O}$ or from an orbifold point. By Definition~\ref{def-lam}, there are no laminations spiraling into special marked point, and by construction of laminations $L_j$, for every orbifold point exactly one of $L_j$ ends in this point. This implies that the columns of coordinates for $\widetilde\gamma'$ and $\widetilde\gamma''$ differ in two places only: for $\widetilde L_j'$ and for $\widetilde L_j''$, and the difference in the values in two columns is equal to one. Hence, both columns have the same sign, so the sum of them has the same sign as well.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The main aim of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of
Alternating Direction Implicit (ADI) time discretization schemes in
the numerical solution of three-dimensional time-dependent partial
differential equations (PDEs) arising in financial option valuation
theory.
As a prototype case we consider the Heston--Hull--White PDE, but our
conclusions concerning ADI schemes extend to many other related
three-dimensional models.
Consider the asset price process given by the system of stochastic
differential equations (SDEs)
\begin{equation}\label{SDE}
\begin{cases}
&d S_\tau\, = R_\tau S_\tau\, d\tau + \sqrt{V_\tau}\, S_\tau\, d W^1_\tau\,,\\
&d V_\tau\, = \kappa(\eta -V_\tau)\, d\tau + \sigma_1\sqrt{V_\tau}\, d W^2_\tau\,,\\
&d R_\tau = a(b(\tau) -R_\tau)\, d\tau + \sigma_2\, d W^3_\tau\,.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The random variables $S_\tau$, $V_\tau$, $R_\tau$ represent, respectively,
the asset price, its variance and the interest rate at time $\tau>0$.
The parameters $\kappa$, $\eta$, $\sigma_1$ and $a$, $\sigma_2$ are given
positive real constants and $b$ denotes a given deterministic, positive
function of time, called the mean-reversion level.
The $W^1_\tau$, $W^2_\tau$, $W^3_\tau$ are Brownian motions under a
risk-neutral measure with given correlation factors $\rho_{12}$,
$\rho_{13}$, $\rho_{23}\in [-1,1]$ such that the pertinent correlation
matrix is positive semidefinite.
The asset price model (\ref{SDE}) can be viewed as an extension of the
popular Heston stochastic volatility model (Heston (1993)) where the
interest rate is not constant but also follows a stochastic process,
described here by the Hull--White model (Hull \& White (1990)).
The function $b$ is chosen as to match the current term structure of
interest rates.
The hybrid Heston--Hull--White model (\ref{SDE}) has recently been
studied in Giese (2006), Muskulus, In 't Hout, Bierkens et al (2007),
Grzelak, Oosterlee \& Van~Weeren (2009), Grzelak \& Oosterlee (2011)
and can lead to a more accurate valuation of option products that
are sensitive to both volatility and interest rates.
Let $T>0$ be given.
If at time $\tau \in [0,T)$ the asset price equals $s$, the variance equals
$v$ and the interest rate equals $r$, then for a European-style option with
maturity time $T$ and payoff function $\phi$ the risk-neutral value is given
by
\begin{equation}\label{price}
\varphi(s,v,r,\tau)=
\mathbb{E}\left[e^{-\int_\tau^T R_{\varsigma}\,d\varsigma}\,\phi(S_T,V_T,R_T)
\bigm\vert S_\tau=s,\,V_\tau=v,\,R_\tau=r\right],
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}$ denotes conditional expectation under the risk-neutral
measure.
In this paper we consider $u(s,v,r,t) = \varphi(s,v,r,T-t)$.
Common arguments in financial mathematics imply that if the option value
function $u$ is sufficiently smooth then it satisfies the PDE
\begin{align}\label{HHWPDE}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} =
&~\tfrac{1}{2}s^2v\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial s^2}
+ \tfrac{1}{2}\sigma_1^2 v \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial v^2}
+ \tfrac{1}{2}\sigma_2^2\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial r^2}\nonumber\\
&~+ \rho_{12} \sigma_1 s v \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial s \partial v}
+ \rho_{13} \sigma_2 s \sqrt{v} \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial s \partial r}
+ \rho_{23} \sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sqrt{v} \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial v \partial r}\nonumber\\
&~+ rs \frac{\partial u}{\partial s} + \kappa (\eta - v)\frac{\partial u}{\partial v}
+ a(b(T-t)-r)\frac{\partial u}{\partial r} - ru
\end{align}
for $s>0$, $v>0$, $-\infty < r < \infty$ and $0< t \le T$.
Here $-\infty < r < \infty$ since the Hull--White model yields any,
positive or negative, value for the interest rate.
We refer to (\ref{HHWPDE}) as the {\it Heston--Hull--White (HHW) PDE}.\,
It forms a time-dependent convection-diffusion-reaction equation on an
unbounded, three-dimensional spatial domain.
The HHW PDE contains three mixed spatial-derivative terms, stemming
from the correlations between the underlying Brownian motions.
Next, if $v\downarrow 0$ then all second-order derivative terms, apart
from the $\partial^2 u/ \partial r^2$ term, vanish.
This degeneracy feature is already familiar from other financial PDEs,
such as the Heston PDE.
Finally, we note that the coefficient of the $\partial u /\partial r$
term is time-dependent.
The HHW PDE is complemented by initial and boundary conditions
that are determined by the specific option under consideration.
The initial condition is given by the payoff function,
\begin{equation}\label{IC}
u(s,v,r,0) = \phi(s,v,r).
\end{equation}
Boundary conditions will be discussed below.
The initial-boundary value problem for the HHW PDE does not admit analytic
solutions in (semi) closed-form in general.
An exception concerns European call options if the two correlations
$\rho_{13}$ and $\rho_{23}$ are equal to zero.
Then a direct extension of Heston's (1993) formula is available; it is
given in the Appendix.
For the numerical solution of the HHW PDE we consider the well-known and
versatile method-of-lines approach, see eg, Hundsdorfer \& Verwer (2003).
Here the PDE is first discretized in the spatial variables $s$,~$v$,~$r$.
This leads to a system of stiff ordinary differential equations, the
so-called semidiscrete system, which is subsequently solved by applying
a suitable time discretization method.
Since the HHW PDE is three-dimensional, the obtained semidiscrete systems
are very large and also possess a large bandwidth.
As a consequence, the selection of the time discretization method
is critical for its effective numerical solution.
To this purpose, we analyze in the present paper splitting schemes
of the ADI type.
An outline of the rest of our paper is as follows.
In Section~\ref{space} we describe the spatial discretization of the
HHW PDE. Here finite difference schemes on nonuniform spatial grids
are applied.
In Section~\ref{ADI} we formulate and discuss the four ADI schemes
under consideration in this paper: the Douglas scheme, the Craig--Sneyd
scheme, the modified Craig--Sneyd scheme and the Hundsdorfer--Verwer
scheme.
In Section~\ref{numexp} extensive numerical tests with these ADI schemes
are presented.
Here we investigate in detail the temporal discretization errors.
Our tests include arbitrary correlation factors, time-dependent
mean-reversion levels, cases where the Feller condition is satisfied and
cases where it is not.
In addition, both European call options and up-and-out call options
are considered.
Section \ref{concl} gives conclusions and issues for future research.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Space discretization of the HHW PDE}\label{space}
In this section we describe the spatial discretization of the HHW PDE.
For ease of presentation, we consider here European call options.
Thus $\phi(s,v,r) = \max(0,s-K)$ with given strike price $K>0$.
The spatial discretization is readily adapted to various exotic
options; cf also Section~\ref{numexp}.
\subsection{Boundary conditions}\label{BCs}
For the semidiscretization, the spatial domain is first restricted
to a bounded set
$[0,S_{\max}]\times [0,V_{\max}] \times [-R_{\max},R_{\max}]$
with fixed values $S_{\max}$, $V_{\max}$, $R_{\max}$ chosen
sufficiently large.
The following boundary conditions are imposed,
\begin{subeqnarray}\label{BC}
\phantom{\frac{\partial u}{\partial s}}u(s,v,r,t)&=~~0
\quad &{\rm whenever}~~s=0,\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial s}(s,v,r,t)&=~~1
\quad &{\rm whenever}~~s=S_{\max},\\
\phantom{\frac{\partial u}{\partial s}}u(s,v,r,t)&=~~s
\quad &{\rm whenever}~~v=V_{\max},\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}(s,v,r,t)&=~~0
\quad &{\rm whenever}~~r=\pm R_{\max}.
\end{subeqnarray}
\vskip0.1cm\noindent
Clearly these conditions are of Dirichlet and Neumann type.
Condition (\ref{BC}a) is obvious, (\ref{BC}b) and (\ref{BC}c)
have already been used in the literature for the Heston PDE,
and (\ref{BC}d) appears to be new.
Concerning the latter condition, it is straightforward to prove that
under the Black--Scholes model the rho of a European call option
vanishes for extreme values of the spot interest rate, and it is
plausible that this holds under the asset price model (\ref{SDE}) as
well.
At the important, special boundary $v=0$ we consider inserting
$v=0$ into the HHW PDE.\footnote{We are grateful to Peter Forsyth
for a stimulating discussion on this issue.}
This is motivated by a theorem of Ekstr\"{o}m \& Tysk (2011)
revealing that in the Cox--Ingersoll--Ross model, which corresponds
to $V_\tau$ in the SDE (\ref{SDE}), the resulting equation is
fulfilled by the risk-neutral option value.
We note the remarkable fact that this holds irrespective of whether
or not the Feller condition $2\kappa\eta > \sigma_1^2$, well-known
from the SDE literature, is satisfied.
\subsection{Spatial grid}\label{grid}
The HHW PDE is semidiscretized on a nonuniform Cartesian spatial grid.
The nonuniform grid defined in this section is advantageous over a
uniform one. This will be illustrated by numerical experiments in
Section \ref{numexp}.
In the $s$-direction we consider placing relatively many mesh points
throughout a given interval $[S_{\lleft},S_{\rright}]\subset [0,S_{\max}]$
containing the strike $K$.
This is natural, firstly, because this is the region of interest in
applications, and secondly, it alleviates numerical difficulties due
to the initial (payoff) function $\phi$ that has a discontinuous
derivative at $s=K$.
Let integer $m_1 \ge 1$ and parameter $d_1>0$ and let equidistant
points
\mbox{$\xi_{\min}=\xi_0 < \xi_1 < \ldots < \xi_{m_1}=\xi_{\max}$}
be given with
\begin{align*}
\xi_{\min} &= \sinh^{-1}\left( \frac{- S_{\lleft}}{d_1} \right),\\
\xi_{\iin} &= \frac{S_{\rright}-S_{\lleft}}{d_1},\\
\xi_{\max} &= \xi_{\iin} + \sinh^{-1}\left( \frac{S_{\max} - S_{\rright}}{d_1} \right).
\end{align*}
Note that $\xi_{\min} < 0 < \xi_{\iin} < \xi_{\max}$.
The mesh $0=s_0 < s_1 < \ldots < s_{m_1}=S_{\max}$ is then defined
through the transformation
\begin{equation*}
s_i = \varphi(\xi_i) \quad (0\le i \le m_1)
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(\xi) =
\begin{cases}
S_{\lleft} + d_1\sinh(\xi) & (\xi_{\min} \leq \xi < 0),\\
S_{\lleft} + d_1\xi & (0 \leq \xi \leq \xi_{\iin} ),\\
S_{\rright} + d_1\sinh(\xi-\xi_{\iin}) & (\xi_{\iin} < \xi \leq \xi_{\max}).
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\vskip0.2cm\noindent
This mesh for $s$ is uniform inside the interval $[S_{\lleft},S_{\rright}]$
and it is nonuniform outside.
The parameter $d_1$ controls the fraction of points $s_i$ that lie inside.
Put $\Delta \xi = \xi_1-\xi_0$.
It is readily seen that the above mesh is smooth, in the sense that there
exist real constants $C_0$, $C_1$, $C_2$ such that the mesh widths
$\Delta s_i = s_i -s_{i-1}$ satisfy
\begin{equation*}\label{smooth}
C_0\, \Delta \xi \le \Delta s_i \le C_1\, \Delta \xi ~~ {\rm and} ~~
|\Delta s_{i+1} - \Delta s_i| \le C_2 \left( \Delta \xi \right)^2 ~~
({\rm uniformly~in}~\, i,\, m_1).
\end{equation*}
\begin{figure}
\hskip1.5cm
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{meshes.eps}
\caption{Sample meshes for $s$, $v$, $r$ with $m_1=m_2=m_3=20$
and $K=100$, $T=1$, $c=0.1$.}\label{meshes}
\end{figure}
For the $v$- and $r$-directions we define nonuniform meshes of the
same type as considered in, eg, Tavella \& Randall (2000) and In 't Hout
\& Foulon (2010).
Let integers $m_2$, $m_3 \ge 1$ and parameters $c$, $d_2$, $d_3>0$ and
let equidistant points \mbox{$\eta_0 < \eta_1 < \ldots < \eta_{m_2}$}
and \mbox{$\zeta_0 < \zeta_1 < \ldots< \zeta_{m_3}$} be given by
\[
\eta_j = j\cdot \Delta \eta \quad (0\le j \le m_2)
\]
with
\[
\Delta \eta = \frac{1}{m_2} \sinh^{-1}(V_{\max}/d_2),
\]
and
\[
\zeta_k = \sinh^{-1}((-R_{\max}-c)/d_3) + k\cdot \Delta \zeta \quad
(0\le k \le m_3)
\]
with
\[
\Delta \zeta = \frac{1}{m_3}
\left[ \sinh^{-1}((R_{\max}-c)/d_3)-\sinh^{-1}((-R_{\max}-c)/d_3) \right].
\]
Then meshes $0=v_0 < v_1 < \ldots < v_{m_2}=V_{\max}$ and
$-R_{\max}=r_0 < r_1 < \ldots < r_{m_3}=R_{\max}$ are defined by
\[
v_j = d_2~{\rm sinh}(\eta_j) \quad (0\le j \le m_2)~~~{\rm and}~~~
r_k = c + d_3~{\rm sinh}(\zeta_k) \quad (0\le k \le m_3).
\]
It is easily verified that the meshes for $v$ and $r$ defined above are
also smooth.
The parameters $d_2$ and $d_3$ control, respectively, the fraction of
points $v_j$ that lie near $v=0$ and the fraction of points $r_k$ that
lie near a given interest rate level~$r=c$.
Here $c$ is chosen depending on the specific mean-reversion function~$b$.
For the $v$-mesh, besides the fact that the region $v\approx 0$ is of
practical importance, it is natural to place relatively many mesh points
there for numerical reasons, as the HHW PDE is convection-dominated in the
$v$-direction for $v\approx 0$ and the initial function is nonsmooth.
In this paper we set $S_{\max}=14K$, $V_{\max}=10$, $R_{\max}=1$.
This renders the error induced by the restriction of the spatial domain
of the HHW PDE to be negligible in our experiments.
Based on numerical tests, the parameters of the grid have been taken
equal to $d_1=K/20$, $d_2=V_{\max}/500$, $d_3=R_{\max}/400$ and, with
$r=\tfrac{1}{4}$,
\[
S_{\lleft}=\max\{\tfrac{1}{2},e^{-rT}\}K~,~~S_{\rright}=K.
\]
A further investigation into possibly better parameter values than
above may be interesting, but this is out of the scope of the
present paper.
Figure~\ref{meshes} displays sample meshes for the three spatial
directions if $m_1=m_2=m_3=20$ and $K=100$, $T=1$, $c=0.1$.
It is clear that the mesh points in the $s$-, $v$- and $r$-directions
are concentrated, respectively, near $s=K$, $v=0$ and $r=c$.
\subsection{Finite difference discretization}
Let $f:\R\rightarrow\R$ be any given function, let $\{ x_i \}_{i\in \Z}$
be any given increasing sequence of mesh points, and
$\Delta x_i = x_i-x_{i-1}$ for all $i$.
To approximate the first and second derivatives of $f$, we employ the
following well-known FD formulas:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
f'(x_i) ~~\approx~~
&\alpha_{-2} f(x_{i-2}) + \alpha_{-1}f(x_{i-1}) + \alpha_{0} f(x_{i}),\label{backw}\\
\nonumber\\
f'(x_i) ~~\approx~~
&\beta_{-1} f(x_{i-1}) + \beta_{0} f(x_i) + \beta_{1} f(x_{i+1}),\label{MethodB}\\
\nonumber\\
f'(x_i) ~~\approx~~
&\gamma_{0} f(x_{i}) + \gamma_{1} f(x_{i+1}) + \gamma_{2} f(x_{i+2}),\label{forw}\\
\nonumber\\
f''(x_i) ~~\approx~~
& \delta_{-1} f(x_{i-1}) + \delta_{0} f(x_i) + \delta_{1} f(x_{i+1})\label{diffusion}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with
\begin{align*}
\alpha_{-2}&= \tfrac{\Delta x_{i}}{\Delta x_{i-1} (\Delta x_{i-1} + \Delta x_{i})},
&\alpha_{-1}&= \tfrac{-\Delta x_{i-1}-\Delta x_i}{\Delta x_{i-1} \Delta x_{i}},
&\alpha_{0}&= \tfrac{\Delta x_{i-1} + 2\Delta x_i}{\Delta x_{i} (\Delta x_{i-1} + \Delta x_{i})},\\
\beta_{-1}&= \tfrac{-\Delta x_{i+1}}{\Delta x_i (\Delta x_i + \Delta x_{i+1})},
&\beta_{0}&= \tfrac{\Delta x_{i+1}-\Delta x_i}{\Delta x_i \Delta x_{i+1}},
&\beta_{1}&= \tfrac{\Delta x_i}{\Delta x_{i+1} (\Delta x_i + \Delta x_{i+1})},\\
\gamma_{0}&= \tfrac{-2\Delta x_{i+1}-\Delta x_{i+2}}{\Delta x_{i+1} (\Delta x_{i+1} + \Delta x_{i+2})},
&\gamma_{1}&= \tfrac{\Delta x_{i+1}+\Delta x_{i+2}}{\Delta x_{i+1} \Delta x_{i+2}},
&\gamma_{2}&= \tfrac{-\Delta x_{i+1}}{\Delta x_{i+2} (\Delta x_{i+1} + \Delta x_{i+2})},\\
\delta_{-1}&= \tfrac{2}{\Delta x_i (\Delta x_i + \Delta x_{i+1})},
&\delta_{0}&= \tfrac{-2}{\Delta x_i \Delta x_{i+1}},
&\delta_{1}&= \tfrac{2}{\Delta x_{i+1} (\Delta x_i + \Delta x_{i+1})}.
\end{align*}
Note that \eqref{MethodB} and \eqref{diffusion} are central schemes whereas
\eqref{backw} and \eqref{forw} are backward and forward schemes,
respectively.
If $f:\R^2\rightarrow \R$ is any given function of two variables $(x,y)$,
then we approximate the mixed derivative $f_{xy}(x_i,y_j)$ at any point
$(x_i,y_j)$ by successive application of the scheme \eqref{MethodB} in the
$x$- and $y$-directions.
This is equivalent to a FD formula based on a 9-point stencil centered
about $(x_i,y_j)$.
The FD schemes under consideration all possess a second-order truncation
error on smooth meshes whenever $f$ is sufficiently often continuously
differentiable.
The actual FD discretization of the initial-boundary value problem for
the HHW PDE is performed as follows.
In view of the Dirichlet conditions (\ref{BC}a) and (\ref{BC}c), the
relevant set of grid points is
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{G} = \{(s_i, v_j, r_k): 1\leq i \leq m_1\,,\, 0\leq j\leq m_2-1
\,,\, 0\leq k\leq m_3\}.
\end{align*}
At this grid, each spatial derivative appearing in (\ref{HHWPDE}) is
replaced by its corresponding central FD approximation, except:
\begin{itemize}
\item In the region $v>\eta$\, the backward scheme (\ref{backw}) is applied
for $\partial u /\partial v$.
This is done to alleviate spurious oscillations in the FD solution when
$\sigma_1$ is small.
It is well-known that such oscillations notably arise with central schemes
if there is strong advection towards a Dirichlet boundary.
\item At the boundary $s=S_{\max}$ the derivatives in the $s$-direction
need to be considered.
The Neumann condition (\ref{BC}b) of course yields $\partial u /\partial s$
and it subsequently implies that $\partial^2 u/\partial s\partial v$ and
$\partial^2 u/\partial s \partial r$ vanish there.
Next, $\partial^2 u/ \partial s^2$ is approximated at
$s=s_{m_1}=S_{\max}$ by the scheme (\ref{diffusion}) with virtual point
$s_{m_1}+\Delta s_{m_1} > S_{\max}$ where the value at this point is
defined by linear extrapolation, using the value at $s_{m_1-1}$ and the
(given) derivative at $s_{m_1}$.
\item At the boundary $v=0$ we consider setting $v=0$ in the HHW PDE,
see Subsection \ref{BCs}.
Here $\partial u/\partial v$ is approximated using the forward scheme
(\ref{forw}).
We remark that this is done independently of whether or not the Feller
condition holds.
All other derivative terms in the $v$-direction vanish if $v=0$ and are
trivially dealt with.
\item At the boundaries $r = \pm R_{\max}$ the Neumann conditions
(\ref{BC}d) are incorporated similarly as for $s$ above.
\end{itemize}
The FD discretization of the initial-boundary value problem for the HHW PDE
leads to an initial value problem for a system of stiff ordinary differential
equations (ODEs),
\begin{align}\label{ODE}
U'(t) = A(t)U(t) + g(t) ~~~(0 \leq t \leq T),~~~U(0)=U_0.
\end{align}
Here $A(t)$, for $0\le t\le T$, is a given real square matrix and $g(t)$
is a given real vector that is determined by the boundary conditions.
The entries of the solution vector $U(t)$ form approximations to the
option values $u(s,v,r,t)$ at the spatial grid points
$(s,v,r) \in \mathcal{G}$, ordered in a convenient way.
The vector $U(0)=U_0$ is directly obtained by evaluation of the initial
function at $\mathcal{G}$.
We refer to (\ref{ODE}) as the {\it semidiscrete HHW PDE}.\,
The size of this system equals $M = m_1m_2(m_3+1)$ and is very large in
general.
In the experiments in this paper, we shall deal with sizes up to
approximately one million.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Time discretization: ADI schemes}\label{ADI}
Selecting a suitable time discretization scheme for the semidiscrete
HHW PDE (\ref{ODE}) is the key to obtaining an effective full numerical
solution method for the HHW initial-boundary value problem.
Popular standard methods such as the Crank--Nicolson scheme are often not
efficient anymore.
The reason for this lies in the fact that in each new time step very large
systems of linear equations need to be solved involving the matrix $A(t)$
for one or more new values of~$t$.
Due to its large bandwidth, this is computationally very demanding.
For the time discretization of the semidiscrete HHW PDE, we consider in
the present paper splitting schemes of the ADI type.
Here, the matrix $A(t)$ is decomposed into four simpler matrices,
\begin{equation*}\label{split}
A(t) = A_0 + A_1 + A_2 + A_3(t).
\end{equation*}
The matrix $A_0$ represents the part of $A(t)$ that stems from the FD
discretization of all mixed derivative terms in the HHW PDE.
Note that $A_0$ is nonzero whenever at least one of the correlation
factors $\rho_{12}$, $\rho_{13}$, $\rho_{23}$ is nonzero.
In line with the classical ADI idea, the matrices $A_1$, $A_2$, $A_3(t)$
represent the parts of $A(t)$ that stem from the FD discretization of all
spatial derivatives in the $s$-, $v$- and $r$-directions, respectively.
The $ru$ term in (\ref{HHWPDE}) is distributed evenly over $A_1$, $A_2$,
$A_3(t)$.
We decompose $g(t) = g_0 + g_1 + g_2 + g_3(t)$ analogously to $A(t)$.
The matrices $A_1$, $A_2$, $A_3(t)$ are essentially tridiagonal,
pentadiagonal and tridiagonal, respectively.
Note that the time-dependency of $A(t)$ is only passed on to the matrix
$A_3(t)$, ie, the matrices $A_0$, $A_1$, $A_2$ are time-independent.
Let $\theta >0$ be a given real parameter and $\Delta t = T/N$ with
integer $N\ge 1$.
Set $t_n = n\,\Delta t$ and
$\Delta g_n = g_3\left(t_n\right) - g_3\left(t_{n-1}\right)=
g\left(t_n\right) - g\left(t_{n-1}\right)$.
We study four ADI schemes which all generate, in a one-step manner,
successive approximations $U_n$ to the solution vectors $U(t_n)$ of
(\ref{ODE}) for $n=1,2,\ldots,N$.
\vskip0.5cm\noindent
\textit{Douglas (Do) scheme:}
\begin{equation}\label{Do}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
Y_0 = U_{n-1}+\Delta t\, \big( A\left(t_{n-1}\right)U_{n-1}+ g\left(t_{n-1}\right)\big),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
Y_j = Y_{j-1}+\theta\,\Delta t\, A_j \big(Y_j-U_{n-1}\big)~~~(j=1,2),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
Y_3 = Y_{2}+\theta\,\Delta t\, \big(A_3\left(t_n\right)Y_3 -A_3\left(t_{n-1}\right)U_{n-1}
+\Delta g_n \big),\phantom{xxx}
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
U_n = Y_3.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\vskip0.3cm\noindent
\textit{Craig--Sneyd (CS) scheme:}
\begin{equation}\label{CS}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
Y_0 = U_{n-1}+\Delta t\, \big( A\left(t_{n-1}\right)U_{n-1}+ g\left(t_{n-1}\right)\big),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
Y_j = Y_{j-1}+\theta\, \Delta t\, A_j \big(Y_j-U_{n-1}\big)~~~(j=1,2),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
Y_3 = Y_{2}+\theta\,\Delta t\, \big(A_3\left(t_n\right)Y_3 -A_3\left(t_{n-1}\right)U_{n-1}+
\Delta g_n \big),\phantom{xxx}
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
\widetilde{Y}_0 = Y_0+\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta t\, A_0 \big(Y_3-U_{n-1}\big),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
\widetilde{Y}_j = \widetilde{Y}_{j-1}+\theta\,\Delta t\, A_j \big(\widetilde{Y}_j-U_{n-1}\big)~~~(j=1,2),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
\widetilde{Y}_3 = \widetilde{Y}_{2}+\theta\,\Delta t\, \big(A_3\left(t_n\right)\widetilde{Y}_3
-A_3\left(t_{n-1}\right)U_{n-1}+\Delta g_n \big),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
U_n = \widetilde{Y}_3.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\vskip0.3cm\noindent
\textit{Modified Craig--Sneyd (MCS) scheme:}
\begin{equation}\label{MCS}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
Y_0 = U_{n-1}+\Delta t\, \big( A\left(t_{n-1}\right)U_{n-1}+ g\left(t_{n-1}\right)\big),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
Y_j = Y_{j-1}+\theta\,\Delta t\, A_j \big(Y_j-U_{n-1}\big)~~~(j=1,2),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
Y_3 = Y_{2}+\theta\,\Delta t\, \big(A_3\left(t_n\right)Y_3 -A_3\left(t_{n-1}\right)U_{n-1}+
\Delta g_n \big),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
\widehat{Y}_0 = Y_0+\theta\, \Delta t\, A_0 \big(Y_3-U_{n-1}\big),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
\widetilde{Y}_0 = \widehat{Y}_0+\left(\tfrac{1}{2}-\theta\right) \Delta t\,
\big(A\left(t_n\right)Y_3 -A\left(t_{n-1}\right)U_{n-1}+ \Delta g_n\big),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
\widetilde{Y}_j = \widetilde{Y}_{j-1}+\theta\,\Delta t\, A_j
\big(\widetilde{Y}_j-U_{n-1}\big)~~~(j=1,2),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
\widetilde{Y}_3 = \widetilde{Y}_{2}+\theta\,\Delta t\, \big(A_3\left(t_n\right)\widetilde{Y}_3
-A_3\left(t_{n-1}\right)U_{n-1}+\Delta g_n \big),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
U_n = \widetilde{Y}_3.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\vskip0.3cm\noindent
\textit{Hundsdorfer--Verwer (HV) scheme:}
\begin{equation}\label{HV}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
Y_0 = U_{n-1}+\Delta t\, \big( A\left(t_{n-1}\right)U_{n-1}+ g\left(t_{n-1}\right)\big),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
Y_j = Y_{j-1}+\theta\,\Delta t\, A_j \big(Y_j-U_{n-1}\big)~~~(j=1,2),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
Y_3 = Y_{2}+\theta\,\Delta t\, \big(A_3\left(t_n\right)Y_3 -A_3\left(t_{n-1}\right)U_{n-1}
+\Delta g_n \big),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
\widetilde{Y}_0 = Y_0+\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta t\, \big(A\left(t_n\right)Y_3 -A\left(t_{n-1}\right)
U_{n-1}+ \Delta g_n\big),\phantom{xxxxx}
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
\widetilde{Y}_j = \widetilde{Y}_{j-1}+\theta\,\Delta t\, A_j \big(\widetilde{Y}_j-Y_3\big)~~~(j=1,2),
\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
\widetilde{Y}_3 = \widetilde{Y}_{2}+\theta\,\Delta t\, A_3\left(t_n\right)
\big(\widetilde{Y}_3 -Y_{3} \big),\vspace*{0.2cm}\\
U_n = \widetilde{Y}_3.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\vskip0.2cm
The CS, MCS, HV schemes can be viewed as different extensions to the Do scheme.
The CS and MCS schemes are equivalent if (and only if) $\theta=\tfrac{1}{2}$.
It is readily observed that in the four ADI schemes the $A_0$ part,
representing all mixed derivatives in the HHW PDE, is always treated
in an {\it explicit}\, fashion.
The first papers to propose this kind of adaptation of the classical ADI
schemes to PDEs with mixed derivative terms are, to our knowledge, McKee
\& Mitchell (1970) and Craig \& Sneyd (1988).
Following the classical ADI approach, the $A_1$, $A_2$, $A_3(t)$ parts
are treated in an {\it implicit}\, fashion.
In every step of each scheme, systems of linear equations need to be
solved, successively involving the matrices $(I-\theta\, \Delta t\, A_j)$
for $j=1, 2$ and $(I-\theta\, \Delta t\, A_3(t_n))$, where $I$ is the
identity matrix.
As all these matrices have a fixed, small bandwidth (of at most five)
this can be done efficiently by $LU$ factorization.
Note that for $j=1, 2$ the pertinent matrices are further independent
of the step index $n$, and hence, their $LU$ factorizations can be
computed once, beforehand, and then used in all time steps.
By Taylor expansion one obtains (after some elaborate calculations) the
classical order of consistency of each ADI scheme, ie, the order of
consistency in the nonstiff sense.
For any given~$\theta$, the order of the Do scheme is just one if $A_0$
is nonzero.
This low order is due to the fact that the $A_0$ part is treated in a
simple, explicit Euler fashion.
The CS scheme has order two provided $\theta=\tfrac{1}{2}$.
The MCS and HV schemes are of order two for any given $\theta$.
With the latter schemes, the parameter $\theta$ can thus be chosen
to meet additional requirements.
A detailed discussion, with ample references to the literature, concerning
the above four ADI schemes has been given in In 't Hout \& Welfert (2007,
2009).
The Do and CS schemes are already often applied to PDEs in finance, see eg,
Andersen \& Andreasen (2000), Lipton (2001), Randall (2002) and Andersen
\& Piterbarg (2010).
More recently, the MCS and HV schemes have gained interest, see eg,
In 't Hout (2007), Dang, Christara, Jackson \& Lakhany (2010), In 't Hout
\& Foulon (2010), Haentjens \& In 't Hout (2010), Egloff (2011) and Itkin
\& Carr (2011).
For an effective application of numerical schemes, stability is imperative.
The stability of ADI schemes in the case of PDEs possessing mixed derivative
terms has been analyzed by a number of authors in the literature.
This stability analysis has been performed in the von Neumann (Fourier)
framework.
Here one considers application to the semidiscretized convection-diffusion
equation
\begin{equation*}\label{cd}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=
\mathbf{c}\cdot\nabla u + \nabla \cdot (D\nabla u)
\end{equation*}
on a rectangular domain, with constant real vector $\mathbf{c}$ and constant,
positive semidefinite real matrix $D=(d_{ij})$, with periodic boundary
condition, on a uniform spatial grid, and one studies stability in the
$l_2$-norm.
Note that the presence of mixed derivative terms corresponds to the matrix
$D$ being nondiagonal.
A desirable property is {\it unconditional}\, stability, ie, without any
restriction on the time step $\Delta t >0$.
The most comprehensive stability results for the Do, CS, MCS and HV schemes
in the literature up to now, relevant to PDEs with mixed derivative terms,
are given in In 't Hout \& Welfert (2007, 2009), In 't Hout \& Mishra (2010,
2011).
We review the main conclusions from loc cit pertinent to two and three
spatial dimensions.
Here stability is always understood in the von Neumann sense and
unconditional.
To formulate some of the results, we consider for $\gamma \in [0,1]$
the following condition on $D$,
\begin{equation}\label{gamma}
|d_{ij}|\le \gamma\, \sqrt{d_{ii}d_{jj}} \quad \text{for~all}~~i\not= j.
\end{equation}
The quantity $\gamma$ can be viewed as a measure for the relative size of
the mixed derivative coefficients.
Because $D$ is positive semidefinite, the condition (\ref{gamma}) is
always fulfilled with $\gamma =1$.
But in actual applications, in particular the HHW PDE, one usually has
more information, namely $\gamma<1$.
For two-dimensional convection-diffusion equations with mixed derivative
term, the Do and CS schemes are both stable whenever $\theta\ge\tfrac{1}{2}$.
If there is no convection ($\mathbf{c}=\mathbf{0}$), then the MCS
and HV schemes are stable whenever $\theta\ge\tfrac{1}{3}$ and
$\theta\ge 1-\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{2}~\,(\approx 0.293)$, respectively.
For the MCS scheme, stability has been proved for general two-dimensional
equations, with convection, if \mbox{$\tfrac{1}{2}\le\theta\le 1$.}
Next, based on strong numerical evidence, stability of the MCS scheme
for the special value $\theta=\tfrac{1}{3}$ was conjectured under the
mild, additional condition that (\ref{gamma}) holds with $\gamma \le 0.96$.
For the HV scheme, stability for general two-dimensional equations has
been conjectured for all
$\theta\ge\tfrac{1}{2}+\tfrac{1}{6}\sqrt{3}~\,(\approx 0.789)$.
We note that the latter bound stems from Lanser, Blom \& Verwer (2001),
who proved it to be necessary and sufficient for stability in the case
of two-dimensional equations without mixed derivatives.
For three-dimensional problems, positive results on the stability of the
ADI schemes have been derived for pure diffusion equations with mixed
derivative terms.
In this case, it has been shown that the Do, CS, MCS and HV schemes are
stable whenever
\mbox{$\theta\ge\tfrac{2}{3}$},\, $\theta\ge\tfrac{1}{2}$,\,
$\theta\ge\max\{\tfrac{1}{4},\tfrac{2}{13}(2\gamma+1)\}$ and
$\theta\ge\tfrac{3}{2}(2-\sqrt{3})~\,(\approx 0.402)$,
respectively.\footnote{The result for the Do scheme is new;
its proof will be included in a forthcoming paper.}
At this moment sufficient conditions on $\theta$ for stability of
the ADI schemes pertinent to general three-dimensional
convection-diffusion equations with mixed derivative terms are
lacking in the literature. Accordingly, we select the parameters
$\theta$, in the subsequent experiments, on the basis of the present
results, reviewed above.
In practical applications it turns out that a smaller value $\theta$
often leads to a smaller error constant. In view of this, we choose
$\theta$ as small as possible under the requirement of
(unconditional) stability.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Numerical experiments}\label{numexp}
In this section we present extensive numerical tests with the four ADI
schemes \eqref{Do}, \eqref{CS}, \eqref{MCS}, \eqref{HV} in the application
to the semidiscrete HHW PDE described in Section \ref{space}.
This yields important insight in their actual stability and convergence
behavior and mutual performance.
We consider the HHW model with arbitrary (nonzero) correlation factors,
with time-dependent mean-reversion levels, for cases where the Feller
condition is satisfied and for cases where it is not.
In addition, we deal with European call options as well as up-and-out
call options.
For the diffusion matrix of the HHW PDE,
\[
D(s,v) =
\frac{1}{2}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
s^2v & \rho_{12} \sigma_1 s v & \rho_{13} \sigma_2 s \sqrt{v} \\
\rho_{12} \sigma_1 s v & \sigma_1^2 v & \rho_{23} \sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sqrt{v} \\
\rho_{13} \sigma_2 s \sqrt{v} & \rho_{23} \sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sqrt{v} & \sigma_2^2 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\]
it is easily verified that the condition (\ref{gamma}) holds with
$\gamma =\max \left\{ |\rho_{12}|, |\rho_{13}|, |\rho_{23}| \right\}$.
Based on the stability and accuracy results discussed in Section~\ref{ADI}
we select, for this value~$\gamma$,
\begin{itemize}
\item the Do~~~\,\,scheme \eqref{Do}\, with $\theta = \frac{2}{3}$
\item the CS~~~\,\,scheme \eqref{CS}\, with $\theta = \frac{1}{2}$
\item the MCS\, scheme \eqref{MCS}\, with $\theta = \max\{\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{13}(2\gamma+1)\}$
\item the HV~~~\,scheme \eqref{HV}\, with $\theta = \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6}\sqrt{3}$.
\end{itemize}
The Do scheme has classical order one and the CS, MCS, HV schemes all
possess classical order two.
Note that the MCS scheme has $\theta\le \tfrac{6}{13}~\,(\approx 0.462)$.
For the ADI schemes under consideration we shall study in this section
the \textit{global temporal discretization error}, defined by
\begin{equation}\label{et}
\widehat{e}\,(\Delta t;m_1,m_2,m_3) =
\max\{\,|U_l(T)-U_{N,l}|:\,(s_i, v_j, r_k) \in {\cal D}\,\},
\end{equation}
where $T=N\Delta t$ with integer $N\ge 1$ and $U(T)$ denotes the
exact solution vector to the semidiscrete HHW PDE (\ref{ODE})
at time $T$.
The index $l = l(i,j,k)$ corresponds to the spatial grid point
$(s_i, v_j, r_k)$ and ${\cal D}$ is a natural region of interest,
to be specified below.
If $\rho_{13}=\rho_{23}=0$, then a semi closed-form analytic formula
for European call option values is known, see the Appendix.
We shall employ this formula to validate the FD discretization of the
HHW PDE from Section~\ref{space} and to study the
\textit{global spatial discretization error} in this case, defined by
\begin{equation}\label{es}
e(m_1,m_2,m_3) =
\max\{\,|u(s_i,v_j,r_k,T)-U_l(T)|:\,(s_i, v_j, r_k) \in {\cal D}\,\}.
\end{equation}
The temporal and spatial discretization errors are both measured in the
maximum norm, which is highly relevant to financial applications.
In order to compute (\ref{et}) and (\ref{es}) for a given spatial grid,
we use a sufficiently accurate reference value for $U(T)$, obtained by
applying the MCS scheme to (\ref{ODE}) with $N=20000$ and $N=200$ time
steps, respectively.
For efficiency of the spatial discretization it turns out that one can
place relatively less grid points in the $v$- and $r$-directions than
in the $s$-direction.
Accordingly, we choose in the following the numbers of grid points in
the three spatial directions as $m_1=2m$, $m_2=m_3=m$ with integer~$m$.
Note that the size of the semidiscrete HHW system equals $M=2m^2(m+1)$.
We are interested in mean-reversion levels $b$ that are time-dependent.
As an example, we choose
\begin{equation}\label{meanr}
b(\tau)=c_1-c_2e^{-c_3\tau} \quad (\tau \ge 0)
\end{equation}
with positive constants $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$ and $c_1>c_2$.
This choice for~$b$ is somewhat arbitrary, but the conclusions obtained
below on the numerical schemes are the same for other (more realistic)
time-dependent mean-reversion levels.
For the mesh in the $r$-direction, defined in Subsection \ref{grid},
we take $c=c_1$.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
& Case A & Case B & Case C & Case D & Case E & Case F\\
\hline \hline
$\kappa$ & 3 & 0.6067 & 2.5 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 1\\
$\eta$ & 0.12 & 0.0707 & 0.06 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.09\\
$\sigma_1$ & 0.04 & 0.2928 & 0.5 & 1 & 0.9 & 1\\
\hline
$a$ & 0.2 & 0.05 & 0.15 & 0.08 & 0.16 & 0.22\\
$c_1$ & 0.05 & 0.055 & 0.101 & 0.103 & 0.055 & 0.074\\
$c_2$ & 0.01 & 0.005 & 0.001 & 0.003 & 0.025 & 0.014\\
$c_3$ & 1 & 4 & 2.3 & 1 & 1.6 & 2.1\\
$\sigma_2$ & 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.1 & 0.09 & 0.03 & 0.07\\
\hline
$\rho_{12}$ & 0.6 & -0.7571 & -0.1
& -0.9 & -0.5 & -0.3 \\
$\rho_{13}$ & 0.2 (0) & \phantom{-}0.6 (0) & -0.3 (0)
& \phantom{-}0.6 (0) & \phantom{-}0.2 (0) & -0.5 (0)\\
$\rho_{23}$ & 0.4 (0) & -0.2 (0) & \phantom{-}0.2 (0)
& -0.7 (0) & \phantom{-}0.1 (0) & -0.2 (0)\\
\hline
$T$ & 1 & 3 & 0.25 & 10 & 15 & 5\\
$K$ & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Parameters for the Heston--Hull--White model.}
\label{cases1}
\end{table}
\subsection{European call options}\label{Eurcall}
Our first experiments concern European call option values in the six
cases of parameter sets for the HHW model listed in Table~\ref{cases1}.
The cases A, B, C can be viewed as an extension of three test cases
for the Heston model previously used in In 't Hout \& Foulon (2010).
The values $\kappa$, $\eta$, $\sigma_1$, $\rho_{12}$, $T$ stem from
Bloomberg (2005), Schoutens, Simons \& Tistaert (2004) and Winkler,
Apel \& Wystup (2002), respectively.
Here the Feller condition always holds.
The cases D, E, F form an extension of the three cases for the Heston
model presented by Andersen (2008).
They are proposed in loc cit as challenging test cases for practical
applications.
Notably, the Feller condition is {\it not}\, fulfilled.
Also, the maturity times are large.
In all six cases, the values $a$, $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$, $\sigma_2$
pertinent to the Hull--White model as well as the two correlations
$\rho_{13}$, $\rho_{23}$ are chosen in an arbitrary, realistic way.
Here the corresponding correlation matrices are always positive
definite.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SpatialErrorNonUniformCaseAMCS.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SpatialErrorNonUniformCaseBMCS.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SpatialErrorNonUniformCaseCMCS.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SpatialErrorNonUniformCaseDMCS.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SpatialErrorNonUniformCaseEMCS.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SpatialErrorNonUniformCaseFMCS.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Spatial discretization errors $e(2m,m,m)$ vs $1/m$ for
European call options in the six cases of Table~\ref{cases1} with
$\rho_{13}=\rho_{23}=0$ for $m=10,15,\ldots,75$.
\vspace{9mm}
}
\label{SpatialError1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SpatialErrorUniformCaseAMCS.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SpatialErrorUniformCaseBMCS.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SpatialErrorUniformCaseCMCS.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SpatialErrorUniformCaseDMCS.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SpatialErrorUniformCaseEMCS.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SpatialErrorUniformCaseFMCS.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Spatial discretization errors with uniform $2m\times m\times m$ grid
for European call options in the six cases of Table~\ref{cases1} with
$\rho_{13}=\rho_{23}=0$ for $m=10,15,\ldots,75$. \vspace{9mm} }
\label{SpatialError0}
\end{figure}
We first consider the FD discretization and study the spatial
discretization errors defined by (\ref{es}), with region of interest
\begin{equation*}
{\cal D}=(\tfrac{1}{2}K,\tfrac{3}{2}K)\times (0,1)\times (0,\tfrac{1}{4}).
\end{equation*}
As mentioned above, it is possible to compute these whenever
$\rho_{13}=\rho_{23}=0$.
Figure~\ref{SpatialError1} displays the errors $e(2m,m,m)$ vs $1/m$ in
the six pertinent cases of Table~\ref{cases1} for $m=10,15,\ldots,75$.
Note that $m=75$ means $M=855000$ spatial grid points, which was the
practical (memory) limit on our laptop computer.
Figure~\ref{SpatialError1} clearly shows that in each case the spatial
discretization errors decrease as $m$ increases.
To determine the numerical orders of convergence, straight lines have
been fitted to the results.
In the cases A, B, C, D, F the obtained orders of convergence are all
equal to two approximately.
Only in case E a slightly lower order was obtained, namely 1.6.
As an indication of the sizes of the spatial discretization errors in
a relative sense, we mention that these always lie between 0.2\% and
1.2\% when $m=50$ and between 0.1\% and 0.6\% when $m=75$ (here only
option values are considered that are greater than~1).
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the FD discretization defined
in Section~\ref{space} performs satisfactory in all six cases.
It is interesting to briefly compare the spatial errors to those obtained
with a uniform grid and the same number of grid points.
Figure~\ref{SpatialError0} shows spatial discretization errors analogously
to Figure~\ref{SpatialError1}, but then for uniform $2m\times m\times m$
grids.
Clearly, in most cases the spatial errors for the nonuniform grid are
substantially smaller, often by an order of magnitude, than those for the
corresponding uniform grid.
Further, it is clear that for a uniform grid the behavior of the spatial
error as a function of the number of grid points is erratic, which is
undesirable.
Also, the nonuniform grid yields more points in the region in
$(s,v,r)$--space where one wishes to obtain option prices.
We therefore conclude that the nonuniform grid defined in Section
\ref{space} is preferable over a uniform grid.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseAEur.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseBEur.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseCEur.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseDEur.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseEEur.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseFEur.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Temporal discretization errors $\widehat{e}\,(\Delta t;100,50,50)$
vs $\Delta t$ for European call options in the six cases of Table~\ref{cases1}.
ADI schemes: Do with $\theta=\frac{2}{3}$ (diamond), CS with $\theta=\frac{1}{2}$
(dark circle), MCS with $\theta=\max\{\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{13}(2\gamma+1)\}$
(light circle) and HV with $\theta=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6}\sqrt{3}$ (square).}
\label{TemporalError1}
\end{figure}
We next consider the performance of the four ADI schemes in the
application to the semidiscrete HHW PDE for European call options
in the six cases of Table~\ref{cases1} with all correlations nonzero.
Figure~\ref{TemporalError1} displays the temporal discretization
errors $\widehat{e}\,(\Delta t;2m,m,m)$ for a sequence of step sizes
with $10^{-3} \le \Delta t \le 10^0$ when $m=50$.
A first main observation from Figure~\ref{TemporalError1} is that for
all four ADI schemes the temporal discretization errors are bounded
from above by a moderate value and decay monotonically as $\Delta t$
decreases.
Additional experiments indicate that this is true for any value $m$;
see a further discussion below.
This suggests an unconditionally stable behavior of the schemes,
which is a new and nontrivial result.
It does not directly follow for example from the von Neumann
stability analysis presented in Section~\ref{ADI}.
We note that this result holds in all six cases, independently
of whether or not the Feller condition is fulfilled.
A next observation is that the CS scheme exhibits an undesirable feature
in the cases \mbox{A, B, C} with temporal errors that are very large for
moderate $\Delta t$, compared to what may be expected on the basis of its
asymptotic error behavior (ie, for small $\Delta t$).
To a much lesser extent, this is also observed with the HV and MCS
schemes.
Additional experiments reveal that the relatively large temporal
errors occur at spatial grid points near the strike $K$.
It is already known in the literature that the nonsmoothness
of the initial function at the strike yields high-frequency errors
which are not always sufficiently damped by numerical schemes,
notably the Crank--Nicolson scheme and the Do and CS schemes with
$\theta = \tfrac{1}{2}$.
A popular remedy for this situation is to first apply, at $t=0$, two
implicit Euler steps with step size $\Delta t /2$, and then to proceed
onwards from $t=\Delta t$ with the scheme under consideration,
cf Rannacher (1984).
However, in our present application of the three-dimensional HHW PDE
this damping procedure is computationally intensive.
We shall consider an alternative in the next subsection.
A further analysis of the results in Figure~\ref{TemporalError1} indicates
that in each case the temporal discretization errors for the Do scheme
are bounded from above by $C \Delta t$ and for the MCS, HV schemes by
$C (\Delta t)^2$ (whenever $\Delta t >0$) with constants $C$ depending
on the scheme and the case.
This clearly agrees with the respective orders of consistency of the
schemes.
Moreover, experiments with both smaller and larger values of $m$ suggest
that the constants $C$ are only weakly dependent on the number of spatial
grid points $M$, ie, the error bounds are valid in a stiff sense, which
is a desirable property.
This result is also nontrivial, as the order of consistency is a priori
only relevant to fixed, nonstiff systems of ODEs.
For the CS scheme, we find that the temporal errors can be bounded in
each case by $C (\Delta t)^2$ with a constant $C$ independent of
stiffness if damping is applied.
Actual numerical experiments for ADI schemes combined with damping
will be presented in the next subsection.
Our implementation of the ADI finite difference discretization has been
done in Matlab, where all matrices have been defined as sparse.
For the CS, MCS, HV schemes the cpu-time per time step was about 0.10,
0.18, 0.90, 1.5 cpu-seconds for $m =$ 25, 30, 50, 60, respectively,
on one Intel Core Duo T7250 2.00 GHz processor with 4 GB memory;
for the Do scheme these times are about halved.
Here all correlations were nonzero and the mean reversion level
was time-dependent.
It readily follows that the cpu-times are indeed almost directly
proportional to the number of spatial grid points $M \sim 2m^3$.
\subsection{Up-and-out call options}
As an important and particularly challenging type of exotic options we
consider here European-style up-and-out call options.
The FD discretization described in Section~\ref{space} is adapted with
few modifications.
Let barrier $S_{\max}=:B>K$ be given.
Then the boundary conditions (\ref{BC}b), (\ref{BC}c) are replaced by
\begin{subeqnarray}\label{BC2}
\phantom{\frac{\partial u}{\partial s}}u(s,v,r,t)&=~~0
\quad &{\rm whenever}~~s=B,\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial v}(s,v,r,t)&=~~0
\quad &{\rm whenever}~~v=V_{\max}.
\end{subeqnarray}
\vskip0.1cm\noindent
The condition (\ref{BC2}b) has been suggested by various authors in the
literature.
Note that all boundary conditions are now homogeneous, and $g(t) \equiv 0$.
The relevant set of spatial grid points is
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{G} = \{(s_i, v_j, r_k): 1\leq i \leq m_1-1\,,\, 0\leq j\leq m_2
\,,\, 0\leq k\leq m_3\}.
\end{align*}
The only significant change we make to the FD discretization of
Section~\ref{space} is to replace, in the $s$-direction, the central
advection scheme \eqref{MethodB} by the backward scheme (\ref{backw})
if $r<0$ and by the forward scheme (\ref{forw}) if $r>0$.
This upwind approach alleviates spurious oscillations in the FD
solution that are obtained with the central advection scheme.
It is already useful for up-and-out call options in the
one-dimensional Black--Scholes model.
The pricing of up-and-out call options is numerically more challenging
than of vanilla options, due to the boundary layer that is introduced
at the barrier.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ExactUOCaseA.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ExactUOCaseB.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ExactUOCaseC.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ExactUOCaseD.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ExactUOCaseE.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ExactUOCaseF.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{European up-and-out call option values in all cases of
Table~\ref{cases1} with barrier $B=120$.
Spot interest rates in the cases A, B, C, D, E, F are, respectively,
$r=$ 0.025, 0.022, 0.025, 0.027, 0.022, 0.017.
Note: scales on vertical axes vary.}
\label{ExactBarrier}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseABarNoDamping.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseBBarNoDamping.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseCBarNoDamping.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseDBarNoDamping.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseEBarNoDampingCS1.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseFBarNoDamping.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Temporal discretization errors $\widehat{e}\,(\Delta t;100,50,50)$ vs
$\Delta t$\, for up-and-out call options in all cases of Table~\ref{cases1} for
barrier $B=120$.
ADI schemes: Do with $\theta=\frac{2}{3}$ (diamond), CS with $\theta=\frac{1}{2}$
(dark circle), MCS with $\theta=\max\{\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{13}(2\gamma+1)\}$
(light circle), and HV with $\theta=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6}\sqrt{3}$ (square).
~No initial damping.} \label{TemporalError2a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseABarDoDamping.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseBBarDoDamping.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseCBarDoDamping.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseDBarDoDamping.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseEBarDoDamping.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TemporalErrorCaseFBarDoDamping.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Temporal discretization errors $\widehat{e}\,(\Delta
t;100,50,50)$ vs $\Delta t$\, for up-and-out call options in all
cases of Table~\ref{cases1} for barrier $B=120$.
ADI schemes: Do with $\theta=\frac{2}{3}$ (diamond), CS with $\theta=\frac{1}{2}$
(dark circle), MCS with $\theta=\max\{\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{13}(2\gamma+1)\}$
(light circle), and HV with $\theta=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6}\sqrt{3}$ (square).
Two initial damping substeps using the Do scheme with $\theta =1$.}
\label{TemporalError2b}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{ExactBarrier} displays the numerically obtained up-and-out
call option values in the six cases of Table~\ref{cases1} for barrier
$B=120$ and (sampled) spot interest rates $r \approx 0.02$ on the
$(s,v)$-domain $[0,B]\times [0,1)$.
Here the FD discretization has been applied with $m=50$ and for the
time discretization the HV scheme is used with $\Delta t = 10^{-2}$.
We study in detail the performance of the four ADI schemes.
Similar to the case of European call options, Figure~\ref{TemporalError2a}
shows the temporal discretization errors $\widehat{e}\,(\Delta t;2m,m,m)$
in the case of up-and-out call options for a sequence of step sizes
$10^{-3} \le \Delta t \le 10^0$ when $m=50$.
As a first observation, it is clear from Figure~\ref{TemporalError2a} that
the unfavorable feature of relatively large temporal errors for moderate
step sizes is more pronounced compared to the case of vanilla options,
especially for the CS scheme, cf Subsection \ref{Eurcall}.
We attribute this to the additional discontinuity of the payoff function
at the barrier $s=B$.
We therefore consider application of a damping procedure at $t=0$.
Instead of performing two substeps at $t=0$ with step size $\Delta t / 2$
by the implicit Euler scheme, which forms a common approach, we employ
here the Do scheme, with parameter value $\theta=1$.
This is computationally more attractive when dealing with multidimensional
PDEs.
Figure~\ref{TemporalError2b} shows the temporal discretization errors
in the case of up-and-out call options when two initial substeps with
the Do scheme and $\theta=1$ are applied.
Clearly, the behavior of the temporal error as a function of the step
size has become regular and, in most cases, at only a limited loss of
accuracy for small $\Delta t$ (an exception being the CS scheme in
case E).
Hence, the present damping procedure performs satisfactory.
Applying two substeps of the implicit Euler scheme for the damping would
yield similar or somewhat smaller temporal errors than those in Figure
\ref{TemporalError2b}.
However, we find that this comes at a much higher computational cost,
also when iterative solvers, like BiCGSTAB, are applied.
We thus infer that damping with the Do scheme is more efficient.
As a main positive conclusion, the numerical results for all ADI schemes
are consistent with an unconditionally stable behavior:
the temporal discretization errors are bounded from above by a moderate
value and decay monotonically as $\Delta t$ decreases, which is obtained
for any value~$m$ tested.
A closer inspection of the results displayed in Figure \ref{TemporalError2b}
yields that the temporal errors behave for sufficiently small $\Delta t$
as $C (\Delta t)^p$ with $p=1.0$ for the Do scheme and $1.6\le p \le 2.0$
for the CS, MCS, HV schemes, with constants $C$.
Experiments with different values of $m$ reveal that both $p$ and $C$
are only weakly dependent on the number of spatial grid points $M$,
indicating that the error behavior is valid in a stiff, hence favorable,
sense.
Note further that the difference in performance between the Do scheme
and the CS, MCS, HV schemes is often less striking than in the case of
vanilla options, but for the latter three schemes combined with damping
still a higher order and increased accuracy is obtained.
\section{Conclusions and future research}\label{concl}
In this paper we studied ADI schemes in the numerical solution of the
three-dimensional HHW PDE: the Do scheme, the CS scheme, the MCS scheme
and the HV scheme, each with a well~chosen parameter $\theta$.
Extensive experiments have been conducted for six cases of parameter
sets for the HHW model, including correlations that are all nonzero,
time-dependent mean-reversion levels, and short and long maturities.
In three cases the Feller condition is not fulfilled.
We considered both European call options and up-and-out call options.
Our tests have shown that all ADI schemes perform very well in terms
of stability, accuracy and efficiency.
In particular they always reveal an unconditionally stable behavior.
Next, the Do scheme always has a stiff order of convergence equal
to one.
The CS, MCS, HV schemes show a stiff order of convergence equal to
two for European call options and, when combined with damping,
between 1.6 and 2.0 for up-and-out call options.
Based on the numerical experiments and the theoretical stability
results, we find that the MCS scheme with
$\theta = \max\{\tfrac{1}{3},\tfrac{2}{13}(2\gamma+1)\}$
and the HV scheme with
$\theta = \tfrac{1}{2}+\tfrac{1}{6}\sqrt{3}$
are preferable.
Here $\gamma =\max_{ij} |\rho_{ij}|$.
Also the CS scheme with $\theta = \tfrac{1}{2}$ is a good candidate.
For the latter scheme, a damping procedure at $t=0$ is always
recommended.
Damping can be done efficiently, in an ADI fashion, by applying
the Do scheme with $\theta = 1$.
The Do, CS, MCS and HV schemes are expected to perform well and possess
similar favorable properties as obtained in this paper in the numerical
solution of many other three-dimensional PDEs and for other exotic
options.
Also, the ADI schemes can directly be applied, with high efficiency, when
any other FD discretization is employed, as the matrices $A_j(t)$
($1\le j\le 3$) always have a small bandwidth.
We shall investigate other applications in future research.
At the same time, a further theoretical stability analysis of the ADI
schemes will be carried out.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section*{Appendix}
Here we give the semi closed-form analytic formula for European call
option values $\varphi(s,v,r,\tau)$ under the HHW model (\ref{SDE})
with $\rho_{13}=\rho_{23}=0$ as derived in Muskulus, In 't Hout,
Bierkens et al (2007).
The notation is adapted to our present situation.
We put $\rho=\rho_{12}$.
The solution presented in loc cit is of a form similar to the
Black--Scholes formula,
\begin{equation*}\label{guess}
\varphi(e^x,v,r,\tau) = e^x P_1(x,v,r,\tau) - K B(r,\tau) P_2(x,v,r,\tau).
\end{equation*}
Here $B(r,\tau)$ denotes the value at time $\tau$ of a zero-coupon bond
that pays 1 at maturity, given that at time $\tau$ the short rate equals
$r$.
For this, it is well-known that
\begin{subeqnarray*}\label{BF}
B(r,\tau) &=& e^{c(r,\tau)} \,, \\
c(r,\tau) &=& -\frac{r}{a}\left(1-e^{-a(T-\tau)}\right)
-\int_\tau^T b(\lambda)\left(1-e^{-a(T-\lambda)}\right)d\lambda
\nonumber\\
& & +~\frac{\sigma_2^2}{2a^2}\left( T-\tau +
\frac{2}{a}e^{-a(T-\tau)}-\frac{1}{2a} e^{-2a(T-\tau)}-\frac{3}{2a}\right).
\end{subeqnarray*}
The $P_1$, $P_2$ can be viewed as probabilities and are retrieved from
characteristic functions $f_1$, $f_2$ by inversion:
\begin{equation*}\label{INV}
P_j(x,v,r,\tau)= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^\infty
{\rm Re}\left[\frac{e^{-\imi y\ln K}f_j(x,v,r,\tau;y)}{\imi y}\right]dy
\quad {\rm for}~j=1,2.
\end{equation*}
with $\imi^2 = -1$.
The functions $f_1$, $f_2$ have the form
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{f}
f_1(x,v,r,\tau;y)&=&e^{F_1(\tau;y)+G_1(\tau;y)v+H_1(\tau;y)r+\imi x y},\\
f_2(x,v,r,\tau;y)&=&e^{F_2(\tau;y)+G_2(\tau;y)v+H_2(\tau;y)r+\imi x y-c(r,\tau)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $\delta_1 = 0$, $\delta_2 = 1$ and $j=1,2$.
Then
\begin{equation*}\label{H12}
H_j(\tau;y) = \frac{\imi y -\delta_j}{a} \left( 1-e^{-a(T-\tau)} \right).
\end{equation*}
Next, let
\begin{equation*}
\alpha = \kappa \eta~~,~~\beta_1 = \kappa - \rho\sigma_1~~,~~\beta_2 = \kappa~~,
~~\gamma_1 = \frac{1}{2}~~,~~\gamma_2 = -\frac{1}{2}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
d_j = \sqrt{(\beta_j -\imi \rho\sigma_1 y)^2 -\sigma_1^2(2\imi\gamma_j y -y^2)}~~,~~
g_j = \frac{\beta_j -\imi \rho\sigma_1 y+d_j}{\beta_j -\imi\rho\sigma_1 y -d_j}\,.
\end{equation*}
Then
\begin{equation*}\label{G12}
G_j(\tau;y) = \frac{\beta_j - \imi \rho\sigma_1 y +d_j}{\sigma_1^2}
\left[ \frac{1-e^{d_j (T-\tau)}}{1- g_j e^{d_j (T-\tau)}}\right].
\end{equation*}
Finally,
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{F12}
F_j(\tau;y)
&=& \frac{\alpha}{\sigma_1^2}\left\{(\beta_j - \imi\rho\sigma_1 y +d_j)(T-\tau)
-2\ln \left[ \frac{1- g_j e^{d_j(T-\tau)}}{1-g_j}\right] \right\}
\nonumber \\
&&+ (\imi y-\delta_j)\int_\tau^T b(\lambda)\left(1-e^{-a(T-\lambda)}\right)d\lambda
\nonumber\\
&& + \frac{\sigma_2^2}{2} \left( \frac{\imi y -\delta_j}{a} \right)^2
\left( T-\tau + \frac{2}{a} e^{-a(T-\tau)}-\frac{1}{2a} e^{-2a(T-\tau)}-\frac{3}{2a}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
The above valuation formula is easily seen to constitute a proper extension
of Heston's (1993) formula, by taking $b(\tau)\equiv r_0$ and $\sigma_2=0$.
It can be approximated to any accuracy, by a direct adaptation of numerical
integration techniques already well studied in the literature for Heston's
formula.
We note that the additional integrals involving the function $b$ can be
exactly determined in our particular case of (\ref{meanr}).
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors gratefully acknowledge Peter Forsyth for a stimulating discussion,
convincing them of the proper boundary condition for the HHW PDE at $v=0$ and
pointing them to the work by Ekstr\"{o}m \& Tysk.
The authors also thank Jan Van Casteren for a valuable, unpublished note on
the validity of the HHW PDE.
Furthermore, they are indebted to Sven Foulon for providing an implementation
of Heston's formula for European call options, which we extended to our case.
This work has been supported financially by the Research Foundation -- Flanders,
FWO contract no.~G.0125.08.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
There is now a very large literature about the distribution of
scattering poles (resonances) often using methods from non-self-adjoint spectral
theory and microlocal analysis, including many results about upper and
lower bounds
on the density of resonances. See for instance \cite{St06},
\cite{Chr10} and the references given there. Less is known about
actual asymptotics for the number of resonances in various domains. In
this paper we shall give such a result for the
semi-classical Schr\"odinger operator
\ekv{intro.1}{P=-h^2\Delta +V(x),}
on ${\bf R}^n$ where $V\in L^\infty ({\bf R}^n;{\bf R})$ has compact
support.
Recall that the resonances or scattering poles of the operator
(\ref{intro.1}) can be defined as the poles of the meromorphic
extension of the resolvent $(P-z)^{-1}:C_0^\infty ({\bf R}^n)\to
H^2_\mathrm{loc} ({\bf R}^n)$ across the positive
real axis, to the logarithmic covering space of ${\bf
C}\setminus \{ 0\}$ when $n$ is even and to the double covering when
$n$ is odd. Alternatively we can continue $(P-k^2)^{-1}$ from the
upper half-plane across ${\bf R}\setminus \{ 0\}$ which gives a
meromorphic function on {\bf C} when $n$ is odd. Using the second
definition, we can introduce the number $N(r)$ of resonances in the disc
$D(0,r)$ when $n$ is odd.
In one dimension and for $h=1$, M.~Zworski \cite{Zw87} showed that if
$[a,b]$ is the convex hull of the support of $V$, then
\ekv{intro.2}{N(r)=\frac{2(b-a)}{\pi }r+o(r),\ r\to \infty ,} which is
2 times the asymptotic number of eigenvalues $\le r^2$ of the
Dirichlet realization of $-\Delta +V$ on $[a,b]$, the factor 2 being
explained by the fact that the resonances are symmetric around the
imaginary axis. He also showed that most of these concentrate to
narrow sectors around the real axis. This extended an earlier result
of Regge. Subsequently R.~Froese \cite{Fr97} got similar results for
potentials that do not necessarily have compact support but are very
small near infinity. See also the recent works \cite{DaPu10, DaExLi10,
ExLi11} about Weyl and non-Weyl asymptotics for graphs.
In higher odd dimensions, M.~Zworski \cite{Zw89} considered the case
of radial potentials of the form $V(x)=f(|x|)$ with support in
$\overline{B(0,a)}$ where $f\in C^2([0,a])$, $a>0$, $f(a)\ne 0$ and obtained a
Weyl type asympotics (still with $h=1$), \ekv{intro.3} {
N(r)=K_na^nr^n+o(r^n),\ r\to +\infty , }
where $ K_n>0$.
In \cite{St06}, P.~Stefanov gave
an explicit formula for the constant $K_na^n$ and showed that the
right hand side of
(\ref{intro.3}) is up to $o(r^n)$ the sum of 2 times the number of
eigenvalues $\le r^2$ for the interior Dirichlet problem in the ball
$B(0,a)$ and the number of scattering poles for the exterior
Dirichlet Laplacian in ${\bf R}^n\setminus B(0,a)$. He also showed (as
a corollary of a more general result for operators with black box)
that if we drop the radiality assumption and only assume that $V\in
L^\infty ({\bf R}^n;{\bf R})$ has its support in $\overline{B(0,a)}$,
then we have the upper bound
\ekv{intro.4}{N(r)\le K_na^nr^n+o(r^n),\ r\to +\infty .}
\par T.~Christiansen \cite{Chr10} introduced the set $\mathfrak{M}_a$
of $L^\infty $ potentials $V$ with support in $\overline{B(0,a)}$ for
which we have (\ref{intro.3}) and gave the leading asymptotics, of the
form $Cr^n$, for the number of resonances in sectors in the lower
half-plane intersected with the disc $D(0,r)$. These formulas were
implicit in \cite{Zw89, St06} in the case of the radial potentials
considered there. In particular, when considering smaller and smaller
sectors adjacent to ${\bf R}_+$ or ${\bf R}_-$ we can see, using Lemma 3.3
of \cite{Chr10} and some wellknown formulas for the $\Gamma $ function
and the volume of the unit ball, that the constant $C$ converges to
the one we get in the leading Weyl asymptotics for the number of
Dirichlet eigenvalues for the Laplacian in $B(0,a)$. In the theorems 1.2,
1.3 of the same paper the author gives interesting extensions ``for
most values of $z$'' to the case of potentials $V(x,z)$ depending
holomorphically on a parameter $z$ with $\mathrm{supp\,}V(\cdot
,z)\subset \overline{B(0,a)}$ such that $V(\cdot ,z_0)$ belongs to
$\mathfrak{M}_a$ for at least one value of $z_0$. Such results remain
significant also after restriction to real-valued potentials. (See also
earlier results of the same author, cited in \cite{Chr10}.)
The main result of this paper has some relations to the above
mentioned ones. We work in the semi-classical limit ($h\to 0$) and the
ball $B(0,a)$ is replaced by a more general strictly convex set. Our
is result does not make use of any class of the type $\mathfrak{M}_a$
and the conclusion concerns the number of resonances in a thin
rectangle without any need for taking a $\limsup$ or an average as in
the corresponding results in \cite{Chr10}. Nevertheless it is very
interesting to note the similarities of the results, and there are
also similarities in the proofs at least on some ideological level.
We next proceed with a rough description of our result and leave the
precise statements to the next section. Let ${\cal O}\Subset {\bf R}^n$
be open strictly convex with smooth boundary and let $V_0\in C^\infty
(\overline{{\cal O}};{\bf R})$ vanish to the order $v_0>0$ on the
boundary. By $V_0$ we also denote the extension to all of ${\bf R}^n$
which vanishes outside ${\cal O}$ and we consider the potential
$$V(x)=V_0(x)+\delta \widetilde{q}_\omega (x)$$ where $\delta >0$ is a small
parameter $>0$ and $\widetilde{q}_\omega $ a random perturbation whose
properties will be specified in the next section. A possible choice of
$\delta $ is a high power of $h$. Our main result, Theorem
\ref{re1} then states that if $0<a<b<\infty $ and if $C>0$ is large
enough so that the exterior Dirichlet problem for $-h^2\Delta $ has no
resonances in the rectangle $[a,b]+ih^{2/3}[-C^{-1},0]$, then with
probability very close to 1, the number of resonances of $P=-h^2\Delta
+V$ in the rectangle $[a,b]+ih^{2/3}[-C^{-1},0]$ is equal to the
number $N_0([a,b])$ of eigenvalues in $[a,b]$ of the Dirichlet
realization of $h^2\Delta +V_0$ in ${\cal O}$ plus two ``errors''. The
first error is a term that can be bounded by a positive power of $h$
times $h^{-n}$. The second error is bounded by a constant times
$N_0([a-\rho ,a+\rho ])+N_0([b-\rho ,b+\rho ])$ where $\rho
=h^{\frac{2}{3}-\delta }$ for any fixed $\delta >0$. As will be stated
more explicitly in Theorem \ref{re4}, we can choose our class of
random perturbations to be concentrated to a ball of radius $h^N$ in
the Sobolev space $H^s$ for arbitrarily large $N$ and $s$.
The motivation for this work was to apply recent results and
techniques for proving Weyl asymptotics for non-self-adjoint
differential operators with small random
perturbations either in the semi-classical limit or in the limit of
large eigenvalues \cite{Sj08a, Sj08b, BoSj10}, to the problem of
resonances. Indeed, using some version of complex scaling or its
microlocal versions, this can be viewed as an eigenvalue problem for a
non-self-adjoint operator. The new difficulty here is however that if
we want to keep a realistic problem we should apply the random
perturbation first and use complex scaling only outside the support of
the perturbation. If we let $p(x,\xi )$ denote the leading
semi-classical symbol of the scaled operator, and we let $z$ vary in a
complex domain like a thin recatngle along the real axis, then as soon
as $z$ is not real, the set $p^{-1}(z)$ must belong to
the part of phase space which corresponds to the scaled region (since the original unscaled symbol is real valued) and hence
the support of the random perturbation is away from the $x$-space
projection of this set. This leads to a difficulty since the method in
\cite{Sj08a, Sj08b} is based on the study of the random matrix
$(\widetilde{q}_\omega e_j|\overline{e}_k) $, where $e_1,...,e_N$ is an
orthonormal family of eigenfunctions of $(P-z)^*(P-z)$ corresponding
to the small eigenvalues and where we let $P$ denote the scaled
operator. Now, the $e_j$ will be concentrated to the projection of
$p^{-1}(z)$ so if the distance from that set to the support of the
random perturbation is too large, our random matrix will be very small
which is a serious problem in the approach of \cite{Sj08a, Sj08b}. In
order to make the distance smaller, one could try to make the
distorsion very important already very close to the support of the
perturbation, but that leads to the use of very exotic symbols and
after some attempts in that direction we decided to follow a different
approach, where the ideas above are possibly less apparent, but which
finally worked out. In the next section we formulate the result and in
Section \ref{outl} we give an outline of the proof.
\paragraph{Acknowledgements} We thank J.M.~Bouclet for having
pointed out the reference \cite{Ca02} where the idea of
differentiating several times to reach trace class operators is
clearly present (cf Section \ref{gpd}). We also thank T.~Christiansen
for helpful comments about \cite{Chr10} and A.~Voros for indicating
references about the complex WKB-method.
Discussions with M.~Zworski and M.~Hitrik around other joint works and
projects, have been helpful when preparing the sections \ref{cds}, \ref{aed}.
\section{The result}\label{re}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Readers who only wish a quick idea with less parameters can
proceed directly to Theorem \ref{re4}.
Let ${\cal O}\Subset {\bf R}^n$ be open strictly convex with smooth
boundary. Our unperturbed operator will be
\ekv{re.1}
{
P_0=-h^2\Delta +V_0:\ L^2({\bf R}^n)\to L^2({\bf R}^n),
}
where $V_0\in C^\infty (\overline{{\cal O}})$ and we identify $V_0$
with its zero extension. We also assume:
\ekv{re.2}
{\hbox{On }\partial {\cal O}\hbox{ we have }
V_0(x)=0 \hbox{ and } \partial _{\nu }V_0\le 0,
}
where $\nu $ denotes the exterior unit normal.
\par The result concerns the distribution of resonances of \ekv{re.3} {
P=P_\delta =P_0+\delta \Theta (x)q_\omega (x), } where $\Theta (x)\in C^\infty (\overline{{\cal O}})$ satisfies \ekv{re.4} { 0<\Theta (x)\asymp
\mathrm{dist\,}(x,\partial {\cal O})^{v_0},\ x\in {\cal O}\setminus \partial
{\cal O},\ v_0\in ]\frac{n-1}{2},+\infty [\cap {\bf N}. }
As in (\ref{re.1}) $\Theta $ also denotes the $0$-extension to all of
${\bf R}^n$.
\par As in \cite{Sj08a, Sj08b}, we choose the random function
$q_\omega $ of the form
\ekv{re.5}
{q_\omega (x)=\sum_{0<\mu _k\le L}\alpha _k(\omega )\epsilon
_k(x),\ |\alpha |_{{\bf R}^D}\le R,}
where $\epsilon _k$ is an orthonormal basis of real eigenfunctions of
$h^2\widetilde{R}$, where $\widetilde{R}$ is an $h$-independent real
positive elliptic 2nd order operator on $X$ with smooth
coefficients. Here $X$ is a smooth compact manifold of dimension $n$
containing $\overline{{\cal O}}$ (in the sense that we have some
diffeomorphism from a neighborhood of $\overline{{\cal O}}$ onto an
open set in $X$ and we identify $\overline{{\cal O}}$ with its image).
For instance, we can let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional torus and choose
$-\widetilde{R}$ to be the Laplacian.
Moreover, $h^2\widetilde{R}\epsilon _k=\mu
_k^2 \epsilon _k$, $\mu _k>0$.
We choose $L=L(h)$, $R=R(h)$ in the following intervals where
$s\in ]\frac{n}{2},v_0+\frac{1}{2} [$, $\epsilon \in ]0,s-\frac{n}{2}[$,
$\theta
\in ]0,1/2[ $ are fixed:
\ekv{re.6}
{\begin{split}h^{-M_\mathrm{min}}\ll L\le Ch^{-M},&\
M\ge M_\mathrm{min}:=\frac{v_0+\frac{\frac{1}{3}+n}{1-2\theta
}}{s-\frac{n}{2}-\epsilon },\\
h^{-\widetilde{M}_\mathrm{min}}\le R\le
h^{-\widetilde{M}},&\ \widetilde{M}\ge
\widetilde{M}_\mathrm{min}:=(\frac{n}{2}+\epsilon
)M_\mathrm{min}+1+\frac{3n}{2}+v_0 ,\end{split}}
and we shall denote by $L_\mathrm{min}$ and $R_\mathrm{min}$ the lower
bounds for $L$ and $R$ in these estimates.
By Weyl's law for the large eigenvalues of elliptic
self-adjoint operators, the dimension $D$ is of the order of magnitude
$(L/h)^n$. We introduce the small parameter
\ekv{re.8}
{\begin{split}
&\delta =\tau _0h^\alpha /C,\quad \tau _0\in ]0,h^{\frac{5}{3}}],\\
&\alpha \ge \alpha (n,v_0,s,\epsilon ,\theta ,M,\widetilde{M} ),
\end{split}
}
where an explicit (and not very nice) expression for $\alpha
(n,v_0,s,\epsilon ,\theta ,M,\widetilde{M})$ can be deduced from the proof.
\par The random variables $\alpha _j(\omega )$ will have a
joint probability distribution \ekv{int.6.5}{P(d\alpha )=C(h)e^{\Phi
(\alpha ;h)}L(d\alpha ),} where for some $N_4>0$,
\ekv{re.9}{ |\nabla _\alpha \Phi |={\cal
O}(h^{-N_4}),} and $L(d\alpha )$ is the
Lebesgue measure on ${\bf R}^D$. ($C(h)$ is the norming constant.)
\par We also need the parameter \ekv{re.11}{\epsilon _0(h)=h((\ln
\frac{1}{h})^2+\ln \frac{1}{\tau _0})} and assume that $\tau _0=\tau
_0(h)$ is not too small, so that $\epsilon _0(h)$ is small.
\par It was shown by T.~Harg\'e and G.~Lebeau \cite{HaLe94}, see also
\cite{SjZw3}, that the exterior Dirichlet problem for
$-h^2\Delta $ on ${\bf R}^n\setminus {\cal O}$ has no resonances in
the set
\ekv{re.10.5}
{
\Im z\ge -2(h\Re z)^{\frac{2}{3}}\kappa \zeta _1+Ch,\ \frac{1}{2}\le
\Re z\le 2,
}
if $C$ is large enough, where
\ekv{re.10.7}{\kappa =2^{-\frac{1}{3}}\cos \frac{\pi}{6}\min _{S\partial {\cal
O}}Q^{\frac{2}{3}},}
$Q$ is the second fundamental form on $\partial {\cal O}$ and $\zeta
_1>0$ is the smallest zero of $\mathrm{Ai}(-t)$ with $\mathrm{Ai}$
denoting the Airy function which spans the space of solutions to
$(-\partial _t^2+t)u=0$ that are exponentially subdominant on the
positive real axis.
\par For technical reasons, we shall restrict the attention to
rectangles of the form $R=[a,b]+ih^{2/3}c[-1,0]$, $\frac{1}{2}\le
a<b\le 2$, $c>0$ with $c$ small enough so that $R$ is contained in the
domain (\ref{re.10.5}). Thus we will assume that $c<2(1/2)^{2/3}\kappa
\zeta _1$. (We could replace the bounds $1/2$ and $2$ by any other
positive bounds $0<b_1<b_2$.)
\par Let $P^0_{\mathrm{in}}$ denote the Dirichet realization of $P_0$
in ${\cal O}$ and let $N_0(\lambda )$ denote the number of eigenvalues
of $P^0_\mathrm{in}$ in the interval $]-\infty ,\lambda ]$. Similarly,
if $I\subset {\bf R}$ we let $N_0(I)$ denote the number of such eigenvalues
in $I$.
The main result of this work is:
\begin{theo}\label{re1}
Let $\sigma (P_\delta )$ denote the set of resonances of $P_\delta
$. Let $0<c_1<c_2<2(1/2)^{2/3}\kappa \zeta _1$, $\rho =h^{-\delta
_0+2/3}$, where $\delta _0>0$ is arbitrarily small but fixed. Then
there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for $\frac{1}{2}\le a<b\le 2$,
$c_1\le c\le c_2$ and $\widetilde{\epsilon }\ge C\epsilon _0(h)$, we
have with probability
\ekv{re.13}
{
\ge 1-{\cal O}(1)\frac{\epsilon
_0(h)}{h^{n+N_6+\frac{2}{3}}}e^{-\frac{\widetilde{\epsilon }}
{C\epsilon _0(h)}},
}
where the constant ${\cal O}(1)$ is independent of
$a,b,c,\widetilde{\epsilon },h$, that
\ekv{re.14}
{\begin{split}
|\# (\sigma (P_\delta )\cap
([a,b]+ih^{\frac{2}{3}}c[-1,0]))-N_0([a,b])|\\
\le {\cal
O}(1)
(\sum_{w=a,b}N_0([w-\rho ,w+\rho ]))+h^{-\frac{2}{3}-n}\widetilde{\epsilon }).\end{split}
}
Here $N_6=\max (N_3,N_5)$, where $N_3=n(M+1)$,
$N_5=N_4+\widetilde{M}$.
\end{theo}
\begin{remark}\label{re2}
{\rm As in \cite{Sj08a, Sj08b} and in an earlier work with M.~Hager cited
there, with probability
\ekv{re.15}
{
\ge 1-{\cal O}(1)\frac{\epsilon
_0(h)}{h^{n+N_6+\frac{4}{3}}}e^{-\frac{\widetilde{\epsilon }}{C\epsilon _0(h)}},
} we have (\ref{re.14}) simultaneously for $\frac{1}{2}\le a<b\le 2$,
$c_1\le c\le c_2$.}
\end{remark}
As we point out in Remark \ref{sv1}, for a general perturbation
$W=\delta \Theta q_\omega $ as in Theorem \ref{re1}, we have
$$
\Vert W\Vert_{H_h^{\widetilde{s}}({\bf R}^{n})}\le {\cal O}(\delta )L^{\widetilde{s}}R,
$$
provided that $\frac{n}{2}<\widetilde{s}<v_0+\frac{1}{2}$. Here
$H_h^{\widetilde{s}}$ is the standard Sobolev space equipped with its
natural semi-classical norm (see Section \ref{al}). By playing with
the parameters, the perturbations in Theorem \ref{re1} can be chosen
to be bounded by arbitrarily high powers of $h$ in Sobolev spaces with
arbitrarily high regularity exponents.
\begin{prop}\label{re3}
The conclusion in Theorem \ref{re1} remains valid if we replace
$V_0$ there with the $h$-independent potential $V_0+W_0$, where
$W_0\in L^\infty ({\cal O})$, $W_0={\cal
O}(\mathrm{dist\,}(x,\partial {\cal O})^3)$, $\partial ^\alpha
W_0\in L^\infty $ for $|\alpha | \le 2N$ and $W_0\in H^s(\overline{{\cal O}})$. Here $N$ is the smallest
integer in $](n-1)/2,+\infty [$ and $s>n/2$ is the
parameter in Theorem \ref{re1}.
\end{prop}
Recall that $H^s(\overline{{\cal O}})=\{v\in H^s({\bf R}^n);\,
\mathrm{supp\,}v\subset \overline{{\cal O}} \}$.
Combining the remark and Theorem \ref{re1}, we get the following less
detailed but perhaps more transparent version of our main
result, where our unperturbed potential is $V_1=W_0$.
\begin{theo}\label{re4}
Let $N=\min (]\frac{n-1}{2},+\infty [\cap {\bf Z})$,
$\widetilde{s}>\max(\frac{n}{2}+3,2N+\frac{n}{2})$, $s>\frac{n}{2}$
and let $\beta >0$.
Then there exists a probability measure $\mu $ on $H^s(\overline{{\cal
O}})$ with support in the ball $\{W\in
H^s(\overline{{\cal O}});\ \Vert W\Vert_{H^s}\le h^\beta \}$ such
that the following holds:
Let $0<c_1<c_2<2(1/2)^{2/3}\kappa \zeta _1$, $\rho =h^{-\delta
_0+2/3}$, where $\delta _0>0$ is arbitrarily small but fixed. There
exists a constant $C>0$ such that if $\frac{1}{2}\le a<b\le 2$,
$c_1\le c\le c_2$, $\widetilde{\epsilon }\ge Ch(\ln 1/h)^2$ and
$V_1\in H^{\widetilde{s}}(\overline{{\cal O}})$, then for
$P=-h^2\Delta +V_1+W$, $W\in H^s(\overline{{\cal O}})$, we have with
probability (with respect to the random term $W$) \ekv{re.16} { \ge
1-{\cal O}(1)\frac{h(\ln
1/h)^2}{h^{N_7}}e^{-\frac{\widetilde{\epsilon }} {Ch(\ln 1/h)^2}},
} that for the set $\sigma (P)$ of resonances of $P$, \ekv{re.17}
{\begin{split} |\# (\sigma (P)\cap
([a,b]+ih^{\frac{2}{3}}c[-1,0]))-N_0([a,b])|\\
\le {\cal O}(1) (\sum_{w=a,b}N_0([w-\rho ,w+\rho
]))+h^{-\frac{2}{3}-n}\widetilde{\epsilon }).\end{split} } Here
$N_7$ (equal to $n+N_6+2/3$ as in Theorem \ref{re1}, with
$M=M_\mathrm{min}$, $\widetilde{M}=\widetilde{M}_\mathrm{min}$) is
independent of the other parameters, while the constants ${\cal O}(1)$
in (\ref{re.16}), (\ref{re.17}) depend on $c_1,c_2,\beta
,\widetilde{s},s$ and on an upper bound on $\Vert
V_1\Vert_{H^{\widetilde{s}}(\overline{{\cal O}})}$.
\end{theo}
Indeed, it suffices to apply Proposition \ref{re3} with $V_0=0$,
$V_1=W_0$ and to observe:
\begin{itemize}
\item $V_1$ is of class $C^3$ with support in $\partial
\overline{{\cal O}}$ and therefore $V_1={\cal
O}(\mathrm{dist\,}(x,\partial {\cal O})^3)$,
\item It suffices to choose the perturbation $W=\delta \Theta q_\omega
$ as in (\ref{re.3})--(\ref{re.8}) with $M=M_\mathrm{min}$,
$\widetilde{M}=\widetilde{M}_\mathrm{min}$, $\tau _0=h^{5/3}$ and the parameters $v_0$ and
$\alpha$ sufficiently large.
\item We can choose the probability $\mu $ to be ``$P$'' in (\ref{int.6.5}), with
$\Phi =0$ (so that $N_4=0$), but any other choice as in
(\ref{int.6.5}), (\ref{re.9}) is OK.
\end{itemize}
\section{Some elements of the proof}\label{outl}
\setcounter{equation}{0} We will introduce a distorsion $\Gamma
\subset {\bf C}^n$ of ${\bf R}^n$ which concides with ${\bf R}^n$
along ${\cal O}$ and with an exterior dilation of ${\bf R}^n$ outside
${\cal O}$ as in \cite{SjZw2,SjZw3,SjZw4} and
\cite{HaLe94}. Let $P=P_\Gamma $ be the corresponding dilation of
$-h^2\Delta +V$, $V=V_0+\delta \Theta (x)q_\omega (x)$. Then (see for
instance \cite{SjZw1}) $P=P_\Gamma $ has discrete spectrum in an angle
$-\theta _0<\mathrm{arg\,}z\le 0$ and the eigenvalues there coincide
with the resonances.
Let $P_\mathrm{ext}$ be the Dirichlet realization of $P$ on $\Gamma
\setminus {\cal O}$, so that the spectrum of $P_\mathrm{ext}$ in the
above angle coincides with the set of resonances for the exterior
Dirichlet problem for $-h^2\Delta $ (recalling that
$\mathrm{supp\,}V\subset \overline{{\cal O}}$). As we recalled in
Section \ref{re}, there are no such resonances in
$[\frac{1}{2},2]+ih^{2/3}c_0[-1,0]$ if we fix
\ekv{outl.0}
{
0<c_0<2(\frac{1}{2})^{\frac{2}{3}}\kappa \zeta _1 .
}
Restricting $z$ to the
domain \ekv{outl.1} { \frac{1}{2}<\Re z<2,\ \Im
z>-c_0h^{\frac{2}{3}}, } we can therefore introduce the Green
operator $G_\mathrm{ext}(z):H^0(\Gamma \setminus {\cal O})\to H^2(\Gamma \setminus {\cal
O})$ and the Poisson operator $K_\mathrm{ext}:\, H^{3/2}(\partial {\cal O})\to
H^2(\Gamma \setminus {\cal O})$ so that the exterior Dirichlet operator
\ekv{outl.2} { {\cal
P}_\mathrm{ext}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}P-z\\h^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma \end{pmatrix}=H^2(\Gamma
\setminus {\cal O})\to H^0(\Gamma )\times H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Gamma
\setminus \partial
{\cal O}) } has the bounded inverse \ekv{outl.3} { {\cal
E}_\mathrm{ext}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}G_\mathrm{ext}
&h^{-\frac{1}{2}}K_\mathrm{ext}(z)\end{pmatrix}: H^0(\Gamma
\setminus {\cal O})\times
H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial {\cal O})\to H^2(\Gamma \setminus {\cal O}). } Here $\gamma
$ is the operator of restriction to $\partial {\cal O}$. Let ${\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}=\gamma hD_\nu K_\mathrm{ext}$ denote the
exterior Dirichlet to Neumann operator, where $D_\nu =\frac{1}{i}\frac{\partial
}{\partial \nu }$ and $\nu $ denotes the exterior unit
normal. Introduce \ekv{outl.4} { B=\gamma hD_\nu -{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}\gamma :\, H^2({\cal O})\to
H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\partial {\cal O}); } \ekv{outl.5} {
{\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}P-z\\
h^{\frac{1}{2}}B\end{pmatrix}:\, H^2({\cal O})\to H^0({\cal
O})\times H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\partial {\cal O}). } For $z$ in the
domain (\ref{outl.1}) we shall see, by considering the continuity
conditions at $\partial {\cal O}$, that $z$ is a resonance
(i.e. belongs to the spectrum of $P_\Gamma $) iff ${\cal
P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$ is non-bijective, or equivalently if $0\in \sigma
(P_\mathrm{out}(z))$ where $P_\mathrm{out}(z)=P-z:\, H^0({\cal O})\to
H^0(0)$ is the closed unbounded operator whose domain is the
``outgoing'' space: ${\cal D}(P_\mathrm{out}(z))=\{ u\in H^2({\cal
O});\, B(z)u=0\}$.
\par
Let
\ekv{outl.6}
{
{\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}P-z\\
h^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma \end{pmatrix}:\, H^2({\cal O})\to H^0({\cal
O})\times H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial {\cal O}),
}
which is bijective precisely when $z$ is not a (real) eigenvalue of
the Dirichlet realization of $P$ in ${\cal O}$. Away from the
Dirichlet spectrum we introduce the inverse
$$
{\cal E}_\mathrm{in}(z)=(G_\mathrm{in}(z),h^{-\frac{1}{2}}K_\mathrm{in}(z)):\,
H^0({\cal O})\times H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial {\cal O})\to H^2({\cal O})
$$
and notice (cf. (\ref{ub.3}), (\ref{red.6})) that
\ekv{outl.7}
{
{\cal
P}_\mathrm{out}(z)=\begin{pmatrix} 1 &0\\
h^{\frac{1}{2}}BG_\mathrm{in} &{\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}\end{pmatrix}{\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z).
}
Here ${\cal N}_\mathrm{in}=\gamma hD_\nu K_\mathrm{in}$ is the
interior Dirichlet to Neumann map. Thus for $z$ away from the
Dirichlet spectrum, $z$ is a resonance precisely when $0$ belongs to
the spectrum of ${\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}:H^{3/2}(\partial {\cal O})\to H^{1/2}(\partial {\cal
O})$.
In Section \ref{gpd} we show how to define -- up to some non-vanishing
factor -- $\det A(z)$ for certain holomorphic or meromorphic families of
operators that are not necessarily Schatten class perturbations of the
identity. With this extended notion of the determinant we get from
(\ref{outl.7}) that
\ekv{outl.8}
{
\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)=\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{in}\det ({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}).
}
\par A rather substantial part of the paper is devoted to the study of
${\cal N}_\mathrm{in}$, ${\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}$, in the regions $|\Im
z|\ge h^{2/3}/\widetilde{C}$ and $\Im z\ge -c_0h^{2/3}$ respectively,
where $\widetilde{C}$ is an arbitrarily large constant. Many such
studies have already been done (see for instance \cite{SjZw4}), but as
is often the case, we found it necessary to make a new one for the
needs of this paper. From this study we get somewhat roughly,
\ekv{outl.9}{\ln |\det ({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext})|\le {\cal O}(h^{1-n}).} for \ekv{outl.10} { \Re
z\in ]\frac{1}{2},2[,\ |\Im z|\asymp h^{2/3},\ \Im z\ge
-h^{\frac{2}{3}}c_0. } The exponent in (\ref{outl.9}) reflects the
fact that we have made a reduction to the $n-1$ dimensional manifold
$\partial {\cal O}$.
\par In view of (\ref{outl.8}) this gives a precise upper bound on
$\ln|\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)|$ for $z$ in the region
(\ref{outl.10}). Combined with a rough polynomial upper bound on $\ln |\det
{\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)|$ in the full region
$|\Im z|\le h^{\frac{2}{3}}/C$ and the maximum principle, we get the
upper bound
\ekv{outl.11}
{
\ln |\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)|\le \Phi _\mathrm{in}(z)+{\cal O}(h^{1-n})
}
in the rectangle (\ref{outl.10}), where $\Phi _\mathrm{in}(z)$
coincides with $\ln |\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z)|$ for $|\Im z|\ge
h^{2/3}/\widetilde{C}$ and is extended (suitably) as a harmonic
function inside $|\Im z|<h^{2/3}/\widetilde{C}$.
A last and quite substantial part of the paper is to show (in the
spirit of \cite{Sj08a, Sj08b}) that for every $z$ with $
h^{2/3}/\widetilde{C}\le |\Im z|\le c_0h^{2/3}$, $1/2 < \Re z<2$, we
also have a lower bound on $\ln |\det ({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext})|$ almost as sharp as the
upper bound (\ref{outl.9}) with probability very close to 1.
With these upper and lower bounds at our disposal, the main result
follows by applying Theorem 1.2 of \cite{Sj09} to the
holomorphic function $\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$, whose zeros are
the resonances.
\section{Grushin problems and determinants}\label{gpd}
The results in the the first three subsections below are not new, see
\cite{BoBrRa11, GoLe09}, but we thought that a short and
self-contained presentation can be useful.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{Gaussian elimination}\label{si}
We review some standard material, see for instance \cite{SjZw07}. Let
${\cal H}_j$, ${\cal G}_j$, $j=1,2$ be complex Hilbert spaces\footnote{All Hilbert spaces in this
work are assumed to be separable.}.
Consider a bounded linear operator
\ekv{si.1}{{\cal P}=\begin{pmatrix}P_{11} &P_{12}\\ P_{21}
&P_{22}\end{pmatrix}:{\cal H}_1\times {\cal H}_2\to {\cal
G}_1\times {\cal G}_2.}
When ${\cal P}$ is bijective (with bounded inverse) we denote the
inverse by
\ekv{si.1.5}
{
{\cal P}^{-1}={\cal E}=\begin{pmatrix}E_{11} &E_{12}\\ E_{21} &E_{22}\end{pmatrix}.
}
\begin{prop}\label{si1}
\par\noindent
1) Assume that $P_{11}$ is bijective. Then
by Gaussian elimination we have the standard factorization into lower and upper triangular matrices:
\ekv{si.2}
{
{\cal P}=\begin{pmatrix}P_{11} &0\\ P_{21} &1\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}1 &P_{11}^{-1}P_{12}\\ 0
&P_{22}-P_{21}P_{11}^{-1}P_{12}\end{pmatrix} .
}
The first factor is bijective since $P_{11}$ is, so the bijectivity of ${\cal P}$ is equivalent to that of the second factor, which in turn is equivalent to that of
$P_{22}-P_{21}P_{11}^{-1}P_{12}$. When ${\cal P}$ is bijective, we have the formula,
\ekv{si.3}
{
{\cal P}^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}1 &a\\ 0
&(P_{22}-P_{21}P_{11}^{-1}P_{12})^{-1}\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}P_{11}^{-1}
&0\\ b
&1\end{pmatrix}=:\begin{pmatrix}E_{11}&E_{12}\\E_{21}&E_{22}\end{pmatrix}=:{\cal
E}, } where
$a=-P_{11}^{-1}P_{12}(P_{22}-P_{21}P_{11}^{-1}P_{12})^{-1}$,
$b=-P_{21}P_{11}^{-1}$ and in particular,
\ekv{si.4} { E_{22}=(P_{22}-P_{21}P_{11}^{-1}P_{12})^{-1}. }
\medskip\par\noindent 2) Now assume that ${\cal P}$ is
bijective. Then $P_{11}$ is bijective precisely
when $E_{22}$ is, and when that bijectivity holds we have
\ekv{si.4.5}{\begin{split}E_{22}^{-1}&=P_{22}-P_{21}P_{11}^{-1}P_{12}\\
P_{11}^{-1}&=E_{11}-E_{12}E_{22}^{-1}E_{21}
\end{split}}
\end{prop}
The first statement is clear. The second statement is
more standard and also quite simple to verify.
\subsection{Generalized determinants for holomorphic Fredholm families}\label{mgd}
Let $\Omega \subset {\bf C}$ be open connected, let ${\cal H}_1$, ${\cal H}_2$
be two complex Hilbert spaces and let
$$
\Omega \ni z\mapsto P(z)\in {\cal L}({\cal H}_1, {\cal H}_2)
$$
be a holomorphic family of Fredholm operators of index $0$, such that
$P(z)$ is bijective for at least one $z\in \Omega $. Then by analytic
Fredholm theory (see for instance the appendix in \cite{HeSj86}) we know that the set $\sigma (P)\subset \Omega $ where $P(z)$ is not bijective is discrete. Let $z_0\in \sigma (P)$. Then we can find $N\in {\bf N}$ and operators $R_+:{\cal H}_1\to {\bf C}^N$, $R_-:{\bf C}^N\to {\cal H}_2$ such that
\ekv{mgd.1}
{
{\cal P}(z):=\begin{pmatrix}P(z) &R_-\\ R_+ &0\end{pmatrix}
: {\cal H}_1\times {\bf C}^N\to {\cal H}_2\times {\bf C}^N
}
is bijective for $z\in \mathrm{neigh\,}(z_0,\Omega )$ (i.e. for $z$ in
some neighborhood of $z_0$ in $\Omega $). Let
\ekv{mgd.2}
{
{\cal E}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}E(z) &E_+(z)\\ E_-(z) &E_{-+}(z)\end{pmatrix}: {\cal H}_2\times {\bf C}^N\to {\cal H}_1\times {\bf C}^N
}
denote the inverse, depending holomorphically on $z$.
Working in a small neighborhood of $z_0$ disjoint from $\sigma (P)\setminus \{z_0 \}$, we apply the following standard computations and arguments (\cite{MeSj, SjZw07}) where the first formula is already in (\ref{si.4.5}):
$$
P(z)^{-1}=E(z)-E_+(z)E_{-+}(z)^{-1}E_-(z),
$$
$$
P^{-1}\partial _zP=E(z) \partial _zP-E_+(z)E_{-+}(z)^{-1}E_-(z) \partial _zP,
$$
writing $\partial =\partial _z=\partial /\partial z$.
Here the first term to the right is holomorphic and the second term is
of finite rank with a finite pole at $z=z_0$. Let $\gamma$ be the
oriented boundary of the open disc
$D(z_0,\epsilon )$ with center $z_0$ and with radius $\epsilon >0$ small enough. Integrating along $\gamma $, we get
$$
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial _zP dz=-\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma E_+E_{-+}^{-1}E_-\partial P dz.
$$
The integrand to the right is of trace class, so the the left hand side is of trace class and we get
\ekv{mgd.3}
{
\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial Pdz=-\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma \mathrm{tr\,}E_+E_{-+}^{-1}E_-\partial P dz.
}
The relation ${\cal E}{\cal P}=1$ implies
\ekv{mgd.4}
{
E_-P+E_{-+}R_+=0,\ E_-R_-=1,
}
and differentiating the relation ${\cal P}{\cal E}=1$ gives
\ekv{mgd.5}
{
(\partial P)E_++P\partial E_++R_-\partial E_{-+}=0.
}
Combining this with the cyclicity of the trace, we have
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
-\mathrm{tr\,}E_+E_{-+}^{-1}E_-\partial P&=-\mathrm{tr\,}E_{-+}^{-1}E_-(\partial P)E_+\\
&=\mathrm{tr\,}E_{-+}^{-1}E_-P\partial E_+ +\mathrm{tr\,}E_{-+}^{-1}E_-R_-\partial E_{-+}\\
&=-\mathrm{tr\,}E_{-+}^{-1}E_{-+}R_+\partial E_+ +\mathrm{tr\,}E_{-+}^{-1}\partial E_{-+}\\
&=-\mathrm{tr\,}R_+\partial E_++\mathrm{tr\,}E^{-1}_{-+}\partial
E_{-+}.
\end{split}\end{equation*}
The first term in the last expression vanishes since $R_+\partial
E_+=\partial (R_+E_+)=\partial (1)=0$, so (\ref{mgd.3}) becomes
\ekv{mgd.6} {\begin{split}
&\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma P(z)^{-1}\partial
P(z)dz=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma
\mathrm{tr\,}E_{-+}^{-1}\partial E_{-+}dz\\
& = \frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{var\, arg}_\gamma (\ln\det E_{-+})=m(z_0,\det E_{-+}),
\end{split}
}
where $m(z_0,\det E_{-+})$ denotes the multiplicity of $z_0$ as a zero of $\det E_{-+}(z)$.
\begin{remark}\label{mgd0}
{\rm From the cyclicity of the trace in the beginning of the
calculations we see that $\int_\gamma (\partial _zP)P^{-1}dz$ is of
trace class and has the same trace as $\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial
_zPdz$.}
\end{remark}
A more elegant presentation of the above discussion could be based on
(\ref{si.2}):
$$
{\cal P}=\begin{pmatrix}P(z) &0\\ * &1\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}1 &*\\0 &E_{-+}^{-1}\end{pmatrix}=:{\cal A}{\cal B},
$$
which at least formally leads to
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
0=\mathrm{tr\,}\int_\gamma {\cal P}^{-1}\partial {\cal P}dz&=
\mathrm{tr\,}\int_\gamma {\cal A}^{-1}\partial {\cal A}dz+
\mathrm{tr\,}\int_\gamma {\cal B}^{-1}\partial {\cal B}dz\\
&=\mathrm{tr\,}\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial Pdz-\mathrm{tr\,}\int_\gamma
E_{-+}^{-1}\partial E_{-+}dz.
\end{split}\end{equation}
\begin{dref}\label{mgd1}
By $\det P=\det _\Omega P$ we denote any holomorphic function $f$ on $\Omega $ with $f^{-1}(0)=\sigma (P)$ for which
\ekv{mgd.7}
{
m(z_0,f)=\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\partial D(z_0,r)}P(z)^{-1}\partial P(z)dz,\hbox{ for all }z_0\in \sigma (P).
}
Here $r>0$ is small enough so that $\sigma (P)\cap D(z_0,r)=\{ z_0\}$.
\end{dref}
By Mittag-Leffler's theorem such a holomorphic function exists and it is clearly unique up to a non-vanishing holomorphic factor.
\begin{prop}\label{mgd2}
Let $\Omega \ni z\mapsto Q(z)\in {\cal L}({\cal H}_2,{\cal H}_3)$ have the same general properties as $P(z)$. Then
\ekv{mgd.8}
{
\det (Q(z)P(z))=(\det Q(z)) (\det P(z)).
}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We clearly have
$$
\sigma (QP)=\sigma (Q)\cup \sigma (P)
$$
as sets, and we have to prove that
\ekv{mgd.9}
{
m(z_0,\det (QP))=m(z_0,\det P)+m(z_0,\det Q),
}
for every $z_0\in \Omega $, where $m(z_0,\det P)$ is defined to be zero when $z\not\in \sigma (P)$ and otherwise as in (\ref{mgd.7}).
Let $z_0\in \sigma (P)\cup \sigma (Q)$ and let $z_0\ne z\in
\mathrm{neigh\,}(z_0)$. We have at $z$, \ekv{mgd.10} {
(QP)^{-1}\partial (QP)=P^{-1}Q^{-1}(\partial Q)P+P^{-1}\partial P.
} Here the first term to the right needs to be transformed. For each of
the operators $A=P^{-1}$, $B=Q^{-1}(\partial Q)P$ we make a
decomposition $A=A_\mathrm{hol}+A_\mathrm{sing}$ where
$A_\mathrm{hol}$ is holomorphic in a full neighborhood of $z_0$ and
$A_\mathrm{sing}$ has a pole at $z_0$ but is of finite rank and hence
of trace class. Now write \ekv{mgd.11}
{\begin{split}AB-BA=&(A_\mathrm{hol}B_\mathrm{hol}-B_\mathrm{hol}A_\mathrm{hol})
+(A_\mathrm{hol}B_\mathrm{sing}-B_\mathrm{sing}A_\mathrm{hol})\\
&+(A_\mathrm{sing}B_\mathrm{hol}-B_\mathrm{hol}A_\mathrm{sing})
+(A_\mathrm{sing}B_\mathrm{sing}-B_\mathrm{sing}A_\mathrm{sing}).\end{split}}
The first term to the right is holomorphic near $z_0$, while the other
three are of trace class with vanishing trace. Thus if $\gamma
=\partial D(z_0,r)$ with $0<r$ small enough, $\int_\gamma (AB-BA)dz$
is of trace class and with trace $0$.
\par Applying this to the first term to the right in (\ref{mgd.10}),
we see that
$$
\int_\gamma (P^{-1}Q^{-1}(\partial Q)P-Q^{-1}\partial Q)dz
$$
is of trace class and has trace $0$. It follows that $
(2\pi i)^{-1}\int_\gamma P^{-1}Q^{-1}(\partial Q)P^{-1}dz
$ is of trace class and has the same trace as $(2\pi
i)^{-1}\int_\gamma Q^{-1}\partial Q dz$ and we get
$$
\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma (QP)^{-1}\partial (QP)dz=
\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma Q^{-1}\partial Qdz+
\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial Pdz,
$$
which amounts to (\ref{mgd.9}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Extension to meromorphic families}\label{mf}
In this section we essentially follow \cite{GoLe09}, see also \cite{BoBrRa11}.
Let $\Omega $ be open and connected. Let $\Omega \ni z\mapsto P(z)\in
{\cal L}({\cal H}_1,{\cal H}_2)$ be meromorphic with the poles
$z_1,z_2,...$. Here ${\cal H}_j$ are complex Hilbert spaces.
\begin{dref}\label{mf1}
We say that $P(z)$ is a meromorphic Fredholm function (or Fredholm family) if the following hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item $P(z)$ is Fredholm of index $0$ on $\Omega \setminus \{
z_1,z_2,..\}$ and bijective for at least one $z$ in that set.
\item Let $z_0$ be any pole and write the Laurent series at $z_0$ as
$$
P(z)=\sum_1^{N_0} (z-z_0)^{-j}P_j +B(z),\ z\in \mathrm{neigh\,}(z_0),
$$
with $B(z)$ holomorphic. Then $P_j$ are of finite rank (implying that
$B(z)$ is Fredholm of index zero for $z\ne z_0$). Moreover, $B(z_0)$
is a Fredholm operator of index 0.
\end{itemize}
\end{dref}
The motivation for introducing this class is that if $Q(z)$ is a
holomorphic family of Fredholm operators on $\Omega $, bijective for
at least one $z\in \Omega $, then $P(z)=Q(z)^{-1}$ is a meromorphic
Fredholm function.
If $P^j(z)$, $j=1,2$ are meromorphic Fredholm families on $\Omega $,
then $P^1(z)P^2(z)$ is also such a family. In fact, the first property
in the definition is easy to verify and if $z_0$ is a pole for one or
both factors, we write
$$
P^j(z)=\sum_1^{N_j}(z-z_0)^{-k}P_k^j+B^j(z)
$$
and check that
$$
P^1(z)P^2(z)=\sum_1^{N_1+N_2}(z-z_0)^{-k}P_k+B(z)
$$
where $P_k$ are of finite rank and $B(z_0)=B^1(z_0)B^2(z_0)+K$, where
$K$ is of finite rank.
We shall show that the class of meromorphic Fredholm functions on
$\Omega $ is closed under inversion and introduce the notion of
meromorphic determinant for such families. The key will be a well
chosen Grushin problem.
We pause to recollect the condition for the well-posedness of a
Grushin problem
\ekv{mf.1}
{
\begin{cases}Pu+R_-u_-=v,\\
R_+u=v_+,\end{cases}
}
when $P:{\cal H}_1\to {\cal H}_2$ is a fixed Fredholm operator of
index 0 and $R_+:{\cal H}_1\to {\bf C}^N$ and $R_-:{\bf C}^N\to {\cal
H}_2$ are of rank $N$. Since (\ref{mf.1}) defines an operator
$$
{\cal P}=\begin{pmatrix}P &R_-\\ R_+ &0\end{pmatrix}:\, {\cal
H}_1\times {\bf C}^N\to {\cal H}_2\times {\bf C}^N
$$
of index $0$, it is bijective precisely when it is injective, so it
suffices to review when (\ref{mf.1}) is injective. The necessary and
sufficent condition for that is
\ekv{mf.2}
{
\begin{cases}u\in {\cal N}(R_+)\\ Pu\in {\cal
R}(R_-)\end{cases}\Rightarrow u=0,
}
where ${\cal N}$ indicates the null space and ${\cal R}$ the range.
Now let $P(z)$ be a meromorphic Fredholm function with a pole at
$z_0$. We look for $R_\pm$ as above (independent of $z$) such that the
problem
\ekv{mf.3}
{\begin{cases}
(\sum_1^{N_0}(z-z_0)^{-j}P_j +B(z))u+R_-u_-=v\\
R_+u=v_+\end{cases}
}
is well posed for all $z$ in a pointed neighborhood of $z_0$.
Since the $P_j$ are finitely many operators of finite rank, we can
choose $R_+$ with $N$ large enough, so that
$$
{{P_j}_\vert}_{{\cal N}(R_+)}=0,\ {\cal N}(R_+)\subset {\cal
N}(B(z_0))^\perp .
$$
Then $B(z_0)({\cal N}(R_+))$ is a closed subspace of ${\cal H}_2$ of
codimension $N$, and we choose $R_-$ of rank $N$ such that $B(z_0)({\cal
N}(R_+))\cap {\cal R}(R_-)=0$ i.e.
\ekv{mf.3.5}{
{\cal H}_2=B(z_0)({\cal N}(R_+))\oplus {\cal R}(R_-).}
Then the problem
$$
\begin{cases}B(z_0)u+R_-u_-=v\\ R_+u=v_+\end{cases}
$$
is well-posed and we check that (\ref{mf.3}) has the same
property. Indeed, $P(z)=B(z)$ on ${\cal N}(R_+)$ and hence this
restriction is injective for $z$ close to $z_0$, and $P(z)({\cal
N}(R_+))\oplus {\cal R}(R_-)={\cal H}_2$.
\par Let us also analyze the structure of the solution operator to the
problem (\ref{mf.3}). Let $\widetilde{E}_+$ be a right inverse of
$R_+$ so that a general $u\in {\cal H}_1$ has the direct sum
decomposition
\ekv{mf.4}
{
u=u'+\widetilde{E}_+\widetilde{v}_+,\ u'\in {\cal N}(R_+),\
\widetilde{v}_+\in {\bf C}^N.
}
Then the second equation of (\ref{mf.3}) holds precisely when
$\widetilde{v}_+=v_+$. Let $\Pi '$, $\Pi ''$ be the projections on
the first and second summands in the direct sum decomposition (\ref{mf.3.5})
and write ${\cal H}_2\ni v=\Pi 'v+\Pi ''v=v'+v''$.
\par Since $P_ju'=0$, the first equation in (\ref{mf.3}) becomes
$$
B(z)u'+R_-u_-=v-\sum_1^{N_0}(z-z_0)^{-j}P_j\widetilde{E}_+v_+ -B(z)\widetilde{E}_+v_+
$$
and we determine $u'$ and $u_-$ by applying $\Pi '$ and $\Pi ''$
respectively, using that ${{\Pi 'B(z)}_\vert}_{{\cal N}(R_+)}={{\Pi
'B(z_0)}_\vert}_{{\cal N}(R_+)}+{\cal O}(z-z_0)$ is bijective:
${\cal N}(R_+)\to B(z_0)({\cal N}(R_+))$, that $\Pi ''R_-=R_-$ and that
$R_-:{\bf C}^N\to R_-({\bf C}^N)$ is bijective. If $\widetilde{E}_-$
is a left inverse of $R_-$, we get
$$
\Pi 'B(z)u'=v'-\sum_1^{N_0}(z-z_0)^{-j}\Pi 'P_j\widetilde{E}_+v_+
-\Pi 'B(z)\widetilde{E}_+v_+
,$$
$$u'=({{\Pi 'B(z)}_\vert}_{{\cal
N}(R_+)})^{-1}(v'-\sum_1^{N_0}(z-z_0)^{-j}\Pi
'P_j\widetilde{E}_+v_+-\Pi 'B(z)\widetilde{E}_+v_+),$$
and
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
u_-=&\widetilde{E}_-\Pi
''(v-\sum_1^{N_0}(z-z_0)^{-j}P_j\widetilde{E}_+v_+-B(z)\widetilde{E}_+v_+)\\
&-\widetilde{E}_-\Pi ''(B(z)-B(z_0))u'
.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\par As usual, we write the solution of (\ref{mf.3}) in the form
\ekv{mf.5}{
\begin{cases}u=Ev+E_+v_+,\\ u_-=E_-v+E_{-+}v_+,\end{cases} } where
``explicit'' expressions for $E$, $E_\cdot $ can be obtained from the
above computations. We see that \ekv{mf.6} { E(z)=({{\Pi
'B(z)}_\vert}_{{\cal N}(R_+)})^{-1}\Pi ' } is a holomorphic
family of Fredholm operators of index $0$, while $E_+(z)$, $E_-(z)$,
$E_{-+}(z)$ are meromorphic operator valued functions with singular
terms of finite rank. In particular, $E_{-+}(z)$ is a meromorphic
function with values in the $N\times N$ matrices which is invertible
for $z\ne z_0$, so that $\det E_{-+}$ is meromorphic with a possible
pole at $z_0$ and non-vanishing and holomorphic in a pointed
neighborhood of that point. Thus $E_{-+}^{-1}$ is also meromorphic and
we conclude that
$$
P(z)^{-1}=E(z)-E_+(z)E_{-+}(z)^{-1}E_-(z)
$$
is a meromorphic family of Fredholm operators near $z_0$. Thus we get
\begin{prop}\label{mf2}
If $P(z)$ is a meromorphic Fredholm function, then $P(z)^{-1}$ has the
same property.
\end{prop}
We shall next extend the discussion of determinants in Subsection
\ref{mgd}. When $R_\pm$ are independent of $z$ and
${\cal P}=\begin{pmatrix}P(z) &R_-\\R_+ &0\end{pmatrix}={\cal
H}_1\times {\bf C}^N\to {\cal H}_2\times {\bf C}^N$ is bijective
with inverse ${\cal E}=\begin{pmatrix}E &E_+\\ E_- &E_{-+}\end{pmatrix}$,
we notice that
$$
{\cal P}^{-1}\partial {\cal P}=\begin{pmatrix}E\partial P &0\\
E_-\partial P &0\end{pmatrix}
$$
In the case of our special problem (\ref{mf.3}), $E(z)$ is given in
(\ref{mf.6}) and the non-holomorphic part of $E\partial P$ is
$$
({{\Pi 'B(z)}_\vert}_{{\cal N}(R_+)})^{-1}\Pi '\partial _z(\sum_1^{N_0}(z-z_0)^{-j}P_j)
$$
which is of finite rank and with the same trace as
$$
\Pi '\partial _z(\sum_1^{N_0}(z-z_0)^{-j}P_j)({{\Pi
'B(z)}_\vert}_{{\cal N}(R_+)})^{-1} .
$$
This operator vanishes, since ${{P_j}_\vert}_{{\cal
N}(R_+)}=0$. Thus $\int_\gamma {\cal P}^{-1}\partial {\cal P}dz$
and $\int_\gamma E\partial P dz$ are of trace class and have the trace
$0$ if $\gamma =D(z_0,r)$ for $0<r\ll 1$.
\par As in and around (\ref{mgd.3}) we now get
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial P dz
&= -\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma
E_+E^{-1}_{-+}E_-\partial P dz\\
&=\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma E_{-+}^{-1}\partial E_{-+}dz,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
leading to
\ekv{mf.7}
{
\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial P dz=
m(z_0,\det E_{-+}),
}
where the integer $m(z_0,\det E_{-+})$ is the order of $z_0$ as a zero of $\det
E_{-+}$ when the latter function is holomorphic near $z_0$ and when
$\det E_{-+}$ has a pole at $z_0$, then
$-m(z_0,\det E_{-+})$ is the order of that pole.
\par Note for future reference that
\ekv{mf.8}
{
P^{-1}\partial P=a+b,
}
where $a$ is holomorphic near $z_0$ and $b$ is of finite rank and
\ekv{mf.9}
{
\mathrm{tr\,}b=\mathrm{tr\,}(E_{-+}^{-1}\partial E_{-+}).}
We emphasize that in view of (\ref{mf.7}), $(2\pi
i)^{-1}\mathrm{tr\,}\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial P dz$ is an integer,
and we can then give the following extension to meromorphic families
of the notion of determinant:
\begin{dref}\label{mf3}
Let $\Omega \ni z\mapsto P(z)\in {\cal L}({\cal H}_1,{\cal H}_2)$ be a
meromorphic Fredholm function with the poles $z_1,z_2,...$. By $\det
P=\det _\Omega P$ we denote any meromorphic function $f(z)$ which is
a determinant for $P$ on $\Omega \setminus \{ z_1,z_2,...\}$ in the
sense of Definition \ref{mgd1}, such that for every pole $z_j$ of
$P$, we have
$$
\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\partial D(z_j,r)}P(z)^{-1}\partial P(z)dz=m(z_j,f)
$$
when $r>0$ is small enough.
\end{dref}
Observe that Proposition \ref{mgd2} and its proof extend to the
case of meromorphic Fredholm functions.
\subsection{Determinants via traces}\label{gd}
If ${\cal H}$ is a complex Hilbert space and
$P=P(z)\in {\cal L}({\cal H},{\cal H})$ is a trace class perturbation
of the identity, depending holomorphically on the complex parameter
$z$, we can define $D(z)=\ln \det P(z)$ and we have \ekv{gd.1} {
\frac{d}{dz}D(z)=\mathrm{tr\,}P(z)^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}, } at the
points where $P$ is bijective. Now even when $P$ is not a trace class
perturbation of the identity, it may happen that $P^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}$
is of trace class, and we can now consider the case when $P(z)\in
{\cal L}({\cal H}_1, {\cal H}_2)$ for different complex Hilbert
spaces ${\cal H}_1$, ${\cal H}_2$. By integration of (\ref{gd.1}), we
may then say that $D(z)$ is well-defined up to a constant as a
possibly multivalued function on every connected component of the open
set where $P(z)$ is invertible. If $P^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}$ is not of
trace class we may differentiate further and hope to reach an
expression which is of trace class. Then we would be able to define
$D(z)$ up to a polynomial. In this section we carry out such a scheme.
The idea of reaching trace class operators by means of differentiation
in connection with determinants has been used by G.~Carron \cite{Ca02}.
\par Let $\Omega \subset {\bf C}$ be open and connected, let ${\cal
H}_j$, $j=1,2,3$ be complex Hilbert spaces. Let $\Sigma =\Sigma
(P)\subset \Omega $ be discrete and let $\Omega \setminus \Sigma \ni
z\mapsto P(z)\in {\cal L}( {\cal H}_1,{\cal H}_2)$ be holomorphic and
pointwise bijective. Let $C_p=C_p({\cal H}_1,{\cal H}_2)$ denote the
Schatten class of index $p\in [1,+\infty ]$ (see for instance
\cite{GoKr69}). Assume that for some $p\in [1,+\infty [$, \ekv{gd.2} {
\partial _z^kP(z)\in C_{\max (1,p/k)},\ 1\le k\in {\bf N},
}
locally uniformly on $\Omega $. By the Cauchy inequalities, it
suffices to check this for $k\le N$, where $N=N(p)$ is the smallest
integer $\ge p$.
\par Recall that $C_p$ increases with $p$ and that if $C\in C_p({\cal
H}_1,{\cal H}_2)$ and $D\in C_q({\cal H}_2,{\cal H}_3)$, then $DC\in
C_r({\cal H}_1,{\cal H}_3)$ with $\frac{1}{r}=\min
(1,\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q})$. (See \cite{GoKr69}, Proposition 7.2.) In the following, we shall think of
bounded operators as being of order $= 0$ and of elements in $C_p$
as being of order $= -1/p$. In all cases we restrict here the order to
the interval $[-1,0]$ and then orders are additive under composition:
$\mathrm{ord\,}(DC)= \max (-1,\mathrm{ord\,}(D)+\mathrm{ord\,}(C))
$. (We adopt the convention that the order is not unique; if $C$ is of
order $\alpha $ and $\alpha \le \beta \le 0$, then $C$ is also of
order $\beta $.)
\par We also notice that $P(z)^{-1}$ satisfies (\ref{gd.2}).
\par On the set $\Omega \setminus \Sigma (P)$, we check that
\ekv{gd.3}{
\partial _z^{j-1}(P(z)^{-1}\partial _zP(z))\in
C_{\max (1,\frac{p}{j})},\ j\ge 1,
}
i.e. of order $= \max (-1,-\frac{j}{p})$. Thus, for $p\le j\in {\bf
N}$, we can define
\ekv{gd.3.5}
{
D_{P,j}(z)=\mathrm{tr\,}(\partial _z^{j-1}(P(z)^{-1}\partial
_zP(z))),\ z\in \Omega \setminus \Sigma (P).
}
Clearly,
$$
\partial _zD_{P,j}(z)=D_{P,j+1}(z).
$$
We can now define the determinant of $P(z)$. At the end of the section
we show that this new notion coincides with the one for meromorphic
families of Fredholm operators of the preceding subsection.
\begin{dref}\label{gd0}
Let $N=N(p)$ be the smallest integer $\ge p$. We define
$D_P(z)=\ln\det P(z)$ to be any multivalued holomorphic function on $\Omega
\setminus \Sigma (P)$ which solves the equation
\ekv{gd.4}
{
\partial _z^ND_P(z)=\mathrm{tr\,}(\partial _z^{N-1}(P(z)^{-1}\partial _zP(z))).
}
Thus $D_P(z)$ is well defined (on the universal covering space of
$\Omega \setminus \Sigma (P)$) up to a polynomial of degree $N-1$.
\end{dref}
Let $\Omega \ni z\mapsto Q(z)\in {\cal L}({\cal H}_2,{\cal H}_3)$ be a
second family with the same general properties as $P(z)$ and for
simplicity with the same $p$ in (the analogue of) (\ref{gd.2}). Then
$Q(z)P(z)$ fulfills the same assumptions and
we next check the additivity property
\ekv{gd.4}
{
\ln \det PQ=\ln\det P +\ln\det Q,\hbox{ on }\Omega \setminus (\Sigma
(P)+\Sigma (Q)),
}
i.e.
\ekv{gd.5}{\left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^N\ln \det PQ=
\left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^N\ln\det P +
\left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^N\ln\det Q,}
when $N$ is the smallest integer $\ge p$.
When $p=1=N$, this is straight forward:
\ekv{gd.6}
{
\begin{split}
\frac{d}{dz}\ln\det PQ&=\mathrm{tr\,}(PQ)^{-1}\frac{d}{dz}(PQ)\\
&=\mathrm{tr\,}Q^{-1}P^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}Q+\mathrm{tr\,}Q^{-1}P^{-1}P\frac{dQ}{dz}\\&=\mathrm{tr\,}Q^{-1}P^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}Q+\mathrm{tr\,}Q^{-1}\frac{dQ}{dz}.
\end{split}
}
Here we use the cyclicity of the trace to see that the first term in
the last expression is
equal to $\mathrm{tr\,}P^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}$ and we thus get
(\ref{gd.5}) when $N=1$.
Recall that the cyclicity of the trace says that
$\mathrm{tr\,}(P_1P_2-P_2P_1)=0$, when $P_1\in C_{p_1}({\cal H}_1,{\cal
H}_2)$, $P_2\in C_{p_2}({\cal H}_2,{\cal H}_1)$ and $1=1/p_1+1/p_2$.
\begin{lemma}\label{gd1} Let $P_1(z)\in {\cal L}({\cal H}_1,{\cal
H}_2)$ and $P_2(z)\in {\cal L}({\cal H}_2,{\cal H}_1)$ depend
holomorphically on $z\in \Omega $. Then
$\frac{d}{dz}(P_1P_2-P_2P_1)$ is a sum of terms of the form
$Q_1Q_2-Q_2Q_1$.
More precisely,
$$
(P_1P_2-P_2P_1)'
=[P_1'P_2-P_2P_1']+[P_1P_2'-P_2'P_1],
$$
where we indicate derivatives
with a prime.
\end{lemma}
Iterating the lemma we see that
$\left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^N(P_1P_2-P_2P_1)$ is a linear combination
of terms of the form $Q_1Q_2-Q_2Q_1$, with $Q_j=\partial _z^{N_j}P_j$, $N_1+N_2=N$.
\par Now return to (\ref{gd.6}), or rather the last two equations
there that are valid without traces, and write
$$
Q^{-1}P^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}Q=P^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}+(P_1P_2-P_2P_1),
$$
with $P_1=Q^{-1}P^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}$, $P_2=Q$. The lemma shows that
\begin{multline*}
\left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^{N-1}\left( Q^{-1}P^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}Q\right)=
\left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^{N-1}\left( P^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}\right) +\\
\hbox{a linear combination of terms of the form }Q_1Q_2-Q_2Q_1\\
\hbox{with }
\mathrm{ord\,}(Q_j)\le \max \left( -1,-\frac{N_j}{p}\right) ,\ N_1+N_2=N.
\end{multline*}
The cyclicity of the trace then implies that
$$
\mathrm{tr\,}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^{N-1}\left(
Q^{-1}P^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}Q\right) =
\mathrm{tr\,}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^{N-1}\left( P^{-1}\frac{dP}{dz}\right)
$$
and we obtain (\ref{gd.5}) for a general $N$.
\par As in the case of meromorphic families of Fredholm operators, if
$z_0\in \Sigma (P)$ and $\gamma =\partial D(z_0,r)$ with $r>0$ small
enough, $\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial P dz$ is of trace class:
\begin{prop}\label{gd2}
With $P$, $p$, $N=N(p)$ as in Definition \ref{gd0}, let $z_0\in \Sigma
(P)$, $\gamma =\partial D(z_0,r)$ with $r>0$ small enough, so that
$D(z_0,r)\cap \Sigma (P)=\{ z_0\}$. Then $\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial P
dz$ is of trace class and we have
\ekv{gd.7}{\begin{split}
\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial P dz&=\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma
\frac{(-z)^{N-1}}{(N-1)!}\partial ^{N-1}(P^{-1}\partial P)dz\\&=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma
\frac{(-z)^{N-1}}{(N-1)!}D_{P,N}(z)dz,
\end{split}}
where $z^{N-1}/(N-1)!$ can be replaced by any other polynomial $p(z)$
such that $\partial ^{N-1}p(z)=1$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The second equality follows by moving the trace inside the integral
and recalling the definition of $D_{P,N}$. The first equality and
the fact that $\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial P dz$ is of trace class,
follows from the corresponding stronger equality without ``tr'' in
front which can be obtained by integration by parts.
\end{proof}
Now, assume in addition that $\Omega $ is simply connected and that
$P$ is a meromorphic Fredholm function on $\Omega$ in the sense of
Definition \ref{mf1}. Then we know that
\ekv{gd.8}
{
\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial
Pdz=m(z_0,f)\in {\bf Z},
}
where $f$ denotes the meromorphic Fredholm determinant of Definition
\ref{mf3}. On the other hand, we can do integrations by
parts in the last expression in (\ref{gd.7}) and obtain
\ekv{gd.9}
{
\mathrm{tr\,}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma P^{-1}\partial
Pdz=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma \partial _zD_P(z)dz,
}
which, combined with (\ref{gd.8}), says that
\ekv{gd.10}
{
\mathrm{var}_\gamma D_P=2\pi im(z_0,f)\in 2\pi i{\bf Z}
}
and hence $e^{D_P}$ and its logarithmic derivative $\partial D_P$ are single-valued holomorphic
functions on $\Omega \setminus \Sigma $.
So far, this only shows that
$$D_P=\sum_1^{\infty }(z-z_0)^{-j}a_j+m(z_0,f)\ln (z-z_0)+g(z),$$
where $g$ is holomorphic, so $e^{D_P}=e^{g+\sum
a_j(z-z_0)^{-j}}(z-z_0)^{m(z_0,f)}$ may have a bad singularity at
$z_0$. We therefore return to the Grushin problem in
Subsection \ref{mf}. The remark (\ref{mf.8}), (\ref{mf.9}) shows that
$$
\mathrm{tr\,}\partial ^{N-1}P^{-1}\partial P=\mathrm{tr\,}(\partial
^{N-1}a)+\partial ^{N-1}\mathrm{tr\,}(E_{-+}^{-1}E_{-+}),
$$
where $E_{-+}$ is a meromorphic finite matrix and
$\mathrm{tr\,}(\partial ^{N-1}a)$ is holomorphic in a full
neighborhood of $z_0$. Consequently,
$$
\partial D_P=\mathrm{tr\,}(E_{-+}^{-1}E_{-+}^{-1})+\hbox{holomorphic}
$$
which rules out the bad singularity and we see that
$e^{D_P}=e^{g}(z-z_0)^{m(z_0,f}$ near $z_0$. Globally
$e^{D_P(z)}$ is indeed a determinant in the sense of Definition \ref{mf3}.
\begin{prop}\label{gd3}
Let $P(z)$ be a holomorphic family on $\Omega \setminus \Sigma $ as
in the beginning of this section and assume in addition that $\Omega
$ is simply connected and that $P$ is a meromorphic Fredholm
function on $\Omega $. Then the determinants $\det P(z)$ in the sense
of Definition \ref{gd0} and in the sense of Definition \ref{mf3}
coincide up to a non-vanishing holomorphic factor.
\end{prop}
\section{Complex dilations}\label{cds}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{Complex dilations and symmetry}
We start by reviewing some easy facts for complex distortions (see
\cite{SjZw1,SjZw2,SjZw3,SjZw4,SjZw5}) and we shall pay a special
attention to symmetry with respect to the natural {\it bilinear} form. Let
$\Gamma \subset {\bf C}^n$ be a simply connected
maximally totally real smooth
sub-manifold and let $P=\sum_{|\alpha |\le m}a_\alpha D^\alpha $,
where $a_\alpha \in C^\infty (\Gamma )$. If $u\in C^\infty (\Gamma )$,
we put $Pu={{(\widetilde{P}\widetilde{u})}_\vert}_{\Gamma }$, where
$\widetilde{P}=\sum \widetilde{a}_\alpha D^\alpha $ and
$\widetilde{a}_\alpha $, $\widetilde{u}$ are almost holomorphic
extensions of $a_\alpha $, $u$ to a neighborhood of $\Gamma $.
If $P^\mathrm{t}=\sum (-D)^\alpha \circ a_\alpha $ is the formal
transpose of $P$, we can define $P^\mathrm{t}u\in C^\infty (\Gamma )$
for $u\in C^\infty (\Gamma )$ as above and if we define
\ekv{cds.1}{\langle u|v\rangle_\Gamma =\int_\Gamma u(x)v(x)dx_1\wedge
...\wedge dx_n=\int_\Gamma u(x)v(x)dx,\ u,v\in C_0^\infty (\Gamma ),}
we get from Stokes' formula that
$$
\langle Pu|v\rangle_\Gamma =\langle u|P^\mathrm{t}v\rangle_\Gamma .
$$
Now, let $\widehat{\Gamma }\subset {\bf C}^n$ be a second maximally
totally real smooth manifold and let $\gamma :\widehat{\Gamma }\to
\Gamma $ be a smooth diffeomorphism. (For instance, $\widehat{\Gamma
}$ can be an open subset of ${\bf R}^n$ and $\gamma $ a
``parametrization'' of $\Gamma $.) We can then define
\ekv{cds.2}
{
\frac{\partial \gamma }{\partial y}=\left(\frac{\partial \widetilde{\gamma
}_j}{\partial y_k}\right),
}
where $\widetilde{\gamma }(y)=(\widetilde{\gamma
}_1(y),...,\widetilde{\gamma }_n(y))$ is an almost holomorphic
extension of $\gamma =(\gamma _1,...,\gamma _n)$. Let $f\in C^\infty
(\widehat{\Gamma })$ and define $U:\, C^\infty (\Gamma )\to C^\infty
(\widehat{\Gamma })$ by
\ekv{cds.3}
{
Uu(y)=f(y)u(\gamma (y)),\quad u\in C_0^\infty (\Gamma ).
}
If $u,v\in C_0^\infty (\Gamma )$, we get
$$
\langle Uu|Uv\rangle_{\widehat{\Gamma }}=\int_{\widehat{\Gamma }}u(\gamma
(y))v(\gamma (y))f(y)^2dy,
$$
$$
\langle u|v\rangle_\Gamma =\int_\Gamma u(x)v(x)dx=
\int_{\widehat{\Gamma }}u(\gamma
(y))v(\gamma (y))\det \left( \frac{\partial \gamma }{\partial y}\right)dy.
$$
\par Choose $f=(\det \frac{\partial \gamma }{\partial y})^{1/2}$ for some
fixed continuous branch of the square root (assuming for simplicity
that $\widehat{\Gamma }$ is simply connected). Then
\ekv{cds.4}
{
\langle Uu|Uv\rangle_{\widehat{\Gamma }}=\langle u|v\rangle_{\Gamma },
}
so $U$ is orthogonal,
\ekv{cds.5}
{
U^\mathrm{t}=U^{-1}.
}
As usual, this imples that the operations of conjugation with $U$ and
transposition commute: If $P$ is as above and we define the pull-back
$\widehat{P}=U\circ P\circ U^{-1}=U\circ P\circ U^\mathrm{t}$, then
\ekv{cds.6}
{
\widehat{P}^\mathrm{t}=UP^\mathrm{t}U^\mathrm{t}.
}
Let now $\widehat{\Gamma }\subset {\bf R}^n$.
We can use $U$ to define an $L^2$-inner product on $C_0^\infty
(\Gamma )$ by putting
\ekv{cds.7}
{
(u|v)=(u|v)_\Gamma =(Uu|Uv)_{L^2(\widehat{\Gamma })},
}
which is the inner product that makes $U$ formally unitary. More
explicitly,
\ekv{cds.8}
{
(u|v)=\int_{\widehat{\Gamma }}u(\gamma (y))\overline{v(\gamma
(y))}|\det \frac{\partial \gamma }{\partial y}|dy=\int_\Gamma
u(x)\overline{v(x)}\theta (x)dx,
}
where
$$
\theta (x)=\frac{|\det \frac{\partial \gamma }{\partial y}|}{\det
\frac{\partial \gamma }{\partial y}},\quad x=\gamma (y),
$$
is the unique unimodular factor for which $\theta (x)dx$ is a positive
density on $\Gamma $ (and in particular independent of the
parametrization $\gamma $).
\par We have
\ekv{cds.9}
{
(u|v)=\langle u|Cv\rangle_\Gamma ,\quad u,v\in C_0^\infty (\Gamma ),
}
where $C$ is the antilinear involution defined by $Cv=\theta
\overline{v}$. The formal adjoint of $P$ for our scalar product on
$\Gamma $ is given by
\ekv{cds.10}{P^*=C^{-1}P^\mathrm{t}C=CP^\mathrm{t}C.}
\subsection{Dilations and convex sets}\label{dcs}
Let \ekv{dcs.1}{P=-h^2\Delta +V(x),\quad V\in L^\infty
_\mathrm{comp}({\bf R}^n;{\bf R}).} Let first $f:{\bf R}^n\to {\bf
R}$ be smooth, $=0$ near $\mathrm{supp\,}V$ and equal to $(\tan
\theta )\frac{d_0(x)^2}{2}$ for large $x$, where $d_0(x)=|x|$ and
$0<\theta <\pi /2$. Then we
consider the m.t.r. manifold $\Gamma =\Gamma _f$ of ${\bf C}^n$, given
by \ekv{dcs.2}{x=y+if'(y),\ y\in {\bf R}^n.}
(See \cite{Sj01} for a quick review in the semi-classical case.)
The bijectivity of the complex Jacobian map $\frac{\partial
x}{\partial y}=1+if''(y)$ implies indeed that $\Gamma _f$ is
maximally totally real. $P_\Gamma $ can be computed in the
parametrization (\ref{dcs.2}) using the formal chain rule:
$$
\frac{\partial }{\partial y}=(1+if''(y))\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial
x}\right),\ \frac{\partial }{\partial x}=(1+if''(y))^{-1}\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial y}\right),
$$
and hence away from the support of $V$ we get
\ekv{dcs.3}
{
P_\Gamma =-h^2\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial
y}\right)^\mathrm{t}(1+if''(y))^{-2}\left(\frac{\partial
}{\partial y}\right)
}
which has the semi-classical principal symbol
\ekv{dcs.4}{((1+if''(y))^{-1}\eta )^2=\langle (1+if''(y))^{-2}\eta
,\eta \rangle .}
Here $\langle ,\rangle$ denotes the bilinear scalar product on ${\bf
R}^n$ and also its bilinear extension to ${\bf C}^n$. Since $\eta $
is real in (\ref{dcs.4}), we can write this symbol as
$$
( (1+if''(y))^{-2}\eta
|\eta ),
$$
where $(\cdot |\cdot \cdot )$ is the usual sesquilinear scalar product
on ${\bf C}^n$.
For large $y$, we have $f''(y)=(\tan \theta )1$ and here it is
convenient to use the equivalent parametrization $x=e^{i\theta
}\widetilde{y}$, where $\widetilde{y},y\in {\bf R}^n$ are related by
$y=(\cos \theta )\widetilde{y}$, and get
\ekv{dcs.5}{P_\Gamma =e^{-2i\theta }(-h^2\Delta _{\widetilde{y}}).}
\par In general we assume
\ekv{dcs.6}
{
f''(y)\ge 0,
}
and we shall study the inverse of $(1+if''(y))^2=1-f''(y)^2+2if''(y).$
If $C$ is a complex $n\times n$ matrix, define as usual
$$\Re C=\frac{1}{2}(C+C^*),\ \Im C=\frac{1}{2i}(C-C^*).$$
\begin{prop}\label{cds1}
If $C=(1+if''(y))^{2}$ for some fixed $y\in {\bf R}^n$, then under
the assumption (\ref{dcs.6}), we have
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)] $\Im C^{-1}\le 0$.
\item[2)] We have $\Im C^{-1}< 0$ (i.e. $C^{-1}$ is negative definite) iff $f''(y)>0$.
\item[3)] The symbol $(C^{-1}\eta |\eta )$, $\eta \in {\bf R}^n$ is
elliptic: $|(C^{-1}\eta |\eta )\asymp |\eta |^2$ and takes its
values in a sector $-\pi +\epsilon \le \mathrm{arg\,}(C\eta |\eta
)\le 0$ for some $\epsilon >0$.
\item[4)] When $f''(y)>0$ it take its values in a sector $-\pi +\epsilon \le \mathrm{arg\,}(C\eta |\eta
)\le -\epsilon $.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We already know that $C:{\bf C}^n\to {\bf C}^n$ is bijective and a
direct calculation shows that
\ekv{dcs.7}{\Im C^{-1}=-{C^*}^{-1}(\Im C)C^{-1}=-2{C^*}^{-1}f''(y)C^{-1},}
\ekv{dcs.8}{\Re C^{-1}={C^*}^{-1}(\Re
C)C^{-1}={C^*}^{-1}(1-f''(y)^2)C^{-1}.}
1) and 2) follow from (\ref{dcs.7}).
\par Now look at
\ekv{dcs.9}{
(C^{-1}\eta |\eta )=((\Re C)C^{-1}\eta |C^{-1}\eta )-i((\Im C)C^{-1}\eta |C^{-1}\eta ).}
If the imaginary part of this expression (i.e. the last term) is zero,
then since $\Im C\ge 0$, we conclude that $(\Im C)(C^{-1}\eta )=0$,
i.e. $f''(y)C^{-1}\eta =0$. For such an $\eta $ the real part of
(\ref{dcs.9}) becomes $((\Re C)C^{-1}\eta |C^{-1}\eta
)=((1-f''(y)^2)C^{-1}\eta |C^{-1}\eta )=\Vert C^{-1}\eta \Vert^2$. 3)
and 4) follow. \end{proof}
\par The proposition shows that $P_\Gamma $ is elliptic in the
classical sense. Defining the Sobolev spaces $H^s(\Gamma )$ in the
usual way and equipping $P_\Gamma $ with the domain $H^2(\Gamma )$, we
see that the essential spectrum of $P_\Gamma $ is the
half-line $e^{-2i\theta }[0,+\infty [$. As explained for instance in
\cite{SjZw1,SjZw2,SjZw3,SjZw4,SjZw5}, $P_\Gamma $ has no spectrum in the open upper half-plane
and the eigenvalues in the sector $e^{-i[0,\theta [}]0,+\infty [$ are
precisely the resonances of $P$ there.
(For a more complete discussion and
further references, see \cite{SjZw1,SjZw2,SjZw3,SjZw4,SjZw5}.)
Let ${\cal O}\Subset {\bf R}^n$ be open with smooth boundary and
strictly convex. Then $d(x):=\mathrm{dist\,}(x,{\cal O})$ is smooth on
${\bf R}^n\setminus {\cal O}$ and we have
\ekv{dcs.10}{\partial ^\alpha (d-d_0)={\cal O}(\langle x\rangle^{-|\alpha
|}).}
Now assume that
\ekv{dcs.11}{\mathrm{supp\,}V\subset \overline{{\cal O}}.}
\par Outside ${\cal O}$ we look for $f$ of the form
\ekv{dcs.12}
{
f(x)=g(d(x)),
}
where $g\in C^\infty ({\bf R};{\bf R})$ vanishes on the negative
half-axis. Then
\ekv{dcs.13}
{
f'(x)=g'(d(x))d'(x),\ f''(x)=g'(d(x))d''(x)+g''(d(x))d'(x)\otimes d'(x).
}
Here $d'(x)$ can be identified with the exterior normal
$\nu (\pi (x))$ at the projection $\pi (x)\in \partial {\cal O}$ of
$x$. When $x\notin \partial {\cal O}$ we also have $d'(x)=(x-\pi
(x))/|x-\pi (x)|$. It is further wellknown that $d''(x)$ is positive
semi-definite with null-space ${\bf R}d'(x)$. Thus we see from
(\ref{dcs.13}) that $f''(x)\ge 0$ when $g',\,g''\ge 0$ and we have
$f''(x)> 0$ when $g',\,g''> 0$.
\par Introduce geodesic coordinates:
Let $\Omega \ni z'\mapsto x'(z')\in \partial {\cal O}$ be a
local parametrization of the boundary, where $\Omega $ is some open
set in ${\bf R}^{n-1}$. Then we have local (geodesic) coordinates $(z',z_n)\in
\Omega \times ]-\epsilon ,+\infty [$ on ${\bf R}^n$, given by
\ekv{dcs.14}
{
x=x(z')+z_n\nu (x(z')).
}
In these coordinates, if $f$ is as in (\ref{dcs.12}), then $\Gamma
=\Gamma _f$ is obtained by letting $z_n$ become complex:
\ekv{dcs.15}
{
z'=y',\ z_n=\gamma (y_n),\quad \gamma (y_n):=y_n+ig'(y_n).
}
We have (see for instance \cite{SjZw2,SjZw3,SjZw4}):
\ekv{dcs.16}
{
P=D_{z_n}^2+R(z,D_{z'})+a(z)\partial _{z_n},
}
where \ekv{dcs.17}
{
R(z,D_{z'})=R(z',0,D_{z'})-z_nQ(z,D_{z'}),
}
and $R$, $Q$ are elliptic second order differential operators with
positive principal symbols:
\ekv{dcs.18}
{
r(z,\zeta '),\, q(z,\zeta ')\, >0.
}
The coefficients are analytic in $z_n$ and smooth in $z$. In the
parametrization (\ref{dcs.15}) for $\Gamma $, we get
\ekv{dcs.19}
{\begin{split}
P_\Gamma =& (\frac{1}{\gamma '(y_n)}D_{y_n})^2+R(y',0;D_{y'})\\ &-\gamma
(y_n)Q(y',\gamma (y_n);D_{y'})+a(y',\gamma (y'))\frac{1}{\gamma
'(y_n)}\partial _{y_n}.\end{split}
}
This formula remains valid if we make a real change of variables in
$y_n$ in order to normalize $\gamma '(y_n)$.
If we choose $g$ so that $g(d)=(\tan \theta )d^2$ for large $d\ge
r_0>0$, then as we have seen, $f''>0$ in the the corresponding
region. Let $\chi \in C_0^\infty ({\bf R}^n;[0,1])$ be equal to one in
a neighborhood of $0$ and put $\widetilde{d}=\widetilde{d}_R=\chi
(x/R)d(x)+(1-\chi (x/R))d_0(x)$. Then we still have (\ref{dcs.10}) if
we replace $d$ or $d_0$ with $\widetilde{d}$ and from this it follows
that $\widetilde{f}:=(\tan \theta )\widetilde{d}^2$ satisfies $
\widetilde{f}''(x)>0$ for $d(x)\ge r_0$, provided that $R\gg
0$. Summing up we have
\begin{prop}\label{dcs2}
Let $f(x)=g(d)$ with $g$ as above and assume that $g'(d)>0$,
$g''(d)>0$ for $d>r_0/2$ where $r_0>0$. Then we can find $f=f(x)$
smooth and real-valued such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $f(x)=g(d)$ for $d\le r_0/2>0$,
\item $f(x)=(\tan \theta )d_0(x)^2/2$ near infinity,
\item $f''(x)>0$ for $d(x)\ge r_0/2$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\par To study the resonances for the exterior Dirichlet problem in
${\bf R}^n\setminus {\cal O}$ one may use complex scaling with
a contour
\ekv{dcs.20}{\Gamma _{\mathrm{ext},f}:\ x=y+if'(y),\ y\in {\bf
R}^n\setminus {\cal O},}
where $f\in C^\infty ({\bf R}^n\setminus {\cal O})$ vanishes
on $\partial {\cal O}$, $f''>0$ away from $\partial {\cal O}$,
$f(x)=(\tan \theta )d_0(x)^2/2$ near infinity. One then considers the
restriction $P_\mathrm{ext}$ of $-h^2\Delta $ to this contour with
domain $H^2\cap H_0^1(\Gamma _\mathrm{ext})$ and the exterior
Dirichlet resonances in the sector $e^{-i[0,2\theta [}$ coincide with
the eigenvalues of this operator. (See \cite{SjZw2,SjZw3,SjZw4} and references
cited there.) A convenient choice of $f$ near $\partial {\cal O}$ is
$f(x)=(\tan \theta )d(x)^2/2$ and according to \cite{HaLe94} we know
that $\theta =\pi /3$ is in some sense the optimal choice.
In our case it will be convenient to use a Lipschitz contour:
\ekv{dcs.21}{f(x)=\begin{cases} 0\hbox{ in }{\cal O}\\
(\tan \theta )\frac{d(x)^2}{2} \hbox{near }\partial {\cal O} \hbox{ in
} {\bf R}^n\setminus {\cal O},
\end{cases}}
and as above further away from $\overline{{\cal O}}$.
Then $f$ is of class $C^{1,1}$ and smooth away from $\partial {\cal
O}$. Consequently, $\Gamma =\Gamma _f$ is a Lipschitz manifold,
smooth away from $\partial {\cal O}$ and is naturally decomposed into
the interior part ${\cal O}$ and and exterior part; $\Gamma
_{f,\mathrm{ext}}$. Again, we can define $P_\Gamma $ as
${{P}_\vert}_{\Gamma }$ with the appropriate continuity conditions at
$\partial {\cal O}$:
\ekv{dcs.22}{\begin{split}
{\cal D}(P_\Gamma )=\{ u=u_{\cal O}+u_\mathrm{ext};\ u_{\cal O}\in
H^2({\cal O}),\ u_\mathrm{ext}\in H^2(\Gamma _{f,\mathrm{ext}}),\\
u_{\cal O}=u_\mathrm{ext} ,\ \partial _\nu u_{\cal O}=\partial _\nu
u_\mathrm{ext}\hbox{ on }\partial {\cal O}\},
\end{split}}
where $\nu $ is the exterior unit normal to ${\cal O}$. (On the
exterior part we identify $\partial _\nu $ with $(\partial _\nu
)_{\Gamma _\mathrm{ext}}$.) It follows
from Stokes' formula that
$P_\Gamma $ is symmetric.
Near a point $x_0\in \partial {\cal O}$, the problem
\ekv{dcs.23}
{
\begin{cases}
(P-z)u_{\cal O}=v_{\cal O},\\
(P-z)u_{\mathrm ext}=v_{\mathrm ext},\\
\gamma u_{\cal O}-\gamma u_\mathrm{ext}=v_0,\\
\gamma \partial _\nu u_{\cal O}-\gamma \partial _ \nu u_\mathrm{ext}=v_1
\end{cases}
}
can be viewed as an elliptic boundary value problem for an operator with
matrix valued symbol (after a reflexion so that we consider $u_{\cal
O}$ and $u_\mathrm{ext}$ to live on the same side of the
boundary). Here we take $v_\cdot $ to be in $L^2$ in a neighborhood of $x_0$
and make the same starting assumption about $u_{{\cal O}}$ and
$u_\mathrm{ext
}$. Then if $v_0\in H^{3/2}$, $v_1\in H^{1/2}$, the standard theory
tells us that the traces are well-defined and that $u_{\cal O}$ and
$u_\mathrm{ext}$ actually belong to the spaces $H^2({\cal O})$,
$H^2({\bf R}^n\setminus {\cal O})$ respectively. Away from the
boundary, the usual arguments of complex scaling apply,
and we see that $P-z:{\cal D}(P)\to L^2$ is a holomorphic family of
Fredholm operators of index $0$, when $z\in {\bf C}\setminus
e^{-2i\theta }[0,+\infty [$.
\begin{prop}\label{dcs3} Let $\Gamma $ be the singular contour above.
The spectrum of $P=P_\Gamma $ in the sector $e^{-i[0,2\theta
[}]0,+\infty [$ coincides with the set of resonances for $P$ there.
\end{prop}
We have already recalled that the proposition holds when $\Gamma $ is
a smooth contour, of the same form near infinity. We also
recall (\cite{SjZw1,SjZw2,SjZw3,SjZw4,SjZw5}, \cite{Sj01}), that one can show directly, using a result
on holomorphic extension of null solutions to non-characteristic
equations, that $P_{\Gamma _1}$ and $P_{\Gamma _2}$ have the same
spectrum if $\Gamma _1$ and $\Gamma _2$ are two smooth contours as
above, which coincide near infinity.
\par The new part of the proof in the
case of singular contours will be to show how to extend null-solutions
holomorphically near the singular part of $\Gamma $, i.e. near
$\partial {\cal O}$ and in order to do so we need to study holomorphic
extensions of the resolvent kernel. Since we are not interested here
in how the estimates depend on $h$, we will take $h=1$ for simplicity.
We first consider the free resolvent $R_0(z)=(-\Delta -z)^{-1}$ on
${\bf R}^n$ for $\Im z>0$. The distribution kernel is of the form
$R_0(z)(x,y)=R_0(z)(x-y)$, where
\ekv{dcs.24}
{
R_0(z)(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^n}\int e^{ix\cdot \xi }\frac{1}{\xi
^2-z}d\xi .
}
As already mentioned, $R_0(z)$ extends holomorphically as an operator
$C_0^\infty ({\bf R}^n)\to C^\infty ({\bf R}^n)$
across $]0,+\infty [$ to the double and universal coverings
of ${\bf C}\setminus \{0\}$, when $n$ is odd and even
respectively. Moreover, for $x$ in any compact subset of ${\bf
R}^n$ and for $z$ in any compact subset of the
covering space, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that
\ekv{dcs.25}{
|R_0(z)(x)|\le \begin{cases} C,\ &n=1\\
C (1+|\ln |x||),\ &n=2,\\
C |x|^{2-n}, &n\ge 3,
\end{cases}}
\ekv{dcs.26}{
|\nabla _xR_0(z)(x)|\le \begin{cases} C,\ &n=1,\\
C|x|^{1-n},\ &n\ge 2.
\end{cases}}
More precise results are known of course, see for instance \cite{Vo3},
but we have a quick proof of (\ref{dcs.25}),
(\ref{dcs.26}) by noticing that we can make an $x$-dependent complex
deformation in the integral (\ref{dcs.24}) for large $x$ and obtain
\[
\begin{split}
R_0(z)(x)&={\cal O}(1)+\int_{|\xi |\ge 1}{\cal O}(1)e^{-|x||\xi |/C}|\xi
|^{-2}d\xi ,\\
\nabla R_0(z)(x)&={\cal O}(1)+\int_{|\xi |\ge 1}{\cal O}(1)e^{-|x||\xi |/C}|\xi
|^{-1}d\xi ,
\end{split}
\]
and treating the gradient estimate for $n=1$ separately.
\par Finally, $R_0(z)$ is rotation invariant; $R_0(z)(Ux)=R_0(z)(x)$ if
$U:{\bf R}^n\to {\bf R}^n$ is orthogonal. See Section 2 of \cite{Sj02}
as well as further references given there. As explained in that
reference, (\ref{dcs.24}) remains valid also for $z$ in the covering
space, we just have to make a complex deformation of the integration
contour in a region where $|\xi |$ is bounded, in order to avoid the
zeros $\xi ^2-z$ and this has no importance for the local properties of
$x\mapsto R_0(z)(x)$ while it does influence the exponential decay or
increase near infinity.
\par We now want to extend (\ref{dcs.24}) holomorphically with respect
to $x$. The very first observation is that if $x_0\in {\bf R}^n\setminus
\{0\}$ then $R_0(z)(x)$ extends holomorphically in $x$ to small
neighborhood of $x_0$, by making the small complex deformation
of the integration contour in (\ref{dcs.24}) already alluded to.
\par More generally, assume that $x\in {\bf C}^n$ and that $x\cdot
x\ne 0$. Write $x=(x\cdot x)^{1/2}f_1$ for some branch of the square
root. Then $f_1\cdot f_1=1$ and we
can find vectors $f_2,...,f_n\in {\bf C}^n$ such that $f_1,...,f_n$ is
an orthonormal basis for the bilinear symmetric product $x\cdot y$:
$f_j\cdot f_k=\delta _{j,k}$. Let $e_1,...,e_n$ be the canonical basis
in ${\bf R}^n$ and define the complex orthogonal map $U:{\bf C}^n\to
{\bf C}^n$ by
\ekv{dcs.27}
{
Ue_j=f_j.
}
Let $\omega =((x\cdot x)/|x\cdot x|)^{1/2}$ with the same branch of
the square root as above. Then $x=\omega Uy$, where $y=|x\cdot
x|^{1/2}e_1\in {\bf R}^n$ and $y\cdot y=|x\cdot x|$. At least
formally, we have
$$
R_0(z)(x)=:I(x,z)=\int e^{ix\cdot \xi }\frac{1}{\xi ^2-z}\frac{d\xi
}{(2\pi )^n}=\int e^{i\omega Uy\cdot \xi }\frac{1}{\xi ^2-z}\frac{d\xi
}{(2\pi )^n}.
$$
Choose the integration contour $\xi =\omega ^{-1}U\eta $, $\eta \in
{\bf R}^n$. Then $d\xi =\omega ^{-n}d\eta $, $\xi ^2=\omega ^{-2}\eta
^2$ and we get
$$
I(x,z)=\int e^{iy\cdot \eta }\frac{1}{\omega ^{-2}\eta
^2-z}\frac{d\eta }{\omega ^n(2\pi )^n}=\frac{1}{\omega ^{n-2}}\int
e^{iy\cdot \eta }\frac{1}{\eta ^2-\omega ^2z}\frac{d\eta }{(2\pi )^n},
$$
so at least formally, we have
\ekv{dcs.28}
{
I(x,z)=\omega ^{2-n}I(y,\omega ^2z),\ \omega =\left(\frac{x\cdot
x}{|x\cdot x|}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},\ y\in {\bf R}^n,\ x\cdot
x=\omega ^2y\cdot y.
}
We can use this formula together with the the initial remark
about holomorphic extentions to small neighborhoods of real points to
define the desired holomorphic extension of $I(x,z)$ from ${\bf
R}^n_x\setminus \{0 \}$. Naturally this will give rise to a ramified
(multivalued) function and in order to get some more understanding, let $[0,1]\ni t\mapsto x_t\in {\bf C}^n$ be a continuous
map starting at a real point $x_0\in {\bf R}^n\setminus \{0 \}$ and
ending at some given point $x\in {\bf C}^n$ with $x\cdot x\ne 0$ such that $x_t\cdot x_t\ne 0$ for all $t$. Then
we can choose $U=U_t$ depending continuously on $t$ with $U_0=1$. If
we have choosen a branch of $I(y,z)$ for real $y$, then we get the
branch
$$
I(x,z)=\omega _1^{2-n}I(y,\omega _1^2z),
$$
obtained by following the curve $[0,1]\ni t\mapsto \omega _t^2z$ from
$z$ to $\omega _1^2z$. We conclude that $I(x,z)$ is a well-defined
multivalued holomorphic function of $x\in \{w\in {\bf C}^n;\, w\cdot
w\ne 0 \}$ and $z$ in the double/universal covering space of ${\bf
C}\setminus \{0 \}$. Moreover for $(x,z)$ in any fixed compact
subset of the above domain of definition, we still have
(\ref{dcs.25}), (\ref{dcs.26}).
Now we observe that the singular contour $\Gamma $ in Proposition
\ref{dcs3} is of the form $\Gamma =\Gamma _f$: $x=y+if'(y)$, where $f$
is real-valued of class $C^{1,1}({\bf R}^n)$ which is convex and
$f(y)=(\tan \theta )d_0(y)^2/2$ near infinity. If $x_j=y_j+if(y_j)$,
$j=0,1$ are two different points on $\Gamma _f$, then
$$
f'(y_1)-f'(y_0)=A(y_0,y_1)(y_1-y_0),
$$
where
$$
A(y_0,y_1)=\int_0^1 f''(ty_1+(1-t)y_0)dt\ge 0,
$$
and
$$
(x_1-x_0)\cdot (x_1-x_0)=[(1-A(y_1,y_0)^2)+2iA(y_0,y_1)](y_1-y_0)\cdot (y_1-y_0).
$$
The same argument as for the ellipticity of $-\Delta _{\Gamma _f}$
shows that
$$\Gamma _f\times \Gamma _f\ni (x_0,x_1)\mapsto (x_1-x_0)\cdot
(x_1-x_0)$$
takes its values in a sector $e^{i[0,\pi -\epsilon ]}[0,+\infty [$ and
that
$$|(x_1-x_0)\cdot (x_1-x_0)|\asymp |x_1-x_0|^2,\ x_0,x_1\in \Gamma
_f.$$
Combining these facts with the deformation $[0,1]\ni t\mapsto \Gamma
_{tf}$ from ${\bf R}^n$ to $\Gamma _f$, we see that
$R_0(z)(x,y)=R_0(z)(x-y)$ is welldefined on $\Gamma _f\times \Gamma
_f$ away from the diagonal, and we can define
$$
R_{0,\Gamma }u(x)=\int_\Gamma R_0(z)(x,y)u(y)dy,\ x\in \Gamma _f,\ u\in
C_0(\Gamma ),\ \Gamma =\Gamma _f.
$$
This gives a continuous operator $C_0(\Gamma )\to C(\Gamma )$. Let
$P_0=-\Delta $. Using that
$$
(-\Delta_x-z)R_0(z)(x,y)= (-\Delta_y^{\mathrm{t}}-z)R_0(z)(x,y)=0,\
x\ne y,
$$
as well as the bound on the strength of the singularity at $x=y$ described in
(\ref{dcs.25}), (\ref{dcs.26}), we see that in the case when $f$ is
smooth, we have,
\[\begin{split}(P_{0,\Gamma }-z)R_{0,\Gamma }(z)v(x)&=C(x,f)v(x)\\
R_{0,\Gamma }(z)(P_{0,\Gamma }-z)u(x)&=\widetilde{C}(x,f)u(x)
\end{split} \]
for $x\in \Gamma $, $u,v\in C_0^\infty (\Gamma )$. It is further clear
that $C(x,f)$, $\widetilde{C}(x,f)$ only depend on the restriction of
$f$ to a small neighborhood of $\Re x$, so we can replace $f$ be a new
function $\widetilde{f}$ which is equal to $f$ near $\Re x$ with
$\widetilde{f}''$ varying very little and being constant near
infinity. We can then determine the constants by letting $v$, $u$ be
suitable Gaussians and possibly after an additional deformation
argument, we get $C(x,f)=\widetilde{C}(x,f)=1$. Thus
\ekv{dcs.29}
{
(P_{0,\Gamma }-z)R_{0,\Gamma }(z)v=v,
}
\ekv{dcs.30}
{
R_{0,\Gamma }(z)(P_{0,\Gamma }-z)u=u,
}
when $u,v\in C_0^\infty (\Gamma )$, $\Gamma =\Gamma _f$ and $f$ is
smooth. To extend this to the general case when $f$ is a convex
$C^{1,1}$ function would require first to define the operator
$P_{0,\Gamma }$, and we prefer to avoid that work and just consider
the case of the special singular contour in Proposition
\ref{dcs3}. Then for $v\in C_0(\Gamma )$ (\ref{dcs.29}) still holds
as we see first for $x$ away from $\partial {\cal O}$ and by using
the continuity of the two members we get it also on that boundary.
\par We also remark that if $v\in C_0(\Gamma )$, then $u:=R_{0,\Gamma
}v$ is of class $C^1$ up to the boundary both on ${\cal O}$ and on
$\Gamma _\mathrm{ext}$. and we have
\ekv{dcs.31}{
\gamma u_\Omega =\gamma u_\mathrm{ext},\ \gamma \partial _\nu u_\Omega =\gamma
\partial _\nu u_\mathrm{ext}.}
Using now that (\ref{dcs.23}) is an elliptic boundary value problem,
we see that $R_{0,\Gamma }v$ belongs locally to ${\cal D}(P_\Gamma )$ and
this holds more generally for $v\in L^2_\mathrm{comp}(\Gamma )$.
\par If $u\in C_0(\Gamma )$ and $u_{\cal O}$ and $u_\mathrm{ext}$ are
$C^2$ up to the boundary and satisfy (\ref{dcs.31}), then we can make
integrations by parts in
\[
R_{0,\Gamma }(P_{0,\Gamma }-z)u(x)=\int R_{0}(z)(x,y)(-\Delta _\Gamma -z)u(y)dy
\]
after introducing a cutoff around the singularity and passing to the
limit and get (\ref{dcs.30}) as in the case when $f$ is smooth, that we still have
(\ref{dcs.30}). By density this extends to the case when $u\in {\cal
D}(P_\Gamma )$ has compact support.
We can now complete the proof of Proposition \ref{dcs3}. Let $\Gamma
=\Gamma _f$ be the singular contour in that proposition and let
$\widetilde{f}$ be smooth, convex, $=0$ in ${\cal O}$ and $=f$ outside
a small neighborhood of $\overline{{\cal O}}$. Let $\widetilde{\Gamma
}=\Gamma _{\widetilde{f}}$ be the corresponding smooth contour, so
that the spectrum of $\widetilde{P}=P_{\widetilde{\Gamma }}$ in the
sector $e^{-i[0,2\theta [}]0,+\infty [$ coincides with the set of
resonances there. As in \cite{SjZw1}, it suffices to show the following two facts:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)] If $u\in {\cal D}(P_\Gamma )$ and $(P_\Gamma -z)u=0$, then
$u$ has a holomorphic extension to a domain containing
\ekv{dcs.32}{\{y+i(t\widetilde{f}'(y)+(1-t)f'(y));\ f(y)\ne
\widetilde{f}(y), 0\le t\le 1 \} ,}
such that its restriction $\widetilde{u}$ to $\widetilde{\Gamma }$
belongs to ${\cal D}(P_{\widetilde{\Gamma }})$ and satisfies
$(P_{\widetilde{\Gamma }}-z)\widetilde{u}=0$.
\item[2)] If $\widetilde{u}\in {\cal D}(P_{\widetilde{\Gamma }} )$ and $(P_{\widetilde{\Gamma}} -z)\widetilde{u}=0$, then
$\widetilde{u}$ has a holomorphic extension to a domain containing
the set
(\ref{dcs.32})
such that its restriction $u$ to $\Gamma $
belongs to ${\cal D}(P_{\Gamma })$ and satisfies
$(P_{{\Gamma }}-z){u}=0$.
\end{itemize}
\par Let $\widehat{\chi }\in C_0^\infty ({\bf R}^n)$ be equal to one
near $\mathrm{supp\,}(f-\widetilde{f})$ and define the cutoffs $\chi $
and $\widetilde{\chi }$ on $\Gamma $ and on $\widetilde{\Gamma }$
respectively by
$$
\chi (y+if'(y))=\widetilde{\chi }(y+i\widetilde{f}'(y))=\widehat{\chi
}(y).
$$
We first prove 1) and let $u$ be as in that statement. Then
\ekv{dcs.33}
{
(P_\Gamma -z)\chi u=[P_\Gamma ,\chi ]u,
}
where the right hand side has its support in the region where $\Gamma
$ and $\widetilde{\Gamma }$ coincide. We can rewrite (\ref{dcs.33}) as
\ekv{dcs.34}
{
(P_{0,\Gamma }-z)\chi u=[P_\Gamma ,\chi ]u-Vu
}
and $Vu$ also has its support where $\Gamma $ and $\widetilde{\Gamma
}$ coincide. Applying (\ref{dcs.30}) gives
\ekv{dcs.35}
{
\chi u=R_{0,\Gamma }(z)([P_\Gamma ,\chi ]u-Vu).
}
From the properties of $R_0(z)$, we see that $\chi u$ has a
holomorphic extension to a domain containing the set
(\ref{dcs.32}). Its restriction to $\widetilde{\Gamma }$ solves
$(P_{\widetilde{\Gamma }}-z)\widetilde{u}=0$ and $\widetilde{u}=u$ in
the regions where $\Gamma $ and $\widetilde{\Gamma }$ coincide. From
elliptic regularity we see that $\widetilde{u}$ is locally in $H^2$
and hence globally so $\widetilde{u}$ belongs to the domain of
$P_{\widetilde{\Gamma }}$. This proves 1).
The proof of 2) works the same way with the small difference that
instead of invoking the ellipticity of $P_{\widetilde{\Gamma }}$ on
the smooth manifold $\widetilde{\Gamma }$, we invoke the ellipticity
of the boundary value problem (\ref{dcs.23}). \hfill{$\Box$}
\section{Semiclassical Sobolev spaces}
\label{al}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
This section is a review of some easy facts about Sobolev spaces, see
\cite{Sj08a, Sj08b} for more details about the first part.
We let $H_h^s({\bf R}^n)\subset {\cal S}'({\bf R}^n)$, $s\in {\bf R}$,
denote the semiclassical Sobolev space of order
$s$ equipped with the norm $\Vert \langle hD\rangle^s u\Vert$ where
the norms are the ones in $L^2$, $\ell^2$ or the corresponding
operator norms if nothing else
is indicated. Here $\langle hD\rangle= (1+(hD)^2)^{1/2}$.
\begin{prop}\label{al1}
Let $s>n/2$. Then there exists a constant $C=C(s)$ such that for all
$u,v\in H_h^s({\bf R}^n)$, we have $u\in L^\infty ({\bf R}^n) $,
$uv\in H_h^s({\bf R}^n)$ and
\ekv{al.1}
{
\Vert u\Vert_{L^\infty }\le Ch^{-n/2}\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^s},
}
\ekv{al.2}
{
\Vert uv\Vert_{H_h^s} \le Ch^{-n/2} \Vert u\Vert_{H_h^s} \Vert v\Vert_{H_h^s}.
}
\end{prop}
Let $X$ be a compact smooth manifold. We cover $X$ by
finitely many coordinate neighborhoods $X_1,...,X_p$ and for
each $X_j$, we let $x_1,...,x_n$ denote the corresponding local
coordinates on $X_j$. Let $0\le \chi _j\in C_0^\infty (X_j)$ have the
property that $\sum_1^p\chi _j >0$ on $X$. Define $H_h^s(X)$ to be the
space of all $u\in {\cal D}'(X)$ such that
\ekv{al.4}
{
\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^s}^2:=\sum_1^p \Vert \chi _j\langle hD\rangle^s \chi
_j u\Vert ^2 <\infty .
}
It is standard to show that this definition does not depend on the
choice of the coordinate neighborhoods or on $\chi _j$. With different
choices of these quantities we get norms in \no{al.4} which are
uniformly equivalent when $h\to 0$. In fact, this follows from the
$h$-pseudodifferential calculus on manifolds with symbols in the
H\"ormander space $S^m_{1,0}$ that we quickly reviewed in the
appendix in \cite{Sj08a}.
An equivalent definition of $H_h^s(X)$ is the following: Let
\ekv{al.5}
{
h^2\widetilde{R}=\sum (hD_{x_j})^*r_{j,k}(x)hD_{x_k}
}
be a self-adjoint non-negative elliptic operator with smooth coefficients on $X$,
where the star indicates that we take the adjoint with respect to some
fixed positive smooth density on $X$. Then $h^2\widetilde{R}$ is
essentially self-adjoint with domain $H^2(X)$, so
$(1+h^2\widetilde{R})^{s/2}:L^2\to L^2$ is a closed densely defined
operator for $s\in {\bf R}$, which is bounded precisely when $s\le
0$. Standard methods allow to show that $(1+h^2\widetilde{R})^{s/2}$
is an $h$-pseudodifferential operator with symbol in $S^s_{1,0}$ and
semiclassical principal symbol given by $(1+r(x,\xi ))^{s/2}$, where
$r(x,\xi )=\sum_{j,k}r_{j,k}(x)\xi _j\xi _k$ is the semiclassical
principal symbol of $h^2\widetilde{R}$. See the appendix in
\cite{Sj08a}.
The
$h$-pseudodifferential calculus gives for every $s\in {\bf R}$:
\begin{prop}\label{al2}
$H_h^s(X)$ is the space of all $u\in {\cal D}'(X)$ such that
$(1+h^2\widetilde{R})^{s/2}u\in L^2$ and the norm $\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^s}$ is
equivalent to $\Vert (1+h^2\widetilde{R})^{s/2}u\Vert$, uniformly when $h\to 0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{remark}\label{al3}
{\rm From the first definition we see that Proposition \ref{al1} remains
valid if we replace ${\bf R}^n$ by a compact $n$-dimensional
manifold $X$.}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{al3.5}
{\rm We will also consider the case when the manifold $X$ is the disjoint
union of a compact part and ${\bf R}^n\setminus B(0,R)$ for some
$R>0$. The definition and properties of $H_h^s(X)$ are quite clear.}
\end{remark}
\par Of course, $H_h^s(X)$ coincides with the standard Sobolev space
$H_1^s(X)$ and the norms are equivalent for each fixed value of $h$, but
not uniformly so with respect to $h$. We have the following variant (\cite{Sj08b}):
\begin{prop}\label{al4}
Let $s>n/2$. Then there exists a constant $C=C_s>0$ such that
\ekv{al.6}
{
\Vert uv\Vert_{H_h^s}\le C\Vert u\Vert_{H_1^s}\Vert v\Vert_{H_h^s},\
\forall u\in H^s({\bf R}^n),\, v\in H_h^s({\bf R}^n).
}
The result remains valid if we replace ${\bf R}^n$ by $X$.
\end{prop}
Let $\Omega \Subset {\bf R}^n$ be open with smooth boundary. Let
$H^s_h(\Omega )$ denote the Banach space of restrictions to $\Omega $
of elements in $H^s_h({\bf R}^n)$. It is a standard fact that if
$s>1/2$, then the restriction operator $\gamma :u\mapsto
{{u}_\vert}_{\partial \Omega }$ is bounded: $H_1^s(\Omega )\to
H_1^{s-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial \Omega )$. $\gamma $ has a right inverse
$\gamma ^{-1}$ which is bounded $H_1^{\widetilde{s}-1/2}(\partial \Omega )\to
H_1^{\widetilde{s}}(\Omega )$ for all $\widetilde{s}\in {\bf R}$. More generally, if $s>3/2$,
then
$$\begin{pmatrix}\gamma \\\gamma D_\nu \end{pmatrix}:\, H_1^s(\Omega
)\to H_1^{s-1/2}(\partial \Omega )\times H_1^{s-3/2}(\partial \Omega
)$$ has a right inverse which is ${\cal O}(1):\,
H_1^{\widetilde{s}-1/2}\times H_1^{\widetilde{s}-3/2}\to
H_1^{\widetilde{s}}$ for all $\widetilde{s}\in {\bf R}$. Here $\nu $
is the exterior unit normal and $D_\nu =i^{-1}\partial /\partial \nu
$.
In the semi-classical case, we obtain from the same (standard) proofs
that
\ekv{al.10} { \gamma ={\cal
O}_s(h^{-\frac{1}{2}}):H_h^s(\Omega )\to
H_h^{s-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial \Omega ),\quad s>\frac{1}{2} }
has a right inverse
such that \ekv{al.11} { \gamma ^{-1} ={\cal
O}_{\widetilde{s}}(h^{\frac{1}{2}}):H_h^{\widetilde{s}-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial \Omega )\to
H_h^{\widetilde{s}}( \Omega ),\quad \widetilde{s}\in {\bf R}. }
More generally, the operator
$$
\begin{pmatrix}\gamma \\ \gamma hD_\nu \end{pmatrix}:H_h^s(\Omega )\to
H_h^{s-\frac{1}{2}}(\Omega )\times H_h^{s-\frac{3}{2}}(\partial \Omega )
$$
has a right inverse which is ${\cal O}(h^{1/2}):\,H_h^{\widetilde{s}-1/2}\times
H_h^{\widetilde{s}-3/2}\to H_h^{\widetilde{s}}$ for all
$\widetilde{s}\in {\bf R}$.
The following observation can be turned into a proof by reduction to
the standard non-semi-classical case: The change of variables
$x=h\widetilde{x}$ transforms $hD_x$ into $D_{\widetilde{x}}$ and if
$u(x)=\widetilde{u}(\widetilde{x})$, then
$$
\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^s(\Omega )}=h^{\frac{n}{2}}\Vert
\widetilde{u}\Vert_{H_1^s(h^{-1}\Omega )}.
$$
Similarly for functions on $\partial \Omega $, we have
$$
\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^s(\partial \Omega )}=h^{\frac{n-1}{2}}\Vert
\widetilde{u}\Vert_{H_1^s(h^{-1}\partial \Omega ) }.
$$
\section{Reductions to ${\cal O}$ and to $\partial {\cal O}$}\label{red}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\par In this section, we let $P=-h^2\Delta +V$ and ${\cal O}$ be as in
Subsection \ref{dcs}. We choose the contour $\Gamma $ as there, either
singular or smooth. When $\Gamma $ is smooth, the
domain of $P_\Gamma $ is the space $H^2_h(\Gamma )$, and when $\Gamma
$ has a singularity along the boundary of ${\cal O} $, it is given by
(\ref{dcs.22}). (Later we shall also need to consider the case when
$\Gamma $ is constructed as in the preceeding section but with ${\cal
O}$ replaced by a slightly larger set $\widetilde{{\cal O}}$ with
the same properties, containing an $h$-neighborhood of ${\cal O}$.) By
abuse of notation we sometimes write $H^2(\Gamma )$ also for ${\cal
D}(P_\Gamma )$.
The exterior Dirichlet problem is
\ekv{red.1} { (P-z)u=v\hbox{ on
}\Gamma _\mathrm{ext}=\Gamma \setminus {\cal O},\ {{u}_\vert}_{\partial {\cal O}}=w, }
for given $v\in L^2(\Gamma \setminus {\cal O})$, $w\in
H^{3/2}(\partial {\cal O})$ with the solution $u$ in $H^2(\Gamma
\setminus {\cal O})$. Here, $\gamma u= {{u}_\vert}_{\partial {\cal O}}$.
The corresponding closed operator $P_{\mathrm{ext}}$ has the domain
${\cal D}(P_\mathrm{ext})=\{ u\in H^2(\Gamma \setminus {\cal O});\,
\gamma u=0\}$. The eigenvalues are the resonances for
the exterior Dirichlet problem. We restrict the attention to the case
when $1/2\le \Re z\le 2$, $\Im z\ge -ch^{2/3}$, where
$c<2(1/2)^{2/3}\kappa \zeta _1$. (Cf Theorem \ref{re1}.) When
$z\not\in \sigma (P_{\mathrm{ext}})$, we can express the solution of
(\ref{red.1}) as \ekv{red.2} {
u=G_\mathrm{ext}(z)v+K_\mathrm{ext}(z)w. } Put \ekv{red.3}{{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}w=\gamma hD_\nu K_\mathrm{ext}w,} where $\gamma $
is the operator of restriction to $\partial {\cal O}$ and $\nu $ is
the exterior unit normal.
\begin{dref}\label{red1}
$P_\mathrm{out}(z)$ is the operator $-h^2\Delta +V-z$ on ${\cal O}$ with
domain
\ekv{red.4}
{
{\cal D}(P_\mathrm{out}(z))=\{ u\in H^2({\cal O});\, (\gamma hD_\nu
-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext }\gamma )u=0\} .
}
\end{dref}
Notice that the domain varies with $z$ and this is why we avoid
writing ``$P_\mathrm{out}-z$''. In the first part of this section we
shall show that $z$ is a resonance of $P$ precisely when $0\in
P_\mathrm{out}(z)$, but for technical reasons we will prefer to work
with the full problem,
\ekv{red.5}{ P_\mathrm{out}(z)u=v,\ h^{\frac{1}{2}}Bu=w ,}
where
\ekv{lb.3}{B=\gamma hD_{\nu }-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}\gamma :H^2({\cal O})\to H^{1/2}(\partial {\cal O})}
It is easy to check that this is an elliptic boundary value problem in
the classical sense. (The semi-classical structure of ${\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}$ and of (\ref{red.5}) will require more work below.)
The well-posedness of (\ref{red.5}) is of course equivalent to the
bijectivity of
\ekv{red.5.5}
{
{\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}
P-z\\h^{\frac{1}{2}}B\end{pmatrix}:H^2({\cal O})\to H^0({\cal O})\times
H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\partial {\cal O}).
}
Here and below we sometimes write $H^s$ instead of $H^s_h$.
\par In the following we impose the condition
\ekv{lb.1}
{
|\Im z|\le h^{2/3}c_0,\ \frac{1}{2}\le \Re z\le 2
}
with $c_0$ as in (\ref{outl.0}),
so that the exterior Dirichlet problem is well-posed. (We could here
drop the upper bound on $\Im z$.)
Under the condition (\ref{lb.1}) we shall show that ${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$
and $P_\Gamma -z $ are ``equivalent'', and to do so we shall see that
${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$ appears as the effective Hamiltonian (up to
an invertible factor) in a well posed
Grushin problem for $P_\Gamma -z$.
\par Let $\iota :L^2({\cal O})\to L^2(\Gamma )$ be the natural zero
extension map and let $\Pi :H^2(\Gamma )\to H^2({\cal O})$ be the
restriction map. Let $\widehat{K}={\cal O}(h^{1/2}):H^{1/2}(\partial
{\cal O})\to H^2({\cal O})$ be a right inverse of $B$ (cf the last
observation in Section \ref{al}).
Put
\ekv{lb.4}
{
{\cal P}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}P_\Gamma -z &\iota &0\\
\Pi &0 &\widehat{K}
\end{pmatrix}:H^2(\Gamma )\times L^2({\cal O})\times
H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\partial {\cal O})\to L^2(\Gamma )\times H^2({\cal
O}). } We will view ${\cal P}(z)$ as a $2\times 2$ block matrix
with the upper left block given by $P_\Gamma -z$. We claim that ${\cal
P}(z)$ is bijective. This amounts to finding a unique solution
$(u,u_-,u_-')\in H^2(\Gamma )\times L^2({\cal O})\times
H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\partial {\cal O})$ of the problem
\ekv{lb.5}
{
\begin{cases}
(P_\Gamma -z)u+\iota u_-&=v,\\
\Pi u+\widehat{K}u_-'&=v_+
\end{cases}
} for every given $(v,v_+)\in L^2(\Gamma )\times H^2({\cal O})$.
The exterior part (i.e. the restriction to $\Gamma
_\mathrm{ext}=\Gamma \setminus {\cal O}$) of the first equation in (\ref{lb.5}) is (with the
natural notation)
$$(P_{\Gamma _\mathrm{ext}}-z)u_\mathrm{ext}=v_\mathrm{ext},$$
which has the general solution
$$
u_\mathrm{ext}=G_\mathrm{ext}(z)v_\mathrm{ext}+K_\mathrm{ext}(z)g,
$$
where $g\in H^{3/2}(\Gamma )$ is arbitrary to start with. Notice that
$$
Bu_\mathrm{ext}=BG_\mathrm{ext}(z)v_\mathrm{ext},
$$
since $BK_{\mathrm{ext}}(z)=0$ by the definition of ${\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}(z)$.
Here the continuity condition on $u$ given by (\ref{dcs.22}), can
be written
\ekv{lb.2}{\gamma u_\mathrm{int}=\gamma u_\mathrm{ext},\ B
u_\mathrm{int}=B u_\mathrm{ext}.}
\par The interior part of (\ref{lb.5}) is
\ekv{lb.6}
{
\begin{cases}(P-z)u_\mathrm{int}+u_-=v_\mathrm{int}\\
u_\mathrm{int}+\widehat{K}u'_-=v_+
\end{cases}\hbox{ in } {\cal O},
}
giving
$$
\begin{cases}
u_\mathrm{int}=v_+-\widehat{K}u'_-\\
u_-=v_\mathrm{int}-(P-z)u_\mathrm{int}
\end{cases}.
$$
The second condition in (\ref{lb.2}) now gives
$$
Bv_+-u_-'=BG_\mathrm{ext}v_\mathrm{ext},
$$
i.e.
\ekv{lb.7}{u_-'=Bv_+-BG_\mathrm{ext}v_\mathrm{ext}.}
The first part of (\ref{lb.2}) boils down to
\ekv{lb.8}
{
\gamma v_+-\gamma \widehat{K}u_-'=g.
}
\par Thus the unique solution of (\ref{lb.5}) is given by
$u=u_\mathrm{int}+u_\mathrm{ext}$, $u_-$, $u_-'$, where
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_-'&=&B(v_+-G_\mathrm{ext}v_\mathrm{ext})\\
u_\mathrm{int}&=&(1-\widehat{K}B)v_++\widehat{K}BG_\mathrm{ext}v_\mathrm{ext}\\u_-&=&v_\mathrm{int}-(P-z)\widehat{K}BG_\mathrm{ext}v_\mathrm{ext}
-(P-z)(1-\widehat{K}B)v_+
\\
u_\mathrm{ext}&=&(1+K_\mathrm{ext}\gamma
\widehat{K}B)G_\mathrm{ext}v_\mathrm{ext}+K_\mathrm{ext}\gamma (1-\widehat{K}B)v_+.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using the characteristic functions $1_{\cal O}$ and $1_{\Gamma
_\mathrm{ext}}$ to indicate the projection to the interior and
exterior parts of functions on $\Gamma $, we get in matrix form:
\ekv{lb.9}
{\begin{split}
&{\cal P}(z)^{-1}=\\
&\hskip -15mm \begin{pmatrix}
1_{{\cal O}}\widehat{K}BG_\mathrm{ext}1_{\Gamma
_\mathrm{ext}}+1_{\Gamma _\mathrm{ext}}(1+K_\mathrm{ext}\gamma
\widehat{K}B)G_\mathrm{ext}1_{\Gamma _\mathrm{ext}}
&1_{{\cal O}} (1-\widehat{K}B)+1_{\Gamma
_\mathrm{ext}}K_\mathrm{ext}\gamma (1-\widehat{K}B)\\
1_{\cal O}-(P-z)\widehat{K}BG_\mathrm{ext}1_{\Gamma _\mathrm{ext}}
&-(P-z)(1-\widehat{K}B)\\
-BG_\mathrm{ext}1_{\Gamma _\mathrm{ext}} &B
\end{pmatrix}
\end{split}
}
As already mentioned we can use block matrix notation and write
$$
{\cal P}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}P_{11} &P_{12}\\ P_{21} &P_{22}
\end{pmatrix},
$$
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{11}=P_\Gamma -z,&&\ P_{12}=\begin{pmatrix}\iota &0\end{pmatrix},\\
P_{21}=\Pi ,&&\ P_{22}=\begin{pmatrix}0 &\widehat{K}\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then
$$
{\cal E}(z):={\cal P}(z)^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}E_{11} &E_{12}\\ E_{21} &E_{22}
\end{pmatrix},
$$
where
$$
E_{22}=\begin{pmatrix}-(P-z)(1-\widehat{K}B)\\ B \end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}-1 &h^{-\frac{1}{2}}(P-z)\widehat{K}\\ 0 &h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\end{pmatrix} {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z),
$$
and ${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$ was defined in
(\ref{red.5.5}). Notice that the upper triangular matrix in the last
expression is invertible, so the invertibility of $E_{22}$ is
equivalent to that of ${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}$ and using also the
second part of Proposition \ref{si1}, we get
\begin{prop}\label{red2}
For $z$ in the region (\ref{lb.1})
we have that $z\in \sigma (P_\Gamma )$ if and only if
$0\in \sigma ({\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z))$.
\end{prop}
\par $P_\Gamma -z$, ${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$ are holomorphic
families of Fredholm operators of index 0 and combining (\ref{si.2})
with Proposition \ref{mgd2}, we see that $\det (P_\Gamma -z)$ and
${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$ have zeros of the same multiplicity at the
points of $\sigma (P_\Gamma )$.
\par We next discuss a reduction to the boundary when $z$ is not a
Dirichlet eigenvalue. Let $P_\mathrm{in}$ denote the Dirichlet realization of $P$ in
${\cal O}$, so that ${\cal D}(P_\mathrm{in})=\{ u\in H^2({\cal O});\,
\gamma u=0\}$. Let
\ekv{ub.2}
{
{\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}P-z\\ h^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma \end{pmatrix}:
H^{2}({\cal O})\to H^0({\cal O})\times
H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial {\cal O}),}
so that ${\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z)$ is bijective precisely when $z$ is
not a Dirichlet eigenvalue; $z\notin \sigma (P_\mathrm{in})$. Let
$$
{\cal E}_\mathrm{in}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}
G_\mathrm{in}(z) &h^{-\frac{1}{2}}K_\mathrm{in}(z) \end{pmatrix}
$$
be the inverse which is well defined for $z$ away from the spectrum of
$P_\mathrm{in}$. Then
$$
{\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z){\cal E}_\mathrm{in}(z)=
\begin{pmatrix}
(P-z)G_\mathrm{in} & (P-z)h^{-\frac{1}{2}}K_\mathrm{in}\\ h^{\frac{1}{2}}BG_\mathrm{in} &BK_\mathrm{in}
\end{pmatrix}.
$$
Here $(P-z)G_\mathrm{in}=1$, $(P-z)K_\mathrm{in}=0$ and \ekv{ub.2.5}{
BK_\mathrm{in}=\gamma hD_\nu K_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}={\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext},} where
the last equility defines ${\cal
N}_\mathrm{in}:H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial {\cal O})\to
H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\partial {\cal O}) $ so
\ekv{ub.3} { {\cal
P}_\mathrm{out}(z){\cal E}_\mathrm{in}(z)=\begin{pmatrix} 1 &0\\
h^{\frac{1}{2}}BG_\mathrm{in} &{\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}\end{pmatrix} .}
Composing with ${\cal P}_\mathrm{in}$ to the right, we get
\ekv{red.6}
{
{\cal
P}_\mathrm{out}(z)=\begin{pmatrix} 1 &0\\
h^{\frac{1}{2}}BG_\mathrm{in} &{\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}\end{pmatrix}{\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z).
}
Notice that this factorization makes sense only when $z\notin
\sigma (P_\mathrm{in}(z))$ since ${\cal N}_\mathrm{in}$ is defined only under
that assumption. The last factor in the right hand side is of course
bijective then, and the first lower triangular factor is bijective
precisely when ${\cal N}_\mathrm{in}(z)-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}(z):\,H^{3/2}\to H^{1/2}$ is bijective, or
equivalently when $0$ is not in the spectrum of this operator,
considered as an unbounded operator $H^{1/2}\to H^{1/2}$ with domain $H^{3/2}$.
\begin{prop}\label{red3}
For $z$ in the region (\ref{lb.1}) and not in $\sigma
(P_\mathrm{in})$, we have the equivalence:
$$
0\in \sigma ({\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)) \Leftrightarrow 0\in \sigma ({\cal
N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}).
$$
\end{prop}
Again we have holomorphic families of Fredholm operators of index 0
and we have the analogue of the remark after Proposition \ref{red2}.
\par We end the section with a symmetry observation (cf (\ref{cds.1}).
\begin{prop}\label{red4}
$ P_\mathrm{out}(z)$, ${\cal N}_\mathrm{in}$ and ${\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}$
are symmetric.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Green's formula. For $u,v\in H^{3/2}(\partial {\cal
O})$, we have
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
&\langle {\cal N}_\mathrm{in}u|v\rangle_{\partial {\cal O}}-
\langle u|{\cal N}_\mathrm{in}v\rangle_{\partial {\cal O}}\\
&=\langle hD_\nu K_\mathrm{in}u|v\rangle_{\partial {\cal
O}}-\langle
u|hD_\nu K_\mathrm{in}v\rangle_{\partial {\cal O}}\\
&=\frac{i}{h}(\langle -h^2\Delta
K_\mathrm{in}u|K_\mathrm{in}v\rangle_{\cal O}-\langle
K_\mathrm{in}u|-h^2\Delta K_\mathrm{in}v\rangle_{\cal O})\\
&=\frac{i}{h}(\langle
(P-z)K_\mathrm{in}u|K_\mathrm{in}v\rangle_{\cal O}-\langle
K_\mathrm{in}u|(P-z)K_\mathrm{in}v\rangle) \\
&=0.
\end{split}\end{equation*}
\par The symmetry of ${\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}$ follows in the same way
by applying Green's formula on $\Gamma _\mathrm{ext}$.
\par
Let $u,v\in {\cal D}(P_\mathrm{out}(z))$, so that $\gamma hD_\nu
u={\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}\gamma u$ and similarly for $v$. Using again
Green's formula, we get
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
&\langle P_\mathrm{out}(z)u|v\rangle_{\cal O}-\langle
u|P_\mathrm{out}(z)v\rangle_{\cal O}\\
&=-h^2(\langle \Delta u|v\rangle_{\cal O}-\langle
u|\Delta v\rangle_{\cal O})\\
&=\frac{h}{i}(\langle hD_\nu u|v\rangle_{\partial {\cal O}}-
\langle u|hD_\nu v\rangle_{\partial {\cal O}})\\
&=\frac{h}{i}(\langle {\cal N}_\mathrm{ext} u|v\rangle_{\partial {\cal O}}-
\langle u|{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext} v\rangle_{\partial {\cal O}}
)=0,
\end{split}\end{equation*}
where the last equality follows from the symmetry of ${\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Some ODE preparations}\label{prep}
In this section we make some preparations for the study of the
interior and exterior Dirichlet to Neumann maps and some related
estimates for the exterior resolvent.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{Nullsolutions and factorizations of 2nd order ODEs}\label{nf}
Let \ekv{nf.1} { P=\partial _t^2+a(t)\partial _t+b(t) } be a
differential operator with smooth coefficients on an interval or with
holomorphic coefficients on a simply connected open set in ${\bf
C}$. Let $e^{-\alpha (t)}$ belong to the kernel of $P$, \ekv{nf.2} {
P(e^{-\alpha })=0. } This means that $P$ takes the form
$P=(\partial _t+\alpha ')^2+f(t)(\partial _t+\alpha ')+g(t)$, where
$g\equiv 0$ and we get \ekv{nf.5} {
P=(\partial _t-\beta ')(\partial _t+\alpha '), } where $\beta
'=\alpha '-a$, \ekv{nf.6} { \beta =\alpha -\int^t ads. }
\par Notice that $P^\mathrm{t}=(\partial _t-\alpha ')(\partial
_t+\beta ')$, so $e^\beta $ belongs to the kernel of
$P^\mathrm{t}$. When $P$ is symmetric,
$P^\mathrm{t}=P$, we have $a=0$, $\beta =\alpha $.
\subsection{Simple turning point analysis}\label{sta}
We recall some elements of the complex WKB method and refer
to \cite{Vor81, Fe87} for more extensive expositions.
Let $V=V(x)$ be holomorphic in some simply connected open set
$\subset {\bf C}$. We consider the equation
\ekv{sta.1}
{
((hD_x)^2+V(x))u=0,
}
with $u$ holomorphic. The zeros of $V$ are the turning points by
definition. Away from those points we can construct formal local
solutions of the form
\ekv{sta.2}{u(x)=a(x;h)e^{i\phi (x)/h},\ a(x;h)\sim
a_0(x)+ha_1(x)+...,}
where $\phi (x)$ is a solution of the eiconal equation
\ekv{sta.3}{(\phi '(x))^2+V(x)=0,} and $a_0$, $a_1$, ... solve a
sequence of transport equations obtained from:
$$
((\phi '(x)+hD_x)^2+V(x))a=0,
$$
equivalent to
$$
(\phi '(x)hD+hD\circ \phi '+(hD)^2)a=0:
$$
\begin{equation*}
2\phi '(x)\partial a_0+\phi ''a_0=0,\eqno{(T_0)}
\end{equation*}
and for $j\ge 1$:
\begin{equation*}
2\phi '(x)\partial a_j+\phi ''a_j=i\partial ^2a_{j-1}.\eqno{(T_j)}
\end{equation*}
We can prescribe $a_0(x_0)$, $a_1(x_0)$, ... (if $x_0$ is
not a turning point) and then the formal symbol becomes uniquely
determined in a neighborhood of $x_0$. The so called exact WKB method
(see also the appendix)
tells us that if $\gamma :[0,1]\to
\Omega $ is a $C^1$ curve with $\gamma (0)=x_0$, avoiding the turning
points and with the property that $-\Im \phi (\gamma (t))$ has
positive derivative, then there exists an exact holomorphic solution of
(\ref{sta.1}) of the form (\ref{sta.2}) in a neighborhood of $\gamma
(]0,1])$ where $a_0(x_0)$, $a_1(x_0)$, ... can be arbitrarily
prescribed (in the sense that $a(x;h)$ is holomorphic in $x$ with the
asymptotic expansion of (\ref{sta.2}) in the space of holomorphic
functions in a neighborhood of the range of $\gamma $). Moreover, the
solution is unique up to a term ${\cal O}(h^\infty )e^{-\Im \phi /h}$.
Actually the formal expansion can be improved by using the Ansatz
$(\Phi ')^{-1/2}e^{i\Phi /h}$, and then determining $\Phi (x;h)\sim \phi
(x)+h^2\phi _2(x)+h^4\phi _4(x)+...$ from a Riccati type
equation. Notice that the solution of ($T_0$) is of the form
$a_0(x)=C(\phi ')^{-1/2}=\widetilde{C}V(x)^{-1/4}$.
\par We can consider multivalued solutions of (\ref{sta.3}) away from
the turning points. A $C^1$ curve in $\Omega $ is called a Stokes line
if $\Im \phi $ is constant on $\gamma $ and it is called an
anti-Stokes line if $\Re \phi $ is constant. (Sometimes the
terminology is reversed.) Locally away from the turning points the
Stokes and anti-Stokes lines intersect each other perpendicularly. The
curve $\gamma $ in the above exact WKB remark necessarily intersects
the Stokes lines transversally.
\par A turning point $x_0\in \Omega $ is called a simple turning point
if it is a simple zero of $V$, so that
\ekv{sta.4} { V'(x_0)\ne 0. }
We next consider the singularity of the solution of the eiconal
equation near a simple turning point that we assume to be $x_0=0$ for
simplicity. If the Taylor expansion of $-V$ at $x=0$ is
$-V(x)=a^2x+{\cal O}(x^2)$, then $\phi '(x)$ is a double-valued
holomorphic function of the form
$$
\phi '(x)=ax^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+{\cal O}(x)),
$$
where the last factor is holomorphic in a full neighborhood of
$x=0$. By integration it is clear that $\phi $ is also double-valued
and of the form
$$
\phi (x)=\frac{2}{3}ax^{\frac{3}{2}}(1+{\cal O}(x)),
$$
where again the last factor is holomorphic near $0$.
\par The union of the Stokes and anti-Stokes curves reaching the
turning point $x=0$ is contained in
\ekv{sta.5}{\{x\in \mathrm{neigh\,}(0);\, \Im \phi =0\hbox{ or }\Re \phi =0\}=
\{x\in \mathrm{neigh\,}(0);\, \Im (\phi ^2) =0\} ,}
which is also the set of points $x$ solving
$$
a^2x^3(1+{\cal O}(x))=t^3,\ t\in \mathrm{neigh\,}(0,{\bf R}),
$$
i.e.
$$
a^{\frac{2}{3}}x(1+{\cal O}(x))=t,
$$
or equivalently
$$
x=f(a^{-\frac{2}{3}}t),
$$
where $f$ is analytic and $f(0)=0$, $f'(0)=1$. Since there are three
branches of the cubic root of $a$ we see that the set (\ref{sta.5}) is
the union of three smooth curves, $\gamma _j$, $j=0,1,2$ that pass
through $0$ and intersect there at angles $2\pi /3$.
With a suitable orientation, each $\gamma _j$ is first a Stokes line
$\gamma _j^-$ until it hits $0$ and then becomes an anti-Stokes line
$\gamma _j^+$ on the other side. It will be convenient to let $\gamma
_j^-$ be open in the sense that $0\notin \gamma _j^-$, $0\in \gamma
_j^+$. The three Stokes lines divide a pointed neighborhood into three
``Stokes sectors'' $\Sigma _j$, $j=0,1,2$, as indicated on the figure:
\centerline{
\includegraphics[height=200pt]{stokes.png}}
\par\noindent Each Stokes sector is the union of Stokes lines in
addition to the two Stokes lines that make up the boundary. In the
figure we draw two such additional lines in each sector.
For each $j\in {\bf Z}/3{\bf Z}$, we choose the branch $\phi =\phi ^j$
of the solution of the eiconal equation tending to $0$ when $x\to 0$
which has positive imaginary part on the interior of $\Sigma _j$ and
we can extend $\phi $ holomorphically to $\Omega \setminus
\overline{\gamma _j^-}$, so that $\phi ^j=-\phi ^{j\pm 1}$ in $\Sigma
_{j\pm 1}$. Here $\Omega $ is a fixed small open disc centered at
$0$. The exact WKB method tells us that (\ref{sta.1}) has a solution
$u=u_j$ in $\Omega $ of the following asymptotic form in $\Omega
\setminus \Gamma _j^-$, where $\Gamma _j^-$ is any fixed neighborhood
of $\overline{\gamma }_j^-$: \ekv{sta.6} { u_j=a^j(x;h)e^{i\phi
_j(x)/h},\quad a^j\sim a_0^j+ha_1^j+...,\ a_0(x)\ne 0. }
\par The Wronskian $W(u_j,u_k):=(hDu_j)u_k-u_jhDu_k$ is constant, and
can be computed asymptotically for $j\ne k$ at any point on $\gamma _\ell^-$ where
$\ell$ is the index different both from $j$ and $k$. Since $\phi
_j=-\phi _k$ there, we get
\ekv{sta.7}
{
W(u_j,u_k)=2\phi _j'a_0^ja_0^k+{\cal O}(h).
}
Also recall that $W(u,u)=0$.
\par This can be used to study $u_j$ near $\gamma _j^-$. Since the
space of solutions of (\ref{sta.1}) is of dimension 2, we have
\ekv{sta.8}
{
u_j=\sum_{k;\, k\ne j}c_{j,k}u_k,\quad c_{j,k}=c_{j,k}(h)\in {\bf C},
}
and if $k\ne j$, we let $\ell =\ell (j,k)$ be the index different both
from $j$ and $k$ and get
$$
W(u_j,u_\ell)=c_{j,k}W(u_k,u_\ell ),
$$
\ekv{sta.9}
{
c_{j,k}=\frac{W(u_j,u_\ell)}{W(u_k,u_\ell)}\sim
c_{j,k}^0+hc_{j,k}^1+...,\quad c_{j,k}^0\ne 0.
}
We shall next show that the presentation (\ref{sta.6}) extends to
$\Omega \setminus (\Gamma _j^-\cup D(0,Ch^{2/3}))$ where now $\Gamma
_j^-$ is a conic neighborhood of $\gamma _j^-$ and $C\gg 1$, in the
sense that the asymptotic expansion for $a^j$ is in powers of
$h/x^{3/2}$. Letting $j$ be fixed for a while, we suppress ``$j$'' from
the notation. Recall that $a_0$, $a_1$ are determined by the sequence
of transport equations ($T_0$), ($T_1$), ... above. Using the eiconal
equation for $\phi $ we get \ekv{sta.10} {
\partial (V^\frac{1}{4}a_0)=0,\ \partial
(V^\frac{1}{4}a_k)=\frac{1}{2}V^{-\frac{1}{4}}\partial ^2a_{k-1}.
}
Starting with $a_0=\mathrm{Const.\,}V^{-\frac{1}{4}}={\cal
O}(x^{-\frac{1}{4}})$ and using (\ref{sta.10}) and the Cauchy
inequalities, we get iteratively that
\ekv{sta.11}{a_k(x)={\cal O}(x^{-\frac{1}{4}-k\frac{3}{2}}). }
Thus we can give a meaning to
$$
\sum _0^\infty a_kh^k=\sum_0^\infty (x^{k\frac{3}{2}}a_k)\left(\frac{h}{x^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)^k,
$$
in the region $|x|\gg h^{2/3}$ as an asymptotic sum in powers of the
small parameter $h/x^{3/2}$.
\par In the appendix, we show that the holomorphic function $a$ has this
asymptotic expansion in the region $|x|\gg h^{2/3}$.
\begin{prop}\label{sta0}
Fix $j\in {\bf Z}/3{\bf Z}$ and let $u=u_j$ be a solution of
(\ref{sta.1}), which has the structure (\ref{sta.6}) in a
neighborhood of a point $x_0^+\in \gamma _j^+\setminus \{ 0\}$. Then
for $r>0$ small enough, $u$ remains of the form (\ref{sta.6}) in
$D(0,r)\setminus (\Gamma _j^-\cup D(0,Ch^{2/3}))$, $\Gamma _j$ is
any neighborhood of $\gamma _j^-$ of the form $\cup_{x\in \gamma
_j^-}D(x,\epsilon |x|)$ and where $C=C_\epsilon >0$ is large
enough. The coefficients $a_k^j$ in (\ref{sta.6}) satisfy
(\ref{sta.11}) and the precise meaning of the asymptotics in
(\ref{sta.6}) is that
\ekv{sta.14}{a^j-\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}a_k^jh^k={\cal
O}\left(x^{-\frac{1}{4}}\left( \frac{h}{x^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\right)^N\right).}
\end{prop}
We shall next estimate the region where $u=u_0$ may have its zeros
and take $j=0$ in order to fix the ideas. From Proposition
\ref{sta0} it is clear that the zeros have to be close to $\overline{\gamma
_0^-}$ and in particular we need to study what happens in an $h^{2/3}$
neighborhood of $0$, where we have no asymptotics. If $[a,b]\ni t\to
\gamma (t)\in {\bf C}$ is a smooth curve and $v$, $w$ are holomorphic
functions defined near $\gamma $, then
$$
\int_\gamma vwdx=\int_a^bv_\gamma w_\gamma dt,
$$
where we define
$$u_\gamma (t)=\dot{\gamma }^{\frac{1}{2}}u(\gamma (t)).$$ This means
that the passage $u\mapsto u_\gamma $ conserves symmetry of
differential operators, and more precisely, we check that
$$
(Du)_\gamma =\dot{\gamma }^{-\frac{1}{2}}D_t\dot{\gamma
}^{-\frac{1}{2}}u_\gamma ,
$$
and the equation (\ref{sta.1}) restricted to $\gamma $ reads
\ekv{sta.17}
{
[(\dot{\gamma }^{-\frac{1}{2}}hD_t\dot{\gamma
}^{-\frac{1}{2}})^2+V(\gamma (t))]u_\gamma =0
}
Here we can rework the first term and put the two $D_t$ together in
the center. We get
\ekv{sta.20}
{
(-(h\partial _t)^2+\dot{\gamma }^2\widetilde{V})\dot{\gamma
}^{-1}u_\gamma =0,\ \dot{\gamma }^{-1}u_\gamma =\dot{\gamma
}^{-\frac{1}{2}}u\circ \gamma ,
}
where \ekv{sta.19}
{
\widetilde{V}=V(\gamma (t))+(\frac{h}{\dot{\gamma }})^2[\frac{1}{4}(\frac{\ddot{\gamma }}{\dot{\gamma
}})^2-\frac{1}{2}\partial _t(\frac{\ddot{\gamma
}}{\dot{\gamma }})]=V\circ \gamma +{\cal O}(h^2).
}
\begin{prop}\label{sta1}
If $\gamma $ is a Stokes curve or an anti-Stokes curve, we have $\Im
(\dot{\gamma }^2V\circ \gamma )=0$. More precisely, $\dot{\gamma
}^2V\circ \gamma $ is $<0$ in the first case and $>0$ in the second case.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Stokes and anti-Stokes curves are characterized by the property that
$\Im \dot{\gamma }\phi '=0$ and $\Re \dot{\gamma }\phi '=0$
respectively, where $\phi $ solves the eiconal equation
(\ref{sta.3}). For both types of curves, we have $\Im (\dot{\gamma
}\phi ')^2=0$ which means that $\Im
(\dot{\gamma }^2V\circ \gamma )=0$. On a Stokes curve we have
$(\dot{\gamma }\phi ')^2>0$, so $\dot{\gamma }^2V\circ \gamma <0$ and
on an anti-Stokes curve we have
$(\dot{\gamma }\phi ')^2<0$, so $\dot{\gamma }^2V\circ \gamma >0$.
\end{proof}
\par Now complete $\gamma _0$ into a smooth family of curves $\gamma _s$,
$s\in \mathrm{neigh\,}(0,{\bf R})$, so that $x=\gamma _s(t)$ defines
local coordinates $s,t$ and
the smooth function
$$f(s,t)=\Im [(\partial _t\gamma _s)^2V(\gamma _s(t))]$$
vanishes for $s=0$. Assuming, as we may, that $\gamma _0(0)=0$, $\gamma
_0(t)=\gamma _0^\pm(t)$, for $\pm t>0$, we get for $s=0$:
$$
(\partial _sf)(0,0)=\Im (\dot{\gamma }_0^2V'(0)\partial _s\gamma _s(0)).
$$
This is $\ne 0$ since $V'(0)\ne 0$ and $\partial _s\gamma _s(0)_{s=0}$ is
not colinear with $\dot{\gamma }_0$. It follows that
$\pm f(s,t)\asymp s$ and we may assume that the plus sign is valid;
\ekv{sta.22}
{
\Im [(\partial _t\gamma _s(t))^2V(\gamma _s(t))]\asymp s,\ (s,t)\in \mathrm{neigh\,}(0).
}
Now let $u=u_0$ be a solution of (\ref{sta.1}) as in (\ref{sta.10}) which is exponentially
decaying in the Stokes sector $\Sigma _0 $ containing the anti-Stokes
line $\gamma _0^+$.
\begin{prop}\label{sta2}
The zeros of $u_0$ are within a distance ${\cal O}(h^2)$ from $\gamma
_0^-$ and away from a disc $D(0,h^{2/3}/C)$ if $C>0$ is large enough.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We first prove that the zeros are within a distance ${\cal O}(h^2)$
from $\gamma _0$. From the WKB structure we already know that they have
to be inside a small neighborhood of $\{0\}\cup \gamma _0^-$. Let
$x_0$ be a zero of $u$ and let $s=s_0$ be determined by the property
that $x_0$ belongs to $\gamma _{s_0}$, so that $x_0=\gamma
_{s_0}(t_0)$ for $-1/{\cal O}(1)\le t_0\le o(1)$. Take $\gamma
=\gamma _{s_0}$ in (\ref{sta.20}): Multiplying by
$\overline{\dot{\gamma }^{-1/2}u\circ \gamma }$, we get
$$
\int_{t_0}^1[((-h\partial _t)^2+\dot{\gamma
}^2\widetilde{V})\dot{\gamma }^{-\frac{1}{2}}u\circ \gamma )
]\overline{\dot{\gamma }^{-1/2}u\circ \gamma }dt=0.
$$
Here $u\circ \gamma $ is exponentially decaying for $t\ge 1/{\cal
O}(1)$ and vanishes at $t_0$ so we can integrate by parts and get
\ekv{sta.23}
{
\int_{t_0}^1 [|h\partial _t(\dot{\gamma }^{-\frac{1}{2}}u\circ \gamma
)|^2
+\dot{\gamma }^2\widetilde{V}|\dot{\gamma }^{-\frac{1}{2}}u\circ
\gamma|^2] dt={\cal O}(e^{-\frac{1}{Ch}}).
}
Now $\Im \dot{\gamma}^2\widetilde{V}=\Im (\dot{\gamma }^2V\circ
\gamma )+{\cal O}(h^2) $ and $\Im (\dot{\gamma }^2V\circ \gamma
)\asymp s_0$, so taking the imaginary part of (\ref{sta.23}), we get
$$
(|s_0|-{\cal O}(h^2))\int_{t_0}^1|\dot{\gamma }^{-\frac{1}{2}}u\circ
\gamma |^2dt \le {\cal O}(e^{-\frac{1}{Ch}}).
$$
Consequently, $s_0={\cal O}(h^2)$ so the zero is at a distance $\le
{\cal O}(h^2)$ from $\gamma _0$.
\par It remains to prove that the zeros stay away from
$D(0,h^{2/3}/C)$ and belong to a $h^2$-neighborhood of $\gamma
_0^-$. Let $x_0=\gamma _{s_0}(t_0)$ be a zero so that $s_0={\cal
O}(h^2)$. Then, with $\gamma =\gamma _{s_0}$ we have $\Re
\dot{\gamma }^2{V}\asymp t$. Let $v=\dot{\gamma }^{-1/2}u\circ \gamma
$ and take the real part of (\ref{sta.23}):
\ekv{sta.24}
{
\int_{t_0}^1 (|h\partial _tv|^2+\Re (\dot{\gamma
}^2\widetilde{V})|v|^2)dt = {\cal O}(e^{-\frac{1}{Ch}}).
}
Now,
$$\Re (\dot{\gamma }^2\widetilde{V})\ge \frac{t-t_0}{C}-C(|t_0|+h^2)$$
and we get
$$
\int_{t_0}^1(|h\partial _tv|^2+\frac{t-t_0}{C}|v|^2)dt\le {\cal
O}(e^{-\frac{1}{Ch}})+C(|t_0|+h^2)\Vert v\Vert^2,
$$
where the norm is the one in $L^2([t_0,1])$. Here, we can drop the
first term to the right since $\|v\|$ is bounded from below by a power
of $h$. On the other hand, we know (either by using well-known facts
about the Dirichlet problem for the Airy operator or by more direct
arguments) that the left hand side is bounded from below by
$C^{-1}h^{2/3}\Vert v\Vert^2$ (using also that $v(1)$ is exponentially
small). Hence,
$$
\frac{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}{C}\le C(|t_0|+h^2),
$$
leading to
$$
|t_0|\ge \frac{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}{\widetilde{C}}.
$$
Now a second look at (\ref{sta.24}) shows that we cannot have $t_0\ge
h^{2/3}/\widetilde{C}$, and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{sta3}
{\rm By pushing the argument slightly further we see that every zero of
$u_0$ in any fixed disc $D(0,Ch^{2/3})$ is of the form
\ekv{sta.25}
{
-h^{\frac{2}{3}}V'(0)^{-\frac{1}{3}}\zeta _j+{\cal O}(h^{\frac{4}{3}}),
}
for some $j$, where $0<\zeta _1<\zeta _2<...$ are the zeros of
$\mathrm{Ai}(-t)$.}
\end{remark}
\par In fact, let $x_1$ be such a zero and consider the equation
(\ref{sta.20}) along the curve $\gamma =\gamma _s$ that contains
$x_1$. Assume that the parametrization is chosen with $\gamma (0)=x_1$ and
such that $\gamma $ is oriented in the direction of $\Sigma _0$ for
increasing $t$. Choose a similar parametrization of $\gamma _0$ so
that $\gamma (t)-\gamma _0(t)={\cal O}(h^2)$. Pulling $\dot{\gamma
}^{-\frac{1}{2}}u\circ \gamma $ to $\gamma _0$ by means of $\gamma
\circ \gamma _0^{-1}$, we get a quasi-mode $\widetilde{u}(t)$
satisfying
\ekv{sta.26}
{
(-(h\partial _t)^2+\dot{\gamma }_0^2V(\gamma
_0(t)))\widetilde{u}(t)={\cal O}(h^2)\Vert \widetilde{u}\Vert\hbox{ in
}L^2([0,\frac{1}{C_0}]),
}
which is exponentially decaying for $t\gg h^{2/3}$ and satisfies the
Dirichlet condition $\widetilde{u}(0)=0$. This means that the
self-adjoint Dirichlet realization on $[0,1/C_0]$ of the operator to
the left in (\ref{sta.26}) has an eigenvalue $={\cal O}(h^2)$. Now it
is a routine exercise in self-adjoint semi-classical analysis to see
that the eigenvalues of this operator in any interval $]-\infty
,Ch^{2/3}]$ are of the form
\ekv{sta.27}
{
U(0)+h^{\frac{2}{3}}U'(0)^{\frac{2}{3}}\zeta _j+{\cal O}(h^{\frac{4}{3}}),
}
where $U(t)=\dot{\gamma }_0^2V(\gamma _0(t))$ is the potential in
(\ref{sta.26}). Thus for some $j$,
$$
\dot{\gamma }_0(0)^2V(\gamma _0(0))+h^{\frac{2}{3}}(\dot{\gamma
}_0(0)^3 V'(\gamma _0(0)))^{\frac{2}{3}}\zeta _j={\cal O}(h^{\frac{4}{3}}),
$$
which simplifies to
$$
V(x_1)+h^{\frac{2}{3}}V'(0)^\frac{2}{3}\zeta _j+{\cal O}(h^{\frac{4}{3}})=0,
$$
leading to (\ref{sta.25}).
\par The remark \ref{sta3} allows us to control the exterior Dirichlet
problem for $\Im z \ge -c_0h^{2/3}$ for $c_0$ as in (\ref{outl.0}).
\subsection{The exterior ODE}\label{cw}
We are concerned with the operator
\ekv{cw.1}
{
P=-(h\partial _x)^2-xQ(x)+ha(x)h\partial _x,
}
where $Q$, $a$ are holomorphic on $\mathrm{neigh\,}(0,{\bf C})$ and
$Q>0$ on the real domain.
Let $\gamma _\delta $ be the contour $x=\gamma _\delta (s)$, $0\le
s\le s_0$, $0<s_0\ll 1$,
\ekv{cw.4}{\begin{split}\gamma _\delta (s)&=s,\hbox{ for } 0\le s\le
\delta ,\\ \gamma _\delta
(s)&=\delta +e^{\frac{i\pi }{3}}(s-\delta )\hbox{ for }\delta \le
s\le s_0,\end{split}}
and let $b=\gamma _\delta (s_0)$ be the second end point. Here $\delta \ge 0$ is a small parameter that eventually will take the
values $0$ and $Ch$.
Consider the Dirichlet problem
\ekv{cw.2}{(P-z )u=v\hbox{ on }\gamma _\delta ,\quad u(0)=0,\ u(b)=0,}
where
\ekv{cw.3}
{
z =\lambda +h^{2/3}w,\ \lambda \in {\bf R},\ |w|\le \frac{1}{{\cal
O}(1)}.
}
\par We start by discussing the case $\delta =0$ and later we indicate
the additional arguments in order to treat the case $\delta >0$. When
$\delta =0$, the operator reduces to the rotated Airy operator with a
perturbation, \ekv{cw.5} { e^{-\frac{2\pi i}{3}}(-(h\partial
_s)^2+sQ(e^{\frac{\pi i}{3}}s))+e^{-\frac{\pi i}{3}}ha(e^{\frac{\pi
i}{3}}s)h\partial _s, } which as in \cite{HaLe94,
SjZw2,SjZw3,SjZw4} can be treated by ressorting to the spectral
theory for the Dirichlet problem for the Airy operator. When $\delta
>0$ this appeared as more difficult and in order to cover that case
also we chose to use the complex WKB method. The last term
$ha(x)h\partial _x$ will have no real importance and can be eliminated
by writing
$$
P=-(h\partial _x-\frac{h}{2}a(x))^2-xQ(x)+{\cal
O}(h^2)=e^{\frac{A}{2}}
[-(h\partial _x)^2-xQ(x)+{\cal O}(h^2)]e^{-\frac{A}{2}},
$$
where $A={\cal O}(1)$ is a primitive of $a$. Since the perturbation
${\cal O}(h^2)$ can be absorbed in the estimates below, we will assume
from now on that $a=0$. We will also concentrate on the most
interesting case when $|\lambda |\le 1/C$ and indicate later how to
treat the easier cases when $\lambda $ is positive and bounded from
above as well as the case when $\lambda $ is negative and arbitrarily
large.
\par Assuming that $|\lambda |\le 1/C$, we see that the equation
(\ref{cw.2}) has a turning point $x_0(z )$, given by \ekv{cw.6} {
x_0Q(x_0)+z =0. } If $x_1\in {\bf R}$ is the real turning
point, given by $x_1Q(x_1)+\lambda =0$, then
\ekv{cw.6.5}{x_0=x_1-\frac{1}{\partial V(x_1)}h^{\frac{2}{3}}w+{\cal
O}(h^{\frac{4}{3}}),\hbox{ where }V(x)=xQ(x).} We have the following
picture:\\
\centerline{
\includegraphics[height=180pt]{turning.png}}\\
where we
draw the three Stokes lines through $x_0$, the Stokes sector $\Sigma$,
and notice that the zeros of the corresponding subdominant solution
are very close to the Stokes line $\gamma _0^-$ opposite to $\Sigma $
and separated from the turning point by a distance $\ge h^{2/3}/C$. A
direct calculation from (\ref{cw.6}), (\ref{sta.25}) shows that the
imaginary parts of these zeros are $\le -h^{2/3}/{\cal O}(1)$ when
$|\lambda |\ll 1$ and $\Im w\ge -Q(0)^{2/3}\zeta _1\cos \frac{\pi
}{6}+1/{\cal O}(1)$.
\par From Proposition \ref{sta0}, we see that the equation $(P-z
)u=0$ has a solution which is subdominant in $\Sigma $ of the form
\ekv{cw.7}
{
e^{-\phi (x;h)/h}
}
in $(\mathrm{neigh\,}(x_0,{\bf C})\setminus V_0^-)\cup
D(x_0,h^{2/3}/C)$ where $V_0^-$ is a any small ``conic'' neighborhood of
$\gamma _0^-$ as in Proposition \ref{sta0}, such that
\ekv{cw.8}{
\phi '(x;h)=\phi _0'(x)+\frac{{\cal O}(h)}{x-x_0}}
and $\phi _0$ solves the eiconal equation, $ (\phi _0')^2=xQ(x)+z
$. (Compared to Proposition \ref{sta0}, we have found it convenient to
drop the prefactor ``$i$''.) Notice that the first term in the right
hand side of (\ref{cw.8}) dominates when $|x-x_0|\gg h^{2/3}$.
\par Moreover, in any set of the form $D(x_0,h^{3/2}/C)\cup (D(x_0,Ch^{3/2})\setminus V_0^-)$,
we have
\ekv{cw.9}
{
\phi '={\cal O}(h^{1/3}).
}
In fact, writing $x-x_0=h^{2/3}y$ leads to the equation $-(\partial _y^2+W(y))u=0$ in a fixed
$h$-independent domain where $W$ is holomorphic and bounded. Rewriting
this as a first order system, we see that $|u(y)|+|\partial _yu(y)|$
is of constant order of magnitude, say $\asymp 1$ and the equation
tells us that $\partial _y^2u={\cal O}(1)$. We also know that $u$ is
non-vanishing and after shrinking the domain by a fixed rate arbitrarily
close to 1, we conclude that $|u(y)|\ge 1/{\cal O}(1)$. Indeed, if
$|u(y_0)|=\epsilon \ll 1$, then $|u'(y_0)|\asymp 1$ and from the Taylor
expansion, $u(y)=u(y_0)+u'(y_0)(y-y_0)+{\cal O}((y-y_0)^2)$, we see
that $u$ must have a zero in the disc $D(y_0,r)$ if $\epsilon \ll r\ll
1$. Thus $|u(y)|\asymp 1$, $u'(y)={\cal O}(1)$ and hence $\partial
_y\ln u={\cal O}(1)$. Hence $h^{2/3}\partial _x\ln u={\cal O}(1)$ and
$\partial _x\phi =h\partial _x\ln u={\cal O}(h^{1/3})$ as claimed.
\par As in Section \ref{nf} we factor $P-z $ as
\ekv{cw.10}
{
P-z =(\phi '-h\partial _x)(\phi '+h\partial _x)
}
and we shall use this to find a solution $u$ of the equation $(P-z
)u=v$.
First invert $\phi '-h\partial _x$
by integration from $b$ to get
\ekv{cw.11}
{
(\phi '+h\partial _x)u=-\frac{1}{h}\int_{b}^x e^{(\phi (x)-\phi (y))/h}v(y)dy=:Kv(x).
}
\par In order to estimate the ${\cal L}(L^2)$-norm of this integral
operator and of similar ones, we collect some useful properties.
\begin{lemma}\label{cw0}
Assume that $0\le \delta \le Ch$ and orient $\gamma _\delta $ from $0$
to $b$. Write $y\prec x$ for $y,x\in \gamma _\delta $ if $y$ precedes
$x$. For $x,y,w\in \gamma _\delta $ with $0\prec y\prec w\prec x\prec
b$ we have with a new constant $C>0$:
\ekv{cw.a}
{
\frac{1}{C}\int_y^x|\phi '(z)||dz|-Ch\le \Re \phi (x)-\Re \phi (y)\le
\int_y^x|\phi '(z)||dz|,
}
\ekv{cw.b}
{
\frac{1}{C}|\phi '(w)||x-y|-Ch\le \int _y^x|\phi '(z)||dz|\le C(|\phi '(x)||x-y|+h),
}
\ekv{cw.c}
{
\frac{1}{C_\epsilon }e^{-\frac{\epsilon }{h}\int_y^x|\phi '(z)||dz|}
\le \frac{h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '(x)|}{h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '(y)|}\le
C_\epsilon e^{\frac{\epsilon }{h}\int_y^x|\phi '(z)||dz|},
}
for every $\epsilon >0$. Here $C_\epsilon >0$ is independent of $h$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The second inequality in (\ref{cw.a}) is obvious. By additivity it
suffices to show the first inequality in each of the following three
cases (where the second case may be void):
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)] $x,y$ belong to the horizontal segment $[0,\delta ]$,
\item[2)] $x,y$ belong to $\gamma _\delta \cap D(x_0,Ch^{2/3})$,
\item[3)] $x,y$ are both beyond the cases 1 and 2.
\end{itemize}
In case 1) both $\int_y^x|\phi '(z)||dz|$ and $\Re (\phi (x)-\phi
(y))$ are ${\cal O}(h)$ since $\delta ={\cal O}(h)$. In the second case
this remains true since $|x-y|={\cal O}(h^{2/3})$ and $\phi '(z)={\cal
O}(h^{1/3})$ for $y\prec z\prec x$. In the third case the first
inequality in (\ref{cw.a}) follows from the fact that $\gamma _\delta
$ is here transversal to the Stokes lines and more precisely that
$$
\frac{d}{dt}\Re \phi (\gamma _\delta (t))\asymp |\phi '(\gamma _\delta
(t))|, \hbox{ for }y\prec \gamma _\delta (t)\prec x.
$$
Now consider (\ref{cw.b}). If $x$ is as in case 1 or 2 then
$\int_y^x|\phi '(z)||dz|$ and $|\phi '(w)||x-y|$ are ${\cal
O}(h)$. If $x$ is as in case 3, then $|\phi '(x)|\ge
\frac{1}{C}|\phi '(w)|$ for $w\prec x$ and we get the desired inequalities.
We finally show (\ref{cw.c}).
Let $\mathrm{I}$ denote the modulus of the logarithmic derivative of
$h^{1/3}+|\phi '(x)|$ along $\gamma _\delta $. Then $$\mathrm{I}\le \frac{|\phi
''|}{h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '(x)|}$$ which is ${\cal O}(h^{-2/3})$ on
$\gamma _\delta \cap D(x_0,Ch^{2/3})$ for every $C>0$, and on $\gamma
_\delta \setminus D(x_0,Ch^{2/3})$:
$$
\mathrm{I}={\cal
O}(1)\frac{|x-x_0|^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|x-x_0|^{\frac{1}{2}}}=\frac{{\cal
O}(1)}{|x-x_0|}.
$$
Summing up the estimates in both regions, we have
$$
\mathrm{I}=\frac{{\cal O}(1)}{h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|x-x_0|}.
$$
\par
The modulus $\mathrm{II}$ of the logarithmic derivative with respect
to $x$ of $e^{\int_y^x|\phi ' (z)||dz|/h}$ is bounded by $|\phi
'(x)|/h$ which is ${\cal O}(h^{-2/3})$ in the first region and
$\asymp |x-x_0|^{1/2}/h$ in the second region,
provided that $C$ is large enough.
\par It follows that $\mathrm{I}\le \epsilon \mathrm{II}$, except in
the intersection of $\gamma _\delta $ with the disc $|x-x_0|\le
(h/\epsilon )^{2/3}$. The integrals of both $\mathrm{I}$ and
$\mathrm{II}$ over this exceptional region are ${\cal O}_\epsilon (1)$
and (\ref{cw.c}) follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{cw0.5}
The ${\cal L}(L^2)$-norms of $(h^\frac{1}{3}+|\phi '|)\circ K$ and of
$(h^\frac{1}{3}+|\phi '|)^2\circ K\circ (h^\frac{1}{3}+|\phi '|)^{-1}$
are ${\cal O}(1)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first notice that we can replace $|\phi '(w)|$ to the left in
(\ref{cw.b}) by $|\phi '(w)|+h^{\frac{1}{3}}$.
\par By Shur's lemma, the ${\cal L}(L^2)$-norm of $(h^\frac{1}{3}+|\phi
'|)\circ K$ is bounded by the geometric mean of the following two
quantities:
$$
\mathrm{I}=\frac{1}{h}\sup_{x\in \gamma _\delta }\int_b^x
(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '(x)|)e^{\frac{1}{h}\Re (\phi (x)-\phi (y))}|dy|
$$ and
$$
\mathrm{II}=\frac{1}{h}\sup_{y\in \gamma _\delta }\int_0^y
(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '(x)|)e^{\frac{1}{h}\Re (\phi (x)-\phi (y))}|dx|.
$$
Combining (\ref{cw.a}) and (\ref{cw.b}) with $|\phi '(w)|$ replaced by
$h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '(w)|$, we see that for $x\prec y$,
$$
(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '(x)|)e^{\frac{1}{h}\Re (\phi (x)-\phi (y))}\le
(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '(x)|)e^{C-\frac{1}{Ch}(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '(x)|)|x-y|},
$$
implying that $\mathrm{I}={\cal O}(1)$.
\par In order to estimate $\mathrm{II}$, we also use (\ref{cw.c}) to
get
\begin{multline*}\frac{1}{h}(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi
'(x)|)e^{\frac{1}{h}\Re (\phi (x)-\phi (y))}\\
\le \frac{1}{h}(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi
'(x)|)e^{-\frac{1}{Ch}\int_y^x|\phi '(z)||dz|}\\
\le \frac{\widehat{C}}{h}(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi
'(y)|)e^{-\frac{1}{2Ch}\int_y^x|\phi '(z)||dz|}\\
\le \frac{1}{h}(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi
'(y)|)e^{\widetilde{C}-\frac{1}{\widetilde{C}h}(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi
'(y)|)|x-y|},
\end{multline*}
and it follows that $\mathrm{II}$ is ${\cal O}(1)$. Thus the ${\cal
L}(L^2)$-norm of $(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)\circ K$ is ${\cal
O}(1)$ as claimed.
\par The estimate of the norm of $(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)^2\circ
K\circ (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)^{-1}$ is just a slight variation of
the above arguments, using (\ref{cw.c}) from the start.
\end{proof}
From the definition of $K$ in (\ref{cw.11}) we get
\ekv{cw.13}
{
-h\partial _xKv=v-\phi '\circ Kv,
}
and we conclude that
\ekv{cw.14}
{
h\partial _x\circ K,\ (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)h\partial _x\circ
K\circ (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)^{-1}\hbox{ are }{\cal O}(1)\hbox{ in
}{\cal L}(L^2).
}
\par Now, recall that we can get $u$ from $(\phi '+h\partial _x)u=:w$ by
integration outwards from $x=0$:
\ekv{cw.14.5}
{
u(x)=\frac{1}{h}\int_0^x e^{-(\phi (x)-\phi (y))/h}w(y)dy=:Lw.
}
The same estimates apply to $L$ and for the solution $u=LKv$ of the
equation $(P-z )u=v$, we get
\ekv{cw.15}
{\Vert (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)^2u\Vert+\Vert (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi
'|)h\partial _xu\Vert\le {\cal O}(1)\Vert v\Vert .
}
Recalling that
$$
(P-z )=(\phi '-h\partial )(\phi '+h\partial )=(\phi ')^2-h\phi
''-(h\partial )^2,
$$
and that $\phi ''={\cal O}(h^{-\frac{1}{3}})$, we also get $\Vert
(h\partial )^2u\Vert\le {\cal O}(1)\Vert v\Vert$ and thus for $u=LKv$:
\ekv{cw.16}
{|\hskip -1pt |\hskip -1pt |u|\hskip -1pt |\hskip -1pt |:=\Vert (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)^2u\Vert+\Vert (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi
'|)h\partial _xu\Vert +\Vert (h\partial _x )^2u\Vert\le {\cal O}(1)\Vert v\Vert .
}
\par By construction, $u(0)=0$, but the Dirichlet condition at $x=b$
is not necessarily fulfilled. Now, for instance by using a different
factorization $(P-z )=(\widetilde{\phi }'+h\partial
)(\widetilde{\phi }'-h\partial )$ and some easy iterations, we see
that the problem
\ekv{cw.17}
{(P-z )e_b=0,\ e_b(0)=0,\ e_b(b)=1 }
has a solution on $\gamma _\delta $ which decays exponentially away
from $b$ and satisfies $|\hskip -1pt |\hskip -1pt |e_b|\hskip -1pt
|\hskip -1pt |={\cal O}(h^{\frac{1}{2}})$.
\par Moreover, we have
$u(b)={\cal O}(h^{-1/2})\Vert v\Vert$. In fact, (\ref{cw.16}) shows
that $\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^2}\le {\cal O}(1)\Vert v\Vert$, if take the
$H^2_h$ norm over $\{ x\in \gamma _\delta ;\, a\prec x\prec b \}$, where
$a\in \gamma _\delta $ is close to $b$, and as in (\ref{al.10}), we
have $|u(b)|\le {\cal O}(h^{-1/2})\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^2}$. Thus the
function $\widetilde{u}=u-u(b)e_b$ solves $(P-z )\widetilde{u}=v$,
$\widetilde{u}(0)=\widetilde{u}(b)=0$ and (\ref{cw.16}) remains valid
with $u$ replaced by $\widetilde{u}$. Since our Dirichlet problem is
Fredhom of index zero, we also know that $\widetilde{u}$ is the unique
solution. Dropping the tildes we get:
\begin{prop}\label{cw1}
Consider the problem (\ref{cw.2}) for $z $ as in (\ref{cw.3}) with
$\lambda =1/{\cal O}(1)$ and let $u$ be the unique solution
constructed above. Then,
\ekv{cw.22}
{
\Vert (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)^2u\Vert + \Vert (h\partial
_x)^2u\Vert
+\Vert (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)h\partial _xu\Vert \le {\cal O}(1)
\Vert v\Vert ,
}
where the $L^2$ norms are taken over $\gamma _\delta $.
\end{prop}
\par We make a few remarks about extensions and variants. The first is
that we can replace $\phi $ in (\ref{cw.22}) with $\phi _0$, the
solution of the eiconal equation, $(\phi _0')^2=xQ(x)+z $. Indeed,
when $|x-x_0|\le {\cal O}(h^{2/3})$ we have $\phi ',\, \phi _0'={\cal
O}(h^{1/3})$ and when $|x-x_0|\ge Ch^{2/3}$, then $|\phi '|\asymp
|\phi _0'|$.
\par The second observation is that along $\gamma _\delta $, if we let $x_1$
denote the real turning point (given by $x_1Q(x_1)+\lambda =0$,
$x_1\asymp -\lambda $, then
\begin{multline*}
h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi _0'|\asymp
h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|x-x_0|^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
\asymp (|x-x_0|+h^{\frac{2}{3}})^{\frac{1}{2}}\asymp
(|x-x_1|+h^{\frac{2}{3}})^\frac{1}{2}\\
\asymp (s+|\lambda |+h^{\frac{2}{3}})^{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{multline*}
where we write $x=\gamma _\delta (s)$. Thus (\ref{cw.22}) can be written
\ekv{cw.23}
{
\Vert (h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|\lambda |+s)u\Vert+\Vert (h\partial
_x)^2u\Vert +\Vert (h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|\lambda
|+s)^{\frac{1}{2}}h\partial _xu\Vert \le {\cal O}(1)\Vert v\Vert .
}
\section{Parametrix for the exterior Dirichlet problem}\label{aed}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Choose geodesic coordinates $(x',x_n)$ with $x'$ being local
coordinates on $\partial {\cal O}$, so that the exterior of ${\cal O}$
is locally given by $x_n>0$ and $P=-h^2\Delta $ in ${\bf R}^n\setminus
{\cal O}$ becomes (locally near a boundary point):
\ekv{aed.1}
{
P=(hD_{x_n})^2+R(x',hD_{x'})-x_nQ(x,hD_{x'})+ha(x)hD_{x_n}.
}
(Cf. (\ref{dcs.16}), (\ref{dcs.17}), (\ref{dcs.18}))
Here $R$ is an elliptic second order differential operator with
principal symbol $r(x',\xi ')=|\xi '|^2$ both in the classical and
semi-classical sense. Similarly, $Q$ is
elliptic in the $x'$ variables with principal symbol $q(x,\xi ')\asymp
|\xi '|^2$. For $z =\lambda +h^{2/3}w$ with $\lambda \in {\bf R}$,
$\lambda \sim 1$, $|w|\le 1/{\cal O}(1)$, we consider
\ekv{aed.2}
{\begin{split}
&P(x',\xi ')-z =P(x',x_n,\xi ',hD_{x_n})-z \\
&=
(hD_{x_n})^2+R(x',\xi ')-x_nQ(x,\xi ')+ha(x)hD_{x_n}-z
\end{split}
}
as an ODO-valued symbol. We let $x_n$ vary in $\gamma _\delta $, $0\le
\delta \le Ch$.
\par We investigate 3 different regions in $T^*\partial
{\cal O}$.
\par 1) $(x',\xi ')$ belongs to a small neighborhood of the glancing
hypersurface ${\cal G}$: $r(x',\xi ')=\lambda $. Then the estimates in Subsection
\ref{cw} apply with $\lambda $ there replaced by $\lambda -r(x',\xi
')$ and from (\ref{cw.23}) we get
\label{aed.3}
\begin{multline}\label{aed.3}
\Vert (h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|\lambda -r(x',\xi ')|+s)u\Vert +\Vert (h\partial_{x_n})^2u \Vert
+\\ \Vert (h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|\lambda -r(x',\xi
')|+s)^{\frac{1}{2}}h\partial_{x_n}u\Vert\le {\cal O}(1)\Vert v\Vert ,
\end{multline}
when $(P(x',\xi ')-z )u=v$ along $\gamma _\delta $, $u(0)=u(b)=0$.
\par 2) $(x',\xi ')$ belongs to the hyperbolic region $r(x',\xi ')\le
\lambda -1/{\cal O}(1)$. Then the turning point $x_0$ is away from $0$
and hence also from $\gamma _\delta $ and the estimates of Section
\ref{cw} still apply and give (\ref{aed.3}), where we notice that
$h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|\lambda -r(x',\xi ')|+s\asymp 1$:
\ekv{aed.4}
{
\Vert u\Vert + \Vert h\partial_{x_n}u\Vert + \Vert (h\partial_{x_n})^2u\Vert
\le {\cal O}(1)\Vert v\Vert .
}
Notice that $q$ may be very small in this region but the estimates now
work without any reference to a turning point.
\par 3) $(x',\xi ')$ belongs to the elliptic region $r(x',\xi ')\ge
\lambda +1/{\cal O}(1)$. When in addition $r(x',\xi ')\le {\cal O}(1)$
we get (\ref{aed.4}) again. When $r(x',\xi ')\gg 1$ we multiply with
$|\xi '|^{-2}$ and get
$$
|\xi '|^{-2}(P(x',\xi ')-z
)=(\widetilde{h}D_{x_n})^2+\widetilde{R}-x_n\widetilde{Q}+\widetilde{h}a(x_n)\widetilde{h}D_{x_n}-\widetilde{z
}=\widetilde{P}-\widetilde{z },
$$
where $\widetilde{R}=|\xi '|^{-2}R(x',\xi ')\asymp 1$,
$\widetilde{Q}=|\xi '|^{-2}Q\asymp 1$, $\widetilde{h}=h/|\xi '|\ll 1$,
$\widetilde{z }=z /|\xi '|^2$, $|\widetilde{z }|\ll
1$. For the rescaled problem the turning point is well off to the
right and $\gamma _\delta $ intersects the Stokes lines
transversally. We still get (\ref{aed.4}), now for
$(\widetilde{P}-\widetilde{z })u=v$ and $h$ replaced by
$\widetilde{h}$ and after scaling back, we get
\ekv{aed.5} { \langle \xi '\rangle ^2\Vert u\Vert+ \langle \xi
'\rangle \Vert h\partial_{x_n}u\Vert +\Vert (h\partial_{x_n})^2u\Vert \le
{\cal O}(1)\Vert v\Vert }
for solutions of (\ref{cw.2}).
\par For a fixed $\delta \in \{ 0,Ch\}$, let ${\cal B}(x',\xi ')$ be
the space of functions on $\gamma _\delta $ vanishing at both end points and
equipped with the norm given be the left hand side of (\ref{aed.3}),
(\ref{aed.4}), (\ref{aed.5}) respectively when $(x',\xi ')$ is as in
the three cases.
\par Then $P(x',\xi ')-z ={\cal O}(1):{\cal B}(x',\xi ')\to
L^2(\gamma _\delta )$
and has an inverse $E(x',\xi ')$ which is ${\cal
O}(1):L^2(\gamma _\delta )\to {\cal B}(x',\xi ')$.
\par Outside a fixed neighborhood of the glancing hypersurface, we
have the nice symbol properties
\ekv{aed.6}
{
\partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta P={\cal O}_{\alpha
,\beta }(\langle \xi '\rangle^{-|\beta |}):\, {\cal B}(x',\xi ')\to
L^2(\gamma _{\delta }).
}
Near the glancing hypersurface we have a poblem when derivatives fall
on $R$ and we get the weaker estimate
\ekv{aed.7}
{
\partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta P={\cal O}_{\alpha
,\beta }(1)(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|\lambda -r(x',\xi ')|)^{-(|\alpha
|+|\beta |)}.
}
This is the reason why traditionally (as in \cite{SjZw4,SjZw5} and
other works cited there) one uses some form of second
microlocalization. If $(x_0,\xi _0)$ is a point on the glancing
hypersurface, we conjugate $P(x,hD)$ with a microlocally defined
elliptic Fourier integral operator acting in the tangential variables
and get a new operator of the form (\ref{aed.1}) where now $R$, $Q$
are tangential classical $h$-pseudodifferential operators and $a$ is
replaced by $a(x,hD_{x'};h)$, a classical pseudodifferential operator
of order 0 in $h$, and where
\ekv{aed.8}
{
R(x',\xi ')=\xi _1.
}
Then the problem appears only when we differentiate with respect to
$\xi _1$:
\ekv{aed.9}
{
\partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta P={\cal O}_{\alpha
,\beta }(1)(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|\lambda -r(x',\xi ')|)^{-\beta _1}.
}
Differentiating the identity $(P-z )E=1$, we get with $\partial
^\alpha =\partial _{x',\xi '}^\alpha $:
$$
(P-z )\partial ^{\alpha }E=\sum_{\alpha '+\alpha ''=\alpha \atop
\alpha '\ne 0} c_{\alpha ',\alpha ''}(\partial
^{\alpha '}P) (\partial ^{\alpha ''}E),
$$
and after applying $E$ to the right and using that $E(P-z )=1$,
$$
\partial ^\alpha E=\sum_{\alpha '+\alpha ''=\alpha \atop
\alpha '\ne 0} c_{\alpha ',\alpha ''}E(\partial
^{\alpha '}P)(\partial ^{\alpha ''}E) .
$$
By induction we then get
\ekv{aed.10}
{
\partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta E={\cal O}_{\alpha
,\beta }(\langle \xi '\rangle^{-|\beta |}):\,
L^2(\gamma _{\delta })\to {\cal B}(x',\xi '),
}
outside any fixed neighborhood of the glancing hypersurface ${\cal G}$.
Near any fixed point of ${\cal G}$, we get
\ekv{aed.11}
{
\partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta E={\cal O}_{\alpha
,\beta }(1)(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|\lambda -r(x',\xi ')|)^{-\beta _1},
}
after conjugation with an elliptic tangential Fourier integral operator,
that reduces $R$ to $\xi _1$.
We now turn to the $n$-dimensional situation and recall the definition
of the singular contour $\Gamma _f$ in (\ref{dcs.2}) and its exterior
part $\Gamma _{\mathrm{ext},f}$, where $f$ satisfies
(\ref{dcs.21}). We take $\theta =\pi /3$ there and put $\Gamma
_0=\Gamma _f$. For $\delta >0$, let ${\cal O} _{-\delta }={\cal
O}+B(0,\delta )$. Then $\mathrm{dist\,}(x,{\cal O}_{-\delta })=\max
(d(x)-\delta ,0)$. Let $f_\delta $ be as in (\ref{dcs.21}) with $d(x)$
replaced by $\mathrm{dist\,}(\cdot ,{\cal O}_{-\delta })$, still with
$\theta =\pi /3$. Put $\Gamma _\delta =\Gamma _{f_\delta }$. In this
section we only work on the exterior parts $\Gamma
_{\mathrm{ext},\delta }$ and for simplicity we drop the subscript
``ext''. Using geodesic coordinates we have
\ekv{aed.12}
{
\Gamma _{\delta ,b}:=\{x;\, x'\in \partial {\cal O},\ x_n\in \gamma
_\delta \}\subset \Gamma _\delta .
}
(Later on we will also include ${\cal O}$ into the contour $\Gamma
_\delta $ and the $\Gamma _\delta $ above will then be renamed
$\Gamma _{\delta ,\mathrm{ext}}$.)
Let $ {\cal B}_b$ be the space of functions $u=u(x',x_n)$ on $\Gamma
_{\delta ,b}$ with $u(x',0)=u(x',b)=0$ for which the norm
\ekv{aed.14}{
\Vert u\Vert_{{\cal B}}=h^{\frac{2}{3}}\Vert u\Vert +\Vert
(R(x',hD_{x'})-\lambda )u\Vert+\Vert su\Vert +\Vert (h\partial
_{x_n})^2u\Vert
}
is finite.
Continuing to treat $P$ as a pseudodifferential operator on $\partial
{\cal O}$ with operator valued symbol, we obtain a right parametrix of
$P-z $ in the following way (cf \cite{SjZw4,SjZw5}):
Let $\chi _1,..,\chi _N\in C_0^\infty (T^*\partial {\cal O})$ have
their supports in small neighborhoods of the points $\rho _1,...,\rho
_N\in {\cal G}$ that we assume are ``evenly distributed'' on ${\cal G}$
with $N$ sufficiently large and so that $\sum_1^N\chi _j=1$ near
${\cal G}$. Put $\chi _0=1-\sum_1^N\chi _j$. Define corresponding
tangential pseudodifferential operators $\chi _j(x',hD_{x'})$ on
$\partial {\cal O}$ in the standard way, so that $\sum_1^N\chi
_j(x',hD_{x'})=1$ microlocally near ${\cal G}$. With suitable choices
of the above quantities, there exist semi-classical elliptic Fourier
integral operators of order $0$, defined microlocally near $\rho _j$,
such that $R(x',hD_{x'})=U_jhD_{x_1}U_j^{-1}$ microlocally near $\mathrm{supp\,}\chi _j$
where $U_j^{-1}$ denotes a microlocal inverse of $U_j$. Then our
parametrix of $P-z $ is an operator $E={\cal O}(1):L^2(\Gamma
_{\delta ,b})\to {\cal B}_b$ of the form
\ekv{aed.15}
{
E=E_0\chi _0(x',hD_{x'})+\sum_1^NU_jE_j(x',hD_{x'})U_j^{-1}\chi _j(x',hD_{x'}).
}
Here the symbol $E_0(x',\xi ')$ belongs to the space $S^0(T^*\partial
{\cal O};{\cal L}(L^2,{\cal B}_b))$ of symbols that satisfy
(\ref{aed.10}) and has an asymptotic expansion,
\ekv{aed.16}{E_0\sim E_{0,0}+hE_{0,1}+h^2E_{0,2}+...,}
with $E_{0,k}\in S^{-k}$, the space of symbols $F$ satisfying
$$
\partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta F={\cal O}_{\alpha
,\beta }(\langle \xi '\rangle ^{-k-|\beta |}):\, L^2(\gamma _\delta
)\to {\cal B}(x',\xi ').
$$
Moreover, $E_{0,0}=(P(x',\xi ')-z )^{-1}$.
\par For $j=1,...,N$, $E_j$ has the property (\ref{aed.11}) with
$r=\xi _1$ and we have an asymptotic expansion
\ekv{aed.17}
{
E_j\sim E_{j,0}+h^{\frac{1}{3}}E_{j,1}+...,
}
with $E_{j,k}$ satisfying (\ref{aed.11}) and with $E_{j,0}=(P(x',\xi
')-z )^{-1}$ where it is understood that $P(x',\xi ')$ is now
simplified with the conjugation by $U_j$ so that $R(x',hD_{x'})$ has
become $hD_{x_1}$. The main property of $E$ is that
\ekv{aed.18}
{
(P(x,hD)-z )E=1+{\cal O}(h^\infty )\hbox{ in }{\cal L}(L^2,L^2).
}
Similarly, we can construct a left parametrix $\widetilde{E}$ with an
expression similar to (\ref{aed.15}) but with the cutoff operators to
the left, and by a standard argument we see that
$\widetilde{E}=E+{\cal O}(h^\infty )$ in ${\cal L}(L^2,{\cal B}_b)$.
\par Summing up the discssion so far, we have
\begin{prop}\label{aed1}
we can construct an operator $E={\cal O}(1):L^2(\Gamma _{\delta
,b})\to {\cal B}_b$ as above, so that
\ekv{aed.19}{
\begin{cases}(P(x,hD)-z )E=1+{\cal O}(h^\infty )\hbox{ in }{\cal
L}(L^2,L^2),\\
E(P(x,hD)-z )=1+{\cal O}(h^\infty )\hbox{ in }{\cal
L}({\cal B}_b,{\cal B}_b).
\end{cases}
}
\end{prop}
\par We now consider $P=-h^2\Delta $ on all of $\Gamma _\delta $ and
notice that $P-z $ is semi-classically elliptic away from any
fixed neighborhood of $\partial {\cal O}$, so we have a
pseudodifferential parametrix $Q(x,hD;h)$ in that region with symbol
$Q(x,\xi ;h)$ satisfying $\partial _x^\alpha \partial _{\xi }^\beta
Q={\cal O}(\langle \xi \rangle^{-2-|\beta |})$ such that if $\chi \in
C^\infty (\Gamma _\delta )$ is a standard cutoff to a small
neighborhood of $\partial {\cal O}$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}(P-z )Q(1-\chi )=(1-\chi )+K_1\\
(1-\chi )Q(P-z )=(1-\chi )+K_2,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $K_1$, $K_2$ are negligible operators ${\cal O}(h^\infty
):H^{-s}_h\to H_h^s$ for every $s\ge 0$. Further, we may arrange so
that the distribution kernel $K_Q(x,y)$ of $Q$ vanishes when
$|x-y|>\epsilon $, for any fixed given $\epsilon >0$.
\par Assuming that $\mathrm{supp\,}\chi \subset \Gamma _{\delta ,b}$,
we choose $\epsilon >0$ small enough and put
\ekv{aed.20}
{
F=\chi E\chi +Q(1-\chi )-Q[P,\chi ]E\chi .
}
Then, $F={\cal O}(1):L^2(\Gamma _\delta )\to {\cal B}(\Gamma _\delta
)$ and
$$
(P-z )F=1+K_3,
$$
where $K_3={\cal O}(h^\infty ):L^2\to L^2$. Here ${\cal B}(\Gamma
_\delta )$ denotes the space of distributions $u$ such that $\chi u\in
{\cal B}(\Gamma _{\delta ,b})$, $(1-\chi )u\in H_h^2(\Gamma _\delta
)$. The construction of a left parametrix is similar, and by a standard
argument we see that $F$ is also a left parametrix. Summing up, we get
\begin{prop}\label{aed2}
The operator $F$ in (\ref{aed.20}) is ${\cal O}(1):L^2(\Gamma
_\delta )\to {\cal B}(\Gamma _\delta )$ and satisfies \ekv{aed.21} {
(P-z )F=1+K_3,\ F(P-z )=1+K_4, } where $K_3={\cal
O}(h^\infty ):\, L^2(\Gamma _\delta )\to L^2(\Gamma _\delta )$,
$K_4={\cal O}(h^\infty ):\, {\cal B}(\Gamma _\delta )\to {\cal
B}(\Gamma _\delta )$.
\end{prop}
\section{Exterior Poisson operator and DN map}\label{pdn}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We continue some estimates in the one dimensional case. Recall that if
$u\in C_0^\infty ([0,\infty [)$, then
\ekv{pdn.1}
{
|u(0)|^2\le 2\Vert u\Vert \Vert \partial u\Vert.
}
If $u\in C^\infty ([0,\infty [)$, let $\chi \in C_0^\infty ([0,\infty
[)$, $\chi (0)=0$ and put $\chi _L(x)=\chi (x/L)$. Applying
(\ref{pdn.1}) to $\chi _Lu$ gives
\ekv{pdn.2}
{
|u(0)|^2\le C(\frac{1}{L}\Vert u\Vert^2_{[0,L]}+\Vert
u\Vert_{[0,L]}\Vert \partial u\Vert_{[0,L]}).
}
If $\Lambda >0$ is a continuous function on $[0,\infty [$ of increasing
order of magnitude ($\Lambda (x)\ge \frac{1}{C}\Lambda (y)$ when $x\ge
y$) we get
$$
|u(0)|^2\le C(\frac{1}{L\Lambda (0)^2}\Vert \Lambda
u\Vert^2_{[0,L]}+\frac{1}{h\Lambda (0)}\Vert \Lambda u\Vert_{[0,L]}\Vert
h\partial u\Vert_{[0,L]}).
$$ Choose $L$ so that $L\Lambda (0)^2=h\Lambda (0)$, $L=h/\Lambda
(0)$. Then,
$$
|u(0)|^2\le \frac{C}{h\Lambda (0)}(\Vert \Lambda
u\Vert^2_{[0,\frac{h}{\Lambda (0)}]}+\Vert
h\partial u\Vert^2_{[0,\frac{h}{\Lambda (0)}]}),
$$
\ekv{pdn.3}
{
\sqrt{h\Lambda (0)}|u(0)|\le C(\Vert \Lambda
u\Vert_{[0,\frac{h}{\Lambda (0)}]}+\Vert
h\partial u\Vert_{[0,\frac{h}{\Lambda (0)}]}).
}
\par Recall that for $(x',\xi ')$ near a point on the glancing
hypersurface, $r=\lambda $,
$$
\Vert u\Vert_{{\cal B}(x',\xi ')}=\Vert \Lambda ^2u\Vert +\Vert
\Lambda h\partial_{x_n} u\Vert + \Vert (h\partial_{x_n} )^2u\Vert ,
$$
where $\Lambda ^2=(h^{2/3}+|r-\lambda |+s)$, $r=r(x',\xi ')$,
$x_n=\gamma _\delta (s)$, $0\prec x\prec b$. Since $\Lambda $ is
increasing, we can apply (\ref{pdn.3}) and estimate $|u(0)|$ with the
first two terms in the ${\cal B}$-norm and $|h\partial_{x_n}u(0)|$ using
the last two terms: \ekv{pdn.4} { h^{\frac{1}{2}}\Lambda
(0)^{\frac{3}{2}}|u(0)|\le C\Vert u\Vert_{{\cal B}}, } \ekv{pdn.5} {
h^{\frac{1}{2}}\Lambda (0)^{\frac{1}{2}}|h\partial_{x_n}u(0)|\le C\Vert
u\Vert_{{\cal B}}, } or more explicitly, \ekv{pdn.6} {
h^{\frac{1}{2}}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{\frac{3}{4}}|u(0)|\le
C\Vert u\Vert_{{\cal B}}, } \ekv{pdn.7} {
h^{\frac{1}{2}}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|)^{\frac{1}{4}}|h\partial_{x_n}u(0)|\le C\Vert u\Vert_{{\cal B}}.}
\par We next estimate the ${\cal B}(x',\xi ')$-norm of the null-solution in (\ref{cw.7}),
$$u=e_{x',\xi '}=e^{-\frac{1}{h}\phi (x_n;h)},\ \phi (x_n;h)=\phi
_{x',\xi '}(x_n;h),\ \phi (0)=0,$$
of $(P(x',\xi ')-z )u=0$ along $\gamma _\delta $. We know that
$$
(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)^2\asymp h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |+s,\
(x_n=\gamma _\delta (s)),
$$
and that
$$\Re \partial _s\phi \asymp |\phi '|\ge \frac{1}{C}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|+s)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
when $s+|r-\lambda |\gg h^{\frac{2}{3}}$. Thus with $b=\gamma _\delta (s_0)$,
$$
\Vert e_{x',\xi '}\Vert^2=\int_0^{s_0} e^{-\frac{2}{h}\Re \phi
(x_n(s))}ds\le \int_0^\infty
e^{-\frac{1}{Ch}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |) ^{\frac{1}{2}} s}ds,
$$
which leads to
$$
\Vert e_{x',\xi '}\Vert \le \frac{{\cal
O}(1)h^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{\frac{1}{4}}}.
$$
We will also use that the same estimate holds for $\Vert e_{x',\xi
'}^{\frac{1}{2}}\Vert$.
\par Next look at
$$
\Vert (h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |+s)e_{x',\xi
'}\Vert=(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)\Vert
\frac{h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |+s}{h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|}e_{x',\xi '}\Vert .
$$
From Lemma \ref{cw0} we see that
$$
\frac{h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |+s}{h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|}e^{\frac{1}{2}}_{x',\xi '}
$$
is bounded, so
$$
\Vert
\frac{h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |+s}{h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|}e_{x',\xi '}\Vert \le {\cal O}(1)\Vert e^{\frac{1}{2}}_{x',\xi
'}\Vert \le \frac{{\cal
O}(1)h^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{\frac{1}{4}}}.
$$
Thus,
$$
\Vert (h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |+s)e_{x',\xi
'}\Vert\le {\cal O}(1)h^{\frac{1}{2}}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{\frac{3}{4}}.
$$
The other terms in the ${\cal B}$ norm of $u$ satisfy the same
estimates and we get \ekv{pdn.8} { \Vert e_{x',\xi '}\Vert_{{\cal
B}}\le {\cal O}(1)h^{\frac{1}{2}}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|)^{\frac{3}{4}}. }
Since $e_{x',\xi '}(0)=1$, we see that this is the reverse inequality
to (\ref{pdn.6}) up to a bounded factor, so
\ekv{pdn.9}
{
\Vert e_{x',\xi '}\Vert_{\cal B} \asymp h^{\frac{1}{2}}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|)^{\frac{3}{4}}.
}
\begin{remark}\label{pdn1}
{\rm Using that $e_{x',\xi '}(b)={\cal O}(e^{-\frac{1}{Ch}})$, we can add
an exponentially small reflected term as in (\ref{cw.17}) to get a null
solution which vanishes at $b$ and after dividing with a factor
$1+{\cal O}(e^{-\frac{1}{Ch}})$ we get a new function $e_{x',\xi '}$
satisfying $(P_{x',\xi '}-z )e_{x',\xi '}=0$, $e_{x',\xi '}(0)=1$,
$e_{x',\xi '}(b)=0$ as well as the estimate (\ref{pdn.9}).}
\end{remark}
\par Recall that $P(x',\xi ')-z :{\cal B}(x',\xi ')\to L^2$ has a
uniformly bounded inverse $E(x',\xi ')$ and that we have the estimates
(\ref{aed.9}), (\ref{aed.11}). Differentiate the equation $(P(x',\xi
')-z )e_{x',\xi '}=0$ and notice that $\partial
_{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta e_{x',\xi '}(0)=\partial
_{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta e_{x',\xi '}(b)=0$ when $|\alpha
|+|\beta |\ne 0$, so that $\partial
_{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta e_{x',\xi '}\in {\cal B}$. We
get
\ekv{pdn.10}
{
\partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta e_{x',\xi '}
=\sum_{{\alpha '+\alpha ''=\alpha \atop
\beta '+\beta ''=\beta} \atop
|\alpha ''|+|\beta ''|<|\alpha |+|\beta |}c_{\alpha ',\alpha '',\beta
',\beta ''}E(\partial _{x'}^{\alpha '}\partial _{\xi '}^{\beta '}P)
(\partial _{x''}^{\alpha ''}\partial _{\xi ''}^{\beta ''}e_{x',\xi '}).
}
By induction, we see that
\ekv{pdn.11}
{
\Vert \partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta e_{x',\xi
'}\Vert_{{\cal B}}={\cal
O}(1)h^{\frac{1}{2}}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|)^{\frac{3}{4}-\beta _1}.
}
\par As a first approximation to the Poisson operator on $\Gamma
_{\delta ,b}$, we take
\ekv{pdn.12}{K^0w=\mathrm{Op}_h(e_{x',\xi '})}
where $\mathrm{Op}_h$ denotes the classical $h$-quantization in ${\bf
R}^{n-1}$ also in the case of vector and operator valued symbols, so
that our $K^0$ is microlocally defined in $T^*(\partial {\cal O})$
and maps functions of $x'$ to functions of $x$. (Here it is tacitly
assumed that we have reduced $R$ to $hD_{x_1}$ as in (\ref{aed.11}).) Then
\ekv{pdn.13}
{
\gamma K^0=1,
}
and
\ekv{pdn.14}
{
(P-z )K^0=\mathrm{Op}_h(f_{x',\xi '})
}
where
\ekv{pdn.15}
{
f_{x',\xi '}=\sum_{\alpha \ne 0}\frac{h^{|\alpha |}}{\alpha !}\partial
_{\xi '}^\alpha P(x',\xi ')D_{x'}^\alpha e_{x',\xi '},
}
and we have used that $(P(x',\xi ')-z )e_{x',\xi '}=0$. From
(\ref{aed.9}), (\ref{pdn.11}), we see that
$$
\Vert \partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta f_{x',\xi '}\Vert
_{L^2}={\cal O}(1)h^{\frac{3}{2}}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|)^{-\frac{1}{4}-\beta _1}.
$$
We get the microlocal Poisson operator to all orders in $h$
by putting
$$
\widetilde{K}=K^0-E\circ (P-z )K^0.
$$
Here
$$
E(P-z )K^0w=\mathrm{Op}_h(\widetilde{r}),
$$
where
\ekv{pdn.16}
{
\Vert \partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta \widetilde{r}\Vert_{{\cal
B}_{x',\xi '}} ={\cal
O}(1)h^{\frac{3}{2}}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|)^{-\frac{1}{4}-\beta _1}.
}
This bound is ``better'' than (\ref{pdn.11}) by a factor
$$
h(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{-1}\le h^{\frac{1}{3}},
$$
thus we get
\ekv{pdn.17}
{
\widetilde{K}w=\mathrm{Op}_h(e_{x',\xi '}+\widetilde{r}_{x',\xi '}),
}
solving
\ekv{pdn.18}
{
\gamma \widetilde{K}=1,\ (P-z )\widetilde{K}={\cal O}(h^\infty
):\, L^2\to {\cal B}.
}
As in Proposition \ref{aed2}
it is now routine to show that the exact exterior Poisson operator is
microlocally given by (\ref{pdn.17}) near any fixed point of the
glancing hypersurface ${\cal G}$.
Away from ${\cal G}$ the construction of a
Poisson operator on $\Gamma _{\delta ,b}$ and on $\Gamma _\delta $ is
more routine and we omit the details. Using a truncation as in the
preceding section, we can carry over the construction from $\Gamma
_{\delta ,b}$ to $\Gamma _\delta $. The preceding section gives an
approximate Green operator for the exterior problem while the present
section does the same for the Poisson operator. By simple Neumann
series we can replace approximate solution operators by the exact ones
and get the following result that summarizes the constructions of this
and the preceding sections where we start to use the notation $\Gamma
_\delta ^\mathrm{ext}$ to emphasize that ${\cal O}$ is not part of
this contour.
\begin{prop}\label{psd2}
The exterior Dirichlet problem
\ekv{pdn.19}
{
(P-z )u=v,\ \gamma u=w,\hbox{ on }\Gamma _\delta^{\mathrm{ext}},
}
where $\gamma $ is the operator of restriction to the boundary, has a
unique solution $u\in H_h^2(\Gamma _\delta ^\mathrm{ext})$ for every
$(v,w)\in L^2(\Gamma _\delta ^\mathrm{ext})\times
H_h^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial {\cal O})$, of the form
\ekv{pdn.20}
{
u=G_\mathrm{ext}v+K_\mathrm{ext}w.
}
\par If $\chi \in C^\infty (\Gamma _\delta ^\mathrm{ext})$ has its
support away from a fixed distance to $\partial {\cal O}$ and is equal
to one near infinity (and satisfies uniform estimates with all its
derivatives when $h\to 0$), then
\ekv{pdn.25}
{
\chi G_\mathrm{ext},\ G_\mathrm{ext}\chi ={\cal O}(1): L^2\to H^2_h,
}
\ekv{pdn.26}
{
\chi K_\mathrm{ext}={\cal O}(h^\infty ):H_h^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial
{\cal O})\to H_h^2.
}
\par If we choose local geodesic coordinates $x',x_n$ near a boundary
point, then near that point $G_\mathrm{ext}$ is a pseudodifferential
operator with operator valued symbol,
\ekv{pdn.21}{G_\mathrm{ext}=E(x',hD_{x'};h),}
where $E$ fulfills (\ref{aed.10}), (\ref{aed.11}) (and for the latter
estimate it is assumed that $P$ has been conjugated by a tangential Fourier
integral operator in order to straighten out $R-\lambda $).
\par In the same coordinates
\ekv{pdn.22}
{
\chi K_\mathrm{ext}=K(x',hD_{x'};h),
}
where \ekv{pdn.23}
{
\Vert \partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta K(x',\xi
';h)\Vert_{{\cal B}_{x',\xi '}}={\cal
O}(1)h^{\frac{1}{2}}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{\frac{3}{4}-\beta
_1}
}
near ${\cal G}$ (after straightening of $R-\lambda $), while away from
${\cal G}$:
\ekv{pdn.24}
{
\Vert \partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta K(x',\xi
';h)\Vert_{{\cal B}_{x',\xi '}}={\cal O}(1)h^{\frac{1}{2}}\langle \xi
'\rangle^{-\frac{3}{2}-|\beta |}.
}
\end{prop}
\begin{cor}\label{pdn3}
We have
\ekv{pdn.27}
{
G_\mathrm{ext}={\cal O}(h^{-\frac{2}{3}}):L^2\to H_h^2,
}
\ekv{pdn.28}
{
K_\mathrm{ext}={\cal O}(h^{\frac{1}{3}}):H_h^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial
{\cal O})\to H_h^2.
}
\end{cor}
Finally, we consider the exterior Dirichlet to Neumann (DN) map
\ekv{pdn.29} { {\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}=hD_{\nu }K_\mathrm{ext}, } where
$\nu $ denotes the exterior unit normal. From
(\ref{pdn.22}), (\ref{pdn.23}), (\ref{pdn.7}), we see that this is a
pseudodifferential operator with symbol \[\gamma hD_{x_n}(K(x',\xi
';h))=:n_\mathrm{ext}(x',\xi ';h)\] satisfying
\ekv{pdn.30}
{
\partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta n_\mathrm{ext}(x',\xi
';h)={\cal O}(\langle \xi '\rangle ^{1-|\beta |})
}
away from ${\cal G}$ and
\ekv{pdn.31}
{
\partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta n_\mathrm{ext}(x',\xi
';h)=
{\cal O}(1)(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{\frac{1}{2}-\beta _1},
}
near ${\cal G}$ after the usual straightening. In particular, we have
\begin{cor}\label{pdn4}
For every $s\in {\bf R}$ we have that ${\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}={\cal
O}(1):H_h^{s+1}\to H_h^s.
$
\end{cor}
\section{The interior DN map}\label{idn}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we work inside ${\cal O}$ and assume that \ekv{idn.1}
{ P=-h^2\Delta +V(x), } where we will first assume only that
$V\in L^\infty ({\cal O};{\bf R})$ and soon make stronger
assumptions. The results will be applied to $V_0$ in Section \ref{re},
but for simplicity we drop the subscript 0 in this section.
We study the interior Poisson operator $K_\mathrm{in}(z
)=H^{3/2}(\partial {\cal O})\to H^2({\cal O})$ associated to $P-z
$ and the interior DN-map \ekv{idn.2} { {\cal N}_\mathrm{in}=\gamma
hD_{\nu } K_\mathrm{in}:H^{3/2}(\partial {\cal O})\to H^{1/2}(\partial
{\cal O}) }
under the assumption that,
\ekv{idn.3}
{
\Re z =\lambda \asymp 1,\quad\frac{h^{3/2}}{{\cal O}(1)}\le |\Im z |\le {\cal O}(1)h^{3/2}.
}
Using the right inverse of $\gamma $ in (\ref{al.11}), we can write
$$K_\mathrm{in}=\gamma ^{-1}-(P_\mathrm{in}-z )^{-1}\gamma ^{-1}$$ and
see that
\ekv{idn.3.2}{
\Vert K_\mathrm{in}(z )\Vert_{{\cal L}(H^{3/2},H^2)}={\cal
O}(1)(h^{\frac{1}{2}}+h^{-\frac{2}{3}+\frac{1}{2}})={\cal O}(1)h^{-\frac{1}{6}}}
where $P_\mathrm{in}$ is the Dirichlet realization of
$P$. Consequently,
\ekv{idn.3.3}{
\Vert {\cal N}_\mathrm{in}(z )\Vert_{{\cal L}(H^{\frac{3}{2}},H^{\frac{1}{2}})}
\le {\cal O}(h^{-\frac{1}{2}})\Vert K_\mathrm{in}(z )\Vert_{{\cal
L}(H^{\frac{3}{2}},H^2)}={\cal O}(h^{-\frac{2}{3}}).}
We now assume that
\ekv{idn.3.7}
{
V\in C^\infty (\overline{{\cal O}};{\bf R}),\ \gamma V=0,\ \gamma \partial _\nu
V\le 0,
}
where the last two assumptions can be somewhat weakened.
Using parametrix constructions, we shall improve the estimate (\ref{idn.3.3})
to
\begin{prop}\label{idn1}
Under the assumption (\ref{idn.3}), we have
\ekv{idn.4}
{
\Vert {\cal N}_\mathrm{in}(z )\Vert_{{\cal
L}(H^{\frac{3}{2}},H^{\frac{1}{2}})} ={\cal O}(1).
}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We make parametrix constructions in different regions of $T^*\partial
{\cal O}$ and start with the hyperbolic region
$$
{\cal H}=\{ (x',\xi ')\in T^*\partial {\cal O};\, r(x',\xi ')<\lambda \},
$$
where we write the operator in geodesic coordinates (with ${\cal O}$
given by $x_n\le 0$) as in (\ref{aed.1}). Near a point $(x_0',\xi
_0')\in {\cal H}$ we construct a microlocal approximation to the
Poisson operator of the form
\ekv{idn.5}
{
\widetilde{K}_\mathrm{in}(z )w(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi h)^{n-1}}\iint
e^{\frac{i}{h}(\phi (x,\eta ')-y'\eta ')}a(x,\eta ';h)w(y')dy'd\eta '.
}
\par
We write $P$ as in (\ref{aed.1}):
\ekv{idn.5.5}
{\begin{split}
P=(hD_{x_n})^2+R(x,hD_{x'})+ha(x)hD_{x_n},\\
R(x,hD_{x'})=R(x',hD_{x'})-x_nQ(x,hD_{x'}),\end{split}
}
where we recall that $V$ is incorporated in $P$ and hence in the term
$-x_nQ$ and the condition (\ref{idn.3.7}) together with the strict convexity
of ${\cal O}$ assures that $q>0$ for $\xi '\ne 0$. Recall that $a$ can be eliminated
and assume for simplicity that $a=0$. As before $p$ denotes the
semi-classical principal symbol of $P$
Now consider the eiconal equation
\ekv{idn.6}
{
p(x,\phi ')-z =0\hbox{ for }x\in \mathrm{neigh\,}(x_0',0)\cap
{\cal O},\quad \phi (x',0,\eta ')=x'\eta '.
}
With $r(x,\xi ')=r(x',\xi ')-x_nq(x,\xi ')$ it becomes
$$
\partial _{x_n}\phi =\pm (\lambda +h^{\frac{2}{3}}w-r(x,\phi
'_{x'}))^{\frac{1}{2}},\ \mp \Im w>0.
$$
Using the principal branch of the square root we choose the sign as
indicated. If $\phi _0$ is the real solution of the corresponding
eiconal problem when $w=0$, we can solve (\ref{idn.6}) to all orders
in $h$ by the asymptotic expansion,
$$
\phi (x,\eta ')=\phi _0(x,\eta ')+h^{\frac{2}{3}}\phi _1(x,\eta
')+h^{\frac{4}{3}}\phi _2(x,\eta ';h),
$$
where $\phi _1,\phi _2,...={\cal O}(x_n)$,
$$
\partial _{x_n}\phi _1=\pm \frac{1}{2}(\lambda -r(x,\partial _{x'}\phi _0))^{-\frac{1}{2}}w,
$$
so that
\ekv{idn.7}
{
\Im \phi \asymp h^{\frac{2}{3}}\Im \phi _1\asymp |x_n\Im w|h^{\frac{2}{3}}
}
\par By solving the transport equations in the usual way, we get the
amplitude $a$ as a symbol of order 0 and if $\chi \in C_0^\infty
({\cal H}) $ has its support in a small neighborhood of $(x_0',\xi
_0')$ we get a Fourier integral operator
$\widetilde{K}_\mathrm{in}(z ):C^\infty (\partial {\cal O})\to
C^\infty (\overline{{\cal O}})$ solving
\ekv{idn.8}
{
(P-z )\widetilde{K}_\mathrm{in}(z )={\cal O}(h^\infty ):{\cal
D}'(\partial {\cal O})\to C^\infty (\overline{{\cal O}}),
}
\ekv{idn.9}
{
\gamma \widetilde{K}_\mathrm{in}(z )=\chi (x',hD_{x'}).
}
Here (\ref{idn.7}) is important, since it assures that the
distribution kernel $\widetilde{K}_{\mathrm{in}}(x,y',z )$ of
$\widetilde{K}_\mathrm{in}(z )$ is ${\cal O}(h^\infty )$ with all
its derivatives when $\mathrm{dist\,}(x,\partial {\cal O})\ge
h^{\frac{1}{3}-\delta }$ for any fixed $\delta >0$. (Another standard
fact, implicitly used here, is that the distribution kernel is ${\cal
O}(h^\infty )$ with all its derivatives as soon as $(x',y')$ is
outside any fixed neighborhood of the diagonal.)
\par From (\ref{idn.7}) we get additional damping, leading to
\ekv{idn.9.5}
{
\widetilde{K}={\cal O}(h^{\frac{1}{6}}):H_h^{\frac{3}{2}}\to H_h^2.
}
\par It also follows that
\ekv{idn.10}
{
\gamma hD_\nu \widetilde{K}_\mathrm{in}(z )=\widetilde{\chi }(x',hD_{x'};h)
}
where $\widetilde{\chi }(x',\xi ';h)$ is a classical symbol of order
$0$ in $h$ and of order $-\infty $ in $\xi '$ which is ${\cal
O}(h^\infty )$ with all its derivatives outside any fixed
neighborhood of the support of $\chi $.
A similar even more standard construction works in the elliptic region
$$
{\cal E}=\{ (x',\xi ')\in T^*\partial {\cal O};\, r(x',\xi ')>\lambda \}.
$$
We get an operator $\widehat{K}={\cal
O}(h^{\frac{1}{2}}):H^{\frac{3}{2}}_h\to H^2_h$ such that
\ekv{idn.10.2}{(P-z )\widehat{K}={\cal O}(h^\infty ),}
\ekv{idn.10.4}{\gamma \widehat{K}=1-\chi (x',hD_{x'}),}
\ekv{idn.10.6}{\gamma hD_\nu \widehat{K}=n_\chi (x',hD_{x'};h),}
where $\chi \in C_0^\infty (T^*\partial {\cal O})$ is any function
equal to one in a neighborhood of ${\cal G}\cup {\cal H}$.
$\widetilde{\chi }$ has the same properties as $\chi $ and $n_\chi \in
S^1(T^*\partial \Omega )$ is equal to ${\cal O}(h^\infty )$ with all
its derivatives away from $\mathrm{supp\,}(1-\chi ) $.
\par We next turn to the more difficult study near the glancing
hypersurface
$$
{\cal G}=\{ (x',\xi ')\in T^*\partial {\cal O};\, r(x',\xi ')=\lambda \},
$$
and we shall start by pushing the construction in ${\cal H}$ closer to
${\cal G}$ and almost up to a distance $\gg h^{\frac{2}{3}}$ from
that set. We write the operator in geodesic coordinates as in
(\ref{aed.1}). Let $\rho _0=(x_0',\xi _0')\in {\cal G}$ and assume,
after conjugation with an elliptic tangential Fourier integral
operator that microlocally,
\ekv{idn.11}{
R(x',hD_{x'})-\lambda =hD_{x_1},\ (x_0',\xi _0')=(0,0).
}
\par Let $\eta '\in{\bf R}^{n-1}$ satisfy
$$
(\eta _2,...,\eta _{n-1})=\frac{1}{{\cal O}(1)},\ \eta _1=-\epsilon ,\
h^{\frac{2}{3}}\ll \epsilon \ll 1.
$$
we shall construct an asymptotic solution to the problem
\ekv{idn.12}{(P-z )u=0,\ u(x',0)=a(x')e^{\frac{i}{h}x'\eta '},}
or equivalently with $u=e^{ix'\eta '/h}\widetilde{u}$,
\ekv{idn.13}
{
e^{-\frac{i}{h}x'\eta '}(P-z )e^{\frac{i}{h}x'\eta
'}\widetilde{u}=0,\ \widetilde{u}(x',0)=a(x').
}
The conjugated operator to the left can be written
\ekv{idn.14}
{
(hD_{x_n})^2+hD_{x_1}-x_nQ(x,\eta
'+hD_{x'})-(\epsilon +h^{\frac{2}{3}}w).
}
\par From looking at the eiconal equation $p(x,\phi ')-z =0$ with boundary condition $\phi '_{x'}(x',0)=\eta '$, we see
that it is natural to make the dilation in $x_n$,
\ekv{idn.15} { x_n=\epsilon
\widetilde{x}_n,\ x'=\widetilde{x}'. } Then $hD_{x_n}=\frac{h}{\epsilon
}D_{\widetilde{x}_n}$, $hD_{x'}=hD_{\widetilde{x}'}$ and a direct calculation shows that
\ekv{idn.16} { e^{-\frac{i}{h}x'\eta '}(P-z )e^{\frac{i}{h}x'\eta
'}=\epsilon (\widetilde{P}-(1+\widetilde{h}^{\frac{2}{3}}w)), }
where $\widetilde{h}=h\epsilon ^{-\frac{3}{2}}\ll 1$ and
\ekv{idn.17} {
\widetilde{P}=(\widetilde{h}D_{\widetilde{x}_n})^2+\epsilon
^{\frac{1}{2}}\widetilde{h}D_{\widetilde{x}_1}-\widetilde{x}_nQ(\widetilde{x}',\epsilon
\widetilde{x}_n,\eta '+\epsilon^{\frac{3}{2}}
\widetilde{h}D_{\widetilde{x}'}). }
Thus after dilation, we are in a ``uniformly hyperbolic'' situation
and we get a solution
$$
\widetilde{u}=b(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{h})e^{\frac{i}{\widetilde{h}}\widetilde{\phi
}(\widetilde{x})},\quad \widetilde{x}=(x',\frac{x_n}{\epsilon }),
$$
of the problem
\ekv{idn.18}
{
(\widetilde{P}-(1+\widetilde{h}^{\frac{2}{3}}w))\widetilde{u}={\cal
O}(\widetilde{h}^\infty ),\
\widetilde{u}(\widetilde{x}',0)=a(\widetilde{x}'),
}
defined in a region
$$
|\widetilde{x}'|\le {\cal O}(1),\ 0\le
-\widetilde{x}_n<\frac{1}{{\cal O}(1)},
$$
where $b$ is a classical symbol of order $0$ and $\widetilde{\phi
}(\widetilde{x})$ is uniformly bounded with all its derivatives in the
same region. $\widetilde{\phi }$ is here the solution of the eiconal
equation,
\ekv{idn.18.5}
{
\widetilde{p}(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{\phi
}'_{\widetilde{x}})-(1+\widetilde{h}^{\frac{2}{3}}w)=0,\
{{\widetilde{\phi }}}_{\vert\widetilde{x}_n=0}=0,
}
which satisfies
\ekv{idn.19}
{
\Im \widetilde{\phi }\asymp |\widetilde{x}_n|\widetilde{h}^{\frac{2}{3}}.
}
Thus,
$$
|\widetilde{u}|={\cal O}(1)e^{-|\widetilde{x}_n|/(C\widetilde{h}^{\frac{1}{3}})},
$$
which is ${\cal O}(\widetilde{h}^\infty )$ in any region
$-\widetilde{x}_n\ge \widetilde{h}^{\frac{1}{3}-\delta }$ for any fixed
$\delta >0$.
\par In the original coordinates, we get the asymptotic solution of
(\ref{idn.12})
\ekv{idn.20}
{
u(x;\eta ';h)=b(\frac{x_n}{\epsilon },x',\eta
';\widetilde{h})e^{\frac{i}{h}(x'\eta '+\epsilon
^{\frac{3}{2}}\widetilde{\phi }(\frac{x_n}{\epsilon
},x',\eta '))}.
}
These solutions can be superposed to build a microlocal Poisson
operator, if we take $a=1$, and we get
$\check{K}={\cal O}(\widetilde{h}^{1/6}):H_h^{3/2}\to H_h^2$, where
we use the modified norm
$$\sum_{|\alpha |\le 2}\| (hD_{x'})^{\alpha
'}(\widetilde{h}D_{\widetilde{x}_n})^{\alpha _n}v\|$$ on $H_h^2$
with $L^2(dx'd\widetilde{x}_n)$ as the underlying $L^2$-norm. This
gives in the original coordinates, \ekv{idn.19.3} { \sum_{|\alpha |\le
2}\Vert (hD_{x'})^{\alpha '}(h\epsilon
^{-\frac{1}{2}}D_{x_n})^{\alpha _n}\check{K}u\Vert_{L^2(dx)}\le {\cal
O}(1)h^{\frac{1}{6}}\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{4}}\Vert
u\Vert_{H^{\frac{3}{2}}_h}. } In particular,
\ekv{idn.19.7}{\check{K}={\cal O}(1)h^{\frac{1}{6}}\epsilon
^{\frac{1}{4}}:H_h^{\frac{3}{2}}\to H_h^2,} with the ordinary
$H^2$ norm.
\par We get the approximation to the DN map:
\ekv{idn.21}
{
{\cal N}^\mathrm{approx}_\mathrm{in}=
\mathrm{Op}_h(\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}\partial
_{\widetilde{x}_n}\widetilde{\phi }(x',0,\xi
')+\frac{h}{i\epsilon }(\partial
_{\widetilde{x}_n}b)(x',0,\xi ';\widetilde{h})).
}
\par Here we must recall that $\epsilon =-\xi _1$, so the symbol of
${\cal N}^\mathrm{approx}_\mathrm{in}$ is singular in that
variable but good enough for our 2-microlocal calculus, in view of the
fact that $\epsilon \gg h^{2/3}$ and it is a uniformly bounded operator: $H^{3/2}_h\to H^{1/2}_h$.
\par It remains to study the region
\ekv{idn.23}
{
-h^{\frac{2}{3}-\delta }\le r(x',\xi ')-\lambda \le \widetilde{\delta },
}
where $\delta ,\widetilde{\delta }>0$ are small and independent of
$h$. Again, we reduce $R$ to the form (\ref{idn.11}) and restrict $\xi
'$ to a set
$$
(\xi _2,...,\xi _{n-1})=\frac{1}{{\cal O}(1)},\ -h^{\frac{2}{3}-\delta }
\le \xi _1\le \widetilde{\delta }.
$$
We consider (cf (\ref{idn.14}))
\ekv{idn.24}
{
P(x,\xi ',hD_{x_n})-z =(hD_{x_n})^2+\xi _1-x_nQ(x,\xi ')-h^{\frac{2}{3}}w,
}
and we follow the approach for the exterior problem started in Subsection
\ref{cw}, with two not very essential differences: \begin{itemize}
\item $x_n$ remains real and we study the
Dirichlet problem on an interval $[-b,0]$ for $0<b\ll 1$ independent
of $h$.
\item There will be a slight degeneration when $\xi _1\ll
-h^{\frac{2}{3}}$.
\end{itemize}
We review the one-dimensional analysis with $x',\xi '$ as parameters,
writing $x$ instead for $x_n$ and $Q(x)$ instead of $Q(x',x_n,\xi
')$. {\it We first assume that $Q$ is analytic.} Let $x_0$ be the complex turning point,
given by
$$
x_0Q(x_0)=\xi _1-h^{\frac{2}{3}}w,
$$
and we let $x_1\asymp \xi _1$ be the corresponding real turning point
given by
$$
x_1Q(x_1)=\xi _1.
$$
Then
$$
x_0=x_1-\frac{h^{\frac{2}{3}}w}{V'(x_1)}+{\cal
O}(h^{\frac{4}{3}}),\hbox{ where }V(x)=xQ(x).
$$
\par As in the exterior case we take a null solution of the form
$u=e^{-\phi (x;h)/h}$ which is subdominant in the direction of
negative $x$ and increasing in order of magnitude when $x$
increases. More precisely, for $x-x_1\ll -h^{2/3}$ we have
\ekv{idn.24.5}{-\partial _x (\Re \phi )\asymp |\partial _x\phi |\asymp
|x-x_1|^{1/2}} and for $|x-x_1|\le {\cal O}(h^{2/3})$ we have
$\partial _x\phi ={\cal O}(h^{1/3})$.
\par For $x-x_1\gg h^{2/3}$ (as well as for $x-x_1\ll -h^{2/3}$) we
have (\ref{cw.8}), where
$$-\phi _0'=(\xi _1-xQ(x)-h^{2/3}w)^{1/2},$$
and we choose the principal branch of the square root with a cut along
$\overline{{\bf R}}_-$, which has positive real
part. Then for $x-x_1\gg h^{2/3}$ we get when $\pm
\Im w>0$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
-\phi _0'&=&\mp i (xQ(x)-\xi _1+h^{2/3}w)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&=&\mp i (xQ(x)-\xi
_1)^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+\frac{h^{\frac{2}{3}}w}{xQ(x)-\xi
_1})^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&=&\mp i (xQ(x)-\xi _1)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mp
\frac{i h^{\frac{2}{3}}w}{2(xQ(x)-\xi _1)^{\frac{1}{2}}}+\frac{{\cal
O}(h^{\frac{4}{3}})}{(xQ(x)-\xi _1)^{\frac{3}{2}}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows that
\ekv{idn.25}{
-\Re \phi '_0\asymp \frac{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}{|x-x_1|^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\hbox{ when }x-x_1\gg h^{\frac{2}{3}}.
}
This quantity dominates over the remainder ${\cal O}(h)|x-x_0|^{-1}$ in
(\ref{cw.8}) when $|x-x_0|\gg h^{2/3}$,
$$
\frac{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}{|x-x_0|^{\frac{1}{2}}}\gg \frac{h}{|x-x_0|}
$$
and hence
\ekv{idn.26}{
-\Re \phi '\asymp \frac{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}{|x-x_1|^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\hbox{ when }x-x_1\gg h^{\frac{2}{3}}.
}
This is slightly worse than (\ref{idn.24.5}) and if that estimate had
been valid also for $x-x_1\gg h^{2/3}$, then we would get exactly the
same estimates as in the case of the exterior problem.
\par It is natural to ask how much worse (\ref{idn.26}) is than
(\ref{idn.24.5}). Recall that we work on an interval $[-b,0]$ and that
$x_1\asymp \xi _1\ge -h^{\frac{2}{3}-\delta }$, so $x-x_1\le -x_1\le
h^{\frac{2}{3}-\delta }$. Thus we get
\ekv{idn.27}
{
\frac{\mathrm{RHS}(\ref{idn.24.5})}{\mathrm{RHS}(\ref{idn.26})}=\frac{|x-x_1|}{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}\le
h^{-\delta }.
}
For $-b\le y\le w\le x\le 0$ we have
\ekv{idn.28}
{
\frac{1}{C}h^\delta \int_y^x|\phi '(t)|dt-Ch\le -\Re \phi (x)+\Re \phi
(y)\le \int_y^x|\phi '(t)|dt,
}
\ekv{idn.28.3}
{
\frac{1}{C}|\phi '(w)||x-y|-Ch\le \int_y^x|\phi '(t)|dt\le C(|\phi
'(\widetilde{z}(x,y))||x-y|+h),
}
where $\widetilde{z}$ is the point in $\{ x,y\}$ maximizing
$|\widetilde{z}-x_1|$.
\par (\ref{cw.c}) remains valid and we even have
\ekv{idn.28.7}
{
\frac{1}{C_\epsilon }e^{-\frac{\epsilon }{h}(-\Re \phi (x)+\Re \phi
(y))}
\le \frac{h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '(x)|}{h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '(y)|}\le
C_\epsilon e^{\frac{\epsilon }{h}(-\Re \phi (x)+\Re \phi
(y))},
}
as can be seen by comparing the logarithmic derivative of
$h^{1/3}+|\phi '(x)|$ with $-\Re \phi '/h$ in the region $x-x_1\gg
h^{2/3}$, where $\phi ''(x)={\cal O}(|x-x_0|^{-1/2})$ and
(\ref{idn.25}) holds.
\par The factor $h^\delta $ in (\ref{idn.28}) gives slight losses in
the estimates of Subsection \ref{cw} and we get
\begin{lemma}\label{idn2}
If $(P(x',\xi ')-z )u=0$ on $[-b,0]$, $u(0)=u(-b)=0$, then
\ekv{idn.29}
{
\Vert (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)^2u\Vert + \Vert (h\partial
_x)^2u\Vert
+\Vert (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)h\partial _xu\Vert \le {\cal
O}(h^{-2\delta })
\Vert v\Vert ,
}
when $\xi _1\ge -h^{2/3-\delta }$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We solve the Dirichlet problem on $[-b,0]$ as in Subsection \ref{cw}
and start with applying the natural modification of the operator
$K$:
\ekv{idn.29.5}
{
Kv(x)=-\frac{1}{h}\int_{-b}^x e^{§\phi (x)-\phi (y))/h}v(y)dy
}
and Lemma \ref{cw0.5} deteriorates slightly to
\begin{lemma}\label{idn3}
The ${\cal L}(L^2)$-norms of $(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)\circ K$,
$(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)^2\circ K\circ (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi
'|)^{-1}$, $ K \circ (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)$ are ${\cal
O}(1)h^{-\delta }$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We use Shur's lemma as in the proof of Lemma \ref{cw0.5}. Thus for
instance, the $L^2$-norm of $(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)\circ K$ is
bounded by the geometric mean of
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathrm{I}&=&\frac{1}{h}\sup_{-b\le x\le 0}\int_{-b}^x (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi
'(x)|)e^{\frac{1}{h}(\Re (\phi (x)-\phi (y))} dy,\\
\mathrm{II}&=&\frac{1}{h}\sup_{-b\le y\le 0}\int_{y}^0 (h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi
'(x)|)e^{\frac{1}{h}(\Re (\phi (x)-\phi (y))} dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here, by (\ref{idn.28}), (\ref{idn.28.3}),
\ekv{idn.29.7}{e^{\frac{1}{h}\Re (\phi (x)-\phi (y))}\le
Ce^{-\frac{1}{Ch^{1-\delta }}\int_y^x|\phi '(t)|dt}\le
\widetilde{C}e^{-\frac{1}{\widetilde{C}h^{1-\delta
}}(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '(x)|)|x-y|},}
and we get $\mathrm{I}={\cal O}(h^{-\delta })$.
\par To get the same estimate for $\mathrm{II}$ we also use
(\ref{idn.28.7}). The other $L^2$-norms are estimated similarly.
\end{proof}
\par The proof of Lemma \ref{idn2} can now be finished as in Subsection
\ref{cw}.
\end{proof}
We next eliminate the analyticity assumption in Lemma \ref{idn2}. Let
$x_1$ be the real turning point determined by $x_1Q(x_1)=\xi _1$, so
that $x_1\le {\cal O}(1)h^{\frac{2}{3}-\delta }$. Let
$x_2=x_1-h^{\frac{2}{3}-\delta }$. For a large but fixed $N$, put
\[
\widetilde{Q}(x)=\begin{cases}
Q(x),\ x\le x_2,\\
\sum_0^{N-1}\frac{1}{\alpha !}Q^{(\alpha )}(x_2)(x-x_2)^\alpha ,\ &x\ge x_2.
\end{cases}
\]
Since $\widetilde{Q}$ is holomorphic in a $h^{\frac{2}{3}-\delta
}$-neighborhood of $x_1$, we see that if $\widetilde{P}$ is the
corresponding operator then we have a null solution
$e^{-\widetilde{\phi }/h}$ of $P-z$ with the same properties as
$e^{-\phi /h}$ in the analytic case above and such that Lemma 11.2
applies. Now $\widetilde{Q}-Q={\cal O}(1)h^{(\frac{2}{3}-\delta )N}$
and if we choose $N$ large enough, it follows that $P-z$ has a null
solution $e^{-\phi /h}$, where $$\widetilde{Q}-Q,\, \phi
-\widetilde{\phi },\, \phi '-\widetilde{\phi }',\, \phi
''-\widetilde{\phi }''={\cal O}(h).$$ Another perturbation argument
shows that Lemma \ref{idn2} holds for $P-z$.
Let $x_{n,1}(x',\xi ')$ be the real turning point determined
by
$$
-x_{n,1}Q(x',x_{n,1},\xi ')+\xi _1=0
$$
where we recall that $\xi _1=r(x',\xi ')-\lambda $. In analogy with
(\ref{aed.3}), we can reformulate (\ref{idn.29}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
&\Vert (h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|x_n-x_{n,1}|)u\Vert + \Vert
(h\partial _{x_n})^2u\Vert + \Vert
(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|x_n-x_{n,1}|)^{\frac{1}{2}}(h\partial _{x_n})u\Vert&\nonumber\\
&\le {\cal O}(h^{-2\delta })\Vert (P(x',\xi ')-z )u\|&\label{idn.30}
\end{eqnarray}
for smooth functions $u$ on $[-b,0]$, vanishing at the end
points. Notice here that
$$
(h^{\frac{1}{3}}+|\phi '|)^2\asymp h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|x-x_{n,1}|.
$$
Define the ${\cal B}(x',\xi ')$ norm to be the left hand side in
(\ref{idn.30}) and let ${\cal B}$ be the space of functions on $[-b,0]$
with finite ${\cal B}$-norm that vanish at the end points. Then we
still have the symbol property (\ref{aed.9}) for $P(x',\xi '):{\cal
B}(x',\xi ')\to L^2$ and we get (\ref{aed.11}) for $E=(P(x',\xi
')-z )^{-1}$ with a slight loss:
\ekv{idn.31}
{
\partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta E={\cal O}_{\alpha
,\beta }(h^{-2\delta (1+|\alpha |+|\beta |)})(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|\lambda
-r(x',\xi ')|)^{-\beta _1},\ L^2\to {\cal B}.
}
\par
We get (\ref{pdn.6}),
(\ref{pdn.7}) with loss (due to the non-monotonicity of $\Lambda
=(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|\lambda -r(x,\xi ')|)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ as a function
of $x_n$ between $x_{n,1}$ and $0$ when $x_{n,1}<0$):
\ekv{idn.32} {
h^{\frac{1}{2}}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{\frac{3}{4}}|u(0)|\le
Ch^{-3\delta/4 }\Vert u\Vert_{{\cal B}}, }
\ekv{idn.33} {
h^{\frac{1}{2}}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|)^{\frac{1}{4}}|h\partial_{x_n}u(0)|\le Ch^{-\delta/4 }\Vert u\Vert_{{\cal B}}.}
\par Normalize $\phi $ by imposing the condition $\phi (0)=0$ and let
$e_{x',\xi '}=e^{-\frac{1}{h}\phi }$ be the null solution of $P(x',\xi
')-z $ so that $e_{x',\xi '}(0)=1$ and $e_{x',\xi '}(-b)$ is
exponentially small. Using (\ref{idn.28.7}), (\ref{idn.29.7}), we get (\ref{pdn.8}) with a $\delta
$ loss:
\ekv{idn.34} { \Vert e_{x',\xi '}\Vert_{{\cal B}}\le {\cal
O}(1)h^{\frac{1-\delta }{2} }(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|)^{\frac{3}{4}}. }
Adding an exponentially small reflected null solution to $e_{x',\xi
'}$ and renormalizing, we get a new null solution, that we denote
by $e_{x',\xi '}$ instead of the earlier one, which satisfies the
boundary conditions $e_{x',\xi '}(0)=1$, $e_{x',\xi '}(-b)=0$ and
which also satisfies (\ref{idn.34}).
Then we get the weakened version of
(\ref{pdn.11}):
\ekv{idn.35} {
\Vert \partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta e_{x',\xi
'}\Vert_{{\cal B}}={\cal O}(1)h^{\frac{1-\delta }{2} -2\delta
(|\alpha |+|\beta |)}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|)^{\frac{3}{4}-\beta _1}. }
\par As a first approximation to the microlocal interior Poisson
operator on $\{ x;\, -b\le x_n\le 0,\, |x'|\le {\cal O}(1)\}$ we take
(cf (\ref{pdn.12}))
\ekv{idn.36}
{
K^0w=\mathrm{Op}_h(e_{x',\xi '}).
}
Then $\gamma K^0=1$, $(P-z )K^0=\mathrm{Op}_h(f_{x',\xi '})$,
where,
$$
f_{x',\xi '}=\sum_{\alpha \ne 0}\frac{h^{|\alpha |}}{\alpha !}\partial
_{\xi '}^\alpha P(x',\xi ')D_{x'}^\alpha e_{x',\xi '},
$$
and by (\ref{aed.9}), (\ref{idn.35}),
$$
\Vert \partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta f_{x',\xi
'}\Vert_{L^2}
={\cal O}(1)h^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{5\delta }{2}-2\delta (|\alpha |+|\beta
|)}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{-\frac{1}{4}-\beta _1}.
$$
Using $E$ as a first approximation, we can construct an
operator-valued symbol $\widetilde{E}(x',\xi ';h)$ such that
$\widetilde{E}(x',hD_{x'};h)$ inverts
$P(x',hD_{x'})-z $ to all orders in in $h$. We get a microlocal
Poisson operator to all orders in $h$ by putting
$$
\widetilde{K}=K^0-\widetilde{E}\circ (P-z )K^0=K^0+\mathrm{Op}_h(\widetilde{r}),
$$
and $\widetilde{r}$ fulfills the slightly deteriorated version of
(\ref{pdn.16}):
$$
\Vert \partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta
\widetilde{r}\Vert_{{\cal B}}={\cal O}(1)h^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{5\delta
}{2}-2\delta (1+|\alpha |+|\beta |)}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda
|)^{-\frac{1}{4}-\beta _1}.
$$
Now $\widetilde{K}$ can be written as in (\ref{pdn.17}) and we have
(\ref{pdn.18}). The symbol $e_{x',\xi '}+\widetilde{r}_{x',\xi '}$
there satisfies
\[
\Vert \partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta (e_{x',\xi
'}+\widetilde{r}_{x',\xi '})\Vert_{{\cal B}}={\cal
O}(1)h^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\delta }{2}-2\delta (|\alpha |+|\beta
|)}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{\frac{3}{4}-\beta _1},
\]
when $\delta >0$ is small enough.
From this estimate and the similar ones in the other regions we get
\ekv{idn.36.5}{
\widetilde{K}={\cal O}(h^{\frac{1}{6}}):H_h^{\frac{3}{2}}\to H_h^2,
}
and this also holds for the exact Poisson operator
$K_\mathrm{in}=K^V_\mathrm{in}.$
The corresponding DN-map is a pseudodifferential operator with symbol
$$
n(x',\xi ';h)=\gamma hD_{x_n}(e+\widetilde{r}),
$$
and combing the above estimate with (\ref{idn.33}), we get the
estimate
\ekv{idn.37}{
\partial _{x'}^\alpha \partial _{\xi '}^\beta n=
{\cal O}(1)h^{-\frac{3\delta }{4}-2\delta (|\alpha |+|\beta
|)}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{\frac{1}{2}-\beta _1}.}
This is a bounded symbol in the region where
$h^{-3\delta /4}|r-\lambda |^{1/2}={\cal O}(1)$, i.e. where
$|r-\lambda |={\cal O}(1)h^{3\delta /2}$ and to get an better
conclusion, we take a closer look:
First, we see that
$$
\gamma hD_{x_n}e_{x',\xi '}=i\partial _{x_n}\phi (0)={\cal
O}(1)(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{\frac{1}{2}}
$$
is bounded. Secondly, from the above estimate on the ${\cal B}$ norm
of $\widetilde{r}$ and (\ref{idn.33}), we conclude that
$$
\gamma hD_{x_n}\widetilde{r}={\cal
O}(1)h^{1-(\frac{5}{2}+\frac{1}{4})\delta
}(h^{\frac{2}{3}}+|r-\lambda |)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
$$
which is also bounded. Thus we have an improvement of (\ref{idn.37})
when $\alpha =\beta =0$, and we conclude that $n$ is in a sufficiently
good symbol class to conclude that its quantization is $L^2$ bounded.
Patching together the different microlocal Poisson operators, we get
an approximation mod ${\cal O}(h^\infty )$ in ${\cal
L}(H_h^{\frac{3}{2}},H_h^2)$ of $K_{\mathrm{in}}$ and also the
conclusion of Proposition \ref{idn1} from the boundedness of the
corresponding microlocal DN-maps.
\end{proof}
Let $V$ be as in Proposition \ref{idn1} and let $K_\mathrm{in}^V$ and
${\cal N}_\mathrm{in}^V$ denote the corresponding Poisson and
Dirichlet to Neumann operators. Let $W\in L^\infty (\Omega ;{\bf
R})$. Then
$$
K_\mathrm{in}^{V+W}=K_\mathrm{in}^V-(P_\mathrm{in}^{V+W}-z )^{-1}WK_\mathrm{in}^V=:
K_\mathrm{in}^V+A,$$
where in view of (\ref{idn.36.5}):
$$
\Vert A\Vert_{{\cal L}(H_h^{3/2},H_h^2)}\le {\cal
O}(1)h^{-\frac{2}{3}+\frac{1}{6}}\Vert W\Vert_{L^\infty }={\cal
O}(1)h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\Vert W\Vert_{L^\infty }.
$$
Thus ${\cal N}_\mathrm{in}^{V+W}={\cal N}_\mathrm{in}^V+B$, $B=\gamma
hD_\nu A$, and we get
$$
\Vert B\Vert_{{\cal L}(H_h^{3/2},H_h^2)}={\cal
O}(1)h^{-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}}\Vert W\Vert_{L^\infty }={\cal
O}(1)h^{-1}\Vert W\Vert_{L^\infty }.
$$
This implies,
\begin{prop}\label{idn4}
The conclusion of Proposition \ref{idn1} remains valid if we replace
$V$ in there with $V+W$, where $W\in L^\infty (\Omega ;{\bf R})$
satisfies
\ekv{idn.38}
{
\Vert W\Vert_{L^\infty }\le {\cal O}(h).
}
\end{prop}
When $W=\delta \Theta q_\omega $ is as in Theorem \ref{re1}, we have
(\ref{idn.38}), provided $\alpha $ is large enough. See Remark \ref{sv1}.
For a greater generality of our results it is of interest to have a
the following variant of the last proposition, where the perturbation
$W$ can be independent of $h$. We start with some simple exponentially
weighted estimates. Let $\phi \in C^\infty (\overline{{\cal O}};{\bf
R})$ and consider
$$
P^{V,\epsilon }=e^{\frac{\epsilon \phi }{h}}P^Ve^{-\frac{\epsilon \phi
}{h}}=P^V+F,
$$
where $$F=i\epsilon (\phi '\cdot hD_x+hD\cdot \phi ')-\epsilon ^2(\phi
')^2={\cal O}(\epsilon ):H^1\to H^0.$$ Since $(P_\mathrm{in}^V-z
)^{-1}={\cal O}(h^{-2/3}):H^0\to H^2$ when $1/2<\Re z <2$, $|\Im
z |\asymp h^{2/3}$, we get the same conclusion for
$(P_\mathrm{in}^{V,\epsilon }-z )^{-1}=e^{\epsilon \phi
/h}(P_\mathrm{in}^V-z )^{-1}e^{-\epsilon \phi /h}$, provided
that $\epsilon \ll h^{2/3}$.
\par Now, let ${{\phi }_\vert}_{\partial {\cal O}}=0$. Then
$K^{V,\epsilon }=e^{\epsilon \phi /h}K^V$ is the Poisson operator for
$P^{V,\epsilon }-z $. We can also get $K^{V,\epsilon
}$ by a perturbative argument, writing
\[\begin{split}
K^{V,\epsilon }=K^V-(P_\mathrm{in}^{V,\epsilon }-z )^{-1}FK^V&\\
=K^V+{\cal O}(h^{-\frac{2}{3}}\epsilon h^{\frac{1}{6}})={\cal
O}(h^{\frac{1}{6}}):&\, H^{\frac{3}{2}}\to H^2.
\end{split}
\]
Thus $e^{\epsilon \phi /h}K^V(z )={\cal O}(h^{1/6}):H^{3/2}\to
H^2$.
Now assume that
$$
W(x)={\cal O}(\mathrm{dist\,}(x,\partial {\cal O})^{N_0}),
$$
for some $N_0>0$, to be determined. Then $WK^V=We^{-\epsilon \phi
/h}e^{\epsilon \phi /h}K^V$ and taking $\phi \asymp
\mathrm{dist\,}(\cdot ,\partial {\cal O})$, $\epsilon \ge
h^{2/3}/{\cal O}(1)$, we see that
$We^{-\epsilon \phi /h}={\cal
O}(\mathrm{dist}^{N_0}e^{-\mathrm{dist}/(Ch^{1/3})})={\cal
O}(h^{N_0/3})$. Then as in the discussion prior to Proposition
\ref{idn4}, we have $K_\mathrm{in}^{V+W}=K_\mathrm{in}^{V}+A$, where
$$
A=(P_\mathrm{in}^{V+W}-z )^{-1}WK_\mathrm{in}^V={\cal
O}(1)h^{-\frac{2}{3}+\frac{N_0}{3}+\frac{1}{6}}:H^{\frac{3}{2}}\to H^2.
$$
The choice $N_0=3$ gives $A={\cal O}(h^{1/2}):H^{3/2}\to H^2$ and we get
the following variant and extension of Proposition \ref{idn4}:
\begin{prop}\label{idn5}
The conclusion of Proposition \ref{idn1} remains valid if we replace
$V$ there with $V+W$, where $W\in L^\infty (\Omega ;{\bf R})$
satisfies
\ekv{idn.39}
{W(x)={\cal O}(\mathrm{dist\,}(x,\partial {\cal O})^{3}).
}
\par More generally, we can take $W=W_1+W_2$, where $W_1$ and $W_2$
fulfill (\ref{idn.38}) and (\ref{idn.39}) respectively.
\end{prop}
\section{Some determinants}\label{sbd}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Let
\ekv{sbd.1}
{
V=V_0+W,
}
where $V_0$ is as in (\ref{idn.3.7}) and the real-valued term $W$ is
${\cal O}(1)$ in $L^\infty $.
We let
\ekv{sbd.2}
{
P=-h^2\Delta +V=:P^V,\quad P_0=-h^2\Delta +V_0.
}
Recall the definitions of $P_\mathrm{out}$, ${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}$,
${\cal P}_\mathrm{in}$, $P_\mathrm{in}$ in Section \ref{red}, with the
potential $V$ as above.
\par Our first task is to define the determinants of the factors in
(\ref{red.6}).
\begin{prop}\label{sbd1}
The three factors in (\ref{red.6}) are meromorphic families of
Fredholm operators in the region $\frac{1}{2}<\Re z<\frac{3}{2}$,
$\Im z>-h^{2/3}c_0$, where $c_0$ is as in (\ref{outl.0}). More precisely,
$${\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z):H^2({\cal O})\to H^0({\cal O})\times H^{3/2}(\partial {\cal O}),$$
$${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z):H^2({\cal O})\to H^0({\cal O})\times H^{1/2}(\partial {\cal O})$$
are holomorphic Fredholm families, while
$$\begin{pmatrix}1 &0\\ h^{\frac{1}{2}}BG_\mathrm{in} & {\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{out}\end{pmatrix}:H^0({\cal O})\times H^{3/2}(\partial
{\cal O})\to H^0({\cal O})\times H^{1/2}(\partial
{\cal O})$$
is a meromorphic Fredholm family.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This is clear for ${\cal P}_\mathrm{in}$, ${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}$, and
the factorization (\ref{red.6}) then implies that the remaining factor
is a meromorphic Fredholm family.
\end{proof}
\par From (\ref{red.6}) and the last proposition, we get
\ekv{sbd.3}
{
\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)=\det ({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext})\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z).}
\par The next result will permit us to do some analysis.
\begin{prop}\label{sbd2}
The determinants of the factors in (\ref{red.6}) can also be defined as
in Subsection \ref{gd}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We have
\ekv{sbd.4}
{
\partial _z{\cal
P}_\mathrm{in}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}-1\\0\end{pmatrix},\ \partial
_z^2{\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z)=0.
}
Thus the $C_p$-norm of $\partial _z{\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z):H^2\to
H^0\times H^{3/2}$ can be bounded by that of the inclusion map $\iota
:H^2({\cal O})\to H^0({\cal O})$. Here we can
consider ${\cal O}$ as a bounded subset with smooth boundary of a
torus $T$ and choose a uniformly bounded Seeley extension $\sigma
:H^2({\cal O})\to H^2(T)$ so that $\iota =\rho \iota _T\sigma
$, where $\iota _T:H^2(T)\to H^0(T)$ is the inclusion map and $\rho
:H^0(T)\to H^0({\cal O})$ is the restriction map. $\rho $ and $\sigma
$ being uniformly bounded, it suffices to study the Schatten class
norm of $\iota _T$. Here $H^2(T)=(1-h^2\Delta )^{-1}(H^0(T))$ so the
problem is that of the $C_p$-norm of $(1-h^2\Delta )^{-1}:H^0(T)\to
H^0(T)$.
By Weyl's law we get for $p>n/2$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\Vert (1-h^2\Delta )^{-1}\Vert_{C_p}^p=\int_0^\infty (1+h^2\lambda
)^{-p}d{\cal O}(\lambda ^{\frac{n}{2}})\\
&&={\cal O}(h^2)\int_0^\infty \frac{\lambda
^{\frac{n}{2}}}{(1+h^2\lambda )^{p+1}}d\lambda ={\cal
O}(h^{-n})\int_0^\infty \frac{t^{\frac{n}{2}}}{(1+t)^{p+1}}dt
\end{eqnarray*}
and then
$$\Vert \iota_T \Vert_{C_p}^p={\cal O}(h^{-n}),$$
so
\ekv{sbd.5}
{
\Vert \partial _z{\cal P}_\mathrm{in}\Vert_{C_p}={\cal
O}(h^{-\frac{n}{p}}),\ p>\frac{n}{2}.
}
This implies that ${\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z)$ satisfies (\ref{gd.2}) for
any $p>n/2$, so its determinant can be defined as in Subsection \ref{gd}.
In order to treat the other two operators, we need to collect some
more information about ${\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{sbd3}
For $z$ as in Proposition \ref{sbd1}, we have for all $s\in {\bf R}$,
$k\in {\bf N}$:
\ekv{sbd.8}
{
\partial _z^k{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}(z)={\cal O}((\Im
z+c_0h^{\frac{2}{3}})^{-k}):H^s\to H^{s-1+2k}.
}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Microlocally near the glancing hypersurface and in the hyperbolic
region, this follows from Corollary \ref{pdn4} and the Cauchy
inequalities. The extra regularization comes from the elliptic region
and here $K_\mathrm{ext}(z)$ is the Poisson operator of an elliptic
boundary value problem and satisfies
$$
\partial _z^kK_\mathrm{ext}(z)=C_k(P_\mathrm{ext}-z)^{-k}K_\mathrm{ext}(z).
$$
\end{proof}
\par Applying the lemma to $B=B(z)$ in (\ref{lb.3}), we get
\ekv{sbd.6}
{
\partial _z^kB(z)={\cal O}(1)h^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\Im
z+c_0h^{\frac{2}{3}})^{-k}:H^2({\cal O})\to
H^{\frac{1}{2}+2k}(\partial {\cal O}). }
\par The $C_p$-norm of the inclusion map $H^{\frac{1}{2}+2k}\to
H^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is bounded by a constant times the $C_p$-norm of
$(1-h^2\Delta _{\partial {\cal O}})^{-k}$ which by Weyl asymptotics is
finite and ${\cal O}(h^{(1-n)/p})$ when $p\ge 1$ and
$p>(n-1)/(2k)$. Thus for each such $p$,
$$\partial _z^kB\in C_p(H^2,H^{\frac{1}{2}}),\ \Vert \partial
_z^kB\Vert_{C_p}= {\cal O}(h^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1-n}{p}}(\Im z+c_0h^{\frac{2}{3}})^{-k}).
$$
It then follows as in the proof of (\ref{sbd.5}) that when $p\ge 1$
and $p>n/(2k)$,
\ekv{sbd.7}
{\begin{split}
&\partial _{z}^k{\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)\in C_p(H^2,H^0\times
H^{\frac{1}{2}}),\\ &\Vert \partial _z^k{\cal
P}_\mathrm{out}(z)\Vert_{C_p}={\cal O}(h^{-\max
(\frac{n}{p},\frac{1}{2}+\frac{n-1}{p}+\frac{2}{3}k)}). \end{split} } Thus
we have verified (\ref{gd.2}) with $p=(n+\epsilon )/2$ and $\det {\cal
P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$ can indeed be defined as in Subsection \ref{gd}.
\par In that subsection we have seen that if $P(z)$ fulfills
(\ref{gd.2}), then so does $P(z)^{-1}$ on the open subset of
bijectivity. We also saw that if $P_1(z)\in {\cal L}({\cal
H}_1,{\cal H}_2)$, $P_2(z)\in {\cal L}({\cal
H}_2,{\cal H}_3)$ satisfy (\ref{gd.2}), then so does
$P_1(z)P_2(z)$. Having checked that ${\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z)$ and
${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$ satisfy (\ref{gd.2}), we conclude from
(\ref{red.6}) that $\begin{pmatrix}1 &0\\h^{\frac{1}{2}}BG_{\mathrm{in}} &{\cal
N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}\end{pmatrix}$ also satisfies
(\ref{gd.2}) and the proposition follows from Subsection \ref{gd}.
\end{proof}
\section{Upper bounds on the basic determinant}\label{ub}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The first task will be to get an upper bound on $\ln |\det {\cal P_\mathrm{out}}|$
in the whole region
\ekv{ub.1}{|\Im z|<c_0 h^{\frac{2}{3}},\ \frac{1}{2}<\Re
z<2}
by some negative power of $h$. As a preparation for that step we make
the following abstract
\paragraph{addendum to Section \ref{gd}.} Consider a Schatten class
perturbation of the identity, $Q(z)=1-K(z)$, where $K(z)$ is
holomorphic in some domain in ${\bf C}$ and as in (\ref{gd.2}):
\ekv{ub.2new}
{\partial _z^kK(z)\in C_{\max (1,p/k)},\ 1\le k\in {\bf N}.}
This assumption remains valid if we replace $p$ by $N=[p]$, the
smallest integer $\ge p$ and then (in view of the mean value property
for holomorphic functions) takes the simpler form
\ekv{ub.3new}
{\partial _z^kK(z)\in C_{N/k},\ 1\le k\le N,}
\ekv{ub.3new.5}{K(z)\in C_N.}
Considering the Taylor expansions (and mimicking the definition of
modified determinants for Schatten class perturbations of the
identity), we get
\ekv{ub.3New}{\begin{split}
&Q(z)=A(z)B(z),\\ & A(z)=\exp F(z),\ F(z)=K(z)+...+\frac{K(z)^{N-1}}{N-1},\\
&B(z)=(1+R_N(K)K^N),\end{split}}
where $\| R_N(K)\|\le C(\| K\| )$. Thus
$$
\Vert R_N(K)K^N\Vert_{C_1}\le C(\| K\| )\Vert K\Vert^N_{C_N},
$$
so $\det B(z)$ can be defined as in Subsection \ref{gd}. The
definition coincides with that of determinants of trace class
perturbations of the identity and we get
\ekv{ub.8}{
|\det B(z)|\le \exp (C(\Vert K\Vert)\Vert K\Vert^N_{C_N}).
}
\par As for $A(z)=\exp F(z)$, we see that $F(z)$ satisfies
(\ref{ub.3new}), (\ref{ub.3new.5}). Moreover from applying $\partial
_z$ to the differential
equation $\partial _t\exp (tF(z))=F(z)\exp (tF(z))$, we have
$$
\partial _z(e^F)=\int _0^1 e^{(1-t)F(z)}(\partial _zF(z))e^{tF(z)}dt\in C_N
$$ and from similar expressions for $\partial _z^k(e^F)$ we see that
$A=e^F$ satisfies (\ref{ub.3new}), (\ref{ub.3new.5}). Now,
\[e^{-F}\partial _ze^F=\int_0^1e^{-tF}(\partial _zF)e^{tF}dt=\partial
_zF+\int_0^1[e^{-tF},(\partial _zF)e^{tF}]dt, \]
so
$$
\mathrm{tr\,}\partial _z^{N-1}(e^{-F}\partial
_zF)=\mathrm{tr\,}\partial _z^NF,
$$
which is bounded in modulus by
\ekv{ub.9}{\begin{split}&{\cal O}(1)\sum_{N_1+..+N_q=N\atop N_q\ge 0,\, q\le N-1}\Vert \partial
^{N_1}K...\partial ^{N_q}K\Vert_{C_1}\le\\ &{\cal O}(1)\sum
_{N_1+..+N_q=N\atop N_q\ge 0,\, q\le N-1} \Vert \partial ^{N_1}K\Vert_{C_{N/N_1}}...\Vert \partial ^{N_q}K\Vert_{C_{N/N_q}}.\end{split}}
Combining this with (\ref{ub.3New}), (\ref{ub.8}), we get:
\begin{prop}\label{ub1}
Under the above assumptions,
$$
\det Q(z)=\mathrm{I}(z)\mathrm{II}(z),\quad \mathrm{I}(z)=\det A(z),\ \mathrm{II}(z)=\det B(z),
$$ where $|\mathrm{II}(z)|$ is bounded by the right hand side of
(\ref{ub.8}) and $|\partial _z^N \ln \mathrm{I}(z)|$ is bounded by the
expression (\ref{ub.9}).
\end{prop}
\par Using the above preparation, we shall derive a rough upper bound
on $\ln |\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)|$. Let
$\widetilde{P}=P+i1_{{\cal O}}$, $\widetilde{{\cal
P}}_\mathrm{out}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde{P}-z \\
B(z)\end{pmatrix}$.
Assume first that $W=0$ so that $V=V_0$ is smooth.
Thanks to the perturbation $i1_{\cal O}$, \ekv{ub.9.2} {
\widetilde{{\cal P}}_\mathrm{in}:=\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde{P}-z\\ h^\frac{1}{2}\gamma \end{pmatrix}:\, H^{s+2}({\cal O})\to H^s({\cal
O})\times H^{s+\frac{3}{2}}(\partial {\cal O}) } is bijective with
an inverse
$\widetilde{E}_\mathrm{in}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde{G}_\mathrm{in}(z)
& h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\widetilde{K}_\mathrm{in}(z)\end{pmatrix}$, where
$\widetilde{G}_\mathrm{in}={\cal O}_s(1):H^s\to H^{s+2}$,
$\widetilde{K}_\mathrm{in}={\cal O}_s(h^{1/2}):H^{s+3/2}\to H^s$, for
$0<h\le h(s)$, $0\le s <\infty $. This is the inverse of an elliptic
boundary value problem and we see that $\widetilde{{\cal
N}}_\mathrm{in}$, defined as in (\ref{ub.2.5}),
is a nice $h$-pseudodifferential operator on $\partial {\cal O}$ of
order 0 in $h$ and of order 1 in $\xi '$, with leading symbol
$-i(i+(\xi ')^2-z)^{1/2}$, where we use the principal branch of the
square root with a cut along the negative real axis. This symbol takes
its values in the interior of the fourth quadrant. Then in analogy
with (\ref{red.6}), we have \ekv{ub.9.1} {
\widetilde{{\cal P}}_\mathrm{out}(z)=\begin{pmatrix} 1 &0\\
h^{\frac{1}{2}}B\widetilde{G}_\mathrm{in} &\widetilde{{\cal N}}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}\end{pmatrix}\widetilde{{\cal P}}_\mathrm{in}(z),
} where $B$ was given in (\ref{lb.3}).
We have already investigated ${\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}$ and found that it
is an $h$-pseudodifferential operator whose symbol is nice away from
${\cal G}$ where it becomes exotic but small. Away from that set it
is of order $(0,1)$ in $(h,\xi ')$ with leading part $i((\xi
')^2-z)^{1/2}$. When $\Im z\ge 0$ its values are confined to the
first quadrant.
\par From this it follows that $\widetilde{{\cal N}}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}$ is an elliptic $h$-pseudodifferential operator of
order (0,1) whose symbol has a small exotic part near ${\cal G}$.
Consequently, for every $s\in {\bf R}$;
\ekv{ub.9.2.5}
{
\widetilde{{\cal N}}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}:\,
H^{s+\frac{3}{2}}\to H^{s+\frac{1}{2}}
}
is bijective with a uniformly bounded inverse for $0<h\le h(s)\ll 1$.
\par It now follows from (\ref{ub.9.1}) and from the fact that
$B={\cal O}_s(h^{-1/2}):H^{s+2}\to H^{s+3/2}$ for every $s\ge 0$, that
\ekv{ub.9.3}
{
\begin{split}
\widetilde{{\cal P}}_\mathrm{out}^{-1}=\widetilde{{\cal
P}}_\mathrm{in}(z)^{-1}\begin{pmatrix} 1 &0\\
-(\widetilde{{\cal N}}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext})^{-1}h^{\frac{1}{2}}B\widetilde{G}_\mathrm{in} &
(\widetilde{{\cal N}}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext})^{-1}\end{pmatrix}\\
=\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde{G}_\mathrm{in}-\widetilde{K}_\mathrm{in}(\widetilde{{\cal
N}}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext})^{-1}B\widetilde{G}_\mathrm{in} &h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\widetilde{K}_\mathrm{in}(\widetilde{{\cal N}}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext})^{-1}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{split}
}
We conclude that for every $s\in [0,+\infty [$,
\ekv{ub.9.4}
{\begin{split}
&\widetilde{{\cal P}}_\mathrm{out}(z)=H^{s+2}\to H^s\times H^{s+\frac{1}{2}}
\hbox{ has an inverse}\\ &\widetilde{{\cal
E}}_\mathrm{out}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde{G}_\mathrm{out}
& h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\widetilde{K}_\mathrm{out}\end{pmatrix} \hbox{ with }
\widetilde{G}_\mathrm{out}={\cal O}_s(1):H^s\to H^{s+2},\\
&\widetilde{K}_\mathrm{out}={\cal O}_s(h^{1/2}):H^{s+1/2}\to H^{s+2},
\hbox{ for }0<h\le h(s).
\end{split}}
\par Now drop the assumption that $W=0$ and take again $V=V_0+W$ where
we assume that $\Vert W\Vert_{L^\infty }\le 1/C$ with $C$ large
enough. Then from (\ref{ub.9.4}) (where we had $V=V_0$) and a simùple
perturbation argument we see that
\ekv{ub.9.5}
{
\hbox{(\ref{ub.9.4}) remains
valid for }s=0.
}
\par Write
\ekv{ub.9.6}{
{\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)=(1+{\cal
K}(z))\widetilde{{\cal P}}_\mathrm{out}(z),
}
where
$$
{\cal K}(z)=\begin{pmatrix}P-\widetilde{P} \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}\widetilde{\cal E}_\mathrm{out}(z).
$$
Now $\widetilde{\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$ satisfies (\ref{sbd.7})
when $p\ge 1$ and $p>n/(2k)$ and hence also (\ref{gd.2}) with $p$
there equal to $(n+\epsilon )/2$. Moreover, as in the case of ${\cal
P}_\mathrm{out}$, the corresponding Schatten class norm of $\partial
_z^k\widetilde{{\cal P}}_\mathrm{out}$ is bounded by some negative
power of $h$. Using the bounds on the norm $\widetilde{{\cal
E}}_\mathrm{out}$, we see that this operator has the same
property. Consequently we have the same properties for ${\cal K}(z)$
and Proposition \ref{ub1} applies and shows that $\det (1+{\cal
K}(z))$ can be defined as in Subsection \ref{gd} and satisfies the
upper bound
\ekv{ub.9.7}{
\ln |\det (1+{\cal K}(z))|\le {\cal O}(h^{-N})
}
for some $N\ge 0$. Similarly, $\det \widetilde{{\cal P}}_\mathrm{out}(z)$ is
well-defined and can be realized so that
\ekv{ub.9.8}
{
|\ln |\det \widetilde{{\cal P}}_\mathrm{out}||\le {\cal O}(h^{-N}).
}
Combining this with (\ref{ub.9.6}), we get
\begin{prop}\label{ub2}
$\exists$ $N_0>0$ such that
\ekv{ub.10}
{
\ln |\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)|\le {\cal O}(1)h^{-N_0}.
}
\end{prop}
We next start a more precise study of $\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}$ in
the region
\ekv{ub'.10.5}
{
\frac{1}{2}<\Re z <2,\ c{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}<|\Im z|<c_0{h^{\frac{2}{3}}},
}
where $c>0$ can be chosen
arbitrarily small. For that we shall use Proposition \ref{sbd2} and
study the two factors to the right in (\ref{sbd.3}).
\par We start with $\det ({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext})$
and the aim is to write this function as a product of two factors, one
being holomorphic and non-vanishing in the whole rectangle
$]1/2,2[+i]-h^{2/3}c_0,h^{2/3}c_0[$ and the other being of the form
$\det (1+T(z))$, where $T$ is a meromorphic family of trace class
operators on $\partial {\cal O}$ with poles at $\sigma (P_\mathrm{in})$
and whose trace class norm is ${\cal O}(h^{1-n})$ when $|\Im
z|>h^{2/3}c$.
Let $P=P^V=-h^2\Delta +V$, $P_0=P^{V_0}=-h^2\Delta +V_0$, $V=V_0+W$
with $V_0$ as before, $W={\cal O}(h)$ in $L^\infty $ and we shall have
to strengthen the assumptions on $W$. In geodesic coordinates,
\ekv{ub'.11} { P=(hD_{x_n})^2+R(x,hD_{x'}),\
P_0=(hD_{x_n})^2+R_0(x,hD_{x'}). } Let $S:C^\infty (\overline{{\cal
O}})\to C^\infty (\overline{{\cal {\cal O}}})$ be of the form
$S=S(x,hD_{x'})$ near $\partial {\cal O}$ in geodesic coordinates,
where $S\ge 0$ has compact support in $\xi '$. In the interior of
${\cal O}$ we arrange by cutting and pasting so that $S$ is a
pseudodifferential operator in all the variables of order $0$ in $h$
and with symbol of compact support in $\xi $. Put
\ekv{ub'.12}{\widetilde{P}_0=P_0+S,\ \widetilde{P}=P+S.} Let $\chi
=\chi (x',\xi ')\in C_0^\infty (T^*\partial {\cal O})$ be equal to 1
near ${\cal H}\cup {\cal G}$. Let ${\cal N}={\cal N}_\mathrm{in}$ be
the Dirichlet to Neumann map associated to $P-z$ (and we will write
$P=P_\mathrm{in}$ when we wish to emphasize that we take the Dirichlet
realization). We start with the trivial decomposition \ekv{ub'.12.5}{
{\cal N}={\cal N}\chi (x',hD_{x'})+\ {\cal N}(1-\chi (x',hD_{x'})).
} By Proposition \ref{idn4} the first term to the right is of trace
class $C_1(H^{3/2},H^{1/2})$ and the corresponding trace class norm is
${\cal O}(h^{1-n})$ when $|\Im z|\ge h^{2/3}c$.
Now $S$ can be chosen so that
$$\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde{P}_0-z\\ h^\frac{1}{2}\gamma \end{pmatrix}:H^2\to
H^0\times H^{\frac{3}{2}}$$ is bijective with a uniformly bounded
inverse $\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde{G}_0
&h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\widetilde{K}_0\end{pmatrix}$. Since $\Vert
W\Vert_{L^\infty }={\cal O}(h)\ll 1$, we have the same fact for
$$\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde{P}-z\\ h^\frac{1}{2}\gamma \end{pmatrix}:H^2\to
H^0\times H^{\frac{3}{2}}$$ and we let $\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde{G}
&h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\widetilde{K}\end{pmatrix}$ be the inverse.
\par $K=K_\mathrm{in}$ satisfies
\ekv{ub'.13}
{
K(1-\chi )=\widetilde{K}(1-\chi
)+(P_\mathrm{in}-z)^{-1}S\widetilde{K}(1-\chi ).
}
Hence
\ekv{ub'.14}
{\begin{split}
&{\cal N}(1-\chi )=\mathrm{I}+\mathrm{II},\ \mathrm{I}=\widetilde{{\cal
N}}(1-\chi ),\\
&\mathrm{II}=\gamma hD_\nu (P-z)^{-1}S\widetilde{K}(1-\chi ).
\end{split}} Here
$\widetilde{K}=\widetilde{K}_0-(\widetilde{P}-z)^{-1}W\widetilde{K}_0=\widetilde{K}_0+{\cal
O}(h^{1/2})\Vert W\Vert_{L^\infty }:\, H^{3/2}\to H^2$, so \ekv{ub'.15} {
\widetilde{{\cal N}}=\widetilde{{\cal N}}_0+{\cal O}(1)\Vert
W\Vert_{L^\infty }:\, H^{3/2}\to H^{1/2}. } Now, as we saw earlier
in a slightly different situation, $\widetilde{{\cal N}}_0$ is a nice
$h$-pseudodifferential operator of order (0,1) in $(h,\xi '))$ with
leading symbol $-i(s(x',\xi ')+(\xi ')^2-z)^{1/2}$ and as in
(\ref{ub.9.2.5}) $\widetilde{{\cal N}}_0-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}=H^{s+\frac{3}{2}}\to H^{s+\frac{1}{2}}$ is bijective
with a uniformly bounded inverse for $0<h<h(s)\ll 1$. From
(\ref{ub'.15}) we get the same conclusion for $\widetilde{{\cal N}}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}:H^{\frac{3}{2}}\to H^{\frac{1}{2}}$.
\par We shall next estimate the norm of $S\widetilde{K}(1-\chi
):H^{3/2}\to H^0$ and for that we try to ``commute'' $1-\chi $ and $K$
and exploit that $S(1-\chi )={\cal O}(h^\infty )$. From $\gamma
[\widetilde{K},\chi ]=0$, $(\widetilde{P}-z)[\widetilde{K},\chi
]=-[\widetilde{P},\chi ]\widetilde{K}$, we get
\ekv{ub'.16}
{
[\widetilde{K},\chi
]=-(\widetilde{P}_\mathrm{in}-z)^{-1}[\widetilde{P},\chi ]\widetilde{K}.
}
Moreover,
\ekv{ub'.17}
{
S\widetilde{K}(1-\chi )=S(1-\chi )\widetilde{K}-S[\widetilde{K},\chi ],
}
where the first term to the right is ${\cal O}(h^\infty ):H^{3/2}\to
H^0$ and we shall see that $[\widetilde{K},\chi ]={\cal
O}(h^{3/2}):H^{3/2}\to H^0$, provided that $\nabla W={\cal O}(1)$ in
$L^\infty $: Assume
\ekv{ub'.20}
{
\partial ^\alpha W={\cal O}(1)\hbox{ in }L^\infty ,\hbox{ for }|\alpha
|\le 1 ,
}
in addition to the previous assumption that $\Vert W\Vert ={\cal O}(h)$.
As in the remark after Proposition \ref{idn4}, this will hold for
$W=\delta \Theta q_\omega $ as in Theorem \ref{re1}.
\begin{lemma}\label{ub'3}
Under the assumption (\ref{ub'.20}), we have
\ekv{ub'.21}{
[\widetilde{K},\chi ]={\cal O}(h^{3/2}):\, H^\frac{3}{2}\to H^2.
}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $Q\in C_0^\infty ({\bf R}^{2n})$ we have the following
representation of the $h$-pseudodifferential operator $Q(x,hD_{x})$ in
the classical quantization, obtained in \cite{AnSj04}:
\ekv{ub'.23}
{
\begin{split}
Q(x,hD)&=(-\frac{1}{\pi })^{2n}\int ...\int
(z_1-x_1)^{-1}..(z_n-x_n)^{-1} (\zeta _1-hD_{x_1})^{-1}..\\ & (\zeta
_n-hD_{x_n})^{-1}
\partial _{\overline{z}_1}..\partial _{\overline{z}_n}\partial
_{\overline{\zeta }_1}..\partial _{\overline{\zeta
}_n}\widetilde{Q}(z_1,..,z_n,\zeta _1,..,\zeta _n)L(dz)L(d\zeta ),
\end{split}
}
where $\widetilde{Q}\in C_0^\infty $ is an almost holomorphic
extension satisfying
$$
\partial _{(\overline{z},\overline{\zeta })}\widetilde{Q}={\cal
O}((|\Im z_1|..|\Im z_n||\Im \zeta _1|..|\Im \zeta _n|)^\infty ).
$$
From this representation we recover the wellknown fact that $Q={\cal
O}(1):L^2\to L^2$ and for $[Q,W]$ we get a similar formula with $2n$
terms, obtained by replacing one of $(z_j-x_j)^{-1}$ or $(\zeta
_j-hD_{x_j})^{-1}$ by $(z_j-x_j)^{-1}[x_j,W](z_j-x_j)^{-1}$ or $(\zeta
_j-hD_{x_j})^{-1}[hD_{x_j},W](\zeta
_j-hD_{x_j})^{-1}$ respectively. Then from the boundedness of $W$ and
$\nabla W$ we see that
\ekv{ub'.25}
{
[Q(x,hD_x),W]={\cal O}(h):\, L^2\to L^2.
}
The lemma now follows from (\ref{ub'.25}) and (\ref{ub'.16}).
\end{proof}
\par Returning to (\ref{ub'.17}), we see that
\ekv{ub'.27}
{
S\widetilde{K}(1-\chi )={\cal O}(h^{\frac{3}{2}}):\, H^{\frac{3}{2}}\to H^0.
}
We use this in the expression for $\mathrm{II}$ in (\ref{ub'.14})
together with the telescopic formula
\ekv{ub'.28}
{
(P-z)^{-1}=(\widetilde{P}-z)^{-1}\sum_0^{N-1} (S(\widetilde{P}-z)^{-1})^k+(P-z)^{-1}(S(\widetilde{P}-z)^{-1})^N
}
to see that
\ekv{ub'.29}
{
\mathrm{II}(z)=\mathrm{III}(z)+\mathrm{IV}(z),
}
where
\ekv{ub'.30}
{\mathrm{III}(z)=\gamma hD_\nu (\widetilde{P}-z)^{-1}\sum_0^{N-1}
(S(\widetilde{P}-z)^{-1})^kS\widetilde{K}(1-\chi )
}
is holomorphic and ${\cal O}(h):H^{3/2}\to H^{1/2}$ in the whole
rectangle
$]1/2,2[+i]-h^{2/3}c_0,h^{2/3}c_0[$ and
\ekv{ub'.31}
{
\mathrm{IV}(z)=\gamma hD_\nu
(P-z)^{-1}(S(\widetilde{P}-z)^{-1})^NS\widetilde{K}(1-\chi ).
}
\par Let $N$ be the smallest integer with
\ekv{ub'.31.5}
{
N>\frac{n-1}{2}
}
and assume that
\ekv{ub'.32}
{
\partial ^\alpha W={\cal O}(1)\hbox{ in }L^\infty \hbox{ for }|\alpha |
\le 2N.
}
Again this will hold for $W=\delta \Theta q_\omega $ as in Theorem
\ref{re1} if $\alpha (...)$ there is large enough.
Then $\mathrm{IV}(z)$ is locally
uniformly bounded $H^{3/2}\to H^{2(N+1)-3/2}=H^{2N+1/2}$ away from
$\sigma (P_\mathrm{in})$ and when
$|\Im z|\ge h^{2/3}c$ the norm is uniformly $\le {\cal
O}(h^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2}{3}})={\cal O}(h^{\frac{1}{3}})$. Since
$2N>n-1$, we see that $\mathrm{IV}(z)\in C_1(H^{3/2},H^{1/2})$ and
that when $|\Im z|\ge h^{2/3}c$ the corresponding trace
class norm is $\le {\cal O}(h^{\frac{1}{3}+1-n})$. Summing up the
discussion so far, we have
\begin{prop}\label{ub'4}
${\cal N}={\cal N}_\mathrm{in}$ can be decomposed as \ekv{ub'.33} {
{\cal N}=\widetilde{{\cal N}}+\mathrm{III}+({\cal
N}-\widetilde{{\cal N}})\chi +\mathrm{IV}, } where
$\widetilde{{\cal N}}=\widetilde{{\cal N}}_0+{\cal O}(1)\Vert
W\Vert_{L^\infty }={\cal O}(1):H^{3/2}\to H^{1/2}$ and $\mathrm{III}={\cal
O}(h):H^{3/2}\to H^{1/2}$ are holomorphic in the whole
rectangle $]1/2,2[+i]-h^{2/3}c_0,h^{2/3}c_0[$, while $({\cal
N}-\widetilde{{\cal N}})\chi $ and $\mathrm{IV}(z)$ are
holomorphic away from $\sigma (P_\mathrm{in})$ with values in
$C_1(H^{3/2},H^{1/2})$ and \ekv{ub'.34} { \Vert ({\cal
N}-\widetilde{{\cal N}})\chi \Vert_{C_1}+\Vert
\mathrm{IV}\Vert_{C_1}={\cal O}(h^{1-n}),\ |\Im z|\ge
h^{2/3}c. }
\end{prop}
Now write
\ekv{ub'.35}
{
{\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}=\widehat{A}(z)+({\cal N}-\widetilde{{\cal
N}})\chi +\mathrm{IV},
}
where
\ekv{ub'.37}{\widehat{A}(z):=\widetilde{{\cal
N}}+\mathrm{III}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}:H^{3/2}\to H^{1/2},}
is
holomorphic, uniformly bounded and uniformly invertible in the whole
rectangle, and factorize,
\ekv{ub'.36}{{\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}=\widehat{A}(z)\widehat{B}(z),}
\ekv{ub'.38}{\widehat{B}(z)=1+\widehat{A}(z)^{-1}\left( ({\cal
N}-\widetilde{{\cal N}})\chi +\mathrm{IV}\right) =:1+\widehat{C}(z),}
where $\widehat{C}(z)$ belongs to $C_1(H^{3/2},H^{3/2})$ away from $\sigma
(P_\mathrm{in})$ and the corresponding trace class norm is ${\cal
O}(h^{1-n})$ when $|\Im z|\ge h^{2/3}c$.
\par We conclude that
\ekv{ub'.40}
{
\ln |\det \widehat{B}(z)|\le {\cal O}(h^{1-n}), \hbox{ when }|\Im z|\ge h^{2/3}c.
}
$\widehat{A}(z)$ in (\ref{ub'.37}) is holomorphic in the whole
rectange. It follows from Lemma \ref{sbd3} and the discussion after
(\ref{sbd.6}) that the $C_p$-norm of $\partial _z^k{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext}:H^{3/2}\to H^{1/2}$ is bounded by a negative power
of $h$ when $p$ is $\ge 1$ and $>(n-1)/(2k)$.
\par As in the proof of that lemma, we write $\partial
_z^k\widetilde{{\cal N}}(z)=C_k\gamma hD_\nu
(\widetilde{P}_\mathrm{in}-z)^{-k}\widetilde{K}_\mathrm{in}$ and using
(\ref{ub'.32}) we see that $\partial _z^k\widetilde{{\cal N}}(z)={\cal
O}(1):H^{3/2}\to H^{1/2+2k}$ for $2k\le 2N+2$ and hence the
$C_p$-norm of $\partial _z^k\widetilde{{\cal N}}:\, H^{3/2}\to
H^{1/2}$ is bounded by some negative power of $h$ when $p$ is $\ge 1$
and $>(n-1)/(2k)$, for $k\le N+1$. For $k=N+1$ we have $k>(n-1)/2$, so
$n/(2k)<1$. From (\ref{ub'.30}) we get the same estimates for
$\partial _z^k\mathrm{III}$. Thus the $C_p$-norm of $\partial
_z^k\widehat{A}(z):H^{3/2}\to H^{1/2}$ is bounded by some negative
power of $h$ when $p$ is $\ge 1$ and $>(n-1)/(2k)$, $k\le N+1$.
\par In conclusion, $\det \widehat{A}(z)$ and its inverse $\det
\widehat{A}(z)^{-1}$ can be defined in the whole rectangle as in
Subsection \ref{gd}, such that
$$
\ln |\det \widehat{A}(z)|={\cal O}(h^{-N_0}),
$$
for some $N_0$.
\par The desired factorization of $\det ({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext})$ is now
\ekv{ub'.39}
{
\det ({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext})=\det \widehat{A}(z) \det \widehat{B}(z),
}
where $\det \widehat{A}(z)$ and its inverse are holomorphic in the whole
rectangle and bounded from above by $C \exp (Ch^{-N_0})$ for some
$C,N_0>0$.
Before continuing, we sum up and compare the two main results so
far. Proposition \ref{ub1}, applied to $1+{\cal K}(z)$ in
(\ref{ub.9.6}), gives
\ekv{ub'.41}
{
1+{\cal K}(z)=A(z)B(z),
}
where in the rectangle (\ref{ub.1}),
\ekv{ub'.42}{\ln |\det A(z)|={\cal O}(h^{-N}),}
\ekv{ub'.43}{\ln |\det B(z)|\le {\cal O}(h^{-N}).}
More precisely, $B(z)=1+R_N({\cal K}){\cal K}^N=:1+C(z)$, where $C(z)$
is holomorphic with values in the trace class operators and
\ekv{ub'.44}{\Vert C(z)\Vert_{C_1}\le {\cal O}(h^{-N}).}
Here, the exponent $N$ may take a new value at each
appearance. Further (see (\ref{ub.9.6}))
\ekv{ub'.45}{\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}=\det \widetilde{{\cal P}}_\mathrm{out}\det
A(z)\det B(z),}
where $\det \widetilde{{\cal P}}_\mathrm{out}$ can be defined as in Subsection
\ref{gd} such that
\ekv{ub'.46}
{
|\ln |\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}||={\cal O}(h^{-N}).
}
\par On the other hand we have (\ref{red.6}), (\ref{sbd.3}):
\ekv{ub'.47}
{
\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)=\det ({\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z))\det ({\cal
N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext}),
}
where
\ekv{ub'.48}
{
\det ({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext})=\det
\widehat{A}(z)\det \widehat{B}(z),\ \widehat{B}(z)=1+\widehat{C}(z).
}
Here, $\det \widehat{A}(z)$ is holomorphic and
\ekv{ub'.49}
{
\ln |\det \widehat{A}(z)|={\cal O}(h^{-N})
}
in the whole rectangle, while $\widehat{C}(z)$ is meromorphic with
values in $C_1(H^{3/2},H^{3/2})$ with the poles at the (real)
eigenvalues of $P_\mathrm{in}$. Moreover, for $|\Im z|\ge
h^{2/3}c$ we have $\Vert \widehat{C}(z)\Vert_{C_1}\le
{\cal O}(h^{1-n})$, so
\ekv{ub'.50}
{
\ln |\det (1+\widehat{C}(z))|\le {\cal O}(h^{1-n})
}
in that region.
\par We shall now compare the expressions (\ref{ub'.45}) and
(\ref{ub'.47}).
\par In (\ref{ub'.45}) the first two factors to the left are well
defined up to factors of the form $\exp p(z)$ where $p$ is a polynomial
of degree $\le N$ and as we have seen, we can choose realizations
satisfying (\ref{ub'.45}), (\ref{ub'.42}). As for $\det B(z)$, defined
as a determinant of a trace class perturbation of $1$ (which is a
special case of the definition in Subsection \ref{gd}), we only have
the upper bound (\ref{ub'.43}).
\par In (\ref{ub'.47}), $\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z)=\det
(P_\mathrm{in}-z)$ can be defined as in Subsection \ref{gd} up to a
factor $\exp p(z)$ as before, in such a way that $\ln |\det {\cal
P}_\mathrm{in}|\le {\cal O}(h^{-N})$ and when $|\Im z|\ge
h^{2/3}/\widetilde{C}$, we even have $\ln |\det {\cal
P}_\mathrm{in}(z)|={\cal O}(h^{-N})$. This factor will be further
studied below. Similarly, we have (\ref{ub'.48}), (\ref{ub'.49}) and
again we define $\det \widehat{B}$ as the determinant of a trace class
perturbation of the identity.
\par When writing the identity
\ekv{ub'.51}
{
\begin{split}
\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)&=\det \widetilde{{\cal
P}}_\mathrm{out}\det A(z) \det B(z)\\
&= \det {\cal P}_\mathrm{in}\det \widehat{A}(z)\det \widehat{B}(z),
\end{split}
}
it is not apriori clear that we can choose $\det
\widetilde{P}_\mathrm{out}$, $\det A(z)$, $\det \widehat{A}(z)$, $\det
{\cal P}_\mathrm{in}$ all satifying the above bounds simultaneously,
since we have made definite choices of $\det B(z)$ and $\det
\widehat{B}(z)$. However, if we restrict the attention to the region
$|\Im z|\ge h^{2/3}c$ we know that $B(z)^{-1}$ and
$\widehat{B}(z)^{-1}$ are bounded in operator norm by some negative
power of $h$, and this additional information implies that
$B(z)^{-1}=1+D(z)$, $\widehat{B}(z)^{-1}=1+\widehat{D}(z)$, where
$D(z)$ and $\widehat{D}(z)$ are bounded in trace class norm by
negative powers of $h$, so in that region we also get
$$
\ln |\det B(z)|,\, \ln |\det \widehat{B}(z)|={\cal O}(h^{-N}).
$$
Then if we choose the other factors with moduli that have polynomially
bounded logarithms, we can modify one of them by a factor $\exp
p(z)$, where $p(z)$ is a polynomial of degree $\le N$ with real part
$={\cal O}(h^{-N})$ and achieve (\ref{ub'.51}) in such a way that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\ln |x|={\cal O}(h^{-N})$ when $x=$ $\det A$, $\det
\widehat{A}$, $\det \widetilde{{\cal P}}_\mathrm{out}$ in the
whole rectangle,
\item $\ln |x|={\cal O}(h^{-N})$ for $|\ln z|\ge
h^{2/3}c$, when $x=$ $\det B(z)$, $\det
\widehat{B}(z)$, $\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{in}$,
\item $\ln |x|\le {\cal O}(h^{-N})$ in the whole rectangle, when
$x=\det B(z)$, $\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{in}$.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, as we have seen,
\ekv{ub'.52}
{
\ln |\det \widehat{B}(z)|\le {\cal O}(h^{1-n}),\hbox{ when }|\Im z|\ge h^{2/3}c.
}
\par The aim is to study the zeros of $\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$
in the rectangle (\ref{ub.1}), using the upper bound (\ref{ub.10}) and
the more precise upper bound for $|\Im z|\ge h^{2/3}c$
resulting from the last expression in (\ref{ub'.51}) together with
(\ref{ub'.52}) and the fact that $\ln |\det \widehat{A}|={\cal
O}(h^{-N})$. After division with $\det \widehat{A}(z)$ we can
concentrate on the function
\ekv{ub'.53}
{
f(z)=\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{in} \det \widehat{B}(z),
}
for which
\ekv{ub'.54}
{
\ln |f(z)|\le {\cal O}(h^{-N}).
}
Next, look at $\det
{\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z)$. Let $\widetilde{K}={\cal O}(h^{1/2}):H^s\to
H^{s+1/2}$, $s\in {\bf R}$ be a right inverse of $\gamma $. Then,
$$
\begin{pmatrix}1 & \widetilde{K}\end{pmatrix}:\, {\cal
D}(P_\mathrm{in})\times H^{\frac{3}{2}}\to H^2
$$
is a bijection with a bounded inverse and
$$
{\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z) \begin{pmatrix}1 &h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\widetilde{K}\end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix} P_\mathrm{in}-z &h^{-\frac{1}{2}}(P-z)\widetilde{K}\\
0 & 1\end{pmatrix},
$$
so $$
\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z)\det \begin{pmatrix}1 &h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\widetilde{K}\end{pmatrix}
=\det (P_\mathrm{in}-z)
$$
and since $\widetilde{K}$ is independent of $z$, we can take
$\det \begin{pmatrix}1 &h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\widetilde{K}\end{pmatrix}$ to be an arbitrary
non-vanishing constant, say $1$ and get
\ekv{ub.11}
{
\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z)=\det (P_\mathrm{in}-z).
}
The method in Subsection \ref{gd} shows that
\ekv{ub.12}
{
\partial _z^N\ln \det (P_\mathrm{in}-z)=-(N-1)!\, \mathrm{tr\,}(P_\mathrm{in}-z)^{-N},
}
for $N>n/2$, so that $(P_\mathrm{in}-z)^{-N}$ is of trace
class.
\par Let $\chi \in C_0^\infty (]1/4,4 [;[0,1])$
be equal to 1 in a neighborhood of $[1/3,3]$. If $N(\lambda )=\# (\sigma
(P_\mathrm{in})\cap ]-\infty ,\lambda ])$, we get
\ekv{ub.14}{\begin{split}
\partial _z^N\ln \det (P_\mathrm{in}-z)=&-(N-1)!\int (\lambda
-z)^{-N}dN(\lambda )\\
=&-(N-1)!\int (\lambda -z)^{-N}\chi (\lambda )dN(\lambda )\\
&-(N-1)!\int (\lambda -z)^{-N}(1-\chi (\lambda ))dN(\lambda ).
\end{split}}
Thus,
\ekv{ub.14.5}{
\ln \det (P_\mathrm{in}-z)=\mathrm{I}(z)+\mathrm{II}(z),
}
where
\ekv{ub.15}
{
-\partial _z^N\mathrm{I}(z)=(N-1)!\int (\lambda -z)^{-N}\chi (\lambda )dN(\lambda )
}
\ekv{ub.16}
{
-\partial _z^N\mathrm{II}(z)=(N-1)!\int (\lambda -z)^{-N}
(1-\chi (\lambda ))dN(\lambda ).
}
Up to a polynomial, we have for $\Im z\ne 0$:
\ekv{ub.17}
{
\mathrm{I}(z)=\int \ln (\lambda -z)\chi (\lambda )dN(\lambda ),
}
where we use the standard branch of $\ln$ with a cut along $]-\infty
,0[$. In particular,
\ekv{ub.18}
{
\Re \mathrm{I}(z)=\int \ln |\lambda -z|\chi (\lambda )dN(\lambda ).
}
\par In order to estimate $\mathrm{II}(z)$, we shall use the rough
estimate
\ekv{ub.19}
{
N(\lambda )={\cal O}(h^{-n}\lambda ^{n/2}),
}
which is valid uniformly for $0<h\ll 1$, $\lambda \ge 1$. It follows
from (\ref{ub.19}) and an integration by parts in (\ref{ub.16}), that
\ekv{ub.20}
{
\partial _z^N\mathrm{II}(z)={\cal O}(h^{-n}) } in the domain
(\ref{ub.1}). By integration, we see that we can choose
$\mathrm{II}(z)$ holomorphic in this domain such that \ekv{ub.21} {
\mathrm{II}(z)={\cal O}(h^{-n}). } This will allow us to replace
$\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{in}$ by $\exp \mathrm{I}(z)$ in the definition
of $f(z)$ in (\ref{ub'.53}), without affecting the validity of
(\ref{ub'.54}).
Before that we will discuss some harmonic majorants of
$\Re\mathrm{I}(z)$. Recall that if $\Omega \Subset {\bf C} $ has
piecewise smooth boundary and if $G=G_\Omega $, $K=K_\Omega $ are the
corresponding Dirichlet and Poisson kernels for the Dirichlet problem
for the Laplacien, then by Green's formula, we have
$$K(x,y)=\partial _{\nu _y}G(x,y),$$
where $\nu $ is the exterior unit normal. This still holds when
$\Omega =\Omega _r$ is the infinite strip $\{ x\in {\bf C};\, |\Im
x|<r\}$ and we consider the solutions to the Dirichlet problem that
are bounded when the data are bounded. In the case $\Omega =\Omega _1$
we have (see for instance \cite{Sj09}) that $G(x,y)$ is of class
$C^\infty (\overline{\Omega }\times \overline{\Omega })$ away from the
diagonal and there exists $C_0>0$ such that for every $r>0$ and all
$\alpha ,\beta \in {\bf N}$, there exists a constant $C=C_{\alpha
,\beta ,r}$ such that \ekv{ub'.55} { |\nabla _x^\alpha \nabla
_y^\beta G(x,y)|\le C \exp -\frac{1}{C_0}|\Re x-\Re y|,\hbox{ when
}|x-y|>r>0. } Moreover, \ekv{ub'.56}
{\begin{split}G_{r\Omega }(x,y)&=G_\Omega (\frac{x}{r},\frac{y}{r})\\
K_{r\Omega }(x,y)&=\frac{1}{r}K_\Omega (\frac{x}{r},\frac{y}{r}).
\end{split}}
\par Consider first the function $\ln |x|$ on $\Omega _r$ and its
smallest harmonic majorant there, given by
$$
\Delta h_r=0,\quad {{h _r}_\vert}_{\partial \Omega _r}=\ln |x|.
$$
Then, $\psi _r:=h_r-\ln |x|\ge 0$ is equal to $-2\pi G_{\Omega
_r}(x,0)$ and we are interested in
$$
f_r:=-\partial _{\nu} \psi _r=2\pi \partial _\nu G_{\Omega
_r}(x,0)=2\pi K_{\Omega _r}(0,x)=\frac{2\pi }{r}K_{\Omega _1
}(0,\frac{x}{r})=\frac{1}{r}f_1(\frac{x}{r}),
$$
which is a non-negative function defined on the boundary and satisfies
\ekv{ub'.57}
{
\partial _x^\alpha f_r={\cal O}_\alpha (1)r^{-1-|\alpha
|}e^{-\frac{1}{C_0r}|\Re x|}.
}
Also,
\ekv{ub'.58}
{
\int_{\partial \Omega _r}f_r|dx|=2\pi ,\ f_r(\overline{x})=f_r(x).
}
The smallest harmonic majorant in $\Omega _r$ of
\ekv{ub'.59}
{
\phi _\mathrm{in}:=\Re \mathrm{I}(x)=\sum \chi (\lambda
_j)\ln |z-\lambda _j|
}
is
\ekv{ub'.60}
{
h_{r,\mathrm{in}}(x)=\sum \chi (\lambda _j)h_r (x-\lambda
_j).
}
The function
\ekv{ub'.61}
{
\Phi _r=\begin{cases}\phi _\mathrm{in}\hbox{ outside }\Omega _r\\
h_\mathrm{in} \hbox{ in }\Omega _r
\end{cases}
} is subharmonic, $\Delta \Phi _r$ is supported in $\partial \Omega
_r$ and equal to \ekv{ub'.62} { \sum \chi (\lambda _j)(f_r(x-\lambda
_j)\delta (\Im x-r)+f_r(x-\lambda _j)\delta (\Im x+r)). } If
$\frac{1}{2}\le a<b\le 2$, we get with \ekv{ub'.63} {
g_r(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi
}(f_r(t+ir)+f_r(t-ir))=:\frac{1}{r}g_1(\frac{t}{r})\ge 0, } that
\ekv{ub'.64} { \int_{a\le \Re x \le b}\Delta \Phi _r(x)L(dx)=2\pi
\int_a^b g_r*(\chi dN)(t)dt. } Notice that
$g_r(t)=\frac{1}{r}g_1(\frac{t}{r})$ is an approximation of $\delta $
and we will use (\ref{ub'.64}) with $r=h^{2/3}c$.
\par Returning to (\ref{ub'.53}), (\ref{ub'.54}), we see that the
zeros of $f$ in the rectangle (\ref{ub.1}) will not change if we
replace $\det {\cal P}_\mathrm{in}$ in (\ref{ub'.53}) by $\exp
\mathrm{I}(z)$, so we now redefine $f$ to be \ekv{ub'.65} {
f(z)=e^{\mathrm{I}(z)} \det \widehat{B}(z), } and notice that
(\ref{ub'.54}) still holds because of (\ref{ub.21}). Moreover,
\ekv{ub'.66}
{
\ln |f(z)|=\phi _\mathrm{in}(z)+\ln |\det \widehat{B}(z)|,
}
and (\ref{ub'.54}) tells us that
\ekv{ub'.67}{\ln |f(z)|\le {\cal O}(h^{-N})}
in the whole rectangle, while (\ref{ub'.52}) shows that
\ekv{ub'.68}
{
\ln |f(z)|\le \phi _\mathrm{in}(z)+{\cal O}(h^{1-n}),
}
in the part of the rectangle where $|\Im z|\ge h^{2/3}c$.
\par Clearly, the whole discussion so far remains valid if we enlarge
the rectangle (\ref{ub.1}) by replacing $1/2$ by a slightly smaller
constant and the bound $2$ by a slightly larger constant. We can find
$\alpha$, $\beta $ with $\frac{1}{2}-\alpha \asymp 1/{\cal O}(1)$,
$\beta -2\asymp 1/{\cal O}(1)$ such that $\phi _\mathrm{in}\ge -{\cal
O}(h^{-N})$ for $\Re z=\alpha ,\beta $, and (\ref{ub'.54}) tells us
that \ekv{ub'.69} { \ln |f(z)|\le h_r(z)+{\cal O}(h^{-N}), } on the
same vertical segments, while (\ref{ub'.68}) tells us that
\ekv{ub'.70} { \ln |f(z)|\le h_r(z)+{\cal O}(h^{1-n}) } on the
horizontal parts of the boundary of $[\alpha ,\beta ]+ir[-1,1]$. By
the maximum principle, we get in the latter rectangle
$$
\ln |f(z)|\le \widetilde{h}(z)+{\cal O}(h^{1-n}),
$$
where $\widetilde{h}$ is the harmonic function on $[\alpha ,\beta
]+ir[-1,1]$ which is equal to a constant= ${\cal O}(h^{-N})$ on the
vertical parts of the boundary and equal to $h_r(z)$ on the horizontal
parts. Using that $r$ is of the order of $h^{2/3}$ together with
simple estimates on the Poisson kernel in thin rectangles (see
\cite{Sj09}), we see that
$$
\widetilde{h}(z)\le {\cal O}(1)h^{-N}\exp (-\frac{1}{{\cal
O}(1)r})+h_r(z)
\le h_r(z)+{\cal O}(h^{1-n})
$$
on $[\frac{1}{2},2]+ir[-1,1]$ and we get the estimate
$$
\ln |f(z)|\le h_r(z)+{\cal O}(h^{1-n})
$$
on the latter rectangle, leading to
\ekv{ub'.71}
{
\ln |f(z)|\le \Phi _r(z)+{\cal O}(h^{1-n}) \hbox{ in the rectangle (\ref{ub.1}).}
}
This estimate together with (\ref{ub'.64}) form the main conclusion of
this section.
\section{Some estimates for $P_\mathrm{out}$}\label{out}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\par In this and the next two sections we shall construct a
suitable perturbation $W$ as in Theorem \ref{re1} such that we get a
lower bound for $f(z)$ in (\ref{ub'.53}) that matches
(\ref{ub'.71}). Here $z$ is any given point in the set (\ref{ub'.10.5})
and the perturbation will depend on that point. As we shall see, this
amounts to getting a good bound on the smallest singular value on
$\widehat{B}$ (cf (\ref{ub'.48})) or equivalently on that of ${\cal
P}_\mathrm{out}$, or of ${\cal N}_\mathrm{in}(z)-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{out}(z)$.
\par For $\mu >0$, let $E(\mu )\subset L^2({\cal O})$ be the spectral
subspace associated to all eigenvalues $<\mu ^2$ of
$P_\mathrm{out}(z)^*P_\mathrm{out}(z)$. We shall show that if $\mu
$ is small enough (to be specified below) and $u\in E(\mu )$, then
$\Vert u\Vert_{L^2({\cal O}_h\setminus {\cal O}_{2h})}$ cannot be too
small. Here we define
$$
{\cal O}_c=\{x\in {\cal O};\, \mathrm{dist\,}(x,\partial {\cal O})>c \},
$$
when $c\ge 0$.
\par If $u\in E(\mu )$, we have $u=\sum_1^N u_je_j$,
where $e_1,...,e_N$ is an orthonormal basis of eigenfunctions in
$E(\mu )$, $P_\mathrm{out}(z)^*P_\mathrm{out}(z)e_j=t_j^2e_j$, $0\le
t_j<\mu $, and
$$
\Vert
P_\mathrm{out}(z)u\Vert^2=(P_\mathrm{out}(z)^*P_\mathrm{out}(z)u|u)=\sum_1^N|u_j|^2t_j^2\le
\mu ^2\sum |u_j|^2=\mu ^2\Vert u\Vert^2,
$$
where all norms are in $L^2$ if nothing else is specified. Thus,
if $u\in E(\mu )$, and $\Vert u\Vert =1$,
\ekv{lob.9}
{
P_\mathrm{out}(z)u=v,\ \Vert v\Vert <\mu .
}
By standard elliptic estimates combined with the dilation
$x=hy$, $hD_{x_j}=D_{y_j}$, we have
\ekv{lob.10}
{\begin{split}
\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^2({\cal O}_{(1+\theta )h}\setminus {\cal O}_{2h/(1+\theta
)})}\le & C_\theta (\Vert v\Vert +\Vert u\Vert_{L^2({\cal O}_h\setminus {\cal
O}_{2h})})\\&\le C_\theta (\mu +\Vert u\Vert_{L^2({\cal O}_h\setminus {\cal O}_{2h})}),\end{split}
}
for every fixed $\theta $ with $0<\theta \ll 1$.
Let $\chi \in C_0^\infty ({\cal O}_{(1+\theta )h};[0,1])$ be equal to
1 on ${\cal O}_{3h/2}$ and satisfy $\partial ^\alpha \chi ={\cal
O}(h^{-|\alpha |})$, $\alpha \in {\bf N}^n$. Let $\Gamma =\Gamma _f$
be a Lipschitz contour as in and around (\ref{dcs.21}) with $\theta
=\pi /3$. Let $P_\mathrm{ext}$ be the
Dirichlet realization of $P$ on $\Gamma \setminus {\cal O}_{2h}$. Then
\ekv{lob.11}
{
(P_\mathrm{ext}-z)(1-\chi )u=(1-\chi )v-[P,\chi ]u,
}
where we let $u$ also denote the outgoing extension of $u$ which is
welldefined since $u\in {\cal D}(P_\mathrm{out}(z))$ and where $v$ also
denotes the 0 extension. Similarly,
\ekv{lob.12}
{
(P_\mathrm{in}-z)\chi u=\chi v+[P,\chi ]u.
}
\par If $V$ vanishes outside ${\cal O}_{2h}$, we know from Section
\ref{aed} (with ${\cal O}$ there replaced by ${\cal O}_{2h}$) that $\Vert (P_\mathrm{ext}-z)^{-1}\Vert_{{\cal
L}(L^2,L^2)}={\cal O}(h^{-2/3})$. More generally, we shall assume
that
\ekv{lob.12.5}
{
\Vert V\Vert_{L^\infty ({\cal O}\setminus {\cal O}_{2h}})\ll h^{2/3},
}
and we notice that this holds for $V=V_0+\delta \Theta q_\omega $ in
Theorem \ref{re1} if $\alpha $ is large enough.
Then by a simple perturbation argument, the preceding estimate on the
exterior resolvent remains valid
and we get from (\ref{lob.10}),
(\ref{lob.11}),
\ekv{lob.13}
{
h^{\frac{2}{3}}\Vert (1-\chi )u\Vert_{L^2({\cal O})}\le {\cal
O}(1)(\mu +\Vert u\Vert_{L^2({\cal O}_h\setminus {\cal O}_{2h})}).
}
Similarly, by using that $\Vert (P_\mathrm{in}-z)^{-1}\Vert_{{\cal
L}(L^2,L^2)}={\cal O}(h^{-2/3})$, we get
\ekv{lob.14}
{
h^{\frac{2}{3}}\Vert \chi u\Vert_{L^2({\cal O})}\le {\cal
O}(1)(\mu +\Vert u\Vert_{L^2({\cal O}_h\setminus {\cal O}_{2h})}).
}
Combining the two estimates and recalling that $\Vert u\Vert=1$, we
get
\ekv{lob.15}
{
h^{\frac{2}{3}}\le {\cal O}(1)(\mu +\Vert u\Vert_{L^2({\cal
O}_h\setminus {\cal O}_{2h})}),
}
and if $\mu \ll h^{2/3}$,
\ekv{lob.16}
{
\Vert u\Vert_{L^2({\cal
O}_h\setminus {\cal O}_{2h})}\ge \frac{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}{{\cal O}(1)},
}
for all $u\in E(\mu )$ with $\Vert u\Vert_{L^2({\cal O})}=1$.
Next we make a remark about the $H^s$ regularity of of
elements in $E(\mu )$. Assume that for some fixed $s>\frac{n}{2}$, we
have $V=V_1+V_2$
\ekv{lob.17}
{
\Vert V_1\Vert_{H^s_1}+h^{-\frac{n}{2}}\Vert V_2\Vert_{H^s_h}\le {\cal O}(1).
}
When $V=V_0+W=V_0+\delta \Theta q_\omega $ is a potential as in
Theorem \ref{re1}, we take $V_1=V_0$, $V_2=W$ and get (\ref{lob.17}),
provided $\alpha (n,v_0,s,\epsilon ,\theta ,M,\widetilde{M})$ in
(\ref{re.8}) is large enough (cf Remark \ref{sv1}).
So far we have systematically used the semi-classical Sobolev spaces
$H^s=H^s_h$ but in (\ref{lob.17}) we also use the standard Sobolev
space $H^s=H^s_1$ (with $h=1$). Following standard conventions, we let
$$H_\cdot ^\sigma ({\cal O})={{H^\sigma _\cdot }({\bf R}^n)_\vert}_{{\cal O}},$$
$$
H_\cdot ^\sigma (\overline{{\cal O}})=\{ u\in H^\sigma _\cdot ({\bf
R}^n);\, \mathrm{supp\,}u\subset \overline{{\cal O}}\}.
$$
\par If $u=\sum_1^N u_je_j\in E(\mu )$, we have
$(P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku=\sum_1^Nt_j^{2k}u_je_j $, so
\ekv{lob.19}
{
\Vert (P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku\Vert \le \mu ^{2k}\Vert u\Vert,\ k\in
{\bf N}.
}
We will assume that $\mu ={\cal O}(1)$ and limit the attention to $k$
in a bounded interval, so the right hand side of (\ref{lob.19}) will
be ${\cal O}(\Vert u\Vert )$.
We study apriori estimates
in the interior. Let $\Omega _2\subset \Omega _1\subset {\cal O}$ be
open with $\mathrm{dist\,}(\Omega _2,\complement \Omega _1)\ge
h/C$. If $P_\mathrm{out}u=v$,\ \ $u,v\in H^\sigma _h(\Omega _1)$, $0\le
\sigma \le s$, we can write $-h^2\Delta u=v+(z-V)u=:w$, where
$$
\Vert w\Vert_{H^\sigma _h(\Omega _1)}\le {\cal O}(1)(\Vert
v\Vert_{H_h^\sigma (\Omega _1)}+\Vert u\Vert _{H_h^\sigma (\Omega _1)})
$$
and standard apriori estimates for $-\Delta $ (after the dilation
$x=hy$) give
\ekv{lob.20}
{
\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^{\sigma +2}(\Omega _2)}\le {\cal O}(1)(\Vert
v\Vert_{H_h^\sigma (\Omega _1)}+\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^\sigma (\Omega _1)}).
}
If $s<\sigma <s+2$, we only get
\ekv{lob.21}
{
\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^{s+2}(\Omega _2)}\le {\cal O}(1)(\Vert
v\Vert_{H_h^\sigma (\Omega _1)}+\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^\sigma (\Omega _1)}).
}
The same apriori estimate holds for $P_\mathrm{out}^*$.
We shall now use these estimates to study elements of $E(\mu )$ and
first assume for simplicity that (\ref{lob.17}) holds for all
$s>0$. From the fact that $(P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku={\cal
O}_k(1)\Vert u\Vert$ in $H^0({\cal O})$ for all $k\in{\bf N}$ we first infer by
integration by parts, that $P_\mathrm{out}(P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^{k-1}u={\cal O}(1)$ in $H^0({\cal
O})$. Using the apriori estimate for $P_\mathrm{out}^*$, we get
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
&\Vert P_\mathrm{out}(P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^{k-1}u\Vert_{H^2({\cal O}_{h/C})}\le \\
&{\cal O}(1)(\Vert (P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku\Vert_{H^0({\cal O})}+\Vert
P_\mathrm{out}(P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^{k-1}u\Vert_{H^0({\cal O})})\le {\cal O}(1),
\end{split}\end{equation*}
and using the one for $P_\mathrm{out}$, we get
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
&\Vert (P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^{k-1}u\Vert_{H^2({\cal O}_{h/C})}\le \\
&{\cal O}(1)(\Vert P_\mathrm{out}(P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku\Vert_{H^0({\cal O})}+\Vert
(P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^{k-1}u\Vert_{H^0({\cal O})})\le {\cal O}(1).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Thus for all $k\in {\bf N}$,
$$
\Vert (P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku\Vert_{H^2({\cal O}_{h/C})}+\Vert
P_\mathrm{out}(P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku\Vert_{H^2({\cal O}_{h/C})}
\le {\cal O}(1).
$$
Here we use again the apriori estimates for $P_\mathrm{out}^*$ and
$P_\mathrm{out}$ and get that for every $k\in {\bf N}$,
$$
\Vert (P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku\Vert_{H^4({\cal O}_{2h/C})}+\Vert P_\mathrm{out}(P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku\Vert_{H^4({\cal O}_{2h/C})}\le {\cal O}(1).
$$
Iterating this argument, we get for every $j\in {\bf N}$ that for
every $k\in {\bf N}$,
$$
\Vert (P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku\Vert_{H^{2j}({\cal O}_{2jh/C})}+\Vert
P_\mathrm{out}(P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku\Vert_{H^{2j}({\cal O}_{2jh/C})}\le {\cal O}(1).
$$
\par Now if we make the assumption (\ref{lob.17}) for a fixed
$s>n/2$, we see that the above iteration works
as long as $2j\le s+2$, then if this last $j$ is strictly less than
$(s+2)/2$, we can make one more iteration and reach the degree of regularity
$s+2$. Hence the final conclusion is that if $\mu ={\cal O}(1)$ and we
assume (\ref{lob.17}) for a fixed $s>n/2$, then for every $C>0$,
we have \ekv{lob.22} {\Vert
(P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku\Vert_{H^{s+2}({\cal
O}_{h/C})}+\Vert
P_\mathrm{out}(P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out})^ku\Vert_{H^{s+2}({\cal
O}_{h/C})}\le {\cal O}(1).}
We end this section with some estimates relating the small singular
values of $P_\mathrm{out}(z)$ to those of ${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}$ and
when $z$ belongs to the set (\ref{ub'.10.5}), to those of ${\cal
N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{out}$ and of
$\widehat{B}(z)=1+\widehat{C}(z)$ in (\ref{ub'.36}) and
(\ref{ub'.38}).
\par Recall that ${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$ is bijective precisely
when $P_\mathrm{out}(z)$ is, and when so is the case it easy to check
that
\ekv{out.1}
{
{\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}P_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1} &(1-P_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1}(P-z))h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{K}\end{pmatrix},
}
where we recall that $\widehat{K}={\cal O}(h^{1/2}):H^{1/2}\to H^2$ is
a right inverse of $B$.
Recall that when $A:{\cal H}_1\to {\cal H}_2$ is a bounded operator
between two Hilbert spaces, then the singular values $s_1(A)\ge
s_2(A)\ge ...$ are defined by the fact that $s_j(A)^2$ is the
decreasing sequence formed first by all discrete eigenvalues of $A^*A$
above the essential spectrum and then (when ${\cal H}_1$ is infinite
dimensional only) by an infinite repetition of $\sup \sigma
_\mathrm{ess}(A^*A)$. It is well known and easy to see that the
non vanishing singular values of $A$ and of $A^*$ are the same.
We have the Ky Fan inequalities
\ekv{out.2}
{
\begin{split}
&s_{n+k-1}(A+B)\le s_n(A)+s_k(B),\\
&s_{n+k-1}(BA)\le s_n(A)s_k(B),
\end{split}
}
in the cases when $B:$ ${\cal H}_1\to {\cal H}_2$ and ${\cal H}_2\to {\cal H}_3$
respectively.
\par Applying this to (\ref{out.1}), we get
\ekv{out.3}
{
s_j({\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1})\ge s_j(
P_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1}).}
If $\Pi _1:\, H^0\times H^{1/2}\to H^0$, $\Pi _2:\, H^0\times
H^{1/2}\to H^{1/2}$ are the natural projections (of norm 1), we can
rewrite (\ref{out.1}) as
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}{\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1}&=P_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1}\Pi
_1+(1-P_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1}(P-z))h^{-1/2}\widehat{K}\Pi _2\\
&=P_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1}(\Pi _1-(P-z)h^{-1/2}\widehat{K}\Pi _2)+h^{-1/2}\widehat{K}\Pi _2,\end{split}
\end{equation*}
which leads to
\ekv{out.4}
{
s_j({\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1})\le {\cal O}(1)(1+s_j(P_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1}))
}
\par We now restrict $z$ to (\ref{ub'.10.5}) and consider
(\ref{red.6}) which can be written
\ekv{out.5}
{
{\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1}={\cal
P}_\mathrm{in}(z)^{-1}\begin{pmatrix}
1 &0\\ 0 &({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext})^{-1}
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 &0\\ -h^{\frac{1}{2}}BG_\mathrm{in} &1\end{pmatrix}
}
and also
\ekv{out.6}
{
\begin{pmatrix}1 &0\\ 0 &({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext})^{-1}\end{pmatrix}={\cal P}_\mathrm{in}(z){\cal
P}_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1}\begin{pmatrix}1 &0\\
h^{\frac{1}{2}}BG_\mathrm{in} &1\end{pmatrix}.
}
Here the operator norms of ${\cal P}_\mathrm{in}^{-1}$ and
$h^{1/2}BG_\mathrm{in}$ are ${\cal O}(h^{-2/3})$. From (\ref{out.5})
we get
\ekv{out.7}
{
s_j({\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1})\le {\cal
O}(h^{-\frac{4}{3}})(1+s_j(({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext})^{-1})),
}
while
(\ref{out.6}) leads to
\ekv{out.8}
{
s_j(({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext})^{-1})\le {\cal O}(h^{-\frac{2}{3}})s_j({\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)^{-1}).
}
\par Finally, from (\ref{ub'.36}), (\ref{ub'.38}) and the uniform
boundedness of $\widehat{A}(z)$ and its inverse, we get
\ekv{out.9}
{
s_j(({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal N}_\mathrm{ext})^{-1})\asymp s_j(\widehat{B}(z)^{-1})=s_j((1+\widehat{C}(z))^{-1}).
}
\par When $A:{\cal H}_1\to {\cal H}_2$ is a Fredholm operator of index 0,
we let $t_1^2\le t_2^2\le ...$ with $t_j\ge 0$ describe the lower part
of the spectrum of $A^*A$ in analogy with $s_j^2$. Again
$t_j(A)=t_j(A^*)$ and when $A$ is bijective we have
$t_j(A)=1/s_j(A^{-1})$.
\par Let $N$ be the number of singular values $0\le t_1\le ...\le t_N$
of $1+\widehat{C}(z)$ that are $\le 1/2$. If $e_1, ...,e_N$ is a
corresponding orthonormal family of eigenfunctions of
$(1+\widehat{C}(z))^*(1+\widehat{C}(z))$, then $\Vert
(1+\widehat{C}(z))u\Vert \le \frac{1}{2}\Vert u\Vert$ and consequently
$\Vert \widehat{C}(z)u\Vert \ge \frac{1}{2}\Vert u\Vert$, for all $u\in
{\bf C}e_1\oplus ...\oplus {\bf C}e_N$. By the mini-max
characterization of singular values, we get $s_N(\widehat{C}(z))\ge
1/2$ and using that the trace class norm of $\widehat{C}(z)$ is ${\cal
O}(h^{1-n})$, we conclude that $N={\cal O}(h^{1-n})$. Combining this
with (\ref{out.9}), (\ref{out.7}), (\ref{out.3}), we see that there
exists a constant $C>0$ such that
\ekv{out.11}
{
t_j(P_\mathrm{out}(z))\ge h^{\frac{4}{3}}/C,\hbox{ for
}j\ge Ch^{1-n}.
}
\section{Perturbation matrices and their singular values}\label{sv}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We shall use a general estimate from \cite{Sj08a}. Let $e_1,...,e_N\in
C^0(\Omega )\cap L^2(\Omega )$, where $\Omega \subset {\bf R}^n$ is
open. Let ${\cal E}_\Omega =((e_j|e_k)_{L^2(\Omega )})_{1\le j,k\le
N}$ be the corresponding Gramian and let $0\le \epsilon _1\le ...\le
\epsilon _N$ be its eigenvalues. Then (see \cite{Sj08a}, Proposition 5.5) $\exists a_1,...,a_N\in \Omega $
such that the singular values $s_1\ge ...\ge s_N\ge 0$ of the $N\times
N$ matrix
$M=M_{\delta _a}$, given by $$M_{j,k}=\sum_{\nu =1}^N e_j(a_\nu )e_k(a_\nu )
=\int \delta _a(x)e_j(x)e_k(x),$$ satisfy the estimates,
$$s_1\ge \frac{(E_1\cdot ..\cdot
E_N)^{\frac{1}{N}}}{\mathrm{vol\,}(\Omega )},$$
$$
s_k\ge s_1\left(\prod_1^N \left( \frac{E_j}{s_1\mathrm{vol\,}(\Omega )} \right) \right)^{\frac{1}{N-k+1}}.
$$
Here $E_j=\epsilon _1+...+\epsilon _{N+1-j}$, and we write $\delta
_a=\sum \delta (\cdot -a_\nu )$.
\par Let $\widehat{e} _1,...,\widehat{e}_N$ be an orthonormal
basis in $E(\mu )$, $\mu \ll h^{2/3}$, and choose $\Omega ={\cal O}_h\setminus {\cal
O}_{2h}$, $e_j={{\widehat{e}_j}\vert}_{\Omega }$. Define ${\cal
E}_\Omega $ as above and let $a_1,...,a_N\in \Omega $ be a
corresponding set of points. The eigenvalues
$\epsilon _j$ and the singular values $s_j=s_j(M_{\delta _a})$ remain
unchanged if we replace $\widehat{e}_1,...,\widehat{e}_j$ by another
orthonormal basis in $E(\mu )$.
\par Applying (\ref{lob.16}) to $u=\sum u_j\widehat{e}_j$, when
$\overrightarrow{u}:=(u_1,...,u_N)^\mathrm{t}$ is normalized in $\ell
^2$, we see that ${\cal E}_\Omega
(\overrightarrow{u}|\overrightarrow{u})\ge h^{4/3}/{\cal O}(1)$, so
$E_j\ge (N-j+1)h^{4/3}/{\cal O}(1)$. Thus, for a suitable choice of
$a_1,...,a_N\in \Omega $, we get after a simple calculation:
\ekv{sv.1}{s_1\ge \frac{(N!)^{\frac{1}{N}}}{h{\cal O}(1)}h^{\frac{4}{3}},}
\ekv{sv.2}{
s_k\ge s_1^{-\frac{k-1}{N-k+1}}h^{\frac{1}{3}\frac{N}{N-k+1}}(N!)^{\frac{1}{N-k+1}}C^{-\frac{N}{N-k+1}}.
}
\par We will also need an upper bound on $s_1=s_1(M_{\delta _a})$.
Let $s>n/2$ and adopt the assumption (\ref{lob.17}). If
$\overrightarrow{u}=(u_1,..,u_N)^{\mathrm{t}}$,
$\overrightarrow{v}=(v_1,..,v_N)^{\mathrm{t}}$ are normalized,
(\ref{lob.22}) with $k=0$ implies that $\Vert u\Vert_{H_h^s({\cal
O}_{h/C})}$, $\Vert v\Vert_{H_h^s({\cal O}_{h/C})}$ are ${\cal
O}(1)$ when $u=\sum u_j\widehat{e}_j$, $v=\sum v_j\widehat{e}_j$ and
also from Proposition \ref{al1} that $uv={\cal O}(h^{-n/2})$ in
$H^s_h({\cal O})$. Furthermore, we know from \cite{Sj08a} that
$\|\delta _a\|_{H_h^{-s}(\overline{{\cal O}}_{h/C})}={\cal
O}(Nh^{-n/2})$. Hence,
\begin{equation*}
\langle M_{\delta _a}u,v\rangle=\int \delta _auvdx=
{\cal O}(1)\Vert \delta _a\Vert_{H_h^{-s}(\overline{{\cal O}}_{h/C})}\Vert
uv\Vert_{H_h^s({\cal O}_{h/C})}\le {\cal O}(1)Nh^{-n},
\end{equation*}
and varying $u,v$ we conclude that
\ekv{sv.3}
{
s_1(M_{\delta _a})=\|M_{\delta _a}\| \le {\cal O}(1)Nh^{-n}.
}
Using this in (\ref{sv.2}) gives
\ekv{sv.4}
{
s_k(M_{\delta _a})\ge C^{-\frac{N+k-1}{N-k+1}}e^{-\frac{N}{N-k+1}}Nh^{\frac{\frac{N}{3}+n(k-1)}{N-k+1}}.
}
If we restrict $k$ to the range $1\le k\le \theta N$ for some
$0<\theta <1$, we get
\ekv{sv.5}
{
s_k(M_{\delta _a})\ge C^{-\frac{1+\theta }{1-\theta
}}e^{-\frac{1}{1-\theta }}Nh^{\frac{\frac{1}{3}+n\theta }{1-\theta }}.
}
\par Recall the form of the perturbed operator in (\ref{re.3}),
(\ref{re.4}), (\ref{re.5}), where
$\Theta \in C^\infty (\overline{{\cal O}})$
is also described. Clearly,
$\Theta \asymp \widetilde{\Theta }(h):=h^{v_0}$ in ${\cal O}_h\setminus {\cal
O}_{2h}$. The potential
$\delta _a/\Theta $ satisfies
\ekv{sv.6}
{
\Vert \Theta ^{-1}\delta _a\Vert_{H_h^{-s}(\overline{{\cal O}})}\le
{\cal O}(1)\frac{N}{\widetilde{\Theta }(h)h^{\frac{n}{2}}}.
}
As in \cite{Sj08a}, (6.15)--(6.18), we get the decomposition
\ekv{sv.7}{\Theta ^{-1}\delta _a=q+r,\ q=\sum_{\mu _k\le L}\alpha
_k\epsilon _k,}
where
\ekv{sv.8}{
\Vert q\Vert_{H^{-s}_h({\cal O})}\le \frac{CN}{\widetilde{\Theta }(h)h^{n/2}},
}
\ekv{sv.9}
{
\Vert r\Vert_{H_h^{-s}({\cal O})}\le {\cal O}(1)L^{-(s-\frac{n}{2}-\epsilon )}
\frac{N}{\widetilde{\Theta }(h)h^{n/2}},
}
\ekv{sv.10}
{
\Vert \alpha \Vert_{\ell^2}\le C\frac{L^{\frac{n}{2}+\epsilon
}N}{\widetilde{\Theta }(h)h^{n/2}}.
}
We also denote by $\Theta $ the zero extension of $\Theta $ to all of ${\bf
R}^n$. Under the assumption (\ref{re.4}), we have for $|\alpha |=v_0+1$,
\ekv{sv.11}
{
D^\alpha \Theta =f_\alpha +g_\alpha ,
}
where $f_\alpha \in C^\infty (\overline{{\cal O}})1_{{\cal O}} $ and
$g_{\alpha }$ is a smooth boundary layer ($\in C^\infty (\partial
{\cal O})\otimes \delta (\omega (x))$ where $\omega \in C^\infty ({\bf
R}^n;{\bf R})$, $\omega ^{-1}(0)=\partial {\cal O}$, $d\omega \ne 0$
on $\partial {\cal O}$). Using the strict convexity and stationary
phase, we see that $\widehat{g}_\alpha (\xi )={\cal O}(\langle \xi
\rangle ^{-(n-1)/2})$ and by integration by parts, it follows that
$$
\widehat{\Theta }(\xi )={\cal O}(1)\langle \xi \rangle ^{-v_0-1-(n-1)/2}.
$$
Here the hat indicates the ordinary ($h$-independent) Fourier
transform. In the following, we shall
assume that
\ekv{sv.12}
{
\frac{n}{2}<s<v_0+\frac{1}{2},
}
and then
\ekv{sv.13}
{
\Theta \in H_1^s(\overline{{\cal O}}).
}
From \cite{Sj08b}, we recall that if $s>n/2$, $u\in H^s({\bf R}^n)$,
$v\in H^\sigma ({\bf R}^n)$ for some $\sigma \in [-s,s]$,
then $uv\in H^\sigma ({\bf R}^n)$ and we have
$$
\Vert uv\Vert_{H_h^\sigma }\le {\cal O}(1)\Vert u\Vert_{H^s_1}\Vert
v\Vert_{H^\sigma _h}.
$$
From (\ref{sv.7})--(\ref{sv.9}), we now deduce that
\ekv{sv.14}
{
\delta _a=\Theta q+\widetilde{r},\quad \widetilde{r}=\Theta r,
}
where
\ekv{sv.15}
{
\Vert \widetilde{r}\Vert_{H_h^{-s}(\overline{{\cal O}})}
\le {\cal O}(1)L^{-(s-\frac{n}{2}-\epsilon
)}\frac{N}{\widetilde{\Theta }(h)h^{n/2}},
}
\ekv{sv.16}
{
\Vert \Theta q\Vert_{H_h^{-s}(\overline{{\cal O}})}\le
\frac{CN}{\widetilde{\Theta }(h)h^{n/2}}.
}
We also need to control the $H^s_h({\cal O})$-norm of $\Theta
q$. Recall from \cite{Sj08a, Sj08b} that
$$
\Vert q\Vert_{H^s_h({\cal O})}^2\le {\cal O}(1)\sum_{\mu _k\le
L}|\alpha _k|^2\langle \mu _k\rangle^{2s}\le {\cal O}(1)L^{2s}\Vert
\alpha \Vert_{\ell^2}^2,
$$
so
\ekv{sv.17}{
\Vert \Theta q\Vert_{H_h^s({\cal O})}\le {\cal O}(1)\Vert
q\Vert_{H_h^s({\cal O})}\le {\cal O}(1)L^{\frac{n}{2}+s+\epsilon
}\frac{N}{\widetilde{\Theta }(h)h^{n/2}},
}
and in particular,
\ekv{sv.18}{
\Vert \Theta q\Vert_{L^\infty ({\cal O})}\le {\cal O}(h^{-\frac{n}{2}})
\Vert \Theta q\Vert_{H_h^s({\cal O})}
\le {\cal O}(1)L^{\frac{n}{2}+s+\epsilon
}\frac{N}{\widetilde{\Theta }(h)h^{n}}.
}
\par From (\ref{sv.15}) we deduce (as above for $M_{\delta _a}$) that
\ekv{sv.19} { \Vert M_{\widetilde{r}}\Vert \le {\cal O}(1)\Vert
\widetilde{r}\Vert_{H^{-s}_h(\overline{{\cal
O}})}h^{-\frac{n}{2}}\le {\cal
O}(1)L^{-(s-\frac{n}{2}-\epsilon )}\frac{N}{\widetilde{\Theta
}(h)h^n}, }
and returning to the decomposition (\ref{sv.14}) and the lower bound
(\ref{sv.5}), we get for $1\le k\le \theta N$, $0<\theta <1$:
\ekv{sv.20}
{
s_k(M_{\Theta q})\ge C^{-\frac{1+\theta }{1-\theta
}}e^{-\frac{1}{1-\theta }}Nh^{\frac{\frac{1}{3}+n\theta }{1-\theta
}}
-{\cal O}(1)\frac{N}{L^{s-\frac{n}{2}-\epsilon }\widetilde{\Theta }(h)h^n}.
}
The lower bounds on $L$ will imply that the first term to the right
dominates over the second.\\
\begin{remark}\label{sv1}
{\rm For a general perturbation $W=\delta \Theta q_\omega $ as in Theorem
\ref{re1}, the discussion above shows that
\ekv{sv.21}
{
\Vert W\Vert _{H_h^{\widetilde{s}}({\bf R}^n)}
\le {\cal O}(\delta )L^{\widetilde{s}}\Vert \alpha \Vert_{\ell^2}
\le {\cal O}(\delta )L^{\widetilde{s}}R,
}
provided that $\frac{n}{2}<\widetilde{s}<v_0+\frac{1}{2}$.}
\end{remark}
\section{End of the construction}\label{eco}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
To start with we choose $z$ in the full rectangle (\ref{ub.1}) and
later on we will restrict the attention to $ch^{2/3}<|\Im z|<c_0h^{2/3}$.
We recall that ${\cal P}_\mathrm{out}(z)$ is an elliptic boundary
value problem in the semi-classical sense in the region $|\xi '|\gg
1$. It follows that
\ekv{eco.0}
{
\Vert u\Vert_{H^2}\le {\cal O}(1)(\Vert (P-z)u\Vert +\Vert u\Vert)
}
for $u\in {\cal D}(P_\mathrm{out}(z))$. From this estimate we see that
the small singular values $t_1(P_\mathrm{out}(z))\le
t_2(P_\mathrm{out}(z))\le ... $ are of the same order of magnitude as
the small singular values $\widetilde{t}_j$ in the $L^2$-sense defined as the square
roots of the small eigenvalues of
$P_\mathrm{out}(z)^*P_\mathrm{out}(z)$ where $P_\mathrm{out}(z)^*$ is
the adjoint of $P_\mathrm{out}(z)$ as a closed densely defined
operator: $L^2({\cal O})\to L^2({\cal O})$. This follows from
(\ref{eco.0}) and the mini-max characterizations of $t_j$ and of
$\widetilde{t}_j$. In this section it will be convenient to work with
the $\widetilde{t}_j$ and we shall drop the tildes in order to simplify
the notation.
Recall that $\widetilde{\Theta }(h)= h^{v_0}$. Let $\tau _0\in
]0,h^{4/3}/{\cal O}(1)]$ and let $N$ be determined by \ekv{eco.1}
{0\le t_1(P_\mathrm{out})\le ... \le t_N(P_\mathrm{out})<\tau _0\le
t_{N+1}(P_\mathrm{out}),}
so that $N\le {\cal O}(h^{1-n})$ in view of (\ref{out.11}).
The basic iteration step (cf Proposition
7.2 in \cite{Sj08a}) is
\begin{prop}\label{eco1}
Let $0<\theta <1/2 $ be the parameter in (\ref{re.6}), let
$\widetilde{\theta }\in ]0,\theta [$ and $\kappa >0$. If $N$ is sufficiently large,
depending on
$\theta $, $\widetilde{\theta }$ only, there exists an admissible potential $q$ as in
(\ref{re.5}) with $L=L_\mathrm{min}$ and $R=R_\mathrm{min}$ (as
introduced in and after (\ref{re.6})),
such that if
\ekv{eco.2}
{
P_\delta =P-\delta \Theta q,\ \delta =C^{-1}h^\alpha \tau _0,
}
$C\gg 1$, $\alpha \ge \alpha (n,v_0,s,\epsilon ,\theta
,\widetilde{\theta }, \kappa )$ large enough,
then
\ekv{eco.3}
{
t_\nu (P_{\delta ,\mathrm{out}})\ge t_\nu (P_\mathrm{out})-{\cal O}(1)\delta
Nh^{-(\frac{n}{2}+s+\epsilon )M_\mathrm{min}-v_0-n},\ \nu \ge N+1,
}
\ekv{eco.4}
{
t_\nu (P_{\delta ,\mathrm{out} })\ge \tau _0h^{N_2},\ [(1-\widetilde{\theta}
)N]+1\le \nu \le N.
}
Here we put $N_2=\alpha +(\frac{1}{3}+2n\theta )/(1-2\theta
)+\kappa $ and let $[a]=\max({\bf Z}\cap ]-\infty ,a])$ denote the integer part
of $a$.
\par When $N={\cal O}(1)$ we have the same result provided that we
replace (\ref{eco.4}) by the estimate $t_{N}(P_{\delta ,\mathrm{out}})\ge
\tau _0h^{N_2}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The estimate (\ref{eco.3}) follows from the mini-max characterization
of singular values, which gives
\ekv{eco.4.5}{t_\nu
(P_{\delta ,\mathrm{out}})\ge t_\nu (P_\mathrm{out})-\delta \Vert
\Theta q\Vert_{L^\infty },}
to which we can apply (\ref{sv.18}).
\par
Let $e_1,...,e_N\in L^2({\cal O})$ be an orthonormal family of
eigenfunctions of $P_\mathrm{out}^*P_\mathrm{out}$, corresponding to
the eigenvalues $t_1^2,...,t_N^2$. Using the symmetry of $P_\mathrm{out}$,
established in Proposition \ref{red4} we see as in \cite{Sj08a} that a
corresponding family of eigenfunctions of
$P_\mathrm{out}P_\mathrm{out}^*$ is given by
$$
f_j=\Gamma e_j,
$$
where $\Gamma $ denotes the antilinear operator of complex
conjugation. The $f_j$ form an orthonormal family corresponding to
$$\sigma (P_\mathrm{out}P_\mathrm{out}^*)\cap [0,\tau _0^2[=\{
t_1^2,...,t_N^2\} .$$
Let $E_N=\bigoplus_1^N {\bf C}e_j$, $F_N=\bigoplus_1^N {\bf
C}f_j$. Then $P_\mathrm{out}:E_N\to F_N$ and
$P_\mathrm{out}^*:F_N\to E_N$ have the same singular values
$t_1,...,t_N$. Define $R_+:L^2({\cal O})\to {\bf C}^N$, $R_-:{\bf
C}^N\to L^2({\cal O})$, by
$$
R_+u(j)=(u|e_j),\quad R_-u_-=\sum_1^Nu_-(j)f_j.
$$
Then
\ekv{eco.5}
{
{\cal P}=\begin{pmatrix}P_\mathrm{out} &R_-\\ R_+ & 0\end{pmatrix}:
{\cal D}(P_\mathrm{out})\times {\bf C}^N\to L^2\times {\bf C}^N
}
has the bounded inverse
\ekv{eco.6}
{
{\cal E}=\begin{pmatrix}E &E_+\\ E_- &E_{-+}\end{pmatrix},
}
where
\ekv{eco.7}
{
\begin{split}\Vert E\Vert\le \frac{1}{t_{N+1}}\le \frac{1}{\tau _0},\ \
E_+v_+=\sum_1^N v_+(j)e_j,\ \
E_-v(j)=(v|f_j),
\end{split}
}
and $E_{-+}$ has the singular values $t_j(E_{-+})=t_j(P_\mathrm{out})$
or equivalently, $s_j(E_{-+})=t_{N+1-j}(P_\mathrm{out})$.
\par When $N$ is large, we consider two cases:
\paragraph{Case 1.} $s_j(E_{-+})\ge \tau _0h^{N_2}$ for $1\le j\le
N-[(1-\widetilde{\theta } )N]$. We get the proposition with $q=0$, $P_\delta =P$.
\paragraph{Case 2.} $s_j(E_{-+})< \tau _0h^{N_2}$ for some $j\le
N-[(1-\widetilde{\theta } )N]$. Put $P_\delta =P+\delta \Theta q$ with $q$ as in
Section \ref{sv}.
From (\ref{eco.2}) we deduce that
\ekv{eco.8}
{
\delta \frac{CN}{\widetilde{\Theta }(h)h^n}L^{\frac{n}{2}+s+\epsilon
}\le \frac{\tau _0}{2},
}
and then by (\ref{sv.18}) that $\delta \Vert
\Theta q\Vert_{L^\infty }\le \tau _0/2$.
We can therefore replace $P_\mathrm{out}$ by $P_{\delta ,\mathrm{out}}$ in
(\ref{eco.5}) and still get a bijective operator
$$
{\cal P}_\delta =\begin{pmatrix}P_{\delta ,\mathrm{out}} &R_-\\ R_+ & 0\end{pmatrix}
$$
with the inverse
$$
{\cal E}_\delta =\begin{pmatrix}E^\delta &E_+^\delta \\ E_-^\delta
&E_{-+}^\delta \end{pmatrix}.
$$
As in \cite{Sj08a}, we have
\ekv{eco.9}
{
\begin{split}
E_{-+}^\delta &=E_{-+}+\delta E_-\Theta qE_++\delta ^2E_-\Theta
qE\Theta qE_++...,\\
E^\delta &=E+\sum_1^\infty \delta ^kE(\Theta qE)^k,\\
E_+^\delta &=E_++\sum_1^\infty \delta ^k(E\Theta q)^kE_+,\\
E_-^\delta &= E_-+\sum_1^\infty \delta ^kE_-(\Theta qE)^k.
\end{split}
}
Here $\Vert E_\pm\Vert \le 1$, $\Vert E\Vert\le 1/\tau _0$ and
in view of (\ref{eco.8}), we have $\delta \Vert \Theta
q\Vert_{L^\infty }\le \tau _0/2$, leading to:
\ekv{eco.10}{
\begin{split}
E^\delta &=E+{\cal O}(\frac{1}{\tau _0}\frac{\delta \Vert \Theta
q\Vert_{L^\infty }}{\tau _0}),\\
E_+^\delta &=E_++{\cal O}(\frac{\delta \Vert \Theta
q\Vert_{L^\infty }}{\tau _0}),\\
E_-^\delta &= E_-+{\cal O}(\frac{\delta \Vert \Theta
q\Vert_{L^\infty }}{\tau _0}),\\
E_{-+}^\delta &=E_{-+}+\delta E_-\Theta qE_++{\cal O}(\frac{(\delta
\Vert \Theta q\Vert_{L^\infty })^2}{\tau _0}).\\
\end{split}
}
The leading perturbation in $E_{-+}^\delta $ is $\delta M=\delta
E_-\Theta qE_+$, where $M=M_{\Theta q}:{\bf C}^N\to {\bf C}^N$ has
the matrix
\ekv{eco.11}
{
M_{j,k}=(\Theta qe_k|f_j)=\int \Theta qe_ke_j dx.
}
\par From the Ky Fan inequalities, we get
$$
\delta s_{k+\ell -1} (M_{\Theta q})\le s_k(E_{-+}^\delta )+s_\ell
(E_{-+})+{\cal O}( \frac{(\delta \Vert \Theta q\Vert_{L^\infty
})^2}{\tau _0}),
$$
which we write
\ekv{eco.12}
{
s_k(E_{-+}^\delta )\ge \delta s_{k+\ell -1}(M_{\Theta q})-s_\ell
(E_{-+})-
{\cal O}( \frac{(\delta \Vert \Theta q\Vert_{L^\infty
})^2}{\tau _0}).
}
Let $\ell=N-[(1-\widetilde{\theta } )N]$ so that $s_\ell(E_{-+})<\tau _0h^{N_2}$
and let $k\le N-[(1-\widetilde{\theta })N]$ so that
$$
k+\ell -1 \le 2(N-[(1-\widetilde{\theta } )N])-1\le 2\theta N,
$$
for $N$ large enough.
Here, $2\theta <1$, so we can apply (\ref{sv.20}) with $\theta $ there
replaced by $2\theta $ and get a $q$ as in the proposition such that
\ekv{eco.13}
{
s_{k+\ell-1}(M_{\Theta q})\ge \frac{N}{C(\theta
)}h^{\frac{\frac{1}{3}+2n\theta }{1-2\theta }}-{\cal
O}(1)\frac{N}{L^{s-\frac{n}{2}-\epsilon }\widetilde{\Theta }(h)h^n}.
}
Then (\ref{eco.12}) gives
\ekv{eco.14}
{
s_k(E_{-+}^\delta )\ge \delta N\left(\frac{h^{\frac{\frac{1}{3}+2n\theta
}{1-2\theta }}}{C(\theta )}-\frac{{\cal
O}(1)}{L^{s-\frac{n}{2}-\epsilon }\widetilde{\Theta
}(h)h^n}\right) -\tau
_0h^{N_2}-{\cal O}(\frac{(\delta \Vert \Theta q\Vert_{L^\infty
})^2}{\tau _0}).
}
Here we notice that with our choice of $L=L_\mathrm{min}$ large
enough, we have
$$
\frac{{\cal
O}(1)}{L^{s-\frac{n}{2}-\epsilon }\widetilde{\Theta }(h)h^n}
\le \frac{h^{\frac{\frac{1}{3}+2n\theta
}{1-2\theta }}}{2C(\theta ).}
$$
Thus for $k\le N-[(1-\widetilde{\theta })N]$:
$$
s_k(E_{-+}^\delta )\ge \frac{\delta N}{2C(\theta
)}h^{\frac{\frac{1}{3}+2n\theta }{1-2\theta }}-\tau _0h^{N_2}-{\cal
O}( \frac{(\delta \Vert \Theta q\Vert_{L^\infty })^2}{\tau _0}),
$$
and using (\ref{sv.18}):
\ekv{eco.17} {\begin{split} &s_k(E_{-+}^\delta
)\ge \delta N(\frac{1}{2C(\theta )}h^{\frac{\frac{1}{3}+2n\theta
}{1-2\theta }}-{\cal O}(1)\frac{\delta }{N\tau _0}\Vert \Theta q
\Vert_{L^\infty }^2)-
\tau _0h^{N_2}\\
&\ge \delta N(\frac{1}{2C(\theta )}h^{\frac{\frac{1}{3}+2n\theta
}{1-2\theta }}-\frac{{\cal O}(1)\delta N}{\tau
_0}h^{-2(\frac{n}{2}+s+\epsilon )M-2v_0-2n})-\tau _0h^{N_2}\\
&\ge \delta N(\frac{1}{2C(\theta )}h^{\frac{\frac{1}{3}+2n\theta
}{1-2\theta }}-\frac{{\cal O}(1)\delta }{\tau
_0}h^{1-3n-2v_0-2(\frac{n}{2}+s+\epsilon )M})-\tau
_0h^{N_2}\\
&\ge \frac{\delta N}{4C(\theta )}h^{\frac{\frac{1}{3}+2n\theta
}{1-2\theta }}-\tau _0h^{N_2},
\end{split} } where the last estimate follows from the choice of
$\delta $ in (\ref{eco.2}) and we recall that $\alpha $ is large enough.
\par Here by the choice of $N_2$ the last term is subdominant when
$h>0$ is small enough and we get
\ekv{eco.18}{s_k(E_{-+}^\delta )\ge
\tau _0h^{N_2},\hbox{ for }1\le k\le N-[(1-\widetilde{\theta })N].}
\par After an arbitrarily small abstract perturbation of $P_{\delta
,\mathrm{out}}$, we may assume that this operator is bijective, and
we can then write the standard identity
$$
P_{\delta ,\mathrm{out}}^{-1}=E^\delta -E_+^\delta (E_{-+}^\delta
)^{-1}E_-^\delta
$$
and apply the Ky Fan inequalities to get for $1+[(1-\widetilde{\theta})N]\le \nu \le
N$:
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
s_\nu (P_{\delta ,\mathrm{out}}^{-1})&\le s_1(E^\delta )+\Vert
E_+^\delta \Vert \Vert E_-^\delta \Vert s_\nu ((E_{-+}^\delta
)^{-1})\\
&\le {\cal O}(1)\frac{1}{h^{N_2}\tau _0},
\end{split}\end{equation*}
since $
s_\nu ((E_{-+}^\delta )^{-1})=1/s_{N+1-\nu }(E_{-+}^\delta )
$ and $1\le N+1-\nu \le N-[(1-\widetilde{\theta })N]$,
or in other terms,
$$
t_\nu (P_{\delta ,\mathrm{out}})\ge \frac{\tau _0h^{N_2}}{{\cal O}(1)}.
$$
This is (\ref{eco.4}) apart from the factor $1/{\cal O}(1)$, which can
be eliminated by increasing $N_2$ slightly.
\par When $N={\cal O}(1)$ we consider the two cases $s_1(E_{-+})\ge
\tau _0h^{N_2}$ and $s_1(E_{-+})<\tau _0h^{N_2}$. In the first case we
take the perturbation $0$ as before. In the second case, we repeat the
proof above with $k=\ell=1$ and reach first (\ref{eco.18}) with $k=1$
and finally (\ref{eco.4}) with $\nu =N$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{eco2}
{\rm \begin{itemize}
\item[1)] In the proof we have seen that $\delta \Vert \Theta
q\Vert_{L^\infty }\le \tau _0/2$ and (\ref{eco.4.5}) shows that
$$t_\nu (P_{\delta ,\mathrm{out}})\ge t_\nu
(P_\mathrm{out})-\frac{\tau _0}{2}\ge \frac{\tau _0}{2},\ \nu \ge
N+1.$$
\item[2)] From (\ref{eco.8}), (\ref{sv.17}), we get
$$
\Vert \delta \Theta q\Vert_{H^s_h}\le {\cal O}(1)\tau _0h^{\frac{n}{2}}.
$$
\item[3)] Let $\widetilde{s}>\frac{n}{2}+2N$, where $N$ is the
smallest integer in $]\frac{n-1}{2},+\infty [$. If we choose $\alpha
$ in (\ref{re.8}) sufficiently large, then
$$\Vert \delta \Theta q\Vert_{H^{\widetilde{s}}_h}\le {\cal O}(h^{\frac{n}{2}}).$$
\end{itemize}
We see that the perturbed operator $P_\delta $ satisfies the
general assumptions of our discussion, including (\ref{idn.38}),
(\ref{ub'.32}), (\ref{lob.17}) for $W=\delta \Theta q$.}
\end{remark}
\par The last remark shows that we can apply Proposition \ref{eco1} to
$P_{\delta ,\mathrm{out}}$ with $\tau _0$ replaced by $\tau _0h^{N_2}$
and $N$ replaced by an $N_\mathrm{new}\le [(1-\widetilde{\theta } )N]$. The
procedure can be iterated at most ${\cal O}(1)\ln \frac{1}{h}$
times until we get a perturbation $P_{\mathrm{final\,},\delta
,\mathrm{out}}$ with $t_1(P_{\mathrm{final\,},\delta
,\mathrm{out}})\ge \tau _0h^{{\cal O}(1)\ln
\frac{1}{h}}$. Thus in the end we get
\begin{prop}\label{eco3}
Let $0<\theta <1/2 $ be the parameter in (\ref{re.6}) and let $\tau
_0\in ]0,h^{4/3}]$. Then there exists
an admissible potential $q$ as in (\ref{re.5}) with
$L=L_\mathrm{min}$ and $R=R_\mathrm{min}$ (as introduced in and
after (\ref{re.6})) such that if
\ekv{eco.19} { P_\delta =P+\delta
\Theta q,\ \delta =C^{-1}h^\alpha \tau _0, } $C\gg 1$, $\alpha \ge
\alpha (n,v_0,s,\epsilon ,\theta )$ large enough, then
\ekv{eco.20}
{
t_1(P_{\delta
,\mathrm{out}})\ge \tau _0h^{{\cal O}(1)\ln
\frac{1}{h}}.
}
\end{prop}
From (\ref{out.8}) we get for the special perturbation above
\ekv{eco.21} {s_1(({\cal N}_\mathrm{in}-{\cal
N}_\mathrm{ext})^{-1})\le \frac{{\cal
O}(1)}{h^{\frac{2}{3}}t_1({\cal P}_\mathrm{out})}\le \frac{{\cal
O}(1)}{\tau _0 h^{{\cal O}(1)\ln \frac{1}{h}}},} and
(\ref{out.9}) then gives \ekv{eco.22} {
s_1((1+\widehat{C}(z))^{-1})\le \frac{{\cal O}(1)}{\tau _0h^{{\cal
O}(1)\ln \frac{1}{h}}}. }
\par
Now, we recall from Proposition \ref{ub'4} and
(\ref{ub'.36})--(\ref{ub'.38}) that
\ekv{eco.23}
{
\widehat{C}(z)={\cal O}(1):\, H^{\frac{3}{2}}\to H^{\frac{3}{2}}
}
in addition to the fact that the trace class norm of the same operator
is ${\cal O}(h^{1-n})$. We now work with $H^{3/2}(\partial {\cal O})$
as the underlying Hilbert space and let $\widehat{C}^*$ denote the
adjoint of $\widehat{C}$. Consider,
\ekv{eco.24}
{
|\det (1+\widehat{C})|^2=\det (1+\widehat{C}^*)(1+\widehat{C})=\det (1+D),
}
where $D=\widehat{C}+\widehat{C}^*+\widehat{C}^*\widehat{C}$ is
self-adjoint, ${\cal O}(1)$ in operator norm and ${\cal O}(h^{1-n})$
in trace class norm. Let $\lambda _1,\,\lambda _2,...$ denote the
non-vanishing eigenvalues of $D$, so that
\ekv{eco.25}
{
1+\lambda _j\ge \frac{\tau _0^2}{{\cal O}(1)}h^{2{\cal O}(1)\ln \frac{1}{n}}
}
by (\ref{eco.22}) (which is a bound on the norm of
$(1+\widehat{C})^{-1}$). We also know that $\sum |\lambda _j|={\cal
O}(h^{1-n})$, so there are at most ${\cal O}(h^{1-n})$ values $j$
for which $|\lambda _j|\ge 1/2$. Thus we get from (\ref{eco.24}):
\begin{multline*}
|\det (1+\widehat{C})|^2=\prod (1+\lambda _j)\\
=\prod_{j;\, |\lambda _j|\ge \frac{1}{2}} (1+\lambda _j)\prod_{j;\, |\lambda
_j|< \frac{1}{2}}(1+\lambda _j)\\
\ge \left( \frac{\tau _0^2}{{\cal O}(1)}h^{2{\cal O}(1)\ln
\frac{1}{h}}\right)^{{\cal O}(h^{1-n})}
\prod_{j;\, |\lambda _j|\le \frac{1}{2}}e^{-{\cal O}(1)|\lambda _j|}.
\end{multline*}
Since $\sum |\lambda _j|={\cal O}(h^{1-n})$, we get
\ekv{eco.26}
{
\ln |\det (1+\widehat{C})|\ge -{\cal O}(h^{1-n})((\ln
\frac{1}{h})^2+\ln \frac{1}{\tau _0}).
}
\par Now return to the function $f(z)$ that was (re)defined in
(\ref{ub'.65}). From (\ref{ub'.66}), (\ref{eco.26}) and (\ref{ub'.68})
we get for our special perturbation $V=V_0+W$ (where $W$ depends on
$z$ with $ch^{2/3}\le |\Im z|\le c_0h^{2/3}$): \ekv{eco.27} { \phi
_\mathrm{in}(z)-{\cal O}(h^{1-n})((\ln \frac{1}{h})^2+\ln
\frac{1}{\tau _0})\le \ln |f(z)|\le \phi _\mathrm{in}(z)+{\cal
O}(h^{1-n}) } Here the upper bound is valid for all perturbations
$V$ of $V_0$ in our class independently of $z$ with $|\Im z|\asymp
h^{2/3}/C$, while the lower bound is valid for our special
$z$-dependent perturbation.
$\phi _\mathrm{in}$ (cf. (\ref{ub'.59})) is defined in terms of the
interior Dirichlet problem for the perturbed potential $V_0+W$ where
$W$ also depends on $z$, and we would like to replace this function by
one which is independent of the perturbation $W$. To emphasize the
presence of the perturbation we write
$$
\phi _\mathrm{in}^\delta (z)=\sum \chi (\lambda _j^\delta )\ln
|z-\lambda _j^\delta |
$$
for the function in (\ref{eco.27}), and
$$
\phi _\mathrm{in}^0(z)=\sum \chi (\lambda _j^0)\ln
|z-\lambda _j^0|
$$
for the corresponding function, associated to the unperturbed
operator $P_0^\mathrm{in}$.
\par From the mini-max principle, we get
$$
|\lambda _j^\delta -\lambda _j^0|\le \Vert W\Vert_\infty .
$$
For $|\Im z|\ge r$, $0<r\le 1$, we see that
$$
|\frac{\partial }{\partial \lambda }(\chi (\lambda )\ln |z-\lambda
|)|\le {\cal O}(\frac{1}{r}),
$$
so
$$
|\chi (\lambda _j^\delta )\ln |z-\lambda _j^\delta |-\chi (\lambda
_j^0)\ln |z-\lambda _j^0 ||\le {\cal O}(1)\frac{\Vert W\Vert_\infty }{r}.
$$
The number of eigenvalues of $P_\mathrm{in}^\delta $ and of
$P_\mathrm{in}^0 $ in $\mathrm{supp\,}\chi $ is ${\cal O}(h^{-n})$ and
it follows that
$$
|\phi _\mathrm{in}^\delta (z) -\phi _\mathrm{in}^0 (z)|\le {\cal
O}(1)\frac{\Vert W\Vert_\infty }{rh^n}.
$$
Here we take $r\asymp h^{2/3}$ as in (\ref{eco.27}). From the second part
of Remark \ref{eco2} we know that $W=\delta \Theta q$ satisfies
$$
\Vert W\Vert_\infty \le {\cal O}(1)h^{-\frac{n}{2}}\Vert
W\Vert_{H_h^s}\le {\cal O}(1)\tau _0
$$
and thus
$$
|\phi _\mathrm{in}^\delta (z)-\phi _\mathrm{in}^0(z)|\le {\cal
O}(1)\tau _0h^{-\frac{2}{3}-n}.
$$
In Proposition \ref{eco3} we have assumed that $0<\tau _0\le
h^{4/3}$. We now strengthen that assumption to
\ekv{eco.28}
{
\tau _0\in ]0,h^{\frac{5}{3}}].
}
Then,
\ekv{eco.29}
{
|\phi _\mathrm{in}^\delta (z)-\phi _\mathrm{in}^0(z)|\le {\cal
O}(1)h^{1-n}
}
and we obtain
\begin{prop}\label{eco4}
In (\ref{eco.27}) we can replace $\phi _\mathrm{in}=\phi
_\mathrm{in}^\delta $ by the function $\phi _\mathrm{in}^0$, defined
for the unperturbed operator $P_\mathrm{in}^0$ as in (\ref{ub'.59}).
\end{prop}
\section{End of the proof of Theorem \ref{re1} and proof of
Proposition \ref{re3}}\label{ep}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Let $\phi _\mathrm{in}^0$ be defined in (\ref{ub'.59}) with respect to
the unperturbated operator $P_\mathrm{in}^0$. With $r=h^{2/3}c/4$,
let $h^0=h^0_r$ be the harmonic majorant in $\Omega _r$ and define
$\Phi _r^0=\Phi ^0$ as in (\ref{ub'.61}). Recall that $f$
is defined in (\ref{ub'.65}) (for the perturbed operator $P_\delta
$). Since $\phi ^\delta _\mathrm{in}-\phi ^0_\mathrm{in}={\cal
O}(h^{1-n})$ by (\ref{eco.29}), we have the same estimate for
$h_r-h_r^0$ and hence for $\Phi _r-\Phi _r^0$. Then by (\ref{ub'.71})
we conclude that
\ekv{ep.1}
{
\ln |f(z)|\le \Phi ^0_r(z)+{\cal O}(h^{1-n})\hbox{ in the rectangle (\ref{ub.1}).}
}
\par For each $z$ as in (\ref{ub'.10.5}) we have constructed a
perturbation $W=\delta \Theta q$ as in and after (\ref{re.6}) with $L=L_\mathrm{min}$,
$R=R_\mathrm{min}$ such that (cf Proposition \ref{eco4})
\ekv{ep.2}
{
\Phi _r^0-{\cal O}(h^{1-n})((\ln \frac{1}{h})^2+\ln \frac{1}{\tau
_0})\le \ln |f(z)|.
}
Let
\ekv{ep.3}
{
\epsilon _0(h)=Ch((\ln \frac{1}{h})^2+\ln \frac{1}{\tau _0})
}
so that
\ekv{ep.4}
{
\ln |f(z)|\le \Phi _r^0(z)+h^{-n}\epsilon _0(h)
}
for all $z$ in the rectangle (\ref{ub.1}) and so that for every $z$
as in (\ref{ub'.10.5}), there is a perturbation as in
(\ref{ep.2}) such that
\ekv{ep.5}
{
\ln |f(z)|\ge \Phi _r^0-h^{-n}\epsilon _0(h).
}
If we fix such a value of $z$ and work in the $\alpha $-variables, we
are in the same situation as in Section 8 in \cite{Sj08a} and we can
apply Proposition 8.2 and Remark 8.3
of that paper to obtain
\begin{prop}\label{ep1}
Let $\epsilon >0$ be small enough so that $\epsilon \exp ({\cal
O}(\epsilon _0)h^{-n})\le 1$. For each $z$ as in (\ref{ub'.10.5}), we have
\ekv{ep.6}
{
P(|f(z)|\le e^{\Phi _r^0}\epsilon )\le {\cal O}(1)\frac{\epsilon
_0(h)}{h^{n+N_6}}\exp \left( \frac{h^n}{{\cal O}(1)\epsilon
_0(h)}\ln \epsilon \right).
}
Here $N_6=\max (N_3,N_5)$, where $N_3=n(M+1)$,
$N_5=N_4+\widetilde{M}$. (Cf (\ref{re.9}).)
\end{prop}
If we write $\epsilon =e^{-\widetilde{\epsilon }/h^n}$, then the
condition on $\epsilon $ is fulfilled when
\ekv{ep.7}
{
\widetilde{\epsilon }\ge \mathrm{Const.\,}\epsilon _0
}
and (\ref{ep.6}) becomes
\ekv{ep.8}
{
P(|f(z)|\le e^{\Phi ^0_r(z)-\frac{\widetilde{\epsilon }}{h^n}})
\le {\cal O}(1)\frac{\epsilon _0(h)}{h^{n+N_6}}\exp \left(
-\frac{\widetilde{\epsilon }}{{\cal O}(1)\epsilon _0(h)} \right).
}
Let $\frac{1}{2}\le a<b\le 2$ and put $\Gamma
=[a,b]+i{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}c[-1,1]$, $r=h^{2/3}c/4$. We shall
apply Theorem 1.2 in \cite{Sj09} to the function $u=f$, with $h$ there
replaced by $h^n$ and with $\phi =h^n\Phi _r$. Let
$$
\rho (t)=\max (4ch^{\frac{2}{3}}-\frac{1}{2}(t-a),
{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}c/2,4ch^{\frac{2}{3}}-\frac{1}{2}(b-t)),\ a\le
t\le b,
$$
and define the function $\widetilde{r}:\partial \Gamma \to ]0,\infty
[$ by
$$
\widetilde{r}(z)=\rho (\Re t).
$$
Then $\widetilde{r}$ has Lipschitz modulus $\le \frac{1}{2}$ and this
will be our function ``$r$'' in \cite{Sj09}. Choose points
$z_1^0,...,z_N^0\in \partial \Gamma $ as in the introduction of
\cite{Sj09}. This can be done in a such a way that $|\Im
z_j^0|=h^{2/3}c$ for all $j$. Moreover, we see that $N\asymp
h^{-2/3}$ and further $\Delta \Phi _r=0$ in $D(z_j^0,r(z_j^0))$ except
for at most ${\cal O}(1)$ values of $j$ . Let $\widetilde{z}_j\in D(z_j^0,r(z_j^0)/(2C_1))$ be as in
Theorem 1.2 in \cite{Sj09}, where we recall that these points depend
on $\Phi _r, \Gamma , \widetilde{r}$ but not on the function
$f$. Moreover we notice that $C_1$ can be chosen arbitrarily
large. Then according to (\ref{ep.8}) we have
\ekv{ep.9}
{
|f(\widetilde{z}_j)|\ge e^{\Phi
_r(\widetilde{z}_j)-\frac{\widetilde{\epsilon }}{h^n}},\ j=1,2,...,N
}
with probability
\ekv{ep.10}
{
\ge 1-{\cal O}(1)\frac{N\epsilon
_0(h)}{h^{n+N_6}}e^{-\frac{\widetilde{\epsilon }}{{\cal
O}(1)\epsilon _0(h)}}=
1-{\cal O}(1)\frac{\epsilon
_0(h)}{h^{n+N_6+\frac{2}{3}}}e^{-\frac{\widetilde{\epsilon }}{{\cal
O}(1)\epsilon _0(h)}}
}
Here we recall that (\ref{ep.7}) holds and that $|f|\le e^{\Phi
_r+\widetilde{\epsilon }/h^n}$ in a neighborhood of $\Gamma
$. Theorem 1.2 in \cite{Sj09} then shows that with $\sigma (P_\delta
)$ denoting the set of resonances of $P_\delta $,
\ekv{ep.11}
{
\begin{split}
&|
\# (\sigma (P_\delta )\cap ([a,b]+i{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}c[-1,0])
-\frac{1}{2\pi }\int_{[a,b]+{ih^{\frac{2}{3}}}c[-1,1]} \Delta \Phi
_r^0 L(dz)
|\\
&\le
C_2(\sum_{w=a,b}\int_{[w-Ch^{\frac{2}{3}},w+Ch^{\frac{2}{3}}]+{ih^{\frac{2}{3}}}c[-1,1]}
\Delta \Phi _r^0 L(dz)+h^{-n}\sum_1^N \widetilde{\epsilon }),
\end{split}
}
with a probability as in (\ref{ep.10}). Here we assume for simplicity
that $c\ll c_0$, otherwise we have to slightly modify the choice of
$\rho ,r,z_j^0$ above.
\par Now recall (\ref{ub'.64}) where $g_r(t)=r^{-1}g_1(t/r)$, $0\le g_1\in
{\cal S}({\bf R})$, $\int g_1 dt=1$. With $N_0$ denoting the
eigenvalue counting function for $P_\mathrm{in}^0$, we get with
probability as in (\ref{ep.10}),
\ekv{ep.12}
{
\begin{split}
&|
\# (\sigma (P_\delta )\cap ([a,b]+i{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}c[-1,0])
-\int_a^b g_r*(\chi dN_0)(t)dt
|\\
&\le
C_2(\sum_{w=a,b}\int_{w-Ch^{\frac{2}{3}}}^{w+Ch^{\frac{2}{3}}}
g_r*(\chi dN_0)(t)dt+{\cal O}(h^{-\frac{2}{3}-n}\widetilde{\epsilon })).
\end{split}
}
This is a slightly stronger version of the main result (\ref{re.14})
as we shall see next. Consider
$$
J:=\int_a^b g_r*(\chi dN_0)(t)dt=\int_a^b\int_{\bf R}g_r(t-s)\chi (s)dN_0(s)dt,
$$
where we recall that $r=h^{2/3}c/4$. We split the integral into
$\mathrm{I}+\mathrm{II}$, where $\mathrm{I}$ is obtained by retricting
the $s$ integration to the interval $[a-\rho ,b+\rho ]$ and
$\mathrm{II}$ is obtained from integration in $s$ over ${\bf
R}\setminus [a-\rho ,b+\rho ]$. Here we take $\rho =h^{-\delta
+{2/3}}$, where $\delta >0$ can be arbitrarily small but independent of
$h$.
\par Carrying out first the $t$ integration, we see that
$$\mathrm{I}\le \int_{[a-\rho ,b+\rho ]}\chi (s)dN_0(s)=N_0(b+\rho
)-N_0(a-\rho )$$.
\par As for $\mathrm{II}$, we have uniformly for $t\in [a,b]$ that
$$
\int_{{\bf R}\setminus [a-\rho ,b+\rho ]}g_r(t-s)\chi (s)dN(s)\le
\int_{|t-s|\ge \rho }\frac{1}{r}g_1(\frac{t-s}{r})\chi (s)dN(s)={\cal
O}(h^\infty ),
$$
since $\rho /r\ge h^{-\delta }c/4$ so that $g_1((t-s)/r)/r={\cal
O}(h^\infty )$ and $\int \chi (s)dN(s)={\cal O}(h^{-n})$.
Thus,
$$J\le N_0(b+\rho )-N_0(a-\rho )+{\cal O}(h^\infty ).$$
To get a corresponding lower bound, assume $b-a\ge 2\rho $ (in order to
exclude a trivial case), and write
$$
J\ge \int_a^b\int_{a+\rho }^{b-\rho }g_r(t-s)\chi (s)dN_0(s) dt.
$$
For $a+\rho \le s\le b-\rho $, we have
$$
1\ge \int_a^b g_r(t-s)dt\ge 1-{\cal O}(h^\infty ),
$$
so
\begin{multline*}
J\ge \int_{a+\rho }^{b-\rho }(1-{\cal O}(h^\infty ))dN_0(s)\\\ge
(1-{\cal O}(h^\infty ))(N_0(b-\rho )-N_0(a+\rho ))\\\ge N_0(b-\rho
)-N_0(a+\rho )-{\cal O}(h^\infty ).
\end{multline*}
\par In conclusion, for $r=h^{2/3}c/4$, $\rho =h^{-\delta +2/3}$, we
get from (\ref{ep.12}), \ekv{ep.13} {\begin{split} N_0(b-\rho )&-N_0(a+\rho )-{\cal O}(h^\infty )\\&\le
\int_a^b g_r*(\chi dN_0)(t)dt\\&\hskip 2cm \le N_0(b+\rho )-N_0(a-\rho )+{\cal
O}(h^\infty ) .\end{split}}
\par Applying this to (\ref{ep.12}), we get with a probability as in
(\ref{ep.10})
\ekv{ep.14}
{\begin{split}
|\# (\sigma (P_\delta )\cap
([a,b]+i{h^{\frac{2}{3}}}c[-1,0])-(N_0(b)-N_0(a))|\\
\le {\cal
O}(1)
(\sum_{w=a,b}(N_0(w+\rho )-N_0(w-\rho
))+h^{-\frac{2}{3}-n}\widetilde{\epsilon }).\end{split}
}
This concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{re1}.
\medskip
\begin{proofof} Proposition \ref{re3}.
Let $V_0$ be as in Theorem \ref{re1} and let $W_0$ satisfy the
assumptions of the proposition. Our unperturbed operator is now
\ekv{ep.15}
{
P_0=-h^2\Delta +V_0+W_0=P^{V_0+W_0}.
}
rather than the right hand side of \ref{re.1} that we now denote by
$P_0^0$. The proof will consist in checking the proof of Theorem
\ref{re1} with this new operator $P_0$.
\par Nothing changes until Section \ref{idn}. Here Proposition
\ref{idn5} can be used instead of Proposition \ref{idn4} to see that
the conclusion of Proposition \ref{idn1} is valid for (the new)
unperturbed operator $P_0$ as well as for the perturbed operator $P^V$
in (\ref{sbd.2}), where now $V=V_0+W_0+W$ and as before $W={\cal O}(h)$ in
$L^\infty $.
\par The discussion in Section \ref{sbd} remains valid.
\par In Section \ref{ub} the first change appears after
(\ref{ub.9.4}), where we now take $V=V_0+W_0+W$ with $\Vert
W\Vert_{L^\infty }={\cal O}(1)$. Then we still have (\ref{ub.9.5})
provided that we modify the definition of $\widetilde{P}$ prior to
(\ref{ub.9.2}) by taking $\widetilde{P}=P+Ci1_{\cal O}$ with $C$ large
enough. We obtain Proposition \ref{ub2} as before.
In the subsequent discusson, $P_0$ is the same operator but with the
new notation $P_0^0=P^{V_0}$, while $P=P^V$ with $V=V_0+W_0+W$ with
the initial assumption that $W={\cal O}(h)$ in $L^\infty $. After
(\ref{ub'.12.5}) we just have to invoke Proposition \ref{idn5} instead of
Proposition \ref{idn4}.
\par In the expression for $\widetilde{K}$ after (\ref{ub'.14}) we
have to replace $W$ by $W_0+W$ and as in the proof of Proposition
\ref{idn5}, we have $(\widetilde{P}-z)^{-1}W_0\widetilde{K}_0={\cal
O}(h^2):$ $H^{3/2}\to H^2$. Thus instead of (\ref{ub'.15}) we get
\ekv{ep.16}
{
\widetilde{{\cal N}}=\widetilde{{\cal N}}_0+{\cal O}(1)\Vert
W\Vert_{L^\infty }+{\cal O}(h^2):\, H^{3/2}\to H^{1/2}.
}
\par Lemma \ref{ub'3} remains valid since $W_0$ also satisfies
(\ref{ub'.20}). Since $W_0$ satisfies (\ref{ub'.32}), the following
discussion goes through without any changes until Proposition
\ref{ub'4}, where we just have to add a term ${\cal O}(h^2)$ to the
estimate of $\widetilde{{\cal N}}-\widetilde{{\cal N}}_0$ after
(\ref{ub'.33}). The remainder of Section \ref{ub} goes through without
any changes.
\par After that, there are no changes. $P^0_\mathrm{in}$ in
Proposition \ref{eco4} is the Dirichlet realization of (the new) $P_0=P^{V_0+W_0}$.
\end{proofof}
|
\section{Introduction \label{Intro}}
Non-Abelian Family Symmetries (FSs) are useful for addressing the flavour problem of the Standard Model (SM) and beyond - they can order the SM fermion masses and mixing and also alleviate flavour issues of SM extensions such as the SUSY flavour problem \cite{Oscar1, Oscar2, Graham} or the flavour problem of Multi Higgs Doublet Models \cite{IvoMHDM}.
Usually non-Abelian FSs are used in conjunction with one or more Abelian symmetries. We consider in some detail how introducing more than one non-Abelian symmetry can lead to several advantages in order to motivate their use. We present specific models in order to make readily apparent that just as a single non-Abelian symmetry can produce relations between different generations, using more than one can enable further control over the mass structures. In \cite{IvoMHDM} a toy model exemplified quite clearly how two $SU(3)$ factors would forbid undesirable Yukawa terms that with a single non-Abelian symmetry could not be disallowed (regardless of any extra Abelian auxiliary symmetries employed). Examples of works using two non-Abelian family symmetries for other purposes include \cite{Appelquist:2006ag, Sumino:2008hy, Koide:2010hp}.
The relative complexity of simultaneously addressing all the fermions structures by implementing FSs together with Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) makes any advantages that come from using more non-Abelian symmetries particularly worth investigating. It also may be that such models can more easily accommodate the values of $\theta_{13}$ pointed at by results from T2K \cite{Abe:2011sj}, see also e.g. the recent global fits \cite{Fogli:2011qn, Schwetz:2011zk}. These models are also expected to have higher predictivity through reduced number of accidental terms and one can make use of the symmetries to address technical issues regarding the vacuum alignment. All these aspects are studied in the following sections.
As we are interested in scenarios with FS SUSY GUTs, we consider the $SU(4) \times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$ Pati-Salam (PS) framework. Arguably complete $SO(10)$ unification is more appealing, but the maximal FS commuting with the $SO(10)$ GUT is a single $SU(3)$ and furthermore requiring straightforward unification into $SO(10)$ is highly constraining - see e.g. \cite{Ivo1, Ivo3} for examples. PS is extremely appropriate for our current purpose as the maximal FS commuting with the gauge group is $SU(3)\times SU(3)$. A Minimal Flavour Violation approach to a PS GUT would therefore consider that FS at the spurion level, which is another motivation to consider specific realisations at the familon level. Due to the Left-Right (LR) structure of PS, one can even imagine that the $SU(2)_L$ and $SU(2)_R$ factors of the GUT could originate together with the $SU(3)_{LF}\times SU(3)_{RF}$ of the FS from a sufficiently higher rank GUT which breaks first into $SU(5)_{L} \times SU(5)_{R}$ factors - although that is quite beyond the scope of this work and so we do not concern ourselves with the possible origins of the FS further.
\section{Pati-Salam with $SU(3) \times SU(3)$}
\subsection{Vacuum alignment \label{sec:VEVs}}
The results in sections \ref{sec:exact} and \ref{sec:deviations} entirely depend on a particular vacuum expectation value (VEV) structure to be obtained for the familons (PS gauge group singlets). Their VEVs must align along specific directions and we require mild hierarchies between some of their magnitudes. The different VEV magnitude hierarchies can be obtained by radiative corrections driving the masses of the familons negative at slightly different scales.
We now argue that the specific directions required can be obtained from the family symmetries employed: although the framework is based on underlying $SU(3)_{LF}\times SU(3)_{RF}$ FSs, the vacuum alignment will proceed with discrete non-Abelian subgroups and arises quite naturally through soft SUSY breaking terms not allowed by $SU(3)$ as originally suggested in \cite{Ivo3}. We start by discussing the required VEVs and breaking pattern still referring to $SU(3)_{LF}\times SU(3)_{RF}$. These desired directions are particularly relevant for the mixing of the lepton sector, but as we are in a unified framework all fermions structures are derived from them. The first stage of breaking occurs simultaneously, as in order to more naturally have the third generation strongly hierarchical we consider one LR familon charged under both groups: $\phi_{33}$. This enables a fermion mass term at lower order (this desirable feature was addressed recently in the context of GUT models by the use of larger representations of a single non-Abelian FS \cite{KingPSL1, KingPSL2}, c.f. \cite{Ivo3}). When the mass term of $\phi_{33}$ becomes negative it breaks the FSs by acquiring a VEV. If the FSs were continuous then it would merely be a basis choice to designate this direction as the $(0,0,1)$ direction under both groups, but as the alignment comes about through a discrete group this direction arises from terms that depend not just on the magnitude of the VEV but also on its particular direction. As discussed further, it is possible to obtain $(0,0,1)$ up to permutation of the non-zero value, therefore that it would be the third under both groups is merely a re-labeling of the third direction without loss of generality.
At this initial stage of breaking, the pseudo-familon (not strictly a familon as it is a PS non-singlet) $\theta$ that is charged under the $SU(3)_{RF}$ must also acquire its VEV in the same direction. The differences between the L and R sectors appear at the next stages of breaking: the dominant L familon $\phi_{123}$ acquires the largest L VEV in the $(1,1,1)$ direction of $SU(3)_{LF}$, whereas the next stage of $SU(3)_{RF}$ breaking is attributed to $\phi_{2}$ that goes in the $(0,1,0)$ direction (orthogonal to the existing $\theta$ VEV). The last L familon $\phi_{23}$ acquires a $(0,1,-1)$ VEV i.e. orthogonal to the previous direction and analogously this happens for the last R familon $\phi_{1}$ that develops along $(1,0,0)$.
In order to actually align along these directions, we rely on a suitable discrete subgroup of each $SU(3)$ in analogy with \cite{Ivo3} (see also \cite{Dphil}). $\Delta(27)$ (used in the original suggestion) is a small subgroup of $SU(3)$ with distinct triplet and anti-triplet representations (although as pointed out in \cite{Luhn:2007sy}, the semi-direct product of cyclic groups $C_7 \rtimes C_3$ is a smaller subgroup of $SU(3)$ and still includes the necessary ingredients). Regardless of the specific subgroup chosen for each $SU(3)$, the discrete alignment mechanism works without upsetting the $SU(3)$ invariance of the Yukawa and Majorana terms: the messengers involved in each sector have different quantum numbers and therefore it is possible to enable the relevant $SU(3)$-breaking invariants in the soft SUSY breaking potential terms that align the VEVs. The $SU(3)$ non-invariant terms appear in the potential arising from components of D-terms such as $\chi \chi ( \phi \phi^\dagger \phi \phi^\dagger)$ (where $\chi$ communicates SUSY breaking). The messengers involved that allow this type of term may have masses close to the Planck mass so the resulting terms are expected to be rather small e.g. suppressed by the gravitino mass over the Planck mass. But even though these $SU(3)$-breaking discrete invariants are tiny they are non-vanishing, their presence distinguishes directions and is enough to align VEVs (note that the $SU(3)$ continuous invariants are unable to discriminate absolute direction of VEVs, they can at most do relative alignments). For a single familon $\phi$, the potential would include quartic $\phi^i \phi^\dagger_i \phi^i \phi^\dagger_i$ (there is an implicit sum over the repeated generation index $i$). Depending on the sign of the coefficient in front this term naturally results either in the $(0,0,1)$ direction (negative sign) or in the $(1,1,1)$ direction (positive sign). As we employ multiple familons, we discuss the interplay between the possible quartics of this type.
At this level the double non-Abelian framework has technical advantages. In the original mechanism \cite{Ivo3} there was some tension with obtaining the $(0,0,1)$ together with the $(1,1,1)$ direction - they are natural for a single field and by extension most natural for a single dominant VEV. We want hierarchical third generations, so with implicit simultaneous sum over $i$ and $j$:
\begin{equation}
V_{33} \propto - \phi^{ij}_{33} \phi^\dagger_{33_{ij}} \phi^{ij}_{33} \phi^\dagger_{33_{ij}}/M^4
\end{equation}
In this expression $i$ is an $SU(3)_{LF}$ generation index and $j$ an $SU(3)_{RF}$ generation index, with $M$ generically denoting the messenger mass involved in the term.
By having two discrete subgroups it is natural to have the dominant LR $\phi_{33}$ VEV separate and unable to interfere with the alignment term of $\phi_{123}$ so in the alignment sense we have another dominant VEV:
\begin{equation}
V_{123} \propto + \phi^i_{123} \phi^\dagger_{123_i} \phi^i_{123} \phi^\dagger_{123_i}/M^4
\end{equation}
That the double groups separate the familon alignment naturally can be seen explicitly by considering distinct types of messengers for each type of familon. Familons carrying just one index (e.g. $\phi^i_{123}$) contract with messengers charged only under that family subgroup (e.g. $A^i$, $\bar{A}_i$) in tri-linear discrete invariants with a sum over the repeated index (e.g. $A^i \phi^i_{123} A^i$), whereas $\phi_{33}$ has a similar tri-linear discrete invariant that repeats both indices with messengers charged under both FSs (e.g. $\alpha^{ij} \phi_{33}^{ij} \alpha^{ij}$). Each messenger pair has its own mass term (e.g. $A^i \bar{A}_i$) which gives meaning to the generic $M$ suppressions shown so far. With this messenger structure the repeated indices are carried through the four insertions of the familon. In order for each type of familon to be secluded from the other types it is important that e.g. $\phi^\dagger_{33_ij} \phi^{ij}_{33} \phi^\dagger_{123_i} \phi^i_{123}$ is not generated, so messengers such as $\bar{B}_j$ in the tri-linear coupling $\phi^{ij}_{33} \bar{A}_i \bar{B}_j$ must be very massive or absent from the complete theory in order to preserve the alignment.
For the same type of reason, $\phi_{123}$ does not interfere with $\phi_{2}$ alignment:
\begin{equation}
V_{2} \propto - \phi^\dagger_{2_i} \phi^i_{2} \phi^\dagger_{2_i} \phi^i_{2}/M^4
\end{equation}
$\phi_{23}$ and $\phi_{1}$ can be aligned by one of the possible mixed terms that with a positive sign imposes orthogonality with respect to the dominant VEVs of their type (note the $SU(3)$ invariant contractions of the indices):
\begin{equation}
V_{23} \propto + \phi^i_{23} \phi^\dagger_{123_i} \phi^j_{123} \phi^\dagger_{23_j}/M^4
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_{1} \propto + \phi^i_{1} \phi^\dagger_{2_i} \phi^j_{2} \phi^\dagger_{1_j}/M^4
\end{equation}
Due to the expected hierarchy in VEV magnitudes these should naturally be sub-leading to the previous terms but leading over quartics involving just $\phi_{23}$, which would prefer to align its VEV along a different direction.
One issue still needs to be addressed as $V_{23}$ leads to a complex orthogonality between the fields, when we require that these two VEVs produce orthogonal eigenvectors. The terms discussed so far do not favour specific phase directions but we can address this issue with the term:
\begin{equation}
V_{p} \propto - (\phi^i_{123} \phi^i_{123} \phi^i_{123}) (\phi^\dagger_{123_j} \phi^\dagger_{123_j}\phi^\dagger_{123_j})/M^6
\end{equation}
This is a higher order term with two additional insertions that involves the $\Delta(27)$ invariant summing over three (anti-)triplet indices (without the Levi-Civita tensor). $V_p$ discriminates between VEV phases. Some of the minima within the set of degenerate minima that this term creates have no relative phase between the second and third component. In this sense this term can make the $\phi_{123}$ VEV effectively real and together with $V_{23}$ we obtain the desired kind of orthogonality with $\phi_{23}$.
A noteworthy advantage of having more than one non-Abelian factor is that it naturally enables the $(1,1,1)$ VEV to be the most dominant of its type for alignment purposes while not needing to be the most dominant in the mass structures (in \cite{Ivo3} an additional dominant $(1,1,1)$ VEV was required as well as the smaller $(1,1,1)$ VEV that participated in the mass structures). Considering in particular how the SUSY flavour problem can be addressed by FSs there is the concern that larger $(1,1,1)$ VEVs can cause issues through K\"ahler corrections \cite{Oscar1, Oscar2}, and so it is quite relevant that this issue can be mitigated in this framework with multiple non-Abelian factors.
\subsection{Exact tri-bi-maximal neutrinos \label{sec:exact}}
In relation to \cite{Ivo1, Ivo3} we have abandoned the extremely constraining requirement of straightforward $SO(10)$ unification which would require the L and R sectors to transform in the same way under the FS. The models presented here are more directly comparable to \cite{KingSO3} in terms of VEVs used and respective mass structures.
We start by considering models which aim to get exact tri-bi-maximal (TB) neutrino eigenstates. Leptonic mixing then gets perturbed from TB due to charged lepton corrections that are related to the quark sector due to the GUT relations (as in the GUT FS models discussed above). We can therefore already state that the leptonic mixing angles predicted in this class of models are rather close to the TB values, and namely that with $\theta_{C}$ the Cabibbo angle (from the quark sector):
\begin{equation}
\theta_{13} \simeq \theta_{C}/(3 \sqrt{2}) \simeq 3^o
\label{eq:t13GUT}
\end{equation}
For the purpose of achieving exact neutrino TB with fermion structures similar to those in \cite{KingSO3}, in our current framework it is sufficient to use a single Abelian factor $U(1)_F$ (c.f. \cite{KingSO3}). As all familons discussed so far are anti-triplets, it is not possible to form combinations carrying only non-trivial $U(1)_F$ charge and for that reason we introduce one extra familon $\sigma$. In terms of notation, $\Psi_i$ are the L fermions and $\Psi^c_j$ the conjugates of the R fermions. $H$ are the SM or MSSM-like Higgs fields (as this is a SUSY construction we require two doublets) and $\Sigma$ is a Georgi-Jarlskog field - a scalar in a larger representation of the GUT that develops a VEV in a R hypercharge direction, notably one that vanishes in the R neutrino direction (see e.g. \cite{Dphil} for more details). Unlike in section \ref{sec:VEVs}, for the discussion of terms that give rise to the mass structures in sections \ref{sec:exact} and \ref{sec:deviations} we consistently use $i$ as an $SU(3)_{LF}$ generation index and $j$ and $k$ as $SU(3)_{RF}$ generation indices.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|cc|c|}
\hline
Field & $SU(4)$ & $SU(2)_{L}$ & $SU(2)_{R}$ & $SU(3)_{LF}$ & $SU(3)_{RF}$ & $U(1)_{F}$\\ \hline
$\psi$ & $4$ & $2$ & $1$ & $3$ & $1$ & $0$\\
$\psi^c$ & $\bar{4}$ & $1$ & $2$ & $1$ & $3$ & $0$\\
$\theta$ & $4$ & $1$ & $2$ & $1$ & $\bar{3}$ & $0$\\ \hline
$H$ & $1$ & $2$ & $2$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$\\
$\Sigma$ & $15$ & $1$ & $3$ & $1$ & $1$ & $-1$ \\ \hline
$\phi_{33}$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $\bar{3}$ & $\bar{3}$ & $0$\\
$\phi_{123}$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $\bar{3}$ & $1$ & $-2$\\
$\phi_{23}$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $\bar{3}$ & $1$ & $1$\\
$\phi_{2}$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $\bar{3}$ & $0$\\
$\phi_{1}$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $\bar{3}$ & $-1$\\
$\sigma$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $2$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Field and symmetry content of a model with exact TB neutrinos. \label{ta:U1}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
With the symmetries of Table \ref{ta:U1} we obtain the following Yukawa superpotential:
\begin{equation}
P_{Y} \sim \Psi_i \Psi_j^c H \left[ \frac{\phi_{33}^{ij}}{M} + \frac{\phi_{23}^{i} \phi_{1}^{j}}{M^2} + \frac{\phi_{23}^{i} \phi_{2}^{j} \Sigma}{M^3} + \frac{\phi_{123}^{i} \phi_{2}^{j} \sigma}{M^3} + \frac{\phi_{123}^{i} \phi_{1}^{j} \Sigma \sigma \sigma}{M^5} \right]
\end{equation}
The RH Majorana masses arise through $\theta$:
\begin{equation}
P_{M} \sim \Psi^c_j \Psi^c_k \frac{\theta^{j}\theta^{k}}{M} + \Psi^c_j \Psi^c_k \theta^{j} \phi_1^k \sigma \frac{ \left(\theta \phi_2 \phi_1 \right)}{M^5}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
+\Psi^c_j \Psi^c_k \sigma \frac{ \left(\theta \phi_2 \phi_1 \right)}{M^3} \frac{ \left(\theta \phi_2 \phi_1 \right)}{M^3} \left[\frac{\phi_{1}^{j} \phi_{1}^{k} \sigma}{M^3} + \frac{\phi_{2}^{j} \phi_{2}^{k}}{M^2} \right]
\end{equation}
$\left(\theta \phi_2 \phi_1 \right)$ is the $SU(3)_{RF}$ invariant involving the antisymmetric Levi-Civita contraction. The relevant structure for TB is inside the square brackets of the last line and $M$ generically denotes the messenger masses which are not the same in each sector (and in particular unrelated with the ones mentioned in the discussion of the alignment).
These fermion superpotentials are phenomenologically viable provided the VEVs have a moderate hierarchy:
\begin{equation}
\langle \Sigma \rangle/M \sim \epsilon^{1/2} > \langle \sigma \rangle/M \sim \epsilon
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LVEVs}
\langle \phi_{123} \rangle/M \sim \epsilon^{3/2} > \langle \phi_{23} \rangle/M \sim \epsilon^2
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\langle \phi_{2} \rangle/M \sim \epsilon^{1/2} > \langle \phi_{1} \rangle/M \sim \epsilon
\end{equation}
In these symbolic relations we refer to the magnitudes of the non-zero entries of the VEVs. $\epsilon \simeq 0.15$ is the expansion parameter when the messenger masses considered are the ones that generate the down and charged lepton masses - when taking ratios of two VEVs the messenger mass would cancel if included in both and so $\epsilon$ is useful for comparing the VEV magnitudes (see \cite{KingSO3, Ivo1, Dphil} for more details).
These hierarchies between the VEVs are not very strict as there are several $O(1)$ parameters involved - what is important is that charged fermion textures similar to those in \cite{KingSO3} are produced with the term $\phi_{23} \phi_2 \Sigma/M^3$ appearing at about $\epsilon^2$, the $\phi_{23} \phi_1/M^2$ and $\phi_{123} \phi_2 \sigma/M^3$ at about $\epsilon^3$. Denoting as accidental terms any allowed terms that are not necessary to achieve the desired fermion textures, there is (only) one accidental Yukawa term $\phi_{123} \phi_1 \Sigma \sigma \sigma/M^5$ and it is sufficiently suppressed (in this case at about $\epsilon^5$). Eq.(\ref{eq:LVEVs}) is consistent with the discussion of section \ref{sec:VEVs} as $\phi_{123}$ is the dominant of the L familons (note the alignment terms enter with the square of the fields involved so the hierarchies are exacerbated).
With respect to the neutrinos, Sequential Dominance (SD) takes place through type I seesaw as in \cite{KingSO3} to produce TB neutrino mixing (the already discussed deviations from TB on leptonic mixing then result from the Cabibbo angle and lead to eq.(\ref{eq:t13GUT})). Due to SD the dominant Yukawa term with $\phi_{33}$ gets effectively erased after seesaw due to the huge hierarchy of $\theta \Psi^c \theta \Psi^c $ relative to the other Majorana terms. This also means the light neutrinos necessarily have a normal hierarchy with the lightest mass state being approximately massless. We can then check that the atmospheric and solar eigenstates constrain the model:
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\frac{\Delta m_{\odot}^2}{\Delta m_{@}^2}} \simeq \epsilon \sim \frac{\langle \sigma \rangle}{M_N} \left( \frac{\langle \sigma \rangle}{M_\nu} \right)^2 \frac{\langle \phi_{123} \rangle^2}{\langle \phi_{23} \rangle^2}
\label{eq:massratio}
\end{equation}
This relation is only valid up to the $O(1)$ parameters of the two Yukawa and two Majorana terms involved but it is possible to see this as a consistency test of the model: the hierarchy between the squared mass differences must be reproduced and in this construction the relative magnitude of $\langle \phi_{123} \rangle$ with $\langle \phi_{23} \rangle$ and the VEV of $\sigma$ can combine to do so consistently with eq.(\ref{eq:LVEVs}). In the case that the dominant neutrino messengers correspond to the R sector, their generic Yukawa messenger mass is the same as the generic Majorana messenger mass ($M_\nu \sim M_N$) and this relation would constrain the magnitude of $\langle \sigma \rangle/M_{N}$.
One can change the $U(1)_F$ factor to a sufficiently large $C_N$ group such that no dangerous accidental terms are allowed. $C_6$ is already safe producing only the exact same terms allowed by $U(1)_{F}$ (and inevitably all those terms repeated with multiples of $\sigma^3$) - i.e. the leading terms are the same. The $C_5$ case is interesting and will be discussed in the following section.
The power of the underlying $SU(3)\times SU(3)$ framework manifests itself on the Yukawa sector by allowing only L (R) familons to contract with $\Psi$ ($\Psi^c$) and is apparent when comparing to the symmetries and accidental terms of \cite{KingSO3, Ivo1, Ivo3} - although of course one should note that \cite{Ivo1, Ivo3} straightforwardly embed into $SO(10)$ GUTs and that even though they have more complicated Abelian factors they have only a single non-Abelian factor.
\subsection{Deviations from tri-bi-maximal neutrinos \label{sec:deviations}}
Recent observations point to $\theta_{13}$ being relatively large. This creates tension with the vanishing value predicted by exact TB and by extension also with the non-zero but relatively small angle predicted in the class of FS GUT models which include the $U(1)_F$ (or $C_6$) model discussed in section \ref{sec:exact}. Nonetheless it should be clear that non-Abelian symmetries remain extremely appealing and in particular discrete symmetries may naturally produce interesting mixing patterns in accordance with the $\theta_{13}$ values indicated in \cite{Abe:2011sj, Fogli:2011qn, Schwetz:2011zk}, see e.g. \cite{Claudiat13} \footnote{Recently \cite{Rashed:2011xe} also tackled deviations from TB without using non-Abelian family symmetries.}. In \cite{Kingt13} TB was abandoned but tri-maximal mixing was kept. We consider that TB can remain as an excellent approximation to the neutrino data and interpreted as a strong hint of an underlying FS arranging for TB at some level - particularly in such GUT frameworks where the charged lepton corrections already provide a source of TB deviations, one can imagine an appealing situation where one starts with approximate TB neutrinos and can then add the small Cabibbo angle corrections that arise through the charged leptons due to the GUT relations between the fermions. The framework presented here (with the power of the non-Abelian groups) is ideal to demonstrate this.
There are essentially three distinct sources for introducing a perturbation to the neutrino mixing in this class of models - in the VEV structure itself, in the Majorana structure, or in the Yukawa structure (of course one could have more than one of these effects operating).
Altering the VEV structure would be done in a way similar to \cite{King:2009qt}.
Deviations in the Majorana structure are expected to be invisible to experimental tests so in theory a model featuring them as the source of deviation of exact neutrino TB could always be invoked to provide a larger value of $\theta_{13}$. In contrast perturbations in the Yukawa structure also appear in the charged fermion textures due to the GUT relations, and therefore this possibility is more appealing as it can in theory maintain some GUT link between the charged fermions and the deviations from TB that produce the larger $\theta_{13}$ angle. We attempt then to obtain deviations arising in the Yukawa structure only.
One such example arises from reconsidering the $U(1)_F$ or $C_6$ model of the previous section, but replacing now the $U(1)_F$ by $C_5$ (instead of by $C_6$). The field content, PS and $SU(3)_{LF}\times SU(3)_{RF}$ assignments of section \ref{sec:exact} are unchanged. For explicitness, the $C_5$ charges are listed in Table \ref{ta:C5}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|cccccc|}
\hline
Field & $\phi_{123}$ & $\phi_{23}$ & $\phi_{2}$ & $\phi_1$ & $\Sigma$ & $\sigma$ \\ \hline
$C_5$ & $3$ & $1$ & $0$ & $4$ & $4$ & $2$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{$C_5$ transformations of the fields. \label{ta:C5}}
\end{table}
By construction the Yukawa and Majorana terms listed in the previous section are preserved, but one must add to the Yukawa the following new accidental terms:
\begin{equation}
P_{5} \sim \Psi_i \Psi_j^c H \left[\frac{\phi_{23}^{i} \phi_{2}^{j}\sigma \sigma}{M^4} + \frac{\phi_{23}^{i} \phi_{1}^{j} \Sigma \sigma \sigma \sigma}{M^6} + \frac{\phi_{123}^{i} \phi_{1}^{j} \sigma \sigma \sigma \sigma}{M^6} + \frac{\phi_{123}^{i} \phi_{2}^{j} \Sigma \sigma \sigma \sigma \sigma}{M^7} \right]
\end{equation}
The only significant term is the first one, which enters at about $\epsilon^4$ in the second column of the Yukawa matrix and perturbs what previously became the neutrino eigenstate proportional to the $(1,1,1)$ direction - which itself enters at about $\epsilon^3$. This is a clear example of a correction to exact TB neutrinos arising from only one significant source in the neutrino Yukawa sector.
As we would like to generate a $\theta_{13}$ angle around the central values from \cite{Abe:2011sj, Fogli:2011qn, Schwetz:2011zk} we consider that an $(\epsilon, 1, -1)$ eigenstate produces just that order of magnitude for the angle - with the same $\epsilon$ numerical value as used for some of the fermion hierarchies and ratios of VEVs \footnote{We acknowledge Graham Ross for this interesting observation.}.
We searched for concrete examples where we generate such an entry through $\Psi_i \Psi_j^c H \phi_{123}^{i} \phi_{1}^{j}/M^2$ with an appropriate suppression due to $\sigma/M$ - ideally with the following three conditions, similarly to the previous $C_5$ example: 1. no other terms produce significant deviations from TB; 2. with appropriate VEV hierarchies such that the fit works with natural $O(1)$ coefficients; 3. without adding extra fields. We were unable to verify all those conditions due to correlations between the Abelian charges of the familons. As some examples that relax one of conditions, we list the Abelian charges of models 1Y, 1M, 2 and 3 in Table \ref{ta:MF}. The field content, PS and $SU(3)_{LF}\times SU(3)_{RF}$ assignments of section \ref{sec:exact} are the same except for model 3 which has added $\sigma'$ (which is only charged non-trivially under $U(1)_3$, like $\sigma$).
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccccc|}
\hline
Field & $\phi_{123}$ & $\phi_{23}$ & $\phi_{2}$ & $\phi_1$ & $\Sigma$ & $\sigma$ & $\sigma'$ \\ \hline
1Y: $C_N$ & $N/4$ & $N/2$ & $0$ & $N/2$ & $N/2$ & $3N/4$ & $\ast$ \\
1M: $U(1)_{1M}$ & $-1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $-1$ & $-1$ & $1$ & $\ast$ \\
2: $C_{N'}$ & $0$ & $N'/2$ & $0$ & $N'/2$ & $N'/2$ & $N'/2$ & $\ast$ \\
3: $U(1)_{3}$ & $-2$ & $1$ & $0$ & $-1$ & $-1$ & $2$ & $3$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Abelian charges of models 1Y, 1M, 2 and 3. \label{ta:MF}}
\end{table}
We have found two types of models violating condition 1. Model 1Y is similar to the $C_5$ case discussed already as it adds $\Psi_i \Psi_j^c H \phi_{23}^{i} \phi_{2}^{j} \sigma \sigma/M^4$, but the term $\Psi_i \Psi_j^c H \phi_{123}^{i} \phi_{1}^{j} \sigma \sigma \sigma/M^5$ appears (one order lower than in the $C_5$ model). The would-be texture zero in the neutrino Yukawa structure could be populated, but obviously not as the only significant TB deviation.
Model 1M in contrast has no possible $\Psi_i \Psi_j^c H \phi_{23}^{i} \phi_{2}^{j}/M^2$ term and can populate the texture zero but has the structure $\Psi^c_j \Psi^c_k \left[\phi_{1}^{j} \phi_{1}^{k} \sigma \sigma/M^4 + \phi_{1}^{j} \phi_{2}^{k} \sigma/M^3 + \phi_{2}^{j} \phi_{2}^{k}/M^2 \right]$ in the Majorana sector (note that only $SU(3)_{RF}$ is at work so we do not benefit from the $SU(3) \times SU(3)$ framework). The off-diagonal $\phi_1 \phi_2$ terms are not suppressed relative to the $\phi_1 \phi_1$ term and will introduce significant effects that spoil TB mixing.
We can simply take model 1Y and 1M and trade their extra terms that significantly deviate from TB for unnaturally suppressing those extra terms with coefficients that are arbitrarily small (instead of naturally $O(1)$), thus violating condition 2. Another example that is interesting due to its significantly different fermion structures is model 2: the Majorana sector $\Psi^c_j \Psi^c_k \left[\phi_{1}^{j} \phi_{1}^{k}/M^2 + \phi_{1}^{j} \phi_{2}^{k} \sigma/M^3 + \phi_{2}^{j} \phi_{2}^{k}/M^2 \right]$ has $\phi_1 \phi_2$ terms suppressed by $\sigma/M$ that can be made negligible compared to the diagonal terms through the messenger mass of the sector, unlike in model 1M. There are two noteworthy Yukawa terms $\Psi_i \Psi_j^c H \phi_{123}^{i} \phi_{1}^{j} \sigma/M^3$, $\Psi_i \Psi_j^c H \phi_{23}^{i} \phi_{2}^{j} \sigma/M^3$ - at this stage there would already be some fine-tuning if we want to keep the first one and neglect the second one, although not as extreme in the tuned version of model 1Y. Model 2 becomes less appealing when we consider its equivalent to eq.(\ref{eq:massratio}) - interestingly as every relevant term enters at the same order it directly constrains the hierarchy of the L familon VEVs, regardless of messenger masses:
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\frac{\Delta m_{\odot}^2}{\Delta m_{@}^2}} \simeq \epsilon \sim \frac{\langle \phi_{123} \rangle^2}{\langle \phi_{23} \rangle^2}
\end{equation}
Clearly unlike the model in section \ref{sec:exact} this time the consistency check is not naturally verified as the magnitudes of the VEVs go in the opposite direction to the one we argued is desirable in section \ref{sec:VEVs}. So at least in this context the model firmly belongs in the class of unnatural fine-tuning and strongly violates condition 2.
Finally, it is relatively easy to build a model that works - if we are willing to violate condition 3. Simply introduce another field $\sigma'$ and adjust the Abelian charge and magnitude of $\langle \sigma' \rangle/M$ - the only concern is that it does not enable any other unwanted terms. Model 3 starts with the structure shown in section \ref{sec:exact} and directly enables $\Psi_i \Psi_j^c H \phi_{123}^{i} \phi_{1}^{j} \sigma'/M^3$ (it also enables $\Psi_i \Psi_j^c H \phi_{123}^{i} \phi_{2}^{j} \Sigma \sigma'/M^4$, but that term won't affect the existing structure). In this particular construction we also get a term in the Majorana sector that constrains the respective messenger mass against the hierarchy of the VEVs, $\langle \sigma ^2 \rangle/M_N^2 > \langle \sigma' \rangle/M_N$. The problem with this approach is that it is not elegant: a field was added just for this purpose - the magnitude of its VEV is a new parameter that directly controls the deviation from TB and ultimately the value of $\theta_{13}$ (note however that we predict the correct order of magnitude as we require the fit to work for the charged fermions, so we can not perturb the previous structures too much).
Before concluding, we note that it may be possible to get these models to work as intended through specific UV completions (model 3 already works due to $\sigma'$). Problematic terms that at the non-renormalisable level could not be suppressed or disallowed by the symmetries may be fixed at the renormalisable level by the field content (the specific messenger structures). Explicit UV completions are well beyond of the scope of the present work, but \cite{IvoLuca} clearly demonstrates this strategy that can greatly increase predictivity, preserving all the necessary terms but with many terms that would otherwise be allowed being absent solely due to the lack of the necessary messengers.
\section{Conclusion}
We have proposed and motivated the use of multiple non-Abelian family symmetries for building models. We explored a Grand Unified Pati-Salam framework with $SU(3)\times SU(3)$ family symmetries. By the use of specific alignment and model examples we illustrated several advantages of this framework: the natural separation of sectors led to an improved alignment mechanism, mitigation of possible SUSY flavour issues, and to a lower order Yukawa term for the third generation of fermions; the increased control over the allowed terms led to a decrease in the Abelian factors in the total family symmetry and to increased predictivity through the absence of accidental terms in general, and in particular proved ideal to explore possible deviations from exact tri-bi-maximal neutrinos.
\acknowledgments
I want to thank Graham Ross for helpful discussions, particularly about the vacuum alignment mechanism.
This work was supported by DFG grant PA 803/6-1.
\bibliographystyle{JHEP}
|
\section{Short introduction}
The $1$-jet spaces are basic objects in the study of classical and quantum
field theories (see Olver \cite{Olver}). For such a reason, a lot of authors
(Asanov \cite{Asanov}, Saunders \cite{Saunders[8]} and many others) studied
the differential geometry of $1$-jet spaces. Using as a pattern the
Miron-Anastasiei's Lagrangian geometrical ideas (see \cite{Mir-An[4]}),
Balan and Neagu have recently developed the \textit{single-time Lagrange
geometry on }$1$\textit{-jet spaces} (see \cite{Balan-Neagu}), which is very
suitable for the geometrical study of the solutions of a given ODE system,
via the \textit{least squares variational method} initiated by Udri\c{s}te
(see \cite{Udr Geom Dyn[9]}).
In the present days, the biomechanics of the lower limb is an extremely
fruitful field of research. This research field is of interest for a lot of
biomechanists (e.g., see Barbu \cite{Barbu} and Ro\c{s}ca \cite{Rosca}). In
this direction, it is important to note that the differential geometrical
methods from $1$-jet spaces are very useful for studying biomechanics (see
Ivancevic \cite{Ivanc}). In such a perspective, this paper applies the jet
geometrical results from monograph \cite{Balan-Neagu} to the Euler's
dynamical equations that govern the three-dimensional motion of the tibia
with respect to the femur, in the biomechanical and mathematical model
introduced by Grood and Suntay \cite{Grood-Suntay}, and studied further by
many scholars (e.g., see Hefzy and Abdel-Rahman \cite{Hefzy}).
\section{Jet single-time Lagrange geometry produced by a non-linear
dynamical system}
Let us present now the main jet single-time Lagrangian geometrical results
that, in our opinion, may characterize a given non-linear dynamical system.
In this way, let us consider the jet fibre bundle of order one $J^{1}
\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^{n})\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^{n},$
where $n\geq 1,$ whose local coordinates $(t,x^{i},x_{1}^{i}),$ $i=\overline
1,n},$ obey the rule
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{t}=\widetilde{t}(t),\quad \widetilde{x}^{i}=\widetilde{x
^{i}(x^{j}),\quad \widetilde{x}_{1}^{i}=\frac{\partial \widetilde{x}^{i}}
\partial x^{j}}\frac{dt}{d\widetilde{t}}\cdot x_{1}^{j}.
\end{equation*}
Let $\mathfrak{X}=\left( \boldsymbol{X}_{(1)}^{(i)}(x^{k})\right) $ be an
arbitrary distinguished (d-) tensor field on the $1$-jet space $J^{1}
\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^{n})$, whose local components transform by the rule
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{\boldsymbol{X}}_{(1)}^{(i)}=\frac{\partial \widetilde{x}^{i}}
\partial x^{j}}\frac{dt}{d\widetilde{t}}\cdot \boldsymbol{X}_{(1)}^{(j)}.
\end{equation*}
The d-tensor field $\mathfrak{X}$ produces the jet first order ODE system
\textit{jet dynamical system}
\begin{equation}
x_{1}^{i}=\boldsymbol{X}_{(1)}^{(i)}(x^{k}(t)),\quad \forall \text{ }i
\overline{1,n}, \label{DEs1}
\end{equation
where $c(t)=(x^{i}(t))$ is an unknown curve on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ (i.e., a
\textit{jet field line} of the d-tensor field $\mathfrak{X}$), and we hav
\begin{equation*}
x_{1}^{i}:=\dot{x}^{i}=\frac{dx^{i}}{dt},\quad \forall \text{ }i=\overline
1,n}.
\end{equation*}
Let us consider now the \textit{jet least squares Lagrangian function}
(attached to the dynamical system (\ref{DEs1}) and to Euclidian manifolds $
\mathbb{R},1)$ and $(\mathbb{R}^{n},\delta _{ij})$
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{JLS}^{\text{ODEs}}:J^{1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^{n})\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}_{+},
\end{equation*
expressed b
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{JLS}^{\text{ODEs}}(x^{k},x_{1}^{k}) &=&\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\delta _{ij
\left[ x_{1}^{i}-\boldsymbol{X}_{(1)}^{(i)}(x)\right] \left[ x_{1}^{j}
\boldsymbol{X}_{(1)}^{(j)}(x)\right] = \notag \\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[ x_{1}^{i}-\boldsymbol{X}_{(1)}^{(i)}(x)\right] ^{2},
\label{JetLS}
\end{eqnarray
where $x=(x^{k})_{k=\overline{1,n}}.$ It is obvious that the global minimum
points of the \textit{jet least squares energy action
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}^{\text{ODEs}}(c(t))=\int_{a}^{b}\mathbf{JLS}^{\text{ODEs
}(x^{k}(t),\dot{x}^{k}(t))dt,\quad t\in \lbrack a,b],
\end{equation*
are exactly the solutions of class $C^{2}$ of the jet dynamical system (\re
{DEs1}). In other words, any solution of class $C^{2}$ of the system (\re
{DEs1}) verifies the second order Euler-Lagrange equations (i.e., the
\textit{jet geometric dynamics} associated to the ODE system (\ref{DEs1}))
produced by the jet least squares Lagrangian function (\ref{JetLS}):
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \left[ \mathbf{JLS}^{\text{ODEs}}\right] }{\partial x^{i}}
\frac{d}{dt}\left( \frac{\partial \left[ \mathbf{JLS}^{\text{ODEs}}\right] }
\partial \dot{x}^{i}}\right) =0,\quad \forall \text{ }i=\overline{1,n}.
\label{E-L}
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
Conversely, the preceding statement is not true. In other words, there exist
solutions of the Euler-Lagrange ODE system of second order \emph{(\ref{E-L})
, which are not global minimum points for the jet least squares energy
action $\mathcal{E}^{\text{\emph{ODEs}}}$, that is which are not solutions
for the initial jet dynamical system \emph{(\ref{DEs1})}.
\end{remark}
In such a context, we consider that we may regard the jet least squares
Lagrangian function $\mathbf{JLS}^{\text{ODEs}}$ as a natural geometrical
substitut on the $1$-jet space $J^{1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^{n})$ for the
dynamical system (\ref{DEs1}). But, an entire single-time Lagrange geometry
on the $1$-jet space $J^{1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^{n})$ (in the sense of
nonlinear connection, generalized Cartan linear connection, d-torsions,
d-curvatures, jet "electromagnetic" d-field and jet "electromagnetic"
Yang-Mills energy), geometry which is produced only by the jet least squares
Lagrangian function $\mathbf{JLS}^{\text{ODEs}}$ (via its Euler-Lagrange
equations (\ref{E-L})), is now completely done in the book \cite{Balan-Neagu
. For such a reason, we introduce the following concept:
\begin{definition}
Any kind of geometrical object on $J^{1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^{n})$, which
is produced by the jet least squares Lagrangian function $\mathbf{JLS}^
\text{\emph{ODEs}}}$ (via its second order Euler-Lagrange equations \emph{
\ref{E-L})}) is called a \textbf{geometrical object produced by the jet
dynamical system} \emph{(\ref{DEs1})}.
\end{definition}
Let us consider the Jacobian matrix
\begin{equation*}
J\left( \mathfrak{X}\right) =\left( \dfrac{\partial \boldsymbol{X
_{(1)}^{(i)}}{\partial x^{j}}\right) _{i,j=\overline{1,n}}.
\end{equation*
In such a context, we give the following geometrical result (which is proved
in the book \cite{Balan-Neagu}):
\begin{theorem}
\label{MainTh}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\emph{(1)}] The \textbf{canonical nonlinear connection} on $J^{1}
\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^{n})$\ \textbf{produced by the jet dynamical system
\emph{(\ref{DEs1})} has the local components
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma ^{\text{\emph{ODEs}}}=\left( \boldsymbol{M}_{(1)1}^{(i)}=0
\boldsymbol{N}_{(1)j}^{(i)}\right) ,
\end{equation*
wher
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbf{N}_{(1)} &=&\left( \boldsymbol{N}_{(1)j}^{(i)}=-\frac{1}{2}\left[
\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{X}_{(1)}^{(i)}}{\partial x^{j}}-\frac{\partial
\boldsymbol{X}_{(1)}^{(j)}}{\partial x^{i}}\right] \right) _{i,j=\overline
1,n}}= \\
&=&-\dfrac{1}{2}\left[ J\left( \mathfrak{X}\right) -\text{ }^{\emph{T
}J\left( \mathfrak{X}\right) \right] .
\end{eqnarray*}
\item[\emph{(2)}] All adapted components of the \textbf{canonical Cartan
linear connection} $\mathtt{C}\Gamma ^{\text{\emph{ODEs}}}$\ \textbf
produced by the jet dynamical system} \emph{(\ref{DEs1})} are zero.
\item[\emph{(3)}] The \textbf{torsion tensor} $\mathbf{T}^{\text{\emph{ODEs}
}$ of the canonical Cartan linear connection $\mathtt{C}\Gamma ^{\text{\emph
ODEs}}}$ \textbf{produced by the jet dynamical system} \emph{(\ref{DEs1})}
has the adapted components ($k=\overline{1,n}$
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{T}_{(1)k}=\left( \boldsymbol{T}_{(1)jk}^{(i)}=-\frac{1}{2}\left[
\frac{\partial ^{2}\boldsymbol{X}_{(1)}^{(i)}}{\partial x^{k}\partial x^{j}}
\frac{\partial ^{2}\boldsymbol{X}_{(1)}^{(j)}}{\partial x^{k}\partial x^{i}
\right] \right) _{i,j=\overline{1,n}}=\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{N}_{(1)}}
\partial x^{k}}.
\end{equation*}
\item[\emph{(4)}] All adapted components of the \textbf{curvature tensor}
\mathbf{R}^{\text{\emph{ODEs}}}$ of the canonical Cartan linear connection
\mathtt{C}\Gamma ^{\text{\emph{ODEs}}}$ \textbf{produced by the jet
dynamical system} \emph{(\ref{DEs1})} cancel.
\item[\emph{(5)}] The \textbf{geometric "electromagnetic" distinguished }$2
\textbf{-form produced by the jet dynamical system} \emph{(\ref{DEs1})} has
the expression
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{F}^{\text{\emph{ODEs}}}=\boldsymbol{F}_{(i)j}^{(1)}\delta
x_{1}^{i}\wedge dx^{j},
\end{equation*
where
\begin{equation*}
\delta x_{1}^{i}=dx_{1}^{i}+\boldsymbol{N}_{(1)k}^{(i)}dx^{k},\quad \text{
\forall \text{ }i=\overline{1,n},
\end{equation*
and we hav
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{F}^{(1)}=\left( \boldsymbol{F}_{(i)j}^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}\left[ \frac
\partial \boldsymbol{X}_{(1)}^{(i)}}{\partial x^{j}}-\frac{\partial
\boldsymbol{X}_{(1)}^{(j)}}{\partial x^{i}}\right] \right) _{i,j=\overline
1,n}}=-\mathbf{N}_{(1)}.
\end{equation*}
\item[\emph{(6)}] The \textbf{jet geometric "electromagnetic" Yang-Mills
energy produced by the jet dynamical system} \emph{(\ref{DEs1})} is given by
the formula
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{EYM}^{\text{\emph{ODEs}}}(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\sum_{j=i+1}^{n}\left[
\boldsymbol{F}_{(i)j}^{(1)}\right] ^{2}=\dfrac{1}{2}\cdot \text{\emph{Trace}
\left[ \mathbf{F}^{(1)}\cdot \text{ }^{\emph{T}}\mathbf{F}^{(1)}\right] .
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The adapted components $\boldsymbol{F}_{(i)j}^{(1)}$ of the
"electromagnetic" (d-) $2$-form $\mathcal{F}^{\text{\emph{ODEs}}}$ produced
by the jet dynamical system \emph{(\ref{DEs1})} verify the following \textbf
geometrical Maxwell equations}
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{\{i,j,k\}}\boldsymbol{F}_{(i)j||k}^{(1)}=0,
\end{equation*
where $\sum_{\{i,j,k\}}$ represents a cyclic sum and we hav
\begin{equation*}
\boldsymbol{F}_{(i)j||k}^{(1)}=\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{F}_{(i)j}^{(1)}}
\partial x^{k}}.
\end{equation*
For more details in the jet "electromagnetic" topic, please consult the work
\emph{\cite{Balan-Neagu}}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The jet geometric Yang-Mills energy $\mathbf{EYM}^{\text{\emph{ODEs}}}$
coincides with the norm of the skew-symmetric "electromagnetic" matrix
\mathbf{F}^{(1)}$ in the Lie algebr
\begin{equation*}
o(n)=L(O(n))=\left\{ \left. A\in M_{n}(\mathbb{R})\text{ }\right\vert \text{
}A+\text{ }^{\emph{T}}A=0\right\} ,
\end{equation*
where $O(n)=\left\{ \left. A\in M_{n}(\mathbb{R})\text{ }\right\vert \text{
A\cdot \text{ }^{\emph{T}}A=I_{n}\right\} $ is the corresponding Lie group
of the orthogonal matrices.
\end{remark}
\section{Three-dimensional mathematical model used for studying the
tibio-femoral dynamics}
The femur and tibia are modeled as two rigid bodies. Cartilage deformation
is assumed relatively small compared to joint motions and not to affect
relative motions and forces within the tibio-femoral joint. Furthermore,
friction forces will be neglected because of the extremely low coefficients
of friction of the articular surfaces. Hence, in this model, the resistance
to motion is essentially due to the ligamentous structures and the contact
forces. The menisci were not taken into consideration in the present model.
For more biomechanical details, see Hefzy and Abdel-Rahman \cite{Hefzy}.
The joint coordinate system, which was introduced by Grood and Suntay \cit
{Grood-Suntay}, is used to define the rotation and translation vectors that
describe the three-dimensional patella-femoral and tibio-femoral motions.
This joint coordinate system consists of an $x$-axis that is fixed on the
femur ($\overline{i}$ is the unit vector directing the $x$-axis), a
z^{\prime }$-axis that is fixed on the tibia ($\overline{k}^{\prime }$ is
the unit vector directing the $z^{\prime }$-axis), and a floating axis
perpendicular to these two fixed axes ($\overline{i}\times \overline{k
^{\prime }$ is the unit vector directing the floating axis). The
Grood-Suntay's rotation vector includes three angular components:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha $ is the \textit{flexion-extension angle} that characterize
the rotation occured around the femoral fixed axis $O_{F}x$;
\item $\beta -\pi /2$ is the \textit{adduction-abduction angle} for the
right knee, that characterizes the rotation arround the floating axis (this
is the case studied by us). For the left knee, the adduction-abduction angle
is given by $\pi /2-\beta $. In both cases the angle $\beta $ is called the
\textit{varus-valgus angle}.
\item $\gamma $ is the \textit{internal-external tibial angle} that
characterize the rotation which occurs about the tibial fixed axis
O_{T}z^{\prime }$.
\end{enumerate}
Using this joint coordinate system, the rotation vector (describing the
orientation of the tibial coordinate system with respect to the femoral
coordinate system) is defined as:
{\small
\begin{equation*}
\overline{\theta }=-\alpha \overline{i}-\beta \left[ \overline{i}\times
\overline{k}^{\prime }\right] -\gamma \overline{k}^{\prime }.
\end{equation*
}
This rotation vector can be transformed to the femoral coordinate system,
and then, it can be differentiated with respect to time to yield the angular
velocity and angular acceleration vectors of the tibia with respect to the
femur.
In this analysis, it is assumed that the femur is fixed while the tibia is
moving. The transformations of these two Grood-Suntay coordinate systems are
given by (see \cite{Grood-Suntay}, \cite{Hefzy}
\begin{equation*}
\overline{r}=\overline{r}_{O_{T}}+\overline{r}^{\prime }=\overline{r
_{O_{T}}+\mathfrak{R\cdot }\overline{r}_{t=0},
\end{equation*
where the vector $\overline{r}_{O_{T}}$ is the position vector which locates
the origin of the tibial coordinate system with respect to the femoral
coordinate system (the tibial origin $O_{T}$ is considered in the center of
tibia), $\overline{r}_{t=0}$ describes the position vector of an arbitrary
point $P$ with respect to the tibial coordinate system (at the initial
moment $t=0$; note that the vector $\overline{r}_{t=0}$ is constant in
time), and $\overline{r}^{\prime }$ is the position vector (at an arbitrary
moment $t$) of the same point $P$ with respect to the tibial coordinate
system. As usual in the mechanics of the rigid bodies, the position vector
\overline{r}^{\prime }$ of the point $P$ is expressed by the rotation formul
\begin{equation*}
\overline{r}^{\prime }=\mathfrak{R\cdot }\overline{r}_{t=0},
\end{equation*
where the matrix of rotatio
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{R}{=}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
R_{11} & R_{12} & R_{13} \\
R_{21} & R_{22} & R_{23} \\
R_{31} & R_{32} & R_{33
\end{array
\right) \label{matrix of rotation R}
\end{equation
has the entries (see \cite{Grood-Suntay}, \cite{Hefzy}
\begin{equation*}
R_{11}=\sin {\scriptsize \beta }\cos {\scriptsize \gamma ,}\quad R_{12}=\sin
{\scriptsize \beta }\sin {\scriptsize \gamma ,\quad }R_{13}=\cos
{\scriptsize \beta ,}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
R_{21}={\scriptsize -}\cos {\scriptsize \alpha }\sin {\scriptsize \gamma -
\sin {\scriptsize \alpha }\cos {\scriptsize \beta }\cos {\scriptsize \gamma
}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
R_{22}=\cos {\scriptsize \alpha }\cos {\scriptsize \gamma -}\sin
{\scriptsize \alpha }\cos {\scriptsize \beta }\sin {\scriptsize \gamma
,\quad }R_{23}=\sin {\scriptsize \alpha }\sin {\scriptsize \beta ,}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
R_{31}=\sin {\scriptsize \alpha }\sin {\scriptsize \gamma -}\cos
{\scriptsize \alpha }\cos {\scriptsize \beta }\cos {\scriptsize \gamma ,}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
R_{32}={\scriptsize -}\sin {\scriptsize \alpha }\cos {\scriptsize \gamma -
\cos {\scriptsize \alpha }\cos {\scriptsize \beta }\sin {\scriptsize \gamma
,\quad }R_{33}=\cos {\scriptsize \alpha }\sin {\scriptsize \beta .}
\end{equation*
The rotation matrix $\mathfrak{R}$ is generated by multiplying the three
matrices generated by the rotations arround the axes, namely:
\begin{enumerate}
\item a rotation of angle $\alpha $ arround the axis $O_{F}x$ (from the top
of the vector $\overline{i}$ the rotation is clock-wise)
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{R}_{{\scriptsize O}_{F}x,\text{ }\alpha }:{=}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \cos \alpha & \sin \alpha \\
0 & -\sin \alpha & \cos \alph
\end{array
\right) ;
\end{equation*}
\item a rotation of angle $\dfrac{\pi }{2}-\beta $ arround the floating axis
(from the top of the vector $\overline{i}\times \overline{k}^{\prime }$ the
rotation is clock-wise)
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{R}_{\text{ {\scriptsize floating axis}},\text{ }\beta }:{=}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\sin \beta & 0 & \cos \beta \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
-\cos \beta & 0 & \sin \bet
\end{array
\right) ;
\end{equation*}
\item a rotation of angle $\gamma $ arround the axis $O_{T}z^{\prime }$
(from the top of the vector $\overline{k}^{\prime }$ the rotation is
clock-wise)
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{R}_{{\scriptsize O}_{T}z^{\prime },\text{ }\gamma }:{=}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos \gamma & \sin \gamma & 0 \\
-\sin \gamma & \cos \gamma & 0 \\
0 & 0 &
\end{array
\right) .
\end{equation*
In other words, we have the matrix equalit
\begin{equation*}
\mathfrak{R}{=}\mathcal{R}_{{\scriptsize O}_{F}x,\text{ }\alpha }\cdot
\mathcal{R}_{\text{ {\scriptsize floating axis}},\text{ }\beta }\cdot
\mathcal{R}_{{\scriptsize O}_{T}z^{\prime },\text{ }\gamma }.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
The equations that govern the three-dimensional motion of the tibia with
respect to the femur are the second order differential Newton's and Euler's
equations of motion.
The classical Newton's equations are written in scalar form, with respect to
the femoral fixed system of axes, as
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
F_{x}^{\text{ext}}+G_{x}=m\ddot{x}_{O_{F}}\medskip \\
F_{y}^{\text{ext}}+G_{y}=m\ddot{y}_{O_{F}}\medskip \\
F_{z}^{\text{ext}}+G_{z}=m\ddot{z}_{O_{F}}
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\overline{F}^{\text{ext}}=F_{x}^{\text{ext}}\cdot \overline{i}+F_{y}^
\text{ext}}\cdot \overline{j}+F_{z}^{\text{ext}}\cdot \overline{k}$ is the
sum of all external forces applied to the tibia-femur (contact forces in
knee, ligamentous forces in knee etc.);
\item $\overline{G}=G_{x}\cdot \overline{i}+G_{y}\cdot \overline{j
+G_{z}\cdot \overline{k}$ is the weight of the leg of mass $m$; the mass of
the leg was taken in this experiment as $m=4.0$ $\unit{kg}$ (see Hefzy and
Abdel-Rahman \cite{Hefzy}).
\item $\overline{a}_{O_{F}}=\ddot{x}_{O_{F}}\cdot \overline{i}+\ddot{y
_{O_{F}}\cdot \overline{j}+\ddot{z}_{O_{F}}\cdot \overline{k}$ is the
acceleration of the center of mass of the leg (which is fixed in the origin
of the femoral coordinate system $O_{F}$).
\end{itemize}
From the perspective of the rigid body mechanics, the Euler's equations of
motion are written in the scalar form as
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
I_{x^{\prime }x^{\prime }}\dot{\omega}_{x^{\prime }}+\left( I_{z^{\prime
}z^{\prime }}-I_{y^{\prime }y^{\prime }}\right) \omega _{y^{\prime }}\omega
_{z^{\prime }}=M_{x^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}\medskip \\
I_{y^{\prime }y^{\prime }}\dot{\omega}_{y^{\prime }}+\left( I_{x^{\prime
}x^{\prime }}-I_{z^{\prime }z^{\prime }}\right) \omega _{z^{\prime }}\omega
_{x^{\prime }}=M_{y^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}\medskip \\
I_{z^{\prime }z^{\prime }}\dot{\omega}_{z^{\prime }}+\left( I_{y^{\prime
}y^{\prime }}-I_{x^{\prime }x^{\prime }}\right) \omega _{x^{\prime }}\omega
_{y^{\prime }}=M_{z^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}
\end{array
\right. \label{Euler equations GENERAL}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\overline{\omega }=\omega _{x^{\prime }}\cdot \overline{i}^{\prime
}+\omega _{y^{\prime }}\cdot \overline{j}^{\prime }+\omega _{z^{\prime
}}\cdot \overline{k}^{\prime }$ is the angular velocity vector of the tibia
with respect to the femur;
\item $\overset{\bullet }{\overline{\omega }}=\dot{\omega}_{x^{\prime
}}\cdot \overline{i}^{\prime }+\dot{\omega}_{y^{\prime }}\cdot \overline{j
^{\prime }+\dot{\omega}_{z^{\prime }}\cdot \overline{k}^{\prime }$ is the
angular acceleration vector of the tibia with respect to the femur;
\item $\overline{M}^{\text{ext}}=M_{x^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}\cdot \overline
i}^{\prime }+M_{y^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}\cdot \overline{j}^{\prime
}+M_{z^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}\cdot \overline{k}^{\prime }$ is the sum of
the moments (the torques) of all external forces acting on the tibia around
the $x^{\prime }$-, $y^{\prime }$-, and $z^{\prime }$-axes;
\item $I_{x^{\prime }x^{\prime }}$, $I_{y^{\prime }y^{\prime }}$ and
I_{z^{\prime }z^{\prime }}$ are the principal moments of inertia of the leg
about its centroidal principal system of axes. The inertial parameters were
estimated using anthropometric data a
\begin{equation*}
I_{x^{\prime }x^{\prime }}=0.0672\unit{kg}\cdot \unit{m}^{2},\qquad
I_{y^{\prime }y^{\prime }}=0.0672\unit{kg}\cdot \unit{m}^{2},\qquad
\!\!\!\!\!I_{z^{\prime }z^{\prime }}=0.005334\unit{kg}\cdot \unit{m}^{2}.
\end{equation*
Note that, in this analysis, the leg was assumed to be a right cylinder. For
more details, please see Hefzy and Abdel-Rahman \cite{Hefzy}, and references
therein.
\end{itemize}
\begin{remark}
If we use the matrix equalit
\begin{equation*}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{i}^{\prime }, & \overline{j}^{\prime }, & \overline{k}^{\prime
\end{array
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{i}, & \overline{j}, & \overline{k
\end{array
\right) \cdot \mathfrak{R},
\end{equation*
then we deduce that the rotation vector $\overline{\theta }$ takes in the
femoral system of axes the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{\theta } &=&\left( -\alpha -\gamma \cos \beta \right) \cdot
\overline{i}+\left( -\beta \cos \alpha -\gamma \sin \alpha \sin \beta
\right) \cdot \overline{j}+ \label{angular rotation vector} \\
&&+\left( \beta \sin \alpha -\gamma \cos \alpha \sin \beta \right) \cdot
\overline{k}. \notag
\end{eqnarray
Therefore, by differentiating the rotation vector $\overline{\theta }$, we
find the angular velocity vecto
\begin{equation*}
\overline{\omega }=\frac{d\overline{\theta }}{dt}=\omega _{x}\cdot \overline
i}+\omega _{y}\cdot \overline{j}+\omega _{z}\cdot \overline{k}.
\end{equation*
Now, by rotating the angular velocity vector $\overline{\omega }$, via the
formul
\begin{equation*}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\omega _{x^{\prime }}, & \omega _{y^{\prime }}, & \omega _{z^{\prime }
\end{array
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\omega _{x}, & \omega _{y}, & \omega _{z
\end{array
\right) \cdot \mathfrak{R},
\end{equation*
we obtain the equalities (see also \emph{\cite{Hefzy}})
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{l}
\omega _{x^{\prime }}=-\dot{\alpha}\sin \beta \cos \gamma -\dot{\alpha}\beta
\cos \beta \cos \gamma +\dot{\alpha}\gamma \sin \beta \sin \gamma +\dot{\bet
}\sin \gamma +\dot{\beta}\gamma \cos \gamma ,\medskip \\
\omega _{y^{\prime }}=-\dot{\alpha}\sin \beta \sin \gamma -\dot{\alpha}\beta
\cos \beta \sin \gamma -\dot{\alpha}\gamma \sin \beta \cos \gamma -\dot{\bet
}\cos \gamma +\dot{\beta}\gamma \sin \gamma ,\medskip \\
\omega _{z^{\prime }}=-\dot{\alpha}\cos \beta +\dot{\alpha}\beta \sin \beta
\dot{\gamma}
\end{array
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}
\section{Approximate values of the components of the total external torque
and angular velocity}
Using the three-dimensional mathematical model for the tibio-femoral motion
due to Luh et al. (see \cite{Luh}), Apkarian et al. (see \cite{Apkarian})
practically measured in a lab frame (using some specialized devices) the
total external torques acting on the tibia of a subject (A) having the
stride length $1.41\unit{m}$ and the speed of walking $1.21\unit{m}/\unit{s}
. Obviously, the time of the gait cycle for the subject (A), studied in the
paper \cite{Apkarian}, is $T=1.1652\unit{s}$.
Let us consider for the subject (A) the following gait cycle intermediate
moments
\begin{equation*}
t_{0}=0\text{ }(\text{0\%}),\quad t_{1}=T/4=0.2913\text{ }(\text{25\%
),\quad t_{2}=T/2=0.5826\text{ }(\text{50\%}),
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
t_{3}=3T/4=0.8739\text{ }(\text{75\%}),\quad t_{4}=T=1.1652\text{ }(\text
100\%}).
\end{equation*}
Looking now at the three graphs of the knee torque components (computed in
\unit{N}\cdot \unit{m}$ in the paper \cite{Apkarian}, pp. 153), we see that
the total external torque vector of the knee
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline{M}^{\text{ext}} &=&M_{x}^{\text{ext}}\cdot \overline{i}+M_{y}^
\text{ext}}\cdot \overline{j}+M_{z}^{\text{ext}}\cdot \overline{k}:=\bigskip
\\
&:&=-M_{\text{valgus}}\cdot \overline{i}-M_{\text{extension}}\cdot \overline
j}+M_{\text{internal}}\cdot \overline{k}
\end{eqnarray*
has the following approximate interpolation components
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tabular}{||l||l||l||}
\hline\hline
$M_{x}^{\text{ext}}(t_{0})\approx 7.5,$ & $M_{y}^{\text{ext}}(t_{0})\approx
7.5,$ & $M_{z}^{\text{ext}}(t_{0})=0,$ \\ \hline\hline
$M_{x}^{\text{ext}}(t_{1})\approx -40,$ & $M_{y}^{\text{ext}}(t_{1})=0,$ &
M_{z}^{\text{ext}}(t_{1})\approx 5,$ \\ \hline\hline
$M_{x}^{\text{ext}}(t_{2})\approx -15,$ & $M_{y}^{\text{ext}}(t_{2})=0,$ &
M_{z}^{\text{ext}}(t_{2})=0,$ \\ \hline\hline
$M_{x}^{\text{ext}}(t_{3})=0,$ & $M_{y}^{\text{ext}}(t_{3})=0,$ & $M_{z}^
\text{ext}}(t_{3})\approx -5,$ \\ \hline\hline
$M_{x}^{\text{ext}}(t_{4})\approx 7.5,$ & $M_{y}^{\text{ext}}(t_{4})\approx
15,$ & $M_{z}^{\text{ext}}(t_{4})=0.$ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular
\end{equation*}
At the same time, looking at the approximate values of the three knee angles
appearing in the graphs from \cite{Apkarian} (pp. 150), we observe that the
rotation vecto
\begin{equation*}
\overline{\theta }=\theta _{x}\cdot \overline{i}+\theta _{y}\cdot \overline{
}+\theta _{z}\cdot \overline{k}:=-\theta _{\text{varus}}\cdot \overline{i
-\theta _{\text{flexion}}\cdot \overline{j}-\theta _{\text{external}}\cdot
\overline{k}
\end{equation*
has the interpolation components (the angles are presented here in radians;
from the top of the vectors $\overline{i}$, $\overline{j}$, $\overline{k}$,
these angles are measured counter-clock-wise)
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tabular}{||l||l||}
\hline\hline
$\theta _{x}(t_{0})=0\text{ }(=0^{\circ }),$ & $\theta _{y}(t_{0})\approx
-0.0872\text{ }(=-5^{\circ }),$ \\ \hline\hline
$\theta _{x}(t_{1})\approx -0.0872\text{ }(=-5^{\circ }),$ & $\theta
_{y}(t_{1})\approx -0.3490\text{ }(=-20^{\circ }),$ \\ \hline\hline
$\theta _{x}(t_{2})\approx -0.0872\text{ }(=-5^{\circ }),$ & $\theta
_{y}(t_{2})\approx -0.3490\text{ }(=-20^{\circ }),$ \\ \hline\hline
$\theta _{x}(t_{3})\approx -0.1745\text{ }(=-10^{\circ }),$ & $\theta
_{y}(t_{3})\approx -1.1344\text{ }(=-65^{\circ }),$ \\ \hline\hline
$\theta _{x}(t_{4})=0\text{ }(=0^{\circ }),$ & $\theta _{y}(t_{4})\approx
-0.0872\text{ }(=-5^{\circ }),$ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tabular}{||l||}
\hline\hline
$\theta _{z}(t_{0})\approx -0.1745\text{ }(=-10^{\circ }),$ \\ \hline\hline
$\theta _{z}(t_{1})\approx -0.0872\text{ }(=-5^{\circ }),$ \\ \hline\hline
$\theta _{z}(t_{2})\approx -0.1745\text{ }(=-10^{\circ }),$ \\ \hline\hline
$\theta _{z}(t_{3})\approx -0.0872\text{ }(=-5^{\circ }),$ \\ \hline\hline
$\theta _{z}(t_{4})\approx -0.1745\text{ }(=-10^{\circ }).$ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular
\end{equation*}
\begin{remark}
Solving numerically the angle system (see the rotation vector \emph{(\re
{angular rotation vector})}
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
-\alpha -\gamma \cos \beta =\theta _{x}\medskip \\
-\beta \cos \alpha -\gamma \sin \alpha \sin \beta =\theta _{y}\medskip \\
\beta \sin \alpha -\gamma \cos \alpha \sin \beta =\theta _{z}
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
we find the following intermediate Grood-Suntay's angles for knee
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tabular}{||l||l||l||}
\hline\hline
$\alpha (t_{0})\approx -0.5786,$ & $\beta (t_{0})\approx 0.1684,$ & $\gamma
(t_{0})\approx 0.5869,$ \\ \hline\hline
$\alpha (t_{1})\approx -0.0760,$ & $\beta (t_{1})\approx 0.3546,$ & $\gamma
(t_{1})\approx 0.1740,$ \\ \hline\hline
$\alpha (t_{2})\approx -0.1851,$ & $\beta (t_{2})\approx 0.3751,$ & $\gamma
(t_{2})\approx 0.2927,$ \\ \hline\hline
$\alpha (t_{3})\approx 0.0859,$ & $\beta (t_{3})\approx 1.1227,$ & $\gamma
(t_{3})\approx 0.2044,$ \\ \hline\hline
$\alpha (t_{4})\approx -0.5786,$ & $\beta (t_{4})\approx 0.1684,$ & $\gamma
(t_{4})\approx 0.5869.$ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}
Now, using the Lagrange polynomial of interpolation generally described b
\begin{eqnarray*}
P(x) &=&y_{0}\cdot \frac{x-x_{1}}{x_{0}-x_{1}}\cdot \frac{x-x_{2}}
x_{0}-x_{2}}\cdot \frac{x-x_{3}}{x_{0}-x_{3}}\cdot \frac{x-x_{4}}{x_{0}-x_{4
}+ \\
&&+y_{1}\cdot \frac{x-x_{0}}{x_{1}-x_{0}}\cdot \frac{x-x_{2}}{x_{1}-x_{2}
\cdot \frac{x-x_{3}}{x_{1}-x_{3}}\cdot \frac{x-x_{4}}{x_{1}-x_{4}}+ \\
&&+y_{2}\cdot \frac{x-x_{0}}{x_{2}-x_{0}}\cdot \frac{x-x_{1}}{x_{2}-x_{1}
\cdot \frac{x-x_{3}}{x_{2}-x_{3}}\cdot \frac{x-x_{4}}{x_{2}-x_{4}}+ \\
&&+y_{3}\cdot \frac{x-x_{0}}{x_{3}-x_{0}}\cdot \frac{x-x_{1}}{x_{3}-x_{1}
\cdot \frac{x-x_{2}}{x_{3}-x_{2}}\cdot \frac{x-x_{4}}{x_{3}-x_{4}}+ \\
&&+y_{4}\cdot \frac{x-x_{0}}{x_{4}-x_{0}}\cdot \frac{x-x_{1}}{x_{4}-x_{1}
\cdot \frac{x-x_{2}}{x_{4}-x_{2}}\cdot \frac{x-x_{3}}{x_{4}-x_{3}},
\end{eqnarray*
we can construct the approximate Apkarian's angle functions $\theta _{x}(t)
, $\theta _{y}(t)$ and $\theta _{z}(t)$. Afterward, by differentiating the
angle functions $\theta _{x}(t)$, $\theta _{y}(t)$ and $\theta _{z}(t)$, we
get the components of the angular velocity in our gait cycle moments ($\unit
rad}/\unit{s})$
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tabular}{||l||l||l||}
\hline\hline
$\omega _{x}(t_{0})\approx -1.0981,$ & $\omega _{y}(t_{0})\approx -5.6920,$
& $\omega _{z}(t_{0})\approx 1.5984,$ \\ \hline\hline
$\omega _{x}(t_{1})\approx 0.0999,$ & $\omega _{y}(t_{1})\approx 1.1983,$ &
\omega _{z}(t_{1})\approx -0.3997,$ \\ \hline\hline
$\omega _{x}(t_{2})\approx -0.1998,$ & $\omega _{y}(t_{2})\approx -1.7974,$
& $\omega _{z}(t_{2})\approx -0.0002,$ \\ \hline\hline
$\omega _{x}(t_{3})\approx -0.1997,$ & $\omega _{y}(t_{3})\approx -2.0970,$
& $\omega _{z}(t_{3})\approx 0.3993,$ \\ \hline\hline
$\omega _{x}(t_{4})\approx 1.8975,$ & $\omega _{y}(t_{4})\approx 12.8820,$ &
$\omega _{z}(t_{4})\approx -1.5983.$ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular
\end{equation*
Consequently, via the rotation formula
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{l}
\text{X}^{^{\prime }}=R_{11}\text{X}+R_{21}\text{Y}+R_{31}\text{Z},\medskip
\\
\text{Y}^{^{\prime }}=R_{12}\text{X}+R_{22}\text{Y}+R_{32}\text{Z},\medskip
\\
\text{Z}^{^{\prime }}=R_{13}\text{X}+R_{23}\text{Y}+R_{33}\text{Z}
\end{array
\end{equation*
where $R_{ij}$ are given by the expressions from (\ref{matrix of rotation R
), we find the following intermediate vector components (with respect to
tibia coordinate system):\medskip
$\blacksquare $ $-$ components of the total external torque
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tabular}{||l||l||l||}
\hline\hline
$M_{x^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}(t_{0})\approx 0.9361,$ & $M_{y^{\prime }}^
\text{ext}}(t_{0})\approx 8.1637,$ & $M_{z^{\prime }}^{\text{ext
}(t_{0})\approx 6.7065,$ \\ \hline\hline
$M_{x^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}(t_{1})\approx -18.3490,$ & $M_{y^{\prime }}^
\text{ext}}(t_{1})\approx -2.8400,$ & $M_{z^{\prime }}^{\text{ext
}(t_{1})\approx -35.7800,$ \\ \hline\hline
$M_{x^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}(t_{2})\approx -5.2618,$ & $M_{y^{\prime }}^
\text{ext}}(t_{2})\approx -1.5857,$ & $M_{z^{\prime }}^{\text{ext
}(t_{2})\approx -13.9570,$ \\ \hline\hline
$M_{x^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}(t_{3})\approx 2.0263,$ & $M_{y^{\prime }}^
\text{ext}}(t_{3})\approx 0.8581,$ & $M_{z^{\prime }}^{\text{ext
}(t_{3})\approx -4.4898,$ \\ \hline\hline
$M_{x^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}(t_{4})\approx 0.8255,$ & $M_{y^{\prime }}^
\text{ext}}(t_{4})\approx 15.6310,$ & $M_{z^{\prime }}^{\text{ext
}(t_{4})\approx 6.0191.$ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular
\end{equation*}
$\blacksquare $ $-$ components of the angular velocity
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tabular}{||l||l||l||}
\hline\hline
$\omega _{x^{\prime }}(t_{0})\approx -1.6519,$ & $\omega _{y^{\prime
}}(t_{0})\approx -5.7721,$ & $\omega _{z^{\prime }}(t_{0})\approx -0.3366,$
\\ \hline\hline
$\omega _{x^{\prime }}(t_{1})\approx 0.2847,$ & $\omega _{y^{\prime
}}(t_{1})\approx 1.2324,$ & $\omega _{z^{\prime }}(t_{1})\approx -0.0762,$
\\ \hline\hline
$\omega _{x^{\prime }}(t_{2})\approx 0.1451,$ & $\omega _{y}(t_{2})\approx
-1.8010,$ & $\omega _{z^{\prime }}(t_{2})\approx -0.0647,$ \\ \hline\hline
$\omega _{x^{\prime }}(t_{3})\approx 0.1623,$ & $\omega _{y^{\prime
}}(t_{3})\approx -2.1350,$ & $\omega _{z^{\prime }}(t_{3})\approx 0.1098,$
\\ \hline\hline
$\omega _{x^{\prime }}(t_{4})\approx 1.6574,$ & $\omega _{y^{\prime
}}(t_{4})\approx 13.0050,$ & $\omega _{z^{\prime }}(t_{4})\approx 0.4656.$
\\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular
\end{equation*}
Now, using the preceding Tables and the well-known method of multiple
regression from Statistics, by numerical computations, we get the following
linear approximations for the torque components $M_{x^{\prime }}^{\text{ext
} $, $M_{y^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}$ and $M_{z^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}$, with
respect to the angular velocity components $\omega _{x^{\prime }}$, $\omega
_{y^{\prime }}$ and $\omega _{z^{\prime }}$ (via the classical method of
least squares)
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
M_{x^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}\approx -16.9430\cdot \omega _{x^{\prime
}}-0.5003\cdot \omega _{y^{\prime }}+80.9290\cdot \omega _{z^{\prime
}}-3.0709,\medskip \\
M_{y^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}\approx -15.1720\cdot \omega _{x^{\prime
}}+1.5740\cdot \omega _{y^{\prime }}+34.8270\cdot \omega _{z^{\prime
}}+3.7511,\medskip \\
M_{z^{\prime }}^{\text{ext}}\approx -39.7610\cdot \omega _{x^{\prime
}}+0.9071\cdot \omega _{y^{\prime }}+140.8000\cdot \omega _{z^{\prime
}}-7.1266
\end{array}
\label{approximative-torques}
\end{equation}
\section{From Euler's equations of motion of knee to jet "electromagnetic"
Yang-Mills energy}
Note that, in our jet geometrical approach, we can regard the Euler's
equations of motion (\ref{Euler equations GENERAL}) as a dynamical system on
the $1$-jet space $J^{1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^{3})$. The coordinates on the
$1$-jet space $J^{1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^{3})$ are considered as bein
\begin{equation*}
(t,\omega _{x^{\prime }},\omega _{y^{\prime }},\omega _{z^{\prime }},\dot
\omega}_{x^{\prime }},\dot{\omega}_{y^{\prime }},\dot{\omega}_{z^{\prime }}).
\end{equation*}
In such a context, taking the particular case from the Hefzy --
Abdel-Rahman's paper \cite{Hefzy}, when we hav
\begin{equation*}
I_{x^{\prime }x^{\prime }}=I_{y^{\prime }y^{\prime }}=0.0672,\quad
I_{z^{\prime }z^{\prime }}=0.0053,
\end{equation*
and setting the components of the total external torque by the expressions
\ref{approximative-torques}), then the Euler's equations of motion (\re
{Euler equations GENERAL}) for the subject (A) can be rewritten in the
following particular form
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\dot{\omega}_{x^{\prime }} & = & 0.9211\cdot \omega _{y^{\prime }}\cdot
\omega _{z^{\prime }}-252.1279\cdot \omega _{x^{\prime }}-7.4449\cdot \omega
_{y^{\prime }}+\medskip \\
& & +1204.3005\cdot \omega _{z^{\prime }}-45.6979\medskip \\
\dot{\omega}_{y^{\prime }} & = & -0.9211\cdot \omega _{x^{\prime }}\cdot
\omega _{z^{\prime }}-225.7738\cdot \omega _{x^{\prime }}+23.4226\cdot
\omega _{y^{\prime }}+\medskip \\
& & +518.2589\cdot \omega _{z^{\prime }}+55.8199\medskip \\
\dot{\omega}_{z^{\prime }} & = & -7502.0754\cdot \omega _{x^{\prime
}}+171.1509\cdot \omega _{y^{\prime }}+\medskip \\
& & +26566.0377\cdot \omega _{z^{\prime }}-1344.6415
\end{array
\right. \label{Euler PARTICULAR}
\end{equation}
Consequently, via the Theorem \ref{MainTh} applied to the first order ODE
system (\ref{Euler PARTICULAR}), we assert that the Lagrangian geometrical
behavior on the $1$-jet space $J^{1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^{3})$ of the
above knee dynamical system can be described by the following result:
\begin{corollary}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\emph{(1)}] The \textbf{canonical nonlinear connection} on $J^{1}
\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^{3})$\ \textbf{produced by the jet dynamical system of
knee }\emph{(\ref{Euler PARTICULAR})} has the local components
\begin{equation*}
\mathring{\Gamma}=\left( \boldsymbol{\mathring{M}}_{(1)1}^{(i)}=0
\boldsymbol{\mathring{N}}_{(1)j}^{(i)}\right) ,
\end{equation*
where the matrix of the spatial nonlinear connectio
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{\mathring{N}}_{(1)}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\boldsymbol{\mathring{N}}_{(1)1}^{(1)} & \boldsymbol{\mathring{N}
_{(1)2}^{(1)} & \boldsymbol{\mathring{N}}_{(1)3}^{(1)}\medskip \\
\boldsymbol{\mathring{N}}_{(1)1}^{(2)} & \boldsymbol{\mathring{N}
_{(1)2}^{(2)} & \boldsymbol{\mathring{N}}_{(1)3}^{(2)}\medskip \\
\boldsymbol{\mathring{N}}_{(1)1}^{(3)} & \boldsymbol{\mathring{N}
_{(1)2}^{(3)} & \boldsymbol{\mathring{N}}_{(1)3}^{(3)
\end{array
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(1)2}^{(1)} & -\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}
_{(1)3}^{(1)}\medskip \\
\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(1)2}^{(1)} & 0 & -\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}
_{(2)3}^{(1)}\medskip \\
\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(1)3}^{(1)} & \boldsymbol{\mathring{F}
_{(2)3}^{(1)} &
\end{array
\right)
\end{equation*
has the entrie
\begin{equation*}
\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(1)2}^{(1)}=0.9211\cdot \omega _{z^{\prime
}}+109.1644,\quad \boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(1)3}^{(1)}=0.4605\cdot \omega
_{y^{\prime }}+4353.1879,
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(2)3}^{(1)}=-0.4605\cdot \omega _{x^{\prime
}}+173.5540.
\end{equation*}
\item[\emph{(2)}] All adapted components of the \textbf{canonical Cartan
linear connection} $\mathtt{C}\mathring{\Gamma}$\ \textbf{produced by the
jet dynamical system of knee} \emph{(\ref{Euler PARTICULAR})} are zero.
\item[\emph{(3)}] The \textbf{torsion tensor} $\mathbf{\mathring{T}}$ of the
canonical Cartan linear connection $\mathtt{C}\mathring{\Gamma}$ \textbf
produced by the jet dynamical system of knee} \emph{(\ref{Euler PARTICULAR})}
has as adapted components the entries of the following torsion matrices
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{\mathring{T}}_{(1)1}=\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{\mathring{N}}_{(1)}}
\partial \omega _{x^{\prime }}}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0\medskip \\
0 & 0 & 0.4605\medskip \\
0 & -0.4605 &
\end{array
\right) ,
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{\mathring{T}}_{(1)2}=\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{\mathring{N}}_{(1)}}
\partial \omega _{y^{\prime }}}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & -0.4605\medskip \\
0 & 0 & 0\medskip \\
0.4605 & 0 &
\end{array
\right) ,
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{\mathring{T}}_{(1)3}=\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{\mathring{N}}_{(1)}}
\partial \omega _{z^{\prime }}}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -0.9211 & 0\medskip \\
0.9211 & 0 & 0\medskip \\
0 & 0 &
\end{array
\right) .
\end{equation*}
\item[\emph{(4)}] All adapted components of the \textbf{curvature tensor}
\mathbf{\mathring{R}}$ of the canonical Cartan linear connection $\mathtt{C
\mathring{\Gamma}$ \textbf{produced by the jet dynamical system of knee}
\emph{(\ref{Euler PARTICULAR})} cancel.
\item[\emph{(5)}] The \textbf{geometric "electromagnetic" adapted components
produced by the jet dynamical system of knee} \emph{(\ref{Euler PARTICULAR})}
are the entries of the matri
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{\mathring{F}}^{(1)}=-\mathbf{\mathring{N}}_{(1)}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(1)2}^{(1)} & \boldsymbol{\mathring{F}
_{(1)3}^{(1)}\medskip \\
-\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(1)2}^{(1)} & 0 & \boldsymbol{\mathring{F}
_{(2)3}^{(1)}\medskip \\
-\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(1)3}^{(1)} & -\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}
_{(2)3}^{(1)} &
\end{array
\right) .
\end{equation*}
\item[\emph{(6)}] The \textbf{jet geometric "electromagnetic" Yang-Mills
energy produced by the jet dynamical system of knee} \emph{(\ref{Euler
PARTICULAR})} is given by the formula
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{EYM}^{\text{\emph{knee}}}(\omega _{x^{\prime }},\omega _{y^{\prime
}},\omega _{z^{\prime }})=\left[ \boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(1)2}^{(1)
\right] ^{2}+\left[ \boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(1)3}^{(1)}\right] ^{2}+\left[
\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(2)3}^{(1)}\right] ^{2}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The Euler's equations of motion (\ref{Euler PARTICULAR}) represent a
particular case of the jet first order ODE system (\ref{DEs1}) for $n=3$ and
$\mathfrak{X}=\left( \boldsymbol{\mathring{X}}_{(1)}^{(i)}(\omega
_{x^{\prime }},\omega _{y^{\prime }},\omega _{z^{\prime }})\right) _{i
\overline{1,3}},$ wher
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{lll}
\boldsymbol{\mathring{X}}_{(1)}^{(1)}(\omega _{x^{\prime }},\omega
_{y^{\prime }},\omega _{z^{\prime }}) & = & 0.9211\cdot \omega _{y^{\prime
}}\cdot \omega _{z^{\prime }}-252.1279\cdot \omega _{x^{\prime
}}-7.4449\cdot \omega _{y^{\prime }}+\medskip \\
& & +1204.3005\cdot \omega _{z^{\prime }}-45.6979
\end{array
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{lll}
\boldsymbol{\mathring{X}}_{(1)}^{(2)}(\omega _{x^{\prime }},\omega
_{y^{\prime }},\omega _{z^{\prime }}) & = & -0.9211\cdot \omega _{x^{\prime
}}\cdot \omega _{z^{\prime }}-225.7738\cdot \omega _{x^{\prime
}}+23.4226\cdot \omega _{y^{\prime }}+\medskip \\
& & +518.2589\cdot \omega _{z^{\prime }}+55.8199
\end{array
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{lll}
\boldsymbol{\mathring{X}}_{(1)}^{(3)}(\omega _{x^{\prime }},\omega
_{y^{\prime }},\omega _{z^{\prime }}) & = & -7502.0754\cdot \omega
_{x^{\prime }}+171.1509\cdot \omega _{y^{\prime }}+\medskip \\
& & +26566.0377\cdot \omega _{z^{\prime }}-1344.6415
\end{array
\end{equation*
Consequently, using the formula
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{cc}
\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(1)2}^{(1)}=\dfrac{1}{2}\left[ \dfrac{\partial
\boldsymbol{\mathring{X}}_{(1)}^{(1)}}{\partial \omega _{y^{\prime }}}
\dfrac{\partial \boldsymbol{\mathring{X}}_{(1)}^{(2)}}{\partial \omega
_{x^{\prime }}}\right] , & \boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(1)3}^{(1)}=\dfrac{1}{
}\left[ \dfrac{\partial \boldsymbol{\mathring{X}}_{(1)}^{(1)}}{\partial
\omega _{z^{\prime }}}-\dfrac{\partial \boldsymbol{\mathring{X}}_{(1)}^{(3)
}{\partial \omega _{x^{\prime }}}\right]
\end{array
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{cc}
\boldsymbol{\mathring{F}}_{(2)3}^{(1)}=\dfrac{1}{2}\left[ \dfrac{\partial
\boldsymbol{\mathring{X}}_{(1)}^{(2)}}{\partial \omega _{z^{\prime }}}
\dfrac{\partial \boldsymbol{\mathring{X}}_{(1)}^{(3)}}{\partial \omega
_{y^{\prime }}}\right] , & \mathbf{\mathring{F}}^{(1)}=-\mathbf{\mathring{N}
_{(1)}
\end{array
\end{equation*
some direct computations lead us to what we were looking for.
\end{proof}
\section{Yang-Mills energetic surfaces of constant level produced by the jet
dynamical system of knee}
Using the notations $\omega _{x^{\prime }}:=X$, $\omega _{y^{\prime }}:=Y$,
\omega _{z^{\prime }}:=Z$, then the jet geometric "electromagnetic"
Yang-Mills energy produced by the dynamical system of knee (\ref{Euler
PARTICULAR}) (associated to the subject (A)) takes the form
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbf{EYM}^{\text{knee}}(X,Y,Z) &=&\left[ 0.9211Z+109.1644\right] ^{2}
\left[ 0.4605Y+4353.1879\right] ^{2}+ \\
&&+\left[ -0.4605X+173.5540\right] ^{2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, let us consider the \textit{jet "electromagnetic" Yang-Mills energetic
surfaces of constant level}, which are produced by the dynamical system of
the knee of the subject (A). These energetic surfaces are defined by the
implicit equation
\begin{equation*}
\Sigma _{k}^{\text{knee}}:\mathbf{EYM}^{\text{knee}}(X,Y,Z)=k,
\end{equation*
where $k\geq 0$ is a given constant real number. By direct numerical
computations, we obtain the following approximate implicit equations
\begin{equation*}
\Sigma _{k}^{\text{knee}}:0.2120\left( X^{\prime }\right) ^{2}+0.2120\left(
Y^{\prime }\right) ^{2}+0.8484\left( Z^{\prime }\right) ^{2}=k\Leftrightarrow
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\Sigma _{k}^{\text{knee}}:\frac{\left( X^{\prime }\right) ^{2}}{4.7169k}
\frac{\left( Y^{\prime }\right) ^{2}}{4.7169k}+\frac{\left( Z^{\prime
}\right) ^{2}}{1.1786k}-1=0,\quad k\neq 0,
\end{equation*
where we have done the spatial translatio
\begin{equation*}
X^{\prime }=X-376.8816,\quad Y^{\prime }=Y+9453.1767,\quad Z^{\prime
}=Z+118.5152.
\end{equation*}
In conclusion, it follows that the jet "electromagnetic" Yang-Mills
energetic surface of constant level $k\geq 0$ is:
\begin{enumerate}
\item for $k=0$, it is the \textit{point} $\mathcal{C
(376.8816,-9453.1767,-118.5152).$
\item for $k>0$, it is an \textit{ellipsoid} centered in the point $\mathcal
C}$, whose semi-axes are parallel with the axes $OX,$ $OY$ and $OZ$, and
they have the length
\begin{equation*}
a=b=\sqrt{4.7169k},\qquad c=\sqrt{1.1786k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Open problem. }Find the biomechanical interpretations for the
ellipsoid shapes (oblate spheroids) of the jet Yang-Mills energetic surfaces
of constant level produced by the dynamical system of knee (\ref{Euler
PARTICULAR}).
|
\section{Introduction}
At high temperature and densities strongly interacting matter is supposed to form a plasma of quarks and gluons, while at low temperatures and densities it consists of hadronic degrees of freedom. Between these two regimes there must be a phase transition with two aspects, chiral symmetry and confinement.
For the study of the phase diagram of QCD you have three possible ways to go.
\textbf{First}, you are brave and solve the partition function of QCD. This necessarily involves nonperturbative methods, the most promising of which is lattice QCD. With large numerical power QCD is solved on a discretized space-time lattice. This method is, however, only feasible at zero or very small baryonic densities, where it shows that the phase transition is a crossover \cite{Aoki:2006we}. The left plot of figure \ref{fig:intro_qcdpdlattice} shows what we know about the phase diagram from lattice QCD.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{qcdphasediagramlattice.eps}}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{qcdphasediagram.eps}}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption[Phase diagram from lattice QCD and heavy-ion collisions.]{What we know about the phase diagram of QCD from lattice calculations (left) and from heavy-ion collisions (right).}
\label{fig:intro_qcdpdlattice}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Second}, you are strong and collide heavy ions at ultrarelativistic energies. Neutron stars are too far in space and astrophysical observations are too indirect to draw definite conclusions. The Big Bang is too long back in time. You, thus, have to create systems close to the phase transition of QCD in your laboratory. A broad variety of observables has been proposed to study the properties of the quark-gluon plasma and of the QCD phase transition in heavy-ion collisions. Yet, none of them has unambiguously explained the available data. The proposed fluctuation signals for a conjectured critical point \cite{Stephanov:1998dy,Stephanov:1999zu} have not yet been seen in heavy-ion collisions \cite{Rybczynski:2008cv}. The systems created in a heavy-ion collision are very small, inhomogeneous and expand due to fast dynamics. The finite lifetime of the system was found to limit the growth of the correlation length by critical slowing down \cite{Berdnikov:1999ph}. Real nonequilibrium dynamics might further diminish the critical phenomena but stimulate interesting effects at the first order phase transition \cite{Mishustin:1998eq,Chomaz:2003dz}. The right plot of figure \ref{fig:intro_qcdpdlattice} shows the phase diagram as seen from heavy-ion experiments so far.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{facediagramm.eps}
\caption[A pictorial view of the phase diagram of QCD inspired by model calculations]{A pictorial view of the phase diagram of QCD inspired by model calculations, which strongly suggest a first order phase transition at higher baryonic densities. In order to see the coexistence region of the first order phase transition the phase diagram is shown in the $T$-$n_B$ plane. The first order phase transition line ends in a critical point.}
\label{fig:intro_facediagram}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Third}, you are creative and phenomenologically construct an effective field theoretical model of QCD. Creativity is not unlimited as these models should give a good quantitative description of experimentally measured quantities like cross sections and cover qualitative aspects of the phase diagram, like chiral symmetry and/or confinement \cite{Ratti:2005jh,Schaefer:2007pw}. There are indeed a couple of models that meet these requirements and they can describe certain parameter regions of the phase diagram. These model studies strongly suggest a first order phase transition at high baryonic densities and lower temperatures. This line ends in a critical point. A pictorial view of the phase diagram inspired by model studies is shown in figure \ref{fig:intro_facediagram}.
In the following we present results on a coupled model of the chiral phase transition embedded in a fluid dynamic expansion of quarks \cite{Mishustin:1998yc,Paech:2003fe}. In \cite{Nahrgang:2011mg,Nahrgang:2011mv,Nahrgang:2011ll} chiral fluid dynamic models have been extended by the selfconsistent inclusion of dissipation and noise.
\section{Chiral fluid dynamics}
Starting from the linear sigma model with constituent quarks \cite{GellMann:1960np} the coupled dynamics of the order parameter of chiral symmetry, the sigma field, and the fluid dynamic expansion of the quarks have been derived \cite{Nahrgang:2011mg}.
The Langevin equation for the sigma mean-field reads
\begin{equation}
\partial_\mu\partial^\mu\sigma+\frac{\delta V_{\rm eff}}{\delta\sigma}+\eta\partial_t \sigma=\xi\, .
\label{eq:equi_langevineq}
\end{equation}
The effective potential to one-loop level is given by
\begin{equation}
V_{{\rm eff}}(\sigma, \vec{\pi},T)=U\left(\sigma, \vec{\pi}\right)-2d_q T \int\frac{{\rm d}^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\ln\left(1+\exp\left(-\frac{E}{T}\right)\right) \, ,
\end{equation}
and the damping term is \cite{Greiner:1996dx,Biro:1997va,Nahrgang:2011mg}
\begin{equation}
\eta=\begin{cases}
g^2\frac{d_q}{\pi}\left(1-2n_{\rm F}\left(\frac{m_\sigma}{2}\right)\right)\frac{1}{m_\sigma^2}\left(\frac{m_\sigma^2}{4}-m_q^2\right)^{3/2} & \text{for }m_\sigma>2m_q=2g\sigma_{\rm eq}\\
2.2/{\rm fm} & \text{for }2m_q>m_\sigma>2m_\pi\\
0 & \text{for }m_\sigma<2m_\pi,2m_q
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The stochastic field in the Langevin equation (\ref{eq:equi_langevineq}) has a vanishing expectation value
\begin{equation}
\langle\xi(t)\rangle_\xi=0\, ,
\end{equation}
and the noise correlation is given by the dissipation-fluctuation theorem
\begin{equation}
\langle\xi(t)\xi(t')\rangle_\xi=\frac{1}{V}\delta(t-t')m_\sigma\eta\coth\left(\frac{m_\sigma}{2T}\right)\, .
\label{eq:sc_noisecorrelation}
\end{equation}
The pressure of the quarks is locally given by
\begin{equation}
p(\sigma, \vec{\pi},T)= -V_{\rm eff}(\sigma, \vec{\pi},T)+U(\sigma, \vec{\pi})\; .
\label{eq:lsm_eos1}
\end{equation}
and the local energy density is obtained from the thermodynamic relation
\begin{equation}
e(\sigma, \vec{\pi},T)= T\frac{\partial p(\sigma, \vec{\pi},T)}{\partial T}-p(\sigma, \vec{\pi},T)\; .
\label{eq:lsm_eos2}
\end{equation}
In the relativistic fluid dynamic equations we find a source term $S^\nu$ allowing for the energy dissipation from the system to the heat bath
\begin{equation}
\partial_\mu T^{\mu\nu}=S^\nu\, .
\label{eq:fluidT}
\end{equation}
\section{Radial expansion profiles}
The system is initialized in an ellipsoidal shape in transverse direction at a maximal temperature of $T=160$~MeV in the inner region. The sigma field is initially in equilibrium with the quark fluid. The expansion of the quark fluid cools the system through the phase transition. In figures \ref{fig:radialproffo.eps} and \ref{fig:radialprofcp.eps} the radial profile of the sigma field is shown at different t
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{./radialprof.eps}
\caption{The radial profile of the sigma field in a scenario with a first order phase transition.}
\label{fig:radialproffo.eps}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{./radialprofcp.eps}
\caption{The radial profile of the sigma field in a critical point scenario.}
\label{fig:radialprofcp.eps}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{./radialproftempfo.eps}
\caption{The radial temperature profile in a scenario with a first order phase transition.}
\label{fig:radialproftempfo.eps}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{./radialproftempcp.eps}
\caption{The radial temperature profile in a critical point scenario.}
\label{fig:radialproftempcp.eps}
\end{figure}
Initially the sigma field is close to its high-temperature expectation value $\sigma\simeq0$ in the chirally restored phase. During cooling of the system, the sigma field relaxes. This occurs faster in a critical point scenario, since here $T_c^{\rm cp}=139.88$~MeV than for a first order phase transition $T_c^{\rm fopt}=123.27$~MeV. Moreover, the damping coefficient in a first order phase transition scenario is larger and thus the system is damped strongly into the high-temperature minimum.
Comparing figures \ref{fig:radialproffo.eps} and \ref{fig:radialproftempfo.eps} we see that $t=4.8$~fm the sigma field is supercooled in the inner region. Here, temperatures are already below $T_c^{\rm fopt}$. At larger radii the sigma field relaxes. Due to the dissipation during relaxation the fluid is reheated and thus the temperature is higher at larger radii than in the inner region. For later times the sigma field in the inner region also starts to relax and the temperature rises again. In the inner region the temperature at $t=9.6$~fm is much higher than it was at earlier times between $t\approx6.4\sim8.0$~fm. These two effects, supercooling and reheating, are absent in a critical point scenario.
This work was supported by the Hessian Excellence Inititive LOEWE through the Helmholtz International Center for FAIR. M.N. is supported by the Polytechnische Gesellschaft Frankfurt am Main.
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent
Optical motion tracking, simply called motion tracking in this paper, means continuously locating a moving object in a video sequence.
2D tracking aims at following the image projection of objects that move within a 3D space.
3D tracking aims at estimating all six degrees of freedom (DOFs) movements of an object relative to the camera: the three position DOFs and the three orientation DOFs \cite{Lepetit2005}.
A 3D motion tracking technique that only estimates the three position DOFs (namely moving up and down, moving left and right, and moving forward and backward) is enough to provide a three-dimensional cursor-like input device driver.
Such an input device could be used as a standard 2D mouse-like pointing device that considers depth changes to cause mouse-like clicks.
It also settles the bases for the development of virtual device drivers (i.e. software implemented device drivers, or not hardware device drivers) that consider three-dimensional position coordinates.
Real-time 3D motion tracking techniques have direct applications in several huge niche market areas \cite{Yilmaz2006}: the surveillance industry, which benefits from motion detection and tracking \cite{Kettnaker1999,Collins2001,Greiffenhagen2001}; the leisure industry, which benefits from novel human-computer interaction techniques \cite{Gallo2011,Shotton2011}; the medical and military industries, which benefit from perceptual interfaces \cite{Bradski2000}, augmented reality \cite{Ferrari2001}, and object detection and tracking \cite{Ali2011,Forman2011,Dong2011}; and the automotive industry, which benefits from driver assistance systems \cite{Handmann1998}.
However, existing 3D motion tracking techniques require either a great amount of knowledge on the target object (i.e. the object to be tracked) or specific hardware to perform the tracking.
Some of these 3D motion tracking techniques require a model of the target object. The generation of that model requires intensive training on a corpus of labelled images in order to induce the object model \cite{Broida1990,Aloimonos1991,Gennery1991,Koller1993,David2004,Cootes2001,Cootes2002,Comaniciu2003,Wu2011}. Corpus-based training is directly out of reach for most casual users and developers.
Other 3D motion tracking techniques require the object to be marked with either passive or active markers \cite{Ali2011,Forman2011}. Casual users may find marker calibration unkempt, time-consuming, and hard to accurately perform. Also, active markers are expensive and may discourage casual users and developers from setting up a personal 3D motion tracking system.
Finally, techniques that require specific hardware, such as twin cameras or Microsoft Xbox360 Kinect devices \cite{Shotton2011} can only be set up after an initial disbursement has been made.
That investment could dissuade casual users and developers from setting up a personal 3D motion tracking system.
On the other hand, if the hardware requirements of a 3D motion tracking system are lowered, a zero deployment cost exploitation is possible.
Particularly, a 3D motion tracking system that only requires a single low-budget camera can be implemented in a wide spectrum of computers and smartphones that already have such a capture device installed.
Several constraints arise as a consequence of using a low-budget camera: monocular vision, low image resolution, high noise levels, JPEG compression artifacts, and a maximum frame rate of 30 frames per second.
On top of that, most low-budget cameras automatically adjust the shutter speed to the environment lighting conditions.
This may lead to sudden changes in the brightness level between consecutive frames and changes in the frame rate, which may drop down to 10 frames per second.
It should be noted that low frame rates, in turn, may cause motion blur.
In this paper, we present a novel 3D motion tracking system \cite{Quesada2011} that needs no training, calibration, nor knowledge on the target object, and only requires a single low-budget camera.
Our 3D motion tracking system estimates, in real time, the three-dimensional position of unknown unmarked objects that may be non-rigid, non-convex, self occluded, partially occluded, or motion blurred, given they are opaque, evenly colored, and enough contrasting with the background in each frame.
Our 3D motion tracking system is able to determine the most relevant object to track in the screen.
Section \ref{sec:back} covers existing low-budget 3D motion tracking techniques and discusses the drawbacks they present.
Section \ref{sec:objpro} defines the object projection feature estimation problem and compares different approaches for solving it, some of them original in this work.
Section \ref{sec:3dmot} presents our 3D motion tracking system.
Section \ref{sec:exps} exposes the experiments performed to our system.
Finally, Section \ref{sec:concfw} summarizes the obtained conclusions and discloses the future work that derives from our research.
\section{Background} \label{sec:back}
\noindent
In this section, we introduce the existing low-budget 3D motion tracking techniques and we comment on their advantages and disadvantages.
Subsection \ref{sec:mttecmod} describes motion tracking techniques based on model matching. Subsection \ref{sec:mttecimg} explains motion tracking techniques based on image feature analysis. Subsection \ref{sec:mttecdraw} summarizes the drawbacks of the studied techniques.
\subsection{Motion Tracking Techniques Based on Model Matching} \label{sec:mttecmod}
\noindent
Model-based motion tracking techniques match a model of the target object with its projection in the image.
In order to induce the target object model, these systems require intensive training with a huge set of labelled images.
Traditional model-based 3D motion tracking techniques \cite{Broida1990,Aloimonos1991,Gennery1991,Koller1993} match the geometrical features of the target object model with the object projection in the image.
These techniques require the object to be rigid and previously modeled.
The two major drawbacks that model-based 3D motion tracking techniques present are that they cannot match partially or self occluded objects, and that when the object surroundings are cluttered, parts of the surroundings may match fragments of the object model and therefore produce wrong results.
The SoftPOSIT algorithm \cite{David2004} is an extension to the geometrical features matching methods that supports partially and self occluded target objects. However, this algorithm still requires the object to be rigid and previously modeled, and it may fail to track objects when their surroundings are cluttered.
Active Appearance Models (AAMs) \cite{Cootes2001} produce object reconstructions from a target object model and match them with the object projection. AAMs require the target object to be rigid and not occluded.
As this technique cannot model the appearance of an object seen from different angles (e.g. an object that is being rotated in front of the camera), both self-occlusion and rotation of the target object produce tracking errors.
View-Based Active Appearance Models \cite{Cootes2002} are an extension to AAMs that model the appearance of the target object as a set of 2D templates corresponding to views from different angles and, in runtime, they select the most suitable template to perform appearance matching with.
The main drawbacks of this technique are that it cannot track non-rigid objects, that they need an even more intensive training in order to model several different views of the target object, and that they need to implement a model switching policy, which is a very complex problem in its own.
On top of that, AAM-based techniques require a high processing time to match the object projection reconstruction with the actual object projection, therefore these techniques are unable to perform real-time tracking.
\subsection{Motion Tracking Techniques Based on Image Feature Analysis} \label{sec:mttecimg}
\noindent
Motion tracking techniques based on image feature analysis do not require a model of the target object. Instead, they follow a non-modeled object through the video sequence by only considering the video stream.
Kernel-based object tracking techniques \cite{Comaniciu2003} allow tracking non-rigid objects by spatially masking the target object projection with an isotropic kernel and applying optimization to a spatially-smooth similarity function. These techniques require a model of the target object, but they allow its induction from the projection of the object seen in the preceding frame.
Extensions to kernel-based object tracking techniques cope with motion blur \cite{Wu2011}, which might be present in low lighting conditions or when the target object is moving fast.
Orthogonal variant moments features-based motion tracking techniques \cite{Martin2010} determine the rotation transformations, the scale transformations, and the translation transformations performed to an object projection between consecutive frames.
This technique cannot cope with several moving objects, as the orthogonal variant moments features from the different moving objects would interfere.
\subsection{Summary of Existing Techniques} \label{sec:mttecdraw}
\noindent
Existing 3D motion tracking techniques impose strong requirements such as the target object to be rigid, marked, not occluded, or already modeled; the background to be uncluttered and still; or the need for an intensive processing to be performed, which does not allow real-time motion tracking.
Furthermore, existing 3D motion tracking techniques that are not trained to track a specific object do not provide a mechanism to automatically determine the target object. Instead, they need the user to select the target object in the video stream. This makes these techniques unable to perform without supervision.
To the best of our knowledge, no existing motion tracking technique follows the approach we now proceed to describe.
\section{The Object Projection Feature Estimation Problem} \label{sec:objpro}
\noindent
Our unsupervised markerless 3D motion tracking technique requires estimating the centroid and the area of the projection of a target object given an edge image and a point inside the object projection (namely, inner point).
The inner point also has to be updated to increase the probabilities of it being inside the object projection in the next frame.
We call this the object projection feature estimation problem.
In this section, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of several approaches for solving that problem, some of them original in this work.
Figure \ref{fig:feat1} depicts examples of a convex object projection feature estimation problem and a non-convex object projection feature estimation problem.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{feat1.eps}
\caption{The object projection feature estimation problem consists in, given an edge image and a point inside the object projection (namely, inner point), estimating the object projection centroid, the object projection area, and updating the inner point in order to increase the probabilities of it being inside the object projection in the next frame. Example of a convex object projection feature estimation problem (sphere projection) and to a non-convex object projection feature estimation problem (hand projection).}
\label{fig:feat1}
\end{figure}
It should be noted that the inner point can be found enclosed in a small isolated area (e.g. a finger, when the target object is a hand).
It also should be noted that, due to the object movement between frames, it is possible for the current inner point to be relocated at a position that will be outside the object projection in the next frame.
As the inner point determines a position inside the target object projection, and a wrong inner point causes wrong estimations to be performed, the inner point being relocated outside the target object projection is denominated \emph{tracking error}.
Approaches for solving the object projection feature estimation problem cannot determine whether they will cause tracking errors, as no information on the future frames is available when relocating the inner point in the current frame.
Therefore, it is the motion tracking system which has to implement failback strategies that detect the inner point being outside the object projection and relocate it back inside whenever it is possible.
The failback strategies implemented in our 3D motion tracking system are discussed in Section \ref{sec:3dmot}.
Subsections \ref{sec:nray} and \ref{sec:inray} comment on existing aproaches for solving the object projection feature estimation problem.
Subsections \ref{sec:inyray} and \ref{sec:inyrayr} propose extensions to the existing approaches that outperform them.
\subsection{Feature Estimation Based on $n$-Ray-Casting} \label{sec:nray}
\noindent
Using this technique, $n$ rays are casted from the inner point position in different directions to hit an edge in the edge image \cite{Quesada2011}.
The new centroid position is estimated to be the average of the ray hit location positions.
In order to estimate the inner point, it is displaced towards the new centroid until it reaches it or an edge. Then, rays are casted from the inner point and it is relocated at the average of the ray hit location positions, in order to center it in the projection area it is located, which reduces the probability of it being outside the object projection in the next frame.
The area is estimated to be the sum of the lengths of the casted rays.
Figure \ref{fig:feat2} illustrates $32$-ray-casting being applied to a convex object projection and to a non-convex object projection.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{feat2.eps}
\caption{$32$-ray-casting being applied to the estimation of the features of a convex object projection (sphere projection) and to a non-convex object projection (hand projection).}
\label{fig:feat2}
\end{figure}
The main drawback of this technique is that the estimations may not be accurate when it is applied to non-convex object projections (e.g. a hand projection). In that case, the ray hit locations might be representative of just a fragment of the projection, in particular when the inner point is in a small isolated area of the object projection.
The centroid and the area might be inaccurately estimated, and the estimations may greatly vary depending on the position of the inner point relative to the object projection and on the ray orientations.
The likeliness of edge miscalculations (i.e. the edges not being calculated correctly) to have high impact in the projection area and centroid estimations is inversely proportional to $n$.
\subsection{Feature Estimation Based on Iterative $n$-Ray-Casting} \label{sec:inray}
\noindent
Using this technique, $n$ rays are casted from the inner point position in different directions to hit an edge in the edge image \cite{Quesada2011}.
The new centroid position is estimated to be the average of the last iteration ray hit location positions.
The inner point is displaced towards the new centroid until it reaches it or an edge.
The process is repeated until the centroid and inner point adjustment is negligible or up to a maximum number of iterations.
Then, rays are casted from the inner point and it is relocated at the average of the ray hit location positions, in order to center it in the projection area it is located, which reduces the probability of it being outside the object projection in the next frame.
The area is estimated to be the sum of the rays casted during the last iteration.
Figure \ref{fig:feat2it} illustrates two steps of iterative $32$-ray-casting being applied to a convex object projection and to a non-convex object projection.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{feat2it.eps}
\caption{Two steps of iterative $32$-ray-casting being applied to the estimation of the features of a convex object projection (sphere projection) and to a non-convex object projection (hand projection). Images on the left show the first iteration. Images on the right show the second iteration.}
\label{fig:feat2it}
\end{figure}
It should be noted that iterative $n$-ray-casting can relocate the inner point into wider areas and therefore produce better estimations of the object projection centroid and area. Indeed, it can be observed that it produces better results than $n$-ray-casting when the target object is non-convex and the inner point is in a small isolated area of the target object projection.
Although this technique being iterative makes the centroid tend to be relocated into wider areas, the estimations are still not accurate when the technique is applied to non-convex object projections, as the ray hit locations might be representative of just a fragment of the object projection.
It should be noted that the centroid is not guaranteed to converge, and the estimations may greatly vary depending on the position of the inner point relative to the object projection, on the ray orientations, and on the maximum number of iterations.
The likeliness of edge miscalculations to have high impact in the projection area and centroid estimations is inversely proportional to $n$.
\subsection{Feature Estimation Based on Iterative $n^y$-Ray-Casting} \label{sec:inyray}
\noindent
We propose iterative $n^y$-ray-casting as an extension to iterative $n$-ray-casting.
Using this technique, $n$ rays are casted from the inner point position in different directions to hit an edge in the edge image.
Then, $n$ rays are casted from each of the last iteration ray hit location position. This re-casting process is repeated $y$ times for a total of $n^y$ rays being casted in the latest iteration.
The new centroid position is estimated to be the average of the last iteration ray hit location positions.
The inner point is displaced towards the new centroid until it reaches it or an edge.
Then, rays are casted from the inner point and it is relocated at the average of the ray hit location positions, in order to center it in the projection area it is located, which reduces the probability of it being outside the object projection in the next frame.
The process is repeated until the centroid and inner point adjustment is negligible or up to a maximum number of iterations.
The area is estimated to be the sum of the rays casted during the last iteration.
Figure \ref{fig:feat3} illustrates $16^2$-ray-casting being applied to a convex object projection and to a non-convex object projection.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{nrayit.eps}
\caption{Two steps of iterative $16^2$-ray-casting being applied to the estimation of the features of a convex object projection (sphere projection) and to a non-convex object projection (hand projection). Images on the left show the first iteration. Images on the right show the second iteration.}
\label{fig:feat3}
\end{figure}
It should be noted that the inner point is relocated into wider areas in non-convex object projections very slowly, due to isolated areas near the current inner point having a higher ray-density than wider areas, rendering the later less relevant for the estimation of the projection centroid and area.
On the other hand, iterative $n^y$-ray-casting covers the projection better than iterative $n$-ray-casting, and therefore outperforms it.
It should be noted that this technique, as $n$-ray-casting, does not guarantee the centroid to converge, and results may still greatly vary depending on the position of the inner point relative to the object projection, on the ray orientations, and on the maximum number of iterations.
The likeliness of edge miscalculations to have high impact in the projection area and centroid estimations is inversely proportional $n^y$. It should be noted that edge miscalculations near the inner point may produce very inaccurate results.
\subsection{Feature Estimation Based on Iterative $n^y$-Ray-Casting with $m$-Rasterization} \label{sec:inyrayr}
\noindent
As an extension to iterative $n^y$-ray-casting that solve the aforementioned issues, we also propose iterative $n^y$-ray-casting with $m$-rasterization.
Using this technique, $n$ rays are casted from the inner point position in different directions to hit an edge in the edge image.
Then, $n$ rays are casted from each of the last iteration ray hit location position. This re-casting process is repeated $y$ times for a total of $n^y$ rays being casted in the latest iteration.
Now, a rasterization process takes place. Every $m$x$m$ block that was run through by any of the rays is selected.
The new centroid position is estimated to be the average of the selected block positions.
The inner point is displaced towards the new centroid until it reaches it or an edge.
Then, rays are casted from the inner point and it is relocated at the average of the ray hit location positions, in order to center it in the projection area it is located, which reduces the probability of it being outside the object projection in the next frame.
The process is repeated until the centroid and inner point adjustment is negligible or up to a maximum number of iterations.
It should be noted that, as blocks always represent areas inside the object projection, no blocks are unselected between iterations.
The area is estimated to be the sum of the selected block areas.
Figure \ref{fig:feat5} illustrates $16^2$-ray-casting with $8$-rasterization being applied to a convex object projection and to a non-convex object projection.
It should be noted that the inner point moves to wider areas in non-convex object projections quicker than when applying iterative $n^y$-ray-casting, due to high-ray-density areas being given the same relevance as low-ray-density areas. Less iterations are necessary for the estimations to be accurate, therefore processing times are lower than those of iterative $n^y$-ray-casting without rasterization.
It also should be noted that when $m$ is too high, the projection centroid and area estimations will be imprecise due to low resolution in block selection; when $m$ is too low, the technique behaves as iterative $16^2$-ray-casting without rasterization, which makes the inner point to be slowly displaced .
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{feat6.eps}
\caption{Two steps of iterative $16^2$-ray-casting with $8$-rasterization being applied to the estimation of the features of a convex object projection (sphere projection) and to a non-convex object projection (hand projection). Images on the left show the first iteration. Images on the right show the second iteration.}
\label{fig:feat5}
\end{figure}
As the selected blocks are kept between iterations, the inner point and the centroid are guaranteed to converge. Although results may vary depending on the position of the inner point relative to the object projection, on the ray orientations, and on the maximum number of iterations, they will be similar for convex object projections and non-convex object projections with not too large isolated areas.
The likeliness of edge miscalculations to have high impact in the projection area and centroid estimations is inversely proportional to $n^y\cdot i$, being $i$ the number of performed iterations, as the final estimations depends on rays casted during any iteration.
This technique produces better results than any of the other studied or proposed techniques.
Therefore, our motion tracking system uses iterative $n^y$-ray-casting with $m$-rasterization to solve the object projection feature estimation problem.
\section{Unsupervised Markerless 3D Motion Tracking} \label{sec:3dmot}
\noindent
In this section, we introduce our proposal, a 3D motion tracking system that only imposes the constraints of the target object being opaque, evenly colored, and enough contrasting with the background in each frame, and that only requires the use of a single low-budget camera.
Our approach does not require the use of markers in the target object, nor a model of target object.
Our 3D motion tracking system accepts as input a stream of frames from a camera and produces as output the three-dimensional coordinates of the target object relative to the camera.
Subsection \ref{sec:fprec} describes how captured frames are preprocessed.
Subsection \ref{sec:sov} provides an overview on the system and implementation details.
Subsection \ref{sec:output} comments on the estimation of the output three-dimensional coordinates.
\subsection{Frame Preprocessing} \label{sec:fprec}
Each time a frame is captured by the camera, a preprocess that takes as input this current frame, $t_i$, and the previously processed frame, $t_{i-1}$, is performed.
It should be noted that there may not exist previous frame (i.e. $i=0$, which means the current frame is the first ever captured). In that case, the part of the preprocessing that uses the previous frame is omitted.
This preprocessing step is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:imagetrans}.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{images.eps}
\caption{Frame preprocessing.}
\label{fig:imagetrans}
\end{figure*}
The frame is convoluted using a Poisson disk filter of radius 5 that reduces the effect of both JPEG 8x8 block compression artifacts and camera noise.
The filtered frame is subsampled down to 160x120 in order to reduce further processing time and mitigate the effects of motion blur.
An edge detection filter based on the Sobel operator \cite{Pratt2007,Kanopoulos1988} is applied to the frame in order to produce a grayscale edge image.
The edge image will be used during the estimation of the features of the target object projection. Any pixel value over 128 in the edge image is considered an edge.
Using a lower edge threshold would make the system perform correctly when the target object and its surroundings are similarly colored. However, in exchange, it would require the target object to be colored more evenly, which is not desired.
On the other hand, using a higher edge threshold would require the target object to be colored less evenly. Although, in exchange, edge miscalculations would happen when the target object and its surroundings are colored too similarly, which is not desired.
Finally, if a previous frame is available (that is, the current frame is not the first ever captured frame), the current and the previous subsampled frames are compared in order to calculate a absolute difference image.
The absolute difference image will be used to estimate the global amount of movement between frames, which is used to determine if there is a target object in the scene and, in that case, a point inside its projection (i.e. its inner point).
The automatic shutter speed adjustment that low-budget cameras perform can cause sudden changes in the overall brightness level of captured frames.
These brightness changes affect the captured frames by increasing or decreasing each pixel with a value whose probabilistic distribution depends on the subjacent camera hardware.
That results in the miscalculation of the absolute difference image. A wrong absolute difference image may result in the incorrect determination of the target object.
In order to mitigate this problem, the 10 different minimum pixel values in the absolute difference image are found. The maximum brightness level change is estimated to be the maximum of those pixel values. Each pixel in the square difference image is adjusted by substracting it the maximum brightness level change and flooring it to 0.
This effectively mitigates most of the effects of a sudden brightness change in the absolute difference image.
Experiments have proven that using less than 10 different minimum pixel values may not sufficiently attenuate the overall brightness change in some cases, as the brightness level may affect some pixels more than others. On the other hand, using more than 10 different minimum pixel values seems to remove too much information from the absolute difference image when there was no sudden brightness level change.
The global inter-frame movement value is estimated to be the average of the values of all the pixels in the absolute difference image.
\subsection{System Overview} \label{sec:sov}
Figure \ref{fig:fsm} summarizes the system behavior in the form of a state machine. We now proceed to explain the behavior of the system when it is in all the different states.
\begin{figure}[tb*]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{fsm.eps}
\caption{The motion tracking system state machine.}
\label{fig:fsm}
\end{figure}
When the system is in \emph{\textbf{INITIALIZING}} state, it is performing a one-time startup process.
The system waits 2 seconds while the camera shutter adjusts its speed, avoiding the flashes that may occur during the automatic shutter speed startup setup that most low-budget cameras perform.
After the 2 seconds have passed, the first frame is read and preprocessed as explained in Subsection \ref{sec:fprec} and the system switches to \emph{SEARCHING} state.
When the system is in \emph{\textbf{SEARCHING}} state, it is waiting for an object to track.
A new frame is read from the input stream and preprocessed as explained in Subsection \ref{sec:fprec}.
If the global inter-frame movement value is higher than $57,600$ (i.e. an average of 3 per pixel), it is determined that a new object has to be tracked.
The centroid of the target object projection and an inner point are estimated to be the center of mass (i.e. the average position weighted by the pixel magnitude) of the absolute difference image, and the system is switched to \emph{TRACKING} state.
When the system is in \emph{\textbf{TRACKING}} state, it is tracking a target object.
A new frame is read from the input stream and preprocessed as explained in Subsection \ref{sec:fprec}.
The target object projection centroid, inner point and area are estimated using $16^2$-ray-casting with $8$-rasterization, as explained in Subsection \ref{sec:inyrayr}.
The system switches to \emph{VALIDATING} state if the tracking succeeds or to \emph{SEARCHING} state if it fails. The tracking fails in any of the following cases: if the global inter-frame movement value has been below $4,800$ (i.e. an average of 0.25 per pixel) for 2 seconds, which means there is no movement in the scene; or if the object projection area is higher than $60\%$ or lesser than $2\%$ of the screen, which would make it difficult for the tracking algorithm to perform correctly. The tracking succeeds in any other case.
When the system is in the \emph{\textbf{VALIDATING}} state, it is checking if the new target object projection inner point is consistent with the previous frame object projection. Let $CP$ be the average RGB color tuple of the 5x5 square centered in the previous inner point in the previous frame and $CC$ be the average RGB color tuple of the 5x5 square centered in the current inner point in the current frame. If $abs(CP_R-CC_R)+abs(CP_G-CC_G)+abs(CP_B-CC_B)$ is lower or equal to 90 (namely, the previous inner point in the previous frame color-matches the current inner point in the current frame), the system switches to \emph{TRACKING} state.
In any other case, the inner point might have been incorrectly relocated, so the system switches to \emph{RECOVERING} state.
\begin{figure}[b*]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{colormatch.eps}
\caption{Color-matching-based inner point relocation failback strategy.}
\label{fig:colormatch}
\end{figure}
When the system is in \emph{\textbf{RECOVERING}} state, it is trying to relocate the inner point, which may have been incorrectly relocated outside of the target object boundaries.
Figure \ref{fig:colormatch} illustrates the color-matching-based inner point relocation failback strategy, which allows the inner point to be correctly relocated after tracking errors caused by object projection feature estimation errors, fast moving objects, or low frame rates.
A set of recovery points is generated by adding 10 pixel and 20 pixel horizontal, diagonal, and vertical offsets to the current inner point position.
The recovery point that best color-matches the previous inner point in the previous frame, if any, is denominated candidate recovery point.
If there is a candidate recovery point, the target object projection centroid, the inner point and area are estimated using $16^2$-ray-casting with $8$-rasterization, as explained in Subsection \ref{sec:inyrayr}.
If the relocated inner point in the current frame color-matches the previous inner point in the previous frame, the recovery has succeeded and the system switches to \emph{TRACKING} state.
In any other case, the recovery has failed and the system switches to \emph{SEARCHING} state.
Whenever the system is tracking an object, the three-dimensional coordinates can be calculated as explained in the next Subsection.
\subsection{Output Three-Dimensional Coordinate Estimation} \label{sec:output}
The system needs to provide estimations of the $(x,y,z)$ object three-dimensional coordinates from the estimated object projection centroid and area.
The $x$ and $y$ coordinates are estimated to be the coordinates of the object projection centroid.
The $z$ coordinate is estimated to be the square root of the object projection area.
As the actual target object size is unknown, the projection area when the target object starts being tracked is assumed to be the reference 0 depth.
Whenever the tracked target object gets closer to the camera, the depth increases, and whenever the target object gets apart from the camera, the depth decreases.
The output 3D coordinates are smoothed to filter out the effect of possible tracking errors and edge miscalculations. A factor is applied to the 3D coordinates, so, each cycle, their value becomes $90\%$ of their old value and $10\%$ of the new estimation. These values provide a good balance between sensitivity and error absorption capabilities.
The next section exposes the experiments performed on our 3D motion tracking system and discloses the obtained results.
\section{Experimental Results} \label{sec:exps}
We have performed extensive experiments on our 3D motion tracking system in order to test its behavior under several conditions.
All the experiments were run on three video streams of the same scene captured by three different devices: a standard low-budget external USB webcam, a low-budget laptop integrated webcam, and a full HD digital camcorder.
The frame rate of both the low-budget camera video streams was 30 in high lighting conditions and 10 in low lighting conditions. The frame rate of the full HD camera video stream was always 60.
Subsections 5.1 to 5.5 describe the set up experiment and the obtained results.
Subsection 5.6 presents a summary of the results.
\subsection{Ideal Scenario Test}
\noindent
This experiment represents the best-case scenario for our 3D motion tracking system.
The cameras were set up in front of a clean white board.
The illumination was proper (i.e. high lighting conditions).
The target object was a black mate sphere hung with transparent nylon thread.
The thread was moved in order to displace the target object around the scene.
As the light conditions are proper, the camera frame rates are 30 for both the low-budget cameras and 60 for the full HD camera.
The high frame rates caused almost no motion blur, therefore the edges of the target object were clear.
The white background did not interfere with the silhouette of the black target object projection.
The evenly-colored, rigid, convex, and clearly distinguishable target object was correctly detected and tracked in every frame using the three video devices.
\subsection{Low Light Conditions Test}
\noindent
This experiment is designed to determine the effect of low lighting conditions in our 3D motion tracking system.
The cameras were set up in front of a clean white board.
The illumination was improper (i.e. low lighting conditions).
The target object was a black mate sphere hung with transparent nylon thread.
The thread was moved in order to displace the target object around the scene.
As there were low light conditions, low-budget cameras adjusted the shutter speed to 10 frames per second, causing motion blur to appear. The full HD camera frame rate was still 60, although the image was noisier.
Our system supported high image noise levels and compensated motion blur with the failback strategy, and the evenly-colored, rigid, convex, and clearly distinguishable target object was still correctly detected and tracked in most frames using the three video capture devices. The inner point failback strategy had to be applied in some frames of the low-budget camera video streams, in particular when the object was moving fast. The failback strategy always succeeded and it was able to recover the tracking in all cases.
\subsection{Interfering Background Test}
\noindent
This experiment is designed to determine the effect of a cluttered or moving background in our 3D motion tracking system.
The cameras were set up in front of a room with a variety of furniture.
The illumination was proper (i.e. high lighting conditions).
The target object was a black mate sphere held and partially occluded by a hand.
It should be noted that the hand and the arm were also moving in the scene.
The target object was correctly determined to be the black sphere in all the tests, as its contrast with the surroundings caused the center of mass of the difference image to be inside its projection.
The tracking was performed correctly, although edge miscalculations due to the cluttered background caused slight variations in the projection centroid and area estimations.
These variations were negligible in all cases, since they lasted a couple frames at most and the system 3D coordinate smoothing managed to absorb them. The failback strategy did not need to be applied.
Although the full HD camera provided better results mainly due to its higher constant frame rate, the low-budget cameras provided enough accurate results and no there was no loss of tracking.
\subsection{Non-Convex Target Object Projection Test}
\noindent
This experiment is designed to determine the effect of non-convex target object projections in our 3D motion tracking system.
The cameras were set up in front of a clean white board.
The illumination was proper (i.e. high lighting conditions).
The target object is a paper shaped like a hand with the fingers spread, hung with two nylon threads.
Both threads are moved in order to displace the target object around the scene while making it face the cameras.
The paper hand silhouette was correctly detected and tracked in every frame using the three video devices.
Slight orientation changes did not greatly influence the area estimations.
The gaps between the fingers being too close to the inner point caused some tracking errors.
However, the inner point failback strategy managed to fix this situation and return the tracking to the hand in all cases.
The projection area was accurately estimated.
\subsection{Real World Conditions Test}
\noindent
This experiment is designed to determine the accuracy and performance of the system under real world conditions.
The cameras were set up in front of a room with a variety of furniture.
The illumination was proper (i.e. high lighting conditions).
The target object was an actual hand with the fingers spread. The color of the hand reasonably contrasts with the background and with the shirt that covers the arm.
The hand was correctly detected and tracked in most frames using the three video devices.
Tracking problems arose when the hand was moved through similarly colored background areas, in which cases the failback strategy succeeded.
\subsection{Experimental Result Summary}
\noindent
The conclusions we reached after experimentally testing our 3D motion tracking systems are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Objects with convex or non-convex projections are correctly detected and tracked.
\item Objects whose projections are or become self or partially occluded are correctly tracked. The estimation of their projection area decreased proportionally to the occluded zone.
\item The failback strategy is able to effectively detect tracking errors and relocate the inner point in most cases.
\item When the target object is moving through a cluttered background area with which it does not contrasts enough, the centroid location and the area estimation can be slightly off. However, the system 3D coordinate smoothing robustly absorbs the offset.
\item Precise results are obtained for frame rates of 10, 30, and 60. The higher the frame rate, the less motion blur is captured, therefore the sharper the edges look and, consequently, the more accurate the motion tracking is.
\item Noise in the video stream does not significantly affect the results.
\end{itemize}
Our 3D motion tracking system proved to be robust and flexible enough for real world applications.
In the next section, we summarize our work and disclose the future work that derives from our research.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work} \label{sec:concfw}
Existing 3D motion tracking techniques require either a great amount of knowledge on the object to be tracked, or specific hardware to perform the tracking. These requirements discourage the wide spread of applications that use 3D motion tracking.
We have defined the object projection feature estimation problem, which is ubiquitous in unsupervised markerless 3D motion tracking systems.
We have studied existing approaches for solving the object projection feature estimation problem, and we have proposed extensions to these approaches that outperform them.
We have presented a novel 3D motion tracking system that is able to determine the most relevant object in the screen and estimate its three-dimensional position given it is opaque, evenly colored, and enough contrasting with the background in each frame.
Our system performs 3D motion tracking in real time by analyzing the video stream from a single low-end camera.
Our 3D motion tracking system requires no training, no calibration, no previous knowledge on the target object, and no use of markers in the target object.
The experiments performed on our system proved that it is accurate and robust enough to perform correctly in real world conditions, such as cluttered or moving background; not proper lighting; and target objects being non-rigid, non-convex, partially or self occluded, and motion blurred.
Therefore, our 3D motion tracking system settles the bases for the market-wide implementation of applications that use 3D motion tracking.
We plan to improve the approaches for solving the object feature estimation problem in order to make them faster, more robust and accurate.
We plan to optimize the system so that it can run in low processing power devices such as smartphones.
We also plan to extend our 3D motion tracking technique in order to make it able to track multiple objects in the screen.
Finally, we plan to develop virtual devices that implement new input paradigms. These virtual devices will be applied to the interaction with virtual environments and intelligent virtual environments.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Cataclysmic variables (CVs) are close binary systems consisting of
a white dwarf (WD) and a red-dwarf secondary transferring matter via
the Roche-lobe overflow
[for reviews, see \citet{war95book}; \citet{hel01book}].
Dwarf novae (DNe) are a class of CVs characterized by the presence of
outbursts, which are generally believed to be a result of
thermal instabilities in the accretion disk. Dwarf novae are
classified into three major classes:
SS Cyg-type, Z Cam-type and SU UMa-type dwarf novae.
Among them SU UMa-type dwarf novae show superhumps during their long-lasting
superoutbursts. The superhumps are generally believed to arise from
the precessing eccentric accretion disk whose eccentricity is excited by
the 3:1 resonance \citep{osa89suuma}.
According to the standard scenario of CV evolution, CVs with orbital
periods ($P_{\rm orb}$) longer than $\sim$3 hr evolve towards shorter
$P_{\rm orb}$ through the loss of angular momentum by magnetic braking
(\cite{ver81magneticbraking}; \cite{rap83CVevolution}) and gravitational
wave radiation.
When the systems reach certain periods around $P_{\rm orb} \sim 3$ hr,
the secondary becomes fully convective and the effect of the magnetic braking
is believed to decrease dramatically, followed by the shrinkage of the
secondary and reduction of the CV activity. This state lasts till
the secondary again fills the Roche lobe at around $P_{\rm orb} \sim 2$ hr
and forms the famous ``period gap'' in the $P_{\rm orb}$ distribution of CVs.
After crossing the period gap, $P_{\rm orb}$ further decreases mainly
through the loss of angular momentum by gravitational wave radiation
until the secondary becomes degenerate. Around the time when this point
is reached, the $P_{\rm orb}$ increases due to two reasons:
the thermal time-scale of the secondary exceeds the mass-transfer
time-scale and the mass-radius relation is reversed for degenerate dwarfs.
This mechanism leads to the existence of the minimum period for ordinary
CVs \citep{pac81CVGWR}.\footnote{
We only showed the outline for the reason of the existence of
the period minimum. Modern works have suggested that the mechanism
is more complex than this simplified picture
(cf. \cite{kol99CVperiodminimum}; \cite{kni11CVdonor};
\cite{ara05MCV}).
}
Those systems whose periods go past the period minimum are usually
called period bouncers.
The early model calculations yielded the minimum period of
60--80 min (\cite{pac81CVGWR}; \cite{rap82CVevolution};
\cite{pac83CVevolution}). Later refined models yielded short periods
of 65--70 min (\cite{kol99CVperiodminimum}; \cite{how01periodgap}),
which is significantly shorter than the observed value
(e.g. \cite{kol93CVpopulation}). This disagreement is called
``period minimum problem''. Furthermore, population synthesis studies
expect that most systems have already reached the period minimum and
that there is a heavy accumulation of systems around the period minimum
(period spike). Since such a spike was not observationally evident until
very recently, this disagreement was called ``period spike problem''
(\cite{kol99CVperiodminimum}; \cite{ren02CVminimum}). The observational
evidence for the period spike has only recently been shown
(cf. \cite{gan09SDSSCVs}; \cite{uem10shortPCV}).
Some of non-magnetic CVs above the period gap and most of CVs below
the period gap exhibit dwarf nova-type outbursts. In addition to
color-based surveys such as Palomer Green (PG) survey
\citep{PGsurvey} and Hamburg Quasar Survey (HQS; \cite{HQS}), and
color-selected spectroscopic survey such as Sloan Digital Sky Survey
(SDSS; \cite{SDSS}), dwarf nova-type outbursts have been both traditionally,
and in modern times, playing an important role in discovering CVs.
In variability-based surveys of CVs, SU UMa-type dwarf novae are
a particularly important group for two reasons:
(1) SU UMa-type dwarf novae show superhumps and we can estimate
the orbital periods using only photometric observations.
(2) Most of dwarf novae below the period gap are SU UMa-type dwarf novae,
and WZ Sge-type dwarf novae (a subgroup of SU UMa-type dwarf novae;
cf. \cite{bai79wzsge}; \cite{odo91wzsge}; \cite{kat01hvvir}) are
considered to occupy the terminal stage of the CV evolution.
Indeed, the recent increase in discoveries of new SU UMa-type dwarf novae,
helped by massive transient surveys such as Catalina Real-Time Survey
(CRTS, \cite{CRTS})\footnote{
$<$http://nesssi.cacr.caltech.edu/catalina/$>$.
For the information of the individual Catalina CVs, see
$<$http://nesssi.cacr.caltech.edu/catalina/AllCV.html$>$.
}, the All Sku Automated Survey-3 (ASAS-3, \cite{ASAS3}) and
by amateur observers (notably K. Itagaki),
have a significant impact on the distribution of orbital periods in
CVs (\cite{gan09SDSSCVs}; \cite{uem10shortPCV}). Both works have
indicated that the period minimum spike, which has only become
observationally apparent, are heavily composed of newly identified
SU UMa-type dwarf novae or faint SDSS CVs. Using Bayesian statistical
analysis, \citet{uem10shortPCV} suggested a possibility that
the true period minimum is even shorter than what is observed,
considering the effect of low detectability of very low mass-transfer systems.
These surveys and statistics, however, unavoidably suffer from various
kinds of biases. There are a bias because essentially all surveys are
magnitude-limited, with bias being introduced by color selection criteria,
and bias resulting from follow-up strategies. The first two biases
are more serious in color and spectroscopy-selected searches. The last
bias is more important in variability-based searches, because
long-$P_{\rm orb}$ SS Cyg and Z Cam-type dwarf novae do not show superhumps,
and short-$P_{\rm orb}$ SU UMa-type ones show such $P_{\rm orb}$ as
are more easily determined. Furthermore, it is known that large-amplitude
dwarf novae tend to receive popular attention, potentially leading to
a bias toward detecting a larger number of shorter-$P_{\rm orb}$ systems.
Estimating $P_{\rm orb}$ from colors of dwarf novae in quiescence,
if it is feasible, could reduce the effect of the last bias.
There has been a long history of using colors in classifying CVs:
\citet{bru84CVUBV} compiled $UBV$ colors of CVs and tried to classify them
on the color-color diagram and \citet{bru94CVUBV} extended this work.
\citet{szk87shortPCV} used $UBVJHK$ photometry and spectroscopy to
characterize quiescent dwarf novae. \citet{szk87shortPCV} showed that
($V-J$) and ($U-B$) colors become bluer in shorter-$P_{\rm orb}$.
\citet{spr96CVabsmag} used ($J-K$) color to characterize the secondary
and CV type. \citet{hoa02CV2MASS} complied 2MASS colors of CVs
and extended the results by \citet{spr96CVabsmag}. \citet{ima06j0137}
closely examined 2MASS color to characterize dwarf novae.
\citet{ak07CVabsmag} further used 2MASS color to estimate absolute
magnitudes of CVs and derived space distributions \citep{ak08CVdist}.
\citet{wil10newCVs} used SDSS color cuts, UV color and variability
for detecting new dwarf novae.
In this study, we used the SDSS photometric catalog for exploring a new
way to estimate $P_{\rm orb}$, and we discuss the implication of the
resultant period distribution.
\section{The Sample}\label{sec:data}
The sample we used are the known dwarf novae in the General Catalog
of Variable Stars (GCVS, \cite{GCVSelectronic2011}), Downes CV Catalog,
Archival Edition \citep{DownesCVatlas3}, the online version of
RKCat [\cite{RKCat}, (update RKcat7.15, 2011)], SDSS CVs
(\cite{szk02SDSSCVs}; \cite{szk03SDSSCV2}; \cite{szk04SDSSCV3};
\cite{szk05SDSSCV4}; \cite{szk06SDSSCV5}; \cite{szk07SDSSCV6};
\cite{szk09SDSSCV7}),
newly recognized dwarf novae by CRTS,
CRTS Mount Lemmon Survey (MLS)\footnote{
$<$http://nesssi.cacr.caltech.edu/MLS/AllCV.html$>$.
}, CRTS Siding Spring Survey (SSS)\footnote{
$<$http://nesssi.cacr.caltech.edu/SSS/AllCV.html$>$.
},
candidate dwarf novae selected by color and variability
\citep{wil10newCVs}, and newly discovered dwarf novae whose properties
have been investigated in \citet{Pdot}, \citet{Pdot2} and \citet{Pdot3}.
For CRTS objects, most of dwarf novae were easily recognized based on
their light curves (typical dwarf nova-type light curve and existence
of past outbursts). Some CRTS dwarf novae were selected based on
single outburst detections and typical CV colors in quiescence.
For SDSS CVs, we selected objects that are recognized as dwarf novae
based on the presence of outbursts and objects that have dwarf nova-type
spectra.
We selected the objects whose magnitudes are present in
the SDSS Photometric Catalog, Releases 8 (DR8). Since some objects or
measurements are missing in SDSS DR8, we used SDSS DR7 instead.
We rejected SDSS magnitudes measured during outbursts or
standstills (in Z Cam-type dwarf novae) by comparing with other photometric
catalogs, known ranges of variability and typical quiescent magnitudes
in the CRTS data. If there are two or measurements in SDSS and their
magnitudes differ by more than 1 mag, we rejected the measurements
whose magnitudes are brighter by more than 1 mag than the faintest
one in order to minimize the contamination of outbursts.
Even if multiple SDSS entries are present for the same object,
we used the measurements individually
and did not use an averaged value of each object before analysis.
We rejected measurements that have saturated pixels
(shown as blanks in table \ref{tab:dnlist}).
For estimating Galactic extinction, we used \citet{sch98reddening}
for a through-the-Galaxy estimate, and obtained the extinction at the
distance of the object using \citet{bah80extinction} assuming
a scale height of $H=100$ pc for the interstellar dust
(\cite{Spitzer78ISMbook}; \cite{bah80extinction}).
We employed an iterative process to obtain
self-consistent estimates of distance and extinction.
We examined the dependence of the results on the assumption of $H$,
using extreme set of $H=70$ pc (typical value for molecular coulds)
and $H=200$ pc (typical value for cold neutral medium).
The resultant periods of neural network analysis (section \ref{sec:nnet})
varied within 5 \% of the $H=100$ pc result for 68 \% of objects.
We used distance estimates tabulated in \citet{pat11CVdistance} and
those of \citet{roe07amcvndistance} for GP Com,
\citet{sla95novaremnant} for GK Per and \citep{und08gd552} for GD 552.
For estimating the distance of the rest of the objects, we used Warner's
relations (\cite{war87CVabsmag}; \cite{war95book}).
If apparent magnitudes of maximum are available we estimated
the distances by assuming the absolute magnitudes ($M_V{\rm (max)}$)
using the updated Warner's relation \citep{pat11CVdistance} for objects
with $P_{\rm orb} < 0.5$ d, and our own calibration based on GK Per
[the interstellar extinction correction of $E(B-V)=0.3$ was taken
from \cite{wu89gkper}] for longer $P_{\rm orb}$:
\begin{equation}
M_V{\rm (max)} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
5.70 - 17.2 P_{\rm orb}, & \mbox{($P_{\rm orb} < 0.5$)} \\
2.79 - 1.05 P_{\rm orb}, & \mbox{($P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.5$)}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
If the apparent magnitudes of maximum were unavailable, we used the
following equation (corresponding to equation 3.3 in \cite{war95book}):
\begin{equation}
M_V{\rm (min)} = 7.1 + 1.64 log T_n {\rm (d)} - 6.24 P_{\rm orb},
\end{equation}
assuming $\log T_n$=2.5 to estimate minimum $M_V$ and estimated
observed apparent magnitudes of minimum to the distances.
When the orbital periods were not available, we used the results of
a neural network analysis (section \ref{sec:nnet}).
We used a mean maximum $M_V=4.95$ for objects without
measured and estimated orbital periods.
Since Warner's relation for the maximum is not very
sensitive to the orbital period, the uncertainty introduced by the
uncertainty of the orbital period is estimated to be sufficiently small.
We used the coefficients in \citet{sch98reddening} to convert $V$-band
absorption $A(V)$ to extinctions in SDSS passbands. Since the application
of Warner's relation requires orbital periods, the estimation of
Galactic extinction is dependent on the results of the neural network
analysis for objects without known orbital periods. We therefore repeated
this process three times, using the results of the neural network analysis
for estimating the distances, to obtain self-consistent estimates
of distances and orbital periods from de-reddened colors.
These values and the methods of estimation are placed in a later table
(table \ref{tab:dnlist2}) in order to save space.
Since there are different kinds of samples in this paper,
we summarized the samples in table \ref{tab:samples} for the
convenience of readers.
\begin{table}
\caption{Samples in this paper.}\label{tab:samples}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|l}
\hline
Sample type & Objects \\
\hline
All samples & Sample described in section \ref{sec:data}. \\
& Identical with objects in table \ref{tab:dnlist}. \\
\hline
WZ Sge-type DNe & UZ Boo, EG Cnc, V592 Her, RZ Leo, \\
(subsection \ref{sec:twocolor}) & UW Tri, BC UMa, HV Vir, \\
& SDSS J080434.20$+$510349.2, \\
& SDSS J133941.11$+$484727.5, \\
& SDSS J160501.35$+$203056.9, \\
& OT J012059.6$+$325545, \\
& OT J074727.6$+$065050, \\
& OT J090239.7$+$052501, \\
& OT J104411.4$+$211307, \\
& SDSS J161027.61$+$090738.4 \\
\hline
Systems below the & EI Psc, SDSS J150722.30$+$523039.8, \\
period minimum & OT J112253.3$-$111037 \\
(subsection \ref{sec:belowperiodmin}) & \\
\hline
Training set & Sample used for training the neural \\
(subsection \ref{sec:training}) & network. Objects in table \ref{tab:dnlist} with \\
& $P_{\rm orb}$ entries, excluding two \\
& AM CVn stars (GP Com and SDSS \\
& J012940.05$+$384210.4), \\
& AR Cnc, GZ Cet, MT Com, EI Psc, \\
& QZ Ser and OT J231308.1$+$233702. \\
\hline
DNe used for study of & CRTS transients with known SDSS \\
period distribution & colors and $70 < P_{\rm orb} {\rm (min)} < 130$. \\
(section \ref{sec:porbdist}) & Listed in table \ref{tab:crtsotlist}. \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Color Analysis}
\subsection{Location of WZ Sge-Type Dwarf Novae on Color-Color Diagrams}\label{sec:twocolor}
We attempted to separate WZ Sge-type dwarf novae based on locations
on color-color diagrams. We selected WZ Sge-type dwarf novae using the
criteria described in \citet{Pdot}. The selected WZ Sge-type dwarf novae
were UZ Boo, EG Cnc, V592 Her, RZ Leo, UW Tri, BC UMa, HV Vir,
SDSS J080434.20$+$510349.2, SDSS J133941.11$+$484727.5,
SDSS J160501.35$+$203056.9, OT J012059.6$+$325545, OT J074727.6$+$065050,
OT J090239.7$+$052501, OT J104411.4$+$211307, and the CV selected by
\citet{wil10newCVs} SDSS J161027.61$+$090738.4.
Among them, RZ Leo and BC UMa are ``borderline'' WZ Sge-type dwarf novae with
relatively frequent (super)outbursts, but with well-defined early superhumps.
Most of other objects are more extreme WZ Sge-type dwarf novae
with very infrequent (super)outbursts or with multiple rebrightenings.
In figure \ref{fig:wzloc}, WZ Sge-type dwarf novae and dwarf novae
of other classes without known outburst properties are superimposed
on the diagram. It seems that WZ Sge-type dwarf novae tend to
cluster on the $(u-g,g-r)$ color-color diagram. This trend can be
interpreted as the smaller contribution of
the Balmer continuum, arising from the accretion disk, to the $u$ light;
in WZ Sge-type dwarf novae, this spectral range is usually dominated
by the white dwarf and the level of disk-originated $u$ light is smaller.
The $(g-r,r-i)$ diagram is less diagnostic.
The $(r-i,i-z)$ diagram again shows some degree of clustering of
WZ Sge-type dwarf novae. This trend can be interpreted as
the contribution of the secondary to the $z$ light in longer-$P_{\rm orb}$
objects. The two WZ Sge-type objects with large $i-z$ colors are
RZ Leo and OT J090239.7$+$052501. The former has a long $P_{\rm orb}$
and the secondary significantly contributes to the $z$ band.
The unusual position of the latter was caused by large photometric
errors in SDSS due to its faintness ($g$=23.2).
The locations of WZ Sge-type dwarf novae, excluding these two objects,
can be used to discriminate WZ Sge-type candidates in the color-color space.
The average values and standard deviations for $u-g$, $g-r$, $r-i$ and $i-z$
colors for these samples are 0.03(0.17), $-$0.04(0.07), $-$0.12(0.18),
0.04(0.22), respectively.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\FigureFile(190mm,95mm){fig1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Location of WZ Sge-type dwarf novae on color-color diagrams.
Lightly filled squares represent well-characterized WZ Sge-type dwarf novae.
The other open circles represent other classifications or objects without
known outburst properties. For better visualization, the plots of
object other than WZ Sge-type dwarf novae are limited to those
having errors smaller than 0.1 mag in all
($u-g$, $g-r$, $r-i$, $i-z$) colors. The small dots represents
objects other than WZ Sge-type dwarf novae with larger (up to 0.3 mag)
photometric errors. Two boxes in the figures are white dwarf (WD)
exclusion box and A-type star (A) exclusion one in the spectroscopic
follow-up of SDSS quasar candidates.}
\label{fig:wzloc}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Dependence of Colors on Orbital Period}\label{sec:depporb}
We studied the dependence of colors on the orbital period.
Whenever available, we used well-determined orbital periods from
radial-velocity studies or photometric observations of eclipses.\footnote{
The values of orbital periods are taken from tables in our compilations
(\cite{Pdot}, \cite{Pdot2} and \cite{Pdot3}; references
are listed therein), and supplemented for
RX And \citep{kai89rxand}, UU Aql (\cite{RKCat}, J. R. Thorstensen,
private communication),
VZ Aqr, V516 Cyg, V478 Her, VZ Sex, HS 1055$+$0939 \citep{tho10longPDN},
CR Boo \citep{pro97crboo}, AM Cas \citep{tay96arandamcaspyper},
V630 Cas \citep{oro01v630cas}, WW Cet \citep{tap97wwcet},
EN Cet, SDSS J090103.93$+$480911.1, SDSS J124426.26$+$613514.6,
SDSS J171145.08$+$301320.0 \citep{dil08SDSSPorb3},
GY Cet, SDSS J005050.88$+$000912.6, SDSS J155531.99$-$001055.0,
SDSS J205914.87$-$061220.5, SDSS J233325.92$+$152222.2
\citep{sou07SDSSCV2},
HP Cet, SDSS J091127.36$+$084140.7, SDSS J121607.03$+$052013.9
\citep{sou06SDSSCV},
AR Cnc \citep{how90faintCV3}, GY Cnc, IR Com \citep{fel05gycncircomhtcas},
GP Com \citep{mar99gpcom}, MT Com \citep{pat05j1255},
AB Dra \citep{tho85abdrawwcet}, DO Dra \citep{has97dodraHST},
ES Dra \citep{rin11esdra},
BF Eri, BI Ori, FO Per \citep{she07CVspec},
LT Eri \citep{ak05j0407},
AH Her \citep{hor86ahher}, X Leo \citep{sha86xleossaur},
DO Leo \citep{abb90doleo}, HM Leo \citep{tho01CVperiod},
CW Mon \citep{kat03cwmon}, HX Peg \citep{rin94hxpeg},
IP Peg \citep{cop10ippeg}, V367 Peg \citep{wou05CVphot},
V405 Peg \citep{tho09v405peg}, GK Per \citep{cra86gkperorbit},
KT Per \citep{tho97ktper}, AY Psc \citep{dia90aypsc},
X Ser \citep{tho00v533herv446herxser}, RY Ser,
SDSSp J081321.91$+$452809.4 \citep{tho04longPDN},
QZ Ser \citep{tho02qzser}, V386 Ser \citep{wou04CV4},
EL UMa (\cite{RKCat}, derived from \cite{Pdot2}),
VW Vul \citep{tho98cylyrtwtrivwvul}, GD 552 \citep{hes90gd552},
1RXS J171456.2+585130 \citep{wil11j1714asas1509},
HS 1016$+$3412, HS 1340$+$1524 \citep{aun06HSDN},
HS 2205$+$0201 (\cite{RKCat}, A. Aungwerojwit, Ph.D.
thesis, Univ. of Warwick), HS 2219$+$1824 \citep{rod05hs2219},
RX J1715.6$+$6856, RX J1831.7$+$6511 \citep{pre07CVspacedensity},
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5, SDSS J075059.97$+$141150.1 \citep{sou10j0039},
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8, SDSS J165837.70$+$184727.4,
SDSS J220553.98$+$115553.7 \citep{sou08CVperiod},
SDSS J074531.92$+$453829.6, SDSS J155656.92$+$352336.6 \citep{szk06SDSSCV5},
SDSS J075507.70$+$143547.6, SDSS J080534.49$+$072029.1,
SDSS J143544.02$+$233638.7 \citep{szk07SDSSCV6},
SDSS J080303.90$+$251627.0, SDSS J142955.86$+$414516.8 \citep{szk05SDSSCV4},
SDSS J080846.19$+$313106.0, SDSS J153817.35$+$512338.0,
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2, SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0
(\cite{gan09SDSSCVs}, Dillon et al. in prep.),
SDSS J084400.10$+$023919.3, SDSS J091945.11$+$085710.1
(\cite{gan09SDSSCVs}, Thorstensen et al. in prep.),
SDSS J090016.56$+$430118.2 \citep{szk04SDSSCV3},
SDSS J090403.48$+$035501.2 \citep{wou05SDSSCVpuls},
SDSS J100658.40$+$233724.4 \citep{sou09j1006},
SDSS J103533.02$+$055158.3, SDSS J143317.78$+$101123.3,
SDSS J150137.22$+$550123.4, SDSS J150722.30$+$523039.8
\citep{lit08eclCV},
SDSS J123813.73$-$033933.0 \citep{zha06j1238},
SDSS J124058.03$-$015919.2 \citep{roe05j1240},
SDSS J145758.21$+$514807.9 \citep{uth11CVthesis},
SDSS J154453.60$+$255348.8 \citep{ski11j1544},
SDSS J204448.92$-$045928.8 \citep{pet05CVlongP}.
} For some WZ Sge-type dwarf novae, we could
use the periods of early superhumps when spectroscopic orbital periods
are not available. We could estimate orbital periods fairly well
for SU UMa-type dwarf novae with known superhump periods ($P_{\rm SH}$).
For systems with $P_{\rm SH} < 0.084$ d (stage B superhumps, see
\cite{Pdot} for definition of stages) or $P_{\rm SH} < 0.076$ d
(stage C superhumps),
we employed the newly calibrated relations in \citet{Pdot3} for
deriving estimated $P_{\rm orb}$. The 1 $\sigma$ error for the
estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ is 0.0003 d. For systems with longer
$P_{\rm SH}$, we used the relation in \citet{sto84tumen}.
The result is shown figure \ref{fig:porbcol}. The figure includes
unusual short-$P_{\rm orb}$ systems EI Psc, and OT J112253.3$-$111037
but does not include AM CVn-type objects (for a review of AM CVn-type
stars, see \cite{sol10amcvnreview}) which show dwarf-nova outbursts
or which are similar to dwarf novae in quiescence
(GP Com and SDSS J012940.05$+$384210.4 in the present sample).
The only SDSS CV having $P_{\rm orb}$ longer than 1 d
(SDSS J204448.92$-$045928.8) is outside this figure.
Excepting $u-g$, the colors of dwarf novae in quiescence become
redder in longer $P_{\rm orb}$. The $u-g$ color is practically
constant for $\log P_{\rm orb} > -1.2$. In shorter $P_{\rm orb}$,
the $u-g$ color becomes noticeably redder, reflecting the increasing
contribution of the white dwarf in systems with very low mass-transfer
rates.
It is particularly noteworthy that all colors have significant
dependence on $P_{\rm orb}$ even below the period gap.
This dependence is expected to provide a way to estimate
$P_{\rm orb}$ only from SDSS photometric data. The $i-z$ color
tends to become bluer in very short-$P_{\rm orb}$ systems.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\FigureFile(190mm,95mm){fig2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Dependence of SDSS colors of dwarf novae on orbital period.}
\label{fig:porbcol}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Period Bouncers and SDSS Fiber Exclusion Boxes}\label{sec:bouncers}
SDSS spectroscopic follow-up observations used exclusion boxes
to locate the fibers in order to reduce the contamination from
white dwarfs, A-type stars and white dwarf-main sequence binaries
(cf. figure \ref{fig:wzloc} and figure 6 in \cite{gan09SDSSCVs}).
There has been a concern that SDSS-selected CVs may have a bias resulting
from these exclusion policies.
As we have seen, there appears to be a tendency that the $i-z$
color sharply becomes bluer according as the $P_{\rm orb}$ shortens
(figure \ref{fig:porbcol}). Most of the shortest-$P_{\rm orb}$
objects $i-z$ bluer than 0, and the spectroscopic detections these
objects and potential period bouncers are expected to be limited
by the exclusion criterion of $i-z \le -0.1$. This might explain
the too small number of candidates for period bouncers in known
and SDSS-selected CVs compared to predictions by population models
\citep{gan09SDSSCVs}.
Among CRTS and other transients, OT J010329.0$+$331822,
OT J010550.1$+$190317, OT J012059.6$+$325545, OT J020056.0$+$195727,
OT J035003.4$+$370052, OT J074419.7$+$325448, OT J074727.6$+$065050,
OT J091453.6$+$113402, OT J151037.4$+$084104, OT J164748.0$+$433845
and OT J213122.4$-$003937 were inside the WD exclusion box.
Two objects (OT J010329.0$+$331822 and OT J035003.4$+$370052)
were brighter than the limit ($i=19.1$) of the quasar target
selection algorithm up to SDSS DR7 \citep{ric02SDSSseletion}
and one object (OT J151037.4$+$084104) was brighter than the limit
($i=19.9$) for SDSS DR8 \citep{eis11SDSS3},\footnote{
Although SDSS did not obtain spectra for the objects in the Sloan
Extension for Galactic Understanding and Exploration (SEGUE)
imaging footprint, none of the objects within the WD exclusion box
are within the SEGUE field.
}, and there
seems to have been a possibility that by this exclusion criterion
significant fraction of CVs have escaped detection by SDSS.
Notably, OT J074727.6$+$065050 is one of the renowned candidate
for a period bouncer with multiple rebrightenings \citep{Pdot}.
OT J012059.6$+$325545 is also a WZ Sge-type dwarf nova with multiple
rebrightenings \citep{Pdot3}. Although the latter two objects
were below the limit of the target selection algorithm of SDSS,
these results suggest that the fraction of shortrst-$P_{\rm orb}$
objects and period bouncers was significantly biased in the SDSS CVs.
\subsection{Systems Below the Period Minimum}\label{sec:belowperiodmin}
There are three objects (EI Psc, SDSS J150722.30$+$523039.8,
OT J112253.3$-$111037) having
$0.04 < P_{\rm orb} < 0.05$ (d) in our sample.
SDSS J150722.30$+$523039.8 is an unusual hydrogen-rich CV with
a very short $P_{\rm orb}$ (\cite{lit07j1507}; \cite{pat08j1507}).
It has been well-known that the region of this $P_{\rm orb}$ contains
objects with unusually massive and luminous secondaries:
EI Psc and V485 Cen (\cite{aug93v485cen}; \cite{aug96v485cen}).
The remaining one object, OT J112253.3-111037, has a blue $g-z$ color
($+0.01$) unlike EI Psc ($+0.74$). The color is more similar to
SDSS J150722.30$+$523039.8 ($-0.13$). A low resolution spectrum
of OT J112253.3$-$111037 in quiescence shows a stronger signature of
helium lines (vsnet-alert 12026). The object might supply
an important missing link between the enigmatic object
SDSS J150722.30$+$523039.8, whose population and evolutionary
status are not yet unclear, and EI Psc-like objects, and detailed
follow-up observations are indispensable.
\section{Neural-Network Analysis}\label{sec:nnet}
\subsection{Method and Training Set}\label{sec:training}
In order to estimate orbital periods from SDSS colors, we employed
a single-hidden-layer artificial neural network, a kind of multiple-layer
perceptrons (\cite{bis95nnet} and references therein),
using $\log P_{\rm orb}$ as the response, and colors as inputs.\footnote{
We used {\bf nnet} package in R software
(The R Foundation for Statistical Computing:
$<$http://cran.r-project.org/$>$).
} The procedure is practically the same
as in photometric redshift estimations (see \cite{ANNz} for the definition
of the activation function and numerical method for the training).
We used samples with known orbital periods in training the neurons.
The samples were restricted with photometric errors (in each SDSS band)
smaller than upper 90\% quantiles. GZ Cet = SDSS J013701.06$-$091234.9
was rejected from the sample because this object has an unusually evolved
massive secondary (\cite{ima06j0137}; \cite{ish07CVIR}).
OT J231308.1$+$233702 was not included due to its unusually red color,
suggesting the possibility of similarity to GZ Cet.
AR Cnc was also rejected because this object is deeply eclipsing
\citep{how90faintCV3}, and the SDSS observation was likely obtained
during its eclipse.
We also rejected EI Psc (subsection \ref{sec:depporb}), QZ Ser
(system with an unusually luminous secondary, \cite{tho02qzser})
and MT Com [suggested to be a WZ Sge-like object \citep{pat05j1255},
but the true nature and the period are still poorly known].
When there are multiple measurements for the same object, we used
weights reversely proportional to the number of measurements
in training the neural network.
\subsection{Optimization and Uncertainties}\label{sec:nnetoptim}
We have optimized the number of units in the hidden layer
($N_{\rm hid}$) by the following cross-validation method.
We first randomly selected 70 \% of sample for the training data;
the remaining samples were used for estimating the prediction error.
The residuals for the training data were used for estimating
the training error.
We used 100 different sets of randomly selected samples and randomly
created and trained neural networks for each $N_{\rm hid}$ and averaged
resultant errors for each $N_{\rm hid}$.
Although the training error decreased as $N_{\rm hid}$ increases,
the decrease becomes slower for $N_{\rm hid} > 3$. The prediction error
slowly increases as $N_{\rm hid}$ increases, especially $N_{\rm hid} > 5$.
We therefore adopted $N_{\rm hid} = 3$. This adoption of $N_{\rm hid}$
was also supported by the following analysis of estimated uncertainties
and analysis of resultant correlation coefficients.
We estimated uncertainties of period estimations using the
following process. For each object (with a known orbital period),
a subsample excluding the target object was created and estimated the
orbital period of the target object using the parameters of
the neural network resulting from the subsample.
The maximum correlation coefficient excluding outliers reached a maximum
for $N_{\rm hid} = 3$. The number of outliers suggests that $\sim$2 \%
of ordinary objects will give totally unreliable $P_{\rm orb}$ in this
method.\footnote{
Since our primary aim is to qualify dwarf novae, e.g. whether
they are likely candidates for objects below the period gap,
we used ``totally unreliable'' here for objects whose estimated
periods are below the period gap while the true $P_{\rm orb}$
are well above the period gap, or in the reverse cases.
Since the members of these outliers are not fixed, but dependent on
the neural networks, only the statistical description in fraction
of outliers is meaningful.
Some of these outliers can be properly characterized in the category
analysis (subsection \ref{sec:category}).
}
In a model with $N_{\rm hid} = 1$, there remained a strong tendency
of departure of estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ for long-$P_{\rm orb}$ systems,
and thus we did not adopt this model. For $N_{\rm hid} \ge 5$, correlation
coefficient tends to decrease.
The correlation for objects below the period gap, however, was almost
always equally good regardless of $N_{\rm hid}$ tested.
The correlation was generally worse in long-$P_{\rm orb}$ systems than
in systems below the period gap. This can be naturally explained by
the large spread of mass-transfer rate above the period gap
(cf. \cite{war87CVabsmag}).
Diagrams of the estimated orbital periods versus the true ones
using this $N_{\rm hid}$
are shown in figure \ref{fig:esterror}. The 1 $\sigma$ error for
estimating $P_{\rm orb}$ for systems below the gap (excluding outliers)
was 22 \%. For systems with $0.12 < P_{\rm orb} < 0.4$ (d)
(excluding outliers), the 1 $\sigma$ error was 57 \%.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\FigureFile(70mm,130mm){fig3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Estimated versus true orbital periods.
(Upper): All samples.
(Lower): Estimations for objects below the period gap. The upper object
situated outside this panel is GZ Cet.
}
\label{fig:esterror}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Estimation of Orbital Period}
In order to reflect the uncertainties of the neural network and
the photometric ones, we used different neural networks using all subsamples
described in subsection \ref{sec:nnetoptim}. We also added random
errors to the observed data according to error estimates of the SDSS
photometry. After adopting 90\% quantiles of the results,
the mean estimates (mean in its logarithmic value) of the resultant
$P_{\rm orb}$ and their standard deviations are given
in table \ref{tab:dnlist}.
The columns of estimated orbital periods were left blank if
the estimated periods were shorter than 0.04 d or longer than 1 d.
The object with large estimated errors (larger than 0.4 times
the estimated orbital periods) were also rejected.
There are objects with a multiplicity of up to 31 SDSS scans. For objects
with more than four measurements, we have obtained standard deviations of
estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ in order to assess the quality of estimated
errors of the neural-network analysis. Although these estimates were
generally well-correlated ($r^2=0.86$, figure \ref{fig:dispers}
and table \ref{tab:aveper}), the estimated errors tend to be smaller
than the standard deviations of estimated $P_{\rm orb}$. The ratio of
the standard deviations of estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ to the estimated errors
was 1.8 (median). This difference may be partly interpreted as
the intrinsic variation of the objects.
\begin{table}
\caption{Averaged $P_{\rm orb}$ estimetes for objects with more than four SDSS scans.}\label{tab:aveper}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
Object & $N$$^*$ & mean $P_{\rm est}$ & error of $P_{\rm est}$ \\
\hline
V496 Aur & 4 & 0.077(20) & 0.023 \\
EN Cet & 13 & 0.067(4) & 0.003 \\
GS Cet & 15 & 0.062(14) & 0.007 \\
BI Ori & 6 & 0.103(29) & 0.002 \\
QZ Ser & 4 & 0.210(7) & 0.055 \\
FSV J1722$+$2723 & 4 & 0.081(5) & 0.003 \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 31 & 0.062(13) & 0.007 \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 13 & 0.077(7) & 0.002 \\
OT J051419.9$+$011121 & 4 & 0.077(6) & 0.003 \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 6 & 0.325(83) & 0.035 \\
OT J055842.8$+$000626 & 4 & 0.263(77) & 0.016 \\
OT J074222.5$+$172807 & 4 & 0.092(16) & 0.004 \\
OT J074419.7$+$325448 & 4 & 0.054(9) & 0.010 \\
OT J081418.9$-$005022 & 5 & 0.076(12) & 0.001 \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 6 & 0.109(14) & 0.004 \\
OT J092839.3$+$005944 & 4 & 0.119(15) & 0.018 \\
OT J171223.1$+$362516 & 4 & 0.236(46) & 0.078 \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 11 & 0.124(59) & 0.081 \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 12 & 0.100(72) & 0.055 \\
OT J221128.7$-$030516 & 5 & 0.065(7) & 0.002 \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 22 & 0.081(10) & 0.004 \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 16 & 0.080(7) & 0.005 \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 14 & 0.051(4) & 0.004 \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 21 & 0.064(6) & 0.002 \\
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 6 & 0.042(2) & 0.004 \\
SDSS J075507.70$+$143547.6 & 4 & 0.056(1) & 0.001 \\
SDSS J075939.79$+$191417.3 & 4 & 0.114(22) & 0.004 \\
SDSS J085623.00$+$310834.0 & 4 & 0.055(2) & 0.002 \\
SDSS J091001.63$+$164820.0 & 4 & 0.078(6) & 0.002 \\
SDSS J094325.90$+$520128.8 & 4 & 0.081(5) & 0.006 \\
SDSS J113215.50$+$624900.4 & 4 & 0.076(8) & 0.002 \\
SDSS J155644.24$-$000950.2 & 4 & 0.075(6) & 0.001 \\
SDSS J155644.24$-$000950.2 & 4 & 0.075(6) & 0.001 \\
SDSS J160501.35$+$203056.9 & 4 & 0.057(2) & 0.002 \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 10 & 0.073(7) & 0.004 \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 13 & 0.076(6) & 0.001 \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 13 & 0.074(8) & 0.006 \\
SDSS J211605.43$+$113407.5 & 4 & 0.087(52) & 0.038 \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17 & 0.082(8) & 0.002 \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 25 & 0.087(13) & 0.002 \\
SDSS J081408.42$+$090759.1$^\dagger$ & 4 & 0.122(10) & 0.006 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^*$ Number of SDSS scans.}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^\dagger$ Dwarf nova proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\FigureFile(70mm,70mm){fig4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Standard deviations of estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and mean errors
of the neural-network analysis for objects with more than four SDSS
measurements. The standard deviation of estimated $P_{\rm orb}$
tends to be larger than the estimated errors by a factor of two.}
\label{fig:dispers}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Category Classification by Neural Network}\label{sec:category}
Since a direct estimation of $P_{\rm orb}$ is sometimes difficult,
especially if the object is too faint (large photometric errors), or
if the object has an unusually red color (due to the relatively small number
of training samples for long-$P_{\rm orb}$ objects),
we provide an alternative way for distinguishing dwarf novae into
three categories: {\it ultrashort} ($P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$),
{\it short} ($0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$) and {\it long}
($P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$), approximately corresponding to WZ Sge type,
SU UMa type and SS Cyg/Z Cam type. We applied neural-network analysis
to these categories, and estimated the probability belonging to each
category (table \ref{tab:dnlist2}).
Except for some objects with unusually bright and luminous secondaries,
and, and except for the objects that are unusual for dwarf novae
(see appendix \ref{sec:individual}
for individual notes), this classification appears to be very effective,
and can be applied to very faint objects. We can obtain reasonable
classifications for ordinary dwarf novae of $g=21$, and even $g=22$ if the
objects are dominated by the secondary.
In particular, objects with probabilities for {\it ultrashort} category
exceed 0.4 can be considered to be very likely candidates for WZ Sge-type
dwarf novae or related objects. We infer that this probability index
can be used to identify new WZ Sge-type dwarf novae or
potential period bouncers.
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae}\label{tab:dnlist}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
RX And & 13.996(4) & 14.082(4) & 13.741(3) & -- & 13.108(5) & 0.2099 & -- \\
BV And & 16.893(7) & 16.366(4) & 16.319(5) & 16.222(5) & 16.115(7) & -- & 0.072(1) \\
FN And & 18.718(21) & 18.719(8) & 18.473(9) & 18.140(9) & 17.664(17) & -- & 0.105(3) \\
IZ And & 19.402(30) & 19.621(13) & 19.312(13) & 18.878(13) & 18.361(27) & -- & 0.108(5) \\
LL And & 20.182(47) & 20.073(17) & 19.993(20) & 20.079(28) & 20.165(105) & 0.0551 & 0.066(2) \\
LL And & 20.209(70) & 20.152(21) & 20.163(30) & 20.349(49) & 20.523(211) & 0.0551 & 0.057(2) \\
LT And & 19.767(31) & 19.505(11) & 19.281(12) & 19.214(15) & 19.041(45) & -- & 0.099(3) \\
V402 And & 20.584(55) & 20.390(20) & 20.276(26) & 20.210(35) & 20.072(98) & 0.0618$^\dagger$ & 0.077(3) \\
UU Aql & 16.759(8) & 16.851(5) & 16.443(4) & 15.848(5) & 15.292(5) & 0.1635 & 0.149(5) \\
KX Aql & 18.169(14) & 18.381(7) & 18.007(7) & 18.087(9) & 17.676(18) & 0.0604 & 0.058(5) \\
V725 Aql & 18.526(19) & 18.914(9) & 18.554(9) & 18.273(9) & 17.770(23) & 0.0945$^\dagger$ & 0.078(1) \\
V1047 Aql & 18.136(15) & 18.275(7) & 17.357(21) & 17.868(8) & 17.666(21) & -- & -- \\
VY Aqr & 16.853(8) & 16.949(4) & 16.855(5) & 16.731(5) & 16.392(9) & 0.0631 & 0.073(1) \\
VZ Aqr & 17.435(11) & 17.605(5) & 16.988(4) & 16.494(4) & 16.120(8) & 0.1606 & 0.221(7) \\
VZ Aqr & 17.934(14) & 17.967(6) & 17.520(6) & 16.981(6) & 16.520(9) & 0.1606 & 0.173(7) \\
VZ Aqr & 17.944(13) & 17.953(6) & 17.451(5) & 16.950(5) & 16.447(9) & 0.1606 & 0.191(7) \\
EG Aqr & 19.040(29) & 19.102(11) & 18.934(13) & 18.664(13) & 18.140(29) & 0.0763$^\dagger$ & 0.089(3) \\
BG Ari & 19.983(37) & 20.280(21) & 19.980(23) & 19.569(22) & 19.128(63) & 0.0822$^\dagger$ & 0.105(4) \\
V496 Aur & 21.554(148) & 21.452(46) & 21.575(86) & 21.324(97) & 21.049(316) & 0.0597$^\dagger$ & 0.093(9) \\
V496 Aur & 21.909(274) & 21.724(76) & 21.737(119) & 21.440(139) & 21.831(688) & 0.0597$^\dagger$ & 0.105(24) \\
V496 Aur & 21.530(165) & 21.451(45) & 21.573(83) & 21.334(100) & 21.897(1414) & 0.0597$^\dagger$ & 0.074(26) \\
V496 Aur & 21.912(225) & 21.820(71) & 21.876(131) & 21.523(150) & 22.430(861) & 0.0597$^\dagger$ & -- \\
TT Boo & 19.340(23) & 19.322(11) & 19.309(13) & 19.147(16) & 18.767(33) & 0.0755$^\dagger$ & 0.079(2) \\
UZ Boo & 19.916(43) & 19.704(14) & 19.695(17) & 19.902(26) & 20.009(108) & 0.0604$^\dagger$ & 0.057(1) \\
V391 Cam & 16.154(6) & 16.346(5) & 16.234(5) & 16.365(6) & 16.249(8) & 0.0562 & 0.058(3) \\
AM Cas & 15.488(5) & 15.281(3) & 14.917(4) & 14.744(3) & 14.576(4) & 0.1652 & 0.071(1) \\
KZ Cas & 18.786(22) & 18.719(10) & 18.235(8) & 17.611(7) & 17.092(12) & -- & 0.125(8) \\
KZ Cas & 19.064(21) & 19.153(11) & 18.359(8) & 17.763(7) & 17.239(14) & -- & 0.141(6) \\
LM Cas & 19.477(29) & 19.472(13) & 19.073(12) & 19.040(15) & 18.865(45) & -- & 0.059(1) \\
V630 Cas & 17.678(11) & 17.099(4) & 16.339(4) & 16.508(5) & 15.505(6) & 2.5639 & 2.256(96) \\
WW Cet & 14.598(3) & 14.678(3) & 14.244(3) & 13.913(4) & 13.619(4) & 0.1758 & 0.173(7) \\
EN Cet & 20.247(55) & 20.168(25) & 20.312(38) & 20.307(52) & 20.178(155) & 0.0593 & 0.069(3) \\
EN Cet & 20.472(64) & 20.575(30) & 20.565(38) & 20.528(49) & 20.048(123) & 0.0593 & 0.067(2) \\
EN Cet & 20.646(75) & 20.690(34) & 20.633(39) & 20.525(56) & 20.246(154) & 0.0593 & 0.076(4) \\
EN Cet & 20.673(63) & 20.689(28) & 20.635(37) & 20.585(53) & 20.067(114) & 0.0593 & 0.068(2) \\
EN Cet & 20.697(66) & 20.698(29) & 20.598(33) & 20.570(42) & 20.142(105) & 0.0593 & 0.069(2) \\
EN Cet & 20.708(66) & 20.672(29) & 20.558(35) & 20.680(58) & 20.483(193) & 0.0593 & 0.064(2) \\
EN Cet & 20.720(63) & 20.684(28) & 20.583(40) & 20.662(62) & 20.007(138) & 0.0593 & 0.066(4) \\
EN Cet & 20.742(67) & 20.623(31) & 20.548(35) & 20.638(51) & 20.232(136) & 0.0593 & 0.064(2) \\
EN Cet & 20.743(69) & 20.775(31) & 20.768(44) & 20.787(62) & 20.218(147) & 0.0593 & 0.064(3) \\
EN Cet & 20.758(78) & 20.627(31) & 20.604(39) & 20.653(58) & 20.042(121) & 0.0593 & 0.065(3) \\
EN Cet & 20.928(69) & 20.733(27) & 20.733(37) & 20.729(51) & 20.206(105) & 0.0593 & 0.066(2) \\
EN Cet & 20.935(62) & 20.735(26) & 20.794(35) & 20.823(48) & 20.569(134) & 0.0593 & 0.064(2) \\
EN Cet & 20.936(65) & 20.813(28) & 20.790(34) & 20.857(52) & 20.272(117) & 0.0593 & 0.063(3) \\
FI Cet & 21.589(158) & 21.554(55) & 21.724(123) & 21.680(152) & 21.419(405) & -- & 0.075(8) \\
GS Cet & 20.035(47) & 19.943(19) & 19.963(26) & 20.208(42) & 20.440(215) & -- & 0.054(2) \\
GS Cet & 20.199(44) & 20.118(21) & 20.202(36) & 20.356(58) & 20.606(270) & -- & 0.059(3) \\
GS Cet & 20.306(66) & 20.319(26) & 20.305(33) & 20.466(54) & 20.915(316) & -- & 0.059(4) \\
GS Cet & 20.393(63) & 20.287(24) & 20.280(30) & 20.475(47) & 20.371(178) & -- & 0.056(2) \\
GS Cet & 20.473(55) & 20.410(21) & 20.455(30) & 20.528(44) & 21.187(335) & -- & 0.065(8) \\
GS Cet & 20.514(62) & 20.471(23) & 20.493(33) & 20.646(46) & 20.612(183) & -- & 0.058(2) \\
GS Cet & 20.515(64) & 20.358(23) & 20.539(33) & 20.537(48) & 21.490(437) & -- & 0.066(20) \\
GS Cet & 20.531(51) & 20.381(19) & 20.492(26) & 20.656(39) & 20.470(133) & -- & 0.056(1) \\
GS Cet & 20.543(61) & 20.446(23) & 20.423(29) & 20.594(44) & 21.169(299) & -- & 0.058(7) \\
GS Cet & 20.571(55) & 20.338(20) & 20.408(25) & 20.618(40) & 20.674(165) & -- & 0.054(1) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
GS Cet & 20.578(68) & 20.395(23) & 20.412(36) & 20.543(55) & 20.434(206) & -- & 0.060(2) \\
GS Cet & 20.600(65) & 20.427(22) & 20.412(27) & 20.489(40) & 20.768(217) & -- & 0.070(5) \\
GS Cet & 20.610(61) & 20.381(20) & 20.369(31) & 20.477(50) & 20.739(261) & -- & 0.066(4) \\
GS Cet & 20.847(80) & 20.508(26) & 20.563(34) & 20.662(54) & 20.977(330) & -- & 0.065(5) \\
GS Cet & 21.237(242) & 20.455(53) & 20.411(51) & 20.594(67) & 21.001(283) & -- & 0.114(45) \\
GY Cet & 18.267(16) & 18.294(7) & 18.329(8) & 18.525(12) & 18.458(33) & 0.0566 & 0.056(1) \\
GY Cet & 18.276(15) & 18.296(7) & 18.414(9) & 18.586(14) & 18.433(38) & 0.0566 & 0.058(2) \\
GZ Cet & 18.993(28) & 18.710(9) & 18.446(9) & 18.058(9) & 17.788(25) & 0.0553 & 0.166(13) \\
HP Cet & 19.815(42) & 19.858(16) & 19.726(18) & 19.914(30) & 19.809(85) & 0.0667 & 0.060(1) \\
EU CMa & 21.248(152) & 21.069(42) & 20.656(48) & 19.951(33) & 19.308(71) & -- & 0.132(8) \\
AK Cnc & 18.896(20) & 18.797(8) & 18.737(9) & 18.587(10) & 18.237(24) & 0.0651 & 0.079(1) \\
AR Cnc & 18.245(14) & 18.520(7) & 18.085(7) & 17.843(7) & 17.455(15) & 0.2146 & 0.117(3) \\
CC Cnc & 16.363(6) & 15.873(3) & 15.914(4) & 16.011(4) & 16.126(7) & 0.0735 & 0.068(2) \\
CC Cnc & 17.188(9) & 16.769(4) & 16.566(5) & 16.483(5) & 16.431(9) & 0.0735 & 0.136(5) \\
DE Cnc & 20.088(39) & 18.465(7) & 17.771(7) & 17.482(7) & 17.287(14) & -- & 0.202(12) \\
DE Cnc & 20.216(40) & 18.458(7) & 17.766(7) & 17.459(7) & 17.314(14) & -- & 0.211(32) \\
EG Cnc & 18.990(21) & 18.839(9) & 18.867(10) & 19.059(14) & 19.131(50) & 0.0600 & 0.055(1) \\
GY Cnc & 15.924(6) & 16.029(4) & 15.697(5) & 15.322(5) & 15.002(5) & 0.1754 & 0.133(4) \\
GZ Cnc & 15.424(5) & 14.736(3) & -- & -- & 14.689(5) & 0.0882 & -- \\
HH Cnc & 18.938(20) & 19.158(10) & 18.523(8) & 18.189(9) & 17.891(16) & -- & 0.251(11) \\
FU Com & 20.015(36) & 18.847(8) & 18.485(8) & 18.341(10) & 18.293(25) & -- & -- \\
GO Com & 17.923(12) & 17.936(6) & 17.891(7) & 17.866(8) & 17.677(16) & 0.0615$^\dagger$ & 0.070(1) \\
GP Com & 15.844(6) & 15.908(4) & 16.152(4) & 16.301(4) & 16.521(9) & 0.0323 & 0.061(2) \\
GP Com & 15.854(6) & 15.919(4) & 16.136(4) & 16.324(4) & 16.454(9) & 0.0323 & 0.058(2) \\
IM Com & 18.782(17) & 17.721(5) & 17.536(6) & 17.465(7) & 17.460(16) & -- & 0.373(108) \\
IM Com & 19.094(23) & 17.776(6) & 17.553(6) & 17.495(7) & 17.501(17) & -- & -- \\
IR Com & 18.240(14) & 18.317(7) & 18.412(7) & 18.042(8) & 17.264(11) & 0.0870 & 0.099(3) \\
MT Com & 19.272(25) & 19.125(10) & 19.186(12) & 19.340(18) & 19.440(61) & 0.0829 & 0.059(1) \\
VW CrB & 19.744(37) & 19.636(16) & 19.541(16) & 19.450(22) & 19.312(65) & 0.0706$^\dagger$ & 0.082(2) \\
VW CrB & 19.874(41) & 19.887(15) & 19.864(18) & 19.663(24) & 19.222(51) & 0.0706$^\dagger$ & 0.082(2) \\
V516 Cyg & 14.945(4) & 14.416(3) & -- & 14.565(3) & 14.528(5) & 0.1712 & -- \\
V1081 Cyg & 17.724(29) & 17.749(10) & -- & 16.374(7) & 16.159(17) & -- & -- \\
V1089 Cyg & 19.059(28) & 18.587(8) & 17.641(6) & 17.106(6) & 16.777(11) & -- & 0.183(10) \\
V1153 Cyg & 19.824(263) & 18.781(10) & 17.434(28) & 17.652(7) & 17.352(17) & -- & -- \\
V1251 Cyg & 20.532(79) & 20.474(28) & 20.263(32) & 19.940(32) & 19.358(81) & 0.0743 & 0.084(3) \\
V1363 Cyg & 18.171(16) & 17.861(6) & 16.922(5) & 16.343(5) & 15.873(7) & -- & 0.440(167) \\
V1449 Cyg & 19.193(540) & 19.049(19) & 16.810(40) & 17.819(14) & 16.214(89) & -- & -- \\
HO Del & 18.705(18) & 18.892(9) & 18.854(11) & 18.880(15) & 18.540(38) & 0.0627 & 0.063(2) \\
AB Dra & 15.617(5) & 15.530(4) & 15.277(4) & 15.084(4) & 14.897(5) & 0.152 & 0.109(2) \\
DM Dra & 20.425(59) & 20.296(23) & 20.118(23) & 19.913(26) & 19.499(61) & 0.0733$^\dagger$ & 0.098(4) \\
DM Dra & 20.517(70) & 20.325(22) & 20.273(26) & 20.173(34) & 19.839(114) & 0.0733$^\dagger$ & 0.079(3) \\
DO Dra & 15.234(4) & 15.557(4) & 15.046(4) & 14.598(4) & 14.179(5) & 0.1654 & 0.166(6) \\
AQ Eri & 17.161(8) & 17.411(5) & 17.429(6) & 17.361(6) & 17.165(11) & 0.0609 & 0.073(1) \\
BF Eri & 15.119(4) & 14.599(3) & 14.286(3) & 14.161(3) & 14.109(4) & 0.2709 & 0.214(12) \\
LT Eri & 18.024(12) & 17.748(5) & 17.445(5) & 17.079(6) & 16.795(11) & 0.1702 & 0.142(6) \\
HQ Gem & 21.111(100) & 20.386(21) & 19.385(15) & 18.978(16) & 18.572(33) & -- & 0.277(32) \\
IR Gem & 15.502(6) & 15.996(5) & 15.729(5) & 15.609(5) & 15.496(6) & 0.0684 & 0.074(1) \\
KZ Gem & 19.940(36) & 18.666(8) & 18.149(7) & 17.965(8) & 17.898(19) & -- & -- \\
AH Her & 14.247(6) & -- & -- & -- & 13.415(7) & 0.2581 & -- \\
AH Her & 14.412(6) & 14.975(10) & 15.041(11) & 14.260(10) & 13.550(7) & 0.2581 & 0.187(17) \\
V478 Her & 18.403(15) & 17.741(6) & 17.320(6) & 17.194(6) & 17.007(11) & 0.6290 & 0.445(49) \\
V544 Her & 20.408(59) & 19.744(15) & 19.043(12) & 18.599(11) & 18.421(32) & -- & 0.258(47) \\
V589 Her & 18.070(14) & 18.305(7) & 18.200(8) & 18.006(8) & 17.704(20) & -- & 0.081(1) \\
V589 Her & 18.434(17) & 18.631(8) & 18.153(7) & 18.199(9) & 17.995(21) & -- & 0.108(5) \\
V589 Her & 18.959(19) & 19.105(10) & 18.803(10) & 18.646(11) & 18.323(22) & -- & 0.086(3) \\
V592 Her & 21.612(117) & 21.459(53) & 21.319(54) & 21.358(88) & 21.546(385) & 0.0558$^\dagger$ & 0.079(8) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
V592 Her & 21.648(115) & 21.421(36) & 21.413(48) & 21.541(82) & 21.426(335) & 0.0558$^\dagger$ & 0.062(4) \\
V592 Her & 21.483(114) & 21.301(35) & 21.272(45) & 21.387(73) & 21.402(334) & 0.0558$^\dagger$ & 0.062(3) \\
V610 Her & 21.552(101) & 21.222(39) & 20.918(38) & 20.630(44) & 20.438(145) & -- & 0.176(19) \\
V610 Her & 21.564(161) & 21.421(57) & 21.136(54) & 20.862(59) & 20.716(223) & -- & 0.137(14) \\
V610 Her & 21.649(241) & 21.582(79) & 21.262(86) & 20.827(84) & 20.578(296) & -- & 0.152(17) \\
V611 Her & 20.311(45) & 20.584(22) & 20.534(27) & 20.387(39) & 19.847(93) & -- & 0.076(3) \\
V611 Her & 20.510(53) & 20.659(25) & 20.687(35) & 20.595(47) & 20.058(108) & -- & 0.072(3) \\
V660 Her & 19.754(39) & 19.696(15) & 19.468(15) & 19.260(16) & 18.864(42) & 0.0782$^\dagger$ & 0.082(2) \\
V844 Her & 17.084(9) & 17.193(5) & 17.095(5) & 16.991(5) & 16.831(12) & 0.0546 & 0.080(1) \\
V844 Her & 17.590(10) & 17.742(5) & 17.719(6) & 17.726(7) & 17.613(16) & 0.0546 & 0.068(1) \\
V849 Her & 15.215(4) & 15.002(3) & 15.179(4) & 15.302(4) & 15.417(5) & -- & 0.059(1) \\
V849 Her & 15.498(5) & 15.210(4) & 15.341(4) & 15.457(4) & 15.553(6) & -- & 0.059(1) \\
CT Hya & 18.588(18) & 18.733(9) & 18.700(11) & 18.571(13) & 18.370(39) & 0.0646$^\dagger$ & 0.079(1) \\
CT Hya & 18.695(17) & 18.774(8) & 18.855(10) & 18.832(12) & 18.597(38) & 0.0646$^\dagger$ & 0.069(1) \\
X Leo & 15.787(5) & 15.832(3) & 15.515(3) & 15.242(4) & 15.008(5) & 0.1644 & 0.134(3) \\
X Leo & 16.295(6) & 16.337(3) & 16.061(4) & 15.694(3) & 15.400(5) & 0.1644 & 0.136(4) \\
RZ Leo & 18.639(19) & 18.716(9) & 18.575(9) & 18.196(9) & 17.640(18) & 0.0760 & 0.103(5) \\
DO Leo & 18.230(16) & 17.970(6) & 17.526(6) & 17.187(6) & 17.005(12) & 0.2345 & 0.258(21) \\
HM Leo & 18.266(14) & 18.320(7) & 17.791(6) & 17.066(6) & 16.449(9) & 0.1868 & 0.176(13) \\
SS LMi & 22.007(327) & 21.556(107) & 21.586(160) & 22.231(439) & 20.626(392) & 0.0566 & -- \\
SS LMi & 22.911(452) & 22.150(96) & 22.190(136) & 22.442(243) & 22.627(696) & 0.0566 & -- \\
SX LMi & 16.288(6) & 16.740(4) & 16.461(4) & 16.386(5) & 16.428(8) & 0.0672 & 0.078(1) \\
CW Mon & 15.900(5) & 15.913(4) & 15.834(4) & 15.245(4) & 14.828(5) & 0.1766 & 0.146(8) \\
V982 Oph & 20.333(55) & 20.251(20) & 19.660(16) & 19.179(15) & 18.784(36) & -- & 0.181(8) \\
V1032 Oph & 17.910(13) & 17.647(5) & 17.385(5) & 17.193(6) & 16.973(11) & 0.0811 & 0.071(1) \\
V2335 Oph & 22.629(305) & 22.507(124) & 21.978(107) & 20.806(68) & 19.771(93) & -- & 0.158(59) \\
BI Ori & 16.288(6) & 16.290(4) & 16.094(4) & 15.948(4) & 15.797(6) & 0.1915 & 0.082(1) \\
BI Ori & 16.563(6) & 16.596(3) & 16.319(4) & 16.131(4) & 15.947(7) & 0.1915 & 0.092(1) \\
BI Ori & 16.590(6) & 16.705(4) & 16.307(4) & 16.106(4) & 15.925(7) & 0.1915 & 0.106(1) \\
BI Ori & 16.607(7) & 16.689(4) & 16.538(5) & 16.304(5) & 16.079(7) & 0.1915 & 0.089(1) \\
BI Ori & 16.726(7) & 16.725(4) & 16.503(4) & 16.307(4) & 16.133(7) & 0.1915 & 0.091(1) \\
BI Ori & 16.729(6) & 17.098(4) & 16.437(4) & 16.209(5) & 16.097(7) & 0.1915 & 0.157(5) \\
GR Ori & 23.836(1024) & 22.405(144) & 21.301(96) & 20.791(104) & 20.919(403) & -- & -- \\
GR Ori & 24.007(1233) & 22.358(136) & 21.190(75) & 20.597(68) & 20.440(211) & -- & -- \\
HX Peg & 14.243(6) & -- & -- & -- & 13.990(6) & 0.2008 & -- \\
IP Peg & 15.683(5) & 15.287(4) & 14.743(4) & 14.223(4) & 13.757(4) & 0.1582 & 0.293(32) \\
V367 Peg & 17.551(11) & 17.348(5) & 17.216(5) & 17.002(6) & 16.797(10) & 0.1619 & 0.096(2) \\
V369 Peg & 19.957(60) & 18.762(10) & 17.969(8) & 17.537(8) & 17.254(21) & 0.0827$^\dagger$ & 0.132(17) \\
V405 Peg & 15.783(5) & 16.100(3) & 15.351(3) & 14.653(3) & 14.091(4) & 0.1776 & 0.156(8) \\
V405 Peg & 17.001(9) & 16.792(5) & 15.914(5) & -- & 14.196(5) & 0.1776 & -- \\
FO Per & 17.116(7) & 16.859(4) & 16.600(4) & 16.272(4) & 15.932(6) & 0.1719 & 0.147(8) \\
GK Per & 15.171(5) & -- & -- & -- & 12.419(4) & 1.9968 & -- \\
KT Per & 15.309(4) & 15.316(3) & 14.690(3) & 14.386(3) & 14.187(4) & 0.1627 & 0.226(8) \\
QY Per & 20.381(46) & 20.313(21) & 20.153(25) & 19.914(25) & 19.600(64) & 0.0760$^\dagger$ & 0.086(3) \\
V336 Per & 20.013(41) & 19.703(15) & 18.883(11) & 18.400(10) & 18.056(23) & -- & 0.379(40) \\
V336 Per & 20.389(44) & 20.021(15) & 19.103(11) & 18.597(10) & 18.241(20) & -- & 0.419(102) \\
V336 Per & 20.571(57) & 19.996(18) & 19.019(11) & 18.506(10) & 18.213(25) & -- & -- \\
V372 Per & 21.831(186) & 21.629(53) & 21.048(51) & 20.233(38) & 19.515(68) & -- & 0.173(22) \\
TY Psc & 16.952(9) & 17.167(5) & 16.895(5) & 16.816(5) & 16.608(10) & 0.0683 & 0.076(2) \\
TY Psc & 17.049(11) & 17.078(4) & 17.082(5) & 17.036(6) & 16.799(12) & 0.0683 & 0.069(1) \\
XY Psc & 21.057(130) & 20.943(38) & 20.854(50) & 20.895(86) & 20.406(211) & -- & 0.069(4) \\
XY Psc & 21.237(102) & 21.130(33) & 21.133(45) & 21.119(74) & 21.013(251) & -- & 0.072(5) \\
XY Psc & 21.246(113) & 21.136(35) & 21.105(49) & 20.977(72) & 20.522(165) & -- & 0.077(4) \\
AS Psc & 22.107(394) & 22.015(113) & 21.568(135) & 22.391(386) & 21.791(870) & -- & -- \\
AY Psc & 17.414(10) & 16.590(4) & 17.132(5) & 16.601(5) & 16.142(8) & 0.2173 & 0.168(9) \\
EI Psc & 17.093(8) & 16.331(4) & 15.939(4) & 15.760(4) & 15.592(6) & 0.0446 & 0.473(50) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
GV Psc & 20.501(55) & 20.409(21) & 20.192(23) & 19.903(24) & 19.511(67) & 0.0904$^\dagger$ & 0.108(5) \\
GV Psc & 20.032(49) & 20.508(27) & 20.200(25) & 19.764(23) & 19.346(59) & 0.0904$^\dagger$ & 0.111(5) \\
X Ser & 17.388(10) & 17.298(5) & 16.821(5) & 16.604(5) & 16.523(8) & 1.478 & 0.110(3) \\
RY Ser & 16.759(8) & 16.091(3) & 15.470(3) & 14.953(3) & 14.626(4) & 0.3009 & 0.159(10) \\
RY Ser & 17.372(11) & 16.598(4) & 15.640(4) & 15.171(4) & 14.813(4) & 0.3009 & 0.505(34) \\
QW Ser & 17.795(11) & 17.805(6) & 17.823(7) & 17.717(7) & 17.408(14) & 0.0745 & 0.074(1) \\
QZ Ser & 17.822(12) & 16.275(3) & 15.721(3) & 15.516(4) & 15.427(5) & 0.0832 & 0.180(56) \\
QZ Ser & 17.846(11) & 16.291(4) & 15.728(4) & 15.530(4) & 15.444(5) & 0.0832 & 0.180(58) \\
QZ Ser & 17.848(11) & 16.302(4) & 15.724(4) & 15.518(4) & 15.439(5) & 0.0832 & 0.173(50) \\
QZ Ser & 17.855(15) & 16.304(4) & 15.720(4) & 15.530(4) & 15.436(6) & 0.0832 & 0.184(59) \\
V386 Ser & 19.123(25) & 19.049(10) & 18.975(11) & 19.176(16) & 19.314(58) & 0.0559 & 0.054(1) \\
V386 Ser & 19.217(22) & 19.012(10) & 19.006(11) & 19.149(17) & 19.083(54) & 0.0559 & 0.055(1) \\
V386 Ser & 19.218(27) & 19.024(12) & 19.053(13) & 19.141(18) & 19.229(64) & 0.0559 & 0.060(1) \\
VZ Sex & 16.494(6) & 16.762(4) & 16.175(4) & 15.659(4) & 15.354(5) & 0.1487 & 0.192(11) \\
TX Tri & 17.772(14) & 17.490(5) & 16.771(5) & 16.447(5) & 16.271(9) & -- & 0.447(41) \\
UW Tri & 22.543(386) & 22.370(107) & 22.377(182) & 22.197(232) & 22.501(672) & 0.0533 & 0.083(21) \\
UZ Tri & 20.592(76) & 19.525(13) & 19.095(13) & 18.896(17) & 18.946(54) & -- & -- \\
SW UMa & 16.900(8) & 16.866(4) & 16.890(5) & 17.006(6) & 16.828(13) & 0.0568 & 0.058(1) \\
SW UMa & 16.932(8) & 16.862(4) & 16.936(4) & 16.975(5) & 16.817(14) & 0.0568 & 0.064(1) \\
BC UMa & 18.607(16) & 18.514(7) & 18.605(9) & 18.612(11) & 18.366(25) & 0.0626 & 0.065(1) \\
BZ UMa & 15.410(4) & 15.877(3) & 15.862(3) & 15.772(4) & 15.481(6) & 0.0680 & 0.076(1) \\
BZ UMa & 15.972(5) & 16.371(3) & 16.045(4) & 16.069(4) & 15.882(7) & 0.0680 & 0.067(2) \\
BZ UMa & 16.297(6) & 16.468(4) & 16.301(4) & 16.504(5) & 16.232(8) & 0.0680 & 0.058(2) \\
CY UMa & 17.483(9) & 17.768(5) & 17.520(5) & 17.335(6) & 17.182(12) & 0.0696 & 0.094(1) \\
DI UMa & 17.757(10) & 17.912(6) & 17.794(6) & 17.771(7) & 17.779(17) & 0.0546 & 0.075(2) \\
DV UMa & 19.326(24) & 19.372(11) & 19.146(11) & 18.805(12) & 18.247(22) & 0.0859 & 0.106(4) \\
EL UMa & 20.384(45) & 20.274(19) & 20.340(26) & 20.620(49) & 20.641(166) & 0.0594 & 0.052(2) \\
ER UMa & 15.641(4) & 15.415(3) & 15.236(3) & 15.247(3) & 15.262(5) & 0.0637 & 0.104(1) \\
IY UMa & 17.765(11) & 17.537(5) & 17.635(6) & 17.623(7) & 17.189(12) & 0.0739 & 0.064(1) \\
IY UMa & 17.770(13) & 17.561(5) & 17.541(6) & 17.478(6) & 17.202(14) & 0.0739 & 0.075(1) \\
IY UMa & 17.871(12) & 17.637(5) & 17.740(6) & 17.626(7) & 17.278(15) & 0.0739 & 0.076(1) \\
KS UMa & 17.174(8) & 17.354(4) & 17.191(5) & 17.149(5) & 16.956(11) & 0.0680 & 0.073(1) \\
KS UMa & 17.293(9) & 17.418(5) & 17.180(5) & 17.139(6) & 16.942(12) & 0.0680 & 0.083(3) \\
HV Vir & 19.467(31) & 19.181(11) & 19.209(14) & 19.335(19) & 19.374(71) & 0.0571 & 0.060(1) \\
OU Vir & 18.435(14) & 18.564(7) & 18.424(8) & 18.401(9) & 18.355(23) & 0.0727 & 0.072(2) \\
QZ Vir & 14.693(4) & 14.864(3) & 15.128(3) & 15.055(4) & 14.817(5) & 0.0588 & 0.078(2) \\
VW Vul & 15.788(5) & 15.772(3) & 15.711(3) & 15.336(3) & 15.170(5) & 0.1687 & 0.112(7) \\
1502$+$09 & 18.535(18) & 18.995(9) & 19.047(12) & 19.015(14) & 18.697(35) & -- & 0.075(3) \\
1502$+$09 & 18.578(17) & 19.111(10) & 19.174(13) & 19.128(15) & 18.796(37) & -- & 0.077(3) \\
1H1025$+$220 & 17.678(11) & 17.402(5) & 17.235(5) & 17.092(5) & 16.980(11) & -- & 0.117(4) \\
1RXS J003828.7$+$250920 & 18.595(18) & 18.741(8) & 18.548(9) & 18.306(10) & 17.884(23) & -- & 0.087(3) \\
1RXS J003828.7$+$250920 & 18.654(20) & 18.849(8) & 18.707(10) & 18.427(10) & 17.927(24) & -- & 0.088(2) \\
1RXS J012750.5$+$380830 & 16.781(7) & 17.177(4) & 17.058(5) & 17.130(6) & 17.165(12) & -- & 0.063(1) \\
1RXS J171456.2$+$585130 & 15.940(5) & 15.021(3) & 14.206(3) & -- & 13.641(4) & 0.8380 & -- \\
2QZ J112555.7$-$001639 & 19.450(36) & 19.601(18) & 19.566(22) & 19.791(40) & 19.421(125) & -- & 0.056(3) \\
2QZ J112555.7$-$001639 & 19.480(29) & 19.555(16) & 19.470(18) & 19.631(30) & 19.575(84) & -- & 0.058(1) \\
2QZ J112555.7$-$001639 & 19.592(35) & 19.511(13) & 19.505(15) & -- & 19.316(56) & -- & -- \\
2QZ J121005.3$-$025543 & 21.092(86) & 20.866(32) & 21.001(49) & 21.282(91) & 20.631(202) & -- & 0.060(6) \\
2QZ J130441.7$+$010330 & 20.018(38) & 20.187(19) & 20.267(28) & 20.338(40) & 20.029(113) & -- & 0.064(2) \\
2QZ J130441.7$+$010330 & 20.542(57) & 20.690(27) & 20.586(35) & 20.607(57) & 20.587(215) & -- & 0.069(3) \\
2QZ J142701.6$-$012310 & 19.736(36) & 19.985(17) & 20.180(27) & 20.242(39) & 20.446(160) & -- & 0.063(6) \\
ASAS J224349$+$0809.5 & 19.297(26) & 19.549(14) & 19.329(14) & 19.246(18) & 18.699(41) & 0.0678$^\dagger$ & 0.067(2) \\
ASAS J224349$+$0809.5 & 19.620(33) & 19.707(15) & 19.445(14) & 19.413(18) & 18.959(45) & 0.0678$^\dagger$ & 0.066(2) \\
FSV J1722$+$2723 & 19.466(28) & 19.950(16) & 19.909(20) & 19.737(24) & 19.574(85) & -- & 0.081(2) \\
FSV J1722$+$2723 & 20.170(46) & 20.664(32) & 20.350(27) & 20.189(37) & 20.170(128) & -- & 0.084(4) \\
FSV J1722$+$2723 & 20.284(42) & 20.599(23) & 20.565(31) & 20.457(39) & 20.274(122) & -- & 0.076(2) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
FSV J1722$+$2723 & 20.340(46) & 20.902(28) & 20.605(29) & 20.410(35) & 20.320(117) & -- & 0.084(4) \\
GD 552 & 16.427(7) & 16.398(4) & 16.197(4) & 16.533(5) & 16.539(10) & 0.0713 & 0.057(3) \\
GSC 847.1021 & 16.639(6) & 15.138(3) & 14.620(3) & 14.412(3) & 14.349(4) & -- & 0.170(55) \\
GUVV J090904.4$+$091714.4 & 21.049(92) & 21.447(57) & 21.092(50) & 20.724(52) & 20.459(154) & -- & 0.102(7) \\
GUVV J090904.4$+$091714.4 & 22.028(170) & 22.360(91) & 22.514(169) & 21.656(135) & 21.265(227) & -- & 0.151(39) \\
GUVV J090904.4$+$091714.4 & 22.316(192) & 22.467(110) & 22.103(108) & 21.572(88) & 21.221(228) & -- & 0.148(16) \\
HS 1016$+$3412 & 17.845(12) & 18.391(7) & 18.202(7) & 18.072(8) & 17.904(19) & 0.0794 & 0.077(1) \\
HS 1055$+$0939 & 16.536(7) & 15.876(3) & 15.206(4) & 14.914(4) & 14.759(5) & 0.3763 & 0.324(18) \\
HS 1340$+$1524 & 17.011(8) & 17.316(5) & 17.156(5) & 17.119(6) & 17.060(11) & 0.0644 & 0.072(1) \\
HS 1340$+$1524 & 17.729(10) & 17.960(6) & 17.619(6) & 17.701(7) & 17.564(14) & 0.0644 & 0.077(3) \\
HS 2205$+$0201 & 17.630(11) & 17.224(5) & 16.438(5) & 16.363(6) & 16.208(8) & 0.208 & 0.406(134) \\
HS 2219$+$1824 & 17.560(10) & 17.524(5) & 17.518(6) & 17.487(7) & 17.248(14) & 0.0599 & 0.067(1) \\
HS 2219$+$1824 & 17.642(13) & 17.555(5) & 17.510(6) & 17.503(7) & 17.248(15) & 0.0599 & 0.065(1) \\
MASTER J013241.20$+$343809.1 & 23.204(1040) & 21.483(79) & 21.485(142) & 21.614(253) & 21.783(954) & -- & -- \\
MASTER J071948.9$+$405332 & 21.698(175) & 21.831(97) & 21.539(116) & 21.538(187) & 21.877(811) & -- & 0.080(17) \\
MASTER J071948.9$+$405332 & 21.968(129) & 21.739(47) & 21.856(75) & 21.698(101) & 21.608(231) & -- & 0.085(8) \\
NSV 02026 & 17.594(11) & 17.549(5) & 17.176(5) & 16.930(6) & 16.788(11) & -- & 0.080(1) \\
NSV 04394 & 22.388(385) & 21.853(102) & 22.520(274) & 22.719(466) & 21.990(708) & -- & -- \\
NSV 04838 & 18.234(13) & 18.617(8) & 18.327(8) & 18.293(10) & 18.342(28) & 0.0679$^\dagger$ & 0.080(2) \\
NSV 04838 & 18.531(15) & 18.851(9) & 18.697(9) & 18.586(11) & 18.510(27) & 0.0679$^\dagger$ & 0.080(1) \\
NSV 05031 & 18.788(27) & 19.232(11) & 18.914(11) & 18.779(12) & 18.414(29) & -- & 0.072(1) \\
NSV 05285 & 19.588(31) & 19.623(15) & 19.497(15) & 19.359(19) & 18.845(39) & 0.0847$^\dagger$ & 0.074(1) \\
NSV 14652 & 17.914(17) & 17.918(6) & 17.581(6) & 17.432(7) & 17.199(15) & 0.0788$^\dagger$ & 0.070(1) \\
NSV 14652 & 18.341(18) & 18.545(7) & 18.053(7) & 17.904(9) & 17.849(24) & 0.0788$^\dagger$ & 0.076(2) \\
NSV 14681 & 20.250(41) & 20.179(18) & 19.894(18) & 19.599(19) & 19.195(47) & -- & 0.091(2) \\
NSV 18230 & 19.627(30) & 20.141(22) & 19.971(22) & 19.963(30) & 19.715(77) & -- & 0.067(1) \\
NSV 18230 & 19.968(43) & 20.429(22) & 20.144(27) & 20.123(40) & 19.961(108) & -- & 0.071(2) \\
NSV 19466 & 18.000(13) & 18.290(7) & 18.081(7) & 18.068(9) & 17.941(22) & -- & 0.069(1) \\
NSV 19466 & 17.225(10) & 17.686(6) & 17.570(6) & 17.436(7) & 17.345(10) & -- & 0.078(2) \\
NSV 20657 & 21.179(96) & 21.200(38) & 21.183(55) & 21.119(89) & 21.034(386) & -- & 0.077(6) \\
OT J000024.7$+$332543 & 20.697(71) & 20.760(31) & 20.530(34) & 20.401(43) & 20.039(104) & -- & 0.080(4) \\
OT J000130.5$+$050624 & 20.845(95) & 20.967(34) & 20.757(39) & 20.327(41) & 19.950(121) & -- & 0.125(8) \\
OT J000659.6$+$192818 & 20.946(93) & 21.231(56) & 21.017(64) & 20.898(82) & 21.060(328) & -- & 0.085(8) \\
OT J000659.6$+$192818 & 21.184(141) & 21.363(53) & 21.013(62) & 21.023(88) & 20.632(247) & -- & 0.085(7) \\
OT J001158.3$+$315544 & 21.740(160) & 21.869(65) & 21.578(80) & 21.565(114) & 21.326(335) & -- & 0.084(9) \\
OT J001340.0$+$332124 & 22.290(329) & 21.911(69) & 21.783(112) & 21.853(189) & 21.195(371) & -- & 0.108(32) \\
OT J001340.0$+$332124 & 23.097(720) & 22.021(95) & 21.830(124) & 21.916(176) & 20.802(261) & -- & -- \\
OT J001538.3$+$263657 & 17.495(12) & 17.894(6) & 17.425(6) & 17.395(6) & 17.069(13) & -- & 0.091(4) \\
OT J001538.3$+$263657 & 17.726(13) & 17.802(6) & 17.690(6) & 17.624(8) & 17.249(20) & -- & 0.069(1) \\
OT J002500.2$+$073349 & 19.247(25) & 19.677(13) & 19.213(12) & 18.934(12) & 18.725(32) & -- & 0.122(3) \\
OT J002500.2$+$073349 & 19.768(63) & 19.989(22) & 19.426(21) & 19.176(22) & 18.952(67) & -- & 0.198(13) \\
OT J002500.2$+$073349 & 20.252(61) & 20.218(20) & 19.742(19) & 19.414(19) & 19.185(67) & -- & 0.220(15) \\
OT J002656.6$+$284933 & 21.393(105) & 21.592(49) & 21.464(68) & 20.789(57) & 20.251(121) & -- & 0.165(13) \\
OT J003203.6$+$314510 & 18.707(21) & 19.070(10) & 18.787(11) & 18.494(11) & 18.115(24) & -- & 0.090(2) \\
OT J003304.0$+$380106 & 20.332(74) & 20.437(29) & 20.409(36) & 20.204(44) & 19.691(96) & -- & 0.080(3) \\
OT J003304.0$+$380106 & 20.848(65) & 20.726(31) & 20.733(40) & 20.579(51) & 19.845(101) & -- & 0.073(2) \\
OT J003500.0$+$273620 & 21.469(186) & 21.118(42) & 22.445(221) & 21.503(129) & 21.186(389) & -- & -- \\
OT J004500.3$+$222708 & 20.197(72) & 20.447(29) & 20.214(33) & 20.134(45) & 19.655(94) & -- & 0.072(2) \\
OT J004518.4$+$185350 & 21.770(234) & 21.049(54) & 20.602(45) & 20.455(50) & 20.262(147) & -- & 0.467(117) \\
OT J004606.7$+$052100 & 22.613(579) & 21.596(101) & 21.238(122) & 20.951(110) & 20.721(399) & -- & -- \\
OT J004807.2$+$264621 & 21.156(181) & 21.703(100) & 21.697(143) & 21.722(194) & 21.229(433) & -- & 0.075(13) \\
OT J004807.2$+$264621 & 21.329(143) & 21.571(58) & 21.307(78) & 21.452(133) & 22.289(821) & -- & -- \\
OT J004902.0$+$074726 & 21.742(197) & 21.520(59) & 21.492(85) & 21.795(164) & 22.136(855) & -- & 0.052(10) \\
OT J005152.9$+$204017 & 18.957(28) & 19.059(11) & 18.369(8) & 17.936(8) & 17.554(17) & -- & 0.298(21) \\
OT J005824.6$+$283304 & 19.071(22) & 19.217(10) & 18.978(11) & 19.150(15) & 18.917(38) & -- & 0.060(2) \\
OT J010329.0$+$331822 & 18.484(18) & 17.982(6) & 18.123(8) & 18.267(10) & 18.335(28) & -- & 0.056(1) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
OT J010411.6$-$031341 & 19.017(24) & 19.516(13) & 19.140(13) & 18.829(13) & 18.898(42) & -- & 0.124(14) \\
OT J010522.2$+$110253 & 20.640(58) & 20.712(23) & 20.563(32) & 20.283(33) & 20.084(87) & -- & 0.105(4) \\
OT J010522.2$+$110253 & 20.833(77) & 20.850(33) & 20.680(40) & 20.451(43) & 19.978(102) & -- & 0.086(3) \\
OT J010522.2$+$110253 & 21.001(95) & 20.914(34) & 20.756(42) & 20.548(52) & 20.215(150) & -- & 0.092(5) \\
OT J010550.1$+$190317 & 19.421(36) & 19.644(16) & 19.818(21) & 19.958(30) & 19.984(99) & -- & 0.060(4) \\
OT J011134.5$+$275922 & 25.312(1930) & 22.292(169) & 21.642(144) & 21.750(207) & 22.566(933) & -- & -- \\
OT J011516.5$+$245530 & 20.759(59) & 20.933(29) & 20.876(36) & 20.786(49) & 20.436(127) & -- & 0.072(2) \\
OT J011516.5$+$245530 & 20.903(90) & 21.076(42) & 20.922(49) & 20.927(79) & 20.557(183) & -- & 0.065(3) \\
OT J011516.5$+$245530 & 21.452(99) & 21.240(35) & 21.240(46) & 21.155(59) & 20.636(161) & -- & 0.070(3) \\
OT J011543.2$+$333724 & 20.388(73) & 20.558(31) & 20.289(41) & 20.107(47) & 19.539(106) & -- & 0.078(3) \\
OT J011613.8$+$092216 & 19.036(27) & 19.131(11) & 19.034(13) & 18.817(14) & 18.619(40) & -- & 0.091(2) \\
OT J012059.6$+$325545 & 20.359(57) & 20.088(18) & 20.237(27) & 20.518(47) & 21.216(306) & 0.0572 & 0.047(7) \\
OT J014150.4$+$090822 & 19.919(50) & 20.061(21) & 19.975(26) & 19.966(34) & 19.926(129) & 0.0610$^\dagger$ & 0.068(2) \\
OT J020056.0$+$195727 & 20.007(68) & 19.280(15) & 19.369(23) & 19.448(33) & 19.774(139) & -- & 0.067(7) \\
OT J021110.2$+$171624 & 19.442(32) & 19.405(12) & 19.181(14) & 19.017(16) & 18.707(37) & 0.0789$^\dagger$ & 0.078(2) \\
OT J021308.0$+$184416 & 21.177(107) & 20.798(29) & 19.998(21) & 19.526(19) & 19.163(43) & -- & 0.417(86) \\
OT J023211.7$+$303636 & 21.066(99) & 20.825(28) & 20.365(30) & 19.830(26) & 19.399(72) & -- & 0.183(14) \\
OT J025615.0$+$191611 & 25.406(753) & 23.895(343) & 22.847(232) & 22.739(336) & 23.366(595) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.630(452) & 22.746(198) & 21.164(70) & 20.539(60) & 20.127(147) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.646(393) & 22.251(105) & 20.956(72) & 20.427(72) & 19.989(168) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.676(510) & 22.091(122) & 21.034(78) & 20.455(65) & 20.019(144) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.939(572) & 22.407(123) & 21.320(70) & 20.527(66) & 20.150(136) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.966(406) & 22.350(95) & 21.249(58) & 20.582(52) & 20.205(136) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.996(495) & 22.397(126) & 21.213(70) & 20.443(62) & 20.093(184) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 23.208(451) & 22.495(108) & 21.196(61) & 20.470(53) & 20.148(142) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 23.477(738) & 22.235(98) & 21.147(57) & 20.495(51) & 20.095(138) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 23.556(543) & 22.486(98) & 21.286(59) & 20.541(52) & 20.019(117) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 23.639(709) & 22.335(103) & 21.167(54) & 20.549(52) & 20.000(117) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 23.703(994) & 22.365(138) & 21.132(83) & 20.491(75) & 20.157(195) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 23.757(675) & 22.545(113) & 21.258(55) & 20.527(43) & 20.130(108) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 23.872(671) & 22.419(101) & 21.229(58) & 20.584(54) & 20.002(114) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 23.928(832) & 22.459(116) & 21.150(57) & 20.592(54) & 20.026(110) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 23.959(1109) & 22.387(128) & 21.164(81) & 20.495(75) & 20.088(186) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 24.090(912) & 22.664(137) & 21.183(52) & 20.588(47) & 20.323(145) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 24.106(1138) & 22.418(133) & 21.238(73) & 20.690(72) & 20.235(183) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 24.210(844) & 22.549(122) & 21.167(56) & 20.501(52) & 19.952(120) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 24.268(881) & 22.517(115) & 21.176(53) & 20.560(50) & 20.170(136) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 24.395(800) & 22.669(115) & 21.258(52) & 20.584(47) & 20.076(109) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 24.670(895) & 22.559(115) & 21.153(54) & 20.575(51) & 19.862(106) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 24.676(963) & 22.471(103) & 21.309(67) & 20.527(53) & 20.070(126) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 25.357(770) & 22.580(130) & 21.149(61) & 20.562(61) & 20.354(203) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 25.723(635) & 22.336(100) & 21.152(61) & 20.487(57) & 20.143(160) & -- & -- \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 25.800(591) & 22.270(97) & 21.235(68) & 20.526(63) & 20.080(112) & -- & -- \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.552(63) & 20.714(30) & 20.776(45) & 20.666(60) & 20.439(202) & -- & 0.075(4) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.645(61) & 20.759(29) & 20.703(37) & 20.777(59) & 20.866(215) & -- & 0.061(3) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.673(59) & 20.830(28) & 20.693(40) & 20.770(58) & 21.056(272) & -- & 0.061(3) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.746(60) & 20.785(28) & 20.754(31) & 20.862(48) & 20.511(126) & -- & 0.059(3) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.857(143) & 21.074(75) & 20.939(73) & 21.024(107) & 20.652(280) & -- & 0.064(4) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.949(102) & 21.033(48) & 20.794(46) & 20.949(77) & 21.123(327) & -- & 0.060(3) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.950(104) & 21.205(55) & 21.087(59) & 21.136(84) & 20.952(265) & -- & 0.063(3) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.964(68) & 21.134(36) & 20.927(37) & 21.058(60) & 20.684(164) & -- & 0.059(3) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.987(82) & 21.060(34) & 20.974(46) & 20.926(63) & 20.711(187) & -- & 0.067(3) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.024(83) & 21.199(49) & 21.039(57) & 21.200(84) & 20.896(262) & -- & 0.059(3) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.047(80) & 21.111(37) & 20.835(36) & 21.064(66) & 21.318(312) & -- & 0.058(4) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.057(84) & 21.328(46) & 21.059(61) & 21.261(107) & 21.417(434) & -- & 0.058(5) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.178(101) & 21.321(58) & 21.156(61) & 21.179(89) & 21.077(307) & -- & 0.064(3) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.362(158) & 21.220(64) & 21.079(77) & 21.173(115) & 20.947(340) & -- & 0.063(5) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.380(83) & 21.391(42) & 21.145(46) & 21.291(72) & 21.213(232) & -- & 0.062(3) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.394(96) & 21.518(49) & 21.201(49) & 21.423(94) & 21.248(328) & -- & 0.064(5) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.498(145) & 21.563(67) & 21.402(74) & 21.406(104) & 21.534(390) & -- & 0.068(5) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.515(132) & 21.550(67) & 21.246(75) & 21.590(134) & 21.185(328) & -- & 0.072(13) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.554(112) & 21.396(47) & 21.341(75) & 21.526(141) & 21.965(681) & -- & 0.055(7) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.583(151) & 21.305(56) & 21.229(83) & 21.619(156) & 20.863(253) & -- & 0.075(21) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.587(165) & 21.662(83) & 21.606(120) & 21.354(164) & 20.526(311) & -- & 0.089(10) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.601(133) & 21.507(51) & 21.291(59) & 21.513(110) & 21.473(408) & -- & 0.060(5) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.602(122) & 21.634(63) & 21.430(73) & 21.755(145) & 21.836(449) & -- & 0.057(5) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.632(150) & 21.544(64) & 21.429(80) & 21.388(117) & 21.468(471) & -- & 0.073(8) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.658(129) & 21.507(47) & 21.437(59) & 21.485(87) & 21.272(247) & -- & 0.062(3) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.688(126) & 21.598(64) & 21.326(61) & 21.348(99) & 21.229(310) & -- & 0.076(7) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.735(159) & 21.536(65) & 21.536(99) & 21.831(182) & 21.585(486) & -- & 0.058(7) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.773(180) & 21.774(82) & 21.748(132) & 21.758(229) & 22.741(1076) & -- & -- \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.790(143) & 21.525(60) & 21.400(65) & 21.592(120) & 21.991(518) & -- & 0.057(7) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.967(167) & 21.584(55) & 21.283(56) & 21.601(119) & 21.434(382) & -- & 0.107(26) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 22.020(190) & 21.448(50) & 21.398(67) & 21.566(128) & 21.116(348) & -- & 0.068(9) \\
OT J032902.0$+$060047 & 22.042(211) & 21.625(64) & 20.998(53) & 20.652(62) & 19.908(123) & -- & 0.095(11) \\
OT J032902.0$+$060047 & 22.050(187) & 21.274(42) & 20.897(46) & 20.491(42) & 19.931(98) & -- & 0.095(6) \\
OT J032902.0$+$060047 & 22.895(376) & 22.037(72) & 21.584(72) & 21.112(63) & 20.530(159) & -- & 0.124(18) \\
OT J033104.4$+$172540 & 19.979(39) & 19.862(15) & 19.324(13) & 18.878(13) & 18.467(32) & -- & 0.172(7) \\
OT J035003.4$+$370052 & 19.391(22) & 18.938(9) & 18.818(9) & 18.869(12) & 18.838(31) & -- & 0.055(1) \\
OT J035003.4$+$370052 & 19.883(37) & 19.297(11) & 19.157(13) & 19.147(16) & 19.144(50) & -- & 0.057(1) \\
OT J040659.8$+$005244 & 17.712(10) & 17.844(5) & 17.461(5) & 17.165(6) & 16.792(10) & 0.0774$^\dagger$ & 0.075(2) \\
OT J040659.8$+$005244 & 18.067(12) & 18.584(7) & 17.895(6) & 17.535(7) & 17.348(15) & 0.0774$^\dagger$ & 0.077(5) \\
OT J040659.8$+$005244 & 18.084(12) & 18.386(7) & 17.752(6) & 17.524(6) & 17.302(13) & 0.0774$^\dagger$ & 0.066(2) \\
OT J041636.9$+$292806 & 22.276(211) & 22.252(89) & 21.365(63) & 20.788(58) & 20.320(113) & -- & 0.086(6) \\
OT J041734.6$-$061357 & 22.259(337) & 22.732(243) & 22.993(437) & 21.606(185) & 24.654(430) & -- & -- \\
OT J042142.1$+$340329 & 22.547(192) & 22.427(96) & 21.897(83) & 21.445(80) & 20.841(164) & -- & 0.096(7) \\
OT J042229.3$+$161430 & 22.847(404) & 21.958(80) & 21.441(79) & 20.916(64) & 20.352(130) & -- & 0.096(10) \\
OT J042434.2$+$001419 & 24.219(769) & 23.098(196) & 22.871(212) & 24.050(651) & 22.299(459) & -- & -- \\
OT J043020.0$+$095318 & 20.747(70) & 20.377(20) & 19.639(17) & 19.091(15) & 18.650(31) & -- & 0.127(5) \\
OT J043517.8$+$002941 & 21.317(115) & 21.124(40) & 21.060(52) & 21.077(76) & 21.024(267) & -- & 0.067(4) \\
OT J043517.8$+$002941 & 21.563(131) & 21.744(67) & 22.105(142) & 21.877(183) & 21.374(416) & -- & 0.079(18) \\
OT J043517.8$+$002941 & 21.892(128) & 21.957(65) & 22.144(125) & 22.708(302) & 22.087(518) & -- & -- \\
OT J043546.9$+$090837 & 21.938(144) & 21.827(52) & 21.416(65) & 21.212(76) & 20.730(193) & -- & 0.073(4) \\
OT J043742.1$+$003048 & 20.474(57) & 20.368(23) & 20.146(26) & 20.067(35) & 19.694(81) & -- & 0.079(3) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 18.884(20) & 19.218(12) & 19.182(15) & 18.996(20) & 18.824(57) & -- & 0.082(2) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.041(24) & 19.080(11) & 19.014(14) & 19.009(21) & 18.877(56) & -- & 0.067(2) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.066(21) & 19.226(11) & 18.898(10) & 18.912(14) & 19.061(46) & -- & 0.084(5) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.223(22) & 19.540(12) & 19.082(12) & 19.135(19) & 19.165(64) & -- & 0.086(6) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.224(23) & 19.489(13) & 19.213(13) & 19.184(18) & 19.148(50) & -- & 0.072(2) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.319(25) & 19.375(12) & 19.278(14) & 19.166(18) & 18.973(51) & -- & 0.076(2) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.339(26) & 19.306(11) & 19.291(15) & 19.235(20) & 18.996(47) & -- & 0.069(2) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.373(28) & 19.571(14) & 19.387(15) & 19.342(20) & 19.223(63) & -- & 0.070(2) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.391(25) & 19.677(14) & 19.424(17) & 19.325(21) & 19.340(66) & -- & 0.079(2) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.415(29) & 19.618(14) & 19.256(13) & 19.193(17) & 19.021(45) & -- & 0.083(3) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.430(26) & 19.492(12) & 19.402(13) & 19.281(17) & 19.044(41) & -- & 0.076(2) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.447(24) & 19.639(13) & 19.439(13) & 19.383(18) & 19.159(49) & -- & 0.069(2) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.558(37) & 19.714(16) & 19.361(19) & 19.348(29) & 19.260(92) & -- & 0.083(4) \\
OT J044216.0$-$002334 & 21.967(160) & 21.927(76) & 21.527(82) & 21.380(117) & 21.054(327) & 0.0743$^\dagger$ & 0.149(24) \\
OT J044216.0$-$002334 & 22.103(222) & 22.266(115) & 22.350(147) & 22.051(159) & 20.887(244) & 0.0743$^\dagger$ & 0.101(15) \\
OT J044216.0$-$002334 & 22.230(185) & 21.931(70) & 21.725(90) & 21.847(151) & 21.990(586) & 0.0743$^\dagger$ & 0.101(26) \\
OT J051419.9$+$011121 & 19.453(32) & 19.799(15) & 19.318(14) & 19.201(19) & 19.164(60) & -- & 0.083(3) \\
OT J051419.9$+$011121 & 19.736(48) & 19.844(20) & 19.748(28) & 19.605(35) & 19.215(100) & -- & 0.073(2) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
OT J051419.9$+$011121 & 19.744(35) & 20.214(21) & 20.209(34) & 19.978(45) & 19.613(106) & -- & 0.082(4) \\
OT J051419.9$+$011121 & 20.249(43) & 20.509(22) & 20.258(25) & 20.135(35) & 19.850(101) & -- & 0.070(2) \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 19.785(36) & 19.566(13) & 19.060(12) & 18.710(11) & 18.466(28) & -- & 0.181(9) \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 20.338(71) & 20.195(24) & 19.505(23) & 19.131(24) & 18.854(65) & -- & 0.286(20) \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 20.579(54) & 20.561(24) & 19.724(18) & 19.304(19) & 18.855(52) & -- & 0.363(50) \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 20.712(71) & 20.473(24) & 19.626(17) & 19.158(17) & 18.826(36) & -- & 0.409(66) \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 20.754(71) & 20.553(30) & 19.714(21) & 19.282(23) & 18.885(62) & -- & 0.433(72) \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 20.760(54) & 20.521(21) & 19.738(16) & 19.269(16) & 18.866(39) & -- & 0.374(50) \\
OT J055730.1$+$001514 & 25.009(653) & 22.920(137) & 22.074(101) & 21.869(136) & 22.033(579) & -- & -- \\
OT J055842.8$+$000626 & 20.624(62) & 20.329(20) & 18.975(11) & 18.432(10) & 17.929(21) & -- & 0.374(28) \\
OT J055842.8$+$000626 & 20.799(86) & 19.803(15) & 18.856(11) & 18.164(9) & 17.602(18) & -- & 0.259(22) \\
OT J055842.8$+$000626 & 20.846(64) & 20.434(22) & 19.383(14) & 18.635(12) & 18.011(25) & -- & 0.174(8) \\
OT J055842.8$+$000626 & 21.202(94) & 20.732(29) & 19.518(17) & 18.697(12) & 18.059(27) & -- & 0.255(13) \\
OT J073055.5$+$425636 & 22.388(289) & 22.761(150) & 23.017(273) & 23.297(437) & 21.779(413) & -- & -- \\
OT J073339.3$+$212201 & 20.832(81) & 20.447(27) & 19.618(18) & 19.110(17) & 18.781(39) & -- & -- \\
OT J073559.9$+$220132 & 20.260(50) & 20.198(22) & 20.177(31) & 20.233(41) & 20.325(132) & -- & 0.066(3) \\
OT J073758.5$+$205545 & 20.100(41) & 19.984(18) & 20.032(23) & 20.278(44) & 20.001(111) & -- & 0.053(2) \\
OT J073921.2$+$222454 & 22.783(316) & 22.698(136) & 22.380(158) & 22.128(159) & 22.526(636) & -- & 0.132(48) \\
OT J074222.5$+$172807 & 19.902(36) & 19.942(15) & 19.768(18) & 19.765(25) & 19.598(68) & -- & 0.071(2) \\
OT J074222.5$+$172807 & 19.925(38) & 19.861(17) & 19.871(20) & 19.706(24) & 19.661(83) & -- & 0.091(3) \\
OT J074222.5$+$172807 & 20.079(44) & 19.897(18) & 19.923(22) & 19.656(26) & 19.549(75) & -- & 0.111(6) \\
OT J074222.5$+$172807 & 20.431(50) & 20.227(19) & 20.047(21) & 19.898(24) & 19.806(85) & -- & 0.106(5) \\
OT J074419.7$+$325448 & 20.732(57) & 20.763(24) & 20.699(29) & 20.827(41) & 21.022(154) & -- & 0.061(3) \\
OT J074419.7$+$325448 & 21.208(81) & 21.310(46) & 21.574(79) & 21.827(162) & 22.229(638) & -- & 0.053(12) \\
OT J074419.7$+$325448 & 21.359(94) & 21.441(48) & 21.785(86) & 22.053(166) & 21.564(357) & -- & 0.070(15) \\
OT J074419.7$+$325448 & 21.372(99) & 21.460(61) & 21.699(105) & 21.656(147) & 21.902(533) & -- & 0.070(10) \\
OT J074727.6$+$065050 & 19.692(41) & 19.402(13) & 19.531(22) & 19.830(32) & 19.936(118) & 0.0594$^\dagger$ & 0.050(1) \\
OT J074820.0$+$245759 & 22.194(217) & 22.523(134) & 22.931(257) & 22.768(336) & 23.184(604) & -- & -- \\
OT J074820.0$+$245759 & 22.439(264) & 22.366(128) & 22.963(293) & 24.386(848) & 22.055(518) & -- & -- \\
OT J074820.0$+$245759 & 22.611(301) & 22.514(114) & 22.903(216) & 22.358(179) & 22.255(392) & -- & 0.107(31) \\
OT J074928.0$+$190452 & 20.444(64) & 20.794(33) & 20.516(36) & 20.460(50) & 20.065(115) & -- & 0.069(2) \\
OT J074928.0$+$190452 & 20.551(59) & 21.115(42) & 20.892(44) & 20.828(61) & 20.324(171) & -- & 0.070(4) \\
OT J074928.0$+$190452 & 20.769(79) & 20.748(31) & 20.500(34) & 20.461(48) & 20.337(142) & -- & 0.086(5) \\
OT J075332.0$+$375801 & 21.048(76) & 21.289(46) & 21.161(52) & 21.124(75) & 20.660(208) & -- & 0.068(3) \\
OT J075332.0$+$375801 & 21.258(101) & 21.191(45) & 21.358(96) & 20.850(75) & 21.106(355) & -- & 0.153(24) \\
OT J075332.0$+$375801 & 21.270(87) & 21.333(46) & 21.301(57) & 21.195(78) & 20.589(204) & -- & 0.072(4) \\
OT J075414.5$+$313216 & 19.906(37) & 19.651(14) & 19.644(17) & 19.739(23) & 19.618(63) & 0.0615$^\dagger$ & 0.059(1) \\
OT J075414.5$+$313216 & 20.167(59) & 20.018(20) & 19.976(32) & 20.017(42) & 20.129(154) & 0.0615$^\dagger$ & 0.070(3) \\
OT J075648.0$+$305805 & 20.957(107) & 21.077(46) & 20.980(72) & 21.056(101) & 21.132(402) & -- & 0.066(5) \\
OT J075648.0$+$305805 & 20.997(81) & 20.859(33) & 20.930(45) & 20.872(59) & 20.882(175) & -- & 0.075(5) \\
OT J080428.4$+$363104 & 22.228(190) & 22.113(70) & 21.881(77) & 21.449(79) & 21.239(231) & -- & 0.147(15) \\
OT J080428.4$+$363104 & 22.982(526) & 22.948(175) & 22.432(176) & 21.866(145) & 21.399(340) & -- & 0.197(51) \\
OT J080714.2$+$113812 & 20.691(65) & 20.537(24) & 20.652(34) & 21.066(67) & 20.444(139) & 0.0596$^\dagger$ & 0.062(9) \\
OT J080714.2$+$113812 & 21.020(78) & 20.909(28) & 20.961(41) & 21.175(77) & 21.145(248) & 0.0596$^\dagger$ & 0.056(2) \\
OT J080729.7$+$153442 & 22.193(193) & 22.483(95) & 22.061(107) & 22.050(173) & 22.202(617) & -- & 0.101(22) \\
OT J080729.7$+$153442 & 22.476(344) & 22.367(119) & 22.236(160) & 21.732(156) & 21.561(494) & -- & 0.153(26) \\
OT J080729.7$+$153442 & 22.913(665) & 22.628(202) & 22.095(168) & 22.255(409) & 22.525(1267) & -- & -- \\
OT J080853.7$+$355053 & 19.549(31) & 19.656(13) & 19.614(16) & 19.516(17) & 19.298(55) & -- & 0.074(2) \\
OT J081030.6$+$002429 & 21.402(105) & 21.358(46) & 21.315(61) & 20.874(61) & 19.994(122) & -- & 0.102(7) \\
OT J081414.9$+$080450 & 21.466(139) & 21.337(48) & 21.442(89) & 20.967(98) & 21.010(274) & -- & 0.150(20) \\
OT J081414.9$+$080450 & 21.593(109) & 21.700(57) & 21.415(64) & 21.238(78) & 20.979(176) & -- & 0.105(8) \\
OT J081414.9$+$080450 & 21.967(163) & 22.232(100) & 22.055(89) & 21.587(90) & 21.089(217) & -- & 0.122(13) \\
OT J081418.9$-$005022 & 18.302(13) & 18.567(7) & 18.462(9) & 18.187(10) & 17.833(24) & 0.0741$^\dagger$ & 0.092(2) \\
OT J081418.9$-$005022 & 18.480(15) & 18.921(9) & 18.676(9) & 18.714(11) & 18.406(29) & 0.0741$^\dagger$ & 0.062(1) \\
OT J081418.9$-$005022 & 18.926(18) & 19.116(10) & 18.973(11) & 18.795(12) & 18.507(29) & 0.0741$^\dagger$ & 0.082(1) \\
OT J081418.9$-$005022 & 18.970(22) & 19.101(10) & 18.939(12) & 18.809(15) & 18.484(44) & 0.0741$^\dagger$ & 0.076(2) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
OT J081418.9$-$005022 & 19.084(21) & 19.193(11) & 19.034(12) & 19.015(15) & 18.568(34) & 0.0741$^\dagger$ & 0.066(2) \\
OT J081712.3$+$055208 & 21.840(190) & 21.387(55) & 20.857(56) & 20.612(67) & 20.195(192) & -- & 0.488(123) \\
OT J081712.3$+$055208 & 22.024(241) & 21.462(60) & 20.903(55) & 20.971(105) & 20.634(266) & -- & -- \\
OT J081936.1$+$191540 & 20.876(83) & 20.364(24) & 19.938(22) & 19.755(28) & 19.907(116) & -- & 0.264(80) \\
OT J081936.1$+$191540 & 21.482(137) & 20.479(24) & 19.968(24) & 19.796(27) & 19.696(95) & -- & 0.403(149) \\
OT J082019.4$+$474732 & 21.267(94) & 21.361(50) & 21.305(58) & 21.302(84) & 20.894(205) & -- & 0.066(3) \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 19.232(23) & 19.472(12) & 19.004(10) & 18.822(12) & 18.653(33) & -- & 0.126(3) \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 19.488(32) & 19.923(19) & 19.500(18) & 19.164(19) & 18.922(47) & -- & 0.113(5) \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 19.668(36) & 19.987(20) & 19.675(18) & 19.416(23) & 19.075(64) & -- & 0.092(2) \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 19.781(35) & 19.891(18) & 19.674(18) & 19.412(20) & 19.014(48) & -- & 0.093(3) \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 19.951(36) & 20.090(20) & 19.782(17) & 19.480(19) & 19.219(52) & -- & 0.115(4) \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 20.217(44) & 20.605(27) & 20.219(30) & 19.770(28) & 19.371(62) & -- & 0.121(6) \\
OT J082603.7$+$113821 & 20.489(57) & 20.630(26) & 20.542(31) & 20.444(39) & 19.992(93) & -- & 0.071(2) \\
OT J082603.7$+$113821 & 20.680(67) & 20.459(23) & 20.421(30) & 20.250(34) & 19.649(67) & -- & 0.077(2) \\
OT J082603.7$+$113821 & 20.922(86) & 20.687(30) & 20.553(42) & 20.260(50) & 19.861(121) & -- & 0.108(7) \\
OT J082654.7$-$000733 & 19.659(37) & 19.460(13) & 19.203(14) & 19.200(20) & 19.333(78) & -- & 0.108(7) \\
OT J082654.7$-$000733 & 19.854(32) & 19.523(12) & 19.497(14) & 19.644(20) & 19.613(74) & -- & 0.059(1) \\
OT J082821.8$+$105344 & 22.113(242) & 22.291(111) & 22.075(149) & 22.225(277) & 22.128(795) & -- & 0.083(24) \\
OT J082908.4$+$482639 & 21.464(116) & 21.433(63) & 21.617(88) & 21.605(121) & 22.803(753) & -- & -- \\
OT J084041.5$+$000520 & 20.509(48) & 20.590(23) & 20.867(42) & 21.050(82) & 20.662(269) & -- & 0.067(8) \\
OT J084041.5$+$000520 & 20.544(50) & 20.793(28) & 20.803(39) & 21.008(70) & 20.641(222) & -- & 0.060(5) \\
OT J084041.5$+$000520 & 20.695(59) & 20.777(29) & 20.985(47) & 21.087(72) & 20.513(185) & -- & 0.069(5) \\
OT J084127.4$+$210053 & 20.421(53) & 20.498(26) & 20.264(28) & 20.030(33) & 19.704(91) & -- & 0.097(4) \\
OT J084127.4$+$210053 & 20.595(59) & 20.610(25) & 20.403(27) & 20.077(32) & 19.644(82) & -- & 0.105(5) \\
OT J084358.1$+$425037 & 19.598(33) & 19.913(16) & 19.877(19) & 19.689(21) & 19.302(55) & -- & 0.082(2) \\
OT J084413.7$-$012807 & 20.219(56) & 20.349(25) & 20.505(39) & 20.446(47) & 20.299(175) & -- & 0.074(3) \\
OT J084413.7$-$012807 & 20.309(62) & 20.112(18) & 20.126(28) & 20.168(44) & 20.177(160) & -- & 0.068(3) \\
OT J084413.7$-$012807 & 20.579(65) & 20.522(26) & 20.863(45) & 21.155(91) & 20.873(300) & -- & 0.062(9) \\
OT J084555.1$+$033930 & 20.566(56) & 20.592(22) & 20.595(30) & 20.856(49) & 21.032(161) & 0.0591$^\dagger$ & 0.054(2) \\
OT J084555.1$+$033930 & 20.760(71) & 20.885(36) & 20.891(47) & 21.029(75) & 21.264(300) & 0.0591$^\dagger$ & 0.061(3) \\
OT J084555.1$+$033930 & 21.172(192) & 20.810(52) & 20.816(80) & 21.040(177) & 21.182(472) & 0.0591$^\dagger$ & 0.064(9) \\
OT J085113.4$+$344449 & 20.244(51) & 20.108(21) & 20.038(26) & 19.807(31) & 19.147(66) & -- & 0.083(3) \\
OT J085113.4$+$344449 & 20.550(55) & 20.445(21) & 20.501(29) & 20.034(27) & 19.341(53) & -- & 0.117(6) \\
OT J085409.4$+$201339 & 20.313(49) & 20.910(30) & 20.477(30) & 20.325(34) & 20.106(114) & -- & 0.083(3) \\
OT J085603.8$+$322109 & 19.502(28) & 19.638(13) & 19.738(18) & 19.774(23) & 19.620(81) & -- & 0.067(1) \\
OT J085822.9$-$003729 & 21.822(174) & 21.710(57) & 21.378(74) & 21.270(97) & 21.204(343) & -- & 0.144(25) \\
OT J085822.9$-$003729 & 22.532(374) & 22.343(158) & 22.042(166) & 21.977(224) & 21.597(585) & -- & -- \\
OT J085822.9$-$003729 & 23.053(661) & 22.785(211) & 22.796(296) & 22.517(316) & 20.843(290) & -- & -- \\
OT J090016.7$+$343928 & 20.835(73) & 20.467(24) & 20.097(26) & 19.913(31) & 19.695(109) & -- & 0.257(23) \\
OT J090016.7$+$343928 & 21.281(95) & 20.615(24) & 20.315(25) & 20.066(29) & 19.731(83) & -- & 0.319(45) \\
OT J090239.7$+$052501 & 23.774(510) & 23.161(177) & 23.056(212) & 23.000(278) & 22.125(369) & 0.0565 & -- \\
OT J090516.1$+$120451 & 19.326(32) & 19.796(17) & 19.563(19) & 19.520(25) & 19.629(106) & -- & 0.074(2) \\
OT J090516.1$+$120451 & 19.499(29) & 19.754(14) & 19.721(18) & 19.592(19) & 19.679(72) & -- & 0.085(4) \\
OT J090852.2$+$071640 & 20.548(56) & 20.130(19) & 20.279(28) & 20.258(42) & 20.203(137) & -- & 0.071(4) \\
OT J090852.2$+$071640 & 20.963(73) & 20.987(36) & 21.034(55) & 20.836(65) & 20.488(182) & -- & 0.084(5) \\
OT J091453.6$+$113402 & 21.231(93) & 20.971(33) & 21.051(47) & 21.192(74) & 21.315(250) & -- & 0.059(3) \\
OT J091453.6$+$113402 & 21.241(119) & 20.962(39) & 21.093(59) & 21.141(90) & 21.073(283) & -- & 0.066(5) \\
OT J091534.9$+$081356 & 22.249(225) & 22.802(162) & 23.094(279) & 22.711(273) & 21.760(376) & -- & 0.102(38) \\
OT J091534.9$+$081356 & 23.553(591) & 23.028(169) & 22.856(313) & 23.138(584) & 21.624(592) & -- & -- \\
OT J091634.6$+$130358 & 20.932(89) & 21.453(61) & 21.364(77) & 21.129(94) & 21.243(334) & -- & 0.091(12) \\
OT J091634.6$+$130358 & 21.376(99) & 21.894(76) & 21.549(88) & 21.921(155) & 21.627(320) & -- & 0.069(10) \\
OT J091634.6$+$130358 & 21.690(156) & 21.834(87) & 21.677(134) & 21.700(182) & 22.075(641) & -- & 0.075(16) \\
OT J092839.3$+$005944 & 21.558(321) & 21.236(136) & 21.096(168) & 20.810(165) & 20.451(476) & -- & 0.126(23) \\
OT J092839.3$+$005944 & 21.692(149) & 21.775(76) & 21.740(111) & 21.350(120) & 21.386(504) & -- & 0.117(20) \\
OT J092839.3$+$005944 & 21.698(168) & 21.800(79) & 21.691(99) & 21.180(82) & 21.047(317) & -- & 0.140(19) \\
OT J092839.3$+$005944 & 21.938(156) & 21.901(71) & 21.822(95) & 21.375(101) & 20.580(190) & -- & 0.108(12) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
OT J101035.5$+$140239 & 18.457(16) & 17.196(4) & 17.277(5) & 17.359(6) & 17.407(15) & -- & 0.153(32) \\
OT J101035.5$+$140239 & 19.224(22) & 18.051(6) & 17.854(6) & 17.775(7) & 17.713(16) & -- & 0.439(146) \\
OT J103704.6$+$100224 & 23.476(623) & 23.421(274) & 22.812(229) & 22.693(296) & 22.565(656) & -- & -- \\
OT J103704.6$+$100224 & 24.717(895) & 22.857(180) & 22.509(211) & 22.275(274) & 22.686(846) & -- & -- \\
OT J101545.9$+$033312 & 19.811(35) & 20.168(19) & 20.137(24) & 20.130(33) & 19.864(82) & -- & 0.068(2) \\
OT J102146.4$+$234926 & 20.847(64) & 20.725(26) & 20.628(31) & 20.853(58) & 20.436(151) & 0.0554$^\dagger$ & 0.063(3) \\
OT J102616.0$+$192045 & 20.108(40) & 20.126(18) & 20.082(22) & 19.853(23) & 19.509(54) & 0.0800$^\dagger$ & 0.090(3) \\
OT J102637.0$+$475426 & 20.160(41) & 19.929(17) & 20.097(24) & 20.139(35) & 19.987(112) & 0.0663$^\dagger$ & 0.064(2) \\
OT J102637.0$+$475426 & 20.245(46) & 20.127(23) & 20.177(29) & 20.316(45) & 20.026(130) & 0.0663$^\dagger$ & 0.057(1) \\
OT J102937.7$+$414046 & 22.212(213) & 22.269(86) & 22.317(116) & 23.091(309) & 22.012(524) & -- & -- \\
OT J102937.7$+$414046 & 22.547(274) & 22.401(100) & 22.426(167) & 22.632(266) & 22.972(756) & -- & 0.068(16) \\
OT J102937.7$+$414046 & 22.595(310) & 22.137(89) & 22.181(158) & 22.350(275) & 23.662(843) & -- & -- \\
OT J103317.3$+$072119 & 19.942(36) & 19.893(16) & 19.806(18) & 19.751(23) & 19.478(54) & -- & 0.072(2) \\
OT J103738.7$+$124250 & 22.114(168) & 21.903(77) & 21.775(91) & 21.628(134) & 20.933(269) & -- & 0.102(15) \\
OT J103738.7$+$124250 & 22.212(307) & 22.064(130) & 21.911(141) & 21.625(170) & 21.241(435) & -- & 0.127(21) \\
OT J104411.4$+$211307 & 19.198(23) & 19.347(11) & 19.262(12) & 19.481(18) & 19.268(45) & 0.0591 & 0.056(2) \\
OT J105550.1$+$095621 & 19.026(21) & 19.153(11) & 18.505(8) & 17.879(8) & 17.399(13) & -- & 0.211(12) \\
OT J105835.1$+$054706 & 20.107(45) & 20.299(24) & 20.148(27) & 20.188(40) & 20.104(128) & -- & 0.066(2) \\
OT J105835.1$+$054706 & 20.141(42) & 20.401(23) & 20.237(25) & 20.148(30) & 19.939(87) & -- & 0.075(2) \\
OT J112112.0$-$130843 & 19.844(42) & 19.851(18) & 19.453(18) & 19.263(22) & 19.193(68) & -- & 0.137(6) \\
OT J112253.3$-$111037 & 20.712(62) & 20.438(21) & 20.461(26) & 20.575(39) & 20.462(119) & 0.0472$^\dagger$ & 0.058(1) \\
OT J112332.0$+$431718 & 19.427(27) & 19.912(16) & 19.753(19) & 19.640(22) & 19.474(61) & -- & 0.075(2) \\
OT J112509.7$+$231036 & 20.571(60) & 20.988(36) & 21.059(51) & 21.296(88) & 20.461(153) & -- & 0.073(14) \\
OT J112509.7$+$231036 & 20.960(82) & 20.964(34) & 21.111(53) & 21.022(76) & 20.933(228) & -- & 0.079(5) \\
OT J112634.0$-$100210 & 18.811(22) & 18.809(9) & 18.619(10) & 18.375(11) & 18.131(28) & -- & 0.102(2) \\
OT J115330.2$+$315836 & 20.690(67) & 20.113(18) & 19.945(21) & 19.897(30) & 19.971(124) & -- & 0.168(18) \\
OT J122756.8$+$622935 & 22.157(208) & 21.572(55) & 20.977(50) & 20.402(44) & 20.058(150) & -- & 0.245(83) \\
OT J122756.8$+$622935 & 22.584(321) & 21.813(69) & 21.383(73) & 20.794(63) & 20.792(283) & -- & -- \\
OT J122756.8$+$622935 & 23.119(579) & 21.811(74) & 21.351(71) & 20.698(64) & 20.535(262) & -- & -- \\
OT J123833.7$+$031854 & 22.258(269) & 21.560(65) & 21.327(82) & 21.140(110) & 21.360(452) & -- & -- \\
OT J124027.4$-$150558 & 21.328(134) & 21.021(39) & 20.766(44) & 20.604(55) & 20.327(145) & -- & 0.128(15) \\
OT J124417.9$+$300401 & 19.380(30) & 19.571(12) & 19.494(15) & 19.490(20) & 19.080(49) & -- & 0.065(1) \\
OT J124819.4$+$072050 & 21.663(141) & 21.326(46) & 21.401(70) & 21.385(89) & 21.285(330) & -- & 0.073(6) \\
OT J124819.4$+$072050 & 21.786(208) & 21.371(59) & 21.533(94) & 21.329(116) & 21.611(545) & -- & 0.094(16) \\
OT J130030.3$+$115101 & 19.891(45) & 19.783(16) & 19.802(21) & 19.840(25) & 19.421(53) & 0.0627$^\dagger$ & 0.061(1) \\
OT J132536.0$+$210037 & 22.132(223) & -- & 20.376(25) & 20.637(41) & 20.568(166) & -- & -- \\
OT J134052.1$+$151341 & 19.843(34) & 18.623(8) & 17.913(6) & 17.653(7) & 17.504(13) & -- & 0.149(38) \\
OT J134052.1$+$151341 & 20.259(42) & 18.731(8) & 17.988(7) & 17.721(7) & 17.572(15) & -- & 0.207(10) \\
OT J135219.0$+$280917 & 20.702(79) & 20.669(26) & 19.927(22) & 19.584(24) & 19.219(66) & -- & 0.479(96) \\
OT J135336.0$-$022043 & 21.838(197) & 21.711(72) & 21.069(53) & 20.742(55) & 20.395(170) & -- & 0.358(54) \\
OT J135716.8$-$093239 & 23.000(525) & 22.761(157) & 21.991(142) & 21.609(149) & 20.715(218) & -- & -- \\
OT J141002.2$-$124809 & 19.230(29) & 19.160(11) & 19.282(14) & 19.366(21) & 19.296(59) & -- & 0.062(1) \\
OT J141712.0$-$180328 & 20.437(69) & 20.616(28) & 20.274(26) & 20.056(31) & 19.519(81) & -- & 0.082(3) \\
OT J142548.1$+$151502 & 22.168(211) & 21.802(61) & 21.616(76) & 21.324(75) & 21.088(237) & -- & 0.151(22) \\
OT J144011.0$+$494734 & 21.253(137) & 21.161(51) & 21.006(67) & 21.501(132) & 22.608(946) & 0.0631$^\dagger$ & -- \\
OT J144316.5$-$010222 & 21.708(140) & 22.185(88) & 21.931(102) & 21.913(141) & 21.818(415) & -- & 0.073(6) \\
OT J144316.5$-$010222 & 22.069(176) & 22.417(106) & 22.120(149) & 22.674(381) & 22.196(800) & -- & -- \\
OT J144316.5$-$010222 & 22.110(149) & 22.236(87) & 22.116(117) & 21.814(144) & 21.858(491) & -- & 0.112(20) \\
OT J145502.2$+$143815 & 19.862(42) & 20.117(21) & 19.620(18) & 19.250(18) & 18.996(46) & -- & 0.158(6) \\
OT J145502.2$+$143815 & 20.240(43) & 20.485(22) & 19.944(20) & 19.483(22) & 19.124(57) & -- & 0.177(7) \\
OT J145502.2$+$143815 & 20.266(54) & 20.282(23) & 19.813(22) & 19.447(24) & 19.155(55) & -- & 0.188(11) \\
OT J145921.8$+$354806 & 21.257(66) & 21.544(39) & 21.070(36) & 20.760(42) & 20.403(94) & 0.0822$^\dagger$ & 0.145(8) \\
OT J151020.7$+$182303 & 21.458(124) & 21.424(43) & 20.688(32) & 20.490(38) & 20.245(108) & -- & 0.494(77) \\
OT J151037.4$+$084104 & 19.356(27) & 19.120(10) & 19.411(14) & 19.579(19) & 19.922(70) & -- & 0.059(3) \\
OT J152037.9$+$040948 & 21.703(139) & 22.495(143) & 22.121(118) & 21.920(149) & 21.332(302) & -- & 0.086(8) \\
OT J152501.8$-$013021 & 23.105(524) & 22.679(138) & 22.613(188) & 23.824(641) & 22.412(755) & -- & -- \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
OT J153150.8$+$152447 & 22.975(332) & 23.130(157) & 22.686(156) & 22.552(190) & 22.077(429) & -- & 0.156(51) \\
OT J153317.6$+$273428 & 22.338(224) & 21.932(76) & 21.461(74) & 21.146(91) & 21.477(417) & -- & -- \\
OT J153645.2$-$142543 & 22.984(507) & 22.879(150) & 22.913(262) & 22.558(300) & 22.593(785) & -- & 0.092(28) \\
OT J154354.1$-$143745 & 21.219(128) & 21.404(51) & 21.090(55) & 21.001(79) & 20.527(215) & -- & 0.070(3) \\
OT J154428.1$+$335725 & 22.361(276) & 22.108(90) & 21.850(109) & 22.280(251) & 21.613(565) & -- & -- \\
OT J154544.9$+$442830 & 20.850(64) & 20.943(26) & 20.850(34) & 20.718(41) & 20.328(127) & 0.0747$^\dagger$ & 0.076(3) \\
OT J155325.7$+$114437 & 22.867(448) & 22.646(142) & 23.474(432) & 22.730(437) & 23.415(863) & -- & -- \\
OT J155325.7$+$114437 & 23.172(449) & 23.235(186) & 23.886(434) & 22.931(335) & 23.022(627) & -- & -- \\
OT J155430.6$+$365043 & 21.408(139) & 21.608(59) & 21.664(92) & 21.774(161) & 22.810(799) & -- & 0.049(17) \\
OT J155430.6$+$365043 & 21.782(191) & 21.703(80) & 21.521(90) & 21.559(146) & 22.089(694) & -- & 0.076(22) \\
OT J155748.0$+$070543 & 22.620(288) & 22.813(149) & 22.938(231) & 23.480(467) & 21.855(458) & -- & -- \\
OT J155748.0$+$070543 & 22.921(827) & 22.740(202) & 22.652(301) & 23.516(871) & 22.342(905) & -- & -- \\
OT J160204.8$+$031632 & 22.530(342) & 22.653(178) & 22.825(265) & 22.731(370) & 21.167(348) & -- & -- \\
OT J160204.8$+$031632 & 23.405(450) & 23.223(200) & 22.839(186) & 22.492(216) & 22.192(563) & -- & 0.139(37) \\
OT J160232.2$+$161733 & 22.543(262) & 21.905(63) & 21.779(75) & 21.837(126) & 21.326(354) & -- & 0.152(50) \\
OT J160524.1$+$060816 & 22.565(299) & 22.839(150) & 22.511(160) & 22.027(167) & 22.574(655) & -- & 0.138(41) \\
OT J160524.1$+$060816 & 23.676(859) & 22.678(181) & 22.640(189) & 21.828(138) & 22.296(575) & -- & -- \\
OT J160844.8$+$220610 & 20.842(80) & 21.048(32) & 20.991(41) & 20.822(50) & 20.683(156) & -- & 0.079(4) \\
OT J160844.8$+$220610 & 21.000(227) & 20.890(91) & 20.954(98) & 21.012(137) & 20.518(243) & -- & 0.068(5) \\
OT J160844.8$+$220610 & 21.170(74) & 21.638(45) & 20.973(37) & 20.998(49) & 20.895(166) & -- & 0.110(13) \\
OT J162012.0$+$115257 & 22.615(373) & 22.211(83) & 22.240(139) & 22.215(204) & 22.890(827) & -- & 0.077(24) \\
OT J162235.7$+$035247 & 22.356(332) & 22.240(125) & 21.728(108) & 20.997(82) & 20.294(160) & -- & 0.180(26) \\
OT J162605.7$+$225044 & 22.291(176) & 22.681(98) & 22.248(95) & 22.092(142) & 21.536(317) & -- & 0.099(13) \\
OT J162605.7$+$225044 & 23.575(600) & 22.998(166) & 22.617(152) & 22.437(196) & 21.854(383) & -- & -- \\
OT J162656.8$-$002549 & 22.221(238) & 22.610(146) & 22.352(187) & 21.785(177) & 21.687(550) & -- & 0.137(28) \\
OT J162806.2$+$065316 & 20.645(71) & 20.544(27) & 20.419(33) & 20.420(38) & 19.976(95) & 0.0671$^\dagger$ & 0.066(2) \\
OT J162806.2$+$065316 & 20.800(70) & 20.649(26) & 20.578(33) & 20.494(49) & 20.135(117) & 0.0671$^\dagger$ & 0.071(3) \\
OT J162619.8$-$125557 & 21.826(192) & 21.601(61) & 21.131(55) & 20.898(68) & 20.564(209) & -- & 0.071(4) \\
OT J163120.9$+$103134 & 19.039(25) & 19.061(10) & 19.094(12) & 19.164(17) & 18.793(42) & 0.0624$^\dagger$ & 0.061(2) \\
OT J163239.3$+$351108 & 23.160(369) & 22.697(118) & 23.073(253) & 24.110(571) & 22.247(577) & -- & -- \\
OT J163311.3$-$011132 & 21.174(80) & 21.356(43) & 21.086(47) & 21.150(72) & 20.758(190) & -- & 0.061(3) \\
OT J163942.7$+$122414 & 19.373(29) & 19.481(12) & 19.212(12) & 19.068(14) & 18.962(39) & -- & 0.094(2) \\
OT J163942.7$+$122414 & 20.398(59) & 20.457(25) & 20.307(28) & 20.215(38) & 19.832(100) & -- & 0.072(2) \\
OT J164146.8$+$121026 & 20.999(92) & 21.333(48) & 21.048(50) & 20.702(55) & 20.363(156) & -- & 0.104(6) \\
OT J164146.8$+$121026 & 21.219(95) & 21.363(43) & 21.125(49) & 20.586(46) & 20.721(208) & -- & 0.170(25) \\
OT J164146.8$+$121026 & 21.788(168) & 21.488(46) & 21.286(49) & 21.084(60) & 20.637(161) & -- & 0.109(11) \\
OT J164624.8$+$180808 & 23.167(411) & 22.351(84) & 22.177(91) & 22.036(122) & 21.221(230) & -- & -- \\
OT J164748.0$+$433845 & 21.389(180) & 21.650(80) & 21.760(135) & 22.295(246) & 22.787(973) & -- & 0.044(14) \\
OT J164748.0$+$433845 & 21.398(98) & 21.535(46) & 21.819(87) & 22.271(194) & 21.766(432) & -- & 0.065(17) \\
OT J164950.4$+$035835 & 18.861(38) & 18.548(12) & 18.587(12) & 18.525(17) & 18.343(45) & -- & 0.070(1) \\
OT J165002.8$+$435616 & 22.333(242) & 22.758(164) & 22.336(168) & 21.868(189) & 21.299(409) & -- & 0.152(27) \\
OT J165002.8$+$435616 & 22.649(381) & 22.376(113) & 22.671(203) & 22.163(217) & 22.694(740) & -- & 0.107(40) \\
OT J165002.8$+$435616 & 23.206(523) & 22.855(161) & 22.666(171) & 22.592(248) & 22.252(578) & -- & 0.164(66) \\
OT J170115.8$-$024159 & 24.055(1164) & 22.977(203) & 22.250(154) & 22.288(271) & 22.844(973) & -- & -- \\
OT J170151.6$+$132131 & 21.789(239) & 21.317(76) & 20.837(56) & 20.475(63) & 20.218(194) & -- & 0.285(51) \\
OT J170606.1$+$255153 & 21.227(166) & 21.479(66) & 21.308(82) & 21.205(118) & 21.043(436) & -- & 0.080(8) \\
OT J170609.7$+$143452 & 17.733(11) & 18.231(7) & 17.897(7) & 17.709(7) & 17.712(16) & -- & 0.076(5) \\
OT J170609.7$+$143452 & 18.004(15) & 18.453(8) & 18.240(8) & 18.056(10) & 17.959(28) & -- & 0.075(4) \\
OT J170702.5$+$165339 & 21.200(92) & 21.593(51) & 21.232(56) & 21.034(66) & 20.516(155) & -- & 0.077(3) \\
OT J171223.1$+$362516 & 20.781(68) & 20.885(32) & 19.904(19) & 19.443(18) & 19.257(54) & -- & -- \\
OT J171223.1$+$362516 & 20.847(87) & 20.770(33) & 19.910(22) & 19.396(23) & 19.138(61) & -- & -- \\
OT J171223.1$+$362516 & 20.851(91) & 20.533(29) & 19.805(21) & 19.307(20) & 19.018(51) & -- & 0.347(115) \\
OT J171223.1$+$362516 & 20.888(100) & 20.652(33) & 19.802(26) & 19.355(23) & 19.102(58) & -- & -- \\
OT J172515.5$+$073249 & 20.482(65) & 20.656(30) & 20.611(35) & 20.732(57) & 22.379(652) & -- & -- \\
OT J173307.9$+$300635 & 22.707(328) & 22.535(106) & 22.350(128) & 21.943(121) & 21.005(248) & -- & 0.118(17) \\
OT J175901.1$+$395551 & 22.559(369) & 22.030(98) & 22.519(236) & 22.048(218) & 21.865(662) & -- & 0.115(34) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
OT J182142.8$+$212154 & 20.195(53) & 20.260(21) & 20.198(25) & 19.895(27) & 19.438(62) & 0.0794$^\dagger$ & 0.089(3) \\
OT J202857.1$-$061803 & 20.767(77) & 20.606(30) & 20.557(36) & 20.597(49) & 20.145(126) & -- & 0.062(2) \\
OT J204001.4$-$144909 & 20.401(66) & 20.563(25) & 20.488(30) & 20.443(38) & 20.301(140) & -- & 0.071(2) \\
OT J204739.4$+$000840 & 23.154(715) & 22.213(131) & 21.997(153) & 21.569(150) & 21.322(512) & -- & -- \\
OT J210034.4$+$055436 & 21.970(189) & 22.113(72) & 22.024(121) & 21.830(141) & 20.948(226) & -- & 0.083(7) \\
OT J210034.4$+$055436 & 22.402(297) & 22.248(90) & 22.160(116) & 21.852(119) & 20.958(198) & -- & 0.094(9) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.178(131) & 21.301(65) & 20.759(52) & 20.643(70) & 20.381(233) & -- & 0.142(18) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.261(83) & 21.613(51) & 21.508(70) & 21.056(70) & 21.008(256) & -- & 0.122(17) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.366(138) & 21.461(60) & 21.322(86) & 20.949(97) & 20.670(259) & -- & 0.108(13) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.384(132) & 21.183(52) & 21.009(58) & 20.820(73) & 20.447(207) & -- & 0.089(6) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.402(122) & 21.466(57) & 21.407(80) & 21.031(83) & 20.718(269) & -- & 0.108(9) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.510(191) & 21.596(93) & 21.308(99) & 21.017(110) & 20.366(215) & -- & 0.098(9) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.520(135) & 21.536(65) & 21.130(64) & 20.930(84) & 20.885(314) & -- & 0.123(13) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.587(172) & 21.344(67) & 21.094(73) & 20.790(80) & 20.581(233) & -- & 0.128(14) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.593(520) & 22.237(498) & 21.115(154) & 21.354(218) & 20.458(272) & -- & -- \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.713(152) & 21.525(59) & 21.120(58) & 20.930(73) & 20.763(246) & -- & 0.152(20) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.964(263) & 21.662(93) & 21.204(95) & 21.332(181) & 21.335(640) & -- & -- \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.998(372) & 21.506(102) & 21.288(119) & 21.270(166) & 20.972(488) & -- & 0.118(34) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 22.027(400) & 22.284(317) & 21.393(124) & 21.135(121) & 20.968(374) & -- & 0.236(90) \\
OT J210205.7$+$025834 & 21.744(161) & 21.483(47) & 21.398(62) & 20.860(54) & 20.393(153) & -- & 0.137(9) \\
OT J210650.6$+$110250 & 19.779(37) & 20.242(21) & 20.163(25) & 20.136(37) & 19.795(101) & -- & 0.072(5) \\
OT J210650.6$+$110250 & 19.917(39) & 20.501(25) & 20.315(29) & 20.154(35) & 19.838(97) & -- & 0.078(3) \\
OT J210704.5$+$014416 & 23.380(485) & 23.890(267) & 23.091(198) & 23.669(403) & 23.537(435) & -- & -- \\
OT J210846.4$-$035031 & 18.084(17) & 17.881(6) & 17.677(6) & 17.380(7) & 17.025(14) & -- & 0.099(2) \\
OT J210846.4$-$035031 & 18.705(23) & 18.615(9) & 17.982(7) & 17.552(7) & 17.173(14) & -- & 0.248(12) \\
OT J210954.1$+$163052 & 19.133(21) & 19.521(12) & 19.315(13) & 19.191(16) & 19.093(54) & -- & 0.071(3) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 21.936(271) & 22.533(169) & 22.591(285) & 22.261(331) & 21.126(458) & -- & 0.112(33) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.330(306) & 22.973(200) & 23.082(386) & 23.524(689) & 22.561(748) & -- & -- \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.374(487) & 22.873(397) & 23.289(514) & 22.088(193) & 22.370(617) & -- & -- \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.431(217) & 22.664(121) & 22.494(155) & 22.556(233) & 23.210(687) & -- & 0.058(13) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.509(385) & 23.277(221) & 23.091(298) & 22.229(229) & 21.291(362) & -- & 0.151(38) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.729(401) & 22.938(226) & 22.377(191) & 22.399(246) & 21.684(440) & -- & -- \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 23.019(538) & 22.245(110) & 22.689(299) & 22.191(295) & 22.265(935) & -- & -- \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 23.147(446) & 22.424(119) & 22.350(170) & 22.009(184) & 20.867(279) & -- & -- \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 23.296(1920) & 22.795(566) & 21.791(226) & 21.454(176) & 21.976(789) & -- & -- \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 24.024(571) & 23.313(183) & 23.202(249) & 22.756(257) & 21.530(361) & -- & -- \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 24.118(876) & 23.120(198) & 23.961(618) & 22.603(322) & 22.295(704) & -- & -- \\
OT J212025.1$+$194157 & 21.817(180) & 21.819(64) & 21.812(92) & 21.643(114) & 22.728(665) & -- & -- \\
OT J212555.1$-$032406 & 22.199(333) & 21.977(88) & 22.090(147) & 22.863(395) & 21.384(426) & -- & -- \\
OT J212555.1$-$032406 & 22.401(653) & 22.000(179) & 22.132(294) & 23.485(1509) & 21.139(720) & -- & -- \\
OT J212633.3$+$085459 & 20.495(57) & 20.757(26) & 20.742(35) & 20.548(43) & 20.247(126) & -- & 0.083(3) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.060(217) & 20.894(74) & 21.051(157) & 21.210(276) & 21.381(1063) & 0.0629$^\dagger$ & 0.064(17) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.528(115) & 21.550(48) & 21.555(62) & 21.727(108) & 22.169(499) & 0.0629$^\dagger$ & 0.058(6) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.585(162) & 21.210(49) & 21.370(91) & 21.329(140) & 21.615(626) & 0.0629$^\dagger$ & 0.075(13) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.615(195) & 21.492(61) & 21.381(88) & 21.872(187) & 21.755(586) & 0.0629$^\dagger$ & 0.061(17) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.628(145) & 21.380(49) & 21.444(67) & 21.632(107) & 21.280(343) & 0.0629$^\dagger$ & 0.059(4) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.660(137) & 21.605(54) & 21.470(64) & 21.693(111) & 22.169(528) & 0.0629$^\dagger$ & 0.059(7) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.761(233) & 21.481(71) & 21.468(99) & 21.691(166) & 21.030(377) & 0.0629$^\dagger$ & 0.073(12) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.762(178) & 21.398(42) & 21.076(55) & 21.040(87) & 21.014(268) & 0.0629$^\dagger$ & 0.169(34) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.863(196) & 21.489(55) & 21.343(62) & 21.664(128) & 21.370(346) & 0.0629$^\dagger$ & 0.087(18) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.864(199) & 21.526(60) & 21.689(81) & 21.727(125) & 21.938(560) & 0.0629$^\dagger$ & 0.068(8) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 22.170(355) & 21.472(48) & 21.502(79) & 22.023(234) & 21.096(352) & 0.0629$^\dagger$ & -- \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 22.201(416) & 21.382(74) & 21.366(115) & 21.992(303) & 21.208(545) & 0.0629$^\dagger$ & -- \\
OT J213432.3$-$012040 & 23.613(766) & 23.255(215) & 23.311(331) & 23.511(509) & 23.247(730) & -- & -- \\
OT J213309.4$+$155004 & 22.377(293) & 22.075(91) & 21.927(106) & 21.407(101) & 21.203(292) & -- & 0.148(19) \\
OT J213701.8$+$071446 & 19.001(21) & 19.017(9) & 18.724(9) & 18.209(9) & 17.625(15) & 0.0950$^\dagger$ & 0.137(5) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
OT J213829.5$-$001742 & 23.814(723) & 23.531(362) & 22.552(156) & 22.606(245) & 22.941(671) & -- & -- \\
OT J213937.6$-$023913 & 20.145(60) & 20.138(26) & 20.006(31) & 19.791(38) & 19.111(74) & -- & 0.079(2) \\
OT J213937.6$-$023913 & 20.201(68) & 20.010(19) & 19.866(25) & 19.644(31) & 19.206(72) & -- & 0.091(3) \\
OT J213937.6$-$023913 & 20.291(67) & 20.069(19) & 20.019(28) & 19.677(28) & 19.145(61) & -- & 0.099(4) \\
OT J214426.4$+$222024 & 18.909(26) & 17.644(5) & 17.131(5) & 16.984(6) & 16.911(14) & -- & -- \\
OT J214639.9$+$092119 & 22.173(312) & 21.829(71) & 21.710(89) & 21.887(144) & 22.327(740) & -- & 0.065(16) \\
OT J214804.4$+$080951 & 20.543(61) & 20.957(30) & 20.879(38) & 20.686(42) & 20.431(139) & -- & 0.081(3) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.496(255) & 22.776(150) & 22.410(179) & 22.363(246) & 21.835(568) & -- & 0.094(18) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.731(348) & 22.854(158) & 22.651(173) & 22.778(337) & 21.354(376) & -- & -- \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.732(366) & 22.722(182) & 22.634(214) & 22.877(380) & 22.030(622) & -- & 0.097(37) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.857(313) & 23.050(192) & 23.077(285) & 23.443(518) & 22.696(776) & -- & -- \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.896(365) & 22.546(153) & 22.413(148) & 23.584(486) & 22.326(740) & -- & -- \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.930(462) & 22.899(160) & 22.946(250) & 22.399(215) & 22.590(638) & -- & 0.105(30) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 23.223(570) & 22.760(154) & 22.987(303) & 23.381(610) & 21.593(556) & -- & -- \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 23.405(465) & 22.677(120) & 22.968(243) & 23.317(436) & 22.392(613) & -- & -- \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 23.632(738) & 23.006(205) & 22.330(169) & 22.436(265) & 22.788(839) & -- & -- \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 24.390(929) & 22.853(162) & 22.969(269) & 23.441(526) & 21.528(449) & -- & -- \\
OT J214959.9$+$124529 & 22.245(240) & 21.928(80) & 22.039(124) & 21.886(179) & 22.140(685) & -- & 0.081(14) \\
OT J215344.7$+$123524 & 21.925(434) & 21.494(98) & 21.118(101) & 20.827(106) & 20.220(249) & -- & 0.171(57) \\
OT J215344.7$+$123524 & 22.019(189) & 22.107(92) & 21.828(97) & 21.272(97) & 20.459(167) & -- & 0.118(11) \\
OT J215344.7$+$123524 & 22.712(495) & 21.924(122) & 21.341(100) & 20.954(105) & 20.095(167) & -- & -- \\
OT J215630.5$-$031957 & 21.710(272) & 22.142(125) & 21.800(133) & 22.108(323) & 22.021(791) & -- & 0.073(21) \\
OT J215630.5$-$031957 & 22.291(320) & 22.169(111) & 21.898(137) & 22.156(245) & 21.665(503) & -- & 0.098(28) \\
OT J215636.3$+$193242 & 18.915(22) & 18.783(9) & 18.488(9) & 18.346(10) & 18.074(23) & -- & 0.095(2) \\
OT J215636.3$+$193242 & 19.376(32) & 19.339(12) & 19.107(13) & 18.921(15) & 18.522(34) & -- & 0.082(2) \\
OT J215636.3$+$193242 & 19.631(38) & 19.553(13) & 19.108(13) & 19.013(18) & 18.685(50) & -- & 0.128(7) \\
OT J215815.3$+$094709 & 17.592(12) & 17.478(5) & 17.613(6) & 17.552(7) & 17.150(13) & 0.0750$^\dagger$ & 0.070(1) \\
OT J220031.2$+$033431 & 18.551(18) & 18.664(8) & 18.404(9) & 18.127(9) & 17.941(22) & -- & 0.110(3) \\
OT J220449.7$+$054852 & 20.236(50) & 20.035(19) & 19.838(20) & 19.501(21) & 19.059(52) & -- & 0.107(4) \\
OT J220449.7$+$054852 & 21.203(106) & 20.940(32) & 20.722(36) & 20.139(34) & 19.653(82) & -- & 0.150(10) \\
OT J221128.7$-$030516 & 19.654(34) & 19.555(13) & 19.459(15) & 19.456(19) & 19.132(51) & -- & 0.062(1) \\
OT J221128.7$-$030516 & 19.678(49) & 19.718(17) & 19.552(20) & 19.513(26) & 19.228(68) & -- & 0.066(1) \\
OT J221128.7$-$030516 & 20.019(59) & 19.864(17) & 19.762(22) & 19.694(30) & 19.225(67) & -- & 0.066(1) \\
OT J221128.7$-$030516 & 19.637(49) & 20.177(24) & 19.749(23) & 19.660(28) & 19.805(103) & -- & 0.076(3) \\
OT J221128.7$-$030516 & 20.069(54) & 20.597(25) & 20.367(33) & 20.482(52) & 20.400(179) & -- & 0.059(4) \\
OT J221232.0$+$160140 & 19.048(25) & 19.112(10) & 18.860(11) & 18.588(12) & 18.286(30) & -- & 0.101(2) \\
OT J221232.0$+$160140 & 19.110(25) & 19.247(11) & 18.924(11) & 18.676(12) & 18.380(30) & -- & 0.101(2) \\
OT J221344.0$+$173252 & 19.104(31) & 19.261(11) & 19.208(14) & 19.156(18) & 18.872(54) & -- & 0.069(1) \\
OT J222002.3$+$113825 & 20.557(75) & 20.653(26) & 20.059(27) & 19.847(33) & 19.579(76) & -- & 0.197(16) \\
OT J222002.3$+$113825 & 21.119(88) & 21.372(40) & 20.637(33) & 20.310(40) & 20.093(128) & -- & 0.259(23) \\
OT J222548.1$+$252511 & 20.138(63) & 20.196(21) & 19.958(31) & 19.255(28) & 18.754(58) & -- & 0.166(10) \\
OT J222724.5$+$284404 & 18.226(15) & 18.563(8) & 17.994(7) & 18.003(8) & 17.795(19) & -- & 0.110(5) \\
OT J222824.1$+$134944 & 22.698(235) & 22.345(81) & 22.435(111) & 22.603(207) & 22.429(469) & -- & 0.065(8) \\
OT J222824.1$+$134944 & 22.721(316) & 22.310(101) & 22.195(120) & 22.552(263) & 22.501(673) & -- & 0.079(25) \\
OT J222853.7$+$295115 & 23.314(434) & 23.489(194) & 23.605(370) & 22.666(294) & 22.310(587) & -- & 0.146(53) \\
OT J223018.8$+$292849 & 23.596(789) & 22.481(127) & 22.258(173) & 22.892(435) & 22.263(767) & -- & -- \\
OT J223058.3$+$210147 & 20.693(105) & 20.788(37) & 20.679(48) & 20.789(85) & 20.249(187) & -- & 0.063(4) \\
OT J223136.0$+$180747 & 21.234(119) & 21.663(56) & 21.407(71) & 21.496(112) & 21.773(528) & -- & 0.061(6) \\
OT J223235.4$+$304105 & 22.426(273) & 22.473(99) & 22.408(156) & 22.052(195) & 21.754(547) & -- & 0.105(17) \\
OT J223418.5$-$035530 & 20.422(58) & 20.502(25) & 20.195(29) & 19.911(30) & 19.594(73) & 0.0884$^\dagger$ & 0.112(4) \\
OT J223606.3$+$050517 & 22.413(273) & 22.304(94) & 22.381(145) & 22.566(259) & 22.292(503) & -- & 0.064(11) \\
OT J223909.8$+$250331 & 19.164(28) & 19.158(10) & 19.047(13) & 18.894(16) & 18.802(55) & -- & 0.089(2) \\
OT J223958.2$+$231837 & 22.321(320) & 22.167(131) & 22.149(145) & 22.045(197) & 21.408(585) & -- & 0.099(20) \\
OT J223958.2$+$231837 & 22.728(298) & 22.144(64) & 21.923(89) & 21.858(120) & 22.939(664) & -- & -- \\
OT J223958.4$+$342306 & 25.451(703) & 22.395(87) & 22.510(153) & 22.788(288) & 22.279(639) & -- & -- \\
OT J224253.4$+$172538 & 20.462(75) & 20.439(25) & 20.274(30) & 20.106(37) & 19.801(110) & -- & 0.086(3) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
OT J224505.4$+$011547 & 21.211(135) & 21.463(68) & 21.379(94) & 21.551(182) & 21.406(499) & -- & 0.061(7) \\
OT J224505.4$+$011547 & 21.313(125) & 21.502(62) & 21.554(99) & 21.629(189) & 20.790(333) & -- & 0.073(10) \\
OT J224505.4$+$011547 & 21.438(130) & 21.553(57) & 21.537(72) & 21.665(117) & 21.225(288) & -- & 0.063(5) \\
OT J224753.9$+$235522 & 21.101(142) & 21.188(68) & 20.781(83) & 20.758(130) & 20.278(271) & -- & 0.089(12) \\
OT J224753.9$+$235522 & 21.658(142) & 21.500(52) & 21.282(66) & 21.399(114) & 21.103(305) & -- & 0.068(5) \\
OT J224814.5$+$331224 & 19.390(30) & 19.625(13) & 19.002(12) & 19.105(16) & 19.346(73) & -- & 0.114(20) \\
OT J224814.5$+$331224 & 21.050(86) & 20.938(28) & 20.867(36) & 20.793(52) & 20.583(151) & -- & 0.070(3) \\
OT J224823.7$-$092059 & 21.128(131) & 21.128(48) & 21.156(59) & 21.071(76) & 20.769(223) & -- & 0.075(4) \\
OT J225749.6$-$082228 & 20.466(103) & 20.181(30) & 20.146(42) & 20.239(63) & 22.027(921) & -- & -- \\
OT J225749.6$-$082228 & 20.567(75) & 20.137(21) & 20.081(26) & 20.400(55) & 20.310(179) & -- & 0.066(5) \\
OT J230115.4$+$224111 & 23.706(839) & 22.109(104) & 22.041(149) & 21.744(184) & 22.095(938) & -- & -- \\
OT J230131.1$+$040417 & 23.736(686) & 21.951(69) & 21.415(63) & 21.624(112) & 21.462(336) & -- & -- \\
OT J230425.8$+$062546 & 21.119(120) & 20.962(34) & 20.640(40) & 21.141(91) & 20.895(259) & 0.0653$^\dagger$ & 0.126(40) \\
OT J230425.8$+$062546 & 21.337(101) & 21.090(34) & 20.985(36) & 21.363(67) & 21.106(199) & 0.0653$^\dagger$ & 0.061(6) \\
OT J230711.3$+$294011 & 22.205(214) & 21.496(40) & 20.682(33) & 19.934(28) & 19.411(57) & -- & -- \\
OT J231110.9$+$013003 & 22.346(298) & 21.620(61) & 21.572(80) & 21.755(129) & 21.047(259) & -- & -- \\
OT J231142.8$+$204036 & 20.629(71) & 20.540(25) & 20.255(27) & 20.026(31) & 19.702(91) & -- & 0.080(3) \\
OT J231142.8$+$204036 & 21.407(147) & 21.244(54) & 21.017(58) & 20.874(75) & 20.214(150) & -- & 0.071(3) \\
OT J231308.1$+$233702 & 21.055(91) & 20.385(23) & 19.523(18) & 19.087(17) & 18.809(43) & 0.0692$^\dagger$ & 0.290(69) \\
OT J231308.1$+$233702 & 21.498(115) & 20.434(21) & 19.505(15) & 19.083(14) & 18.844(38) & 0.0692$^\dagger$ & 0.117(21) \\
OT J231552.3$+$271037 & 20.587(104) & 20.735(37) & 20.121(33) & 19.269(24) & 18.625(46) & -- & 0.164(20) \\
OT J231552.3$+$271037 & 20.898(98) & 20.651(26) & 20.035(25) & 19.168(19) & 18.550(41) & -- & 0.155(41) \\
OT J232551.5$-$014024 & 18.476(17) & 18.853(9) & 18.210(8) & 17.944(8) & 17.716(18) & -- & 0.166(5) \\
OT J232619.4$+$282650 & 20.878(63) & 20.893(27) & 20.543(27) & 20.582(40) & 20.186(112) & -- & 0.072(4) \\
OT J232619.4$+$282650 & 20.928(118) & 20.933(39) & 20.595(44) & 20.392(47) & 20.167(140) & -- & 0.096(6) \\
OT J232619.4$+$282650 & 21.139(85) & 21.074(32) & 20.820(39) & 20.580(43) & 20.537(154) & -- & 0.105(7) \\
OT J233938.7$-$053305 & 20.851(101) & 18.996(10) & 18.606(10) & 18.251(10) & 18.235(31) & -- & 0.105(41) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.110(71) & 20.308(30) & 20.075(38) & 19.977(45) & 19.345(83) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.073(3) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.152(47) & 20.358(23) & 20.172(26) & 20.099(33) & 19.682(90) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.070(2) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.190(48) & 20.374(22) & 20.141(26) & 20.062(31) & 19.644(95) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.072(2) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.283(72) & 20.401(39) & 20.253(34) & 20.182(38) & 19.609(83) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.069(2) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.308(55) & 20.498(28) & 20.374(30) & 20.263(39) & 19.609(92) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.070(2) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.352(58) & 20.317(26) & 20.268(35) & 20.180(43) & 19.573(106) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.070(2) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.414(55) & 20.524(23) & 20.413(30) & 20.221(32) & 19.574(66) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.076(2) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.469(55) & 20.518(24) & 20.377(27) & 20.188(31) & 19.696(73) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.079(3) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.496(75) & 20.474(28) & 20.470(41) & 20.324(48) & 19.572(99) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.074(3) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.510(64) & 20.519(28) & 20.370(31) & 20.182(38) & 19.537(85) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.079(2) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.545(78) & 20.423(31) & 20.452(51) & 20.318(54) & 20.058(157) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.079(5) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.570(71) & 20.531(30) & 20.440(38) & 20.235(45) & 19.661(109) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.079(3) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.609(89) & 20.639(43) & 20.407(49) & 20.206(53) & 19.618(126) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.089(5) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.697(67) & 20.637(31) & 20.430(33) & 20.237(40) & 19.724(103) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.088(4) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.771(68) & 20.677(27) & 20.525(30) & 20.363(35) & 19.744(82) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.080(3) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.815(97) & 20.618(31) & 20.521(38) & 20.358(46) & 19.823(113) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.080(3) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 21.043(77) & 20.804(28) & 20.750(38) & 20.480(44) & 19.897(102) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.090(5) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 21.073(81) & 20.737(27) & 20.604(34) & 20.478(42) & 19.766(90) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.091(9) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 21.232(97) & 21.087(36) & 21.060(46) & 20.743(50) & 20.016(108) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.089(5) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 21.243(95) & 20.981(31) & 20.885(39) & 20.719(50) & 20.133(113) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.083(5) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 21.283(171) & 21.034(57) & 21.001(81) & 20.580(71) & 19.908(150) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.113(11) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 21.363(119) & 21.056(36) & 20.903(44) & 20.655(52) & 19.984(121) & 0.0745$^\dagger$ & 0.101(8) \\
ROTSE3 J004626$+$410714 & 24.885(881) & 24.950(611) & 22.995(265) & 21.413(95) & 20.814(212) & -- & -- \\
ROTSE3 J004626$+$410714 & 25.682(510) & 24.117(382) & 22.537(159) & 21.506(90) & 20.895(198) & -- & -- \\
ROTSE3 J031031$+$431115 & 20.293(41) & 20.514(21) & 20.289(22) & 20.113(25) & 19.977(76) & -- & 0.072(3) \\
ROTSE3 J100932.2$-$020155 & 20.498(64) & 20.490(28) & 20.690(47) & 21.043(82) & 21.068(377) & -- & 0.052(7) \\
ROTSE3 J100932.2$-$020155 & 20.540(106) & 20.568(47) & 20.875(74) & 21.026(99) & 21.679(778) & -- & 0.055(12) \\
ROTSE3 J100932.2$-$020155 & 20.606(62) & 20.553(25) & 20.824(42) & 20.912(70) & 21.297(416) & -- & 0.065(6) \\
ROTSE3 J113709$+$513451 & 21.101(90) & 20.674(26) & 20.079(23) & 19.949(30) & 19.742(97) & -- & 0.685(134) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
ROTSE3 J154041.5$-$002703.2 & 21.057(78) & 21.057(35) & 20.556(34) & 20.276(37) & 19.752(91) & -- & 0.129(10) \\
ROTSE3 J154041.5$-$002703.2 & 21.320(94) & 21.356(44) & 20.976(47) & 20.391(42) & 19.891(107) & -- & 0.144(8) \\
ROTSE3 J154041.5$-$002703.2 & 21.924(201) & 21.824(70) & 21.602(87) & 20.997(79) & 20.317(145) & -- & 0.136(13) \\
ROTSE3 J212313$-$021446.6 & 22.145(223) & 22.117(78) & 21.926(95) & 22.488(232) & 22.126(551) & -- & -- \\
ROTSE3 J214850$-$020622.2 & 23.102(433) & 22.407(91) & 22.293(124) & 22.234(173) & 21.334(296) & -- & -- \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 20.735(83) & 20.980(37) & 20.859(41) & 20.713(51) & 20.338(131) & -- & 0.074(3) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 20.916(118) & 21.192(69) & 20.881(56) & 20.796(68) & 20.335(147) & -- & 0.071(3) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 20.919(106) & 21.039(43) & 20.807(53) & 20.620(51) & 20.120(125) & -- & 0.077(3) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 20.973(113) & 21.069(43) & 20.897(58) & 20.667(62) & 20.025(145) & -- & 0.078(4) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.167(94) & 21.131(35) & 21.022(48) & 20.813(58) & 20.477(162) & -- & 0.083(4) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.182(137) & 21.395(87) & 21.186(72) & 21.071(83) & 20.827(195) & -- & 0.073(4) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.187(106) & 21.366(48) & 20.991(51) & 20.786(65) & 20.294(160) & -- & 0.085(5) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.187(115) & 21.185(63) & 20.932(53) & 20.855(74) & 20.662(268) & -- & 0.080(5) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.211(117) & 21.238(47) & 20.960(58) & 20.727(65) & 20.379(171) & -- & 0.090(5) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.242(108) & 21.341(44) & 21.095(50) & 20.896(64) & 20.400(148) & -- & 0.078(4) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.288(267) & 21.286(141) & 21.291(114) & 20.943(98) & 20.526(191) & -- & 0.098(12) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.329(166) & 21.182(59) & 20.950(88) & 20.948(123) & 21.388(620) & -- & 0.075(15) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.342(112) & 21.455(51) & 21.173(55) & 20.985(63) & 20.311(158) & -- & 0.078(4) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.394(117) & 21.679(59) & 21.381(61) & 21.237(75) & 20.698(179) & -- & 0.074(3) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.511(212) & 21.348(84) & 21.385(104) & 21.274(128) & 20.486(269) & -- & 0.078(7) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.688(129) & 21.598(50) & 21.547(67) & 21.407(80) & 20.838(187) & -- & 0.073(4) \\
RX J1715.6$+$6856 & 18.305(15) & 18.633(8) & 18.409(9) & 18.389(10) & 18.305(26) & 0.0683 & 0.070(1) \\
RX J1831.7$+$6511 & 16.975(8) & 17.037(4) & 16.846(4) & 16.661(5) & 16.377(8) & 0.167 & 0.086(2) \\
RX J1831.7$+$6511 & 17.056(9) & 17.208(4) & 16.948(4) & 16.701(5) & 16.469(9) & 0.167 & 0.100(1) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.237(50) & 20.357(22) & 20.561(36) & 20.759(67) & 20.597(205) & 0.0635 & 0.062(4) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.278(44) & 20.402(20) & 20.571(29) & 20.926(61) & 20.697(175) & 0.0635 & 0.057(7) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.291(61) & 20.356(27) & 20.488(38) & 20.693(67) & 20.929(296) & 0.0635 & 0.057(3) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.291(64) & 20.422(28) & 20.410(38) & 20.677(70) & 20.610(243) & 0.0635 & 0.055(2) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.317(53) & 20.397(22) & 20.601(44) & 20.694(62) & 20.735(194) & 0.0635 & 0.065(3) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.331(51) & 20.519(23) & 20.580(37) & 20.803(75) & 21.235(400) & 0.0635 & 0.055(4) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.419(53) & 20.467(23) & 20.646(36) & 21.074(76) & 20.960(250) & 0.0635 & 0.052(8) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.455(135) & 20.413(58) & 20.406(60) & 20.793(100) & 20.648(223) & 0.0635 & 0.054(4) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.462(53) & 20.500(22) & 20.745(37) & 20.919(71) & 20.600(193) & 0.0635 & 0.065(4) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.503(62) & 20.415(24) & 20.594(38) & 20.911(80) & 20.632(221) & 0.0635 & 0.055(4) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.511(52) & 20.498(22) & 20.706(32) & 20.876(53) & 21.315(266) & 0.0635 & 0.060(4) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.523(63) & 20.554(27) & 20.691(40) & 21.046(81) & 20.783(241) & 0.0635 & 0.055(6) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.590(77) & 20.561(29) & 20.698(39) & 21.113(93) & 20.945(292) & 0.0635 & 0.051(6) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.792(71) & 20.652(26) & 20.878(49) & 21.271(101) & 21.053(265) & 0.0635 & 0.053(6) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.929(37) & 19.752(14) & 19.794(19) & 19.977(28) & 19.946(91) & 0.0572 & 0.056(1) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.983(44) & 19.801(16) & 19.920(22) & 20.013(31) & 19.706(89) & 0.0572 & 0.059(1) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.983(47) & 19.812(17) & 19.855(20) & 19.919(28) & 19.861(99) & 0.0572 & 0.064(2) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.024(54) & 19.799(19) & 19.821(22) & 19.826(29) & 19.851(95) & 0.0572 & 0.074(2) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.044(45) & 19.798(15) & 19.804(19) & 19.950(28) & 19.711(82) & 0.0572 & 0.058(1) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.054(46) & 19.836(16) & 19.847(23) & 19.930(34) & 19.654(95) & 0.0572 & 0.061(1) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.056(67) & 19.927(27) & 19.887(28) & 19.988(40) & 19.862(132) & 0.0572 & 0.063(2) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.084(56) & 19.782(18) & 19.825(23) & 19.973(34) & 19.882(119) & 0.0572 & 0.059(2) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.103(44) & 19.830(15) & 19.840(20) & 20.036(29) & 19.960(91) & 0.0572 & 0.057(1) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.107(44) & 19.813(16) & 19.905(21) & 19.966(31) & 19.819(105) & 0.0572 & 0.062(2) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.113(46) & 19.835(16) & 19.868(21) & 19.941(29) & 19.822(98) & 0.0572 & 0.063(2) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.113(55) & 19.847(17) & 19.845(22) & 19.939(31) & 19.980(108) & 0.0572 & 0.066(2) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.126(55) & 19.843(19) & 19.865(25) & 19.863(35) & 19.804(106) & 0.0572 & 0.073(3) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.127(43) & 19.916(16) & 19.940(20) & 20.087(30) & 20.099(99) & 0.0572 & 0.059(2) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.135(55) & 19.731(18) & 19.820(24) & 19.891(33) & 19.750(101) & 0.0572 & 0.063(2) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.139(47) & 19.814(16) & 19.789(19) & 19.953(28) & 19.794(97) & 0.0572 & 0.063(2) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.165(46) & 19.939(17) & 19.900(21) & 20.049(30) & 19.830(86) & 0.0572 & 0.061(1) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.193(45) & 19.943(17) & 19.872(19) & 20.060(29) & 20.002(87) & 0.0572 & 0.064(2) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.265(63) & 19.898(19) & 19.853(25) & 19.954(35) & 20.108(138) & 0.0572 & 0.077(4) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.269(59) & 19.860(19) & 19.940(26) & 20.032(43) & 19.930(147) & 0.0572 & 0.063(2) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 20.276(61) & 19.925(19) & 19.903(28) & 20.020(41) & 20.050(159) & 0.0572 & 0.069(3) \\
SDSS J012940.05$+$384210.4 & 19.680(27) & 19.786(14) & 20.002(20) & 20.179(34) & 20.075(112) & 0.0435$^\dagger$ & 0.061(6) \\
SDSS J033449.86$-$071047.8 & 17.569(11) & 17.862(6) & 17.693(6) & 17.577(7) & 17.518(19) & 0.0724$^\dagger$ & 0.078(1) \\
SDSS J033710.91$-$065059.4 & 19.621(33) & 19.558(13) & 19.724(19) & 19.969(33) & 20.099(146) & -- & 0.055(2) \\
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 19.248(27) & 18.804(9) & 18.953(12) & 19.084(16) & 19.308(75) & -- & 0.053(3) \\
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 19.262(27) & 18.841(9) & 18.945(11) & 19.100(14) & 19.348(56) & -- & 0.052(3) \\
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 19.287(22) & 18.851(8) & 18.961(11) & 19.107(15) & 19.297(60) & -- & 0.052(3) \\
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 19.291(26) & 18.828(9) & 18.965(11) & 19.086(15) & 19.229(53) & -- & 0.054(3) \\
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 19.306(26) & 18.849(9) & 18.957(11) & 19.195(14) & 19.294(43) & -- & 0.049(6) \\
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 19.326(31) & 18.776(9) & 18.928(13) & 19.037(19) & 19.177(98) & -- & 0.055(3) \\
SDSS J074355.56$+$183834.8 & 20.116(43) & 20.089(18) & 19.299(13) & 18.799(12) & 18.643(38) & -- & 0.268(54) \\
SDSS J074355.56$+$183834.8 & 20.362(48) & 19.785(15) & 18.460(8) & 17.771(7) & 17.598(15) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J074531.92$+$453829.6 & 18.809(20) & 19.041(9) & 18.914(11) & 18.994(15) & 18.940(50) & 0.0528 & 0.062(1) \\
SDSS J074640.62$+$173412.8 & 19.492(30) & 19.767(13) & 19.635(17) & 19.520(19) & 19.430(62) & 0.0649$^\dagger$ & 0.078(2) \\
SDSS J074640.62$+$173412.8 & 19.999(37) & 19.807(16) & 19.524(16) & 19.396(19) & 19.301(59) & 0.0649$^\dagger$ & 0.133(6) \\
SDSS J075059.97$+$141150.1 & 18.914(22) & 19.104(11) & 18.779(12) & 18.698(14) & 18.553(38) & 0.0932 & 0.093(3) \\
SDSS J075059.97$+$141150.1 & 19.202(25) & 19.094(10) & 18.982(11) & 18.790(13) & 18.585(36) & 0.0932 & 0.097(2) \\
SDSS J075507.70$+$143547.6 & 18.074(13) & 18.186(7) & 18.234(8) & 18.408(11) & 18.406(30) & 0.0589 & 0.058(1) \\
SDSS J075507.70$+$143547.6 & 18.084(13) & 18.209(7) & 18.209(8) & 18.390(10) & 18.336(24) & 0.0589 & 0.057(1) \\
SDSS J075507.70$+$143547.6 & 18.106(13) & 18.186(7) & 18.208(8) & 18.420(10) & 18.400(30) & 0.0589 & 0.056(1) \\
SDSS J075507.70$+$143547.6 & 18.108(13) & 18.198(6) & 18.279(8) & 18.457(10) & 18.459(32) & 0.0589 & 0.058(1) \\
SDSS J075939.79$+$191417.3 & 18.038(13) & 17.834(5) & 17.627(6) & 17.605(7) & 17.593(17) & 0.1309 & 0.104(2) \\
SDSS J075939.79$+$191417.3 & 18.318(14) & 18.096(7) & 17.800(6) & 17.804(8) & 17.791(17) & 0.1309 & 0.138(4) \\
SDSS J075939.79$+$191417.3 & 18.347(16) & 17.945(6) & 17.790(6) & 17.701(7) & 17.682(16) & 0.1309 & 0.127(6) \\
SDSS J075939.79$+$191417.3 & 18.649(17) & 18.177(6) & 18.463(8) & 18.302(9) & 18.087(23) & 0.1309 & 0.089(2) \\
SDSS J080142.37$+$210345.8 & 18.335(15) & 18.708(8) & 18.409(8) & 18.339(9) & 18.406(27) & -- & 0.078(2) \\
SDSS J080142.37$+$210345.8 & 18.399(15) & 18.840(8) & 18.659(9) & 18.535(10) & 18.457(28) & -- & 0.075(2) \\
SDSS J080142.37$+$210345.8 & 18.883(21) & 19.021(10) & 18.821(11) & 18.724(13) & 18.643(42) & -- & 0.080(2) \\
SDSS J080303.90$+$251627.0 & 19.209(25) & 19.577(14) & 19.247(14) & 18.973(16) & 18.781(43) & 0.071 & 0.105(3) \\
SDSS J080303.90$+$251627.0 & 19.454(25) & 19.591(12) & 19.394(14) & 19.247(16) & 18.893(41) & 0.071 & 0.080(2) \\
SDSS J080434.20$+$510349.2 & 18.026(13) & 17.843(5) & 17.867(7) & 18.018(8) & 18.081(25) & 0.0590 & 0.058(1) \\
SDSS J080534.49$+$072029.1 & 19.952(44) & 18.503(8) & 17.807(6) & 17.532(7) & 17.393(14) & 0.2297 & 0.171(10) \\
SDSS J080534.49$+$072029.1 & 20.123(35) & 18.561(8) & 17.809(6) & 17.537(7) & 17.365(12) & 0.2297 & 0.231(12) \\
SDSS J080534.49$+$072029.1 & 20.199(44) & 18.659(8) & 17.909(7) & 17.650(7) & 17.458(13) & 0.2297 & 0.233(11) \\
SDSS J080846.19$+$313106.0 & 18.748(18) & 18.807(9) & 18.386(8) & 17.909(8) & 17.564(15) & 0.2059 & 0.167(8) \\
SDSS J080846.19$+$313106.0 & 19.121(22) & 19.430(12) & 18.748(9) & 18.166(9) & 17.737(15) & 0.2059 & 0.206(5) \\
SDSS J081207.63$+$131824.4 & 19.030(25) & 19.203(10) & 18.914(11) & 18.835(14) & 18.667(39) & 0.0752$^\dagger$ & 0.088(2) \\
SDSS J081207.63$+$131824.4 & 19.217(24) & 19.266(11) & 19.162(12) & 19.034(15) & 18.667(34) & 0.0752$^\dagger$ & 0.076(2) \\
SDSS J082457.15$+$073702.4 & 22.271(335) & 22.131(122) & 21.675(141) & 21.860(281) & 21.168(577) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J083754.64$+$564506.7 & 19.621(32) & 18.985(9) & 18.985(12) & 19.079(17) & 19.123(61) & -- & 0.076(3) \\
SDSS J083931.35$+$282824.0 & 20.014(37) & 20.226(20) & 20.174(25) & 20.053(31) & 19.521(64) & 0.0760$^\dagger$ & 0.072(2) \\
SDSS J083931.35$+$282824.0 & 20.641(62) & 20.443(25) & 20.481(33) & 20.507(53) & 20.027(102) & 0.0760$^\dagger$ & 0.062(2) \\
SDSS J083931.35$+$282824.0 & 20.553(62) & 20.481(35) & 20.232(28) & 20.103(37) & 19.615(86) & 0.0760$^\dagger$ & 0.087(4) \\
SDSS J084026.16$+$220446.6 & 19.834(40) & 19.593(15) & 19.525(16) & 19.185(16) & 18.333(26) & -- & 0.093(6) \\
SDSS J084026.16$+$220446.6 & 20.157(50) & 19.894(16) & 20.114(25) & 20.133(35) & 20.009(123) & -- & 0.068(3) \\
SDSS J084400.10$+$023919.3 & 17.907(11) & 18.441(7) & 17.746(6) & 17.478(6) & 17.296(14) & 0.207 & 0.177(6) \\
SDSS J084400.10$+$023919.3 & 18.215(13) & 18.335(7) & 17.941(6) & 17.571(6) & 17.298(14) & 0.207 & 0.148(4) \\
SDSS J084400.10$+$023919.3 & 18.664(17) & 18.906(10) & 18.455(9) & 18.006(8) & 17.566(19) & 0.207 & 0.143(5) \\
SDSS J085623.00$+$310834.0 & 20.168(41) & 19.967(17) & 19.953(20) & 20.196(34) & 20.257(115) & -- & 0.055(1) \\
SDSS J085623.00$+$310834.0 & 20.251(46) & 19.950(18) & 19.967(21) & 20.259(35) & 20.465(154) & -- & 0.053(2) \\
SDSS J085623.00$+$310834.0 & 20.322(48) & 20.028(16) & 20.067(23) & 20.286(34) & 20.321(102) & -- & 0.055(1) \\
SDSS J085623.00$+$310834.0 & 20.375(52) & 20.052(17) & 20.011(20) & 20.315(40) & 20.464(162) & -- & 0.058(4) \\
SDSS J090016.56$+$430118.2 & 18.691(19) & 18.876(9) & 18.194(7) & 17.507(6) & 17.018(12) & 0.2094 & 0.194(19) \\
SDSS J090103.93$+$480911.1 & 19.168(23) & 19.237(11) & 19.107(12) & 19.006(14) & 18.889(41) & 0.0779 & 0.083(2) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
SDSS J090350.73$+$330036.1 & 18.850(18) & 18.829(8) & 18.792(10) & 18.879(12) & 18.619(31) & 0.0591 & 0.060(1) \\
SDSS J090403.48$+$035501.2 & 19.482(30) & 19.218(12) & 19.258(16) & 19.411(24) & 19.439(85) & 0.0597 & 0.058(1) \\
SDSS J090403.48$+$035501.2 & 19.497(28) & 19.304(12) & 19.352(14) & 19.509(22) & 19.388(66) & 0.0597 & 0.055(1) \\
SDSS J090403.48$+$035501.2 & 19.627(34) & 19.335(12) & 19.416(16) & 19.513(25) & 19.412(71) & 0.0597 & 0.059(1) \\
SDSS J090452.09$+$440255.4 & 19.623(33) & 19.381(13) & 19.478(17) & 19.693(28) & 19.774(93) & -- & 0.054(1) \\
SDSS J090628.25$+$052656.9 & 18.824(18) & 18.761(9) & 18.452(8) & 18.096(8) & 17.829(16) & -- & 0.143(4) \\
SDSS J090628.25$+$052656.9 & 19.321(25) & 19.415(12) & 18.833(11) & 18.403(11) & 18.096(25) & -- & 0.223(11) \\
SDSS J091001.63$+$164820.0 & 18.474(16) & 18.832(9) & 18.542(9) & 18.538(11) & 18.333(24) & -- & 0.069(2) \\
SDSS J091001.63$+$164820.0 & 18.687(21) & 18.781(9) & 18.578(10) & 18.466(12) & 18.085(25) & -- & 0.076(2) \\
SDSS J091001.63$+$164820.0 & 18.714(20) & 18.967(9) & 18.698(10) & 18.518(11) & 18.203(23) & -- & 0.085(2) \\
SDSS J091001.63$+$164820.0 & 18.872(21) & 19.252(11) & 18.975(11) & 18.797(13) & 18.494(28) & -- & 0.081(1) \\
SDSS J091127.36$+$084140.7 & 19.662(32) & 19.729(14) & 19.167(13) & 18.674(12) & 18.287(30) & 0.2054 & 0.199(9) \\
SDSS J091945.11$+$085710.1 & 18.358(15) & 18.191(6) & 18.246(8) & 18.423(10) & 18.539(37) & 0.0565 & 0.056(1) \\
SDSS J092219.55$+$421256.7 & 19.836(30) & 19.882(14) & 20.088(21) & 20.103(29) & 19.779(74) & -- & 0.069(2) \\
SDSS J092229.26$+$330743.6 & 17.838(11) & 18.439(7) & 18.237(7) & 18.041(8) & 17.979(18) & -- & 0.086(4) \\
SDSS J092229.26$+$330743.6 & 17.927(12) & 18.590(8) & 18.385(8) & 18.263(10) & 18.049(25) & -- & 0.076(1) \\
SDSS J092229.26$+$330743.6 & 18.134(12) & 18.435(7) & 18.485(8) & 18.444(10) & 18.169(24) & -- & 0.072(1) \\
SDSS J093249.57$+$472523.0 & 17.973(12) & 17.768(5) & 17.798(6) & 17.910(8) & 17.840(20) & 0.0663 & 0.060(1) \\
SDSS J094002.56$+$274942.0 & 19.678(34) & 19.096(10) & 18.315(8) & 17.920(8) & 17.615(18) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J094325.90$+$520128.8 & 17.747(11) & 18.320(7) & 18.368(8) & 18.152(10) & 17.916(21) & -- & 0.087(2) \\
SDSS J094325.90$+$520128.8 & 17.747(15) & 18.304(12) & 18.465(25) & 18.085(13) & 17.899(42) & -- & 0.096(14) \\
SDSS J094325.90$+$520128.8 & 17.776(12) & 17.977(6) & 17.991(7) & 17.932(8) & 17.716(18) & -- & 0.073(1) \\
SDSS J094325.90$+$520128.8 & 18.119(15) & 18.749(8) & 18.474(10) & 18.320(11) & 18.286(33) & -- & 0.082(3) \\
SDSS J094558.24$+$292253.2 & 19.155(24) & 19.064(10) & 19.144(12) & 19.537(24) & 19.553(74) & -- & 0.048(4) \\
SDSS J095135.21$+$602939.6 & 19.871(37) & 19.996(18) & 19.946(21) & 20.155(35) & 19.997(110) & -- & 0.056(1) \\
SDSS J095135.21$+$602939.6 & 20.039(44) & 19.956(18) & 19.960(22) & 20.117(35) & 19.951(105) & -- & 0.057(1) \\
SDSS J100515.39$+$191108.0 & 18.086(14) & 18.173(6) & 18.246(7) & 18.120(8) & 17.825(20) & 0.0752$^\dagger$ & 0.078(1) \\
SDSS J100658.40$+$233724.4 & 18.455(16) & 18.311(7) & 17.931(7) & 17.517(6) & 17.139(12) & 0.1859 & 0.180(10) \\
SDSS J100658.40$+$233724.4 & 18.951(21) & 18.691(8) & 18.212(8) & 17.595(7) & 17.124(13) & 0.1859 & 0.204(9) \\
SDSS J101037.05$+$024915.0 & 20.155(39) & 20.701(27) & 20.232(26) & 20.671(56) & 20.614(194) & -- & 0.082(12) \\
SDSS J101037.05$+$024915.0 & 20.371(52) & 20.755(33) & 20.327(32) & 20.708(67) & 20.451(187) & -- & 0.091(16) \\
SDSS J101037.05$+$024915.0 & 21.509(134) & 21.990(89) & 21.325(75) & 21.883(184) & 21.860(553) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J101323.64$+$455858.9 & 18.469(16) & 18.818(9) & 18.882(11) & 18.701(13) & 18.418(28) & -- & 0.086(2) \\
SDSS J102517.94$+$430221.2 & 20.032(38) & 19.938(16) & 19.854(19) & 20.298(35) & 20.206(109) & -- & 0.058(5) \\
SDSS J102517.94$+$430221.2 & 20.043(40) & 19.964(16) & 19.840(20) & 20.219(37) & 20.343(147) & -- & 0.059(4) \\
SDSS J103147.99$+$085224.3 & 18.802(18) & 18.795(8) & 18.756(10) & 18.559(11) & 18.290(29) & -- & 0.088(2) \\
SDSS J103533.02$+$055158.3 & 19.114(22) & 18.786(9) & 18.809(10) & 18.970(13) & 19.135(43) & 0.0570 & 0.061(1) \\
SDSS J110014.72$+$131552.1 & 18.315(13) & 18.648(8) & 18.778(10) & 18.546(11) & 18.373(29) & 0.0657$^\dagger$ & 0.091(3) \\
SDSS J110014.72$+$131552.1 & 18.623(18) & 19.041(11) & 18.840(12) & 18.830(16) & 18.569(39) & 0.0657$^\dagger$ & 0.066(1) \\
SDSS J110706.76$+$340526.8 & 19.604(30) & 19.467(12) & 18.827(10) & 18.614(12) & 18.179(23) & -- & 0.566(106) \\
SDSS J113215.50$+$624900.4 & 17.926(12) & 18.422(7) & 18.164(7) & 18.212(10) & 18.175(31) & -- & 0.066(1) \\
SDSS J113215.50$+$624900.4 & 17.987(12) & 18.390(7) & 18.367(8) & 18.180(9) & 18.203(28) & -- & 0.090(5) \\
SDSS J113215.50$+$624900.4 & 17.997(12) & 18.472(7) & 18.385(8) & 18.334(10) & 18.247(28) & -- & 0.072(1) \\
SDSS J113215.50$+$624900.4 & 18.155(13) & 18.497(8) & 18.336(8) & 18.260(10) & 18.344(35) & -- & 0.081(1) \\
SDSS J113551.09$+$532246.2 & 20.739(64) & 20.798(31) & 20.711(35) & 20.361(36) & 20.009(104) & -- & 0.112(6) \\
SDSS J114628.80$+$675909.7 & 18.266(15) & 18.607(8) & 18.329(12) & 18.459(12) & 18.459(32) & 0.0617$^\dagger$ & 0.066(2) \\
SDSS J114628.80$+$675909.7 & 18.469(16) & 18.753(8) & 18.846(11) & 18.662(12) & 18.713(40) & 0.0617$^\dagger$ & 0.091(4) \\
SDSS J115207.00$+$404947.8 & 19.206(27) & 19.247(11) & 19.154(12) & 19.115(16) & 19.004(44) & 0.0677 & 0.075(2) \\
SDSS J120231.01$+$450349.1 & 19.931(36) & 19.946(14) & 19.899(18) & 20.092(26) & 19.912(86) & -- & 0.056(1) \\
SDSS J121607.03$+$052013.9 & 20.204(56) & 20.015(18) & 19.914(23) & 20.186(41) & 20.599(250) & 0.0686 & 0.061(7) \\
SDSS J121607.03$+$052013.9 & 20.377(48) & 20.138(18) & 19.998(20) & 20.273(32) & 20.276(125) & 0.0686 & 0.070(4) \\
SDSS J122740.83$+$513925.0 & 19.109(23) & 19.067(10) & 19.055(11) & 19.056(14) & 18.707(31) & 0.0630 & 0.064(1) \\
SDSS J123813.73$-$033933.0 & 17.889(11) & 17.782(5) & 17.801(6) & 17.952(8) & 18.030(24) & 0.0559 & 0.059(1) \\
SDSS J124058.03$-$015919.2 & 19.474(27) & 19.556(13) & 19.790(19) & 20.013(35) & 20.123(134) & 0.0259 & 0.057(4) \\
SDSS J124058.03$-$015919.2 & 19.530(35) & 19.545(13) & 19.749(18) & 19.918(28) & 20.127(112) & 0.0259 & 0.059(2) \\
SDSS J124417.89$+$300401.0 & 19.380(30) & 19.571(12) & 19.494(15) & 19.490(20) & 19.080(49) & -- & 0.065(1) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
SDSS J124426.26$+$613514.6 & 18.513(17) & 18.753(9) & 18.733(10) & 18.569(12) & 18.365(31) & 0.0992 & 0.084(1) \\
SDSS J124426.26$+$613514.6 & 18.740(18) & 18.718(8) & 18.843(11) & 18.773(13) & 18.431(29) & 0.0992 & 0.072(2) \\
SDSS J124819.36$+$072049.4 & 21.663(141) & 21.326(46) & 21.401(70) & 21.385(89) & 21.285(330) & -- & 0.073(7) \\
SDSS J124819.36$+$072049.4 & 21.786(208) & 21.371(59) & 21.533(94) & 21.329(116) & 21.611(545) & -- & 0.098(17) \\
SDSS J125023.85$+$665525.5 & 18.727(18) & 18.651(8) & 18.653(10) & 18.739(13) & 18.627(39) & 0.0587 & 0.061(1) \\
SDSS J125834.77$+$663551.6 & 20.026(41) & 20.566(25) & 20.234(29) & 20.482(50) & 20.100(132) & -- & 0.065(6) \\
SDSS J130514.73$+$582856.3 & 19.094(22) & 19.283(11) & 19.272(14) & 19.117(17) & 19.037(52) & -- & 0.087(2) \\
SDSS J133941.11$+$484727.5 & 17.861(11) & 17.678(5) & 17.774(6) & 17.958(8) & 18.099(26) & 0.0573 & 0.057(1) \\
SDSS J140429.37$+$172359.4 & 17.113(9) & 17.495(5) & 17.360(6) & 17.382(7) & 17.265(13) & -- & 0.065(1) \\
SDSS J142955.86$+$414516.8 & 17.377(9) & 17.695(5) & 17.825(6) & 17.807(7) & 17.723(17) & 0.059 & 0.071(2) \\
SDSS J143317.78$+$101123.3 & 18.520(16) & 18.554(8) & 18.442(8) & 18.541(10) & 18.524(30) & 0.0542 & 0.063(2) \\
SDSS J143544.02$+$233638.7 & 18.284(15) & 18.200(6) & 18.247(8) & 18.481(10) & 18.646(37) & 0.054 & 0.054(1) \\
SDSS J143544.02$+$233638.7 & 18.392(17) & 18.285(6) & 18.368(8) & 18.573(11) & 18.736(42) & 0.054 & 0.055(1) \\
SDSS J145003.12$+$584501.9 & 20.518(51) & 20.630(24) & 20.457(30) & 20.788(55) & 20.727(187) & -- & 0.060(4) \\
SDSS J145003.12$+$584501.9 & 20.912(83) & 20.742(31) & 20.694(43) & 21.075(99) & 21.021(304) & -- & 0.056(5) \\
SDSS J145758.21$+$514807.9 & 19.112(23) & 19.158(10) & 19.252(16) & 19.391(23) & 19.305(81) & 0.0541 & 0.060(1) \\
SDSS J145758.21$+$514807.9 & 19.174(23) & 19.159(11) & 19.224(13) & 19.368(22) & 19.403(84) & 0.0541 & 0.059(1) \\
SDSS J145758.21$+$514807.9 & 19.398(28) & 19.536(12) & 19.496(15) & 19.619(21) & 19.564(63) & 0.0541 & 0.060(1) \\
SDSS J150137.22$+$550123.4 & 19.650(33) & 19.386(12) & 19.349(15) & 19.607(28) & 19.542(83) & 0.0568 & 0.059(2) \\
SDSS J150240.98$+$333423.9 & 17.804(10) & 17.496(5) & 17.554(6) & 17.617(7) & 17.513(13) & 0.0589 & 0.064(1) \\
SDSS J150240.98$+$333423.9 & 17.833(11) & 17.575(5) & 17.662(6) & 17.778(7) & 17.632(17) & 0.0589 & 0.058(1) \\
SDSS J150722.30$+$523039.8 & 18.479(17) & 18.311(7) & 18.451(8) & 18.596(11) & 18.436(28) & 0.0463 & 0.056(1) \\
SDSS J151413.72$+$454911.9 & 20.030(43) & 19.675(14) & 19.674(17) & 19.833(24) & 19.995(106) & -- & 0.064(3) \\
SDSS J152212.20$+$080340.9 & 18.270(14) & 18.379(7) & 18.443(8) & 18.439(10) & 18.293(23) & -- & 0.068(1) \\
SDSS J152212.20$+$080340.9 & 18.418(16) & 18.981(9) & 18.952(11) & 18.920(14) & 18.512(32) & -- & 0.075(4) \\
SDSS J152419.33$+$220920.0 & 19.032(24) & 19.055(9) & 18.896(10) & 18.806(12) & 18.503(35) & 0.0653 & 0.073(2) \\
SDSS J152717.96$+$543724.9 & 20.006(38) & 20.140(18) & 20.193(26) & 20.258(39) & 20.137(141) & -- & 0.064(2) \\
SDSS J152717.96$+$543724.9 & 20.025(36) & 20.286(19) & 20.240(25) & 20.275(36) & 20.145(118) & -- & 0.065(2) \\
SDSS J152717.96$+$543724.9 & 20.077(51) & 20.296(23) & 20.320(27) & 20.380(36) & 20.171(113) & -- & 0.064(2) \\
SDSS J152857.86$+$034911.7 & 19.078(24) & 19.506(14) & 19.354(15) & 19.171(19) & 19.094(55) & -- & 0.082(3) \\
SDSS J153015.04$+$094946.3 & 18.385(17) & 18.867(9) & 18.470(9) & 18.473(11) & 18.515(34) & -- & 0.075(3) \\
SDSS J153015.04$+$094946.3 & 18.387(16) & 18.516(8) & 18.608(9) & 18.475(11) & 18.397(33) & -- & 0.082(2) \\
SDSS J153634.42$+$332851.9 & 18.976(23) & 19.209(10) & 18.944(11) & 18.763(12) & 18.594(35) & -- & 0.093(2) \\
SDSS J153817.35$+$512338.0 & 18.294(14) & 18.547(7) & 18.866(10) & 19.008(13) & 18.799(40) & 0.0647 & 0.067(9) \\
SDSS J154453.60$+$255348.8 & 16.430(7) & 16.579(4) & 16.140(5) & 15.972(5) & 15.663(7) & 0.2513 & 0.116(3) \\
SDSS J154453.60$+$255348.8 & 17.019(8) & 17.175(5) & 16.530(5) & 16.211(5) & 16.018(7) & 0.2513 & 0.260(9) \\
SDSS J155037.27$+$405440.0 & 18.195(16) & 18.542(8) & 18.311(8) & 18.240(9) & 18.391(34) & -- & 0.086(3) \\
SDSS J155037.27$+$405440.0 & 17.844(12) & 18.413(7) & 18.036(7) & 18.052(8) & 18.007(21) & -- & 0.071(2) \\
SDSS J155531.99$-$001055.0 & 18.901(22) & 19.052(12) & 19.000(12) & 18.883(14) & 18.563(35) & 0.0789 & 0.073(1) \\
SDSS J155531.99$-$001055.0 & 19.072(20) & 19.322(11) & 19.102(12) & 18.933(16) & 18.811(45) & 0.0789 & 0.077(1) \\
SDSS J155644.24$-$000950.2 & 18.176(15) & 18.246(7) & 17.997(7) & 17.903(8) & 17.512(15) & 0.0800 & 0.066(1) \\
SDSS J155644.24$-$000950.2 & 18.274(13) & 18.010(6) & 17.891(6) & 17.665(7) & 17.287(15) & 0.0800 & 0.080(1) \\
SDSS J155644.24$-$000950.2 & 18.412(17) & 18.285(8) & 18.105(8) & 17.902(8) & 17.481(16) & 0.0800 & 0.075(1) \\
SDSS J155656.92$+$352336.6 & 19.181(25) & 18.923(9) & 18.856(10) & 18.827(13) & 18.746(42) & 0.0892 & 0.082(2) \\
SDSS J155644.24$-$000950.2 & 18.265(14) & 18.006(8) & 17.889(8) & 17.663(9) & 17.285(16) & 0.0800 & 0.080(1) \\
SDSS J155720.75$+$180720.2 & 18.108(14) & 18.683(8) & 18.477(9) & 18.324(10) & 18.234(26) & 0.088 & 0.078(3) \\
SDSS J155720.75$+$180720.2 & 18.282(15) & 18.644(7) & 18.667(9) & 18.324(9) & 18.186(25) & 0.088 & 0.109(5) \\
SDSS J160111.53$+$091712.7 & 19.988(40) & 20.122(20) & 20.114(24) & 20.245(36) & 19.752(72) & -- & 0.059(3) \\
SDSS J160111.53$+$091712.7 & 20.226(42) & 20.603(26) & 20.183(24) & 20.259(39) & 20.136(134) & -- & 0.078(4) \\
SDSS J160419.02$+$161548.5 & 18.685(20) & 19.082(10) & 18.822(10) & 18.747(11) & 18.728(39) & -- & 0.076(1) \\
SDSS J160501.35$+$203056.9 & 19.169(27) & 19.361(11) & 19.396(14) & 19.509(22) & 19.556(73) & 0.0567 & 0.060(2) \\
SDSS J160501.35$+$203056.9 & 19.775(35) & 19.883(15) & 19.893(20) & 19.960(30) & 20.175(140) & 0.0567 & 0.065(2) \\
SDSS J160501.35$+$203056.9 & 19.807(34) & 19.891(15) & 19.936(19) & 20.040(28) & 20.135(101) & 0.0567 & 0.061(1) \\
SDSS J160501.35$+$203056.9 & 19.856(42) & 19.926(16) & 19.926(20) & 20.083(35) & 20.130(123) & 0.0567 & 0.058(1) \\
SDSS J161030.35$+$445901.7 & 19.868(38) & 19.753(15) & 19.752(20) & 20.184(41) & 20.119(129) & -- & 0.050(4) \\
SDSS J161332.56$-$000331.0 & 18.568(15) & 18.600(8) & 17.940(7) & 17.468(7) & 17.174(13) & -- & 0.203(12) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
SDSS J161909.10$+$135145.5 & 18.897(20) & 18.494(8) & 17.800(6) & 17.429(6) & 17.174(12) & -- & 0.498(111) \\
SDSS J162212.45$+$341147.3 & 19.234(24) & 19.168(10) & 18.648(9) & 18.295(10) & 18.033(25) & -- & 0.266(13) \\
SDSS J162212.45$+$341147.3 & 19.241(26) & 19.119(10) & 18.684(9) & 18.337(9) & 18.042(20) & -- & 0.219(16) \\
SDSS J162212.45$+$341147.3 & 19.245(27) & 19.116(10) & 18.694(10) & 18.335(10) & 18.010(20) & -- & 0.210(16) \\
SDSS J162718.39$+$120435.0 & 20.122(46) & 20.225(18) & 19.786(19) & 19.604(24) & 19.062(49) & 0.1041$^\dagger$ & 0.109(6) \\
SDSS J162830.89$+$240259.1 & 19.854(39) & 19.737(16) & 19.775(18) & 19.670(23) & 19.367(61) & -- & 0.073(2) \\
SDSS J162830.89$+$240259.1 & 19.949(33) & 19.780(14) & 19.706(16) & 19.739(21) & 19.525(62) & -- & 0.063(1) \\
SDSS J162830.89$+$240259.1 & 20.137(41) & 19.998(16) & 19.827(17) & 19.663(20) & 19.463(55) & -- & 0.092(3) \\
SDSS J163722.21$-$001957.1 & 20.185(83) & 20.536(41) & 20.453(50) & 20.207(67) & 20.071(257) & 0.0674 & 0.084(5) \\
SDSS J164248.52$+$134751.4 & 18.482(18) & 18.651(8) & 18.529(9) & 18.437(10) & 18.217(30) & 0.0789 & 0.071(1) \\
SDSS J165244.84$+$333925.4 & 20.733(58) & 20.854(28) & 20.766(31) & 20.720(40) & 20.426(116) & -- & 0.070(2) \\
SDSS J165359.06$+$201010.4 & 18.457(16) & 18.562(8) & 18.310(8) & 18.136(9) & 18.094(23) & 0.0635$^\dagger$ & 0.094(2) \\
SDSS J165359.06$+$201010.4 & 18.463(14) & 18.656(8) & 18.418(8) & 18.255(9) & 18.170(24) & 0.0635$^\dagger$ & 0.085(1) \\
SDSS J165658.13$+$212139.3 & 17.994(12) & 18.487(7) & 18.276(7) & 18.180(8) & 18.036(22) & 0.0631 & 0.072(1) \\
SDSS J165658.13$+$212139.3 & 18.510(15) & 18.913(9) & 18.708(9) & 18.638(11) & 18.389(28) & 0.0631 & 0.069(1) \\
SDSS J165837.70$+$184727.4 & 20.518(57) & 20.074(17) & 20.116(22) & 20.087(30) & 19.657(76) & 0.0681 & 0.063(2) \\
SDSS J165837.70$+$184727.4 & 20.528(58) & 20.189(17) & 20.236(27) & 20.126(35) & 19.797(81) & 0.0681 & 0.072(3) \\
SDSS J170213.26$+$322954.1 & 18.162(13) & 17.908(6) & 17.808(6) & 17.398(6) & 16.989(11) & 0.1001 & 0.128(7) \\
SDSS J170324.09$+$320953.2 & 18.237(13) & 18.138(6) & 17.595(5) & 17.215(5) & 16.859(10) & -- & 0.276(14) \\
SDSS J170542.54$+$313240.8 & 19.768(31) & 19.668(12) & 19.210(12) & 18.753(11) & 18.496(26) & -- & 0.209(18) \\
SDSS J171145.08$+$301320.0 & 20.284(41) & 20.016(16) & 19.985(20) & 19.950(26) & 19.787(89) & 0.0558 & 0.072(2) \\
SDSS J171145.08$+$301320.0 & 20.429(47) & 20.186(18) & 20.123(21) & 20.153(29) & 20.171(106) & 0.0558 & 0.072(3) \\
SDSS J171145.08$+$301320.0 & 20.441(48) & 20.205(18) & 20.165(20) & 20.258(31) & 20.317(100) & 0.0558 & 0.065(2) \\
SDSS J204448.92$-$045928.8 & 17.213(9) & 16.941(5) & 16.185(5) & 15.926(5) & 15.676(6) & 1.68 & 0.647(160) \\
SDSS J204448.92$-$045928.8 & 17.321(10) & 16.844(5) & 16.254(5) & 15.980(5) & 15.699(7) & 1.68 & 0.614(119) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 19.201(25) & 19.448(12) & 19.373(15) & 19.204(18) & 19.187(69) & -- & 0.080(3) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 19.236(26) & 19.351(11) & 19.199(13) & 19.195(15) & 19.177(54) & -- & 0.067(1) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 19.485(30) & 20.078(17) & 19.866(23) & 19.620(22) & 19.743(88) & -- & 0.090(9) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 19.953(41) & 20.270(20) & 20.199(25) & 20.068(30) & 19.684(91) & -- & 0.075(2) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.035(42) & 20.300(20) & 20.130(22) & 20.173(30) & 19.749(91) & -- & 0.061(2) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.074(44) & 20.286(21) & 20.156(29) & 20.019(35) & 19.843(134) & -- & 0.075(2) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.134(59) & 20.422(29) & 20.088(32) & 19.901(41) & 19.813(187) & -- & 0.086(4) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.223(47) & 20.314(20) & 20.200(24) & 20.128(30) & 20.177(138) & -- & 0.073(3) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.319(55) & 20.495(28) & 20.362(30) & 20.263(41) & 20.044(150) & -- & 0.072(2) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.406(62) & 20.677(35) & 20.534(43) & 20.483(60) & 20.287(225) & -- & 0.068(3) \\
SDSS J204739.40$+$000840.3 & 23.154(715) & 22.213(131) & 21.997(153) & 21.569(150) & 21.322(512) & -- & 0.181(65) \\
SDSS J204817.85$-$061044.8 & 19.214(27) & 19.340(12) & 19.238(13) & 19.205(16) & 18.917(48) & 0.0606 & 0.066(1) \\
SDSS J205914.87$-$061220.5 & 18.179(15) & 18.354(7) & 18.386(8) & 18.178(9) & 17.979(24) & 0.0747 & 0.088(1) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 17.979(13) & 17.961(6) & 18.060(7) & 18.057(9) & 18.024(26) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.068(1) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.071(12) & 18.047(6) & 18.060(7) & 17.959(8) & 17.893(19) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.077(1) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.182(14) & 17.828(6) & 17.765(6) & 17.743(8) & 17.682(20) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.073(1) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.212(15) & 18.041(6) & 17.932(7) & 17.859(7) & 17.756(17) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.076(1) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.296(16) & 18.380(7) & 18.498(9) & 18.375(10) & 18.105(23) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.077(1) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.343(16) & 18.366(7) & 18.335(9) & 18.264(13) & 18.124(32) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.072(1) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.383(16) & 18.453(7) & 18.146(7) & 18.020(9) & 17.938(22) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.092(2) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.383(16) & 18.574(8) & 18.509(10) & 18.350(14) & 18.160(34) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.079(1) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.394(25) & 18.407(12) & 18.324(11) & 18.233(12) & 18.132(27) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.075(1) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.454(18) & 18.630(8) & 18.440(8) & 18.309(10) & 18.209(26) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.079(1) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.531(16) & 18.731(8) & 18.634(9) & 18.546(11) & 18.386(28) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.072(1) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.572(19) & 18.714(11) & 18.653(11) & 18.539(12) & 18.401(32) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.076(1) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.642(18) & 18.808(9) & 18.681(10) & 18.563(12) & 18.449(34) & 0.0840$^\dagger$ & 0.076(1) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 19.905(69) & 19.974(35) & 19.934(34) & 19.916(42) & 19.945(119) & -- & 0.065(2) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 19.962(51) & 19.968(22) & 19.676(20) & 19.480(25) & 19.283(75) & -- & 0.086(3) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.165(56) & 20.137(22) & 19.857(24) & 19.703(34) & 19.468(90) & -- & 0.081(3) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.176(50) & 20.242(20) & 20.747(60) & 20.274(47) & 19.846(109) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.214(76) & 20.215(31) & 20.019(36) & 19.904(45) & 19.705(127) & -- & 0.073(3) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.259(46) & 20.304(19) & 19.997(22) & 19.869(29) & 19.608(86) & -- & 0.075(3) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.395(62) & 20.299(24) & 20.116(32) & 19.899(37) & 19.556(91) & -- & 0.080(3) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.628(183) & 20.965(100) & 20.734(83) & 20.593(90) & 20.368(199) & -- & 0.074(5) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.717(70) & 20.824(30) & 20.787(42) & 20.605(56) & 20.483(175) & -- & 0.078(4) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.875(185) & 20.654(53) & 20.617(53) & 20.394(65) & 19.981(156) & -- & 0.080(5) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.884(78) & 21.020(35) & 20.743(44) & 20.745(68) & 20.451(160) & -- & 0.064(2) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 21.079(115) & 21.061(43) & 20.856(54) & 20.730(73) & 20.329(179) & -- & 0.073(4) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 21.272(173) & 21.086(52) & 20.852(73) & 20.782(114) & 20.436(299) & -- & 0.076(6) \\
SDSS J211605.43$+$113407.5 & 21.757(171) & 21.689(68) & 21.479(78) & 21.907(181) & 22.712(846) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J211605.43$+$113407.5 & 22.312(332) & 21.747(68) & 21.847(101) & 22.316(240) & 21.609(455) & -- & 0.075(21) \\
SDSS J211605.43$+$113407.5 & 22.459(272) & 21.873(75) & 21.942(114) & 22.023(175) & 21.680(438) & -- & 0.075(12) \\
SDSS J211605.43$+$113407.5 & 22.718(588) & 21.677(73) & 21.671(122) & 21.711(211) & 21.172(361) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J214354.60$+$124458.0 & 16.905(8) & 16.176(4) & 16.127(4) & 16.145(4) & 16.102(7) & -- & 0.124(3) \\
SDSS J220553.98$+$115553.7 & 20.119(38) & 20.029(16) & 20.065(19) & 20.192(27) & 20.219(96) & 0.0575 & 0.058(1) \\
SDSS J220553.98$+$115553.7 & 20.237(57) & 20.030(21) & 20.164(30) & 20.365(48) & 20.525(199) & 0.0575 & 0.055(2) \\
SDSS J220553.98$+$115553.7 & 20.338(50) & 20.068(18) & 20.090(22) & 20.246(33) & 20.178(113) & 0.0575 & 0.054(1) \\
SDSS J223252.35$+$140353.0 & 22.022(167) & 22.163(77) & 21.493(62) & 20.843(61) & 20.199(136) & -- & 0.196(21) \\
SDSS J223252.35$+$140353.0 & 22.301(174) & 22.377(88) & 21.588(62) & 20.790(49) & 20.324(110) & -- & 0.178(56) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.488(10) & 17.666(5) & 17.469(6) & 17.350(6) & 17.184(12) & 0.0884 & 0.075(1) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.570(11) & 17.723(5) & 17.489(6) & 17.335(7) & 17.186(15) & 0.0884 & 0.081(1) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.623(10) & 17.739(5) & 17.685(6) & 17.544(7) & 17.265(13) & 0.0884 & 0.075(1) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.675(10) & 18.014(6) & 17.739(6) & 17.524(7) & 17.313(13) & 0.0884 & 0.083(1) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.738(11) & 18.020(6) & 17.869(7) & 17.732(8) & 17.374(14) & 0.0884 & 0.073(1) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.756(11) & 17.921(6) & 17.850(6) & 17.664(7) & 17.473(14) & 0.0884 & 0.082(1) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.809(11) & 17.747(6) & 17.846(7) & 17.690(7) & 17.323(14) & 0.0884 & 0.078(2) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.829(15) & 17.928(8) & 17.701(7) & 17.503(7) & 17.478(15) & 0.0884 & 0.095(2) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.832(11) & 18.095(6) & 17.917(6) & 17.773(8) & 17.458(18) & 0.0884 & 0.073(1) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.874(12) & 18.203(7) & 17.810(6) & 17.528(7) & 17.421(18) & 0.0884 & 0.105(4) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.953(11) & 18.047(6) & 17.776(6) & 17.652(7) & 17.502(15) & 0.0884 & 0.081(2) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.167(14) & 18.305(8) & 18.220(8) & 17.995(8) & 17.654(17) & 0.0884 & 0.083(1) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.215(14) & 18.331(7) & 18.264(8) & 18.102(9) & 17.865(21) & 0.0884 & 0.079(1) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.302(15) & 18.483(8) & 18.082(7) & 18.017(9) & 17.941(29) & 0.0884 & 0.087(3) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.317(16) & 18.423(7) & 18.095(7) & 18.006(8) & 17.703(17) & 0.0884 & 0.077(2) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.451(15) & 18.606(8) & 18.530(9) & 18.281(10) & 18.005(19) & 0.0884 & 0.088(2) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.465(16) & 18.713(8) & 18.416(8) & 18.314(10) & 18.051(22) & 0.0884 & 0.072(1) \\
SDSS J225831.18$-$094931.7 & 15.019(4) & 15.102(3) & 15.099(3) & 14.995(3) & 14.980(4) & 0.0830$^\dagger$ & 0.081(1) \\
SDSS J225831.18$-$094931.7 & 15.224(4) & 15.587(3) & 15.405(4) & 15.455(4) & 15.237(5) & 0.0830$^\dagger$ & 0.062(1) \\
SDSS J233325.92$+$152222.2 & 18.163(12) & 18.521(7) & 18.321(8) & 18.336(10) & 18.375(27) & 0.0577 & 0.065(1) \\
SDSS J233325.92$+$152222.2 & 18.370(15) & 18.745(9) & 18.401(8) & 18.428(11) & 18.438(30) & 0.0577 & 0.068(2) \\
SDSS J233325.92$+$152222.2 & 18.654(17) & 18.761(8) & 18.848(10) & 18.792(12) & 18.702(31) & 0.0577 & 0.072(1) \\
SDSSp J081321.91$+$452809.4 & 18.192(13) & 18.259(7) & 17.629(6) & 17.189(6) & 16.889(12) & 0.289 & 0.256(9) \\
SDSSp J081321.91$+$452809.4 & 18.572(18) & 18.517(8) & 17.719(6) & 17.271(6) & 17.020(12) & 0.289 & 0.361(52) \\
SDSSp J081610.84$+$453010.2 & 19.675(29) & 20.056(17) & 19.527(15) & 19.051(14) & 18.566(31) & -- & 0.133(6) \\
SDSSp J082409.73$+$493124.4 & 19.266(25) & 19.576(14) & 19.443(17) & 19.264(20) & 18.996(51) & 0.0677$^\dagger$ & 0.081(2) \\
SDSSp J082409.73$+$493124.4 & 19.616(34) & 19.887(20) & 19.698(22) & 19.531(28) & 19.282(76) & 0.0677$^\dagger$ & 0.082(2) \\
SDSSp J082409.73$+$493124.4 & 19.896(54) & 20.138(28) & 19.781(29) & 19.637(35) & 19.558(115) & 0.0677$^\dagger$ & 0.103(4) \\
SDSSp J083845.23$+$491055.5 & 19.201(21) & 19.578(13) & 19.374(15) & 19.353(19) & 19.083(46) & 0.0696$^\dagger$ & 0.066(1) \\
SDSSp J083845.23$+$491055.5 & 19.371(27) & 19.846(15) & 19.658(16) & 19.751(25) & 19.417(75) & 0.0696$^\dagger$ & 0.061(2) \\
SDSSp J083845.23$+$491055.5 & 19.542(32) & 19.705(16) & 19.594(21) & 19.608(27) & 19.262(61) & 0.0696$^\dagger$ & 0.063(1) \\
SDSSp J172601.96$+$543230.7 & 20.221(41) & 20.531(22) & 20.513(29) & 20.554(48) & 20.671(184) & -- & 0.065(2) \\
SDSSp J173008.38$+$624754.7 & 16.008(5) & 15.886(3) & 16.150(3) & 16.274(4) & 16.260(8) & 0.0770$^\dagger$ & 0.063(2) \\
SDSSp J173008.38$+$624754.7 & 16.279(6) & 16.318(4) & 16.118(4) & 16.172(5) & 16.093(7) & 0.0770$^\dagger$ & 0.072(2) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.218(9) & 17.644(5) & 17.254(5) & 17.107(5) & 16.909(12) & 0.0767 & 0.082(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.405(10) & 17.907(6) & 17.574(6) & 17.359(7) & 17.225(14) & 0.0767 & 0.087(2) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.414(10) & 17.668(5) & 17.670(6) & 17.476(6) & 17.005(11) & 0.0767 & 0.081(2) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.425(10) & 17.973(6) & 17.770(6) & 17.572(7) & 17.201(15) & 0.0767 & 0.080(1) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.433(10) & 18.106(6) & 17.497(5) & 17.379(6) & 17.187(14) & 0.0767 & 0.092(2) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.441(10) & 17.975(6) & 17.668(6) & 17.458(7) & 17.315(16) & 0.0767 & 0.084(2) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.464(10) & 18.028(6) & 17.636(6) & 17.393(6) & 17.232(14) & 0.0767 & 0.090(2) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.512(10) & 17.863(6) & 17.802(6) & 17.575(7) & 17.197(14) & 0.0767 & 0.085(2) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.521(10) & 17.917(6) & 17.652(6) & 17.447(6) & 17.061(12) & 0.0767 & 0.078(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.556(10) & 17.928(6) & 17.610(6) & 17.459(6) & 17.254(14) & 0.0767 & 0.080(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.615(11) & 17.972(6) & 17.762(6) & 17.516(7) & 17.271(14) & 0.0767 & 0.088(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.647(12) & 17.938(6) & 17.704(7) & 17.531(7) & 17.171(14) & 0.0767 & 0.077(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.671(11) & 17.887(6) & 17.633(6) & 17.391(6) & 17.097(12) & 0.0767 & 0.091(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.722(12) & 17.853(6) & 17.781(6) & 17.589(7) & 17.225(12) & 0.0767 & 0.080(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.746(11) & 18.106(6) & 17.683(6) & 17.465(6) & 17.256(14) & 0.0767 & 0.099(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.816(12) & 18.176(6) & 17.948(7) & 17.727(7) & 17.462(17) & 0.0767 & 0.085(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.828(11) & 18.267(7) & 18.007(7) & 17.754(7) & 17.561(14) & 0.0767 & 0.090(2) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.847(12) & 18.151(6) & 17.596(6) & 17.425(6) & 17.230(14) & 0.0767 & 0.137(3) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.856(12) & 18.154(6) & 17.869(6) & 17.746(7) & 17.412(15) & 0.0767 & 0.074(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.886(13) & 18.018(6) & 17.897(7) & 17.791(8) & 17.466(16) & 0.0767 & 0.072(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.935(16) & 18.346(10) & 17.986(8) & 17.748(8) & 17.522(18) & 0.0767 & 0.091(2) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.000(13) & 18.167(6) & 17.888(6) & 17.755(7) & 17.323(16) & 0.0767 & 0.077(2) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.068(16) & 18.300(7) & 17.872(7) & 17.753(8) & 17.506(19) & 0.0767 & 0.098(3) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.250(16) & 18.568(8) & 18.216(9) & 18.027(10) & 17.743(24) & 0.0767 & 0.087(2) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.681(19) & 19.037(10) & 18.784(11) & 18.710(16) & 18.420(44) & 0.0767 & 0.069(1) \\
SEKBO J140454.00$-$102702.14 & 20.015(45) & 19.733(15) & 19.859(21) & 19.874(33) & 19.578(77) & -- & 0.062(2) \\
SN 1964O & 20.785(78) & 21.069(37) & 20.967(51) & 21.212(104) & 20.753(201) & -- & 0.061(5) \\
SDSS J013645.81$-$193949.1$^\ddagger$ & 20.397(77) & 20.288(23) & 20.229(29) & 20.068(41) & 19.644(109) & -- & 0.082(3) \\
SDSS J015237.83$-$172019.3$^\ddagger$ & 21.272(152) & 21.040(47) & 21.092(68) & 20.928(81) & 20.351(188) & -- & 0.082(5) \\
SDSS J015237.83$-$172019.3$^\ddagger$ & 21.463(152) & 21.397(54) & 21.443(74) & 21.293(92) & 21.013(257) & -- & 0.083(7) \\
SDSS J032015.29$+$441059.3$^\ddagger$ & 18.455(19) & 18.768(8) & 18.447(9) & 18.211(9) & 18.050(23) & -- & 0.082(2) \\
SDSS J064911.48$+$102322.1$^\ddagger$ & 19.610(35) & 19.253(11) & 18.988(12) & 18.903(14) & 18.898(41) & -- & 0.136(6) \\
SDSS J073208.11$+$413008.7$^\ddagger$ & 20.399(56) & 20.869(36) & 20.712(46) & 20.259(46) & 20.049(147) & 0.0771$^\dagger$ & 0.128(10) \\
SDSS J073208.11$+$413008.7$^\ddagger$ & 20.427(50) & 20.755(28) & 20.446(30) & 20.230(37) & 19.834(97) & 0.0771$^\dagger$ & 0.089(4) \\
SDSS J073758.55$+$205544.5$^\ddagger$ & 20.100(41) & 19.984(18) & 20.032(23) & 20.278(44) & 20.001(111) & -- & 0.053(2) \\
SDSS J074500.58$+$332859.6$^\ddagger$ & 22.517(258) & 22.185(82) & 22.209(126) & 21.719(120) & 21.202(262) & -- & 0.138(18) \\
SDSS J074500.58$+$332859.6$^\ddagger$ & 23.070(395) & 22.235(97) & 22.289(141) & 21.691(126) & 21.239(301) & -- & 0.170(41) \\
SDSS J074859.55$+$312512.6$^\ddagger$ & 17.762(10) & 17.768(5) & 17.813(6) & 17.864(8) & 17.927(21) & -- & 0.067(1) \\
SDSS J075107.50$+$300628.4$^\ddagger$ & 19.468(33) & 20.213(27) & 19.832(24) & 19.804(29) & 19.683(91) & -- & 0.066(2) \\
SDSS J075107.50$+$300628.4$^\ddagger$ & 19.554(31) & 19.777(15) & 19.817(19) & 19.835(23) & 19.774(68) & -- & 0.067(1) \\
SDSS J075117.00$+$100016.2$^\ddagger$ & 17.884(12) & 18.488(7) & 18.367(8) & 18.393(9) & 18.334(25) & -- & 0.066(3) \\
SDSS J075117.00$+$100016.2$^\ddagger$ & 18.168(13) & 18.429(7) & 18.566(9) & 18.541(11) & 18.309(24) & -- & 0.073(1) \\
SDSS J075713.81$+$222253.0$^\ddagger$ & 21.011(77) & 21.298(42) & 21.199(51) & 21.095(66) & 21.424(349) & -- & 0.079(8) \\
SDSS J080033.86$+$192416.5$^\ddagger$ & 19.533(30) & 19.732(15) & 19.632(17) & 19.649(22) & 19.477(73) & -- & 0.065(1) \\
SDSS J080033.86$+$192416.5$^\ddagger$ & 19.918(35) & 20.127(17) & 20.040(21) & 19.960(28) & 19.687(69) & -- & 0.071(2) \\
SDSS J080033.86$+$192416.5$^\ddagger$ & 20.016(45) & 20.205(23) & 20.093(29) & 20.029(33) & 19.914(113) & -- & 0.074(2) \\
SDSS J080306.99$+$284855.8$^\ddagger$ & 20.217(53) & 20.475(25) & 20.387(33) & 20.302(43) & 19.956(108) & 0.0727$^\dagger$ & 0.071(2) \\
SDSS J081030.45$+$091111.7$^\ddagger$ & 22.871(410) & 22.778(125) & 22.841(188) & 22.367(195) & 22.117(436) & -- & 0.138(32) \\
SDSS J081408.42$+$090759.1$^\ddagger$ & 20.582(49) & 20.692(24) & 20.475(27) & 19.962(25) & 19.415(49) & -- & 0.131(7) \\
SDSS J081408.42$+$090759.1$^\ddagger$ & 20.679(59) & 20.631(24) & 20.437(28) & 20.041(28) & 19.457(59) & -- & 0.112(6) \\
SDSS J081408.42$+$090759.1$^\ddagger$ & 20.680(64) & 20.704(32) & 20.405(31) & 20.016(35) & 19.656(87) & -- & 0.138(7) \\
SDSS J081408.42$+$090759.1$^\ddagger$ & 20.889(75) & 20.755(27) & 20.586(38) & 20.119(34) & 19.468(57) & -- & 0.122(7) \\
SDSS J081529.89$+$171152.5$^\ddagger$ & 22.117(168) & 21.849(56) & 21.968(96) & 21.844(135) & 21.743(465) & -- & 0.081(10) \\
SDSS J082648.28$-$000037.7$^\ddagger$ & 20.638(54) & 21.020(35) & 20.835(37) & 20.831(51) & 20.607(178) & -- & 0.065(2) \\
SDSS J082648.28$-$000037.7$^\ddagger$ & 21.259(84) & 21.172(37) & 21.154(55) & 21.240(96) & 22.300(830) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J083132.41$+$031420.7$^\ddagger$ & 21.023(92) & 21.175(44) & 21.352(74) & 21.177(96) & 20.679(222) & -- & 0.085(7) \\
SDSS J083132.41$+$031420.7$^\ddagger$ & 21.500(129) & 21.518(66) & 21.709(100) & 21.846(180) & 21.271(365) & -- & 0.070(8) \\
SDSS J083508.99$+$600643.9$^\ddagger$ & 21.830(164) & 21.625(60) & 21.362(64) & 21.262(79) & 21.448(335) & -- & 0.123(20) \\
SDSS J084011.95$+$244709.8$^\ddagger$ & 20.520(49) & 20.579(24) & 20.810(36) & 21.105(61) & 20.246(97) & -- & 0.073(15) \\
SDSS J084011.95$+$244709.8$^\ddagger$ & 20.882(75) & 21.007(32) & 21.192(48) & 21.361(76) & 20.844(154) & -- & 0.066(6) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
SDSS J084108.10$+$102536.2$^\ddagger$ & 19.818(34) & 20.247(18) & 20.132(21) & 20.015(25) & 20.047(95) & -- & 0.076(4) \\
SDSS J084108.10$+$102536.2$^\ddagger$ & 20.621(93) & 21.027(43) & 20.808(57) & 20.869(78) & 21.109(376) & -- & 0.064(4) \\
SDSS J084108.10$+$102536.2$^\ddagger$ & 20.818(124) & 20.822(48) & 20.806(80) & 20.943(112) & 21.158(574) & -- & 0.060(6) \\
SDSS J091242.18$+$620940.1$^\ddagger$ & 18.729(19) & 18.818(8) & 18.729(10) & 18.442(10) & 17.856(21) & -- & 0.087(2) \\
SDSS J091741.29$+$073647.4$^\ddagger$ & 21.804(142) & 21.520(52) & 21.396(69) & 21.501(117) & 21.152(304) & -- & 0.081(9) \\
SDSS J091741.29$+$073647.4$^\ddagger$ & 21.854(149) & 21.435(50) & 21.449(83) & 21.706(141) & 21.096(307) & -- & 0.074(12) \\
SDSS J092620.42$+$034542.3$^\ddagger$ & 19.455(29) & 19.827(15) & 19.609(16) & 19.619(20) & 19.563(64) & -- & 0.067(1) \\
SDSS J092620.42$+$034542.3$^\ddagger$ & 19.677(31) & 19.901(15) & 19.809(18) & 19.794(25) & 19.848(99) & -- & 0.071(2) \\
SDSS J093946.03$+$065209.4$^\ddagger$ & 22.050(204) & 22.484(118) & 22.042(128) & 22.297(237) & 21.212(231) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J093946.03$+$065209.4$^\ddagger$ & 22.311(377) & 22.317(124) & 21.974(154) & 21.912(263) & 21.454(598) & -- & 0.140(49) \\
SDSS J100243.11$-$024635.9$^\ddagger$ & 20.944(87) & 21.240(48) & 20.811(46) & 20.875(77) & 20.393(182) & -- & 0.088(9) \\
SDSS J100243.11$-$024635.9$^\ddagger$ & 20.995(163) & 21.024(65) & 20.830(78) & 20.784(101) & 20.268(206) & -- & 0.075(5) \\
SDSS J100243.11$-$024635.9$^\ddagger$ & 21.161(132) & 21.371(64) & 21.515(105) & 21.190(106) & 20.481(214) & -- & 0.096(9) \\
SDSS J100516.61$+$694136.5$^\ddagger$ & 19.854(40) & 19.423(12) & 18.945(11) & 18.638(11) & 18.278(26) & -- & 0.357(26) \\
SDSS J105333.76$+$285033.6$^\ddagger$ & 20.212(39) & 20.193(17) & 19.809(17) & 19.631(24) & 19.459(67) & -- & 0.157(8) \\
SDSS J112003.40$+$663632.4$^\ddagger$ & 20.815(113) & 20.945(54) & 20.843(127) & 20.590(73) & 20.385(235) & 0.0684$^\dagger$ & 0.105(9) \\
SDSS J124328.27$-$055431.0$^\ddagger$ & 23.194(573) & 22.696(147) & 22.558(173) & 22.290(196) & 21.787(505) & -- & 0.167(62) \\
SDSS J124602.02$-$202302.4$^\ddagger$ & 18.363(19) & 18.535(8) & 18.406(9) & 18.354(11) & 18.270(30) & -- & 0.071(1) \\
SDSS J124719.03$+$013842.6$^\ddagger$ & 20.577(66) & 20.777(37) & 21.048(57) & 21.100(95) & 21.100(369) & -- & 0.069(6) \\
SDSS J124719.03$+$013842.6$^\ddagger$ & 20.616(72) & 20.696(32) & 20.909(47) & 21.058(76) & 21.063(318) & -- & 0.062(4) \\
SDSS J124719.03$+$013842.6$^\ddagger$ & 20.619(53) & 20.768(25) & 20.920(36) & 21.092(51) & 20.711(149) & -- & 0.062(4) \\
SDSS J132040.96$-$030016.7$^\ddagger$ & 26.249(436) & 25.605(628) & 21.672(106) & 21.670(153) & 21.130(359) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J132715.28$+$425932.8$^\ddagger$ & 20.987(71) & 20.805(25) & 20.511(28) & 20.350(33) & 20.219(93) & -- & 0.153(11) \\
SDSS J141029.09$+$330706.2$^\ddagger$ & 22.422(344) & 21.738(88) & 21.692(124) & 21.443(144) & 22.387(969) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J142953.56$+$073231.2$^\ddagger$ & 21.001(90) & 21.208(45) & 20.809(42) & 20.324(36) & 19.804(74) & -- & 0.144(8) \\
SDSS J142953.56$+$073231.2$^\ddagger$ & 21.374(156) & 21.150(53) & 20.945(58) & 20.315(58) & 19.773(131) & -- & 0.158(13) \\
SDSS J142953.56$+$073231.2$^\ddagger$ & 21.390(117) & 21.175(39) & 20.882(46) & 20.437(50) & 20.163(143) & -- & 0.174(19) \\
SDSS J151109.79$+$574100.3$^\ddagger$ & 20.898(68) & 21.239(35) & 21.176(49) & 21.055(66) & 20.866(239) & -- & 0.078(5) \\
SDSS J151109.79$+$574100.3$^\ddagger$ & 21.106(85) & 21.514(51) & 21.299(65) & 20.962(74) & 20.877(287) & -- & 0.113(12) \\
SDSS J151109.79$+$574100.3$^\ddagger$ & 21.239(86) & 21.361(39) & 21.069(42) & 20.894(49) & 20.486(153) & -- & 0.102(7) \\
SDSS J152124.38$+$112551.9$^\ddagger$ & 22.091(158) & 21.615(51) & 21.683(71) & 21.763(130) & 21.777(520) & -- & 0.070(8) \\
SDSS J153457.24$+$505616.8$^\ddagger$ & 21.933(196) & 22.023(89) & 21.807(113) & 21.750(156) & 21.187(348) & -- & 0.086(10) \\
SDSS J154817.56$+$153221.2$^\ddagger$ & 21.565(140) & 21.640(50) & 21.408(66) & 21.137(83) & 21.231(341) & -- & 0.120(13) \\
SDSS J154817.56$+$153221.2$^\ddagger$ & 21.587(127) & 21.825(58) & 21.744(67) & 21.895(114) & 21.763(342) & -- & 0.062(4) \\
SDSS J154817.56$+$153221.2$^\ddagger$ & 22.306(232) & 22.304(96) & 22.236(123) & 21.853(144) & 22.903(622) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J155030.38$-$001417.3$^\ddagger$ & 21.900(141) & 22.013(72) & 21.606(76) & 21.031(63) & 20.770(182) & -- & 0.164(16) \\
SDSS J155030.38$-$001417.3$^\ddagger$ & 21.996(155) & 21.857(63) & 21.571(82) & 20.936(71) & 20.444(161) & -- & 0.158(12) \\
SDSS J155540.19$+$364643.1$^\ddagger$ & 20.466(53) & 20.809(27) & 20.960(40) & 20.766(45) & 20.492(127) & -- & 0.086(4) \\
SDSS J161027.61$+$090738.4$^\ddagger$ & 20.084(48) & 20.082(19) & 20.061(23) & 20.234(36) & 20.183(110) & 0.0570 & 0.056(1) \\
SDSS J161027.61$+$090738.4$^\ddagger$ & 20.171(47) & 20.103(18) & 20.054(22) & 20.254(39) & 20.001(126) & 0.0570 & 0.056(2) \\
SDSS J161442.43$+$080407.9$^\ddagger$ & 21.098(102) & 20.940(43) & 20.887(47) & 20.700(54) & 20.506(161) & -- & 0.090(6) \\
SDSS J161442.43$+$080407.9$^\ddagger$ & 21.481(139) & 21.248(40) & 21.419(63) & 20.946(52) & 21.349(314) & -- & 0.155(23) \\
SDSS J162520.29$+$120308.7$^\ddagger$ & 18.122(13) & 18.527(8) & 18.406(8) & 18.210(9) & 17.719(16) & 0.0920$^\dagger$ & 0.080(2) \\
SDSS J162520.29$+$120308.7$^\ddagger$ & 18.416(16) & 18.481(7) & 18.407(8) & 18.245(9) & 17.684(15) & 0.0920$^\dagger$ & 0.073(1) \\
SDSS J162558.18$+$364200.6$^\ddagger$ & 21.501(101) & 21.684(48) & 21.595(69) & 21.548(99) & 21.901(415) & -- & 0.077(9) \\
SDSS J164705.07$+$193335.0$^\ddagger$ & 21.936(148) & 21.980(69) & 21.845(87) & 21.704(114) & 21.674(400) & -- & 0.083(9) \\
SDSS J164705.07$+$193335.0$^\ddagger$ & 22.318(200) & 21.977(62) & 21.856(81) & 21.862(137) & 21.293(331) & -- & 0.079(10) \\
SDSS J170145.85$+$332339.5$^\ddagger$ & 21.208(96) & 21.582(54) & 21.392(67) & 21.320(93) & 21.729(495) & -- & 0.077(9) \\
SDSS J170145.85$+$332339.5$^\ddagger$ & 21.697(120) & 21.818(66) & 21.981(123) & 22.198(226) & 21.539(446) & -- & 0.072(11) \\
SDSS J170810.31$+$445450.7$^\ddagger$ & 20.569(55) & 20.734(25) & 20.736(30) & 20.933(45) & 20.626(149) & -- & 0.057(3) \\
SDSS J170810.31$+$445450.7$^\ddagger$ & 20.643(59) & 20.784(23) & 20.740(29) & 20.911(48) & 20.680(158) & -- & 0.058(2) \\
SDSS J170810.31$+$445450.7$^\ddagger$ & 20.813(74) & 20.832(29) & 20.803(41) & 20.847(61) & 20.851(276) & -- & 0.066(3) \\
SDSS J171202.95$+$275411.0$^\ddagger$ & 21.025(74) & 21.417(40) & 20.930(39) & 20.673(42) & 20.289(128) & -- & 0.108(6) \\
SDSS J171202.95$+$275411.0$^\ddagger$ & 21.277(135) & 21.417(59) & 20.966(54) & 20.522(61) & 20.603(210) & -- & 0.178(27) \\
SDSS J174839.77$+$502420.3$^\ddagger$ & 23.480(827) & 22.309(131) & 22.946(305) & 23.805(843) & 24.157(482) & -- & -- \\
SDSS J191616.53$+$385810.6$^\ddagger$ & 17.947(13) & 17.664(5) & 17.486(5) & 17.472(7) & 17.413(14) & -- & 0.073(1) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of dwarf novae (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Object & $u$ & $g$ & $r$ & $i$ & $z$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & $P_{\rm est}$$^*$ \\
\hline
SDSS J205931.86$-$070516.6$^\ddagger$ & 20.077(46) & 20.198(22) & 20.178(26) & 19.973(30) & 20.134(118) & -- & 0.095(8) \\
SDSS J205931.86$-$070516.6$^\ddagger$ & 20.854(100) & 20.755(30) & 21.026(50) & 21.237(87) & 21.556(458) & -- & 0.056(7) \\
SDSS J223854.51$+$053606.8$^\ddagger$ & 21.441(159) & 21.432(57) & 21.339(92) & 21.314(136) & 20.988(336) & -- & 0.070(5) \\
SDSS J223854.51$+$053606.8$^\ddagger$ & 21.536(141) & 21.396(55) & 21.243(65) & 21.299(96) & 20.603(220) & -- & 0.068(5) \\
SDSS J223854.51$+$053606.8$^\ddagger$ & 21.553(118) & 21.548(47) & 21.520(56) & 21.531(84) & 20.847(181) & -- & 0.066(4) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^*$ Orbital period estimated with neural network.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\dagger$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^\ddagger$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction neural network classification}\label{tab:dnlist2}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
RX And & 14.082(4) & 149 & 2 & 0.079 & 0.2099 & -- & -- & -- \\
BV And & 16.366(4) & 779 & 3 & 0.533 & -- & 0.462(55) & 0.316(47) & 0.222(100) \\
FN And & 18.719(8) & 356 & 3 & 0.144 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.983(17) & 0.017(17) \\
IZ And & 19.621(13) & 1099 & 3 & 0.226 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.905(136) & 0.095(136) \\
LL And & 20.073(17) & 550 & 1 & 0.133 & 0.0551 & 0.755(126) & 0.234(125) & 0.011(19) \\
LL And & 20.152(21) & 550 & 1 & 0.133 & 0.0551 & 0.876(199) & 0.124(199) & 0.001(2) \\
LT And & 19.505(11) & 559 & 5 & 0.173 & -- & 0.030(16) & 0.905(85) & 0.065(77) \\
V402 And & 20.390(20) & 1100 & 1 & 0.220 & 0.0618$^\|$ & 0.178(107) & 0.609(276) & 0.214(302) \\
UU Aql & 16.851(5) & 175 & 2 & 0.212 & 0.1635 & 0.000(0) & 0.060(28) & 0.940(28) \\
KX Aql & 18.381(7) & 320 & 1 & 0.674 & 0.0604 & 0.138(35) & 0.862(35) & 0.000(0) \\
V725 Aql & 18.914(9) & 500 & 1 & 0.517 & 0.0945$^\|$ & 0.001(0) & 0.999(0) & 0.000(0) \\
V1047 Aql & 18.275(7) & 721 & 6 & 0.763 & -- & 0.024(10) & 0.976(10) & 0.001(0) \\
VY Aqr & 16.949(4) & 97 & 1 & 0.195 & 0.0631 & 0.015(1) & 0.985(1) & 0.000(0) \\
VZ Aqr & 17.605(5) & 285 & 2 & 0.129 & 0.1606 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
VZ Aqr & 17.967(6) & 285 & 2 & 0.129 & 0.1606 & 0.000(0) & 0.005(2) & 0.995(2) \\
VZ Aqr & 17.953(6) & 285 & 2 & 0.129 & 0.1606 & 0.000(0) & 0.001(1) & 0.999(1) \\
EG Aqr & 19.102(11) & 320 & 1 & 0.104 & 0.0763$^\|$ & 0.000(0) & 0.998(4) & 0.002(4) \\
BG Ari & 20.280(21) & 700 & 1 & 0.238 & 0.0822$^\|$ & 0.000(0) & 0.831(193) & 0.169(193) \\
V496 Aur & 21.452(46) & 1106 & 2 & 0.192 & 0.0597$^\|$ & 0.035(98) & 0.492(395) & 0.473(416) \\
V496 Aur & 21.724(76) & 1106 & 2 & 0.192 & 0.0597$^\|$ & 0.022(75) & 0.719(398) & 0.259(400) \\
V496 Aur & 21.451(45) & 1106 & 2 & 0.192 & 0.0597$^\|$ & 0.013(86) & 0.761(395) & 0.226(391) \\
V496 Aur & 21.820(71) & 1106 & 2 & 0.192 & 0.0597$^\|$ & 0.011(45) & 0.858(305) & 0.131(300) \\
TT Boo & 19.322(11) & 400 & 1 & 0.046 & 0.0755$^\|$ & 0.006(2) & 0.988(13) & 0.005(13) \\
UZ Boo & 19.704(14) & 240 & 1 & 0.085 & 0.0604$^\|$ & 0.862(86) & 0.138(86) & 0.000(2) \\
V391 Cam & 16.346(5) & 250 & 1 & 0.352 & 0.0562 & 0.794(20) & 0.206(20) & 0.000(0) \\
AM Cas & 15.281(3) & 231 & 2 & 0.910 & 0.1652 & 0.451(18) & 0.514(13) & 0.035(7) \\
KZ Cas & 18.719(10) & 745 & 3 & 0.946 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.188(64) & 0.812(64) \\
KZ Cas & 19.153(11) & 745 & 3 & 0.946 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.033(38) & 0.967(38) \\
LM Cas & 19.472(13) & 790 & 3 & 0.963 & -- & 0.735(104) & 0.265(104) & 0.000(0) \\
V630 Cas & 17.099(4) & 1987 & 2 & 0.722 & 2.5639 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
WW Cet & 14.678(3) & 89 & 2 & 0.058 & 0.1758 & 0.000(0) & 0.001(0) & 0.999(0) \\
EN Cet & 20.168(25) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.373(230) & 0.464(273) & 0.163(280) \\
EN Cet & 20.575(30) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.077(77) & 0.920(77) & 0.002(11) \\
EN Cet & 20.690(34) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.044(64) & 0.812(283) & 0.143(283) \\
EN Cet & 20.689(28) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.093(122) & 0.901(131) & 0.006(27) \\
EN Cet & 20.698(29) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.070(72) & 0.920(89) & 0.010(60) \\
EN Cet & 20.672(29) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.396(243) & 0.573(244) & 0.031(122) \\
EN Cet & 20.684(28) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.290(226) & 0.584(276) & 0.126(270) \\
EN Cet & 20.623(31) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.360(222) & 0.573(239) & 0.067(211) \\
EN Cet & 20.775(31) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.240(199) & 0.752(205) & 0.008(27) \\
EN Cet & 20.627(31) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.440(229) & 0.523(239) & 0.038(71) \\
EN Cet & 20.733(27) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.297(202) & 0.641(239) & 0.061(122) \\
EN Cet & 20.735(26) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.430(225) & 0.511(238) & 0.059(185) \\
EN Cet & 20.813(28) & 800 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0593 & 0.461(252) & 0.495(269) & 0.044(125) \\
FI Cet & 21.554(55) & 550 & 3 & 0.086 & -- & 0.361(367) & 0.472(362) & 0.167(307) \\
GS Cet & 19.943(19) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.877(199) & 0.123(199) & 0.000(0) \\
GS Cet & 20.118(21) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.740(333) & 0.258(334) & 0.002(10) \\
GS Cet & 20.319(26) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.493(404) & 0.506(404) & 0.001(3) \\
GS Cet & 20.287(24) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.838(149) & 0.151(124) & 0.011(100) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
GS Cet & 20.410(21) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.184(294) & 0.814(297) & 0.002(13) \\
GS Cet & 20.471(23) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.811(150) & 0.189(151) & 0.001(2) \\
GS Cet & 20.358(23) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.099(227) & 0.890(253) & 0.011(44) \\
GS Cet & 20.381(19) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.861(95) & 0.138(96) & 0.001(4) \\
GS Cet & 20.446(23) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.235(351) & 0.765(351) & 0.000(0) \\
GS Cet & 20.338(20) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.861(181) & 0.139(181) & 0.000(2) \\
GS Cet & 20.395(23) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.772(189) & 0.223(189) & 0.005(18) \\
GS Cet & 20.427(22) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.439(315) & 0.540(328) & 0.021(60) \\
GS Cet & 20.381(20) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.413(355) & 0.580(359) & 0.007(52) \\
GS Cet & 20.508(26) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.304(341) & 0.681(353) & 0.015(70) \\
GS Cet & 20.455(53) & 826 & 5 & 0.079 & -- & 0.004(10) & 0.996(10) & 0.000(0) \\
GY Cet & 18.294(7) & 300 & 1 & 0.097 & 0.0566 & 0.878(28) & 0.122(28) & 0.000(0) \\
GY Cet & 18.296(7) & 300 & 1 & 0.097 & 0.0566 & 0.809(41) & 0.191(41) & 0.000(0) \\
GZ Cet & 18.710(9) & 160 & 1 & 0.088 & 0.0553 & 0.000(0) & 0.002(3) & 0.998(3) \\
HP Cet & 19.858(16) & 6575 & 2 & 0.070 & 0.0667 & 0.469(211) & 0.531(211) & 0.000(1) \\
EU CMa & 21.069(42) & 1343 & 3 & 1.039 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.307(332) & 0.693(332) \\
AK Cnc & 18.797(8) & 360 & 1 & 0.096 & 0.0651 & 0.011(2) & 0.984(5) & 0.005(4) \\
AR Cnc & 18.520(7) & 1593 & 2 & 0.067 & 0.2146 & 0.000(0) & 0.572(180) & 0.428(180) \\
CC Cnc & 15.873(3) & 550 & 1 & 0.131 & 0.0735 & 0.235(24) & 0.765(24) & 0.000(0) \\
CC Cnc & 16.769(4) & 550 & 1 & 0.131 & 0.0735 & 0.015(3) & 0.767(80) & 0.218(79) \\
DE Cnc & 18.465(7) & 1165 & 3 & 0.098 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.010(8) & 0.990(8) \\
DE Cnc & 18.458(7) & 1165 & 3 & 0.098 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.001(1) & 0.999(1) \\
EG Cnc & 18.839(9) & 330 & 1 & 0.138 & 0.0600 & 0.956(17) & 0.044(17) & 0.000(0) \\
GY Cnc & 16.029(4) & 379 & 2 & 0.118 & 0.1754 & 0.000(0) & 0.096(34) & 0.904(34) \\
GZ Cnc & 14.736(3) & 320 & 1 & 0.111 & 0.0882 & -- & -- & -- \\
HH Cnc & 19.158(10) & 855 & 3 & 0.070 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
FU Com & 18.847(8) & 1490 & 5 & 0.070 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.998(1) & 0.002(1) \\
GO Com & 17.936(6) & 500 & 1 & 0.029 & 0.0615$^\|$ & 0.104(17) & 0.894(18) & 0.002(3) \\
GP Com & 15.908(4) & 75 & 1 & 0.044 & 0.0323 & 0.968(4) & 0.032(4) & 0.000(0) \\
GP Com & 15.919(4) & 75 & 1 & 0.044 & 0.0323 & 0.985(1) & 0.015(1) & 0.000(0) \\
IM Com & 17.721(5) & 1009 & 5 & 0.112 & -- & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) & 0.000(0) \\
IM Com & 17.776(6) & 1009 & 5 & 0.112 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.999(1) & 0.001(1) \\
IR Com & 18.317(7) & 250 & 1 & 0.125 & 0.0870 & 0.000(0) & 0.997(1) & 0.003(1) \\
MT Com & 19.125(10) & 360 & 1 & 0.025 & 0.0829 & 0.910(33) & 0.089(33) & 0.002(2) \\
VW CrB & 19.636(16) & 600 & 1 & 0.116 & 0.0706$^\|$ & 0.091(49) & 0.656(284) & 0.253(293) \\
VW CrB & 19.887(15) & 600 & 1 & 0.116 & 0.0706$^\|$ & 0.004(2) & 0.983(76) & 0.013(76) \\
V516 Cyg & 14.416(3) & 567 & 2 & 0.511 & 0.1712 & -- & -- & -- \\
V1081 Cyg & 17.749(10) & 633 & 6 & 0.545 & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
V1089 Cyg & 18.587(8) & 1113 & 3 & 1.539 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
V1153 Cyg & 18.781(10) & 1217 & 6 & 1.021 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.991(43) & 0.009(43) \\
V1251 Cyg & 20.474(28) & 330 & 1 & 0.477 & 0.0743 & 0.001(1) & 0.930(212) & 0.069(212) \\
V1363 Cyg & 17.861(6) & 321 & 6 & 0.520 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
V1449 Cyg & 19.049(19) & 867 & 6 & 0.858 & -- & 0.140(304) & 0.000(1) & 0.860(304) \\
HO Del & 18.892(9) & 425 & 2 & 0.192 & 0.0627 & 0.109(31) & 0.891(31) & 0.000(0) \\
AB Dra & 15.530(4) & 173 & 2 & 0.161 & 0.152 & 0.007(1) & 0.401(89) & 0.592(91) \\
DM Dra & 20.296(23) & 750 & 1 & 0.057 & 0.0733$^\|$ & 0.003(2) & 0.931(105) & 0.067(105) \\
DM Dra & 20.325(22) & 750 & 1 & 0.057 & 0.0733$^\|$ & 0.044(33) & 0.849(224) & 0.106(230) \\
DO Dra & 15.557(4) & 121 & 2 & 0.027 & 0.1654 & 0.000(0) & 0.001(1) & 0.999(1) \\
AQ Eri & 17.411(5) & 300 & 1 & 0.185 & 0.0609 & 0.162(15) & 0.835(15) & 0.003(2) \\
BF Eri & 14.599(3) & 782 & 2 & 0.200 & 0.2709 & 0.000(0) & 0.128(37) & 0.872(37) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
LT Eri & 17.748(5) & 858 & 2 & 0.305 & 0.1702 & 0.000(0) & 0.011(9) & 0.989(9) \\
HQ Gem & 20.386(21) & 3543 & 3 & 1.619 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(1) & 1.000(1) \\
IR Gem & 15.996(5) & 320 & 1 & 0.178 & 0.0684 & 0.025(3) & 0.974(3) & 0.001(0) \\
KZ Gem & 18.666(8) & 1677 & 3 & 0.291 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.998(1) & 0.002(1) \\
AH Her & -- & 237 & 2 & 0.105 & 0.2581 & -- & -- & -- \\
AH Her & 14.975(10) & 237 & 2 & 0.105 & 0.2581 & 0.000(0) & 0.317(42) & 0.683(42) \\
V478 Her & 17.741(6) & 4244 & 2 & 0.241 & 0.6290 & 0.000(0) & 0.016(15) & 0.984(15) \\
V544 Her & 19.744(15) & 1176 & 3 & 0.207 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
V589 Her & 18.305(7) & 500 & 1 & 0.174 & -- & 0.011(2) & 0.973(17) & 0.016(16) \\
V589 Her & 18.631(8) & 500 & 1 & 0.174 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.575(97) & 0.425(97) \\
V589 Her & 19.105(10) & 500 & 1 & 0.174 & -- & 0.002(1) & 0.997(2) & 0.001(1) \\
V592 Her & 21.459(53) & 390 & 1 & 0.127 & 0.0558$^\|$ & 0.183(241) & 0.695(324) & 0.122(277) \\
V592 Her & 21.421(36) & 390 & 1 & 0.127 & 0.0558$^\|$ & 0.608(318) & 0.338(311) & 0.054(166) \\
V592 Her & 21.301(35) & 390 & 1 & 0.127 & 0.0558$^\|$ & 0.582(318) & 0.393(318) & 0.025(98) \\
V610 Her & 21.222(39) & 1881 & 3 & 0.170 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.080(194) & 0.920(194) \\
V610 Her & 21.421(57) & 1881 & 3 & 0.170 & -- & 0.001(1) & 0.244(335) & 0.755(336) \\
V610 Her & 21.582(79) & 1881 & 3 & 0.170 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.316(403) & 0.684(403) \\
V611 Her & 20.584(22) & 1017 & 3 & 0.191 & -- & 0.005(5) & 0.995(6) & 0.000(2) \\
V611 Her & 20.659(25) & 1017 & 3 & 0.191 & -- & 0.034(53) & 0.964(56) & 0.001(10) \\
V660 Her & 19.696(15) & 700 & 1 & 0.340 & 0.0782$^\|$ & 0.006(2) & 0.990(14) & 0.004(13) \\
V844 Her & 17.193(5) & 310 & 1 & 0.027 & 0.0546 & 0.057(7) & 0.853(57) & 0.089(56) \\
V844 Her & 17.742(5) & 310 & 1 & 0.027 & 0.0546 & 0.295(43) & 0.701(46) & 0.004(5) \\
V849 Her & 15.002(3) & 776 & 3 & 0.240 & -- & 0.981(2) & 0.017(1) & 0.002(0) \\
V849 Her & 15.210(4) & 776 & 3 & 0.240 & -- & 0.967(2) & 0.031(1) & 0.002(1) \\
CT Hya & 18.733(9) & 650 & 1 & 0.106 & 0.0646$^\|$ & 0.050(17) & 0.846(110) & 0.104(107) \\
CT Hya & 18.774(8) & 650 & 1 & 0.106 & 0.0646$^\|$ & 0.171(64) & 0.827(67) & 0.002(6) \\
X Leo & 15.832(3) & 197 & 2 & 0.061 & 0.1644 & 0.000(0) & 0.088(24) & 0.912(24) \\
X Leo & 16.337(3) & 197 & 2 & 0.061 & 0.1644 & 0.000(0) & 0.028(7) & 0.972(7) \\
RZ Leo & 18.716(9) & 250 & 1 & 0.078 & 0.0760 & 0.000(0) & 0.989(7) & 0.011(7) \\
DO Leo & 17.970(6) & 2313 & 2 & 0.094 & 0.2345 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
HM Leo & 18.320(7) & 467 & 2 & 0.140 & 0.1868 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SS LMi & 21.556(107) & 1400 & 1 & 0.062 & 0.0566 & 0.051(197) & 0.019(111) & 0.929(232) \\
SS LMi & 22.150(96) & 1400 & 1 & 0.062 & 0.0566 & 0.137(285) & 0.616(442) & 0.247(418) \\
SX LMi & 16.740(4) & 400 & 1 & 0.102 & 0.0672 & 0.043(5) & 0.956(5) & 0.001(0) \\
CW Mon & 15.913(4) & 243 & 2 & 0.493 & 0.1766 & 0.000(0) & 0.034(4) & 0.966(4) \\
V982 Oph & 20.251(20) & 1530 & 3 & 0.489 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.001(3) & 0.999(3) \\
V1032 Oph & 17.647(5) & 926 & 2 & 0.925 & 0.0811 & 0.429(25) & 0.514(23) & 0.057(23) \\
V2335 Oph & 22.507(124) & 995 & 3 & 0.520 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.017(84) & 0.983(84) \\
BI Ori & 16.290(4) & 512 & 2 & 0.275 & 0.1915 & 0.080(8) & 0.678(51) & 0.242(57) \\
BI Ori & 16.596(3) & 512 & 2 & 0.275 & 0.1915 & 0.024(2) & 0.690(73) & 0.287(75) \\
BI Ori & 16.705(4) & 512 & 2 & 0.275 & 0.1915 & 0.001(0) & 0.380(58) & 0.619(58) \\
BI Ori & 16.689(4) & 512 & 2 & 0.275 & 0.1915 & 0.013(2) & 0.600(73) & 0.387(75) \\
BI Ori & 16.725(4) & 512 & 2 & 0.275 & 0.1915 & 0.024(4) & 0.484(77) & 0.492(80) \\
BI Ori & 17.098(4) & 512 & 2 & 0.275 & 0.1915 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
GR Ori & 22.405(144) & 187 & 6 & 0.197 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.144(305) & 0.856(305) \\
GR Ori & 22.358(136) & 187 & 6 & 0.197 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.077(240) & 0.923(240) \\
HX Peg & -- & 486 & 2 & 0.151 & 0.2008 & -- & -- & -- \\
IP Peg & 15.287(4) & 286 & 2 & 0.108 & 0.1582 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
V367 Peg & 17.348(5) & 1560 & 2 & 0.250 & 0.1619 & 0.008(4) & 0.186(109) & 0.805(114) \\
V369 Peg & 18.762(10) & 1180 & 2 & 0.310 & 0.0827$^\|$ & 0.000(0) & 0.738(114) & 0.262(114) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
V405 Peg & 16.100(3) & 1251 & 2 & 0.637 & 0.1776 & 0.000(0) & 0.042(13) & 0.958(13) \\
V405 Peg & 16.792(5) & 1251 & 2 & 0.637 & 0.1776 & -- & -- & -- \\
FO Per & 16.859(4) & 271 & 2 & 0.119 & 0.1719 & 0.000(0) & 0.198(59) & 0.802(59) \\
GK Per & -- & 455 & 1 & 0.645 & 1.9968 & -- & -- & -- \\
KT Per & 15.316(3) & 207 & 2 & 0.343 & 0.1627 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
QY Per & 20.313(21) & 550 & 1 & 0.382 & 0.0760$^\|$ & 0.014(11) & 0.705(308) & 0.282(310) \\
V336 Per & 19.703(15) & 1286 & 3 & 0.555 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
V336 Per & 20.021(15) & 1286 & 3 & 0.555 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
V336 Per & 19.996(18) & 1286 & 3 & 0.555 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
V372 Per & 21.629(53) & 1336 & 3 & 0.365 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.006(34) & 0.994(34) \\
TY Psc & 17.167(5) & 240 & 1 & 0.151 & 0.0683 & 0.020(5) & 0.979(6) & 0.001(1) \\
TY Psc & 17.078(4) & 240 & 1 & 0.151 & 0.0683 & 0.114(15) & 0.886(16) & 0.001(1) \\
XY Psc & 20.943(38) & 347 & 3 & 0.087 & -- & 0.225(229) & 0.515(344) & 0.259(389) \\
XY Psc & 21.130(33) & 347 & 3 & 0.087 & -- & 0.304(230) & 0.556(270) & 0.140(244) \\
XY Psc & 21.136(35) & 347 & 3 & 0.087 & -- & 0.044(68) & 0.807(312) & 0.149(316) \\
AS Psc & 22.015(113) & 1910 & 6 & 0.145 & -- & 0.300(428) & 0.258(407) & 0.442(463) \\
AY Psc & 16.590(4) & 1449 & 2 & 0.192 & 0.2173 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
EI Psc & 16.331(4) & 230 & 1 & 0.216 & 0.0446 & 0.000(0) & 0.161(66) & 0.839(66) \\
GV Psc & 20.409(21) & 1142 & 2 & 0.135 & 0.0904$^\|$ & 0.001(0) & 0.819(272) & 0.180(272) \\
GV Psc & 20.508(27) & 1142 & 2 & 0.135 & 0.0904$^\|$ & 0.000(0) & 0.883(111) & 0.117(111) \\
X Ser & 17.298(5) & 3122 & 2 & 0.600 & 1.478 & 0.004(2) & 0.198(59) & 0.798(61) \\
RY Ser & 16.091(3) & 719 & 2 & 1.192 & 0.3009 & 0.000(0) & 0.001(0) & 0.999(0) \\
RY Ser & 16.598(4) & 719 & 2 & 1.192 & 0.3009 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
QW Ser & 17.805(6) & 380 & 1 & 0.107 & 0.0745 & 0.028(4) & 0.971(4) & 0.001(1) \\
QZ Ser & 16.275(3) & 380 & 1 & 0.157 & 0.0832 & 0.000(0) & 0.399(60) & 0.601(60) \\
QZ Ser & 16.291(4) & 380 & 1 & 0.157 & 0.0832 & 0.000(0) & 0.372(60) & 0.628(60) \\
QZ Ser & 16.302(4) & 380 & 1 & 0.157 & 0.0832 & 0.000(0) & 0.406(57) & 0.594(57) \\
QZ Ser & 16.304(4) & 380 & 1 & 0.157 & 0.0832 & 0.000(0) & 0.356(75) & 0.644(75) \\
V386 Ser & 19.049(10) & 420 & 1 & 0.368 & 0.0559 & 0.989(5) & 0.011(5) & 0.000(0) \\
V386 Ser & 19.012(10) & 420 & 1 & 0.368 & 0.0559 & 0.928(26) & 0.072(26) & 0.000(0) \\
V386 Ser & 19.024(12) & 420 & 1 & 0.368 & 0.0559 & 0.959(21) & 0.039(20) & 0.002(2) \\
VZ Sex & 16.762(4) & 396 & 2 & 0.134 & 0.1487 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
TX Tri & 17.490(5) & 2105 & 3 & 0.171 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
UW Tri & 22.370(107) & 800 & 1 & 0.303 & 0.0533 & 0.101(254) & 0.754(376) & 0.146(322) \\
UZ Tri & 19.525(13) & 1312 & 3 & 0.204 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.971(65) & 0.029(65) \\
SW UMa & 16.866(4) & 164 & 1 & 0.080 & 0.0568 & 0.557(26) & 0.443(26) & 0.000(0) \\
SW UMa & 16.862(4) & 164 & 1 & 0.080 & 0.0568 & 0.394(33) & 0.606(34) & 0.000(0) \\
BC UMa & 18.514(7) & 260 & 1 & 0.073 & 0.0626 & 0.212(35) & 0.787(35) & 0.000(1) \\
BZ UMa & 15.877(3) & 228 & 1 & 0.122 & 0.0680 & 0.029(2) & 0.971(2) & 0.000(0) \\
BZ UMa & 16.371(3) & 228 & 1 & 0.122 & 0.0680 & 0.002(1) & 0.998(1) & 0.000(0) \\
BZ UMa & 16.468(4) & 228 & 1 & 0.122 & 0.0680 & 0.296(47) & 0.704(47) & 0.000(0) \\
CY UMa & 17.768(5) & 300 & 1 & 0.042 & 0.0696 & 0.008(1) & 0.811(39) & 0.181(40) \\
DI UMa & 17.912(6) & 800 & 1 & 0.050 & 0.0546 & 0.334(35) & 0.587(26) & 0.079(21) \\
DV UMa & 19.372(11) & 380 & 1 & 0.029 & 0.0859 & 0.000(0) & 0.988(6) & 0.012(6) \\
EL UMa & 20.274(19) & 539 & 2 & 0.053 & 0.0594 & 0.964(37) & 0.036(37) & 0.000(0) \\
ER UMa & 15.415(3) & 350 & 1 & 0.032 & 0.0637 & 0.069(13) & 0.749(38) & 0.182(33) \\
IY UMa & 17.537(5) & 170 & 1 & 0.024 & 0.0739 & 0.223(38) & 0.765(39) & 0.011(3) \\
IY UMa & 17.561(5) & 170 & 1 & 0.024 & 0.0739 & 0.061(8) & 0.931(8) & 0.007(2) \\
IY UMa & 17.637(5) & 170 & 1 & 0.024 & 0.0739 & 0.034(5) & 0.946(6) & 0.020(6) \\
KS UMa & 17.354(4) & 360 & 1 & 0.023 & 0.0680 & 0.039(6) & 0.960(7) & 0.001(0) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
KS UMa & 17.418(5) & 360 & 1 & 0.023 & 0.0680 & 0.008(3) & 0.990(3) & 0.002(1) \\
HV Vir & 19.181(11) & 300 & 1 & 0.103 & 0.0571 & 0.802(62) & 0.196(62) & 0.002(3) \\
OU Vir & 18.564(7) & 550 & 1 & 0.124 & 0.0727 & 0.344(40) & 0.622(46) & 0.034(21) \\
QZ Vir & 14.864(3) & 101 & 1 & 0.042 & 0.0588 & 0.147(7) & 0.842(10) & 0.011(5) \\
VW Vul & 15.772(3) & 430 & 2 & 0.395 & 0.1687 & 0.001(0) & 0.197(23) & 0.802(23) \\
1502$+$09 & 18.995(9) & 426 & 5 & 0.104 & -- & 0.038(16) & 0.962(16) & 0.000(0) \\
1502$+$09 & 19.111(10) & 426 & 5 & 0.104 & -- & 0.031(15) & 0.969(15) & 0.000(0) \\
1H1025$+$220 & 17.402(5) & 1579 & 3 & 0.081 & -- & 0.010(3) & 0.195(86) & 0.795(89) \\
1RXS J003828.7$+$250920 & 18.741(8) & 755 & 3 & 0.109 & -- & 0.001(0) & 0.998(2) & 0.002(2) \\
1RXS J003828.7$+$250920 & 18.849(8) & 755 & 3 & 0.109 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.999(1) & 0.001(1) \\
1RXS J012750.5$+$380830 & 17.177(4) & 181 & 5 & 0.093 & -- & 0.609(30) & 0.390(30) & 0.000(0) \\
1RXS J171456.2$+$585130 & 15.021(3) & 612 & 4 & 0.094 & 0.8380 & -- & -- & -- \\
2QZ J112555.7$-$001639 & 19.601(18) & 514 & 5 & 0.092 & -- & 0.804(122) & 0.196(122) & 0.000(0) \\
2QZ J112555.7$-$001639 & 19.555(16) & 514 & 5 & 0.092 & -- & 0.715(122) & 0.284(122) & 0.000(1) \\
2QZ J112555.7$-$001639 & 19.511(13) & 514 & 5 & 0.092 & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
2QZ J121005.3$-$025543 & 20.866(32) & 941 & 5 & 0.088 & -- & 0.920(215) & 0.027(90) & 0.053(202) \\
2QZ J130441.7$+$010330 & 20.187(19) & 704 & 5 & 0.078 & -- & 0.281(150) & 0.718(150) & 0.001(4) \\
2QZ J130441.7$+$010330 & 20.690(27) & 704 & 5 & 0.078 & -- & 0.341(241) & 0.643(240) & 0.016(43) \\
2QZ J142701.6$-$012310 & 19.985(17) & 833 & 3 & 0.139 & -- & 0.657(233) & 0.343(234) & 0.000(1) \\
ASAS J224349$+$0809.5 & 19.549(14) & 370 & 1 & 0.306 & 0.0678$^\|$ & 0.012(6) & 0.988(6) & 0.000(0) \\
ASAS J224349$+$0809.5 & 19.707(15) & 370 & 1 & 0.306 & 0.0678$^\|$ & 0.025(9) & 0.975(9) & 0.000(0) \\
FSV J1722$+$2723 & 19.950(16) & 900 & 5 & 0.135 & -- & 0.014(9) & 0.984(9) & 0.002(1) \\
FSV J1722$+$2723 & 20.664(32) & 900 & 5 & 0.135 & -- & 0.007(6) & 0.991(7) & 0.002(4) \\
FSV J1722$+$2723 & 20.599(23) & 900 & 5 & 0.135 & -- & 0.067(50) & 0.922(49) & 0.011(16) \\
FSV J1722$+$2723 & 20.902(28) & 900 & 5 & 0.135 & -- & 0.004(3) & 0.995(4) & 0.001(1) \\
GD 552 & 16.398(4) & 105 & 1 & 0.248 & 0.0713 & 0.246(94) & 0.754(94) & 0.000(0) \\
GSC 847.1021 & 15.138(3) & 446 & 3 & 0.108 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.567(34) & 0.433(34) \\
GUVV J090904.4$+$091714.4 & 21.447(57) & 1971 & 3 & 0.320 & -- & 0.001(1) & 0.939(146) & 0.061(146) \\
GUVV J090904.4$+$091714.4 & 22.360(91) & 1971 & 3 & 0.320 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.723(367) & 0.277(367) \\
GUVV J090904.4$+$091714.4 & 22.467(110) & 1971 & 3 & 0.320 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.421(412) & 0.579(412) \\
HS 1016$+$3412 & 18.391(7) & 864 & 2 & 0.064 & 0.0794 & 0.014(2) & 0.985(2) & 0.001(0) \\
HS 1055$+$0939 & 15.876(3) & 833 & 2 & 0.090 & 0.3763 & 0.000(0) & 0.029(16) & 0.971(16) \\
HS 1340$+$1524 & 17.316(5) & 590 & 2 & 0.091 & 0.0644 & 0.195(20) & 0.797(19) & 0.008(3) \\
HS 1340$+$1524 & 17.960(6) & 590 & 2 & 0.091 & 0.0644 & 0.000(0) & 0.941(33) & 0.059(33) \\
HS 2205$+$0201 & 17.224(5) & 1043 & 2 & 0.141 & 0.208 & 0.000(0) & 0.035(16) & 0.965(16) \\
HS 2219$+$1824 & 17.524(5) & 260 & 1 & 0.131 & 0.0599 & 0.118(16) & 0.881(16) & 0.000(0) \\
HS 2219$+$1824 & 17.555(5) & 260 & 1 & 0.131 & 0.0599 & 0.144(17) & 0.855(17) & 0.000(0) \\
MASTER J013241.20$+$343809.1 & 21.483(79) & 3511 & 6 & 0.123 & -- & 0.053(184) & 0.390(467) & 0.557(488) \\
MASTER J071948.9$+$405332 & 21.831(97) & 1852 & 3 & 0.207 & -- & 0.042(146) & 0.722(393) & 0.236(390) \\
MASTER J071948.9$+$405332 & 21.739(47) & 1852 & 3 & 0.207 & -- & 0.204(284) & 0.399(332) & 0.397(404) \\
NSV 02026 & 17.549(5) & 545 & 3 & 0.829 & -- & 0.095(12) & 0.866(14) & 0.039(8) \\
NSV 04394 & 21.853(102) & 501 & 6 & 0.051 & -- & 0.375(458) & 0.140(306) & 0.485(468) \\
NSV 04838 & 18.617(8) & 1000 & 1 & 0.048 & 0.0679$^\|$ & 0.049(11) & 0.932(11) & 0.019(11) \\
NSV 04838 & 18.851(9) & 1000 & 1 & 0.048 & 0.0679$^\|$ & 0.052(13) & 0.911(15) & 0.037(14) \\
NSV 05031 & 19.232(11) & 667 & 3 & 0.188 & -- & 0.002(1) & 0.998(1) & 0.000(0) \\
NSV 05285 & 19.623(15) & 659 & 2 & 0.088 & 0.0847$^\|$ & 0.007(4) & 0.993(4) & 0.001(1) \\
NSV 14652 & 17.918(6) & 1100 & 1 & 0.659 & 0.0788$^\|$ & 0.144(18) & 0.853(20) & 0.004(2) \\
NSV 14652 & 18.545(7) & 1100 & 1 & 0.659 & 0.0788$^\|$ & 0.046(9) & 0.950(8) & 0.004(2) \\
NSV 14681 & 20.179(18) & 491 & 3 & 0.454 & -- & 0.003(1) & 0.868(203) & 0.129(202) \\
NSV 18230 & 20.141(22) & 1224 & 3 & 0.042 & -- & 0.035(28) & 0.965(28) & 0.000(0) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
NSV 18230 & 20.429(22) & 1224 & 3 & 0.042 & -- & 0.015(18) & 0.963(93) & 0.022(94) \\
NSV 19466 & 18.290(7) & 1748 & 3 & 0.097 & -- & 0.123(29) & 0.876(30) & 0.001(1) \\
NSV 19466 & 17.686(6) & 1748 & 3 & 0.097 & -- & 0.024(4) & 0.974(4) & 0.003(1) \\
NSV 20657 & 21.200(38) & 1414 & 3 & 0.070 & -- & 0.178(226) & 0.667(310) & 0.155(288) \\
OT J000024.7$+$332543 & 20.760(31) & 1149 & 3 & 0.159 & -- & 0.010(12) & 0.953(113) & 0.037(109) \\
OT J000130.5$+$050624 & 20.967(34) & 1106 & 3 & 0.113 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.331(393) & 0.669(393) \\
OT J000659.6$+$192818 & 21.231(56) & 3082 & 3 & 0.143 & -- & 0.030(54) & 0.940(127) & 0.030(116) \\
OT J000659.6$+$192818 & 21.363(53) & 3082 & 3 & 0.143 & -- & 0.007(35) & 0.596(402) & 0.397(407) \\
OT J001158.3$+$315544 & 21.869(65) & 2413 & 3 & 0.172 & -- & 0.031(80) & 0.705(346) & 0.264(357) \\
OT J001340.0$+$332124 & 21.911(69) & 3330 & 3 & 0.141 & -- & 0.069(184) & 0.226(358) & 0.705(419) \\
OT J001340.0$+$332124 & 22.021(95) & 3330 & 3 & 0.141 & -- & 0.002(16) & 0.013(100) & 0.985(102) \\
OT J001538.3$+$263657 & 17.894(6) & 406 & 3 & 0.106 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.916(22) & 0.084(22) \\
OT J001538.3$+$263657 & 17.802(6) & 406 & 3 & 0.106 & -- & 0.020(3) & 0.980(3) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J002500.2$+$073349 & 19.677(13) & 2075 & 3 & 0.073 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.164(171) & 0.836(171) \\
OT J002500.2$+$073349 & 19.989(22) & 2075 & 3 & 0.073 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.002(5) & 0.998(5) \\
OT J002500.2$+$073349 & 20.218(20) & 2075 & 3 & 0.073 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J002656.6$+$284933 & 21.592(49) & 1579 & 3 & 0.121 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.174(286) & 0.826(286) \\
OT J003203.6$+$314510 & 19.070(10) & 926 & 3 & 0.187 & -- & 0.001(0) & 0.987(14) & 0.012(14) \\
OT J003304.0$+$380106 & 20.437(29) & 1019 & 3 & 0.192 & -- & 0.005(5) & 0.972(93) & 0.023(92) \\
OT J003304.0$+$380106 & 20.726(31) & 1019 & 3 & 0.192 & -- & 0.058(74) & 0.875(147) & 0.068(116) \\
OT J003500.0$+$273620 & 21.118(42) & 3797 & 6 & 0.153 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.103(261) & 0.897(261) \\
OT J004500.3$+$222708 & 20.447(29) & 722 & 3 & 0.107 & -- & 0.004(5) & 0.988(56) & 0.008(56) \\
OT J004518.4$+$185350 & 21.049(54) & 4970 & 3 & 0.168 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.295(423) & 0.705(423) \\
OT J004606.7$+$052100 & 21.596(101) & 6217 & 6 & 0.082 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.281(415) & 0.719(415) \\
OT J004807.2$+$264621 & 21.703(100) & 3322 & 3 & 0.158 & -- & 0.223(329) & 0.770(331) & 0.007(34) \\
OT J004807.2$+$264621 & 21.571(58) & 3322 & 3 & 0.158 & -- & 0.071(178) & 0.878(251) & 0.052(196) \\
OT J004902.0$+$074726 & 21.520(59) & 3770 & 3 & 0.254 & -- & 0.297(409) & 0.567(453) & 0.137(331) \\
OT J005152.9$+$204017 & 19.059(11) & 2102 & 3 & 0.102 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J005824.6$+$283304 & 19.217(10) & 502 & 3 & 0.206 & -- & 0.066(54) & 0.934(54) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J010329.0$+$331822 & 17.982(6) & 2280 & 3 & 0.202 & -- & 0.697(64) & 0.303(64) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J010411.6$-$031341 & 19.516(13) & 2806 & 3 & 0.097 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.998(1) & 0.002(1) \\
OT J010522.2$+$110253 & 20.712(23) & 912 & 3 & 0.137 & -- & 0.002(3) & 0.310(300) & 0.688(302) \\
OT J010522.2$+$110253 & 20.850(33) & 912 & 3 & 0.137 & -- & 0.002(2) & 0.925(199) & 0.073(200) \\
OT J010522.2$+$110253 & 20.914(34) & 912 & 3 & 0.137 & -- & 0.005(8) & 0.652(388) & 0.343(390) \\
OT J010550.1$+$190317 & 19.644(16) & 1464 & 3 & 0.129 & -- & 0.900(90) & 0.100(90) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J011134.5$+$275922 & 22.292(169) & 7148 & 6 & 0.179 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.236(416) & 0.764(416) \\
OT J011516.5$+$245530 & 20.933(29) & 3220 & 3 & 0.236 & -- & 0.056(50) & 0.931(64) & 0.013(33) \\
OT J011516.5$+$245530 & 21.076(42) & 3220 & 3 & 0.236 & -- & 0.166(165) & 0.823(184) & 0.012(99) \\
OT J011516.5$+$245530 & 21.240(35) & 3220 & 3 & 0.236 & -- & 0.203(204) & 0.725(251) & 0.072(158) \\
OT J011543.2$+$333724 & 20.558(31) & 1455 & 3 & 0.222 & -- & 0.002(3) & 0.957(184) & 0.041(185) \\
OT J011613.8$+$092216 & 19.131(11) & 1501 & 3 & 0.143 & -- & 0.010(5) & 0.494(233) & 0.496(236) \\
OT J012059.6$+$325545 & 20.088(18) & 355 & 2 & 0.142 & 0.0572 & 0.230(368) & 0.770(368) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J014150.4$+$090822 & 20.061(21) & 663 & 2 & 0.212 & 0.0610$^\|$ & 0.428(205) & 0.562(203) & 0.010(17) \\
OT J020056.0$+$195727 & 19.280(15) & 4950 & 3 & 0.291 & -- & 0.011(25) & 0.989(25) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J021110.2$+$171624 & 19.405(12) & 700 & 1 & 0.342 & 0.0789$^\|$ & 0.020(9) & 0.969(48) & 0.011(46) \\
OT J021308.0$+$184416 & 20.798(29) & 2586 & 3 & 0.452 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J023211.7$+$303636 & 20.825(28) & 2345 & 3 & 0.329 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.015(38) & 0.985(38) \\
OT J025615.0$+$191611 & 23.895(343) & 906 & 6 & 2.765 & -- & 0.123(289) & 0.873(291) & 0.004(29) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.746(198) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.011(68) & 0.989(68) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.251(105) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.031(140) & 0.969(140) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.091(122) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.039(161) & 0.961(161) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.407(123) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.003(23) & 0.997(23) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.350(95) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.025(113) & 0.975(113) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.397(126) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.010(82) & 0.990(82) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.495(108) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.022(109) & 0.978(109) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.235(98) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.030(125) & 0.970(125) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.486(98) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.006(42) & 0.994(42) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.335(103) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.004(17) & 0.996(17) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.365(138) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.036(155) & 0.964(155) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.545(113) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.019(82) & 0.981(82) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.419(101) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.002(15) & 0.998(15) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.459(116) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.008(77) & 0.992(77) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.387(128) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.039(162) & 0.961(162) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.664(137) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.110(278) & 0.890(278) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.418(133) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.027(145) & 0.973(145) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.549(122) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.009(66) & 0.991(66) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.517(115) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.030(117) & 0.970(117) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.669(115) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.007(38) & 0.993(38) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.559(115) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(1) & 1.000(1) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.471(103) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.001(3) & 0.999(3) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.580(130) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.007(74) & 0.993(74) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.336(100) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J032651.7$+$011513 & 22.270(97) & 2768 & 6 & 0.339 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.714(30) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.173(168) & 0.810(170) & 0.016(57) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.759(29) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.745(231) & 0.255(230) & 0.000(1) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.830(28) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.620(313) & 0.380(313) & 0.000(2) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 20.785(28) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.660(207) & 0.340(207) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.074(75) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.383(306) & 0.584(307) & 0.033(162) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.033(48) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.448(342) & 0.523(334) & 0.030(141) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.205(55) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.413(283) & 0.587(283) & 0.000(2) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.134(36) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.364(223) & 0.636(222) & 0.000(2) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.060(34) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.266(220) & 0.714(221) & 0.020(64) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.199(49) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.589(290) & 0.394(280) & 0.017(121) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.111(37) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.392(393) & 0.602(389) & 0.006(23) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.328(46) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.441(369) & 0.552(363) & 0.007(28) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.321(58) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.343(300) & 0.642(302) & 0.015(101) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.220(64) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.478(355) & 0.443(335) & 0.079(225) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.391(42) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.430(349) & 0.511(330) & 0.059(189) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.518(49) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.188(295) & 0.649(348) & 0.163(309) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.563(67) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.363(335) & 0.600(336) & 0.037(141) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.550(67) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.188(312) & 0.512(388) & 0.299(384) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.396(47) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.491(450) & 0.491(452) & 0.018(122) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.305(56) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.548(462) & 0.053(161) & 0.399(474) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.662(83) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.020(74) & 0.767(370) & 0.213(370) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.507(51) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.374(398) & 0.487(396) & 0.138(319) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.634(63) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.478(427) & 0.445(412) & 0.076(230) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.544(64) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.294(313) & 0.590(335) & 0.116(247) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.507(47) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.568(283) & 0.393(276) & 0.039(166) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.598(64) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.184(237) & 0.610(318) & 0.207(322) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.536(65) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.764(361) & 0.156(288) & 0.080(267) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.774(82) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.141(292) & 0.842(305) & 0.016(85) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.525(60) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.292(385) & 0.683(400) & 0.025(145) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.584(55) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.035(162) & 0.546(468) & 0.418(471) \\
OT J032839.9$-$010240 & 21.448(50) & 592 & 3 & 0.350 & -- & 0.381(398) & 0.265(368) & 0.354(431) \\
OT J032902.0$+$060047 & 21.625(64) & 1789 & 3 & 1.130 & -- & 0.001(3) & 0.521(449) & 0.479(450) \\
OT J032902.0$+$060047 & 21.274(42) & 1789 & 3 & 1.130 & -- & 0.011(19) & 0.553(360) & 0.436(365) \\
OT J032902.0$+$060047 & 22.037(72) & 1789 & 3 & 1.130 & -- & 0.001(3) & 0.277(383) & 0.723(384) \\
OT J033104.4$+$172540 & 19.862(15) & 1272 & 3 & 0.438 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.010(14) & 0.990(14) \\
OT J035003.4$+$370052 & 18.938(9) & 2242 & 3 & 1.011 & -- & 0.992(2) & 0.008(2) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J035003.4$+$370052 & 19.297(11) & 2242 & 3 & 1.011 & -- & 0.968(14) & 0.031(14) & 0.001(0) \\
OT J040659.8$+$005244 & 17.844(5) & 500 & 1 & 1.167 & 0.0774$^\|$ & 0.045(6) & 0.955(6) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J040659.8$+$005244 & 18.584(7) & 500 & 1 & 1.167 & 0.0774$^\|$ & 0.001(0) & 0.999(0) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J040659.8$+$005244 & 18.386(7) & 500 & 1 & 1.167 & 0.0774$^\|$ & 0.042(6) & 0.958(6) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J041636.9$+$292806 & 22.252(89) & 555 & 3 & 1.870 & -- & 0.001(2) & 0.962(161) & 0.037(161) \\
OT J041734.6$-$061357 & 22.732(243) & 4819 & 6 & 0.135 & -- & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J042142.1$+$340329 & 22.427(96) & 2102 & 3 & 1.031 & -- & 0.001(3) & 0.722(363) & 0.277(364) \\
OT J042229.3$+$161430 & 21.958(80) & 632 & 3 & 1.733 & -- & 0.023(51) & 0.557(411) & 0.421(424) \\
OT J042434.2$+$001419 & 23.098(196) & 1470 & 6 & 0.314 & -- & 0.188(368) & 0.033(164) & 0.779(400) \\
OT J043020.0$+$095318 & 20.377(20) & 698 & 3 & 1.342 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.165(166) & 0.834(166) \\
OT J043517.8$+$002941 & 21.124(40) & 2659 & 3 & 0.240 & -- & 0.424(306) & 0.469(306) & 0.106(236) \\
OT J043517.8$+$002941 & 21.744(67) & 2659 & 3 & 0.240 & -- & 0.116(253) & 0.743(337) & 0.141(285) \\
OT J043517.8$+$002941 & 21.957(65) & 2659 & 3 & 0.240 & -- & 0.891(284) & 0.078(239) & 0.031(168) \\
OT J043546.9$+$090837 & 21.827(52) & 823 & 3 & 0.829 & -- & 0.038(69) & 0.894(213) & 0.068(205) \\
OT J043742.1$+$003048 & 20.368(23) & 2227 & 3 & 0.204 & -- & 0.020(17) & 0.944(132) & 0.036(135) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.218(12) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.021(9) & 0.965(11) & 0.014(9) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.080(11) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.403(130) & 0.584(138) & 0.014(28) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.226(11) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.083(47) & 0.730(133) & 0.187(164) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.540(12) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.069(168) & 0.931(168) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.489(13) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.178(53) & 0.814(55) & 0.009(6) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.375(12) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.090(39) & 0.815(137) & 0.095(124) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.306(11) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.145(61) & 0.840(88) & 0.015(48) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.571(14) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.185(84) & 0.807(89) & 0.008(11) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.677(14) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.081(35) & 0.908(37) & 0.011(7) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.618(14) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.003(4) & 0.912(133) & 0.085(133) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.492(12) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.055(23) & 0.909(83) & 0.036(75) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.639(13) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.070(37) & 0.927(40) & 0.003(7) \\
OT J043829.1$+$004016 & 19.714(16) & 1838 & 3 & 0.203 & -- & 0.007(14) & 0.707(310) & 0.286(313) \\
OT J044216.0$-$002334 & 21.927(76) & 1884 & 2 & 0.136 & 0.0743$^\|$ & 0.001(2) & 0.237(389) & 0.762(389) \\
OT J044216.0$-$002334 & 22.266(115) & 1884 & 2 & 0.136 & 0.0743$^\|$ & 0.012(39) & 0.589(424) & 0.400(426) \\
OT J044216.0$-$002334 & 21.931(70) & 1884 & 2 & 0.136 & 0.0743$^\|$ & 0.092(229) & 0.680(406) & 0.228(386) \\
OT J051419.9$+$011121 & 19.799(15) & 928 & 3 & 0.386 & -- & 0.002(3) & 0.833(204) & 0.165(205) \\
OT J051419.9$+$011121 & 19.844(20) & 928 & 3 & 0.386 & -- & 0.041(38) & 0.951(48) & 0.008(21) \\
OT J051419.9$+$011121 & 20.214(21) & 928 & 3 & 0.386 & -- & 0.008(7) & 0.992(7) & 0.001(1) \\
OT J051419.9$+$011121 & 20.509(22) & 928 & 3 & 0.386 & -- & 0.043(36) & 0.954(38) & 0.003(5) \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 19.566(13) & 3950 & 3 & 0.440 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(1) & 1.000(1) \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 20.195(24) & 3950 & 3 & 0.440 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 20.561(24) & 3950 & 3 & 0.440 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(1) & 1.000(1) \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 20.473(24) & 3950 & 3 & 0.440 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 20.553(30) & 3950 & 3 & 0.440 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J052033.9$-$000530 & 20.521(21) & 3950 & 3 & 0.440 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
OT J055730.1$+$001514 & 22.920(137) & 1377 & 6 & 2.156 & -- & 0.001(4) & 0.652(457) & 0.347(457) \\
OT J055842.8$+$000626 & 20.329(20) & 714 & 3 & 1.721 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.001(3) & 0.999(3) \\
OT J055842.8$+$000626 & 19.803(15) & 714 & 3 & 1.721 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J055842.8$+$000626 & 20.434(22) & 714 & 3 & 1.721 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.001(9) & 0.999(9) \\
OT J055842.8$+$000626 & 20.732(29) & 714 & 3 & 1.721 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J073055.5$+$425636 & 22.761(150) & 1185 & 6 & 0.182 & -- & 0.536(456) & 0.251(394) & 0.213(374) \\
OT J073339.3$+$212201 & 20.447(27) & 2068 & 6 & 0.172 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J073559.9$+$220132 & 20.198(22) & 5754 & 3 & 0.152 & -- & 0.728(191) & 0.245(183) & 0.027(56) \\
OT J073758.5$+$205545 & 19.984(18) & 1146 & 3 & 0.154 & -- & 0.944(55) & 0.056(55) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J073921.2$+$222454 & 22.698(136) & 3356 & 3 & 0.102 & -- & 0.010(86) & 0.766(392) & 0.225(388) \\
OT J074222.5$+$172807 & 19.942(15) & 3532 & 3 & 0.127 & -- & 0.136(84) & 0.854(103) & 0.011(40) \\
OT J074222.5$+$172807 & 19.861(17) & 3532 & 3 & 0.127 & -- & 0.027(29) & 0.184(184) & 0.789(205) \\
OT J074222.5$+$172807 & 19.897(18) & 3532 & 3 & 0.127 & -- & 0.001(3) & 0.023(93) & 0.976(96) \\
OT J074222.5$+$172807 & 20.227(19) & 3532 & 3 & 0.127 & -- & 0.014(13) & 0.293(314) & 0.693(323) \\
OT J074419.7$+$325448 & 20.763(24) & 2225 & 3 & 0.156 & -- & 0.829(190) & 0.170(190) & 0.001(1) \\
OT J074419.7$+$325448 & 21.310(46) & 2225 & 3 & 0.156 & -- & 0.647(423) & 0.350(422) & 0.003(22) \\
OT J074419.7$+$325448 & 21.441(48) & 2225 & 3 & 0.156 & -- & 0.900(176) & 0.099(175) & 0.001(7) \\
OT J074419.7$+$325448 & 21.460(61) & 2225 & 3 & 0.156 & -- & 0.340(371) & 0.637(378) & 0.023(98) \\
OT J074727.6$+$065050 & 19.402(13) & 350 & 1 & 0.059 & 0.0594$^\|$ & 0.932(86) & 0.068(86) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J074820.0$+$245759 & 22.523(134) & 3509 & 3 & 0.180 & -- & 0.245(382) & 0.728(389) & 0.026(130) \\
OT J074820.0$+$245759 & 22.366(128) & 3509 & 3 & 0.180 & -- & 0.898(284) & 0.009(62) & 0.093(271) \\
OT J074820.0$+$245759 & 22.514(114) & 3509 & 3 & 0.180 & -- & 0.005(25) & 0.529(441) & 0.466(444) \\
OT J074928.0$+$190452 & 20.794(33) & 1929 & 3 & 0.168 & -- & 0.008(11) & 0.989(19) & 0.003(16) \\
OT J074928.0$+$190452 & 21.115(42) & 1929 & 3 & 0.168 & -- & 0.008(12) & 0.992(12) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J074928.0$+$190452 & 20.748(31) & 1929 & 3 & 0.168 & -- & 0.049(71) & 0.722(300) & 0.229(303) \\
OT J075332.0$+$375801 & 21.289(46) & 1958 & 3 & 0.162 & -- & 0.056(65) & 0.919(141) & 0.025(128) \\
OT J075332.0$+$375801 & 21.191(45) & 1958 & 3 & 0.162 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.581(420) & 0.419(420) \\
OT J075332.0$+$375801 & 21.333(46) & 1958 & 3 & 0.162 & -- & 0.093(168) & 0.842(237) & 0.065(188) \\
OT J075414.5$+$313216 & 19.651(14) & 565 & 2 & 0.165 & 0.0615$^\|$ & 0.697(88) & 0.302(89) & 0.001(6) \\
OT J075414.5$+$313216 & 20.018(20) & 565 & 2 & 0.165 & 0.0615$^\|$ & 0.649(247) & 0.312(238) & 0.038(85) \\
OT J075648.0$+$305805 & 21.077(46) & 1646 & 3 & 0.186 & -- & 0.421(338) & 0.576(338) & 0.003(11) \\
OT J075648.0$+$305805 & 20.859(33) & 1646 & 3 & 0.186 & -- & 0.313(246) & 0.460(282) & 0.228(286) \\
OT J080428.4$+$363104 & 22.113(70) & 4809 & 3 & 0.175 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.223(335) & 0.777(335) \\
OT J080428.4$+$363104 & 22.948(175) & 4809 & 3 & 0.175 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.225(384) & 0.775(384) \\
OT J080714.2$+$113812 & 20.537(24) & 540 & 1 & 0.064 & 0.0596$^\|$ & 0.998(3) & 0.001(3) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J080714.2$+$113812 & 20.909(28) & 540 & 1 & 0.064 & 0.0596$^\|$ & 0.904(143) & 0.091(132) & 0.005(43) \\
OT J080729.7$+$153442 & 22.483(95) & 2636 & 3 & 0.090 & -- & 0.009(45) & 0.672(420) & 0.319(424) \\
OT J080729.7$+$153442 & 22.367(119) & 2636 & 3 & 0.090 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.406(440) & 0.594(441) \\
OT J080729.7$+$153442 & 22.628(202) & 2636 & 3 & 0.090 & -- & 0.029(153) & 0.605(474) & 0.365(471) \\
OT J080853.7$+$355053 & 19.656(13) & 1423 & 3 & 0.151 & -- & 0.082(42) & 0.855(105) & 0.064(86) \\
OT J081030.6$+$002429 & 21.358(46) & 2596 & 3 & 0.112 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.626(347) & 0.374(347) \\
OT J081414.9$+$080450 & 21.337(48) & 4942 & 3 & 0.073 & -- & 0.000(2) & 0.250(369) & 0.750(369) \\
OT J081414.9$+$080450 & 21.700(57) & 4942 & 3 & 0.073 & -- & 0.002(3) & 0.573(397) & 0.425(398) \\
OT J081414.9$+$080450 & 22.232(100) & 4942 & 3 & 0.073 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.622(415) & 0.378(415) \\
OT J081418.9$-$005022 & 18.567(7) & 689 & 2 & 0.120 & 0.0741$^\|$ & 0.002(0) & 0.924(68) & 0.074(68) \\
OT J081418.9$-$005022 & 18.921(9) & 689 & 2 & 0.120 & 0.0741$^\|$ & 0.016(6) & 0.984(6) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J081418.9$-$005022 & 19.116(10) & 689 & 2 & 0.120 & 0.0741$^\|$ & 0.009(3) & 0.971(29) & 0.020(27) \\
OT J081418.9$-$005022 & 19.101(10) & 689 & 2 & 0.120 & 0.0741$^\|$ & 0.009(4) & 0.990(6) & 0.001(2) \\
OT J081418.9$-$005022 & 19.193(11) & 689 & 2 & 0.120 & 0.0741$^\|$ & 0.037(12) & 0.963(12) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J081712.3$+$055208 & 21.387(55) & 7044 & 3 & 0.082 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(1) & 1.000(1) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
OT J081712.3$+$055208 & 21.462(60) & 7044 & 3 & 0.082 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.287(419) & 0.713(419) \\
OT J081936.1$+$191540 & 20.364(24) & 4275 & 3 & 0.162 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.338(409) & 0.662(409) \\
OT J081936.1$+$191540 & 20.479(24) & 4275 & 3 & 0.162 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.902(236) & 0.098(236) \\
OT J082019.4$+$474732 & 21.361(50) & 2322 & 3 & 0.139 & -- & 0.200(223) & 0.763(250) & 0.037(152) \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 19.472(12) & 2214 & 3 & 0.141 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.004(11) & 0.996(11) \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 19.923(19) & 2214 & 3 & 0.141 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.815(115) & 0.184(115) \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 19.987(20) & 2214 & 3 & 0.141 & -- & 0.001(1) & 0.952(78) & 0.047(78) \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 19.891(18) & 2214 & 3 & 0.141 & -- & 0.001(1) & 0.941(146) & 0.058(146) \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 20.090(20) & 2214 & 3 & 0.141 & -- & 0.001(0) & 0.399(282) & 0.601(282) \\
OT J082123.7$+$454135 & 20.605(27) & 2214 & 3 & 0.141 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.637(236) & 0.363(236) \\
OT J082603.7$+$113821 & 20.630(26) & 874 & 3 & 0.117 & -- & 0.017(18) & 0.979(27) & 0.004(22) \\
OT J082603.7$+$113821 & 20.459(23) & 874 & 3 & 0.117 & -- & 0.018(19) & 0.816(201) & 0.166(200) \\
OT J082603.7$+$113821 & 20.687(30) & 874 & 3 & 0.117 & -- & 0.001(2) & 0.538(376) & 0.461(376) \\
OT J082654.7$-$000733 & 19.460(13) & 1683 & 3 & 0.159 & -- & 0.041(38) & 0.473(248) & 0.485(259) \\
OT J082654.7$-$000733 & 19.523(12) & 1683 & 3 & 0.159 & -- & 0.754(64) & 0.246(64) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J082821.8$+$105344 & 22.291(111) & 1712 & 3 & 0.143 & -- & 0.163(314) & 0.651(420) & 0.187(368) \\
OT J082908.4$+$482639 & 21.433(63) & 1464 & 6 & 0.122 & -- & 0.081(239) & 0.907(254) & 0.012(84) \\
OT J084041.5$+$000520 & 20.590(23) & 1088 & 3 & 0.127 & -- & 0.825(211) & 0.175(211) & 0.000(1) \\
OT J084041.5$+$000520 & 20.793(28) & 1088 & 3 & 0.127 & -- & 0.753(237) & 0.247(237) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J084041.5$+$000520 & 20.777(29) & 1088 & 3 & 0.127 & -- & 0.622(279) & 0.377(279) & 0.002(9) \\
OT J084127.4$+$210053 & 20.498(26) & 1232 & 3 & 0.125 & -- & 0.002(1) & 0.832(290) & 0.166(290) \\
OT J084127.4$+$210053 & 20.610(25) & 1232 & 3 & 0.125 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.728(377) & 0.272(377) \\
OT J084358.1$+$425037 & 19.913(16) & 1134 & 3 & 0.103 & -- & 0.004(3) & 0.989(19) & 0.006(18) \\
OT J084413.7$-$012807 & 20.349(25) & 2569 & 3 & 0.112 & -- & 0.198(172) & 0.761(190) & 0.041(79) \\
OT J084413.7$-$012807 & 20.112(18) & 2569 & 3 & 0.112 & -- & 0.536(208) & 0.373(205) & 0.091(176) \\
OT J084413.7$-$012807 & 20.522(26) & 2569 & 3 & 0.112 & -- & 0.972(78) & 0.028(78) & 0.000(1) \\
OT J084555.1$+$033930 & 20.592(22) & 450 & 1 & 0.115 & 0.0591$^\|$ & 0.959(103) & 0.041(103) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J084555.1$+$033930 & 20.885(36) & 450 & 1 & 0.115 & 0.0591$^\|$ & 0.658(330) & 0.342(329) & 0.001(4) \\
OT J084555.1$+$033930 & 20.810(52) & 450 & 1 & 0.115 & 0.0591$^\|$ & 0.363(411) & 0.534(432) & 0.102(294) \\
OT J085113.4$+$344449 & 20.108(21) & 514 & 3 & 0.105 & -- & 0.004(4) & 0.899(117) & 0.097(116) \\
OT J085113.4$+$344449 & 20.445(21) & 514 & 3 & 0.105 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.751(201) & 0.249(201) \\
OT J085409.4$+$201339 & 20.910(30) & 2289 & 3 & 0.089 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.886(253) & 0.113(253) \\
OT J085603.8$+$322109 & 19.638(13) & 1417 & 3 & 0.090 & -- & 0.416(161) & 0.580(163) & 0.004(9) \\
OT J085822.9$-$003729 & 21.710(57) & 2889 & 3 & 0.112 & -- & 0.003(13) & 0.358(431) & 0.639(433) \\
OT J085822.9$-$003729 & 22.343(158) & 2889 & 3 & 0.112 & -- & 0.014(69) & 0.389(438) & 0.598(449) \\
OT J085822.9$-$003729 & 22.785(211) & 2889 & 3 & 0.112 & -- & 0.016(115) & 0.132(318) & 0.851(335) \\
OT J090016.7$+$343928 & 20.467(24) & 4784 & 3 & 0.090 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.001(4) & 0.999(4) \\
OT J090016.7$+$343928 & 20.615(24) & 4784 & 3 & 0.090 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.035(141) & 0.965(141) \\
OT J090239.7$+$052501 & 23.161(177) & 1285 & 2 & 0.145 & 0.0565 & 0.036(151) & 0.147(313) & 0.818(350) \\
OT J090516.1$+$120451 & 19.796(17) & 1428 & 3 & 0.062 & -- & 0.070(39) & 0.929(39) & 0.001(1) \\
OT J090516.1$+$120451 & 19.754(14) & 1428 & 3 & 0.062 & -- & 0.047(26) & 0.923(45) & 0.030(32) \\
OT J090852.2$+$071640 & 20.130(19) & 2266 & 3 & 0.163 & -- & 0.388(202) & 0.330(196) & 0.282(315) \\
OT J090852.2$+$071640 & 20.987(36) & 2266 & 3 & 0.163 & -- & 0.019(32) & 0.649(364) & 0.332(370) \\
OT J091453.6$+$113402 & 20.971(33) & 1162 & 3 & 0.100 & -- & 0.611(329) & 0.357(323) & 0.033(132) \\
OT J091453.6$+$113402 & 20.962(39) & 1162 & 3 & 0.100 & -- & 0.456(340) & 0.406(331) & 0.137(278) \\
OT J091534.9$+$081356 & 22.802(162) & 3219 & 3 & 0.136 & -- & 0.075(221) & 0.797(352) & 0.128(299) \\
OT J091534.9$+$081356 & 23.028(169) & 3219 & 3 & 0.136 & -- & 0.051(193) & 0.144(319) & 0.805(382) \\
OT J091634.6$+$130358 & 21.453(61) & 4224 & 3 & 0.079 & -- & 0.008(26) & 0.988(28) & 0.004(12) \\
OT J091634.6$+$130358 & 21.894(76) & 4224 & 3 & 0.079 & -- & 0.063(160) & 0.840(286) & 0.097(254) \\
OT J091634.6$+$130358 & 21.834(87) & 4224 & 3 & 0.079 & -- & 0.111(270) & 0.779(360) & 0.110(283) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
OT J092839.3$+$005944 & 21.236(136) & 2474 & 3 & 0.232 & -- & 0.020(86) & 0.381(408) & 0.599(425) \\
OT J092839.3$+$005944 & 21.775(76) & 2474 & 3 & 0.232 & -- & 0.011(65) & 0.752(360) & 0.237(360) \\
OT J092839.3$+$005944 & 21.800(79) & 2474 & 3 & 0.232 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.562(396) & 0.438(396) \\
OT J092839.3$+$005944 & 21.901(71) & 2474 & 3 & 0.232 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.572(410) & 0.428(410) \\
OT J101035.5$+$140239 & 17.196(4) & 6408 & 3 & 0.140 & -- & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J101035.5$+$140239 & 18.051(6) & 6408 & 3 & 0.140 & -- & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J103704.6$+$100224 & 23.421(274) & 3921 & 6 & 0.083 & -- & 0.012(90) & 0.429(473) & 0.558(476) \\
OT J103704.6$+$100224 & 22.857(180) & 3921 & 6 & 0.083 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.342(444) & 0.658(444) \\
OT J101545.9$+$033312 & 20.168(19) & 904 & 3 & 0.091 & -- & 0.093(83) & 0.906(83) & 0.001(2) \\
OT J102146.4$+$234926 & 20.725(26) & 700 & 1 & 0.071 & 0.0554$^\|$ & 0.457(331) & 0.305(244) & 0.238(375) \\
OT J102616.0$+$192045 & 20.126(18) & 859 & 2 & 0.081 & 0.0800$^\|$ & 0.004(2) & 0.852(229) & 0.144(229) \\
OT J102637.0$+$475426 & 19.929(17) & 733 & 2 & 0.030 & 0.0663$^\|$ & 0.522(147) & 0.423(164) & 0.054(154) \\
OT J102637.0$+$475426 & 20.127(23) & 733 & 2 & 0.030 & 0.0663$^\|$ & 0.709(187) & 0.291(187) & 0.000(3) \\
OT J102937.7$+$414046 & 22.269(86) & 1970 & 3 & 0.036 & -- & 0.522(442) & 0.046(171) & 0.432(448) \\
OT J102937.7$+$414046 & 22.401(100) & 1970 & 3 & 0.036 & -- & 0.217(361) & 0.653(434) & 0.130(318) \\
OT J102937.7$+$414046 & 22.137(89) & 1970 & 3 & 0.036 & -- & 0.046(159) & 0.945(168) & 0.009(62) \\
OT J103317.3$+$072119 & 19.893(16) & 638 & 3 & 0.077 & -- & 0.058(25) & 0.938(32) & 0.004(14) \\
OT J103738.7$+$124250 & 21.903(77) & 2747 & 3 & 0.085 & -- & 0.014(44) & 0.306(370) & 0.679(380) \\
OT J103738.7$+$124250 & 22.064(130) & 2747 & 3 & 0.085 & -- & 0.006(33) & 0.373(426) & 0.621(430) \\
OT J104411.4$+$211307 & 19.347(11) & 278 & 2 & 0.084 & 0.0591 & 0.697(72) & 0.303(72) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J105550.1$+$095621 & 19.153(11) & 919 & 3 & 0.085 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J105835.1$+$054706 & 20.299(24) & 832 & 3 & 0.088 & -- & 0.279(198) & 0.716(202) & 0.005(10) \\
OT J105835.1$+$054706 & 20.401(23) & 832 & 3 & 0.088 & -- & 0.041(30) & 0.933(68) & 0.026(61) \\
OT J112112.0$-$130843 & 19.851(18) & 3339 & 3 & 0.201 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.043(106) & 0.957(106) \\
OT J112253.3$-$111037 & 20.438(21) & 542 & 2 & 0.155 & 0.0472$^\|$ & 0.789(106) & 0.205(102) & 0.006(32) \\
OT J112332.0$+$431718 & 19.912(16) & 1234 & 3 & 0.067 & -- & 0.024(12) & 0.974(12) & 0.002(2) \\
OT J112509.7$+$231036 & 20.988(36) & 1930 & 3 & 0.058 & -- & 0.746(285) & 0.254(285) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J112509.7$+$231036 & 20.964(34) & 1930 & 3 & 0.058 & -- & 0.148(190) & 0.557(312) & 0.295(326) \\
OT J112634.0$-$100210 & 18.809(9) & 1477 & 3 & 0.137 & -- & 0.003(2) & 0.400(246) & 0.597(247) \\
OT J115330.2$+$315836 & 20.113(18) & 3253 & 3 & 0.072 & -- & 0.002(3) & 0.955(149) & 0.043(149) \\
OT J122756.8$+$622935 & 21.572(55) & 8428 & 3 & 0.058 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.008(77) & 0.992(77) \\
OT J122756.8$+$622935 & 21.813(69) & 8428 & 3 & 0.058 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.309(417) & 0.691(417) \\
OT J122756.8$+$622935 & 21.811(74) & 8428 & 3 & 0.058 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.089(268) & 0.911(268) \\
OT J123833.7$+$031854 & 21.560(65) & 3916 & 6 & 0.086 & -- & 0.000(3) & 0.769(390) & 0.231(390) \\
OT J124027.4$-$150558 & 21.021(39) & 4606 & 3 & 0.154 & -- & 0.004(8) & 0.390(369) & 0.606(373) \\
OT J124417.9$+$300401 & 19.571(12) & 871 & 3 & 0.054 & -- & 0.042(21) & 0.958(21) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J124819.4$+$072050 & 21.326(46) & 1968 & 3 & 0.097 & -- & 0.269(287) & 0.454(349) & 0.277(369) \\
OT J124819.4$+$072050 & 21.371(59) & 1968 & 3 & 0.097 & -- & 0.033(123) & 0.675(418) & 0.292(414) \\
OT J130030.3$+$115101 & 19.783(16) & 480 & 1 & 0.086 & 0.0627$^\|$ & 0.365(175) & 0.634(176) & 0.001(1) \\
OT J132536.0$+$210037 & -- & 2274 & 6 & 0.066 & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
OT J134052.1$+$151341 & 18.623(8) & 926 & 3 & 0.103 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.954(20) & 0.046(20) \\
OT J134052.1$+$151341 & 18.731(8) & 926 & 3 & 0.103 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.103(80) & 0.897(80) \\
OT J135219.0$+$280917 & 20.669(26) & 8008 & 3 & 0.045 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J135336.0$-$022043 & 21.711(72) & 8757 & 3 & 0.149 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.001(9) & 0.999(9) \\
OT J135716.8$-$093239 & 22.761(157) & 1671 & 6 & 0.135 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.052(196) & 0.948(196) \\
OT J141002.2$-$124809 & 19.160(11) & 1131 & 3 & 0.239 & -- & 0.869(66) & 0.130(66) & 0.001(4) \\
OT J141712.0$-$180328 & 20.616(28) & 826 & 3 & 0.280 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.989(80) & 0.010(81) \\
OT J142548.1$+$151502 & 21.802(61) & 3058 & 3 & 0.068 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.201(324) & 0.799(325) \\
OT J144011.0$+$494734 & 21.161(51) & 1127 & 2 & 0.075 & 0.0631$^\|$ & 0.057(192) & 0.921(237) & 0.022(136) \\
OT J144316.5$-$010222 & 22.185(88) & 1963 & 3 & 0.140 & -- & 0.065(154) & 0.918(178) & 0.017(102) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
OT J144316.5$-$010222 & 22.417(106) & 1963 & 3 & 0.140 & -- & 0.190(328) & 0.469(441) & 0.341(441) \\
OT J144316.5$-$010222 & 22.236(87) & 1963 & 3 & 0.140 & -- & 0.008(29) & 0.830(278) & 0.162(278) \\
OT J145502.2$+$143815 & 20.117(21) & 1435 & 3 & 0.119 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.004(9) & 0.996(9) \\
OT J145502.2$+$143815 & 20.485(22) & 1435 & 3 & 0.119 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.007(46) & 0.993(46) \\
OT J145502.2$+$143815 & 20.282(23) & 1435 & 3 & 0.119 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.001(6) & 0.999(6) \\
OT J145921.8$+$354806 & 21.544(39) & 1110 & 2 & 0.040 & 0.0822$^\|$ & 0.000(0) & 0.165(304) & 0.835(304) \\
OT J151020.7$+$182303 & 21.424(43) & 11218 & 3 & 0.093 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.003(17) & 0.997(17) \\
OT J151037.4$+$084104 & 19.120(10) & 4213 & 3 & 0.119 & -- & 0.830(164) & 0.170(164) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J152037.9$+$040948 & 22.495(143) & 1349 & 3 & 0.155 & -- & 0.003(18) & 0.957(159) & 0.040(159) \\
OT J152501.8$-$013021 & 22.679(138) & 1888 & 6 & 0.470 & -- & 0.570(462) & 0.069(243) & 0.361(451) \\
OT J153150.8$+$152447 & 23.130(157) & 6277 & 3 & 0.119 & -- & 0.007(46) & 0.345(439) & 0.648(442) \\
OT J153317.6$+$273428 & 21.932(76) & 5582 & 6 & 0.116 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.526(484) & 0.474(484) \\
OT J153645.2$-$142543 & 22.879(150) & 1634 & 3 & 0.525 & -- & 0.090(246) & 0.614(451) & 0.296(438) \\
OT J154354.1$-$143745 & 21.404(51) & 2425 & 3 & 0.463 & -- & 0.038(78) & 0.939(134) & 0.023(114) \\
OT J154428.1$+$335725 & 22.108(90) & 2963 & 6 & 0.091 & -- & 0.054(187) & 0.234(402) & 0.712(436) \\
OT J154544.9$+$442830 & 20.943(26) & 934 & 2 & 0.062 & 0.0747$^\|$ & 0.013(13) & 0.952(136) & 0.036(134) \\
OT J155325.7$+$114437 & 22.646(142) & 3019 & 6 & 0.151 & -- & 0.074(230) & 0.691(441) & 0.235(406) \\
OT J155325.7$+$114437 & 23.235(186) & 3019 & 6 & 0.151 & -- & 0.025(132) & 0.657(445) & 0.318(442) \\
OT J155430.6$+$365043 & 21.608(59) & 2171 & 3 & 0.062 & -- & 0.206(349) & 0.785(358) & 0.010(88) \\
OT J155430.6$+$365043 & 21.703(80) & 2171 & 3 & 0.062 & -- & 0.048(142) & 0.877(266) & 0.075(237) \\
OT J155748.0$+$070543 & 22.813(149) & 4603 & 6 & 0.135 & -- & 0.475(450) & 0.101(268) & 0.424(452) \\
OT J155748.0$+$070543 & 22.740(202) & 4603 & 6 & 0.135 & -- & 0.377(442) & 0.255(412) & 0.368(448) \\
OT J160204.8$+$031632 & 22.653(178) & 2407 & 3 & 0.448 & -- & 0.245(385) & 0.318(414) & 0.438(447) \\
OT J160204.8$+$031632 & 23.223(200) & 2407 & 3 & 0.448 & -- & 0.003(15) & 0.412(457) & 0.585(459) \\
OT J160232.2$+$161733 & 21.905(63) & 4042 & 6 & 0.117 & -- & 0.053(167) & 0.308(403) & 0.638(435) \\
OT J160524.1$+$060816 & 22.839(150) & 4389 & 3 & 0.175 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.789(375) & 0.211(375) \\
OT J160524.1$+$060816 & 22.678(181) & 4389 & 3 & 0.175 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.592(468) & 0.408(468) \\
OT J160844.8$+$220610 & 21.048(32) & 2423 & 3 & 0.309 & -- & 0.059(84) & 0.908(107) & 0.034(66) \\
OT J160844.8$+$220610 & 20.890(91) & 2423 & 3 & 0.309 & -- & 0.481(360) & 0.402(335) & 0.118(285) \\
OT J160844.8$+$220610 & 21.638(45) & 2423 & 3 & 0.309 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.450(421) & 0.550(421) \\
OT J162012.0$+$115257 & 22.211(83) & 5990 & 3 & 0.175 & -- & 0.090(240) & 0.786(370) & 0.124(315) \\
OT J162235.7$+$035247 & 22.240(125) & 1670 & 3 & 0.183 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.042(158) & 0.958(158) \\
OT J162605.7$+$225044 & 22.681(98) & 4444 & 3 & 0.165 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.631(420) & 0.369(421) \\
OT J162605.7$+$225044 & 22.998(166) & 4444 & 3 & 0.165 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.281(431) & 0.718(431) \\
OT J162656.8$-$002549 & 22.610(146) & 3892 & 3 & 0.277 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.753(385) & 0.247(385) \\
OT J162806.2$+$065316 & 20.544(27) & 541 & 2 & 0.195 & 0.0671$^\|$ & 0.192(142) & 0.803(144) & 0.005(15) \\
OT J162806.2$+$065316 & 20.649(26) & 541 & 2 & 0.195 & 0.0671$^\|$ & 0.090(75) & 0.826(214) & 0.084(218) \\
OT J162619.8$-$125557 & 21.601(61) & 1235 & 3 & 1.139 & -- & 0.135(157) & 0.801(219) & 0.064(177) \\
OT J163120.9$+$103134 & 19.061(10) & 560 & 1 & 0.275 & 0.0624$^\|$ & 0.432(96) & 0.568(96) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J163239.3$+$351108 & 22.697(118) & 3599 & 6 & 0.069 & -- & 0.467(461) & 0.013(93) & 0.521(466) \\
OT J163311.3$-$011132 & 21.356(43) & 2637 & 3 & 0.414 & -- & 0.174(199) & 0.818(204) & 0.008(71) \\
OT J163942.7$+$122414 & 19.481(12) & 1458 & 3 & 0.156 & -- & 0.024(8) & 0.597(169) & 0.379(171) \\
OT J163942.7$+$122414 & 20.457(25) & 1458 & 3 & 0.156 & -- & 0.025(21) & 0.966(41) & 0.009(29) \\
OT J164146.8$+$121026 & 21.333(48) & 2186 & 3 & 0.142 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.802(255) & 0.197(255) \\
OT J164146.8$+$121026 & 21.363(43) & 2186 & 3 & 0.142 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.622(368) & 0.378(368) \\
OT J164146.8$+$121026 & 21.488(46) & 2186 & 3 & 0.142 & -- & 0.002(5) & 0.378(399) & 0.619(401) \\
OT J164624.8$+$180808 & 22.351(84) & 2936 & 6 & 0.311 & -- & 0.003(16) & 0.089(249) & 0.909(257) \\
OT J164748.0$+$433845 & 21.650(80) & 5211 & 3 & 0.046 & -- & 0.590(456) & 0.353(441) & 0.058(220) \\
OT J164748.0$+$433845 & 21.535(46) & 5211 & 3 & 0.046 & -- & 0.974(91) & 0.026(91) & 0.000(2) \\
OT J164950.4$+$035835 & 18.548(12) & 524 & 3 & 0.289 & -- & 0.329(81) & 0.602(143) & 0.069(111) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
OT J165002.8$+$435616 & 22.758(164) & 4749 & 3 & 0.056 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.521(447) & 0.479(447) \\
OT J165002.8$+$435616 & 22.376(113) & 4749 & 3 & 0.056 & -- & 0.028(131) & 0.749(396) & 0.223(388) \\
OT J165002.8$+$435616 & 22.855(161) & 4749 & 3 & 0.056 & -- & 0.050(186) & 0.368(443) & 0.582(464) \\
OT J170115.8$-$024159 & 22.977(203) & 2061 & 6 & 1.080 & -- & 0.022(138) & 0.687(443) & 0.291(436) \\
OT J170151.6$+$132131 & 21.317(76) & 4327 & 3 & 0.248 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.100(262) & 0.900(262) \\
OT J170606.1$+$255153 & 21.479(66) & 1768 & 3 & 0.112 & -- & 0.048(94) & 0.836(257) & 0.116(258) \\
OT J170609.7$+$143452 & 18.231(7) & 642 & 3 & 0.458 & -- & 0.009(2) & 0.991(2) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J170609.7$+$143452 & 18.453(8) & 642 & 3 & 0.458 & -- & 0.018(6) & 0.982(6) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J170702.5$+$165339 & 21.593(51) & 1771 & 3 & 0.297 & -- & 0.001(2) & 0.989(45) & 0.010(45) \\
OT J171223.1$+$362516 & 20.885(32) & 3036 & 3 & 0.128 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J171223.1$+$362516 & 20.770(33) & 3036 & 3 & 0.128 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J171223.1$+$362516 & 20.533(29) & 3036 & 3 & 0.128 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J171223.1$+$362516 & 20.652(33) & 3036 & 3 & 0.128 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J172515.5$+$073249 & 20.656(30) & 735 & 6 & 0.320 & -- & 0.105(277) & 0.894(277) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J173307.9$+$300635 & 22.535(106) & 2245 & 3 & 0.173 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.381(438) & 0.619(438) \\
OT J175901.1$+$395551 & 22.030(98) & 4126 & 3 & 0.160 & -- & 0.041(174) & 0.337(446) & 0.622(461) \\
OT J182142.8$+$212154 & 20.260(21) & 726 & 2 & 0.441 & 0.0794$^\|$ & 0.003(2) & 0.922(148) & 0.075(148) \\
OT J202857.1$-$061803 & 20.606(30) & 1237 & 3 & 0.170 & -- & 0.415(234) & 0.570(238) & 0.015(90) \\
OT J204001.4$-$144909 & 20.563(25) & 3256 & 3 & 0.129 & -- & 0.179(137) & 0.788(153) & 0.033(56) \\
OT J204739.4$+$000840 & 22.213(131) & 3461 & 3 & 0.316 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.412(456) & 0.588(456) \\
OT J210034.4$+$055436 & 22.113(72) & 1544 & 3 & 0.285 & -- & 0.044(129) & 0.757(370) & 0.198(365) \\
OT J210034.4$+$055436 & 22.248(90) & 1544 & 3 & 0.285 & -- & 0.009(41) & 0.492(449) & 0.498(456) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.301(65) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.175(291) & 0.825(291) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.613(51) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.946(117) & 0.054(118) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.461(60) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.001(2) & 0.601(403) & 0.398(403) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.183(52) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.018(30) & 0.691(374) & 0.291(382) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.466(57) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.006(42) & 0.604(397) & 0.390(400) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.596(93) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.002(11) & 0.656(401) & 0.342(402) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.536(65) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.002(6) & 0.397(437) & 0.601(439) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.344(67) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.002(7) & 0.309(392) & 0.689(394) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 22.237(498) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.024(110) & 0.457(456) & 0.519(454) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.525(59) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.001(2) & 0.263(377) & 0.736(378) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.662(93) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.005(32) & 0.558(474) & 0.437(477) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 21.506(102) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.040(141) & 0.399(445) & 0.561(466) \\
OT J210043.9$-$005212 & 22.284(317) & 3216 & 3 & 0.283 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.336(422) & 0.664(422) \\
OT J210205.7$+$025834 & 21.483(47) & 1477 & 3 & 0.278 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.147(293) & 0.853(293) \\
OT J210650.6$+$110250 & 20.242(21) & 1280 & 3 & 0.354 & -- & 0.094(91) & 0.906(91) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J210650.6$+$110250 & 20.501(25) & 1280 & 3 & 0.354 & -- & 0.012(12) & 0.988(12) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J210704.5$+$014416 & 23.890(267) & 3287 & 6 & 0.366 & -- & 0.396(447) & 0.536(455) & 0.068(205) \\
OT J210846.4$-$035031 & 17.881(6) & 1050 & 3 & 0.337 & -- & 0.003(1) & 0.741(164) & 0.256(164) \\
OT J210846.4$-$035031 & 18.615(9) & 1050 & 3 & 0.337 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J210954.1$+$163052 & 19.521(12) & 1237 & 3 & 0.412 & -- & 0.074(29) & 0.926(29) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.533(169) & 3279 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.065(212) & 0.667(419) & 0.268(398) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.973(200) & 3279 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.532(473) & 0.406(465) & 0.063(203) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.873(397) & 3279 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.845(327) & 0.155(327) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.664(121) & 3279 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.141(300) & 0.797(337) & 0.061(200) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 23.277(221) & 3279 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.733(401) & 0.267(401) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.938(226) & 3279 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.034(138) & 0.376(435) & 0.591(450) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.245(110) & 3279 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.021(118) & 0.504(477) & 0.475(480) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.424(119) & 3279 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.001(5) & 0.054(207) & 0.945(209) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 22.795(566) & 3279 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.002(18) & 0.588(481) & 0.410(482) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 23.313(183) & 3279 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.004(43) & 0.099(284) & 0.897(293) \\
OT J211550.9$-$000716 & 23.120(198) & 3279 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.001(6) & 0.172(360) & 0.828(361) \\
OT J212025.1$+$194157 & 21.819(64) & 1578 & 6 & 0.259 & -- & 0.029(123) & 0.949(183) & 0.022(135) \\
OT J212555.1$-$032406 & 21.977(88) & 2928 & 6 & 0.217 & -- & 0.438(472) & 0.022(139) & 0.539(474) \\
OT J212555.1$-$032406 & 22.000(179) & 2928 & 6 & 0.217 & -- & 0.554(472) & 0.101(289) & 0.345(446) \\
OT J212633.3$+$085459 & 20.757(26) & 2077 & 3 & 0.182 & -- & 0.018(31) & 0.945(73) & 0.037(69) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 20.894(74) & 991 & 2 & 0.152 & 0.0629$^\|$ & 0.351(422) & 0.520(444) & 0.130(313) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.550(48) & 991 & 2 & 0.152 & 0.0629$^\|$ & 0.461(427) & 0.533(427) & 0.005(28) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.210(49) & 991 & 2 & 0.152 & 0.0629$^\|$ & 0.198(317) & 0.629(412) & 0.173(324) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.492(61) & 991 & 2 & 0.152 & 0.0629$^\|$ & 0.391(443) & 0.368(440) & 0.241(415) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.380(49) & 991 & 2 & 0.152 & 0.0629$^\|$ & 0.784(330) & 0.135(239) & 0.081(251) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.605(54) & 991 & 2 & 0.152 & 0.0629$^\|$ & 0.306(372) & 0.645(389) & 0.049(192) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.481(71) & 991 & 2 & 0.152 & 0.0629$^\|$ & 0.440(409) & 0.163(276) & 0.397(447) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.398(42) & 991 & 2 & 0.152 & 0.0629$^\|$ & 0.002(7) & 0.431(437) & 0.567(439) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.489(55) & 991 & 2 & 0.152 & 0.0629$^\|$ & 0.145(274) & 0.378(409) & 0.477(470) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.526(60) & 991 & 2 & 0.152 & 0.0629$^\|$ & 0.322(378) & 0.599(409) & 0.078(224) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.472(48) & 991 & 2 & 0.152 & 0.0629$^\|$ & 0.288(420) & 0.054(205) & 0.658(451) \\
OT J213122.4$-$003937 & 21.382(74) & 991 & 2 & 0.152 & 0.0629$^\|$ & 0.174(345) & 0.175(360) & 0.651(463) \\
OT J213432.3$-$012040 & 23.255(215) & 3736 & 6 & 0.188 & -- & 0.204(377) & 0.459(476) & 0.337(456) \\
OT J213309.4$+$155004 & 22.075(91) & 1429 & 3 & 0.338 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.168(320) & 0.831(320) \\
OT J213701.8$+$071446 & 19.017(9) & 330 & 1 & 0.081 & 0.0950$^\|$ & 0.000(0) & 0.649(168) & 0.351(168) \\
OT J213829.5$-$001742 & 23.531(362) & 7527 & 6 & 0.167 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.706(425) & 0.294(425) \\
OT J213937.6$-$023913 & 20.138(26) & 648 & 3 & 0.155 & -- & 0.005(7) & 0.982(27) & 0.013(21) \\
OT J213937.6$-$023913 & 20.010(19) & 648 & 3 & 0.155 & -- & 0.005(3) & 0.903(144) & 0.092(145) \\
OT J213937.6$-$023913 & 20.069(19) & 648 & 3 & 0.155 & -- & 0.001(1) & 0.691(265) & 0.309(265) \\
OT J214426.4$+$222024 & 17.644(5) & 2647 & 3 & 0.364 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.999(0) & 0.001(0) \\
OT J214639.9$+$092119 & 21.829(71) & 3047 & 3 & 0.227 & -- & 0.155(290) & 0.754(368) & 0.091(274) \\
OT J214804.4$+$080951 & 20.957(30) & 2317 & 3 & 0.229 & -- & 0.014(22) & 0.981(24) & 0.005(11) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.776(150) & 1146 & 3 & 0.416 & -- & 0.041(148) & 0.631(418) & 0.329(420) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.854(158) & 1146 & 3 & 0.416 & -- & 0.156(319) & 0.302(406) & 0.542(466) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.722(182) & 1146 & 3 & 0.416 & -- & 0.302(402) & 0.399(439) & 0.299(431) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 23.050(192) & 1146 & 3 & 0.416 & -- & 0.489(455) & 0.318(425) & 0.193(374) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.546(153) & 1146 & 3 & 0.416 & -- & 0.479(456) & 0.086(267) & 0.435(460) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.899(160) & 1146 & 3 & 0.416 & -- & 0.008(50) & 0.758(392) & 0.234(389) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.760(154) & 1146 & 3 & 0.416 & -- & 0.207(365) & 0.114(284) & 0.680(443) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.677(120) & 1146 & 3 & 0.416 & -- & 0.400(447) & 0.147(317) & 0.453(464) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 23.006(205) & 1146 & 3 & 0.416 & -- & 0.011(83) & 0.728(420) & 0.261(419) \\
OT J214842.5$-$000723 & 22.853(162) & 1146 & 3 & 0.416 & -- & 0.061(230) & 0.007(64) & 0.932(247) \\
OT J214959.9$+$124529 & 21.928(80) & 1409 & 3 & 0.293 & -- & 0.182(321) & 0.631(417) & 0.187(357) \\
OT J215344.7$+$123524 & 21.494(98) & 3844 & 3 & 0.338 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.322(423) & 0.678(423) \\
OT J215344.7$+$123524 & 22.107(92) & 3844 & 3 & 0.338 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.595(430) & 0.405(430) \\
OT J215344.7$+$123524 & 21.924(122) & 3844 & 3 & 0.338 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.036(167) & 0.964(167) \\
OT J215630.5$-$031957 & 22.142(125) & 2082 & 3 & 0.267 & -- & 0.279(384) & 0.633(426) & 0.089(267) \\
OT J215630.5$-$031957 & 22.169(111) & 2082 & 3 & 0.267 & -- & 0.130(288) & 0.359(414) & 0.511(463) \\
OT J215636.3$+$193242 & 18.783(9) & 2060 & 3 & 0.275 & -- & 0.007(3) & 0.981(9) & 0.012(8) \\
OT J215636.3$+$193242 & 19.339(12) & 2060 & 3 & 0.275 & -- & 0.005(1) & 0.994(2) & 0.001(2) \\
OT J215636.3$+$193242 & 19.553(13) & 2060 & 3 & 0.275 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.050(74) & 0.950(74) \\
OT J215815.3$+$094709 & 17.478(5) & 388 & 2 & 0.170 & 0.0750$^\|$ & 0.081(11) & 0.919(11) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J220031.2$+$033431 & 18.664(8) & 1643 & 3 & 0.165 & -- & 0.001(1) & 0.233(71) & 0.765(71) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
OT J220449.7$+$054852 & 20.035(19) & 886 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.001(0) & 0.720(295) & 0.279(295) \\
OT J220449.7$+$054852 & 20.940(32) & 886 & 3 & 0.233 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.033(85) & 0.967(85) \\
OT J221128.7$-$030516 & 19.555(13) & 1229 & 3 & 0.305 & -- & 0.224(74) & 0.776(74) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J221128.7$-$030516 & 19.718(17) & 1229 & 3 & 0.305 & -- & 0.108(61) & 0.890(65) & 0.002(10) \\
OT J221128.7$-$030516 & 19.864(17) & 1229 & 3 & 0.305 & -- & 0.124(82) & 0.875(83) & 0.001(2) \\
OT J221128.7$-$030516 & 20.177(24) & 1229 & 3 & 0.305 & -- & 0.010(9) & 0.985(31) & 0.005(31) \\
OT J221128.7$-$030516 & 20.597(25) & 1229 & 3 & 0.305 & -- & 0.441(254) & 0.559(254) & 0.000(0) \\
OT J221232.0$+$160140 & 19.112(10) & 956 & 3 & 0.185 & -- & 0.002(1) & 0.659(248) & 0.339(249) \\
OT J221232.0$+$160140 & 19.247(11) & 956 & 3 & 0.185 & -- & 0.002(1) & 0.860(158) & 0.138(158) \\
OT J221344.0$+$173252 & 19.261(11) & 1343 & 3 & 0.141 & -- & 0.051(33) & 0.949(35) & 0.001(3) \\
OT J222002.3$+$113825 & 20.653(26) & 4328 & 3 & 0.241 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.009(22) & 0.991(22) \\
OT J222002.3$+$113825 & 21.372(40) & 4328 & 3 & 0.241 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.004(16) & 0.996(16) \\
OT J222548.1$+$252511 & 20.196(21) & 2042 & 3 & 0.186 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.002(6) & 0.998(6) \\
OT J222724.5$+$284404 & 18.563(8) & 739 & 3 & 0.224 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.736(139) & 0.264(139) \\
OT J222824.1$+$134944 & 22.345(81) & 934 & 3 & 0.227 & -- & 0.602(412) & 0.270(354) & 0.127(293) \\
OT J222824.1$+$134944 & 22.310(101) & 934 & 3 & 0.227 & -- & 0.185(340) & 0.463(462) & 0.352(469) \\
OT J222853.7$+$295115 & 23.489(194) & 1463 & 6 & 0.223 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.545(464) & 0.455(464) \\
OT J223018.8$+$292849 & 22.481(127) & 2769 & 6 & 0.238 & -- & 0.166(342) & 0.267(421) & 0.567(477) \\
OT J223058.3$+$210147 & 20.788(37) & 1732 & 3 & 0.141 & -- & 0.315(295) & 0.592(320) & 0.093(259) \\
OT J223136.0$+$180747 & 21.663(56) & 3155 & 3 & 0.218 & -- & 0.176(266) & 0.810(271) & 0.014(84) \\
OT J223235.4$+$304105 & 22.473(99) & 2560 & 3 & 0.275 & -- & 0.041(152) & 0.653(402) & 0.307(401) \\
OT J223418.5$-$035530 & 20.502(25) & 987 & 2 & 0.138 & 0.0884$^\|$ & 0.000(0) & 0.622(344) & 0.377(344) \\
OT J223606.3$+$050517 & 22.304(94) & 2291 & 3 & 0.377 & -- & 0.610(404) & 0.298(364) & 0.092(262) \\
OT J223909.8$+$250331 & 19.158(10) & 2337 & 3 & 0.161 & -- & 0.039(24) & 0.326(189) & 0.636(209) \\
OT J223958.2$+$231837 & 22.167(131) & 3843 & 3 & 0.140 & -- & 0.093(233) & 0.418(435) & 0.489(465) \\
OT J223958.2$+$231837 & 22.144(64) & 3843 & 3 & 0.140 & -- & 0.000(2) & 0.935(233) & 0.065(232) \\
OT J223958.4$+$342306 & 22.395(87) & 5541 & 6 & 0.232 & -- & 0.009(50) & 0.038(177) & 0.953(193) \\
OT J224253.4$+$172538 & 20.439(25) & 1851 & 3 & 0.148 & -- & 0.013(14) & 0.761(334) & 0.226(336) \\
OT J224505.4$+$011547 & 21.463(68) & 1945 & 3 & 0.271 & -- & 0.518(402) & 0.455(395) & 0.028(148) \\
OT J224505.4$+$011547 & 21.502(62) & 1945 & 3 & 0.271 & -- & 0.526(409) & 0.426(405) & 0.048(169) \\
OT J224505.4$+$011547 & 21.553(57) & 1945 & 3 & 0.271 & -- & 0.599(336) & 0.389(326) & 0.012(63) \\
OT J224753.9$+$235522 & 21.188(68) & 902 & 3 & 0.370 & -- & 0.014(69) & 0.549(419) & 0.437(427) \\
OT J224753.9$+$235522 & 21.500(52) & 902 & 3 & 0.370 & -- & 0.300(309) & 0.530(334) & 0.171(320) \\
OT J224814.5$+$331224 & 19.625(13) & 2658 & 3 & 0.331 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.022(37) & 0.978(37) \\
OT J224814.5$+$331224 & 20.938(28) & 2658 & 3 & 0.331 & -- & 0.229(200) & 0.613(278) & 0.157(255) \\
OT J224823.7$-$092059 & 21.128(48) & 1304 & 3 & 0.132 & -- & 0.140(179) & 0.704(298) & 0.157(282) \\
OT J225749.6$-$082228 & 20.181(30) & 335 & 3 & 0.116 & -- & 0.020(117) & 0.979(119) & 0.000(2) \\
OT J225749.6$-$082228 & 20.137(21) & 335 & 3 & 0.116 & -- & 0.401(355) & 0.398(356) & 0.201(369) \\
OT J230115.4$+$224111 & 22.109(104) & 1594 & 6 & 0.737 & -- & 0.008(53) & 0.698(429) & 0.294(428) \\
OT J230131.1$+$040417 & 21.951(69) & 6169 & 6 & 0.199 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.266(408) & 0.734(408) \\
OT J230425.8$+$062546 & 20.962(34) & 466 & 2 & 0.206 & 0.0653$^\|$ & 0.008(27) & 0.388(430) & 0.604(433) \\
OT J230425.8$+$062546 & 21.090(34) & 466 & 2 & 0.206 & 0.0653$^\|$ & 0.539(422) & 0.201(287) & 0.260(404) \\
OT J230711.3$+$294011 & 21.496(40) & 2833 & 6 & 0.189 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J231110.9$+$013003 & 21.620(61) & 1384 & 6 & 0.144 & -- & 0.110(257) & 0.107(261) & 0.783(371) \\
OT J231142.8$+$204036 & 20.540(25) & 839 & 3 & 0.597 & -- & 0.026(24) & 0.859(208) & 0.114(207) \\
OT J231142.8$+$204036 & 21.244(54) & 839 & 3 & 0.597 & -- & 0.115(147) & 0.845(210) & 0.041(168) \\
OT J231308.1$+$233702 & 20.385(23) & 354 & 2 & 0.430 & 0.0692$^\|$ & 0.000(0) & 0.000(1) & 1.000(1) \\
OT J231308.1$+$233702 & 20.434(21) & 354 & 2 & 0.430 & 0.0692$^\|$ & 0.000(0) & 0.816(300) & 0.184(300) \\
OT J231552.3$+$271037 & 20.735(37) & 1863 & 3 & 0.292 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.002(7) & 0.998(7) \\
OT J231552.3$+$271037 & 20.651(26) & 1863 & 3 & 0.292 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
OT J232551.5$-$014024 & 18.853(9) & 1226 & 3 & 0.196 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
OT J232619.4$+$282650 & 20.893(27) & 1720 & 3 & 0.369 & -- & 0.006(12) & 0.833(277) & 0.161(280) \\
OT J232619.4$+$282650 & 20.933(39) & 1720 & 3 & 0.369 & -- & 0.012(21) & 0.703(323) & 0.285(325) \\
OT J232619.4$+$282650 & 21.074(32) & 1720 & 3 & 0.369 & -- & 0.018(21) & 0.491(301) & 0.491(307) \\
OT J233938.7$-$053305 & 18.996(10) & 4296 & 3 & 0.110 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.004(7) & 0.996(7) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.308(30) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.005(7) & 0.970(117) & 0.025(118) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.358(23) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.012(9) & 0.988(10) & 0.000(1) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.374(22) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.007(6) & 0.988(32) & 0.005(30) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.401(39) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.021(23) & 0.979(23) & 0.000(1) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.498(28) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.013(16) & 0.986(16) & 0.000(1) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.317(26) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.059(72) & 0.932(80) & 0.009(19) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.524(23) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.003(4) & 0.995(6) & 0.002(3) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.518(24) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.004(4) & 0.995(6) & 0.002(4) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.474(28) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.033(55) & 0.920(146) & 0.047(126) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.519(28) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.005(5) & 0.982(38) & 0.013(37) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.423(31) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.065(111) & 0.681(363) & 0.254(379) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.531(30) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.007(8) & 0.958(110) & 0.035(108) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.639(43) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.002(3) & 0.861(266) & 0.138(266) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.637(31) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.003(3) & 0.936(143) & 0.062(143) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.677(27) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.010(9) & 0.908(161) & 0.082(160) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.618(31) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.016(18) & 0.824(226) & 0.160(226) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.804(28) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.003(4) & 0.668(306) & 0.329(306) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.737(27) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.008(14) & 0.192(241) & 0.801(247) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 21.087(36) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.001(3) & 0.697(288) & 0.302(288) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 20.981(31) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.016(19) & 0.559(346) & 0.426(350) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 21.034(57) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.000(1) & 0.294(359) & 0.706(359) \\
OT J234440.5$-$001206 & 21.056(36) & 600 & 2 & 0.122 & 0.0745$^\|$ & 0.002(5) & 0.323(326) & 0.675(327) \\
ROTSE3 J004626$+$410714 & 24.950(611) & 1121 & 6 & 0.203 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.051(202) & 0.949(202) \\
ROTSE3 J004626$+$410714 & 24.117(382) & 1121 & 6 & 0.203 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(2) & 1.000(2) \\
ROTSE3 J031031$+$431115 & 20.514(21) & 1239 & 3 & 0.694 & -- & 0.115(66) & 0.884(66) & 0.001(1) \\
ROTSE3 J100932.2$-$020155 & 20.490(28) & 570 & 3 & 0.147 & -- & 0.926(223) & 0.074(223) & 0.000(0) \\
ROTSE3 J100932.2$-$020155 & 20.568(47) & 570 & 3 & 0.147 & -- & 0.505(440) & 0.495(441) & 0.001(3) \\
ROTSE3 J100932.2$-$020155 & 20.553(25) & 570 & 3 & 0.147 & -- & 0.468(397) & 0.528(400) & 0.004(23) \\
ROTSE3 J113709$+$513451 & 20.674(26) & 10498 & 3 & 0.049 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.020(104) & 0.980(104) \\
ROTSE3 J154041.5$-$002703.2 & 21.057(35) & 1026 & 3 & 0.354 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.311(379) & 0.689(379) \\
ROTSE3 J154041.5$-$002703.2 & 21.356(44) & 1026 & 3 & 0.354 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.212(327) & 0.788(327) \\
ROTSE3 J154041.5$-$002703.2 & 21.824(70) & 1026 & 3 & 0.354 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.340(388) & 0.660(388) \\
ROTSE3 J212313$-$021446.6 & 22.117(78) & 1879 & 3 & 0.196 & -- & 0.330(409) & 0.319(418) & 0.350(442) \\
ROTSE3 J214850$-$020622.2 & 22.407(91) & 2146 & 6 & 0.192 & -- & 0.014(67) & 0.116(267) & 0.870(293) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 20.980(37) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.034(53) & 0.961(55) & 0.005(17) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.192(69) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.007(12) & 0.953(153) & 0.041(154) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.039(43) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.004(5) & 0.943(178) & 0.052(179) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.069(43) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.007(21) & 0.966(115) & 0.027(114) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.131(35) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.030(43) & 0.758(318) & 0.212(323) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.395(87) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.057(93) & 0.895(162) & 0.048(145) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.366(48) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.001(2) & 0.884(246) & 0.115(246) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.185(63) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.111(174) & 0.797(266) & 0.091(230) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.238(47) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.006(10) & 0.783(321) & 0.212(321) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.341(44) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.005(6) & 0.960(145) & 0.035(146) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.286(141) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.007(19) & 0.602(434) & 0.392(438) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.182(59) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.092(189) & 0.723(371) & 0.185(348) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.455(51) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.003(5) & 0.862(289) & 0.135(290) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.679(59) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.012(45) & 0.937(180) & 0.051(176) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.348(84) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.168(273) & 0.554(390) & 0.278(380) \\
ROTSE3 J221519.8$-$003257.2 & 21.598(50) & 1757 & 3 & 0.317 & -- & 0.083(138) & 0.850(223) & 0.067(187) \\
RX J1715.6$+$6856 & 18.633(8) & 1235 & 2 & 0.112 & 0.0683 & 0.157(30) & 0.840(30) & 0.004(3) \\
RX J1831.7$+$6511 & 17.037(4) & 661 & 2 & 0.149 & 0.167 & 0.008(1) & 0.973(14) & 0.018(13) \\
RX J1831.7$+$6511 & 17.208(4) & 661 & 2 & 0.149 & 0.167 & 0.004(0) & 0.593(86) & 0.403(86) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.357(22) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.870(140) & 0.130(140) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.402(20) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.988(15) & 0.012(15) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.356(27) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.848(232) & 0.152(232) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.422(28) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.898(149) & 0.094(126) & 0.008(71) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.397(22) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.758(233) & 0.234(233) & 0.008(17) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.519(23) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.609(416) & 0.391(416) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.467(23) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.995(19) & 0.005(19) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.413(58) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.792(329) & 0.167(284) & 0.041(186) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.500(22) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.806(187) & 0.191(186) & 0.003(23) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.415(24) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.976(41) & 0.024(41) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.498(22) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.609(397) & 0.390(397) & 0.000(2) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.554(27) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.986(23) & 0.014(23) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.561(29) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.969(129) & 0.031(129) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J003941.06$+$005427.5 & 20.652(26) & 843 & 4 & 0.068 & 0.0635 & 0.990(55) & 0.010(55) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.752(14) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.878(46) & 0.122(46) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.801(16) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.623(161) & 0.376(161) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.812(17) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.621(141) & 0.342(143) & 0.036(97) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.799(19) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.379(192) & 0.348(204) & 0.273(276) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.798(15) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.782(114) & 0.217(114) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.836(16) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.577(195) & 0.421(195) & 0.002(3) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.927(27) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.567(175) & 0.427(175) & 0.006(19) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.782(18) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.780(109) & 0.219(109) & 0.001(4) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.830(15) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.840(77) & 0.160(77) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.813(16) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.560(129) & 0.414(133) & 0.027(89) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.835(16) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.595(118) & 0.392(116) & 0.012(68) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.847(17) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.599(146) & 0.381(149) & 0.020(56) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.843(19) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.325(164) & 0.430(222) & 0.245(317) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.916(16) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.826(76) & 0.173(76) & 0.001(3) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.731(18) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.543(155) & 0.445(153) & 0.013(43) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.814(16) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.734(128) & 0.265(129) & 0.001(1) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.939(17) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.707(128) & 0.293(127) & 0.001(4) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.943(17) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.584(160) & 0.416(160) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.898(19) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.225(199) & 0.772(201) & 0.002(10) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.860(19) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.604(199) & 0.383(192) & 0.013(72) \\
SDSS J004335.14$-$003729.8 & 19.925(19) & 500 & 1 & 0.058 & 0.0572 & 0.407(238) & 0.590(240) & 0.002(10) \\
SDSS J012940.05$+$384210.4 & 19.786(14) & 603 & 2 & 0.199 & 0.0435$^\|$ & 0.915(79) & 0.085(79) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J033449.86$-$071047.8 & 17.862(6) & 850 & 1 & 0.161 & 0.0724$^\|$ & 0.070(11) & 0.910(11) & 0.019(4) \\
SDSS J033710.91$-$065059.4 & 19.558(13) & 2508 & 3 & 0.143 & -- & 0.985(14) & 0.015(14) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 18.804(9) & 274 & 5 & 0.777 & -- & 0.981(35) & 0.019(35) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 18.841(9) & 274 & 5 & 0.777 & -- & 0.988(19) & 0.012(19) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 18.851(8) & 274 & 5 & 0.777 & -- & 0.993(8) & 0.007(8) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 18.828(9) & 274 & 5 & 0.777 & -- & 0.994(7) & 0.006(7) & 0.000(0) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 18.849(9) & 274 & 5 & 0.777 & -- & 0.999(0) & 0.001(0) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J053659.12$+$002215.1 & 18.776(9) & 274 & 5 & 0.777 & -- & 0.977(70) & 0.023(70) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J074355.56$+$183834.8 & 20.089(18) & 1095 & 5 & 0.120 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J074355.56$+$183834.8 & 19.785(15) & 1095 & 5 & 0.120 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J074531.92$+$453829.6 & 19.041(9) & 300 & 1 & 0.154 & 0.0528 & 0.619(125) & 0.381(125) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J074640.62$+$173412.8 & 19.767(13) & 1062 & 2 & 0.116 & 0.0649$^\|$ & 0.065(31) & 0.903(39) & 0.032(25) \\
SDSS J074640.62$+$173412.8 & 19.807(16) & 1062 & 2 & 0.116 & 0.0649$^\|$ & 0.001(1) & 0.115(158) & 0.884(159) \\
SDSS J075059.97$+$141150.1 & 19.104(11) & 350 & 1 & 0.081 & 0.0932 & 0.002(3) & 0.695(241) & 0.303(241) \\
SDSS J075059.97$+$141150.1 & 19.094(10) & 350 & 1 & 0.081 & 0.0932 & 0.009(6) & 0.429(293) & 0.562(297) \\
SDSS J075507.70$+$143547.6 & 18.186(7) & 230 & 1 & 0.061 & 0.0589 & 0.912(33) & 0.088(33) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J075507.70$+$143547.6 & 18.209(7) & 230 & 1 & 0.061 & 0.0589 & 0.822(35) & 0.178(35) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J075507.70$+$143547.6 & 18.186(7) & 230 & 1 & 0.061 & 0.0589 & 0.904(25) & 0.096(25) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J075507.70$+$143547.6 & 18.198(6) & 230 & 1 & 0.061 & 0.0589 & 0.922(30) & 0.077(30) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J075939.79$+$191417.3 & 17.834(5) & 321 & 4 & 0.082 & 0.1309 & 0.054(16) & 0.569(141) & 0.376(141) \\
SDSS J075939.79$+$191417.3 & 18.096(7) & 321 & 4 & 0.082 & 0.1309 & 0.000(0) & 0.024(15) & 0.976(15) \\
SDSS J075939.79$+$191417.3 & 17.945(6) & 321 & 4 & 0.082 & 0.1309 & 0.028(6) & 0.542(159) & 0.430(161) \\
SDSS J075939.79$+$191417.3 & 18.177(6) & 321 & 4 & 0.082 & 0.1309 & 0.016(12) & 0.118(100) & 0.866(112) \\
SDSS J080142.37$+$210345.8 & 18.708(8) & 1970 & 3 & 0.173 & -- & 0.068(14) & 0.929(14) & 0.003(1) \\
SDSS J080142.37$+$210345.8 & 18.840(8) & 1970 & 3 & 0.173 & -- & 0.035(10) & 0.963(10) & 0.002(1) \\
SDSS J080142.37$+$210345.8 & 19.021(10) & 1970 & 3 & 0.173 & -- & 0.126(35) & 0.772(69) & 0.102(65) \\
SDSS J080303.90$+$251627.0 & 19.577(14) & 692 & 2 & 0.089 & 0.071 & 0.001(0) & 0.823(76) & 0.176(76) \\
SDSS J080303.90$+$251627.0 & 19.591(12) & 692 & 2 & 0.089 & 0.071 & 0.004(2) & 0.994(5) & 0.001(4) \\
SDSS J080434.20$+$510349.2 & 17.843(5) & 240 & 1 & 0.126 & 0.0590 & 0.927(15) & 0.072(15) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J080534.49$+$072029.1 & 18.503(8) & 540 & 4 & 0.072 & 0.2297 & 0.000(0) & 0.290(171) & 0.710(171) \\
SDSS J080534.49$+$072029.1 & 18.561(8) & 540 & 4 & 0.072 & 0.2297 & 0.000(0) & 0.023(15) & 0.977(15) \\
SDSS J080534.49$+$072029.1 & 18.659(8) & 540 & 4 & 0.072 & 0.2297 & 0.000(0) & 0.031(24) & 0.969(24) \\
SDSS J080846.19$+$313106.0 & 18.807(9) & 946 & 2 & 0.138 & 0.2059 & 0.000(0) & 0.003(1) & 0.997(1) \\
SDSS J080846.19$+$313106.0 & 19.430(12) & 946 & 2 & 0.138 & 0.2059 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J081207.63$+$131824.4 & 19.203(10) & 530 & 1 & 0.071 & 0.0752$^\|$ & 0.008(7) & 0.912(110) & 0.080(107) \\
SDSS J081207.63$+$131824.4 & 19.266(11) & 530 & 1 & 0.071 & 0.0752$^\|$ & 0.008(2) & 0.991(6) & 0.001(5) \\
SDSS J082457.15$+$073702.4 & 22.131(122) & 2950 & 6 & 0.101 & -- & 0.023(134) & 0.250(395) & 0.727(407) \\
SDSS J083754.64$+$564506.7 & 18.985(9) & 417 & 5 & 0.180 & -- & 0.038(51) & 0.962(51) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J083931.35$+$282824.0 & 20.226(20) & 540 & 2 & 0.162 & 0.0760$^\|$ & 0.007(6) & 0.993(6) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J083931.35$+$282824.0 & 20.443(25) & 540 & 2 & 0.162 & 0.0760$^\|$ & 0.450(253) & 0.543(253) & 0.007(22) \\
SDSS J083931.35$+$282824.0 & 20.481(35) & 540 & 2 & 0.162 & 0.0760$^\|$ & 0.005(7) & 0.895(206) & 0.100(207) \\
SDSS J084026.16$+$220446.6 & 19.593(15) & 1826 & 3 & 0.130 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.183(121) & 0.817(121) \\
SDSS J084026.16$+$220446.6 & 19.894(16) & 1826 & 3 & 0.130 & -- & 0.575(196) & 0.316(194) & 0.109(214) \\
SDSS J084400.10$+$023919.3 & 18.441(7) & 833 & 2 & 0.124 & 0.207 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J084400.10$+$023919.3 & 18.335(7) & 833 & 2 & 0.124 & 0.207 & 0.000(0) & 0.022(7) & 0.978(7) \\
SDSS J084400.10$+$023919.3 & 18.906(10) & 833 & 2 & 0.124 & 0.207 & 0.000(0) & 0.208(131) & 0.792(131) \\
SDSS J085623.00$+$310834.0 & 19.967(17) & 647 & 5 & 0.087 & -- & 0.903(55) & 0.097(55) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J085623.00$+$310834.0 & 19.950(18) & 647 & 5 & 0.087 & -- & 0.641(292) & 0.359(292) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J085623.00$+$310834.0 & 20.028(16) & 647 & 5 & 0.087 & -- & 0.868(102) & 0.132(102) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J085623.00$+$310834.0 & 20.052(17) & 647 & 5 & 0.087 & -- & 0.460(299) & 0.539(299) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J090016.56$+$430118.2 & 18.876(9) & 1491 & 2 & 0.075 & 0.2094 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J090103.93$+$480911.1 & 19.237(11) & 450 & 1 & 0.077 & 0.0779 & 0.077(25) & 0.694(185) & 0.228(191) \\
SDSS J090350.73$+$330036.1 & 18.829(8) & 257 & 1 & 0.064 & 0.0591 & 0.360(69) & 0.640(69) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J090403.48$+$035501.2 & 19.218(12) & 300 & 1 & 0.102 & 0.0597 & 0.845(56) & 0.155(57) & 0.001(1) \\
SDSS J090403.48$+$035501.2 & 19.304(12) & 300 & 1 & 0.102 & 0.0597 & 0.830(58) & 0.170(58) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J090403.48$+$035501.2 & 19.335(12) & 300 & 1 & 0.102 & 0.0597 & 0.722(80) & 0.276(80) & 0.001(4) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
SDSS J090452.09$+$440255.4 & 19.381(13) & 498 & 5 & 0.051 & -- & 0.920(62) & 0.080(62) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J090628.25$+$052656.9 & 18.761(9) & 1448 & 3 & 0.148 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.017(13) & 0.983(13) \\
SDSS J090628.25$+$052656.9 & 19.415(12) & 1448 & 3 & 0.148 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J091001.63$+$164820.0 & 18.832(9) & 434 & 5 & 0.106 & -- & 0.010(7) & 0.989(7) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J091001.63$+$164820.0 & 18.781(9) & 434 & 5 & 0.106 & -- & 0.006(1) & 0.994(1) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J091001.63$+$164820.0 & 18.967(9) & 434 & 5 & 0.106 & -- & 0.002(1) & 0.995(4) & 0.002(3) \\
SDSS J091001.63$+$164820.0 & 19.252(11) & 434 & 5 & 0.106 & -- & 0.003(1) & 0.994(6) & 0.003(5) \\
SDSS J091127.36$+$084140.7 & 19.729(14) & 1385 & 2 & 0.208 & 0.2054 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J091945.11$+$085710.1 & 18.191(6) & 270 & 1 & 0.134 & 0.0565 & 0.966(8) & 0.033(8) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J092219.55$+$421256.7 & 19.882(14) & 653 & 5 & 0.055 & -- & 0.207(101) & 0.793(102) & 0.001(3) \\
SDSS J092229.26$+$330743.6 & 18.439(7) & 335 & 5 & 0.051 & -- & 0.003(1) & 0.997(1) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J092229.26$+$330743.6 & 18.590(8) & 335 & 5 & 0.051 & -- & 0.008(2) & 0.991(2) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J092229.26$+$330743.6 & 18.435(7) & 335 & 5 & 0.051 & -- & 0.055(18) & 0.945(18) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J093249.57$+$472523.0 & 17.768(5) & 834 & 2 & 0.051 & 0.0663 & 0.676(28) & 0.323(28) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J094002.56$+$274942.0 & 19.096(10) & 1377 & 3 & 0.059 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J094325.90$+$520128.8 & 18.320(7) & 1408 & 3 & 0.030 & -- & 0.003(1) & 0.995(1) & 0.002(1) \\
SDSS J094325.90$+$520128.8 & 18.304(12) & 1408 & 3 & 0.030 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.997(2) & 0.003(1) \\
SDSS J094325.90$+$520128.8 & 17.977(6) & 1408 & 3 & 0.030 & -- & 0.073(16) & 0.924(18) & 0.003(4) \\
SDSS J094325.90$+$520128.8 & 18.749(8) & 1408 & 3 & 0.030 & -- & 0.004(1) & 0.995(1) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J094558.24$+$292253.2 & 19.064(10) & 418 & 5 & 0.073 & -- & 0.994(2) & 0.006(2) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J095135.21$+$602939.6 & 19.996(18) & 658 & 5 & 0.058 & -- & 0.746(120) & 0.254(120) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J095135.21$+$602939.6 & 19.956(18) & 658 & 5 & 0.058 & -- & 0.747(135) & 0.252(135) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J100515.39$+$191108.0 & 18.173(6) & 280 & 2 & 0.083 & 0.0752$^\|$ & 0.029(8) & 0.963(16) & 0.008(10) \\
SDSS J100658.40$+$233724.4 & 18.311(7) & 1366 & 2 & 0.103 & 0.1859 & 0.000(0) & 0.009(7) & 0.991(7) \\
SDSS J100658.40$+$233724.4 & 18.691(8) & 1366 & 2 & 0.103 & 0.1859 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J101037.05$+$024915.0 & 20.701(27) & 908 & 5 & 0.099 & -- & 0.001(2) & 0.985(56) & 0.014(55) \\
SDSS J101037.05$+$024915.0 & 20.755(33) & 908 & 5 & 0.099 & -- & 0.001(1) & 0.918(182) & 0.081(182) \\
SDSS J101037.05$+$024915.0 & 21.990(89) & 908 & 5 & 0.099 & -- & 0.112(245) & 0.725(373) & 0.163(321) \\
SDSS J101323.64$+$455858.9 & 18.818(9) & 419 & 5 & 0.026 & -- & 0.011(3) & 0.966(19) & 0.023(19) \\
SDSS J102517.94$+$430221.2 & 19.938(16) & 637 & 5 & 0.030 & -- & 0.353(295) & 0.513(270) & 0.134(244) \\
SDSS J102517.94$+$430221.2 & 19.964(16) & 637 & 5 & 0.030 & -- & 0.235(278) & 0.745(277) & 0.020(93) \\
SDSS J103147.99$+$085224.3 & 18.795(8) & 1056 & 3 & 0.083 & -- & 0.010(3) & 0.731(239) & 0.259(241) \\
SDSS J103533.02$+$055158.3 & 18.786(9) & 220 & 1 & 0.080 & 0.0570 & 0.665(118) & 0.335(118) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J110014.72$+$131552.1 & 18.648(8) & 631 & 2 & 0.054 & 0.0657$^\|$ & 0.008(3) & 0.915(22) & 0.077(22) \\
SDSS J110014.72$+$131552.1 & 19.041(11) & 631 & 2 & 0.054 & 0.0657$^\|$ & 0.022(13) & 0.978(13) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J110706.76$+$340526.8 & 19.467(12) & 1539 & 5 & 0.062 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J113215.50$+$624900.4 & 18.422(7) & 354 & 5 & 0.031 & -- & 0.109(32) & 0.890(32) & 0.001(0) \\
SDSS J113215.50$+$624900.4 & 18.390(7) & 354 & 5 & 0.031 & -- & 0.007(2) & 0.988(4) & 0.005(2) \\
SDSS J113215.50$+$624900.4 & 18.472(7) & 354 & 5 & 0.031 & -- & 0.090(17) & 0.909(17) & 0.001(0) \\
SDSS J113215.50$+$624900.4 & 18.497(8) & 354 & 5 & 0.031 & -- & 0.075(20) & 0.916(21) & 0.009(4) \\
SDSS J113551.09$+$532246.2 & 20.798(31) & 1007 & 3 & 0.032 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.425(422) & 0.575(422) \\
SDSS J114628.80$+$675909.7 & 18.607(8) & 865 & 2 & 0.040 & 0.0617$^\|$ & 0.033(41) & 0.946(48) & 0.021(35) \\
SDSS J114628.80$+$675909.7 & 18.753(8) & 865 & 2 & 0.040 & 0.0617$^\|$ & 0.016(7) & 0.963(17) & 0.021(13) \\
SDSS J115207.00$+$404947.8 & 19.247(11) & 430 & 1 & 0.062 & 0.0677 & 0.188(61) & 0.747(126) & 0.065(108) \\
SDSS J120231.01$+$450349.1 & 19.946(14) & 406 & 3 & 0.047 & -- & 0.728(89) & 0.272(89) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J121607.03$+$052013.9 & 20.015(18) & 400 & 1 & 0.071 & 0.0686 & 0.223(281) & 0.776(281) & 0.001(5) \\
SDSS J121607.03$+$052013.9 & 20.138(18) & 400 & 1 & 0.071 & 0.0686 & 0.119(180) & 0.790(247) & 0.091(222) \\
SDSS J122740.83$+$513925.0 & 19.067(10) & 380 & 1 & 0.054 & 0.0630 & 0.112(32) & 0.888(32) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J123813.73$-$033933.0 & 17.782(5) & 140 & 1 & 0.072 & 0.0559 & 0.932(15) & 0.068(15) & 0.001(0) \\
SDSS J124058.03$-$015919.2 & 19.556(13) & 379 & 2 & 0.087 & 0.0259 & 0.978(24) & 0.022(24) & 0.000(0) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
SDSS J124058.03$-$015919.2 & 19.545(13) & 379 & 2 & 0.087 & 0.0259 & 0.962(78) & 0.038(78) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J124417.89$+$300401.0 & 19.571(12) & 871 & 3 & 0.054 & -- & 0.040(21) & 0.960(21) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J124426.26$+$613514.6 & 18.753(9) & 3067 & 2 & 0.050 & 0.0992 & 0.024(7) & 0.867(68) & 0.110(68) \\
SDSS J124426.26$+$613514.6 & 18.718(8) & 3067 & 2 & 0.050 & 0.0992 & 0.043(10) & 0.956(10) & 0.001(1) \\
SDSS J124819.36$+$072049.4 & 21.326(46) & 1887 & 3 & 0.097 & -- & 0.321(316) & 0.462(349) & 0.217(339) \\
SDSS J124819.36$+$072049.4 & 21.371(59) & 1887 & 3 & 0.097 & -- & 0.053(152) & 0.684(403) & 0.264(391) \\
SDSS J125023.85$+$665525.5 & 18.651(8) & 320 & 1 & 0.050 & 0.0587 & 0.534(67) & 0.465(68) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J125834.77$+$663551.6 & 20.566(25) & 881 & 5 & 0.053 & -- & 0.000(2) & 0.993(19) & 0.007(19) \\
SDSS J130514.73$+$582856.3 & 19.283(11) & 2370 & 3 & 0.025 & -- & 0.035(19) & 0.665(110) & 0.300(117) \\
SDSS J133941.11$+$484727.5 & 17.678(5) & 180 & 1 & 0.021 & 0.0573 & 0.950(7) & 0.050(7) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J140429.37$+$172359.4 & 17.495(5) & 562 & 3 & 0.099 & -- & 0.256(27) & 0.744(27) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J142955.86$+$414516.8 & 17.695(5) & 2978 & 2 & 0.037 & 0.059 & 0.328(34) & 0.666(33) & 0.005(1) \\
SDSS J143317.78$+$101123.3 & 18.554(8) & 250 & 1 & 0.088 & 0.0542 & 0.675(79) & 0.323(80) & 0.001(3) \\
SDSS J143544.02$+$233638.7 & 18.200(6) & 3564 & 2 & 0.112 & 0.054 & 0.986(3) & 0.014(3) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J143544.02$+$233638.7 & 18.285(6) & 3564 & 2 & 0.112 & 0.054 & 0.983(5) & 0.017(5) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J145003.12$+$584501.9 & 20.630(24) & 921 & 5 & 0.036 & -- & 0.230(310) & 0.711(311) & 0.059(165) \\
SDSS J145003.12$+$584501.9 & 20.742(31) & 921 & 5 & 0.036 & -- & 0.445(406) & 0.359(381) & 0.196(360) \\
SDSS J145758.21$+$514807.9 & 19.158(10) & 360 & 1 & 0.083 & 0.0541 & 0.784(128) & 0.216(128) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J145758.21$+$514807.9 & 19.159(11) & 360 & 1 & 0.083 & 0.0541 & 0.909(74) & 0.089(74) & 0.001(3) \\
SDSS J145758.21$+$514807.9 & 19.536(12) & 360 & 1 & 0.083 & 0.0541 & 0.704(145) & 0.296(146) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J150137.22$+$550123.4 & 19.386(12) & 330 & 1 & 0.037 & 0.0568 & 0.796(111) & 0.203(111) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J150240.98$+$333423.9 & 17.496(5) & 170 & 1 & 0.038 & 0.0589 & 0.491(24) & 0.508(23) & 0.001(1) \\
SDSS J150240.98$+$333423.9 & 17.575(5) & 170 & 1 & 0.038 & 0.0589 & 0.698(32) & 0.302(32) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J150722.30$+$523039.8 & 18.311(7) & 230 & 1 & 0.052 & 0.0463 & 0.789(34) & 0.211(34) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J151413.72$+$454911.9 & 19.675(14) & 350 & 1 & 0.080 & -- & 0.463(243) & 0.537(243) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J152212.20$+$080340.9 & 18.379(7) & 1087 & 3 & 0.110 & -- & 0.371(66) & 0.625(69) & 0.004(4) \\
SDSS J152212.20$+$080340.9 & 18.981(9) & 1087 & 3 & 0.110 & -- & 0.010(3) & 0.990(3) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J152419.33$+$220920.0 & 19.055(9) & 420 & 1 & 0.166 & 0.0653 & 0.024(8) & 0.975(9) & 0.001(2) \\
SDSS J152717.96$+$543724.9 & 20.140(18) & 777 & 5 & 0.047 & -- & 0.509(213) & 0.483(216) & 0.008(17) \\
SDSS J152717.96$+$543724.9 & 20.286(19) & 777 & 5 & 0.047 & -- & 0.276(171) & 0.719(172) & 0.004(9) \\
SDSS J152717.96$+$543724.9 & 20.296(23) & 777 & 5 & 0.047 & -- & 0.327(198) & 0.672(199) & 0.001(3) \\
SDSS J152857.86$+$034911.7 & 19.506(14) & 1581 & 3 & 0.166 & -- & 0.011(5) & 0.986(6) & 0.003(2) \\
SDSS J153015.04$+$094946.3 & 18.867(9) & 874 & 3 & 0.129 & -- & 0.002(2) & 0.829(141) & 0.169(142) \\
SDSS J153015.04$+$094946.3 & 18.516(8) & 874 & 3 & 0.129 & -- & 0.101(27) & 0.666(54) & 0.233(60) \\
SDSS J153634.42$+$332851.9 & 19.209(10) & 1013 & 3 & 0.105 & -- & 0.010(3) & 0.820(109) & 0.170(109) \\
SDSS J153817.35$+$512338.0 & 18.547(7) & 340 & 4 & 0.044 & 0.0647 & 0.643(86) & 0.357(86) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J154453.60$+$255348.8 & 16.579(4) & 230 & 4 & 0.160 & 0.2513 & 0.000(0) & 0.236(84) & 0.764(84) \\
SDSS J154453.60$+$255348.8 & 17.175(5) & 230 & 4 & 0.160 & 0.2513 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J155037.27$+$405440.0 & 18.542(8) & 355 & 5 & 0.048 & -- & 0.056(14) & 0.940(16) & 0.004(3) \\
SDSS J155037.27$+$405440.0 & 18.413(7) & 355 & 5 & 0.048 & -- & 0.001(1) & 0.910(73) & 0.089(74) \\
SDSS J155531.99$-$001055.0 & 19.052(12) & 439 & 4 & 0.383 & 0.0789 & 0.059(26) & 0.940(27) & 0.001(2) \\
SDSS J155531.99$-$001055.0 & 19.322(11) & 439 & 4 & 0.383 & 0.0789 & 0.056(22) & 0.935(21) & 0.009(4) \\
SDSS J155644.24$-$000950.2 & 18.246(7) & 340 & 1 & 0.453 & 0.0800 & 0.027(4) & 0.973(4) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J155644.24$-$000950.2 & 18.010(6) & 340 & 1 & 0.453 & 0.0800 & 0.017(2) & 0.969(16) & 0.015(15) \\
SDSS J155644.24$-$000950.2 & 18.285(8) & 340 & 1 & 0.453 & 0.0800 & 0.010(2) & 0.989(2) & 0.001(0) \\
SDSS J155656.92$+$352336.6 & 18.923(9) & 2036 & 2 & 0.070 & 0.0892 & 0.217(53) & 0.663(160) & 0.121(160) \\
SDSS J155644.24$-$000950.2 & 18.006(8) & 340 & 1 & 0.453 & 0.0800 & 0.016(2) & 0.967(21) & 0.017(20) \\
SDSS J155720.75$+$180720.2 & 18.683(8) & 368 & 4 & 0.119 & 0.088 & 0.009(3) & 0.991(3) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J155720.75$+$180720.2 & 18.644(7) & 368 & 4 & 0.119 & 0.088 & 0.001(0) & 0.965(17) & 0.035(17) \\
SDSS J160111.53$+$091712.7 & 20.122(20) & 872 & 5 & 0.131 & -- & 0.559(201) & 0.441(201) & 0.000(0) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
SDSS J160111.53$+$091712.7 & 20.603(26) & 872 & 5 & 0.131 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.571(395) & 0.429(395) \\
SDSS J160419.02$+$161548.5 & 19.082(10) & 1592 & 3 & 0.119 & -- & 0.063(13) & 0.933(14) & 0.004(2) \\
SDSS J160501.35$+$203056.9 & 19.361(11) & 199 & 2 & 0.191 & 0.0567 & 0.896(54) & 0.104(54) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J160501.35$+$203056.9 & 19.883(15) & 199 & 2 & 0.191 & 0.0567 & 0.756(167) & 0.243(167) & 0.002(5) \\
SDSS J160501.35$+$203056.9 & 19.891(15) & 199 & 2 & 0.191 & 0.0567 & 0.907(74) & 0.092(74) & 0.001(1) \\
SDSS J160501.35$+$203056.9 & 19.926(16) & 199 & 2 & 0.191 & 0.0567 & 0.916(81) & 0.083(81) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J161030.35$+$445901.7 & 19.753(15) & 585 & 5 & 0.049 & -- & 0.966(74) & 0.032(62) & 0.002(17) \\
SDSS J161332.56$-$000331.0 & 18.600(8) & 845 & 3 & 0.448 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J161909.10$+$135145.5 & 18.494(8) & 3124 & 3 & 0.207 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J162212.45$+$341147.3 & 19.168(10) & 683 & 5 & 0.064 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J162212.45$+$341147.3 & 19.119(10) & 683 & 5 & 0.064 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J162212.45$+$341147.3 & 19.116(10) & 683 & 5 & 0.064 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J162718.39$+$120435.0 & 20.225(18) & 799 & 2 & 0.205 & 0.1041$^\|$ & 0.000(0) & 0.304(306) & 0.696(306) \\
SDSS J162830.89$+$240259.1 & 19.737(16) & 837 & 3 & 0.195 & -- & 0.075(42) & 0.882(129) & 0.043(111) \\
SDSS J162830.89$+$240259.1 & 19.780(14) & 837 & 3 & 0.195 & -- & 0.392(103) & 0.606(105) & 0.001(9) \\
SDSS J162830.89$+$240259.1 & 19.998(16) & 837 & 3 & 0.195 & -- & 0.024(13) & 0.592(320) & 0.384(328) \\
SDSS J163722.21$-$001957.1 & 20.536(41) & 1100 & 1 & 0.394 & 0.0674 & 0.013(36) & 0.979(45) & 0.007(27) \\
SDSS J164248.52$+$134751.4 & 18.651(8) & 913 & 2 & 0.242 & 0.0789 & 0.094(31) & 0.899(37) & 0.006(9) \\
SDSS J165244.84$+$333925.4 & 20.854(28) & 4377 & 3 & 0.080 & -- & 0.066(65) & 0.907(136) & 0.027(118) \\
SDSS J165359.06$+$201010.4 & 18.562(8) & 723 & 2 & 0.241 & 0.0635$^\|$ & 0.037(8) & 0.670(68) & 0.294(71) \\
SDSS J165359.06$+$201010.4 & 18.656(8) & 723 & 2 & 0.241 & 0.0635$^\|$ & 0.045(9) & 0.863(26) & 0.093(27) \\
SDSS J165658.13$+$212139.3 & 18.487(7) & 2037 & 2 & 0.190 & 0.0631 & 0.044(8) & 0.956(8) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J165658.13$+$212139.3 & 18.913(9) & 2037 & 2 & 0.190 & 0.0631 & 0.035(12) & 0.965(12) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J165837.70$+$184727.4 & 20.074(17) & 640 & 1 & 0.260 & 0.0681 & 0.429(187) & 0.521(201) & 0.050(72) \\
SDSS J165837.70$+$184727.4 & 20.189(17) & 640 & 1 & 0.260 & 0.0681 & 0.116(99) & 0.762(241) & 0.121(254) \\
SDSS J170213.26$+$322954.1 & 17.908(6) & 440 & 1 & 0.070 & 0.1001 & 0.000(0) & 0.034(25) & 0.966(25) \\
SDSS J170324.09$+$320953.2 & 18.138(6) & 1143 & 3 & 0.090 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J170542.54$+$313240.8 & 19.668(12) & 2789 & 3 & 0.118 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J171145.08$+$301320.0 & 20.016(16) & 693 & 4 & 0.145 & 0.0558 & 0.214(104) & 0.619(252) & 0.167(284) \\
SDSS J171145.08$+$301320.0 & 20.186(18) & 693 & 4 & 0.145 & 0.0558 & 0.546(131) & 0.393(139) & 0.062(126) \\
SDSS J171145.08$+$301320.0 & 20.205(18) & 693 & 4 & 0.145 & 0.0558 & 0.752(106) & 0.242(106) & 0.006(12) \\
SDSS J204448.92$-$045928.8 & 16.941(5) & 5035 & 2 & 0.174 & 1.68 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J204448.92$-$045928.8 & 16.844(5) & 5035 & 2 & 0.174 & 1.68 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 19.448(12) & 470 & 5 & 0.299 & -- & 0.051(27) & 0.941(28) & 0.008(6) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 19.351(11) & 470 & 5 & 0.299 & -- & 0.594(93) & 0.400(92) & 0.007(5) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.078(17) & 470 & 5 & 0.299 & -- & 0.001(1) & 0.999(1) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.270(20) & 470 & 5 & 0.299 & -- & 0.022(22) & 0.977(23) & 0.001(2) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.300(20) & 470 & 5 & 0.299 & -- & 0.120(70) & 0.880(70) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.286(21) & 470 & 5 & 0.299 & -- & 0.078(66) & 0.903(69) & 0.019(24) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.422(29) & 470 & 5 & 0.299 & -- & 0.015(17) & 0.964(42) & 0.021(38) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.314(20) & 470 & 5 & 0.299 & -- & 0.311(157) & 0.656(161) & 0.033(45) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.495(28) & 470 & 5 & 0.299 & -- & 0.121(112) & 0.860(121) & 0.019(44) \\
SDSS J204720.76$+$000007.7 & 20.677(35) & 470 & 5 & 0.299 & -- & 0.182(183) & 0.816(183) & 0.002(6) \\
SDSS J204739.40$+$000840.3 & 22.213(131) & 3537 & 3 & 0.316 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.465(459) & 0.535(460) \\
SDSS J204817.85$-$061044.8 & 19.340(12) & 762 & 2 & 0.207 & 0.0606 & 0.072(27) & 0.928(28) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J205914.87$-$061220.5 & 18.354(7) & 938 & 2 & 0.154 & 0.0747 & 0.021(5) & 0.716(68) & 0.264(71) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 17.961(6) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.769(40) & 0.204(34) & 0.027(13) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.047(6) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.256(48) & 0.414(41) & 0.330(77) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 17.828(6) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.455(35) & 0.494(63) & 0.051(49) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.041(6) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.282(36) & 0.541(100) & 0.177(112) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.380(7) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.108(26) & 0.872(41) & 0.020(22) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.366(7) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.295(68) & 0.639(95) & 0.066(63) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.453(7) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.046(10) & 0.638(95) & 0.315(98) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.574(8) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.058(15) & 0.885(32) & 0.056(33) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.407(12) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.242(52) & 0.594(85) & 0.164(105) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.630(8) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.093(18) & 0.844(24) & 0.063(23) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.731(8) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.165(33) & 0.824(33) & 0.011(8) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.714(11) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.152(33) & 0.794(41) & 0.053(25) \\
SDSS J210014.12$+$004446.0 & 18.808(9) & 769 & 2 & 0.249 & 0.0840$^\|$ & 0.128(33) & 0.821(31) & 0.050(24) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 19.974(35) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.623(201) & 0.373(199) & 0.004(9) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 19.968(22) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.036(20) & 0.755(190) & 0.209(190) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.137(22) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.056(49) & 0.847(165) & 0.097(152) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.242(20) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.001(2) & 0.518(269) & 0.481(269) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.215(31) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.140(135) & 0.779(194) & 0.081(151) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.304(19) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.040(36) & 0.942(73) & 0.018(50) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.299(24) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.018(13) & 0.772(303) & 0.210(306) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.965(100) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.058(118) & 0.924(132) & 0.018(57) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.824(30) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.087(117) & 0.862(148) & 0.051(113) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 20.654(53) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.047(75) & 0.735(340) & 0.218(354) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 21.020(35) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.160(173) & 0.837(174) & 0.003(10) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 21.061(43) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.067(85) & 0.860(201) & 0.073(195) \\
SDSS J210449.94$+$010545.8 & 21.086(52) & 1202 & 3 & 0.421 & -- & 0.164(221) & 0.639(339) & 0.197(336) \\
SDSS J211605.43$+$113407.5 & 21.689(68) & 940 & 3 & 0.236 & -- & 0.109(279) & 0.754(408) & 0.137(335) \\
SDSS J211605.43$+$113407.5 & 21.747(68) & 940 & 3 & 0.236 & -- & 0.484(455) & 0.174(356) & 0.342(446) \\
SDSS J211605.43$+$113407.5 & 21.873(75) & 940 & 3 & 0.236 & -- & 0.330(404) & 0.350(412) & 0.320(425) \\
SDSS J211605.43$+$113407.5 & 21.677(73) & 940 & 3 & 0.236 & -- & 0.060(205) & 0.337(444) & 0.603(466) \\
SDSS J214354.60$+$124458.0 & 16.176(4) & 81 & 5 & 0.107 & -- & 0.002(0) & 0.998(0) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J220553.98$+$115553.7 & 20.029(16) & 650 & 1 & 0.297 & 0.0575 & 0.951(46) & 0.049(46) & 0.001(2) \\
SDSS J220553.98$+$115553.7 & 20.030(21) & 650 & 1 & 0.297 & 0.0575 & 0.914(212) & 0.086(212) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J220553.98$+$115553.7 & 20.068(18) & 650 & 1 & 0.297 & 0.0575 & 0.927(38) & 0.073(38) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J223252.35$+$140353.0 & 22.163(77) & 6160 & 3 & 0.196 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.018(92) & 0.982(92) \\
SDSS J223252.35$+$140353.0 & 22.377(88) & 6160 & 3 & 0.196 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.666(5) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.094(10) & 0.885(14) & 0.021(10) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.723(5) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.057(8) & 0.863(27) & 0.080(28) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.739(5) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.049(8) & 0.945(15) & 0.007(8) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.014(6) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.010(1) & 0.975(3) & 0.015(4) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.020(6) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.011(2) & 0.989(2) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.921(6) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.043(6) & 0.854(23) & 0.103(26) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.747(6) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.030(5) & 0.967(8) & 0.002(3) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 17.928(8) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.029(5) & 0.719(59) & 0.252(59) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.095(6) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.015(4) & 0.984(4) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.203(7) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.002(0) & 0.958(17) & 0.041(16) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.047(6) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.073(9) & 0.865(40) & 0.062(35) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.305(8) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.010(2) & 0.970(22) & 0.021(20) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.331(7) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.055(10) & 0.893(46) & 0.052(43) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.483(8) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.002(3) & 0.412(193) & 0.586(195) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.423(7) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.004(2) & 0.996(2) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.606(8) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.011(2) & 0.793(80) & 0.196(82) \\
SDSS J223439.93$+$004127.2 & 18.713(8) & 771 & 2 & 0.274 & 0.0884 & 0.019(7) & 0.981(8) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J225831.18$-$094931.7 & 15.102(3) & 410 & 1 & 0.124 & 0.0830$^\|$ & 0.148(11) & 0.549(15) & 0.303(18) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
SDSS J225831.18$-$094931.7 & 15.587(3) & 410 & 1 & 0.124 & 0.0830$^\|$ & 0.086(5) & 0.914(5) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J233325.92$+$152222.2 & 18.521(7) & 355 & 4 & 0.206 & 0.0577 & 0.411(55) & 0.588(55) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J233325.92$+$152222.2 & 18.745(9) & 355 & 4 & 0.206 & 0.0577 & 0.069(35) & 0.922(31) & 0.010(9) \\
SDSS J233325.92$+$152222.2 & 18.761(8) & 355 & 4 & 0.206 & 0.0577 & 0.429(65) & 0.532(60) & 0.039(19) \\
SDSSp J081321.91$+$452809.4 & 18.259(7) & 1933 & 2 & 0.159 & 0.289 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSSp J081321.91$+$452809.4 & 18.517(8) & 1933 & 2 & 0.159 & 0.289 & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSSp J081610.84$+$453010.2 & 20.056(17) & 1454 & 3 & 0.195 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.334(258) & 0.666(258) \\
SDSSp J082409.73$+$493124.4 & 19.576(14) & 1100 & 1 & 0.119 & 0.0677$^\|$ & 0.010(5) & 0.963(36) & 0.027(34) \\
SDSSp J082409.73$+$493124.4 & 19.887(20) & 1100 & 1 & 0.119 & 0.0677$^\|$ & 0.011(8) & 0.950(69) & 0.039(68) \\
SDSSp J082409.73$+$493124.4 & 20.138(28) & 1100 & 1 & 0.119 & 0.0677$^\|$ & 0.004(5) & 0.540(338) & 0.456(340) \\
SDSSp J083845.23$+$491055.5 & 19.578(13) & 1100 & 1 & 0.138 & 0.0696$^\|$ & 0.030(17) & 0.970(17) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSSp J083845.23$+$491055.5 & 19.846(15) & 1100 & 1 & 0.138 & 0.0696$^\|$ & 0.075(42) & 0.925(42) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSSp J083845.23$+$491055.5 & 19.705(16) & 1100 & 1 & 0.138 & 0.0696$^\|$ & 0.087(47) & 0.913(47) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSSp J172601.96$+$543230.7 & 20.531(22) & 823 & 5 & 0.107 & -- & 0.473(235) & 0.526(235) & 0.001(1) \\
SDSSp J173008.38$+$624754.7 & 15.886(3) & 450 & 1 & 0.083 & 0.0770$^\|$ & 0.945(5) & 0.054(5) & 0.001(0) \\
SDSSp J173008.38$+$624754.7 & 16.318(4) & 450 & 1 & 0.083 & 0.0770$^\|$ & 0.142(30) & 0.856(31) & 0.001(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.644(5) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.002(1) & 0.981(6) & 0.017(7) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.907(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.003(1) & 0.994(1) & 0.003(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.668(5) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.002(0) & 0.998(0) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.973(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.002(0) & 0.998(0) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.106(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.000(0) & 0.063(27) & 0.937(27) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.975(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.003(1) & 0.995(1) & 0.002(0) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.028(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.001(0) & 0.997(1) & 0.002(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.863(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.004(1) & 0.993(3) & 0.003(3) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.917(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.001(0) & 0.999(0) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.928(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.010(2) & 0.982(4) & 0.007(3) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.972(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.004(1) & 0.956(11) & 0.040(11) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.938(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.003(1) & 0.997(1) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.887(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.004(0) & 0.942(38) & 0.054(38) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 17.853(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.006(1) & 0.992(3) & 0.002(2) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.106(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.000(0) & 0.711(87) & 0.288(87) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.176(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.006(1) & 0.976(7) & 0.018(7) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.267(7) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.003(0) & 0.984(3) & 0.013(3) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.151(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.000(0) & 0.001(1) & 0.999(1) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.154(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.003(1) & 0.997(1) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.018(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.016(3) & 0.984(3) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.346(10) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.002(0) & 0.970(11) & 0.028(11) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.167(6) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.002(0) & 0.998(0) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.300(7) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.000(0) & 0.508(195) & 0.492(195) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 18.568(8) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.002(1) & 0.991(7) & 0.007(7) \\
SDSSp J230351.64$+$010651.0 & 19.037(10) & 564 & 2 & 0.172 & 0.0767 & 0.014(8) & 0.986(8) & 0.000(0) \\
SEKBO J140454.00$-$102702.14 & 19.733(15) & 812 & 3 & 0.193 & -- & 0.476(163) & 0.521(163) & 0.003(4) \\
SN 1964O & 21.069(37) & 849 & 3 & 0.045 & -- & 0.435(324) & 0.495(313) & 0.070(228) \\
SDSS J013645.81$-$193949.1$^\#$ & 20.288(23) & 1526 & 3 & 0.040 & -- & 0.013(18) & 0.900(199) & 0.087(200) \\
SDSS J015237.83$-$172019.3$^\#$ & 21.040(47) & 1446 & 3 & 0.064 & -- & 0.046(115) & 0.482(383) & 0.473(397) \\
SDSS J015237.83$-$172019.3$^\#$ & 21.397(54) & 1446 & 3 & 0.064 & -- & 0.060(130) & 0.620(378) & 0.319(384) \\
SDSS J032015.29$+$441059.3$^\#$ & 18.768(8) & 662 & 3 & 0.457 & -- & 0.012(3) & 0.984(4) & 0.004(2) \\
SDSS J064911.48$+$102322.1$^\#$ & 19.253(11) & 219 & 5 & 0.191 & -- & 0.004(4) & 0.238(170) & 0.758(171) \\
SDSS J073208.11$+$413008.7$^\#$ & 20.869(36) & 121 & 4 & 0.071 & 0.0771$^\|$ & 0.000(0) & 0.903(136) & 0.097(136) \\
SDSS J073208.11$+$413008.7$^\#$ & 20.755(28) & 121 & 4 & 0.071 & 0.0771$^\|$ & 0.001(1) & 0.950(138) & 0.049(138) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
SDSS J073758.55$+$205544.5$^\#$ & 19.984(18) & 195 & 5 & 0.075 & -- & 0.941(61) & 0.059(61) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J074500.58$+$332859.6$^\#$ & 22.185(82) & 510 & 5 & 0.132 & -- & 0.000(1) & 0.189(332) & 0.810(332) \\
SDSS J074500.58$+$332859.6$^\#$ & 22.235(97) & 510 & 5 & 0.132 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.121(304) & 0.879(304) \\
SDSS J074859.55$+$312512.6$^\#$ & 17.768(5) & 97 & 5 & 0.070 & -- & 0.804(25) & 0.162(17) & 0.034(13) \\
SDSS J075107.50$+$300628.4$^\#$ & 20.213(27) & 866 & 3 & 0.161 & -- & 0.008(8) & 0.992(8) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J075107.50$+$300628.4$^\#$ & 19.777(15) & 866 & 3 & 0.161 & -- & 0.554(128) & 0.443(128) & 0.003(4) \\
SDSS J075117.00$+$100016.2$^\#$ & 18.488(7) & 692 & 3 & 0.058 & -- & 0.193(38) & 0.807(38) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J075117.00$+$100016.2$^\#$ & 18.429(7) & 692 & 3 & 0.058 & -- & 0.139(38) & 0.860(39) & 0.001(1) \\
SDSS J075713.81$+$222253.0$^\#$ & 21.298(42) & 2759 & 3 & 0.190 & -- & 0.055(102) & 0.936(114) & 0.009(56) \\
SDSS J080033.86$+$192416.5$^\#$ & 19.732(15) & 1714 & 3 & 0.129 & -- & 0.212(125) & 0.787(126) & 0.001(2) \\
SDSS J080033.86$+$192416.5$^\#$ & 20.127(17) & 1714 & 3 & 0.129 & -- & 0.041(30) & 0.948(57) & 0.011(42) \\
SDSS J080033.86$+$192416.5$^\#$ & 20.205(23) & 1714 & 3 & 0.129 & -- & 0.161(112) & 0.790(120) & 0.049(62) \\
SDSS J080306.99$+$284855.8$^\#$ & 20.475(25) & 1086 & 2 & 0.221 & 0.0727$^\|$ & 0.037(38) & 0.960(39) & 0.003(9) \\
SDSS J081030.45$+$091111.7$^\#$ & 22.778(125) & 9735 & 3 & 0.070 & -- & 0.003(16) & 0.443(457) & 0.554(460) \\
SDSS J081408.42$+$090759.1$^\#$ & 20.692(24) & 778 & 3 & 0.074 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.343(390) & 0.657(390) \\
SDSS J081408.42$+$090759.1$^\#$ & 20.631(24) & 778 & 3 & 0.074 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.841(206) & 0.159(206) \\
SDSS J081408.42$+$090759.1$^\#$ & 20.704(32) & 778 & 3 & 0.074 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.309(377) & 0.691(377) \\
SDSS J081408.42$+$090759.1$^\#$ & 20.755(27) & 778 & 3 & 0.074 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.536(271) & 0.464(271) \\
SDSS J081529.89$+$171152.5$^\#$ & 21.849(56) & 2419 & 3 & 0.147 & -- & 0.198(305) & 0.451(386) & 0.351(410) \\
SDSS J082648.28$-$000037.7$^\#$ & 21.020(35) & 1317 & 3 & 0.158 & -- & 0.104(122) & 0.895(122) & 0.001(2) \\
SDSS J082648.28$-$000037.7$^\#$ & 21.172(37) & 1317 & 3 & 0.158 & -- & 0.109(259) & 0.881(276) & 0.011(96) \\
SDSS J083132.41$+$031420.7$^\#$ & 21.175(44) & 2308 & 3 & 0.099 & -- & 0.026(50) & 0.809(291) & 0.165(297) \\
SDSS J083132.41$+$031420.7$^\#$ & 21.518(66) & 2308 & 3 & 0.099 & -- & 0.630(372) & 0.315(354) & 0.055(180) \\
SDSS J083508.99$+$600643.9$^\#$ & 21.625(60) & 4495 & 3 & 0.148 & -- & 0.021(65) & 0.580(415) & 0.399(420) \\
SDSS J084011.95$+$244709.8$^\#$ & 20.579(24) & 6342 & 3 & 0.109 & -- & 0.984(33) & 0.016(33) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J084011.95$+$244709.8$^\#$ & 21.007(32) & 6342 & 3 & 0.109 & -- & 0.673(289) & 0.326(289) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J084108.10$+$102536.2$^\#$ & 20.247(18) & 1030 & 3 & 0.166 & -- & 0.034(27) & 0.965(27) & 0.001(2) \\
SDSS J084108.10$+$102536.2$^\#$ & 21.027(43) & 1030 & 3 & 0.166 & -- & 0.216(235) & 0.772(238) & 0.011(77) \\
SDSS J084108.10$+$102536.2$^\#$ & 20.822(48) & 1030 & 3 & 0.166 & -- & 0.442(384) & 0.543(387) & 0.015(82) \\
SDSS J091242.18$+$620940.1$^\#$ & 18.818(8) & 708 & 3 & 0.139 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.999(0) & 0.001(0) \\
SDSS J091741.29$+$073647.4$^\#$ & 21.520(52) & 3841 & 3 & 0.110 & -- & 0.169(245) & 0.355(363) & 0.476(453) \\
SDSS J091741.29$+$073647.4$^\#$ & 21.435(50) & 3841 & 3 & 0.110 & -- & 0.394(411) & 0.078(183) & 0.528(459) \\
SDSS J092620.42$+$034542.3$^\#$ & 19.827(15) & 2164 & 3 & 0.102 & -- & 0.196(75) & 0.803(75) & 0.002(2) \\
SDSS J092620.42$+$034542.3$^\#$ & 19.901(15) & 2164 & 3 & 0.102 & -- & 0.333(140) & 0.654(136) & 0.014(19) \\
SDSS J093946.03$+$065209.4$^\#$ & 22.484(118) & 2921 & 6 & 0.122 & -- & 0.035(151) & 0.278(397) & 0.686(412) \\
SDSS J093946.03$+$065209.4$^\#$ & 22.317(124) & 2921 & 6 & 0.122 & -- & 0.007(43) & 0.410(449) & 0.583(456) \\
SDSS J100243.11$-$024635.9$^\#$ & 21.240(48) & 1624 & 3 & 0.155 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.521(377) & 0.479(377) \\
SDSS J100243.11$-$024635.9$^\#$ & 21.024(65) & 1624 & 3 & 0.155 & -- & 0.046(106) & 0.628(408) & 0.325(426) \\
SDSS J100243.11$-$024635.9$^\#$ & 21.371(64) & 1624 & 3 & 0.155 & -- & 0.007(28) & 0.845(299) & 0.148(300) \\
SDSS J100516.61$+$694136.5$^\#$ & 19.423(12) & 7958 & 3 & 0.154 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.000(0) & 1.000(0) \\
SDSS J105333.76$+$285033.6$^\#$ & 20.193(17) & 3159 & 3 & 0.066 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.016(80) & 0.984(80) \\
SDSS J112003.40$+$663632.4$^\#$ & 20.945(54) & 92 & 4 & 0.016 & 0.0684$^\|$ & 0.003(7) & 0.559(393) & 0.438(394) \\
SDSS J124328.27$-$055431.0$^\#$ & 22.696(147) & 7838 & 6 & 0.079 & -- & 0.004(21) & 0.301(427) & 0.695(432) \\
SDSS J124602.02$-$202302.4$^\#$ & 18.535(8) & 1046 & 3 & 0.197 & -- & 0.279(49) & 0.701(48) & 0.020(11) \\
SDSS J124719.03$+$013842.6$^\#$ & 20.777(37) & 2809 & 3 & 0.064 & -- & 0.514(342) & 0.480(341) & 0.006(24) \\
SDSS J124719.03$+$013842.6$^\#$ & 20.696(32) & 2809 & 3 & 0.064 & -- & 0.764(270) & 0.233(266) & 0.003(20) \\
SDSS J124719.03$+$013842.6$^\#$ & 20.768(25) & 2809 & 3 & 0.064 & -- & 0.661(220) & 0.339(220) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J132040.96$-$030016.7$^\#$ & 25.605(628) & 7386 & 6 & 0.108 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.282(405) & 0.718(405) \\
SDSS J132715.28$+$425932.8$^\#$ & 20.805(25) & 4393 & 3 & 0.041 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.073(163) & 0.926(163) \\
SDSS J141029.09$+$330706.2$^\#$ & 21.738(88) & 9045 & 6 & 0.068 & -- & 0.003(28) & 0.859(337) & 0.137(337) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Estimated extinction and neural network classification (continued)}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Object & $g$ & $d$ (pc) & type$^*$ & $A_V$ & $P_{\rm orb}$ & ultrashort$^\dagger$ & short$^\ddagger$ & long$^\S$ \\
\hline
SDSS J142953.56$+$073231.2$^\#$ & 21.208(45) & 204 & 5 & 0.073 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.429(374) & 0.571(374) \\
SDSS J142953.56$+$073231.2$^\#$ & 21.150(53) & 204 & 5 & 0.073 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.055(155) & 0.945(155) \\
SDSS J142953.56$+$073231.2$^\#$ & 21.175(39) & 204 & 5 & 0.073 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.041(134) & 0.959(134) \\
SDSS J151109.79$+$574100.3$^\#$ & 21.239(35) & 2788 & 3 & 0.048 & -- & 0.040(64) & 0.935(90) & 0.025(71) \\
SDSS J151109.79$+$574100.3$^\#$ & 21.514(51) & 2788 & 3 & 0.048 & -- & 0.001(2) & 0.916(168) & 0.084(168) \\
SDSS J151109.79$+$574100.3$^\#$ & 21.361(39) & 2788 & 3 & 0.048 & -- & 0.001(1) & 0.722(373) & 0.278(373) \\
SDSS J152124.38$+$112551.9$^\#$ & 21.615(51) & 505 & 5 & 0.118 & -- & 0.274(352) & 0.469(424) & 0.257(384) \\
SDSS J153457.24$+$505616.8$^\#$ & 22.023(89) & 2366 & 3 & 0.064 & -- & 0.012(43) & 0.560(440) & 0.428(447) \\
SDSS J154817.56$+$153221.2$^\#$ & 21.640(50) & 1822 & 3 & 0.112 & -- & 0.002(5) & 0.621(404) & 0.377(405) \\
SDSS J154817.56$+$153221.2$^\#$ & 21.825(58) & 1822 & 3 & 0.112 & -- & 0.513(347) & 0.458(333) & 0.029(135) \\
SDSS J154817.56$+$153221.2$^\#$ & 22.304(96) & 1822 & 3 & 0.112 & -- & 0.002(15) & 0.937(217) & 0.062(217) \\
SDSS J155030.38$-$001417.3$^\#$ & 22.013(72) & 2814 & 3 & 0.272 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.173(294) & 0.827(294) \\
SDSS J155030.38$-$001417.3$^\#$ & 21.857(63) & 2814 & 3 & 0.272 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.095(244) & 0.905(244) \\
SDSS J155540.19$+$364643.1$^\#$ & 20.809(27) & 1824 & 3 & 0.062 & -- & 0.015(20) & 0.949(68) & 0.036(67) \\
SDSS J161027.61$+$090738.4$^\#$ & 20.082(19) & 650 & 1 & 0.135 & 0.0570 & 0.861(85) & 0.139(85) & 0.000(2) \\
SDSS J161027.61$+$090738.4$^\#$ & 20.103(18) & 650 & 1 & 0.135 & 0.0570 & 0.846(112) & 0.154(112) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J161442.43$+$080407.9$^\#$ & 20.940(43) & 2151 & 3 & 0.193 & -- & 0.038(64) & 0.511(412) & 0.452(435) \\
SDSS J161442.43$+$080407.9$^\#$ & 21.248(40) & 2151 & 3 & 0.193 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.622(431) & 0.378(431) \\
SDSS J162520.29$+$120308.7$^\#$ & 18.527(8) & 375 & 2 & 0.261 & 0.0920$^\|$ & 0.001(0) & 0.999(0) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J162520.29$+$120308.7$^\#$ & 18.481(7) & 375 & 2 & 0.261 & 0.0920$^\|$ & 0.006(2) & 0.994(2) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J162558.18$+$364200.6$^\#$ & 21.684(48) & 2368 & 3 & 0.043 & -- & 0.143(226) & 0.835(244) & 0.023(82) \\
SDSS J164705.07$+$193335.0$^\#$ & 21.980(69) & 1808 & 3 & 0.266 & -- & 0.091(178) & 0.759(298) & 0.150(274) \\
SDSS J164705.07$+$193335.0$^\#$ & 21.977(62) & 1808 & 3 & 0.266 & -- & 0.196(279) & 0.383(368) & 0.421(435) \\
SDSS J170145.85$+$332339.5$^\#$ & 21.582(54) & 4998 & 3 & 0.074 & -- & 0.056(135) & 0.936(141) & 0.008(48) \\
SDSS J170145.85$+$332339.5$^\#$ & 21.818(66) & 4998 & 3 & 0.074 & -- & 0.588(403) & 0.328(375) & 0.084(253) \\
SDSS J170810.31$+$445450.7$^\#$ & 20.734(25) & 526 & 3 & 0.090 & -- & 0.737(183) & 0.263(183) & 0.000(0) \\
SDSS J170810.31$+$445450.7$^\#$ & 20.784(23) & 526 & 3 & 0.090 & -- & 0.669(199) & 0.331(199) & 0.000(1) \\
SDSS J170810.31$+$445450.7$^\#$ & 20.832(29) & 526 & 3 & 0.090 & -- & 0.434(264) & 0.549(271) & 0.017(53) \\
SDSS J171202.95$+$275411.0$^\#$ & 21.417(40) & 2984 & 3 & 0.144 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.483(375) & 0.517(375) \\
SDSS J171202.95$+$275411.0$^\#$ & 21.417(59) & 2984 & 3 & 0.144 & -- & 0.000(0) & 0.357(421) & 0.643(421) \\
SDSS J174839.77$+$502420.3$^\#$ & 22.309(131) & 968 & 6 & 0.121 & -- & 0.702(432) & 0.284(429) & 0.015(104) \\
SDSS J191616.53$+$385810.6$^\#$ & 17.664(5) & 971 & 3 & 0.365 & -- & 0.553(31) & 0.432(36) & 0.016(10) \\
SDSS J205931.86$-$070516.6$^\#$ & 20.198(22) & 2436 & 3 & 0.225 & -- & 0.028(36) & 0.927(109) & 0.045(97) \\
SDSS J205931.86$-$070516.6$^\#$ & 20.755(30) & 2436 & 3 & 0.225 & -- & 0.738(385) & 0.261(385) & 0.001(5) \\
SDSS J223854.51$+$053606.8$^\#$ & 21.432(57) & 2330 & 3 & 0.327 & -- & 0.276(319) & 0.583(356) & 0.141(289) \\
SDSS J223854.51$+$053606.8$^\#$ & 21.396(55) & 2330 & 3 & 0.327 & -- & 0.272(279) & 0.477(348) & 0.251(383) \\
SDSS J223854.51$+$053606.8$^\#$ & 21.548(47) & 2330 & 3 & 0.327 & -- & 0.367(302) & 0.627(305) & 0.006(30) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^*$ Method of distance estimation. 1: from \citet{pat11CVdistance} and other references (see text), }\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2: determined from $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude, 3: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and maximum magnitude,}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{4: from $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude, 5: from estimated $P_{\rm orb}$ and minimum magnitude}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{6: assuming maximum $M_V$ = 4.95.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\dagger$ $P_{\rm orb} < 0.06$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\ddagger$ $0.06 \le P_{\rm orb} < 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\S$ $P_{\rm orb} \ge 0.10$ (d).}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\|$ Determined from superhump period.}\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^\#$ Dwarf novae proposed by \citet{wil10newCVs}.}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\section{Distribution of Orbital Periods}\label{sec:porbdist}
The present study provides a sample of DNe whose quiescent states
were recorded by SDSS and whose outbursts were detected with CRTS.
Since most of non-magnetic CVs below the period gap are DNe,
this sample can be used to explore the distribution of orbital
periods of CVs toward the shortest end. This sample has
an advantage of being uniformly sampled, and less biased
than any known previous samples, including SDSS CVs, which were
selected initially by colors and then by spectroscopy. Since there
is a chance that on the SDSS color criterion might have missed a significant
part of CVs, particularly WZ Sge-type dwarf novae, inside
the color exclusion zones (cf. subsection \ref{sec:bouncers}),
the present outburst-selected sample would be
an excellent alternative.\footnote{
It would be worth noting that both OT J074727.6$+$065050 and
OT J012059.6$+$325545 mentioned in subsection \ref{sec:bouncers} were
discovered by amateur observers and not by the CRTS. There might
have been a difference in detection policies between the CRTS
and amateur observers, and it might affect the homogeneity of
the CRTS transients. This aspect needs to be investigated further.
}
In discussing the parent population of an outburst-selected
sample, we need to incorporate the effect of the detection
probability. \citet{uem10shortPCV} proposed a method to
estimate the intrinsic $P_{\rm orb}$-distribution of DNe using a
Bayesian approach. In this subsection, we applied this method to the
present sample of the CRTS transients.
The CRTS-SDSS sample was selected in the following way:
first, we selected DNe having $P_{\rm est}=70$--$130$~min, since by
the Bayesian model we used
objects only in this region; second, we excluded objects whose
$P_{\rm est}$ had a large error of $>40$~\% of $P_{\rm est}$.
We obtained the remaining 123 SDSS objects whose outbursts were
detected by CRTS. We used weighted mean $P_{\rm est}$ in the case
that multiple SDSS observations provided multiple $P_{\rm est}$ for
the same object. Table~\ref{tab:crtsotlist} lists their names,
$P_{\rm est}$, their errors, and the number of recorded outbursts
in the CRTS data. Most of them are new sources discovered by
CRTS (namely ``OT" sources), while CRTS detected outbursts of several
known sources, which are also included in the table. The inclusion
of these already-known sources in the sample is important for avoiding
a bias resulting from exclusion of already-known,
i.e. frequently outbursting, relatively long-$P_{\rm orb}$ objects.
\citet{uem10shortPCV} assumed that the detection probability
($=1/T_{\rm s}$, where $T_{\rm s}$ is the typical recurrence time
of superoutbursts) is independent of $P_{\rm orb}$ in a long $P_{\rm orb}$
region of $P_{\rm orb}\gtrsim 85$~min, while it is lower in a shorter
$P_{\rm orb}$ region at $P_{\rm orb}\lesssim 85$~min. This assumption
can be tested with the present CRTS-SDSS sample. Figure~\ref{fig:ts}
shows the relation between the number of recorded outbursts and
$P_{\rm est}$ of the sample. As can be seen in the figure,
the CRTS-SDSS sample follows the trend assumed in \citet{uem10shortPCV}:
the number of high activity sources is small in a short period region of
$P_{\rm est}\lesssim 85$~min.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\FigureFile(88mm,88mm){fig5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The number of outbursts of the CRTS-SDSS sample. The
abscissa denotes the orbital period in min.}\label{fig:ts}
\end{figure}
The $P_{\rm est}$ distribution of our CRTS-SDSS sample is shown in
figure~\ref{fig:pdistr}. In \citet{uem10shortPCV}, two samples,
the ``ASAS" and ``mixed" samples, were analyzed. The ASAS sample
included 42 DNe, whose outbursts were detected with the ASAS survey
from 2003 to 2007. The mixed sample included 146 DNe, whose outbursts
were reported to VSNET. We applied the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test to
evaluate whether the CRTS-SDSS sample differs from those samples. The
KS probabilities were calculated to be 0.18 and 0.08 for the ASAS and
mixed samples, respectively. Hence, this test indicates that the
CRTS-SDSS sample has a different $P_{\rm orb}$ distribution from the
samples in \citet{uem10shortPCV}. Their $P_{\rm orb}$ distribution
apparently has a peak at $P_{\rm orb}\sim 86$~min.
In the CRTS-SDSS sample, the
distribution is rather flat in a region of $P_{\rm orb}\gtrsim
86$~min. The relatively flat distribution may be partly due to
a smearing effect of the $P_{\rm orb}$ distribution resulting
from errors in estimating $P_{\rm est}$.
As shown in table \ref{tab:crtsotlist}, some of $P_{\rm est}$ have
large uncertainties, which imply that the real distribution was
significantly smeared out.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\FigureFile(88mm,88mm){fig6.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Distribution of $P_{\rm est}$ of the CRTS-SDSS sample.
The dashed line indicates the probability density function (PDF)
of the best model derived from our analysis (for details
see the text).}\label{fig:pdistr}
\end{figure}
We estimated the intrinsic $P_{\rm orb}$ distribution using the
CRTS-SDSS sample. The intrinsic $P_{\rm orb}$ distribution is
described in the model is as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
I(p)= \left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
p^{-\alpha} e^{-\alpha/p}/A_I & (p \ge 1) \\
0 & (p < 1)
\end{array} \right. \\
p = P_{\rm orb}-P_{\rm min}+1\; ({\rm min}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$ is a parameter for the profile of the $P_{\rm orb}$
distribution, $P_{\rm min}$ the minimum $P_{\rm orb}$, and $A_I$
the normalization factor.
A larger $\alpha$ yields a distribution with a stronger
spike near $P_{\rm min}$. The distribution is flat in the case of
$\alpha=0$. Using the same model as in \citet{uem10shortPCV} and
adopting the derived $n=2.0$ for the dependence of the detection
probability on $P_{\rm orb}$, we calculated the posterior probability
distribution of $\alpha$ and $P_{\rm min}$ from the CRTS-SDSS sample.
The medians and 68.3\% confidence intervals were derived from
the estimated posterior distribution, which are listed in
table~\ref{tab:post}. The table also includes the results in
\citet{uem10shortPCV}. The model for the observed distribution is
indicated by the dashed line in figure~\ref{fig:pdistr}.
The intrinsic $P_{\rm orb}$ distribution,
which is obtained from the parameters, is depicted in
figure~\ref{fig:intr}. As can be seen in this figure, a period spike
feature appears just above $P_{\rm min}$. It is consistent with the
results in \citet{uem10shortPCV}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\FigureFile(88mm,88mm){fig7.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Probability density function (PDF) of the intrinsic
$P_{\rm orb}$ distribution of DNe estimated from the CRTS-SDSS sample.}
\label{fig:intr}
\end{figure}
On the other hand, the parameter $\alpha$ is significantly smaller
than those in \citet{uem10shortPCV}, as shown in
table~\ref{tab:post}. As a result, the spike feature is less
prominent. As mentioned above, the samples used in
\citet{uem10shortPCV} have a peak at $P_{\rm orb}\sim 86$~min in their
$P_{\rm orb}$ distribution. Such a profile tends to give a higher
$\alpha$ in our model. The small $\alpha$ for the CRTS-SDSS sample is
probably due to the relatively flat distribution in a region of
$P_{\rm orb}\gtrsim 86$~min; in other words, it is a potential smearing
effect of the distribution in $P_{\rm est}$. The parameter
$P_{\rm min}$ is estimated to be smaller than those in
\citet{uem10shortPCV}. This parameter is highly dependent on
the number of objects near $P_{\rm min}$. In the CRTS-SDSS sample,
there are larger number of objects in the region of
$P_{\rm orb}=70$--$80$, compared to the samples in \citet{uem10shortPCV}.
This may also be due to the smearing effect and the period minimum
determined from $P_{\rm est}$ could be shorter than the real $P_{\rm min}$.
The systematic trends of shortening of the $P_{\rm min}$ and
smaller $\alpha$ have been confirmed by artificially introducing ``zitter''
errors to the samples in \citet{uem10shortPCV}.
We thus could not find very convincing difference in the distribution
of $P_{\rm orb}$ between CRTS-SDSS and past outburst-selected samples.
Most objects with a short $P_{\rm est}$,
however, do not have a measured $P_{\rm orb}$ (either spectroscopically
or photometrically), and there remains a possibility that these
objects may be genuine ultrashort-period CVs. Characterizations
of these objects by further observations are desired.
\begin{table}
\caption{CRTS sources for the estimation of the intrinsic $P_{\rm orb}$
distribution.}\label{tab:crtsotlist}
\begin{tabular}{cccl}
\hline
$P_{\rm est}$$^*$ & error$^*$ & $N$$^\dagger$ & Object \\
\hline
70.1 & 14.0 & 1 & OT J004902.0$+$074726 \\
70.4 & 7.2 & 2 & OT J151037.4$+$084104 \\
72.4 & 18.2 & 4:& OT J164748.0$+$433845 \\
73.4 & 2.4 & 1 & EL UMa \\
73.7 & 4.1 & 2 & OT J073758.5$+$205545 \\
74.7 & 4.1 & 2 & OT J010550.1$+$190317 \\
75.6 & 2.5 & 3 & OT J035003.4$+$370052 \\
76.1 & 3.0 & 1 & OT J084555.1$+$033930 \\
78.5 & 2.6 & 1 & OT J104411.4$+$211307 \\
82.0 & 2.1 &16 & OT J010329.0$+$331822 \\
82.1 & 29.4 & 1 & OT J230425.8$+$062546 \\
84.0 & 15.0 & 1 & OT J223606.3$+$050517 \\
84.5 & 2.2 & 1 & OT J112253.3$-$111037 \\
84.7 & 22.8 &16 & OT J215630.5$-$031957 \\
84.9 & 1.5 &10:& OT J141002.2$-$124809 \\
85.7 & 2.5 & 1 & OT J005824.6$+$283304 \\
86.1 & 4.5 & 1 & OT J084041.5$+$000520 \\
86.4 & 1.9 & 7:& OT J074419.7$+$325448 \\
86.4 & 8.6 & 3 & OT J223136.0$+$180747 \\
87.3 & 20.3 & 3 & OT J102937.7$+$414046 \\
87.8 & 1.3 & 1 & OT J032839.9$-$010240 \\
87.9 & 3.4 & 1 & OT J102637.0$+$475426 \\
87.9 & 4.4 & 3 & OT J075414.5$+$313216 \\
87.9 & 4.6 & 3:& OT J163311.3$-$011132 \\
88.0 & 4.0 & 2 & OT J163120.9$+$103134 \\
88.5 & 4.8 & 5:& OT J224505.4$+$011547 \\
88.5 & 4.8 & 1 & OT J102146.4$+$234926 \\
88.7 & 45.3 & 1 & OT J091453.6$+$113402 \\
88.9 & 1.9 & 1 & OT J130030.3$+$115101 \\
88.9 & 1.9 & 2 & OT J132536.0$+$210037 \\
89.4 & 5.7 & 1 & OT J222824.1$+$134944 \\
89.8 & 9.0 & 2 & OT J082654.7$-$000733 \\
90.4 & 2.6 & 1 & OT J202857.1$-$061803 \\
91.1 & 13.0 & 2 & OT J004807.2$+$264621 \\
91.6 & 5.6 & 1 & OT J223058.3$+$210147 \\
92.5 & 2.2 & 1 & OT J221128.7$-$030516 \\
93.6 & 2.2 & 6 & OT J085603.8$+$322109 \\
95.0 & 1.7 & 3 & OT J124417.9$+$300401 \\
95.9 & 2.3 & 1 & OT J014150.4$+$090822 \\
96.3 & 4.5 & 3:& OT J084413.7$-$012807 \\
96.7 & 0.1 & 5 & ASAS J224349$+$0809.5 \\
96.8 & 2.8 & 4 & OT J162806.2$+$065316 \\
96.9 & 23.3 & 2 & OT J214639.9$+$092119 \\
97.1 & 4.5 & 4:& OT J082019.4$+$474732 \\
98.0 & 4.6 & 3:& OT J043517.8$+$002941 \\
98.4 & 2.9 & 2 & OT J101545.9$+$033312 \\
98.7 & 2.9 & 3 & OT J040659.8$+$005244 \\
99.3 & 3.2 & 4:& OT J210954.1$+$163052 \\
99.6 & 8.1 & 1 & OT J020056.0$+$195727 \\
99.7 & 4.8 & 5 & OT J075648.0$+$305805 \\
100.0 & 1.9 & 1:& OT J011516.5$+$245530 \\
100.1 & 4.7 & 6:& OT J154354.1$-$143745 \\
100.4 & 1.5 & 1:& OT J221344.0$+$173252 \\
101.3 & 2.0 & 4 & OT J164950.4$+$035835 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^*$ Unit min.} \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^\dagger$ Number of outbursts recorded by CRTS.} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table}
\caption{CRTS sources for the estimation of the intrinsic $P_{\rm orb}$
distribution (continued).}
\begin{tabular}{cccl}
\hline
$P_{\rm est}$$^*$ & error$^*$ & $N$$^\dagger$ & Object \\
\hline
101.7 & 5.1 & 5 & OT J162619.8$-$125557 \\
101.9 & 2.8 & 2 & OT J001538.3$+$263657 \\
101.9 & 2.4 & 1 & OT J215815.3$+$094709 \\
102.0 & 35.4 & 5:& OT J162012.0$+$115257 \\
102.1 & 3.8 & 6:& OT J224814.5$+$331224 \\
102.5 & 3.3 & 5:& OT J204001.4$-$144909 \\
102.5 & 1.2 &18:& V1032 Oph\\
102.7 & 0.8 & 2 & OT J170609.7$+$143452 \\
103.3 & 5.2 & 1 & OT J075332.0$+$375801 \\
103.6 & 4.0 & 2 & OT J105835.1$+$054706 \\
104.1 & 66.9 & 3:& OT J091634.6$+$130358 \\
104.3 & 3.3 & 1 & OT J210650.6$+$110250 \\
104.5 & 2.6 & 4 & OT J103317.3$+$072119 \\
104.6 & 19.9 & 1 & OT J214959.9$+$124529 \\
104.6 & 3.0 & 4 & OT J004500.3$+$222708 \\
105.1 & 9.1 & 2 & OT J224753.9$+$235522 \\
105.4 & 5.6 & 1 & OT J074928.0$+$190452 \\
105.6 & 1.9 & 2 & OT J043829.1$+$004016 \\
105.7 & 2.3 & 1 & SDSS J152419.33$+$220920.0 \\
106.0 & 5.9 & 2 & OT J081418.9$-$005022 \\
106.4 & 5.0 & 2 & OT J043546.9$+$090837 \\
106.5 & 41.1 &11:& OT J090852.2$+$071640 \\
106.9 & 6.2 & 4 & OT J224823.7$-$092059 \\
106.9 & 6.1 & 8 & V844 Her\\
107.1 & 2.0 & 1 & OT J051419.9$+$011121 \\
107.6 & 3.7 & 2 & OT J112509.7$+$231036 \\
107.6 & 8.0 & 2 & OT J082603.7$+$113821 \\
108.1 & 2.1 &14:& OT J080853.7$+$355053 \\
108.4 & 1.7 & 9 & QW Ser \\
108.9 & 8.1 & 5 & OT J124819.4$+$072050 \\
109.1 & 11.5 & 4 & OT J160844.8$+$220610 \\
109.3 & 2.5 & 2 & OT J112332.0$+$431718 \\
109.7 & 33.3 & 1 & UW Tri\\
110.0 & 9.7 & 3 & OT J231142.8$+$204036 \\
110.2 & 4.1 & 1 & OT J154544.9$+$442830 \\
110.2 & 3.1 & 6 & OT J003304.0$+$380106 \\
110.3 & 31.6 & 2 & OT J090516.1$+$120451 \\
110.3 & 15.8 & 3 & OT J144316.5$-$010222 \\
111.6 & 1.5 & 2 & HS 1016$+$3412 \\
112.4 & 2.5 & 6 & OT J021110.2$+$171624 \\
113.8 & 2.9 & 3 & SDSS J100515.39$+$191108.0 \\
113.9 & 3.9 & 3 & OT J011543.2$+$333724 \\
114.0 & 2.6 & 2 & TT Boo\\
114.2 & 5.4 & 3 & OT J170702.5$+$165339 \\
114.3 & 4.1 & 4:& OT J043742.1$+$003048 \\
115.1 & 4.5 & 2:& OT J214804.4$+$080951 \\
116.2 & 0.4 & 6 & NSV04838 \\
116.3 & 4.4 & 3 & OT J000024.7$+$332543 \\
117.3 & 29.5 & 2 & OT J082821.8$+$105344 \\
118.5 & 10.6 & 10& OT J163942.7$+$122414 \\
118.6 & 3.9 & 2 & OT J141712.0$-$180328 \\
119.2 & 4.7 & 3:& OT J212633.3$+$085459 \\
119.5 & 3.5 & 8 & OT J084358.1$+$425037 \\
120.7 & 12.7 & 6 & OT J085113.4$+$344449 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^*$ Unit min.} \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^\dagger$ Number of outbursts recorded by CRTS.} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table}
\caption{CRTS sources for the estimation of the intrinsic $P_{\rm orb}$
distribution (continued).}
\begin{tabular}{cccl}
\hline
$P_{\rm est}$$^*$ & error$^*$ & $N$$^\dagger$ & Object \\
\hline
120.9 & 27.1 & 8 & OT J155430.6$+$365043 \\
120.9 & 5.1 & 6 & OT J213937.6$-$023913 \\
121.4 & 4.2 & 8:& OT J224253.4$+$172538 \\
122.0 & 9.2 &13:& OT J232619.4$+$282650 \\
122.4 & 4.0 & 3 & OT J085409.4$+$201339 \\
123.1 & 13.5 & 4 & OT J001158.3$+$315544 \\
123.2 & 11.8 & 3 & OT J152037.9$+$040948 \\
124.3 & 2.9 & 5 & OT J000659.6$+$192818 \\
124.5 & 3.3 & 3 & EG Aqr\\
124.5 & 8.7 & 7 & OT J041636.9$+$292806 \\
124.9 & 35.7 & 2 & OT J211550.9$-$000716 \\
126.3 & 3.1 & 2:& OT J223909.8$+$250331 \\
127.2 & 23.2 & 1 & OT J214842.5$-$000723 \\
127.5 & 10.3 & 2 & OT J215636.3$+$193242 \\
128.1 & 3.7 & 3 & OT J102616.0$+$192045 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^*$ Unit min.} \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^\dagger$ Number of outbursts recorded by CRTS.} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Parameters estimated from the Bayesian
analysis.}\label{tab:post}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
Sample & $\alpha$ & $P_{\rm min}$ (min)\\
\hline
CRTS-SDSS & $0.49^{+0.22}_{-0.24}$ & $63.2^{+2.7}_{-3.8}$ \\
\hline
ASAS$^*$ & $1.00^{+0.28}_{-0.30}$ & $71.9^{+2.4}_{-3.8}$ \\
all RKcat$^*$ & $0.98^{+0.16}_{-0.16}$ & $72.5^{+1.3}_{-1.6}$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\footnotesize{$^*$\citet{uem10shortPCV}}}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
We investigated de-reddened SDSS colors of known dwarf novae,
and found correlations between orbital periods and colors.
The $u-g$ color is a particularly good indicator for systems with
the shortest orbital periods and can be used to distinguish
WZ Sge-type candidates.
We have also developed a method for estimating orbital periods of
dwarf novae from SDSS colors in quiescence using an artificial
neural network.
For typical objects below the period gap with considerable
photometric accuracy,
we could estimate orbital periods to a 1 $\sigma$ error of 22 \%.
The error in estimation is worse for longer period systems.
We also developed a neural-network-based method for a categorical
classification. This method has proven to be efficient in classifying
objects into three categories (WZ Sge type, SU UMa type and SS Cyg/Z Cam type)
and works for very faint objects to a limit of $g$=21.
Using these methods, we investigated the distribution of orbital
periods of dwarf novae from a modern transient survey (CRTS).
We confirmed that the number of detected outbursts were smaller
in systems with orbital periods shorter than 85 min. The estimated
parent population was different from those of earlier outburst-selected
samples investigated by \citet{uem10shortPCV}, in that the present sample
tends to give a flatter distribution toward the shortest period and
a shorter estimate of the period minimum. Although it is likely this was
a result of uncertainties resulting from neural-network analysis
and photometric errors, it is necessary to confirm of the real nature of
objects having the shortest estimated periods.
We also provide estimated orbital periods, estimated classifications and
supplementary information for known dwarf novae with quiescent SDSS
photometry.
We have also shown that there are a significant number of transients
whose quiescent colors are inside the WD exclusion box of SDSS
spectroscopic follow-up, and suggested that the fraction of
shortrst-$P_{\rm orb}$ objects and period bouncers were significantly
biased in the SDSS CVs.
\section*{Note added in proof:}
The following objects have been named in \citet{NameList80b}
during the proofreading period:
2QZ J142701.6$-$012310 = V558 Vir,
GSC 847.1021 = IU Leo,
HS 1016$+$3412 = AC LMi,
HS 1340$+$1524 = HW Boo,
OT J074727.6$+$065050 = DY CMi,
OT J080714.2$+$113812 = KK Cnc,
OT J084555.1$+$033930 = V498 Hya,
OT J102146.4$+$234926 = IK Leo,
ROTSE3 J151453.6$+$020934.2 = V418 Ser,
SDSS J005050.88$+$000912.6 = GS Cet,
SDSS J013132.39$-$090122.3 = GY Cet,
SDSS J040714.78$-$064425.1 = LT Eri,
SDSS J074531.92$+$453829.6 = EQ Lyn,
SDSS J080434.20$+$510349.2 = EZ Lyn,
SDSS J084400.10$+$023919.3 = V495 Hya,
SDSS J090103.93$+$480911.1 = PU UMa,
SDSS J090452.09$+$440255.4 = FV Lyn,
SDSS J123813.73$-$033933.0 = V406 Vir,
SDSS J124426.26$+$613514.6 = V351 UMa,
SDSS J125023.85$+$665525.5 = OV Dra,
SDSS J133941.11$+$484727.5 = V355 UMa,
SDSS J150240.98$+$333423.9 = NZ Boo,
SDSS J151413.72$+$454911.9 = PP Boo,
SDSS J155644.24$-$000950.2 = V493 Ser,
SDSSp J081321.91$+$452809.4 = FH Lyn,
SDSSp J082409.73$+$493124.4 = FV Lyn.
\subsection*{V1047 Aql}
According to Rod Stubbings, the observation by Greg Bolt during
the 2005 August outburst detected superhumps, and the superhump period
was about 0.074 d. This result is consistent with our categorical
classification.
\vskip 3mm
This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for the Global COE Program
``The Next Generation of Physics, Spun from Universality and Emergence"
from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
(MEXT) of Japan.
This work was partly supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B)
No.11020523 (HM) from the MEXT of Japan.
We are grateful to the Catalina Real-time Transient Survey
team for making their real-time detection of transient objects available to
the public.
Funding for the SDSS has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,
the Participating Institutions, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the US Department
of Energy, the Japanese MEXT and the Max Planck Society.
The SDSS web site is $<$http://www.sdss.org$>$.
Simbad's VizieR service, the NASA Astrophysics Data System
and the AAVSO VSX service have been important resources of information
for this research.
We are grateful to Elena Pavlenko for making historical materials
of NSV 00895 available to us and to Tomohito Ohshima for helping us
in astrometry of SX LMi.
We are also grateful to many numbers of observers including the VSNET
Collaboration, AAVSO, CVNET, BAA VSS alert and AVSON networks
who have greatly contributed to the detections of outbursts of dwarf novae
and determinations of superhump or orbital periods.
|
\section{...}
Flavour physics constitutes an important part of the standard model (SM)
phenomenology. Especially, $B$-physics at the 1st generation $B$-factories and
the Tevatron played a major role during the last decade. One of the main aims
was -- and still is -- to measure and test the picture of quark-flavour mixing
and CP violation in the SM, represented by the unitary Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa
(CKM) matrix. Great effort was put into the determination of the CKM parameters
with the help of elaborated strategies developed by the CKMfitter and UTfit
groups leading to a steadily increasing precision of the involved
parameters. Currently, this program is continued at the LHC mainly by LHCb and
in the future at the 2nd generation $B$-factories with Belle II and SuperB.
Flavour changing neutral current (FCNC) decays mediated by $b\to
s\,\ell^+\ell^-$ are not of primary importance for the determination of CKM
parameters. In the SM they are absent at tree-level, having branching fractions
of ${\cal O}(10^{-6})$ and being sensitive to contributions beyond the SM (BSM)
at the electroweak scale or even higher, depending on the BSM scenario. They
constitute indirect probes of virtual contributions of new physics which
requires a certain degree of experimental and theoretical precision to test the
SM or to be able to claim deviations. The experiments Belle~\cite{:2009zv}, CDF
\cite{Aaltonen:2011qs} and LHCb \cite{Blake:2011ii} started to accumulate enough
$b\to s\,\ell^+\ell^-$ events in order to begin first studies. Especially, LHCb
will provide at least a factor five more data with 2 fb$^{-1}$ until the end of
next year for exclusive final states such as $B^+ \to K^+ \,\mu^+\mu^-$ and $B^0
\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-) \,\mu^+\mu^-$. In view of the experimental progress it
is desirable to develop strategies towards a global fit of $b\to
s\,\ell^+\ell^-$ and related FCNC decays similar to the ones existing for the
CKM matrix.
Theoretical predictions of $b\to s\, \ell^+\ell^-$ decays focus on regions of
the dilepton invariant mass~$q^2$ below and above the two narrow
$c\bar{c}$-resonances $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$, which are frequently denoted as low-
and high-$q^2$ region, respectively. In the SM, the numerically dominant
contributions in both $q^2$-regions are due to loop-induced FCNC operators,
usually denoted as ${\cal O}_{9, 10} \sim [\bar{s}\, \gamma^\mu P_L\,
b][\bar\ell\, \gamma_\mu (1, \gamma_5)\, \ell]$ for $b\to s\, \ell^+\ell^-$ and
the electric dipole operator ${\cal O}_{7} \sim m_b [\bar{s}\, \sigma^{\mu\nu}
P_R\, b] F_{\mu\nu}$ for $b \to s\gamma$. At low-$q^2$, contributions due to
$b\to s\,\bar{q}q$ ($q = u,d,s,c$) 4-quark operators are treated within QCD
factorization \cite{Beneke:2001at} based on the large recoil limit and
soft-gluon effects from $c\bar{c}$-resonances can be included following
\cite{Khodjamirian:2010vf}. At high-$q^2$, a local expansion can be applied for
these operators due to the hard momentum $\Lambda_{\rm QCD} \ll q^2 \sim m_b^2$
of the order of the $b$-quark mass \cite{Grinstein:2004vb, Beylich:2011aq}. The
main uncertainties in predictions of exclusive decays $B\to K^*\,\gamma$, $B\to
K^{(*)} \ell^+ \ell^-$, but also others like $B_s\to \phi\,\ell^+ \ell^-$,
$\Lambda_b \to \Lambda\, \ell^+ \ell^-$, stem from form factors and lacking
sub-leading contributions in the power expansions in $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b$.
The particular kinematical limits of large and low recoil of the hadronic system
$K^{(*)}$ allow to reduce the number of form factors with the help of form
factor relations at lowest order in the above mentioned power expansions. In
combination with the angular analysis of the 4-body final state in $B\to
K^{*}(\to K\pi)\, \ell^+ \ell^-$, which offers a large number of angular
observables $J_i(q^2)$ ($i = 1s,\, \ldots\, 9$) \cite{Kruger:1999xa}, suitable
combinations of $J_i(q^2)$ could be identified which exhibit a reduced hadronic
uncertainty and enhanced sensitivity to short-distance couplings of the SM and
BSM scenarios. At low-$q^2$ there are $A_T^{(2,3,4,5,{\rm re, im})}$
\cite{Kruger:2005ep} whereas at high-$q^2$ $H_T^{(2,3,4,5)}$
\cite{Bobeth:2010wg}. Additionally, at high-$q^2$ also combinations are known
which do not depend on the short-distance couplings \cite{Bobeth:2010wg} and
allow to probe the form factor shapes with data. CP asymmetric combinations
with reduced hadronic uncertainties have been also found at low-$q^2$
\cite{Kruger:2005ep} and high-$q^2$ \cite{Bobeth:2011gi}. The sensitivity to
$B_s$-mixing parameters $\phi_s$ and $\Delta \Gamma_s$ in time-integrated CP
asymmetries of $B_s \to \phi(\to K^+K^-)\,\ell^+\ell^-$ turns out to be small
\cite{Bobeth:2011gi}. The $J_i(q^2)$ normalised to the decay rate and the
associated CP-asymmetries have been also studied model-independently and
model-dependently in great detail \cite{Bobeth:2008ij}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=.335\textwidth]{fig-constraints-c9-c10-all-all-all-contour.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.325\textwidth]{fig-constraints-real-negc7-all-all-all.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.325\textwidth]{fig-constraints-real-posc7-all-all-all.pdf}
\caption{Constraints on $|C_9|$ and $|C_{10}|$ for complex $C_{7,9,10}$ [left]
and real $C_{9,10}$ with $C_7^{} = C_7^{\rm SM}$ [middle] as well as
$C_7^{} = -C_7^{\rm SM}$ [right], using low- and high-$q^2$ constraints from
$B\to K^{(*)}\ell^+ \ell^-$ \cite{Bobeth:2011nj}. The black contours in the
left plot are obtained by discarding $B\to K\,\ell^+\ell^-$ data and
the (green) square denotes the SM point.
All observables used in \cite{Bobeth:2010wg, Bobeth:2011gi, Bobeth:2011nj}
are implemented in the public package \cite{EOS:website}.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
The $q^2$-binning for several observables measured by Belle \cite{:2009zv}, CDF
\cite{Aaltonen:2011qs} and LHCb \cite{Blake:2011ii} falls into the low- and
high-$q^2$ regions which are accessible by theoretical methods and allows to
preform first fits of the short-distance couplings $C_{9,10}$. The constraining
potential of the combination of both $q^2$-regions has been demonstrated using
Belle and CDF $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ data from 2010 \cite{Bobeth:2010wg}. There
the branching ratio, the lepton forward-backward asymmetry $A_{\rm FB}$ and the
longitudinal $K^*$-polarisation fraction $F_L$ in the bins $q^2 \in [1, 6]$,
$[14.18, 16.0]$ and $[> 16.0]$~GeV$^2$ has been studied for a SM operator basis
scenario with real $C_{9,10}$ and $C_7 = \pm C_7^{\rm SM}$. In the lack of
QCD-Lattice predictions, the fits rely on extrapolations of form factors from
the low- to the high-$q^2$ region. The according results for a scenario of
complex $C_{7,9,10}$, i.e. accounting also for CP violation beyond the SM, can
be found in \cite{Bobeth:2011gi}. The study \cite{DescotesGenon:2011yn}
included only data from the low-$q^2$ region, but supplemented with inclusive
and exclusive $b\to s\, \gamma$ observables for the SM scenario with real
$C_{7,9,10}$ and its extension including the chirality-flipped operators ${\cal
O}_{7', 9', 10'}$. Especially, $A_T^{(2)}$ was studied which is particularly
sensitive to $C_{7',9',10'}$, showing, that large deviations from the SM
prediction are still allowed. A very comprehensive study
\cite{Altmannshofer:2011gn} included the most recent data including also
high-$q^2$ results, except $B\to K\ell^+\ell^-$, and studies model-independent
scenarios with complex Wilson coefficients.
During this summer CDF (6.8 fb$^{-1}$) released updated results for several
exclusive $b\to s\, \ell^+\ell^-$ decays \cite{Aaltonen:2011qs} and moreover,
LHCb (309 pb$^{-1}$) presented the first results of $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$
\cite{Blake:2011ii}. Figure~\ref{fig1} shows the allowed ranges of $|C_{10}|$ vs
$|C_9|$ for complex and real $C_{7,9,10}$ \cite{Bobeth:2011nj}, which updates
\cite{Bobeth:2010wg, Bobeth:2011gi} by taking into account the new data from
2011 and additionally the branching ratio of $B\to K\,\ell^+\ell^-$. The upper
bound on $|C_{10}|$ implies an upper bound on $Br(B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-) \lesssim 9
\times 10^{-9}$ \cite{Bobeth:2011gi} whereas the upper bound on $|C_9|$ can be
translated into a lower bound on the position of the zero-crossing of the
$A_{\rm FB}$ in $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ \cite{Bobeth:2011nj} in this scenario. At
high-$q^2$, $B \to K \ell^+\ell^-$ offers a second observable $F_H^\ell$
\cite{Bobeth:2007dw} which becomes large for $\ell = \tau$ and is sensitive to
$C_{10}$ \cite{Bobeth:2011nj}.
In the absence of strong direct $b\to s\, \tau^+\tau^-$ constraints, a global
fit of $b\to s\,\ell^+\ell^-$ data combined with $b\to s\,\gamma$ proved also
useful to provide indirect constraints due to operator mixing on $b\to s\,
\tau^+\tau^-$ operators. A model-independent study of absorptive BSM
contributions to $\Gamma_{12}^s$ in $B_s$-mixing due to $b\to s\,\tau^+\tau^-$
showed that they do not exceed 40\% deviation from the SM prediction
\cite{Bobeth:2011st}.
This summer CDF has presented the first measurement of the transversity
observable $A_T^{(2)}$ and the observable $A_{im} \sim J_9/(d\Gamma/dq^2)$
\cite{Aaltonen:2011qs} which appear in the single-differential angular
distribution w.r.t. the angle $\phi$ in $B\to K^{*}(\to K\pi)\, \ell^+ \ell^-$.
This completes the other two previously measured single-differential
distribution w.r.t. to $\cos\theta_\ell$ and $\cos\theta_{K^*}$ which allowed to
determine $A_{\rm FB}$ and $F_L$. As already emphasized, especially LHCb will
collect larger data sets, hopefully enabling the full angular analysis
w.r.t. all 3 angles and a smaller $q^2$-binning. The measurement of the angular
observables $J_i$ and the specially designed observables $A_T^{(2,3,4,5,{\rm re,
im})}$ and $H_T^{(2,3,4,5)}$ with reduced hadronic uncertainties would be a
welcome input of a global analysis of $b\to s\,\ell^+\ell^-$. On the theoretical
side, especially form factor predictions at high-$q^2$ are not fully available
yet \cite{Liu:2011ra} and moreover a better understanding of the sub-leading
corrections in the power expansion can help to improve the confidence in the
uncertainty estimates.
\vskip-0.0cm
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgments} $\quad$ I am indebted to the organisers of the
{\em EPS-HEP 2011} for the opportunity to present a talk and the kind
hospitality in Grenoble. I thank Frederik Beaujean, Uli Haisch, Gudrun Hiller,
Danny van Dyk and Christian Wacker for our fruitful collaboration.
|
\section{Introduction}
X-ray free-electron lasers (FELs) provide an outstanding tool for studying matter at ultrafast time and atomic length scales~\cite{LCLSnature1}, and have become a reality with the operation of the Free-Electron Laser in Hamburg (FLASH)~\cite{FLASHAnature}, the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS)~\cite{LCLSnature2}, and the SPring-8 Angstrom Compact Free Electron Laser (SACLA)~\cite{SACLAnature}. The required high transverse and longitudinal brightness of the X-ray FEL driving electron bunches may encounter various degradation effects due to collective effects like coherent synchrotron radiation (CSR) or microbunching instabilities (e.g., Refs.~\cite{CSR,CSR-ub,lsc-ub}), and need to be preserved and controlled. In order to suppress a microbunching instability associated with longitudinal bunch compression that deteriorates the FEL performance, the LCLS uses a laser heater system to irreversibly increase the uncorrelated energy spread within the electron bunches, i.e., the slice energy spread, to a level tolerable for operation of a self-amplified spontaneous emission FEL~\cite{LH,LCLSheater}. For future X-ray FELs that plan to use external quantum lasers (seed lasers) to seed the FEL process in order to achieve better temporal coherence and synchronization for pump-probe experiments, a smaller slice energy spread is required to leave room for the additional energy modulation imprinted by the seed laser. Thus, the amount of tolerable beam heating is more restrictive and the longitudinal phase space control becomes more critical (e.g., Refs.~\cite{NLS,flatflat}). The same strict requirement on small slice energy spreads is valid for optical klystron enhanced self-amplified spontaneous emission free-electron lasers~\cite{okly}.
Originally designed for high-energy particle separation by radio-frequency (rf) fields~\cite{LOLA}, transverse deflecting rf structures (TDSs) are routinely used for high-resolution temporal electron beam diagnostics at present X-ray FELs (e.g., Refs.~\cite{Kick,Roehrs,Filippetto,xtcav}) and are proposed to use for novel beam manipulation methods (e.g., Refs.~\cite{psxray, exchange1, exchange2, mapping, ramp, psex}). Recently, a TDS was used to increase the slice energy spread in an echo-enabled harmonic generation FEL experiment~\cite{Xiang,Xiang2}. In this paper, we present a reversible electron beam heating system that uses two TDSs located up and downstream of a magnetic bunch compressor chicane. The additional slice energy spread is introduced in the first TDS, which suppresses the microbunching instability, and then is eliminated in the second TDS.
The method of reversible beam heating is shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:Method} by means of linear beam optics and a corresponding matrix formalism. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Heating}, we show the feasibility of this scheme to preserve both the transverse and longitudinal brightness of the electron beam, and discuss the impact of coherent synchrotron radiation. Section~\ref{sec:uB} covers the gain suppression of microbunching instabilities by analytical calculations and numerical simulations, and in Sec.~\ref{sec:Practical} we discuss the impact of beam and rf jitter, and show inherent options for diagnosis and on-line monitoring of the electron beam's longitudinal phase space. The results and conclusions are summarized in Sec.~\ref{sec:Summary}.
\section{Method}\label{sec:Method}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=0.9\linewidth]{Fig_Setup_1}
\caption{Layout of a reversible electron beam heater system including two transverse deflecting rf structures located up and downstream of a magnetic bunch compressor (BC) chicane, and longitudinal phase space diagnostics using screens and synchrotron radiation monitors (SRM). Parameters related to the reversible beam heater system are denoted in curly brackets.} \label{fig:Fig1_Setup}
\end{figure*}
In this and the following sections, we consider a linear accelerator (linac) employing a single bunch compressor for a soft X-ray FEL, such as the proposed linac configuration for the Next Generation Light Source (NGLS) at LBNL~\cite{Corlett}. The choice of a single magnetic bunch compressor simplifies our consideration and analysis, although the concept is also applicable for typical bunch compressor arrangements with multiple stages. We note that a single bunch compressor arrangement has also been considered for the FERMI@Elettra FEL in order to minimize the impact of microbunching instabilities~\cite{Venturini}.
The generic layout of the reversible electron beam heater system is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1_Setup}. It consists of linac sections providing and accelerating high-brightness electron beams, a magnetic bunch compressor chicane in order to achieve sufficient peak currents to drive the FEL process, and two transverse deflecting rf structures located up and downstream of the bunch compressor. An additional higher-harmonic rf linearizer system (Linearizer), like at the LCLS or FLASH~\cite{Lin}, can be used to achieve uniform bunch compression by means of longitudinal phase space linearization upstream of the bunch compressor. The whole system can be supplemented by dedicated longitudinal phase space diagnostics (see Sec.~\ref{sec:Practical}), and except for the two TDSs, the layout is commonly used for bunch compression at present and future X-ray FELs.
The principle of the reversible electron beam heater relies on the physics of TDSs arising from the Panofsky-Wenzel theorem~\cite{Panowsky,Bro}, which states that the transverse momentum gain $\Delta \vec{p}_{\perp}$ of a relativistic electron imprinted by a TDS is related to the transverse gradient of the longitudinal electric field $\nabla_{\perp}\mathcal{E}_z$ inside the TDS, and yields
\begin{equation}
\Delta \vec{p}_{\perp} = -i \frac{e}{\omega} \int_0^L \nabla_{\perp} \mathcal{E}_z d\tilde{z}\,,
\end{equation} where $\omega/(2\pi)$ is the operating rf frequency, $e$ is the elementary charge, $L$ is the structure length, and $\tilde{z}$ is the longitudinal position inside the structure (not to be confused with the beamline coordinate, which is given by $s$ in the following). Operating a TDS with vertical deflection, i.e., in y-direction, near the zero-crossing rf phase $\psi=\omega/c\,z$, electrons experience transverse kicks~\cite{Kick}
\begin{equation}
\Delta y'=\frac{e \omega V_y}{cE}z = K_y z
\label{eq:long}
\end{equation} and relative energy deviations ($\delta=\Delta E/E$)~\cite{IES1,IES2}
\begin{equation}
\Delta \delta = K_y \frac{1}{L}\int_{0}^L{y(s) ds}=K_y \overline{y}\,,
\label{eq:ies}
\end{equation} where $K_y = e \omega V_y/(cE)$ is the vertical kick strength, $V_y$ is the peak deflection voltage in the TDS, $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum, $E$ is the electron energy, and $\overline{y}$ is the mean vertical position over the structure length $L$ along the beamline relative to the central axis inside the finite TDS. Here, $z$ is the internal bunch length coordinate of the electron relative to the zero-crossing rf phase. Both the additional transverse kicks and relative energy deviations are induced by the TDS operation itself and generate correlations within an electron bunch. In fact, near the zero-crossing rf phase (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:long})), the induced transverse kick correlates linearly with the internal bunch length coordinate ($z=ct$) and enables high-resolution temporal diagnostics (e.g., Refs.~\cite{Kick,Roehrs,Filippetto}), whereas the induced relative energy deviation correlates with the vertical offset inside the TDS and results in an induced relative energy spread $\Delta \sigma_{\delta} = K_y \sigma_{y}$. Here, the symbol $\sigma$ denotes the root mean square (r.m.s.) value, and $\sigma_{y}$ is the vertical r.m.s.~beam size. This additional energy spread (cf. laser heater~\cite{LH,LCLSheater}), in combination with the momentum compaction $R_{56}$ of a bunch compressor chicane, is able to smear microbunch structures, and correspondingly suppresses the associated instability as is shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:uB}. The effect of induced energy spread (``beam heating'') is generated by off-axis longitudinal electric fields, related to the principle of a TDS by the Panofsky-Wenzel theorem, and has been observed experimentally at FLASH~\cite{IES3} and the LCLS~\cite{emma}. The induced energy spread is uncorrelated in the longitudinal phase space $(z,\delta)$, but shows correlations in the phase space $(y,\delta)$, which is the reason that it can be eliminated (``beam cooling'') with a second TDS in a reversible mode as is shown in the following by two different approaches.
\subsection{Linear beam optics}
The transverse betatron motion of an electron passing through a TDS with vertical deflection (in $y$) is given by
\begin{equation}
y(s)=y_0(s) + S_y(s,s_0)z
\label{eq:motion}
\end{equation} with the vertical shear function (e.g., Refs.~\cite{Kick,Roehrs,IES2})
\begin{equation}
S_y(s,s_0) = R_{34}K_y= \sqrt{\beta_y(s)\beta_y(s_0)}\mathrm{sin}(\Delta\phi_y(s,s_0)) \frac{e \omega V_y}{cE}\,,
\label{eq:beta}
\end{equation} where $R_{34}$ is the angular-to-spatial element of the vertical beam transfer matrix from the TDS at $s_0$ to any position $s$, $\beta_y$ is the vertical beta function, $\Delta\phi_y$ is the vertical phase advance between $s_0$ and $s$, and $y_0$ describes the vertical beam offset independent of any TDS shearing effect. Referring to the layout depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1_Setup} and taking bunch compression into account, the induced vertical beam offset ($\Delta y=y-y_0$) downstream of the second TDS becomes (omitting the subscript $y$ in $S_{y}$)
\begin{align}
\Delta y(s)= & S_1(s,s_1)z_1 + S_2(s,s_2)z_2 \nonumber \\
= &(CS_1(s,s_1) + S_2(s,s_2))z_2
\label{eq:sc}
\end{align} with the bunch compression factor $C=z_1/z_2$ and the shear functions $S_{1,2}(s,s_{1,2})$ of the corresponding TDSs. Here, $ S_1(s,s_1)z_1$ describes the vertical beam offset induced by the first TDS located at $s_1$ that is independent of the second TDS. In order to cancel the spatial chirp induced by the combined TDS operation, the beam offset $\Delta y$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sc}) must vanish for any $z_2$. Hence, using Eq.~(\ref{eq:beta}) for $S_{1,2}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sc}) and taking acceleration from $E_1$ to $E_2$ in Linac2 into account by making the replacement $\beta_y(s)\beta_y(s_1)\rightarrow\beta_y(s)\beta_y(s_1) E_1/E_2$~\cite{Kick}, we get
\begin{align}
&C\sqrt{\beta_{y}(s_1)}\mathrm{sin}(\Delta\phi_{y}(s,s_1))\sqrt{E_1}K_1 \nonumber \\
&+ \sqrt{\beta_{y}(s_2)}\mathrm{sin}(\Delta\phi_{y}(s,s_2))\sqrt{E_2}K_2=0 \,,
\label{eq:prior}
\end{align} where $K_{1,2}$ are the vertical kick strengths of the corresponding TDSs, and $\Delta\phi_{y}(s,s_{1,2})$ describes the vertical phase advances between $s_{1,2}$ and $s$, respectively. As a consequence, the phase advance between both TDSs is $\Delta\phi_y(s_2,s_1)=\Delta\phi_{y}(s,s_1)-\Delta\phi_{y}(s,s_2)$. A general solution, valid for any position $s$ downstream of the second TDS, is only possible for a phase advance difference of
\begin{equation}
\Delta\phi_y(s_2,s_1)=n\cdot\pi
\label{eq:case}
\end{equation} with $n$ being integer, and the kick strength
\begin{equation}
K_2 =\pm C\sqrt\frac{\beta_{y}(s_1)}{\beta_{y}(s_2)}\sqrt{\frac{E_1}{E_2}}K_1\,,
\label{eq:case1}
\end{equation} where the sign depends on the actual phase advance, i.e., $\Delta\phi_y(s_2,s_1)=\pi + n\cdot2\pi$ for ($+$) and $\Delta\phi_y(s_2,s_1)= n\cdot2\pi$ for ($-$). The different sign of $K$ can technically be achieved by changing the rf phase in the TDS by $180^\circ$ which results in a zero-crossing rf phase with opposite slope and deflection. Besides cancelation of the induced spatial chirps, the induced energy spread of the first TDS needs to be eliminated in the second structure in order to have a fully reversible electron beam heater. Applying Eq.~(\ref{eq:ies}) similar to Eq.~(\ref{eq:sc}), the relative energy deviation downstream of the second TDS for finite structure lengths become (omitting the argument in $y(s)$ and $S(s)$)
\begin{equation}
\Delta \delta= K_1\overline{y_1}C\frac{ E_1}{E_2} + K_2 \overline{(y_2+S_1 z_1)}
\label{eq:es}
\end{equation} with the mean vertical offsets $\overline{y_1}$ and $\overline{(y_2+S_1 z_1)}$ inside the TDSs. For constant vertical offsets inside the TDSs or short structure lengths, the mean vertical offsets can be replaced by the actual offsets, i.e., $\overline{y_1} \rightarrow y_1$ and $\overline{(y_2+S_1 z_1)} \rightarrow (y_2+S_1 z_1)$. The latter describes the offset in the second TDS and involves the spatial chirp induced by the first TDS with $S_1 \sim \mathrm{sin}(\Delta\phi_y(s_2,s_1))$, which vanishes in the case of spatial chirp cancelation given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:case}). In order to cancel the relative energy spread induced by the combined TDS operation, it follows
\begin{equation}
K_1\overline{y_1}C\frac{ E_1}{E_2} + K_2 \overline{y_2} =0\,.
\label{eq:es2}
\end{equation} The general transverse beam transport optics with the vertical phase advance condition in Eq.~(\ref{eq:case}) gives $\overline{y_2}=\pm \overline{y_1}\sqrt{\beta_{y}(s_2)/\beta_{y}(s_1)}$, and taking $\beta_{y}(s_2)\rightarrow\beta_{y}(s_2) E_1/E_2$ (see prior Eq.~(\ref{eq:prior})) into account yields exactly the same condition as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:case1}). Simultaneous spatial chirp and energy spread cancelation in the second TDS is the basic principle for reversible electron beam heating and enables local increase of slice energy spread. The additional energy spread in the bunch compressor, which is added in quadrature by the first TDS, can be controlled by the kick strength $K_1$ and the vertical beam size $\sigma_{y}(s_1)$.
In the following, a complementary approach to discuss the reversible beam heating system is shown. It uses the matrix formalism for beam transport and provides an analytical way to show microbunching gain suppression and to discuss the impact of beam and rf jitter.
\subsection{Matrix formalism}
We adopt the beam transport matrix notation of a 6x6 matrix for $(x,x',y,y',z,\delta)$ but leaves $(x,x')$ out for simplicity, i.e., $(y,y',z,\delta)$ is used in the following. The 4x4 beam transport matrix for a vertical deflecting TDS in thin-lens approximation reads (e.g., Refs.~\cite{exchange1,IES1,IES3})
\begin{equation}
{\mathbf R}_T^{thin}=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & K & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 &0 \\
K &0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:MTDS_thin}
\end{equation} As discussed above, the main components of the given reversible heater system shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1_Setup} consist of TDS1 with the kick strength $K_1$, a bunch compressor with the momentum compaction factor $R_{56}$, and TDS2 with the kick strength $K_2$. Including the momentum compaction factor $R_{56}$ and acceleration in Linac2 ($E_1\rightarrow E_2$), the 4x4 beam matrix between the two TDSs is given by
\begin{equation}
{\mathbf R}_C=\begin{pmatrix}
R_{33} & R_{34} & 0 & 0 \\
R_{43} & R_{44} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 &R_{56} \\
0 &0 & 0 & \frac{E_1}{E_2}
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\label{eq:-I}
\end{equation}
In order to allow the energy change in the first TDS to be compensated for in the second TDS, we require the point-to-point imaging from TDS1 to TDS2 (i.e., $R_{34}=0$), which corresponds to an equivalent vertical phase advance of $\Delta\phi_y(s_2,s_1)=n\cdot\pi$ with $n$ being integer (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:case})). Then we get the magnification factor $R_{33}=\pm\sqrt{\beta_{y}(s_2)/\beta_{y}(s_1)}$ and $R_{44}=1/R_{33}$.
The linear accelerator section with higher-harmonic rf linearizer (Linac1 and Linearizer) upstream of the first TDS introduces an appropriate energy chirp $h$ for uniform bunch compression. Without loss of generality, we neglect acceleration between the two TDSs, i.e., we do not consider Linac2 anymore. Including Linac2 would simply result in a correction term $\sqrt{E_1/E_2}$ (cf. Eqs.~(\ref{eq:case1}) and~(\ref{eq:cond}) below) but would leave the physics unchanged. Then the entire 4x4 beam transport matrix from the beginning of TDS1 to the end of TDS2 becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
R_{33} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
R_{43}+K_1 K_2 R_{56} & \frac{1}{R_{33}} & \frac{K_1}{R_{33}}+K_2 (1+hR_{56}) & K_2 R_{56} \\
K_1 R_{56} & 0 & 1+hR_{56} & R_{56} \\
{K_1}+R_{33}K_2 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{1+hR_{56}}
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\label{eq:MTDS}
\end{equation} Cancelation of the induced spatial chirp ($\Delta y' \sim z_0$, cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:long})) requires $R_{45}=0$ (6x6-matrix notation), i.e.,
\begin{equation}
K_1/R_{33}+K_2 (1+h R_{56})=0\,,
\label{eq:cond}
\end{equation} where $R_{45}$ describes the coupling between $y'$ and $z_0$. We note that the coupling between $\delta$ and $y_0$ (i.e., $R_{63}$ element) is nonzero in Eq.~(\ref{eq:MTDS}) because the bunch is energy-chirped after compression ($\delta\sim z\sim y_0$), which can be removed by Linac3 downstream of TDS2. For uniform bunch compression with $C^{-1}=(1+h R_{56})$, no acceleration in Linac2, i.e., $E_2=E_1$, and taking into account that $R_{33}=\pm\sqrt{\beta_{y}(s_2)/\beta_{y}(s_1)}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:cond}) is identical to Eq.~(\ref{eq:case1}). Thus, both formalisms yield the same result.
Since the kick strength of the first TDS is very weak, it can be implemented by means of a short rf structure and the thin-lens approximation is still valid. However, the kick strength of the second TDS is usually stronger, and the effect of the finite structure length should be taken into account. The symplectic beam transport matrix of a finite TDS with the length $L_2$ is given in Ref.~\cite{exchange1} by
\begin{equation}
{\mathbf R}_T^{thick}=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & L_2 & K_2 L_2/2 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & K_2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 &0 \\
K_2 & K_2L_2/2 & K_2^2L_2/6 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:MTDS_thick}
\end{equation} In this case, we require the point-to-point imaging is from the first TDS to the middle of the second TDS in order to have a complete cancellation.
The overall matrix from TDS1 to the end of TDS2, when Eq.~(\ref{eq:cond}) is fulfilled, becomes more complicated.
A few correction terms containing the length $L_2$ of TDS2 appear, which however does not change the working principle of the reversible beam heater system. It should be pointed out that downstream of the reversible heater system, the beam is slightly coupled in $y'-\delta_0$ and $y-z_0$, which results in a small growth of the projected emittance given by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{y,z}^2
=\epsilon_{y0,z0}^2 +\epsilon_{y0} \epsilon_{z0} \frac{\beta_{y0} \gamma_{z0} K_1^2 R_{56}^2} {(1+h R_{56})^2}\,,
\label{eq:emi}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{y0,z0}$ is the initial vertical (longitudinal) emittance, and $\beta_{y0}$ and $\gamma_{z0}$ are the initial Twiss parameters. As is shown in the following section, this projected emittance growth is typically negligible.
\section{Reversible heating and emittance preservation}\label{sec:Heating}
We demonstrate the feasibility of the reversible beam heater system by numerical simulations using the particle tracking code {\it elegant}~\cite{Elegant}, and the simulations in the following include $5\,\times\,10^5$ particles. Table~\ref{tab:spec} summarizes the main parameters used in the simulations, and the adopted accelerator optics model, including the positions of the TDSs, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig2_Optics}. The magnetic bunch compressor chicane is assumed to bend in the horizontal plane, and the TDSs are oriented perpendicularly with vertical deflection. In the previous section,
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\caption{Parameters of the electron beam, of the bunch compressor system, and of the transverse deflecting rf structures.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular} {lcccc}
Parameter & Symbol & Value & Unit \\ \hline
Beam energy at TDS1/2 &$E$ & 350 & MeV \\
Lorentz factor at TDS1/2 &$\gamma$ & 685 & \\
Initial transverse emittance & $\gamma \epsilon_{x,y}$ & 0.6 & $\mu$m \\
Initial slice energy spread & $\sigma_E$ & $\sim$\,1 & keV \\
Momentum compaction factor &$R_{56}$ &$-138$ & mm \\
Compression factor &$C$ &$\sim$\,13 & \\
Final bunch current &$I_f$ &$\sim$\,520 & A \\
TDS1/2 rf frequency & $\omega/2\pi$ & 3.9 & GHz \\
Voltage of TDS1 & $V_1$ & 0.415 & MV \\
Voltage of TDS2 (without CSR)& $V_2$ & 5.440 & MV \\
Length of TDS1 & $L_1$ & 0.1 & m \\
Length of TDS2 & $L_2$ & 0.5& m \\
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:spec}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig_Optics_2}
\caption{Relevant accelerator optics (Twiss parameters) and positions of the transverse deflecting rf structures used to numerically demonstrate the reversible beam heater system.} \label{fig:Fig2_Optics}
\end{figure}
we included Linac2 for a general derivation of the method, but in practice, due to wakefield concerns, we recommend putting TDS2 right after the bunch compressor. In order to show numerical examples based on this approach, Linac2 is not considered anymore throughout the rest of this paper. Except for the TDSs, the parameters are similar to the magnetic bunch compressor system discussed for the Next Generation Light Source at LBNL~\cite{Corlett,Venturini2}.
The initial longitudinal electron bunch profile is assumed to be flat-top with a peak current of $\sim$\,40\,A and a slice energy spread of $\sim$\,1\,keV (r.m.s.). The initial linear and quadratic chirp is set for a uniform compression factor $C$ of about 13 across the entire bunch length. This is possible even with bunch compressor nonlinearities by using a higher-harmonic rf linearizer upstream of the bunch compressor~\cite{Lin} and needed to achieve uniform cancelation of the induced energy spread downstream of TDS2.
Figure~\ref{fig:Fig3_Principle} shows the principle of the reversible beam heater system by means of simulation of the longitudinal phase space at different positions along the beamline.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\subfigure[~Upstream of TDS1.]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{Fig_Principle_3_a} \label{fig:Fig3_Principle_1}}
\subfigure[~Downstream of TDS1.]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{Fig_Principle_3_b} \label{fig:Fig3_Principle_2}}
\subfigure[~Upstream of TDS2.]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{Fig_Principle_3_c} \label{fig:Fig3_Principle_3}}
\subfigure[~Downstream of TDS2.]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{Fig_Principle_3_d} \label{fig:Fig3_Principle_4}}
\caption{Simulation of the longitudinal phase space after removing the correlated energy chirp: (a) upstream of the first TDS, (b) directly downstream of the first TDS, (c) directly downstream of the bunch compressor and upstream of the second TDS, and (d) downstream of the second TDS. The axes scales change from (b) to (c) when bunch compression takes place. The bunch head is on the left, i.e., where $z/c<0$.} \label{fig:Fig3_Principle}
\end{figure} The impact of CSR is not taken into account (cf. next subsection for CSR effects). The initial slice energy spread is heated up to $\sim$\,10\,keV (r.m.s.) in the first TDS, increased by the compression factor in the bunch compressor to $\sim$\,130\,keV (r.m.s.), and finally cooled down to $\sim$\,13\,keV (r.m.s.) by the second TDS (see Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig3_Principle_1}-\ref{fig:Fig3_Principle_4}). The plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig4_b_CSR-off} shows that the heating induced by the first TDS is perfectly reversible, and the final slice energy spread is simply the initial slice energy spread scaled with the compression factor, which would be exactly the same like in the case without using the reversible beam heater system. Figure~\ref{fig:Fig4_a_CSR-off} shows the heater system impact on both the projected emittance (horizontal and vertical) and the core energy spread, i.e., the slice energy spread in the center of the bunch, for different voltages in the second TDS. The minimum of the vertical emittance is related to the cancelation of the spatial chirp and energy spread induced by the first TDS. The horizontal emittance is not affected at all, and the small projected emittance growth (6~\%) in the vertical plane at the minimum is due to residual coupling generated by the system that is described by Eq.~(\ref{eq:emi}). Nevertheless, as shown in Sec.~\ref{subsec:CSR}, even in the case with CSR effects, the horizontal slice emittance stays unaffected at all and the vertical slice emittance exhibits only deviations in the bunch head ($z/c<0$) and tail ($z/c>0$).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[~Projected emittances and core energy spread.]{\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{Fig_CSR-off_4_a} \label{fig:Fig4_a_CSR-off}}
\subfigure[~Slice energy spread.]{\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{Fig_CSR-off_4_b} \label{fig:Fig4_b_CSR-off}}
\caption{Simulations without CSR effects on the impact of the reversible heater system on projected emittances, core energy spread, and slice energy spread : (a) Projected emittances (normalized) and core energy spread, and (b) slice energy spread for $V_ {\mathrm{2}}$ at minimum emittance (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig4_a_CSR-off}). The longitudinal coordinate is normalized to the bunch length.} \label{fig:Fig4_CSR-off}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Impact of coherent synchrotron radiation}\label{subsec:CSR}
The previous results undergo small modifications when including CSR effects, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5_CSR-on}. The voltage of the second TDS for minimum projected emittance in the vertical is shifted by about 0.2\,MV to lower values which is due the additional energy chirp induced by CSR. In comparison to the case without any CSR effects (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig4_CSR-off}), the projected emittance in the vertical plane is slightly increased and the slice energy spread is not perfectly canceled in the head and tail. The slice energy spread in the core part of the bunch is also slightly increased to 17.5\,keV (r.m.s.) (instead of 13.5\,keV (r.m.s.) in the absence of CSR). The projected emittance in the horizontal is about 1.7 larger which is independent of the reversible beam heater operation. This horizontal emittance growth can further be reduced by minimizing the horizontal beta function in the last dipole of the chicane where the bunch length becomes the shortest. This optimization is independent of the relevant motion in the vertical and does not affect the results of the reversible heater system.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\subfigure[~Projected emittances and core energy spread.]{\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{Fig_CSR-on_5_a} \label{fig:Fig5_a_CSR-on}}
\subfigure[~Slice energy spread.]{\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{Fig_CSR-on_5_b} \label{fig:Fig5_b_CSR-on}}
\caption{Simulation on the impact of the reversible beam heater system on projected emittances, core energy spread, and slice energy spread: (a) Projected emittances (normalized) and core energy spread, and (b) slice energy spread for $V_ {\mathrm{2}}$ at minimum emittance (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5_a_CSR-on}). CSR effects are included by means of the 1-dimensional model in {\it elegant}~\cite{Elegant}.} \label{fig:Fig5_CSR-on}
\end{figure}
Albeit the fact that the projected emittances are increased, the horizontal slice emittance stays unaffected and the vertical slice emittance exhibits only deviations in the head and tail due to CSR effects as is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig6_Emit}. Thus, the core emittances are well preserved. We note that vertically streaked bunches in the bunch compressor chicane may change the impact of CSR effects but require a 3-dimensional ``point-to-point'' tracking which is not available neither in \mbox{{\it elegant}} nor in \mbox{{\it CSRtrack}~\cite{CSRtrack}}, and is beyond the scope of this paper.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{Fig_Emit_6}
\caption{Simulation of the normalized slice emittance for both the vertical and horizontal upstream of the first and downstream of the second TDS. CSR effects are included.} \label{fig:Fig6_Emit}
\end{figure}
\section{Microbunching gain suppression}\label{sec:uB}
The principle of the microbunching gain suppression with the reversible beam heater system is shown by an analytical treatment following Ref.~\cite{LCLSheater} and by using the beam transport matrix in Eq.~(\ref{eq:MTDS}). Then we show the feasibility of the reversible heater system to suppress microbunching instabilities by means of particle tracking simulations with initial density and energy modulations.
\subsection{Analytical calculations}
Using the vector notation $(y_0,y_0',z_0,\delta_0)$ for particles in the first linac upstream of the first TDS, the longitudinal position downstream of the second TDS is given by
\begin{equation}
z=K_1 R_{56} y_0 + (1+h R_{56}) z_0+R_{56} \delta_0\,.
\end{equation}
Suppose that $\delta_0=\delta_u+\delta_m$, where $\delta_u$ is the uncorrelated relative energy deviation, and $\delta_m(z_0)$ is the relative energy modulation accumulated before and in the first linac (Linac1). Following Ref.~\cite{LCLSheater}, the initial energy modulation at the wavenumber $k_0$ is converted into additional density modulation at a compressed wavenumber $k$. For a 4-dimensional (4-D) distribution function $F(y,y',z,\delta)$, the bunching factor $b(k)$ is given by
\begin{align}
b(k) =& \int dy dy' dz d\delta e^{-ik z} F(y,y',z,\delta) \nonumber \\
=& \int dy_0 dy_0' dz_0 d\delta_u
e^{-ik K_1 R_{56}y_0-ik (1+h R_{56}) z_0} \nonumber \\
& e^{ -ik R_{56}(\delta_u+\delta_m(z_0))} F_0(y_0,y_0',z_0,\delta_u)
\,,
\label{eq:bunching}
\end{align}
where $F_0(y_0,y_0',z_0,\delta_u)$ is the initial 4-D distribution.
If the induced energy modulation is small such that $\vert k
R_{56} \delta_m \vert \ll 1$, we can expand the exponent of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bunching}) up to
the first order in $\delta_m$ to obtain
\begin{align}
b(k) \approx &~b_0 (k_0) - i k R_{56} \int dz_0 \delta_m (z_0) e^{-ik_0 z_0}\nonumber \\
\times & \int dy_0 d\delta_u e^{-ik K_1 R_{56}y_0-ik R_{56} \delta_u}
U(y_0) V(\delta_u) \,,
\label{eq:bunching2}
\end{align}
where $k =C k_0$, $C=1/(1+h R_{56})$, $U(y_0)$ describes the transverse profile, and $V(\delta_u)$ is the initial energy distribution. For both Gaussian profiles ($U$ and $V$), we have
\begin{align}
b(k) = b_0 (k_0) - & i k R_{56} \delta_m (k_0) \exp\left[-(k^2 R_{56}^2 K_1^2 \sigma_{y1}^2/2)\right] \nonumber \\
\times & \exp\left[-(k^2 R_{56}^2\sigma_{\delta u}^2/2)\right]\,.
\label{eq:bunching3}
\end{align}
Here, we denote the Fourier transform of $\delta_m(z_0)$ as $\delta_m(k_0)$, which is the accumulated energy modulation at the wavenumber $k_0$ in the first linac due to longitudinal space charge and other collective effects. The initial energy spread is given by $\sigma_{\delta u}$, and $\sigma_{y1}$ is the vertical beam size in the first TDS. We see that $K_1 \sigma_{y1}$ acts like effective energy spread for microbunching gain suppression.
\subsection{Numerical simulations}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfigure[~Downstream of TDS2: Heater system off.]{\includegraphics[width=0.88\linewidth]{Fig_Dens_off_7_a} \label{fig:Fig7_Density_off}}
\subfigure[~Downstream of TDS2: Heater system on.]{\includegraphics[width=0.88\linewidth]{Fig_Dens_on_7_b} \label{fig:Fig7_Density_on}}
\caption{Simulation on suppression of microbunching instabilities due to an initial density modulation, i.e., simulating CSR-driven microbunching. The entire longitudinal phase space, after removing the correlated energy chirp, is shown.} \label{fig:Fig7_Density}
\end{figure}
Suppression of microbunching instabilities is demonstrated by using both a pure initial density modulation with 5\,$\%$ peak amplitude and $100\,\mathrm{\mu m}$ modulation wavelength ($\lambda_m$), and a pure initial energy modulation with 3\,keV peak amplitude and $\lambda_m=50\,\mathrm{\mu m}$. Whereas the case with initial energy modulation is immediately consistent with the previous analytical treatment and describes the longitudinal space charge driven microbunching instability~\cite{lsc-ub}, the initial density modulations need to be converted into energy modulations by longitudinal CSR-impedance which expresses the consistency and describes the CSR-driven microbunching instability~\cite{CSR-ub}. The simulations were performed using the code \mbox{{\it elegant}} with $1\,\times\,10^6$ particles. Figure~\ref{fig:Fig7_Density} shows the longitudinal phase space downstream of the second TDS, after removing the correlated energy chirp (linear and quadratic chirp), for both the reversible beam heater system switched off (Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig7_Density_off}) and on (Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig7_Density_on}). In the case without reversible beam heater, energy and density modulations at the compressed modulation wavelength $\lambda_m/C$ appear, i.e., CSR-driven microbunching becomes visible. When switching the reversible beam heater on, the microbunching instability disappears and the resulting longitudinal phase space remains smooth. The reason is that the microbunches at the compressed wavelength are smeared due to $R_{56}K_1\sigma_{y1}$ (cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:bunching3})), and accordingly, the modulations appear as correlations in the phase spaces $(y,z)$ and $(y',\delta)$. The same effect of microbunching suppression is given for initial energy modulations as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig8_Energy}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfigure[~Downstream of TDS2: Heater system off.]{\includegraphics[width=0.88\linewidth]{Fig_Energy_off_8_a} \label{fig:Fig8_Energy_off}}
\subfigure[~Downstream of TDS2: Heater system on.]{\includegraphics[width=0.88\linewidth]{Fig_Energy_on_8_b} \label{fig:Fig8_Energy_on}}
\caption{Simulation on suppression of microbunching instabilities due to an initial energy modulation, i.e., simulating longitudinal space charge driven microbunching. For the sake of clarity, only the core of the longitudinal phase space, after removing the correlated energy chirp, is shown.} \label{fig:Fig8_Energy}
\end{figure} The effect of the microbunching instability appears even stronger compared to the simulations case with initial density modulations, but the performance of the reversible heater system is the same with a smooth residual longitudinal phase space when the reversible beam heater is switched on (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig8_Energy_on}).
Figures~\ref{fig:Fig7_Density} and~\ref{fig:Fig8_Energy} are obtained for a magnetic bunch compressor system as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1_Setup}. The electron bunch will be further accelerated and transported throughout the rest of the accelerator to reach the final beam energy and peak current in order to drive an X-ray FEL (not studied in this paper). A microbunched electron beam as illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig7_Density_off} and~\ref{fig:Fig8_Energy_off}, i.e., when the reversible beam heater system is switched off, will accumulate additional energy and density modulations, which would lead to unacceptable longitudinal phase space properties for an X-ray FEL such as a large slice energy spread.
\section{Practical considerations}\label{sec:Practical}
The previous sections covered the principle of reversible electron beam heating and microbunching gain suppression by means of analytical calculations and numerical simulations. In real accelerators, we also have to deal with imperfections, jitter and drifts of various parameters, and accordingly supplementary studies with respect to sensitivity on jitter sources and tolerances have to be performed. In the following, we discuss the impact of beam and rf jitter on the reversible beam heater system, and also point out the inherent possibility of longitudinal phase space diagnostics and on-line monitoring.
\subsection{Jitter and tolerances}
The impact of beam and rf jitter on the reversible beam heater method can effectively be discussed using the Eqs.~(\ref{eq:long}) and~(\ref{eq:MTDS}) with the condition in Eq.~(\ref{eq:cond}). Deviations from the conditions in Eq.~(\ref{eq:cond}) can appear from jitter of the individual peak deflection voltages $V_1$ and $V_2$ of the TDSs, and lead to growth of the projected vertical emittance as is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5_a_CSR-on}, where the voltage of the second TDS is varied. Even in the case of a large TDS voltage jitter of 1\,\%, the vertical projected emittance growth is less than 2\,$\%$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5_a_CSR-on}). In the case of acceleration between the first and second TDS, also energy jitter, which is similar or smaller than TDS voltage jitter, due to this intermediate acceleration leads to deviation of the condition in Eq.~(\ref{eq:cond}). The choice of superconducting accelerator technology even provide much better rf stability~\cite{HS,CS}. Pure arrival time jitter upstream of the first TDS has no impact as long as the condition in Eq.~(\ref{eq:cond}), which describes the coupling between $y'$ and $t=z/c$, is fulfilled. In the case that Eq.~(\ref{eq:cond}) is not exactly fulfilled, e.g., due to TDS voltage jitter which is on the percent-level, the impact of typical arrival time jitter well below 100\,fs, like at the LCLS~\cite{LCLSnature2} or FLASH~\cite{CS}, is negligible. The most critical jitter sources arise from energy jitter upstream of the bunch compressor chicane and from rf phase jitter in the TDSs. The momentum compaction factor translates energy jitter into arrival time jitter, which leads to vertical kicks in the second TDS. The same effect of additional vertical kicks is generated by rf phase jitter in the TDSs. In order to have small impact of vertical kicks on the remaining beam transport, we demand $\Delta \sigma_{y'}\ll\sigma_{y'}$ directly downstream of the second TDS with the induced vertical r.m.s.~kick $\Delta\sigma_{y'}$ and the intrinsic beam divergence $\sigma_{y'}$. The relevant total vertical r.m.s.~kick is given by
\begin{align}
\Delta \sigma_{y'} =& \sqrt{\left(K_2 R_{56}\frac{\sigma_{E}}{E} \right )^2+\left(K_2\frac{c}{\omega}\sigma_{\varphi_2} \right )^2 +\left (\frac{K_1}{R_{33}}\frac{c}{\omega}\sigma_{\varphi_1} \right )^2} \nonumber \\
= &\sqrt{\left(K_2 R_{56}\frac{\sigma_{E}}{E} \right )^2+\left(K_2\frac{c}{\omega}\right )^2\left(\sigma_{\varphi_2}^2 + \frac{1}{C^{2}}\sigma_{\varphi_1}^2 \right ) }\nonumber \\
\approx& \sqrt{\left(K_2 R_{56}\frac{\sigma_{E}}{E} \right )^2+\left(K_2\frac{c}{\omega}\right )^2 \sigma_{\varphi_2}^2 }
\end{align}
with the energy jitter $\sigma_{E}/E$ upstream of the bunch compressor, the rf phase jitter $\sigma_{\varphi_{1,2}}$ of the TDSs, the magnification factor $R_{33}$ from the first to the second TDS (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:-I})), and using Eq.~(\ref{eq:cond}) with the compression factor $C=(1+hR_{56})^{-1}$. We see that the vertical r.m.s.~kick due to rf phase jitter in the first TDS scales with $C^{-2}$ and can be neglected compared to the vertical r.m.s.~kick induced by the second TDS when we assume the same amount of rf phase jitter in both TDSs. The condition for trajectory stability $\Delta \sigma_{y'}\ll\sigma_{y'_2}=\sqrt{\epsilon_{y_2}/\beta_{y_2}}$ with the intrinsic (uncorrelated) r.m.s.~beam divergence $\sigma_{y'_2}$ downstream of the bunch compressor at TDS2, where $\epsilon_{y_2}$ is the geometrical emittance, can be restated as
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\left(R_{56}\frac{\sigma_{E}}{E}\right)^2+\left(\frac{c}{\omega}\sigma_{\varphi_2} \right )^2} \ll \frac{\epsilon_{y_2}}{K_2 \sqrt{\beta_{y_2} \epsilon_{y_2}}}=\frac{\sqrt{\epsilon_{y_2}\epsilon_{y_1}}}{C \Delta \sigma_{\delta_1}}\,.
\label{eq:stab}
\end{equation} Here, $\Delta \sigma_{\delta_1}$ is the additional relative energy spread induced by the first TDS for suppression of microbunching instabilities, and $\epsilon_{y_1}$ denotes the geometrical emittance upstream of the bunch compressor at TDS1.
For the example parameters discussed throughout this paper (see also Table~\ref{tab:spec}), i.e., $C=13$, $\gamma\epsilon_{y_1}=0.6\,\mathrm{\mu m}$, $\gamma\epsilon_{y_2}=0.72\,\mathrm{\mu m}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5_a_CSR-on}), and $\Delta \sigma_{\delta_1}E\approx10\,\mathrm{keV}$ with $E=350\,\mathrm{MeV}$ ($\gamma=685$), the stability condition in Eq.~(\ref{eq:stab}) yields pure relative energy jitter (neglecting rf phase jitter) of $\sigma_{E}/E\ll1.9\cdot10^{-5}$ or pure rf phase jitter (neglecting energy jitter) of $\sigma_{\varphi_2}\ll0.012^\circ$. A combination of both will obviously tighten the acceptable jitter. This level of rf stability is difficult to achieve in normal conducting linacs with single bunch operation, but might be achieved with superconducting accelerator technology like at FLASH or as planned for NGLS, where many bunches can be accelerated in a long rf pulse, i.e., in a bunch train. Currently, several rf feedforward and feedback controls are able to stabilize the bunches at FLASH to $\sigma_{E}/E=3.0\cdot10^{-5}$ and $\sigma_{\varphi}=0.007^\circ$ at 150\,MeV~\cite{HS,SP}, and further improvements towards $\sigma_{E}/E\leq1.0\cdot10^{-5}$ are planned using a fast normal conducting cavity upstream of the bunch compressors~\cite{CS,HS}. With perfect scaling of rf jitter from several independent rf power stations that adds uncorrelated, we would expect an improvement of $\sqrt{150\,\mathrm{MeV}/350\,\mathrm{MeV}}\approx 0.66$ compared to the results at FLASH with $150\,\mathrm{MeV}$ and assuming the beam energy of $350\,\mathrm{MeV}$ in the bunch compressor of the NGLS design. Continuous-wave rf operation, as planned for the NGLS design~\cite{Corlett}, and a proper choice of rf working points for FEL operation might improve the stability further.
\subsection{Integrated longitudinal phase space diagnostics}
A practical spin-off of the reversible beam heater system is the availability of longitudinal phase space diagnostics. The vertical betatron motion of electrons passing through a TDS is described by Eq.~(\ref{eq:motion}), which enables a mapping from time (longitudinal coordinate) to the vertical~\cite{Kick,Roehrs,Filippetto}, and finally a possibility to obtain temporal bunch information by means of transverse beam diagnostics. In a similar manner, the relative energy deviation is mapped to the horizontal in the presence of horizontal momentum dispersion, like in a magnetic bunch compressor chicane (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{Roehrs,Filippetto}). The combined operation makes single-shot measurements of the longitudinal phase space possible, and in the case of the generic layout of a reversible electron beam heater system as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1_Setup}, longitudinal phase space measurements become feasible using the first TDS and observation screens in the dispersive section of the bunch compressor chicane. In order to get information of the bunch length after the bunch compression, the second TDS can be used with downstream observation screens (not shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1_Setup}).
In addition to invasive longitudinal phase space measurements of a single bunch using observation screens, even fully noninvasive measurements utilizing incoherent synchrotron radiation, emitted in the bunch compressor bending magnets, are possible (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Gerth}). When using a fast gated camera, the implication will be the possibility of on-line monitoring the longitudinal phase space of individual bunches in multi-bunch accelerators.
\section{Summary and conclusions}\label{sec:Summary}
Our studies show that the reversible beam heater system proposed here can suppress microbunching instabilities and preserve the high beam brightness at the same time. Due to CSR effects, some vertical emittance degradation in the head and tail region of the bunch occurs, but the core emittances are well preserved. In the numerical demonstrations using the code \mbox{{\it elegant}}, the first TDS generates about 10\,keV (r.m.s.) slice energy spread, which is similar to the laser heater but with a more Gaussian energy distribution (cf. laser heater). The bunch compression process increases the slice energy spread to $\sim$\,130\,keV (r.m.s.), which is then reversed to $\sim$\,17\,keV (r.m.s.) after the second TDS in the presence of CSR effects. Without CSR effects, the slice energy spread is reversed to $\sim$\,13\,keV (r.m.s.), which demonstrates perfect cancelation. The simulations also show that initial bunching in energy and density in the beam can be smeared out during the process in the reversible beam heater system, i.e., microbunching instabilities can be suppressed. The resulting smooth beam can then propagate through the remaining accelerator without further generation of much additional energy spread and is advantageous for any kind of laser seeding manipulations and experiments. For example, this scheme significantly loosen the required laser power for short-wavelength HHG seeding~\cite{NLS} and may strongly impact the design of future seeded FELs. In addition, the reversible beam heater system exhibits integrated options for diagnosis and on-line monitoring of the longitudinal phase space applicable for multi-bunch machines, which is also the preferred type of accelerator for the reversible heater system due to large sensitivities on energy and rf jitter. Linear accelerators based on superconducting rf technology might be able to match the strict tolerances in order to keep vertical kicks small and to achieve a sufficient trajectory stability in the downstream undulators.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We would like to thank P. Emma, Ch.~Gerth, A. Lumpkin, H. Schlarb, and J. Thangaraj for useful discussions and suggestions. This work was supported by Department of Energy Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent
The antiproton decelerator~\cite{AD} at \textsc{cern} delivers antiproton beams of two different energies to five experiments, see table~\ref{experiments}.
The 3.57 GeV/c antiproton beam from the primary target enters the \textsc{ad} and undergoes a series of cooling and deceleration stages.
Fig.~\ref{AD} shows schematically the \textsc{ad} setup and how the deceleration cycle is built up.
The beam is extracted to one of the experiments located inside the \textsc{ad} ring.
A spill is a few hundred na\-no\-se\-conds long and contains about $3\cdot10^7$ antiprotons.
The leng\-thy deceleration sequence imposes a delay of almost two minutes between spills.
Transverse profile information is needed at several locations along the extraction lines, to optimize the transfer optics.
It is very difficult to obtain low energy profiles without ab\-sorbing a significant fraction of the beam.
Therefore, the detector is installed in a pendulum that can move through the beam vacuum (see Fig.~\ref{pendulum}).
The inside of the pendulum is in contact with ambient atmosphere; thin stainless steel windows separate it from the vacuum.
When the pendulum is positioned in the beam, the beam is entirely absorbed while measuring a profile.
When experiments are taking data, all pendulums are in the garage position (as in Fig.~\ref{pendulum}) and the beam traverses an uninterrupted vacuum.
The tube that connects the inside of the pendulum with the outside atmosphere also serves as feed-trough for signal lines, high voltage cables, gas pipes, and a compressed air inlet that is used to cool the detector during a vacuum bake-out.
This tube is connected to a vacuum flange via a flexible bellow, and this is how the pendulum can swing in and out without causing any leaks in the beam vacuum.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Pendulum}
\caption{Situation of a profile detector in a pendulum.}
\label{pendulum}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{AD}
\caption{Left: schematic view of the \textsc{cern ad}, with the experiments situated inside the decelerator ring. Right: the cooling and deceleration cycle.}
\label{AD}
\end{figure*}
Installation of a detector in the beam is a rather involving and lengthy operation, which requires coordination with the users of the beamline and people responsible for the beam vacuum.
First the detector needs to be installed in a pendulum, this can be done in a lab or clean room.
Then the pendulum is installed in a beam line, of which the vacuum vessel must be opened.
Due to this involving procedure there is no access to a detector once it is installed.
\begin{table}
\caption{Overview of cern ad experiments and their beam requirements.}
\center
\begin{tabular*}{\columnwidth}{@{\quad}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}r@{\quad}}
\toprule
Experiment&Physics goal&Energy\\
\midrule
\textsc{Atrap}&Antihydrogen trapping \& spectroscopy&5.3 MeV\\
\textsc{Alpha}&Antihydrogen trapping \& spectroscopy&5.3 MeV\\
\textsc{Asacusa}&Antiprotonic helium spectroscopy&5.3 MeV\\
\textsc{Aegis}&Antihydrogen \& gravity&5.3 MeV\\
\textsc{Ace}&Antiprotons for cancer therapy&126 MeV\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular*}
\label{experiments}
\end{table}
\section{The Detector}
\noindent
The detectors installed in the pendulums are gaseous radiation detectors based on a single gas electron multiplier (\textsc{gem})~\cite{firstGEM}.
The active area is $10\times10$ cm$^2$.
Fig.~\ref{detector} shows schematically a cross-section of a detector; the \textsc{gem} foil is indicated between the cathode and the readout pattern.
The design of these chambers is optimized for low material budget, as the low energy beam is easily affected by multiple scattering.
Even materials downstream the active volume are kept light to minimize the effect of \emph{backsplash} from antiproton-nucleus annihilations on the measured profiles.
The whole detector presents about 0.40\%~X$_0$ of material to the incoming beam.
The upstream vacuum window of the pendulum is located about 3 cm away from the detector, and adds 0.12\%~X$_0$.
\begin{figure*}[b]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{NewDesign}
\caption{Schematic buildup of the detector, showing components, gas features and dimensions.}
\label{detector}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{The \textsc{gem}s}
\noindent
The detector uses the most conventional size \textsc{gem}s available from the \textsc{cern} store, $10\times10$ cm$^2$.
The \textsc{gem}s are fabricated with the novel \emph{single-mask technique}~\cite{LargeGEM}--\cite{LargeGEM3}.
This allows cheaper fabrication of larger foils with several \textsc{gem}s per foil, which in turn facilitates assembly.
For this application gains up to a few hundred are sufficient, so a single \textsc{gem} is used.
The material of one \textsc{gem} foil contributes $\sim 0.067$\%~X$_0$ to the material budget of the detector.
\subsection{Readout Circuit}
\noindent In the multiwire proportional chambers (\textsc{mwpc}s) used until now for measuring profiles, horizontal and vertical profiles are read out by separate chambers.
The chamber upstream causes so much multiple scattering to the beam that the profile measured by the down\-stream chamber is strong\-ly degraded.
To avoid this situation with our \textsc{gem} chambers, we designed a readout circuit to read both projections in the same plane, see Fig~\ref{readout}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Strips-Pads_smaller}
\caption{Layout of the bidirectional readout circuit. The pitch is 1.6 mm, both horizontally and vertically. The vias are open, and serve as part of the gas distribution system.}
\label{readout}
\end{figure}
It is a conventional double layer prin\-ted circuit board, with the readout elements on the top layer and signal routing traces on the bottom layer.
One projection of the profile is read out by strips, the other by rows of pads that are interconnected by traces on the bottom layer.
The collected charge is shared evenly between horizontal and vertical readout elements, and the channel density is the same horizontally and vertically (pitch: 1.6 mm).
This design can be im\-ple\-men\-ted on any base material; we chose to use polyimide in order to minimize the material budget.
The readout circuit is nevertheless the heaviest component of the detector, contributing $\sim 0.3\% \text{X}_0$.
Many techniques exist to make the many vias in such a design gas-tight, but we deliberately left them open so that gas can flow through.
\subsection{Gas Distribution and Thin Cathodes}
\begin{figure}
\center\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{Cathode_transp}
\caption{A cathode foil stretched and glued to a spacer. The metallic layer is so thin that the foil is translucent. The resistance measured as shown ($\sim 300\,\Omega$) is reproducible and is not altered by stretching.}
\label{cathode}
\end{figure}
\noindent The distribution of gas trough the chamber is done by grooves milled in the fiberglass frames.
The gas flow is routed such that gas enters the chamber below the readout board, flows through the vias in the readout board and through the \textsc{gem} holes, and exits from the drift region.
This is indicated in Fig.~\ref{detector}.
The gas is a mixture of 67\% Ar and 33\% CO$_2$.
The cathode is a crucial element when absorption and multiple scattering of the beam are of concern.
In our design the cathode is also the gas enclosure, and it is stretched tight ($\sim 11$ MPa) in order to avoid any deformation by the slight overpressure in the chamber.
It is made of the same base material \textsc{gem}s are made of: copperclad polyimide.
The copper is removed in the active area of the detector, leaving just a thin ($\sim100$ nm) layer of chromium which is there to act as a tie coat for a better adhesion of the copper layer to the polyimide substrate.
The material traversed by the beam to enter the active volume of the detector thus amounts to 0.018\%~X$_0$.
On the other end of the chamber, the gas enclosure is made of a 25 \textmu m polyimide foil, adding 0.009\%~X$_0$.
\subsection{Electronics}
\noindent
The electronics used to read out the detector comes from the design used in other experimental areas at \textsc{cern}, but some modifications were necessary.
It is based on a conventional switched integrator circuit built around the IVC102 unit from Texas Instruments, see Fig.~\ref{integrator}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Integrator}
\caption{Switched integrator circuit based on the IVC102.}
\label{integrator}
\end{figure}
After integrating during 20 ms, amplitudes from 64 of such integrators (32 for each projection) are multiplexed and converted by an \textsc{adc}.
More details about the acquisition system are given in~\cite{Jens}.
\begin{figure*}
\center\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{Profiles}
\caption{Low energy ($E_\textrm{kin}=5.3$ MeV) beam profiles made with integrators without (left) and with (right) 10 nF input capacitors. The profiles are taken using a range of high voltage settings. The voltage indicated in the legend is the voltage applied to a resistive divider and corresponds to the voltage on the cathode. The voltage over the \textsc{gem} is always $0.22\times$ the cathode voltage.}
\label{profiles}
\end{figure*}
The integrator originally had a large feedback capacitance (C$_\textrm{f}=1$ nF) in order to have a low sensitivity to noise and cross-talk.
This low sensitivity allowed the integrators to be located outside the pendulum, about two meters of cable away from the detector.
Another consequence of the low sensitivity is that a lot of charge needs to be collected to reach the full scale of the \textsc{adc} that reads out the integrator ($V_\textrm{fs}=\pm 10$~V): $V_\textrm{fs}\cdot C_\textrm{f} = 10\cdot10^{-9} = 10$~nC per channel.
This charge is collected during a spill of a few hundred ns duration, giving rise to input currents of up to 100 mA.
The protection diodes indicated in Fig.~\ref{integrator} start clamping from an input current of 0.2 mA, because of the voltage drop over the series resistance of the \textsc{fet} switch marked \textsc{hold} ($\sim1.5$ k$\Omega$).
To limit the input current and avoid the non-linear behavior caused by the clamping diodes we added a capacitor to the input of each channel (C$_\textrm{i}=10$ nF), indicated in blue in Fig.~\ref{integrator}.
This capacitor acts as a low-pass filter, collecting charge during a spill and then dissipating it slowly through the resistive elements into the integrator.
The effect of this modification can be seen in Fig.~\ref{profiles}, where profiles made with integrators without (left) and with (right) an input capacitor are shown for a range of high voltage settings.
At low amplitude there is no appreciable difference, but at high amplitude the modified integrators collect more than twice as much charge.
This is an easy way to use rather slow integrating electronics with beams with a fast spill structure.
Still, also after this modification profiles get somewhat distorted at higher voltages.
While the amplitude in the tails increases exponentially with the voltage applied (as one should expect), the center of the profile seems to saturate.
We attribute this to a saturation of the \textsc{gem} gain due to the high space charge density.
Measurements done with an ionization chamber confirm that the space charge density in the center of the profile is of the order $10^{12}$ e$^-$/cm$^3$, a density normally only seen inside an electron avalanche.
This is again a consequence of the fast spills of the \textsc{ad}, and of the low energy of the antiprotons ($\sim 3$ MeV after traversing the stainless steel vacuum window).
This issue has been solved by increasing the sensitivity of the integrators tenfold (C$_\textrm{f}=100$ pF, indicated in green in Fig.~\ref{integrator}), so that no gain is required from the \textsc{gem}.
A voltage below 1000 V is applied to the chamber corresponding to a \textsc{gem} voltage of $\sim200$ V, where the \textsc{gem} is \emph{transparent} to drifting electrons without multiplication.
The \textsc{gem} is still needed to deliver a gain of $\sim 100$ in case a 126 MeV beam is used; at this energy there is no issue with space charge.
\section{Conclusions \& outlook}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Detector}
\caption{A single \textsc{gem} detector before installation.}
\label{proto}
\end{figure}
\noindent We developed new transverse beam profile monitors for the \textsc{cern ad} beam lines, and report on the first results with these detectors.
The monitors are single \textsc{gem} detectors with a bidirectional readout structure, and the chamber is designed to minimize material budget.
They dramatically improve the profile measurements compared to the \textsc{mwpc}s currently used.
The electronics and the mode of operation of the detector have been optimized to accommodate the beam properties foreseen for the \textsc{ad}.
Detector response at both beam energies can be adjusted to the dynamic range of the readout electronics without causing any distortion.
At the time of writing the detectors described above (Fig.~\ref{proto}) are installed in 6 locations in the \textsc{asacusa} and \textsc{aegis} beam lines, and replacement of the remaining \textsc{mwpc} monitors in all beam lines is foreseen for the shutdown of 2011/2012.
All these detectors give reliable, useful profiles for operators to steer the beam.
These detectors are very easy to operate and maintain, and based on inexpensive components.
This makes detectors of a similar design likely candidates for replacement of \textsc{mwpc}s currently in use in many high energy beam lines at \textsc{cern}.
|
\section{Introduction}
The purpose of this paper is to consider \emph{exponential} utility
indifference pricing in a multidimensional non-traded assets
setting, which is motivated by our study of counterparty risk of
derivatives in incomplete markets. Our interest is in pricing and
hedging derivatives written on assets which are not traded. The
market is incomplete as the risks arising from having exposure to
non-traded assets cannot be fully hedged. We take a utility
indifference approach whereby the utility indifference price for
derivative is the cash amount the investor is willing to pay such
that she is no worse off in expected utility terms than she would
have been without the derivative.
There has been considerable research in the area of {\it
exponential} utility indifference valuation, but despite the
interest in this pricing and hedging approach, there have been
relatively few explicit formulas derived. The well known {\it one
dimensional non-traded assets model} is an exception and in a
Markovian framework with a derivative written on a single non-traded
asset, and partial hedging in a financial asset, Henderson and
Hobson \cite{Henderson2}, Henderson \cite{Henderson1}, and Musiela
and Zariphopoulou \cite{Musiela} use the Cole-Hopf transformation
(or \emph{distortion power}) to linearize the non-linear PDE for the
value function. This trick results in an explicit formula for the
exponential utility indifference price. Subsequent generalizations
of the model from Tehranchi \cite{Teh}, Frei and Schweizer
\cite{FSI} and \cite{Schweizer} have shown the exponential utility
indifference value can still be written in a closed-form expression
similar to that known for the Brownian setting, although the
structure of the formula can be much less explicit.
As soon as one of the assumptions made in the one dimensional
non-traded asset breaks down, explicit formulas are no longer
available. For example, if the option payoff depends also on the
traded asset, Sircar and Zariphopoulou \cite{MR2124276} develop
bounds and asymptotic expansions for the exponential utility
indifference price. In an energy context, we may be interested in
partially observed models and need filtering techniques to
numerically compute expectations (see Carmona and Ludkovski
\cite{CL} and Chapter 7 of \cite{MR2547456}). If the utility
function is not exponential, Henderson \cite{Henderson1} and Kramkov
and Sirbu \cite{KS} developed expansions in small quantity for
utility indifference prices under power utility.
In this paper, we study the exponential utility indifference price
in a multidimensional setting with the aim of developing a pricing
methodology.
The main economic motivation for us to develop the multidimensional
framework is to consider the counterparty default risk of options
traded in over the counter (OTC) markets, often called
\emph{vulnerable options}. The recent credit crisis has brought to
the forefront the importance of counterparty default risk as there
were numerous high profile defaults leading to counterparty losses.
In response, there have been many recent studies (for example,
Bielecki, Crepey, Jeanblanc and Zargari \cite{BCJZ} and Brigo and
Chourdakis \cite{Brigo-ITJAF}) addressing in particular the
counterparty risk of CDS. In contrast, there is relatively little
recent work on counterparty risk for other derivatives, despite OTC
options being a sizable fraction of the OTC derivatives
market.\footnote{In fact, OTC options comprised about 10\% of the
\$600 trillion (in terms of notional amounts) OTC derivatives market
at the end of June 20101 whilst the CDS market was about half as
large at around \$30 trillion.} The option holder faces both price
risk arising from the fluctuation of the assets underlying her
option and counterparty default risk that the option writer does not
honor her obligations. Default occurs when the assets of the
counterparty are below its liabilities at maturity (following the
structural approach of Merton). In our setting, the assets of the
counterparty and the asset underlying the option are non-traded and
thus a multidimensional non-traded assets model naturally arises. A
second potential area of application is to residual or basis risks
arising when the asset(s) used for hedging differ from the assets
underlying the contract in question (see Davis \cite{Davis}).
Our first contribution is to use the solution of fully coupled
linear forward-backward stochastic differential equation to give a
probabilistic representation for the exponential utility
indifference price. Since the associated equations are linear (but
with a loop), we call it a \emph{pseudo linear pricing rule}. It is
well known that the utility indifference price can be written as a
nonlinear expectation of payoff under the original physical measure,
and the nonlinear expectation is often specified by a backward
stochastic differential equation with quadratic growth
(\emph{quadratic BSDE} for short). Several authors derive quadratic
BSDE representations of exponential utility indifference values in
models of varying generality - see Mania and Schweizer \cite{MS},
Ankirchner et al \cite{Imkeller1}, Becherer \cite{Bec}, and Frei and
Schweizer \cite{FSI} \cite{Schweizer} among others. In contrast to
representing the utility indifference price by nonlinear
expectation, we represent it as the linear expectation of payoff
under some equivalent pricing measure. The pricing measure we choose
may depend on the utility indifference price itself, so the pricing
mechanism is a loop. What makes this transfer possible is the
nonlinear Girsanov's transformation in the sense that the change of
probability measure involves the solution of the equation, and the
\emph{BMO} martingale property of the solution, both of which
essentially follow from the comparison principle of quadratic BSDEs
(see for example Hu et al \cite{Hu}). This kind of \emph{pseudo
linear pricing rule} appeared in Proposition 11 of Mania and
Schweizer \cite{MS}, where they modeled the payoff as a general
random variable. In contrast, as we specify the dynamics of the
underlying assets and the payoff structure, a fully coupled linear
FBSDE appears naturally. Since the associated equations are linear
(but with a loop), Picard iteration can be employed to approximate
the solution and the corresponding utility indifference price. This
can be regarded as a first application of the \emph{pseudo linear
pricing rule}.
Our second contribution is to develop a semigroup approximation for
the pricing PDE by the splitting method, where we specialize to a
Markovian setting and derive the semilinear pricing PDE with
quadratic gradients satisfied by the utility indifference price.
In our multidimensional setting, the Cole-Hopf transformation (as in
the one dimensional model) can not be applied directly since the
coefficients of the quadratic gradient terms do not match. Motivated
by the idea of the splitting method \emph{(or fractional step,
prediction and correction)} in numerical analysis, we split the
pricing equation into two semilinear PDEs with quadratic gradients
such that the Cole-Hopf transformation can be applied to linearize
both of them. Splitting methods have been used to construct
numerical schemes for PDEs arising in mathematical finance - see the
review of Barles \cite{Barles-review}, and Tourin \cite{Tourin} with
the references therein. Recently, Nadtochiy and Zariphopoulou
\cite{NZ} applied splitting to the {\it marginal}
Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation arising from optimal
investment in a two-factor stochastic volatility model with general
utility functions. They show their scheme converges to the unique
viscosity solution of the limiting equation.
The idea of splitting in our setting is as follows. The local time
derivative of the pricing PDE depends on the sum of semigroup
operators corresponding to the different factors. These semigroups
usually are of different nature. For each sub-problem corresponding
to each semigroup there might be an effective way providing
solutions. For the sum of these semigroups, however, we cannot find
an accurate method. The application of splitting method means that
instead of the sum, we treat the semigroup operators separately. We
prove that when the the mesh of the time partition goes to zero, the
approximated price will converge to the utility indifference price,
relying on the \emph{monotone scheme} argument by Barles and
Souganidis \cite{Barles}: any \emph{monotone, stable and consistent}
numerical scheme converges (to the correct solution) provided there
exists a comparison principle for the limiting equations. The
difficult part of applying the \emph{monotone scheme} to our problem
is the verification of consistency. This is overcome by the
\emph{pseudo linear pricing rule} for the utility indifference
price. In contrast to the nonlinear expectation, where the Dominated
Convergence Theorem may not hold, the representation is linear, so
Dominated Convergence Theorem can be employed to verify the commute
of limiting processes. This can be regarded as a second application
of the \emph{pseudo linear pricing rule}.
Our third contribution is to apply the splitting method to compute
prices of derivatives on a non-traded asset and where the derivative
holder is subject to non-traded counterparty default risk. In
contrast to the complete market Black Scholes style formulas
obtained by Johnson and Stulz \cite{Johnson}, Klein \cite{Klein} and
Klein and Inglis \cite{KI2001}, we show the significant impact that
non-tradeable risks have on the valuation of vulnerable options and
the role played by partial hedging.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section \ref{sec-model}, we
propose our multidimensional non-traded assets model, and present
our probabilistic representation for the utility indifference price.
Based on such representation, we give the Picard approximation for
the price. In Section \ref{sec-markovian}, we specialize to a
Markovian setting, and apply the splitting method to give a
semigroup approximation for the utility indifference pricing PDE. We
further apply the scheme to the counterparty risk of derivatives in
incomplete markets in Section \ref{sec-application}.
\section{Pseudo Linear Pricing Rule for Utility Indifference Valuation} \label{sec-model}
Let ${\cal{W}}=(W^1,\cdots,W^d)$ be a $d$-dimensional Brownian
motion on a filtered probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},
\{{\mathcal{F}}_t\} ,\mathbf{P})$ satisfying the \emph{usual
conditions}, where $\mathcal{F}_t$ is the augmented $\sigma$-algebra
generated by $ ({\cal{W}}_u:0 \leq u \leq t)$. The market consists
of a traded financial index $P$, whose price process is given by
\begin{equation}\label{P_equ}
\frac{dP_t}{P_t}=\mu^P_tdt+\langle \sigma_t^P,
d\mathcal{W}_t\rangle,
\end{equation}
and a set of observable but non-traded assets
$\mathcal{S}=(S^1,\cdots,S^n)$, whose price processes are given by
\begin{equation}\label{dynamics of nontraded assets }
\frac{dS_t^i}{S_t^i}=\mu^i_tdt+\langle \sigma^i_t,
d\mathcal{W}_t\rangle
\end{equation}
for $i=1,\cdots,n$. $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ denotes the inner
product in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with its Euclidean norm $||\cdot||$. We
have $\mu^P_t, \mu^i_t \in \mathbb{R} $,
$\sigma^P_t=(\sigma^{P1}_t,\cdots,\sigma^{Pd}_t) \in \mathbb{R}^d$
and $\sigma^i_t=(\sigma^{i1}_t,\cdots,\sigma^{id}_t) \in
\mathbb{R}^d$. There is also a risk-free bond or bank account with
price $B_t=1$ for $t\geq 0$. This is equivalent to working in terms
of discounted units and is without loss of generality.
Our interest will be in pricing and hedging (path-dependent)
contingent claims written on the non-traded assets $\mathcal{S}$.
Specifically, we are concerned with contracts with payoff at
maturity $T$ of $g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})$ which may depend on the whole
path of $\mathcal{S}$. We impose the following assumptions, which
will hold throughout:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Assumption (A1)}: All the coefficients are $\mathcal{F}_t$-adapted
and uniformly bounded in $(t,\omega)$ .
\item \textbf{Assumption (A2)}: The volatility
for the financial index $P$ is uniformly elliptic:
$||\sigma_t^P(\omega)||\geq\epsilon>0$ for all $(t,\omega)$.
\item \textbf{Assumption (A3)}: The payoff $g$ is a positive bounded
functional.
\end{itemize}
The non-tradability of assets $\mathcal{S}$ could be applicable in
many situations - it might be that these assets are (i) not traded
at all, or (ii) that they are traded illiquidly, or (iii) that they
are in fact liquidly traded but the investor concerned is not
permitted to trade them for some reason. Our main application is to
the counterparty risk of derivatives where the payoff depends upon
both the value of the counterparty's assets and the asset underlying
the derivative itself. A second potential area of application is to
residual or basis risks arising when the asset(s) used for hedging
differ from the assets underlying the contract in question (see
\cite{Davis}). Typically this arises when the assets underlying the
derivative are illiquidly traded (case (ii) above) and standardized
futures contracts are used instead. Contracts may involve several
assets, for example, a spread option with payoff $ (K-S^1_T-S^2_T)^+
$ or a basket option with payoff $(K-S^1_T- \cdots- S^n_T)^+$. Such
contracts frequently arise in applications to commodity, energy, and
weather derivatives.
Finally, a one dimensional example of the situation in (iii) is that
of employee stock options (see Henderson \cite{Henderson-QF}).
Our approach is to consider the utility indifference valuation for
such contingent claims. For this we need to consider the
optimization problem for the investor both with and without the
option. The investor has initial wealth $x\in \mathbb{R}$, and is
able to trade the financial index with price $P_t$ (and riskless
bond with price $1$). This will enable the investor to partially
hedge the risks she is exposed to via her position in the claim.
Depending on the context, the financial index may be a stock,
commodity or currency index, for example.
The holder of the option has an exponential utility function with
respect to her terminal wealth:
$$U_T(x)=-e^{-\gamma x}\ \ \ \text{for}\ \gamma\geq 0.$$
The investor holds $\lambda$ units of the claim, whose price is
denoted as $\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}$ and is to be
determined\footnote{For $\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}$ we use the
superscript $\lambda$ to emphasize the dependence of the price on
the number of units held, and use the subscript $0$ to denote the
price at time 0. If one unit is held, we simply write
$\mathfrak{C}_0$ rather than $\mathfrak{C}_0^1$.}, and invests her
remaining wealth $x-\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}$ in the financial index
$P$. The investor will follow an admissible trading strategy:
\begin{align*}
\pi\in\mathcal{A}_{ad}[0,T]=&\left\{\pi:\pi\ \text{is}\
\mathcal{F}_t\text{-adapted, and}\
\sup_{\tau}E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[\left.\int_{\tau}^T|\pi_t|^2dt\right|\mathcal{F}_{\tau}\right]<\infty\right.\\
&\left.\text{for any}\ \mathcal{F}_t\text{-stopping time}\
\tau\in[0,T].\right\}
\end{align*}
which results in the wealth:
\begin{equation}\label{X_equ}
X_t^{x-\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}}(\pi)=x-
\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}+\int_0^t\pi_s\left(\mu^P_sds+\langle\sigma^P_s,d\mathcal{W}_s\rangle\right).
\end{equation}
The integrability condition for the trading strategies is
essentially the \emph{BMO} martingale property for
$\int_0^{\cdot}\pi_sd\mathcal{W}_s$. However this condition is not
restrictive if we only want to price and hedge contingent claims
with bounded payoff, as the corresponding optimal trading strategy
will satisfy this condition anyway.
The investor will optimize over such strategies to choose an optimal
$\bar{\pi}^*$ by maximizing her expected terminal utility:
\begin{equation}\label{optm1}
\sup_{\pi\in\mathcal{A}_{ad}[0,T]}E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[-e^{-\gamma\left(X_T^{x-
\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}}(\pi)+\lambda g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})
\right)}\right].
\end{equation}
To define the utility indifference price for the option, we also
need to consider the optimization problem for the investor without
the option. This involves the investor investing only in the
financial index itself. Her wealth equation is the same as
(\ref{X_equ}) but starts from initial wealth $x$ and she will choose
an optimal $\pi^*$ by maximizing:
\begin{equation}\label{optm2}
\sup_{\pi\in\mathcal{A}_{ad}[0,T]}E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[-e^{-\gamma
X_T^{x}(\pi)}\right].
\end{equation}
We note that (\ref{optm2}) is a special case of (\ref{optm1}) with
$\lambda=0$.
The utility indifference price for option is the cash amount that
the investor is willing to pay such that she is no worse off in
expected utility terms than she would have been without the option.
For a general overview of utility indifference pricing, we refer to
the recent monograph edited by Carmona \cite{MR2547456} and
especially the survey article by Henderson and Hobson
\cite{Henderson3} therein.
\begin{definition}\label{definition1} (Utility indifference valuation of option and hedge)
The utility indifference price $\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}$ of
$\lambda$ units of the derivative with payoff $g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})$
is defined by the solution to
\begin{equation}\label{def}
\sup_{\pi\in\mathcal{A}_{ad}[0,T]}E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[-e^{-\gamma\left(X_T^{x-
\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}}(\pi)+\lambda g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})
\right)}\right]=
\sup_{\pi\in\mathcal{A}_{ad}[0,T]}E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[-e^{-\gamma
X_T^{x}(\pi)}\right].
\end{equation}
The hedging strategy for $\lambda$ units of the derivative is
defined by the difference in the optimal trading strategies
$\bar{\pi}^*-\pi^*$.
\end{definition}
One of main features of the utility indifference price is
nonlinearity, i.e. $\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}\neq\lambda
\mathfrak{C}_0$. Given the assumption of exponential utility, the
price of the option and corresponding hedging strategy can be
represented by the solution of a quadratic BSDE.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma for n nontraded assets}
Suppose that Assumptions (A1) (A2) and (A3) are satisfied. Let
$(Y,\cal{Z})$ be the unique solution of the quadratic BSDE:
\begin{align}\label{BSDE for n nontraded assets}
Y_t=&\ \lambda g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})+\int_t^Tf(s,{\cal{Z}}_s)ds
-\int_t^T\langle{\cal{Z}}_s, d{\cal{W}}_s\rangle,
\end{align}
where the driver $f(s,{\cal{Z}}_s)$ is given by
$$-\frac{\gamma}{2}||\mathcal{Z}_t||^2+
\frac{\gamma}{2||\sigma_t^P||^2}\left|\langle\sigma_t^P,\mathcal{Z}_t\rangle
-\frac{\mu_t^P}{\gamma}\right|^2-\frac{1}{2\gamma}\frac{|\mu_t^P|^2}{||\sigma_t^P||^2}.$$
The unique solution of BSDE (\ref{BSDE for n nontraded assets})
defines a nonlinear expectation
$Y_t=\mathcal{E}^{\mathbf{P}}[\lambda
g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})|\mathcal{F}_t]$. Then the utility
indifference price $\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{representationformula1}
\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}=\mathcal{E}^{\mathbf{P}}[\lambda
g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})],
\end{equation}
and the hedging strategy for $\lambda$ units of the option is given
by
$$-\frac{\langle\sigma_t^P,\mathcal{Z}_t\rangle}{||\sigma_t^P||^2}.$$
\end{lemma}
The above type of quadratic BSDE (\ref{BSDE for n nontraded assets})
can be derived by standard Martingale Optimality Principle (see, for
example, Theorem 7 of Hu et al \cite{Hu} and Section 3 of Ankirchner
et al \cite{Imkeller1} in a Brownian motion setting, and Theorem 13
of Mania and Schweizer \cite{MS} and Section 2.1 of Morlais
\cite{Morlais} in a general semimartingale setting). In the
Appendix, we provide a different proof for Lemma \ref{Lemma for n
nontraded assets} where we do not use Martingale Optimality
Principle. Instead we consider the problem from risk-sensitive
control prospective, and employ Girsanov's transformation and
comparison principle for quadratic BSDEs to derive (\ref{BSDE for n
nontraded assets}). We should also mention that considering utility
indifference pricing from risk-sensitive control prospective seems
to be new.
On the other hand, the well-posedness of quadratic BSDE (\ref{BSDE
for n nontraded assets}) is guaranteed by Kobylanski
\cite{Kobylanski}. Indeed, by Assumption (A3) the terminal data
$\lambda g(\cdot)$ is uniformly bounded. The driver
$f(t,\mathbf{z})$ for $\mathbf{z}=(z^1,\cdots,z^d)\in
\mathbb{R}^{d}$ is continuous in $\mathbf{z}$, and moreover, by
Assumptions (A1) and (A2) on the coefficients, $f(t,\mathbf{z})$
satisfies
$$|f(t,\mathbf{z})|\leq C(1+||\mathbf{z}||^2),$$
and
$$|\nabla_{\mathbf{z}}f(t,\mathbf{z})|\leq C(1+||\mathbf{z}||),\ \ \ \text{for}\ t\in[0,T],\ a.s..$$
Hence, by Kobylanski \cite{Kobylanski}, there exists a unique
solution $(Y,\cal{Z})$ to BSDE (\ref{BSDE for n nontraded assets}).
The probabilistic representation formula
(\ref{representationformula1}) means the utility indifference price
can be written as a \emph{nonlinear} expectation of payoff under the
original physical measure. However, this presentation is sometimes
not convenient. First, the driver $f(t,\mathbf{z})$ for
$\mathbf{z}=(z^1,\cdots,z^d)\in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ is quadratic in
$\mathbf{z}$, which is in particular not Lipschitz continuous.
Secondly, some nice properties for linear expectation such as
Dominated Convergence Theorem may not hold anymore for nonlinear
expectation. Two natural questions to ask are
\begin{itemize}
\item Can the utility indifference price be written as a \emph{linear}
expectation of the payoff under some equivalent pricing measure?
i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{representationformula2}
\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}= E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\lambda
g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})].
\end{equation}
\item Is the above probabilistic representation formula
(\ref{representationformula2}) useful?
\end{itemize}
In the remainder of the paper, we shall show both of these questions
have positive answers. We first try to find the pricing measure
$\mathbf{Q}$ in $(\ref{representationformula2})$. Based on the
solution $(Y,\mathcal{Z})$ to BSDE (\ref{BSDE for n nontraded
assets}), we introduce the Dol\'eans-Dade exponential in the
following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{unifromintegrability}
The Dol\'eans-Dade exponential $\mathcal{E}(N)$ defined by
$$\mathcal{E}(N)=\exp\left\{N-\frac12[N,N]\right\},$$ where
$$N_{t}=-\int_0^{t}\frac{\gamma}{2}\langle\mathcal{Z}_s,d\mathcal{W}_s\rangle
+\int_0^{t}\frac{\gamma}{2||\sigma_s^P||^2}\left\{\langle\sigma_s^P,\mathcal{Z}_s\rangle-\frac{2\mu_s^P}{\gamma}\right\}\langle\sigma_s^P,d\mathcal{W}_s\rangle,$$
for $t\in[0,T]$ is a uniformly integrable martingale.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We first note that the solution $Y$ of BSDE (\ref{BSDE for n nontraded assets}) is
uniformly bounded and the process
$\int_0^{\cdot}\langle{\cal{Z}}_s,d{\cal{W}}_s\rangle$ is a
$\mathbf{P}$-\emph{BMO} martingale \footnote{We recall a continuous
martingale $M$ with $E^{\mathbf{P}}{[M,M]_T}<\infty$ is called a
$\mathbf{P}$-\emph{BMO} martingale if
$$\sup_{\tau}E^{\mathbf{P}}[|M_T-M_{\tau}|^2|\mathcal{F}_{\tau}]<\infty$$
for any $\mathcal{F}_t$-stopping time $\tau\in[0,T]$. If $M$ is a
$\mathbf{P}$-\emph{BMO} martingale, its Dol\'eans-Dade exponential
$\mathcal{E}(M)$ is in Doob's class $\mathcal{D}$, and therefore
uniformly integrable.}, whose proof can be found, for example, in
Lemma 12 of Hu et al \cite{Hu}.
Next, we verify that the Dol\'eans-Dade exponential $\mathcal{E}(N)$
is a uniformly integrable martingale. Indeed, for any
$\mathcal{F}_t$-stopping time $\tau\in[0,T]$,
\begin{align}\label{BMO}
&\sup_{\tau}E^{\mathbf{P}}[|N_T-N_{\tau}|^2|\mathcal{F}_{\tau}]\nonumber\\
=&\sup_{\tau}E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[\left|\int_{\tau}^{T}\frac{\gamma}{2}\langle\mathcal{Z}_t,d\mathcal{W}_t\rangle
-\frac{\gamma}{2||\sigma_t^P||^2}\left\{\langle\sigma_t^P,\mathcal{Z}_t\rangle-\frac{2\mu_t^P}{\gamma}\right\}\langle\sigma_t^P,d\mathcal{W}_t\rangle\right|^2|\mathcal{F}_{\tau}\right]\nonumber\\
\leq&C\sup_{\tau}E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[\int_{\tau}^T||{\cal{Z}}_t||^2dt+\int_{\tau}^TC
dt|\mathcal{F}_{\tau}\right].
\end{align}
Since $\int_0^{\cdot}\langle {\cal{Z}}_s, d{\cal{W}}_s\rangle$ is a
$\mathbf{P}$-\emph{BMO} martingale, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{\tau}E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[\left|\int_{\tau}^T\langle\mathcal{Z}_t,d\mathcal{W}_t\rangle\right|^2|\mathcal{F}_{\tau}\right]=
\sup_{\tau}E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[\int_{\tau}^T||\mathcal{Z}_t||^2dt|\mathcal{F}_{\tau}\right]<\infty
\end{equation*}
for any $\mathcal{F}_t$-stopping time $\tau\in[0,T]$, the first term
in the RHS of (\ref{BMO}) is uniformly bounded. Clearly, the second
term is bounded by $C^2T$. Hence $N$ is a $\mathbf{P}$-\emph{BMO}
martingale, and the Dol\'eans-Dade exponential $\mathcal{E}(N)$ is
uniformly integrable.
\end{proof}
Since the Dol\'eans-Dade exponential $\mathcal{E}(N)$ is uniformly
integrable, we can change the probability measure from $\mathbf{P}$
to $\mathbf{Q}$ by $\frac{d\mathbf{Q}}{d\mathbf{P}}=\mathcal{E}(N)$.
Under the measure $\mathbf{Q}$, BSDE (\ref{BSDE for n nontraded
assets}) reduces to
\begin{align*}
Y_t&=\ \lambda g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})+\int_t^Tf(s,{\cal{Z}}_s)ds
-\int_t^T\langle{\cal{Z}}_s,d{\cal{W}}_s\rangle\\
&=\ \lambda g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})-\int_t^{T}\langle{\cal{Z}}_s,
d{\cal{B}}_s\rangle,
\end{align*}
where ${\cal{B}}=(B^1,\cdots,B^d)$ defined by
${\cal{B}}={\cal{W}}-[{\cal{W}},N]$ is the Brownian motion under
$\mathbf{Q}$ by Girsanov's theorem. In other words, we have derived
$$Y_t=E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\lambda
g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})|\mathcal{F}_t].$$
\begin{theorem}\label{new_prob_representation_theorem}
(Pseudo linear pricing rule for utility indifference valuation)
Suppose that Assumptions (A1) (A2) and (A3) are satisfied. Then
there exists a pricing measure $\mathbf{Q}$ defined by
$\frac{d\mathbf{Q}}{d\mathbf{P}}=\mathcal{E}(N)$, where the
Dol\'eans-Dade exponential $\mathcal{E}(N)$ is defined in Lemma
\ref{unifromintegrability}, such that the utility indifference price
$\mathcal{C}_0^{\lambda}$ can be written as the linear expectation
of the payoff $g$ under $\mathbf{Q}$:
\begin{equation*}
\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}=E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\lambda
g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})].
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The main steps are already shown above. What is left is that we only need to
show the martingale representation part $\cal{Z}$ is invariant under
the equivalent change of probability measure. Actually, this follows
by the uniqueness of the special semimartingale decomposition, whose
proof can be found in Lemma 7 of Liang et al \cite{LLQ2010}.
\end{proof}
The probabilistic representation of the utility indifference price
(\ref{representationformula2}) appears to be ``linear" at first
glance. Notwithstanding, the nonlinearity is hidden in the pricing
measure $\mathbf{Q}$, which depends on the price
$\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}$ through the Dol\'eans-Dade exponential
$\mathcal{E}(N)$. Indeed, if the unit indifference price is given by
$\mathfrak{C}_0=E^{\mathbf{Q}^{'}}[g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})]$, where
$\mathbf{Q}^{'}$ is defined by the Dol\'eans-Dade exponential which
depends on the price $\mathfrak{C}_0$, then,
$$\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}=E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\lambda g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})]=\lambda E^{\mathbf{Q}}[g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})]\neq
\lambda E^{\mathbf{Q}^{'}}[g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})]=\lambda
\mathfrak{C}_0.$$
We are not the first to discover such a \emph{pseudo linear pricing
rule} for the exponential utility indifference price. A similar
probabilistic representation to Theorem
\ref{new_prob_representation_theorem} is given in Proposition 11 of
Mania and Schweizer \cite{MS}, where their payoff is a general
random variable.
In contrast, since we specify the dynamics of the underlying assets
and the payoff structure, a fully coupled linear FBSDE appears
naturally. Indeed, if we write down the equations of the non-traded
assets $\mathcal{S}$ under the measure $\mathbf{Q}$:
$$
\frac{d
S_t^{i}}{S_t^{i}}=\left\{\mu^i_t-\frac{\gamma}{2}\langle\sigma_t^i,\mathcal{Z}_t\rangle
+\frac{\gamma\langle\sigma_t^i,\sigma_t^P\rangle}{2||\sigma_t^P||^2}\left(\langle\sigma_t^P,\mathcal{Z}_t\rangle-\frac{2\mu_t^P}{\gamma}\right)\right\}dt
+\langle\sigma_t^{i},d\mathcal{B}_t\rangle,
$$
together with the dynamic of the utility indifference price
$\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda}_0$ under the measure $\mathbf{Q}$:
$$Y_t=\lambda g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})-\int_t^{T}\langle Z_s,d\mathcal{B}_s\rangle,$$
we derive a fully coupled linear FBSDE. Since the associated
equations are linear (but with a loop), Picard iteration can be
employed to approximate the solution and the corresponding utility
indifference price, which results in the following approximation,
whose proof is postponed to the Appendix.
\begin{theorem}{(Linear approximation for utility indifference price)}
\label{Corollary3}
Suppose that Assumptions (A1) (A2) and (A3) are satisfied, and
moreover, for either $T$ or $K$ small enough, the payoff functional
satisfies
$$|g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})-g(\bar{\mathcal{S}}_{\cdot})|\leq K
\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\sum_{i=1}^n|\ln S_t^i-\ln\bar{S}_t^i|.$$ Let
$\mathcal{B}=(B^1,\cdots,B^d)$ be the Brownian motion under a given
probability measure $\mathbf{Q}$. Define the following sequence
$\{\mathcal{S}^m=(S^{m,1},\cdots,S^{m,n})\}_{m\geq 0}$ iteratively:
$\mathcal{S}^0=(s,\cdots,s)$, and
$$
\frac{d
S_t^{m+1,i}}{S_t^{m+1,i}}=\left\{\mu^i_t-\frac{\gamma}{2}\langle\sigma_t^i,\mathcal{Z}_t^{m}\rangle
+\frac{\gamma\langle\sigma_t^i,\sigma_t^P\rangle}{2||\sigma_t^P||^2}\left(\langle\sigma_t^P,\mathcal{Z}_t^m\rangle-\frac{2\mu_t^P}{\gamma}\right)\right\}dt
+\langle\sigma_t^{i},d\mathcal{B}_t\rangle,
$$
where $\mathcal{Z}^m=(Z^{m,1},\cdots,Z^{m,d})$ is the martingale
representation of $\lambda g(\mathcal{S}^m_{\cdot})$:
$$\int_t^T\langle\mathcal{Z}_s^m,d\mathcal{B}_s\rangle=
\lambda g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot}^{m})-E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\lambda
g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot}^{m})|\mathcal{F}_t].$$ Then the utility
indifference price $\mathcal{C}_0^{\lambda}$ is approximated by
$$\mathfrak{C}^{m,\lambda}_0=E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\lambda g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot}^{m})],$$
and
$$\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\mathfrak{C}^{m,\lambda}_0=\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}.$$
\end{theorem}
To summarize, Theorem \ref{new_prob_representation_theorem} and
Lemma \ref{Lemma for n nontraded assets} provide two alternative
ways to represent the utility indifference price:
$$\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}=E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\lambda g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})]
=\mathcal{E}^{\mathbf{P}}[\lambda g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})].$$ One
application of our representation in Theorem
\ref{new_prob_representation_theorem} was illustrated in Theorem
\ref{Corollary3}. A second application will be given in Section
\ref{sec-markovian} where we shall utilize the representation to
prove the convergence of semigroup approximation for the utility
indifference price by splitting method in Theorem
\ref{semigrouptheorem}.
\section{The Markovian Case and the Splitting Method} \label{sec-markovian}
In this section, we specialize to a Markovian setting by assuming
that all the coefficients are constant, denoted by $\mu_P$,
$\sigma_P$, $\mu_i$, $\sigma_i$ etc., and the payoff $g$ is a
function rather than a functional.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Assumption (A1)'}: All the coefficients are nonzero constants.
\item \textbf{Assumption (A3)'}: The payoff $g$ is a positive bounded
function.
\end{itemize}
We consider a one factor model where the prices of the traded
financial index $P$ and each of the non-traded assets $S^i$ are
driven by one common market Brownian motion, as well as an
independent Brownian motion, representing the idiosyncratic risk of
each asset. In other words, $d=n+2$, $\sigma^{pj}_t=0$ if $j\neq
n+1$ and $n+2$, and $\sigma^{ij}_t=0$ if $i\neq j$ and $j\neq n+1$.
The price processes become
\begin{equation}\label{P_equ_2}
\frac{dP_t}{P_t}=\mu_Pdt+\bar{\sigma}_{P}dW_t^{n+1}+\sigma_{P}dW_t^{n+2},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{dynamics of nontraded assets_2}
\frac{dS_t^{i}}{S_t^i}=\mu_idt+\sigma_{i}dW_t^i+\bar{\sigma}_{i}dW_t^{n+1}.
\end{equation}
To simplify the notation, we set $\bar{\sigma}_{P}=\sigma_{P,n+1}$,
$\sigma_{P}=\sigma_{P,n+2}$, $\sigma_{i}=\sigma_{ii}$, and
$\bar{\sigma}_{i}=\sigma_{i,n+1}$.
The price of each non-traded asset $S^i$ reflects exposure to the
traded or market risk $W^{n+1}$ through volatility $\bar{\sigma}_i$
and idiosyncratic risk $W^{i}$ through idiosyncratic volatility
$\sigma_i$. We define the following parameters for the financial
index $P$:
\begin{align*}
\theta^P=\frac{(\mu_P)^2}{(\sigma_{P})^2};\ \ \ &\bar{\theta}^P=\frac{(\mu_P)^2}{(\sigma_{P})^2+(\bar{\sigma}_{P})^2};\\
\vartheta^P=\frac{\mu_P\bar{\sigma}_{P}}{(\sigma_{P})^2};\ \ \ &\bar{\vartheta}^P=\frac{\mu_P\bar{\sigma}_P}{(\sigma_P)^2+(\bar{\sigma}_P)^2};\\
\kappa^P=\frac{(\bar{\sigma}_P)^2}{(\sigma_P)^2};\ \ \
&\bar{\kappa}^P=\frac{(\bar{\sigma}_P)^2}{(\sigma_P)^2+(\bar{\sigma}_P)^2}.
\end{align*}
We first characterize the utility indifference price by the solution
of the following semilinear PDE with quadratic gradients.
\begin{lemma}\label{Markov_lemma_111}
Suppose that Assumptions (A1)' (A2) and (A3)' are satisfied, and
moreover, the payoff function $g(\cdot)$ is Lipschitz continuous.
Then the utility indifference price of $\lambda$ units of the option
with payoff $g({\cal{S}}_T)$ is given by
$\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda}(\cdot,0)$, where $\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda}$ is
the classical solution of the PDE:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{PDE for n nontraded assets}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_t\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda}(\mathbf{s},t)+\frac12\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i^2s_i^2\partial_{s_is_i}\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda}+\frac12\sum_{i,j=1}^n\bar{\sigma}_i\bar{\sigma}_js_is_j\partial_{s_is_j}\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda}\\[+0.4cm]+
\sum_{i=1}^n\left(\mu_i-\bar{\vartheta}^P\bar{\sigma}_i\right)s_i\partial_{s_i}\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda}-\frac{\gamma}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i^2s_i^2(\partial_{s_i}\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda})^2\\[+0.4cm]
-\frac{\gamma}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^n\left[(1-\bar{\kappa}^P)\bar{\sigma}_i\bar{\sigma}_j\right]s_is_j\partial_{s_i}\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda}\partial_{s_j}\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda}=0
,\\[+0.4cm]
\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda}(\cdot,T)=\lambda g(\cdot)
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
on the domain $(\mathbf{s},t)\in\mathbb{R}_+^n\times[0,T]$, where
$\mathbf{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_n)$, and the hedging strategy for
$\lambda$ units of the option is given by
\begin{equation}\label{hedge2}
-\frac{\bar{\kappa}^P}{\bar{\sigma}_P}\sum_{i=1}^n\bar{\sigma}_is_i\partial_{s_i}\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Since the proof of Lemma \ref{Markov_lemma_111} follows from the
standard Dynamic Programming Principle, we omit it (for example see
\cite{Henderson1} in one dimensional setting). We only remark that
the classical solution to (\ref{Markov_lemma_111}) exists, and
moreover, $\mathfrak{C}^{\lambda}$ and its gradients are uniformly
bounded (see, for example, Theorem 2.9 of Delarue \cite{MR2053051}
for the proof). We also note that the number of units $\lambda$ only
appears in the terminal condition. In the following, we present the
case $\lambda=1$, and the price is simply denoted by $\mathfrak{C}$.
In general, there is no explicit solution to PDE (\ref{PDE for n
nontraded assets}). However, if the traded financial index is
independent of the non-traded assets, i.e. $\bar{\sigma}_P=0$, the
explicit solution is available by the Cole-Hopf transformation (see
comments on the one-dimensional case after Proposition \ref{Asy2}).
Essentially, this means the financial index $P$ is not useful as a
hedging tool for the investor.
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary1} Suppose that $\bar{\sigma}_P=0$, and
Assumptions (A1)' (A2) and (A3)' are satisfied, and moreover,
$g(\cdot)$ is Lipschitz continuous. Then the utility indifference
price of the option with payoff $g(\mathcal{S}_T)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{option_price2}
\mathfrak{C}=-\frac{1}{\gamma}\ln E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[e^{-\gamma
g({\cal{S}}_{T})}\right].
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
We now contrast the above to the situation if the market were
complete. If the underlying assets $\mathcal{S}=(S^1,\cdots,S^n)$
could be traded, the market would become complete, and the pricing
and hedging of the contingent claim with payoff $g(\mathcal{S}_T)$
falls into the classical multidimensional Black-Scholes framework.
\begin{corollary} \label{complete_lemma}
Suppose that $\mathcal{S}=(S^1,\cdots,S^n)$ are traded assets, and
Assumptions (A1)' (A2) and (A3)' are satisfied, and moreover,
$g(\cdot)$ is Lipschitz continuous. Then the price of the option
with payoff $g({\cal{S}}_T)$ is given by $\bar{\mathfrak{C}} $,
where $\bar{\mathfrak{C}}$ is the classical solution of the PDE:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{JohnsonPDE}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_t\bar{\mathfrak{C}}(\mathbf{s},t)+\frac12\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i^2s_i^2\partial_{s_is_i}\bar{\mathfrak{C}}+\frac12\sum_{i,j=1}^n\bar{\sigma}_i\bar{\sigma}_js_is_j\partial_{s_is_j}\bar{\mathfrak{C}}=0,\\[+0.4cm]
\bar{\mathfrak{C}}(\cdot,T)=g(\cdot)
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
on the domain $(\mathbf{s},t)\in\mathbb{R}^n_+\times[0,T]$.
\end{corollary}
Based on the pricing equation (\ref{PDE for n nontraded assets}), we
will present a number of properties of the option price. First
notice that the pricing equation (\ref{PDE for n nontraded assets})
has additional nonlinear terms of quadratic gradients relative to
the complete market PDE in (\ref{JohnsonPDE}).
Our first property of the utility indifference price concerns risk
aversion. Intuitively, the more risk averse the option holder is,
the less she
would be willing to pay for the option.
\begin{proposition}\label{Asy1}
If the risk aversion parameter $\gamma$ increases, the unit utility
indifference price $\mathfrak{C}$ will decrease.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} The proof is based on the comparison principle for
PDE (\ref{PDE for n nontraded assets}). Suppose
$0\leq\gamma_1\leq\gamma_2$. The corresponding PDEs are denoted by
$PDE^{\gamma_1}$ and $PDE^{\gamma_2}$ respectively, and their
solutions are denoted by $\mathfrak{C}^{\gamma_1}$ and
$\mathfrak{C}^{\gamma_2}$ respectively. Since the terms involving
$\gamma$ can be regrouped as
\[
-\frac{\gamma}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i^2s_i^2(\partial_{s_i}\mathfrak{C})^2
-\frac{\gamma}{2}(1-\bar{\kappa}^P) ( \sum_{i=1}^{n} \bar{\sigma}_i s_i \partial_{s_i}\mathfrak{C})^2
\]
so all the coefficients of $\gamma$ are less than zero,
we have
$$PDE^{\gamma_1}(\mathfrak{C}^{\gamma_2})\geq 0.$$
Hence $\mathfrak{C}^{\gamma_2}$ is the subsolution to $PDE
^{\gamma_1}$. On the other hand $\mathfrak{C}^{\gamma_1}$ is the
supersolution to $PDE^{\gamma_1}$, and
$\mathfrak{C}^{\gamma_2}|_{t=T}= \mathfrak{C}^{\gamma_1}|_{t=T}$. By
the comparison principle, we conclude $\mathfrak{C}^{\gamma_2}\leq
\mathfrak{C}^{\gamma_1}$ on $\mathbb{R}_+^n\times[0,T]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop-corr}
Assume that
\begin{equation} \label{CAPM}
\bar{\vartheta}^P= {\mu_i} / {\bar{\sigma}_i}
\end{equation}
for $i=1,\cdots,n$. Then the unit utility indifference price
$\mathfrak{C}$ is decreasing in the idiosyncratic volatility of the
traded asset $\sigma_P^2$ (or its proportion of total volatility,
$1-\bar{\kappa}^P$).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof is again based on the comparison principle for (\ref{PDE
for n nontraded assets}), and is similar to that of Proposition
\ref{Asy1}.
\end{proof}
This tells us that the higher the idiosyncratic volatility
$\sigma_{P}^2$ of the traded asset (\emph{or as a proportion of
total volatility}), the worse it is as a hedging instrument, and the
lower the price one is willing to pay. Proposition \ref{prop-corr}
generalizes the monotonicity obtained in the one dimensional
non-traded asset model (see for example, Henderson
\cite{Henderson-QF} and Frei and Schweizer \cite{FSI} in a
non-Markovian model with stochastic correlation).
The restriction (\ref{CAPM}) in fact corresponds to a relation
between the Sharpe ratios of the non-traded assets $\mathcal{S}$ and
the financial index $P$. Define the Sharpe ratio of $S^i$ to be
${\it SR_i} = \mu_i / \sqrt{\sigma_i^2+\bar{\sigma}_i^2 } $ and
similarly, the Sharpe ratio for the financial index $P$ by ${\it
SR_P} = \mu_P / \sqrt{ \sigma_P^2 + \bar{\sigma}_P^2 }$. Then
(\ref{CAPM}) is equivalent to the relation $$ {\it SR_i} =
\left(\frac{\bar{\sigma}_i \bar{\sigma}_P }{\sqrt{ \bar{\sigma}_i^2
+ \sigma_i^2 } \sqrt{ \bar{\sigma}_P^2 + \sigma_P^2} }\right) {\it
SR_P} = \rho_{i P} {\it SR_P} $$ where $\rho_{i P}$ is the
correlation between $S^i$ and $P$. This corresponds to the relation
we expect from the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) when assets
are traded. Since not all assets are traded here, we would not
necessarily expect (\ref{CAPM}) to hold.
The final result in this section concerns recovery of the complete
market price given in Corollary \ref{complete_lemma}.
\begin{proposition} \label{Asy2}(Asymptotic results)
\begin{itemize}
\item (i) If $\bar{\vartheta}^P=\frac{\mu_i}{\bar{\sigma}_i}$ for $i=1,\cdots,n$, then
the unit utility indifference price $\mathfrak{C}$ will converge to
the complete market price $\bar{\mathfrak{C}}$ as $\gamma\rightarrow
0$.
\item (ii) If $\frac{\mu_P}{\bar{\sigma}_P}=\frac{\mu_i}{\bar{\sigma}_i}$
for $i=1,\cdots,n$, then as $\sigma_P,\sigma_i\rightarrow 0$ the
unit utility indifference price $\mathfrak{C}$ will converge to the
complete market price $\bar{\mathfrak{C}}$ with $\sigma_P,\sigma_i =
0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We prove (i), whilst the proof of (ii) is similar.
Under the assumptions in (i), when $\gamma\rightarrow 0$, by the
Arzela-Ascoli compactness criterion, there exists a subsequence
$\gamma_n\rightarrow 0$ such that the solutions of (\ref{PDE for n
nontraded assets}), denoted by $\mathfrak{C}^{\gamma_n}$, uniformly
converge to $\bar{\mathfrak{C}}$ on any compact subset of
$\mathbb{R}_+^n\times[0,T]$, where $\bar{\mathfrak{C}}$ satisfies
$(\ref{JohnsonPDE})$.
\end{proof}
Again, we see in Proposition \ref{Asy2} that the CAPM restrictions
must apply to the Sharpe ratios. The intuition here is that when the
idiosyncratic volatilities disappear, and when assets are traded,
there cannot be a difference in using the financial index $P$ or the
assets themselves to hedge.
For a semilinear PDE with quadratic gradients like (\ref{PDE for n
nontraded assets}), it is not usually possible to obtain an explicit
solution. A special case where an explicit solution does exist is
the one dimensional version. Taking $n=1$, $d=2$ and $\sigma_{P1}=0$
in (\ref{PDE for n nontraded assets}) recovers the pricing PDE of
\cite{Henderson2}, \cite{Henderson1} and \cite{Musiela}, which is
solved by the Cole-Hopf transformation. However, this transformation
does not apply directly to our multidimensional problem (\ref{PDE
for n nontraded assets}) because the coefficients of the quadratic
gradient terms in (\ref{PDE for n nontraded assets}) do not match.
We note that even applying standard finite difference method to
numerically solve the PDE (\ref{PDE for n nontraded assets}) is
troublesome due to the high dimension and nonlinearity. Instead, we
will develop a splitting algorithm which will enable us to take
advantage again of the Cole-Hopf transformation to linearize the
PDEs.
Splitting methods (\emph{or fractional step, prediction and
correction}) can be dated back to Marchuk \cite{Marchuk} in the late
1960's (see also \cite{Marchukbook}). Application of splitting idea
to nonlinear PDEs such as HJB equations is difficult mainly because
of the verification of the convergence for the approximation scheme.
This difficulty was overcome by Barles and Souganidis \cite{Barles},
who employed the idea of the viscosity solution and proved that any
\emph{monotone, stable and consistent} numerical scheme converges
(to the correct solution) provided there exists a comparison
principle for the limiting equation. Barles and Souganidis
\cite{Barles} pointed out that their result could be used to justify
most standard splitting methods.
The idea of splitting in our setting is the following. The local
time derivative of the pricing PDE (\ref{PDE for n nontraded
assets}) depends on the sum of semigroup operators (\emph{or the
associated infinitesimal operators}) corresponding to the different
factors. These semigroups usually are of different nature. For each
sub-problem corresponding to each semigroup there might be an
effective way providing solutions. For the sum of these semigroups,
however, we usually can not find an accurate method. Hence,
application of splitting method means that instead of the sum, we
treat the semigroup operators separately.
Of course, the tricky part is how to split the equation (\emph{or
how to group factors}) effectively. In the following, we separate
the pricing PDE (\ref{PDE for n nontraded assets}) into two pricing
factors. Take $\lambda=1$. We first make the log-transformation:
$x_i=\ln s_i$, and define a new operator:
\begin{equation} \label{logoperator}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta}=
\sum_{i=1}^n\bar{\sigma}_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}.
\end{equation}
Then (\ref{PDE for n nontraded assets}) reduces to
\begin{align}{\label{PDE101}}
\partial_t\mathfrak{C}&+\frac12\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i^2\partial_{x_ix_i}\mathfrak{C}+\sum_{i=1}^nA_i\partial_{x_i}\mathfrak{C}
-\frac{\gamma}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i^2(\partial_{x_i}\mathfrak{C})^2\nonumber\\
&+\frac12\partial_{\eta\eta}\mathfrak{C}-\frac{\gamma}{2}(1-\bar{\kappa}^P)(\partial_{\eta}\mathfrak{C})^2=0,
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation} \label{Ai}
A_i=\mu_i-\frac{1}{2}(\sigma_i^2+\bar{\sigma}_i^2)-\bar{\vartheta}^P\bar{\sigma}_i.
\end{equation}
Define two operators:
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{L}^{1}&=\frac12\partial_{\eta\eta}-\frac{\gamma}{2}(1-\bar{\kappa}^P)\partial_{\eta}^2\\
\mathbf{L}^{2}&=\frac12\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i^2\partial_{x_ix_i}+\sum_{i=1}^nA_i\partial_{x_i}
-\frac{\gamma}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i^2\partial_{x_i}^2.
\end{align*}
For any $0\leq T_1<T_2\leq T$, and any smooth function
$\phi\in\mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^m)$ for $m=1,n$, we define
the following nonlinear backward semigroup operators
$\mathbf{S}^i(T_1,T_2):
\mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^m)\rightarrow\mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^m)$
by $\phi(\cdot)\mapsto \mathfrak{C}^i(\cdot,T_1)$ where
$$\partial_t\mathfrak{C}^i+\mathbf{L}^i \mathfrak{C}^i=0;\ \ \ \ \mathfrak{C}^i(\cdot,T_2)=\phi(\cdot)$$
on the domain $[T_1,T_2]\times\mathbb{R}^m$ for $i=1,2$.
We observe that one of the equations can be linearized by a
Cole-Hopf transformation. Indeed, by letting
$\bar{\mathfrak{C}}^1=\exp(-\gamma(1-\bar{\kappa}^P)
\mathfrak{C}^1)$, then we have $\bar{\mathfrak{C}}^1$ satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{C1}
\partial_t\bar{\mathfrak{C}}^1+\frac12\partial_{\eta\eta}\bar{\mathfrak{C}}^1=0.
\end{equation}
By letting $\bar{\mathfrak{C}}^2=\exp(-\gamma \mathfrak{C}^2)$, then
we have $\bar{\mathfrak{C}}^2$ satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{C2}
\partial_t\bar{\mathfrak{C}}^2+\frac12\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i^2\partial_{x_ix_i}\bar{\mathfrak{C}}^2+\sum_{i=1}^nA_i\partial_{x_i}\bar{\mathfrak{C}}^2=0.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{semigroup}
The operators $\mathbf{S}^i(T_1,T_2)$ for $i=1,2$ have the following
properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item (i) For any smooth function $\phi\in\mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^m)$,
$$\lim_{T_1\uparrow T_2}\mathbf{S}^i(T_1,T_2)\phi=\phi$$
uniformly on any compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^m$.
\item (ii) For any $0\leq T_1<T_2<T_3\leq T$,
$$\mathbf{S}^i(T_1,T_3)\phi=\mathbf{S}^i(T_1,T_2)\mathbf{S}^i(T_2,T_3)\phi.$$
\item (iii) $$\mathbf{S}^i(T_2,T_2)\phi=\phi.$$
((i) (ii) and (iii) ensure that $\mathbf{S}^i(T_1,T_2)$ is indeed a
semigroup operator.)
\item (iv) If $\phi\geq \psi$ where $\psi$ is another smooth
function, then
$$\mathbf{S}^i(T_1,T_2)\phi\geq\mathbf{S}^i(T_1,T_2)\psi.$$
\item (v) For any constant $k\in\mathbb{R}$,
$$\mathbf{S}^i(T_1,T_2)(\phi(\cdot)+k)=\mathbf{S}^i(T_1,T_2)(\phi(\cdot))+k.$$
\item (vi)
$$\lim_{T_1\uparrow T_2}\frac{\mathbf{S}^i(T_1,T_2)\phi-\phi}{T_2-T_1}+\mathbf{L}^i\phi=0$$
uniformly on any compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^m$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (i)-(v) are immediate. We only prove (vi) in the
following. We first prove the case $i=1$. Note that $
\mathbf{S}^1(T_1,T_2)=\mathbf{S}^1(0,T_2-T_1)$, and it is enough to
prove that for any $\phi\in\mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$,
$$\lim_{T_2-T_1\downarrow 0}\frac{\mathbf{S}^1(0,T_2-T_1)\phi-\phi}{T_2-T_1}=\mathbf{L}^1\phi$$
uniformly on any compact subset of $\mathbb{R}$.
Let $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathcal{F}_t,\mathbf{P})$ be a filtered
probability space satisfying the usual conditions, on which supports
Brownian motion $W$ with $\mathbf{P}(W_0=\eta)=1$. By It\^o's
formula, we have
\begin{align*}
&\ \mathfrak{C}^1(t,W_t)\\
=&\ \mathfrak{C}^1(T_2-T_1,W_{T_2-T_1})-\int_t^{T_2-T_1}(\partial_t\mathfrak{C}^1+\frac12\partial_{\eta\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1)(s,W_s)ds-\int_t^{T_2-T_1}\partial_{\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1(s,W_s)dW_s\\
=&\
\phi(W_{T_2-T_1})-\int_t^{T_2-T_1}\frac{\gamma}{2}(1-\bar{\kappa}^P)(\partial_{\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1)^2(s,W_s)ds-\int_t^{T_2-T_1}\partial_{\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1(s,W_s)dW_s
\end{align*}
for $t\in[0,T_2-T_1]$. We note that
$\partial_{\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1(t,\eta)$ is uniformly bounded, and
therefore,
$$N_{t}=-\int_0^{t}\frac{\gamma}{2}(1-\bar{\kappa}^P)\partial_{\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1(s,W_s)dW_s,\ \ \ \text{for}\ t\in[0,T_2-T_1]$$
is a $\mathbf{P}$-\emph{BMO} martingale, which implies that the
Dol\'eans-Dade exponential $\mathcal{E}(N)$ is uniformly integrable.
Hence, we can define a new probability measure $\mathbf{Q}$ by
$\frac{d\mathbf{Q}}{d\mathbf{P}}=\mathcal{E}(N)$. By Girsanov's
theorem,
$$B_t=W_t-[W,N]_t=W_t+\int_0^t\frac{\gamma}{2}(1-\bar{\kappa}^P)\partial_{\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1(s,W_s)ds,\ \ \ \text{for}\ t\in[0,T]$$
is Brownian motion under the probability measure $\mathbf{Q}$, and
moreover,
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{C}^1(t,W_t)&=\phi(W_{T_2-T_1})-\int_{t}^{T_2-T_1}\partial_{\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1(s,W_s)dB_s\\
&=E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\phi(W_{T_2-T_1})|\mathcal{F}_t].
\end{align*}
Therefore, by It\^o's formula, we have
\begin{align*}
&\frac{\mathbf{S}^1(0,T_2-T_1)\phi(\eta)-\phi(\eta)}{T_2-T_1}\\
=&\frac{1}{T_2-T_1}E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\phi(W_{T_2-T_1})]-\phi(\eta)\\
=&\frac{1}{T_2-T_1}E^{\mathbf{Q}}\left[\int_0^{T_2-T_1}\partial_{\eta}\phi(W_s)dW_s+\int_0^{T_2-T_1}\frac12\partial_{\eta\eta}\phi(W_s)d\langle
W\rangle_s\right]\\
=&\frac{1}{T_2-T_1}E^{\mathbf{Q}}\left[\int_0^{T_2-T_1}\partial_{\eta}\phi(W_s)dB_s-\int_0^{T_2-T_1}\frac{\gamma}{2}(1-\bar{\kappa}^P)\partial_{\eta}\phi(W_s)\partial_{\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1(s,W_s)ds\right.\\
&\left.+\int_{0}^{T_2-T_1}\frac12\partial_{\eta\eta}\phi(W_s)ds\right]\\
=&\frac{1}{T_2-T_1}E^{\mathbf{Q}}\left[\int_0^{T_2-T_1}-\frac{\gamma}{2}(1-\bar{\kappa}^P)\partial_{\eta}\phi(W_s)\partial_{\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1(s,W_s)+\frac12\partial_{\eta\eta}\phi(W_s)ds\right].
\end{align*}
Note that
$\partial_{\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1(0,\eta)=\partial_{\eta}\phi(\eta)$
and by Dominated Convergence Theorem,
$$\lim_{T_2-T_1\downarrow 0}\frac{\mathbf{S}^1(0,T_2-T_1)\phi(\eta)-\phi(\eta)}{T_2-T_1}
=-\frac{\gamma}{2}(1-\bar{\kappa}^P)(\partial_{\eta}\phi)^2(\eta)+\frac12\partial_{\eta\eta}\phi(\eta).$$
The proof for the case $i=2$ is similar, so we only sketch its
proof. We apply It\^o's formula to
$\mathfrak{C}^2(t,\mathcal{X}_t)$, where
$\mathcal{X}=(X^1,\cdots,X^n)$ is given by
$$X_t^i=x^i+\int_0^tA_ids+\int_0^t\sigma_idW_s^i.$$
Therefore, by changing the probability measure, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{C}^2(t,\mathcal{X}_t)=&\ \phi(\mathcal{X}_{T_2-T_1})
-\int_t^{T_2-T_1}\frac{\gamma}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i^2
(\partial_{x_i}\mathfrak{C}^2)^2(s,\mathcal{X}_s)ds\\
&-\int_t^{T_2-T_1}\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i\partial_{x_i}\mathfrak{C}^2(s,\mathcal{X}_s)dW_s^i\\
=&\ E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\phi(\mathcal{X}_{T_2-T_1})|\mathcal{F}_t],
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{Q}$ is defined by the the Dol\'eans-Dade exponential
$\mathcal{E}(N)$ with
$$N_t=-\int_0^t\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\gamma}{2}\sigma_i\partial_{x_i}\mathfrak{C}^2(s,\mathcal{X}_s)dW_s^i,\ \ \ \text{for}\ t\in[0,T_2-T_1].$$
The rest of the proof follows by the same argument as for the case
$i=1$.
\end{proof}
Next we use semigroup operators $\mathbf{S}^1(T_1,T_2)$ and
$\mathbf{S}^2(T_1,T_2)$ to give the semigroup approximation for the
solution of PDE (\ref{PDE101})(or PDE (\ref{PDE for n nontraded
assets})), which is the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem} (Semigroup approximation for utility indifference price)
\label{semigrouptheorem}
Suppose that Assumptions (A1)' (A2) and (A3)' are satisfied, and
moreover, the payoff function $g(\cdot)$ is Lipschitz continuous.
Let $\pi: 0=t_0<t_1<\cdots<t_N=T$ be the partition of $[0,T]$ with
mesh:
$$|\pi|:=\max_{0\leq i\leq N-1}|t_{i+1}-t_i|.$$
Then the unit utility indifference price of the derivative with
payoff $g(\mathcal{S}_T)$, which is denoted by
$\mathfrak{C}(\cdot,0)$ is approximated by
$$\mathfrak{C}^{\pi}(\cdot,0)=\prod_{i=0}^{N-1}\mathbf{S}^1(t_i,t_{i+1})\mathbf{S}^2(t_{i},t_{i+1})g(\cdot),$$
and
$$\lim_{|\pi|\rightarrow 0}\mathfrak{C}^{\pi}(\cdot,0)=\mathfrak{C}(\cdot,0).$$
uniformly on any compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The proof is based on the
Barles-Souganidis monotone scheme \cite{Barles}, in which they
proved that any \emph{monotone, stable and consistent} numerical
scheme converges (to the correct solution) provided there exists a
comparison principle for the limiting equation.
In the following, we verify the above conditions. For any $0\leq
T_1<T_2\leq T$ and any smooth functions $\phi\geq\psi$, by (iv) in
Lemma \ref{semigroup},
$$\mathbf{S}^1(T_1,T_2)\mathbf{S}^2(T_1,T_2)\phi\geq \mathbf{S}^1(T_1,T_2)\mathbf{S}^2(T_1,T_2)\psi,$$
so the scheme is monotone.
For any $k\in\mathbb{R}$, by (v) in Lemma \ref{semigroup},
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{S}^1(T_1,T_2)\mathbf{S}^2(T_1,T_2)(\phi+k)&=\mathbf{S}^1(T_1,T_2)(\mathbf{S}^2(T_1,T_2)\phi+k)\\
&=\mathbf{S}^1(T_1,T_2)\mathbf{S}^2(T_1,T_2)\phi+k
\end{align*}
so the scheme is stable.
Finally, we verify the scheme is consistent:
\begin{align}\label{decom}
&\frac{\mathbf{S}^1(T_1,T_2)\mathbf{S}^2(T_1,T_2)\phi-\phi}{T_2-T_1}+(\mathbf{L}^1+\mathbf{L}^2)\phi\nonumber\\
=&\
\frac{\mathbf{S}^1(T_1,T_2)\mathbf{S}^2(T_1,T_2)\phi-\mathbf{S}^2(T_1,T_2)\phi}{T_2-T_1}+\mathbf{L}^1\mathbf{S}^2(T_1,T_2)\phi\nonumber\\
&\
+\frac{\mathbf{S}^2(T_1,T_2)\phi-\phi}{T_2-T_1}+\mathbf{L}^2\phi\nonumber\\
&\ -\mathbf{L}^1\mathbf{S}^2(T_1,T_2)\phi+\mathbf{L}^1\phi\nonumber\\
=&\ (I)+(II)+(III).
\end{align}
By (vi) in Lemma \ref{semigroup}, the terms $(I)$ and $(II)$ in
(\ref{decom}) converge to $0$ when $T_1\uparrow T_2$. By (i) in
Lemma \ref{semigroup}, the term $(III)$ in (\ref{decom}) also
converges to $0$ when $T_1\uparrow T_2$. Therefore the scheme is
consistent.
\end{proof}
\section{Application to Counterparty Risk of Derivatives}
\label{sec-application}
In this section, we apply our multidimensional non-traded assets
model (in particular, the one factor model of Section 3) to consider
the counterparty risk of derivatives. Our concern as the buyer or
holder of the option is that the writer or counterparty may default
on the option with payoff $h(S_{\cdot})$ at maturity $T$ and we will
not receive the full payoff. We have in mind several examples. A
natural example is that of a commodity producer who is writing
options as part of a hedging program (eg. collars). Some of these
options may be written on illiquidly traded assets and thus the
option holder is subject to basis risk and in addition, is concerned
with the default risk of the option writer. A second example is the
default risk of a financial institution who has sold options on
various underlying assets - stocks, foreign exchange or commodities.
In addition to the possibility of basis risk, the buyer of these
options does not always have the ability to trade the underlying
asset, or perhaps they choose not to (they may be using the
derivative as part of a hedge already). A further example may be
that of a purchaser of insurance concerned with the default risk of
the insurer. Typically the insured party does not trade at all,
which motivates our consideration of this special case. Finally, the
option holder may be an employee of a company who receives employee
stock options if the company remains solvent. She is restricted from
trading the stock of the company, but can trade other indices or
stocks in the market. In contrast to the other examples, here the
assets of the counterparty and the underlying stock are those of the
same company.
We consider an option written on an underlying asset with price
$S^1$ with payoff $h(S^1_T)$ at maturity $T$. Counterparty default
is modeled by comparing the value of the counterparty's assets $S^2$
to a default threshold $D$ at maturity, which depends on the
liabilities of the counterparty. Following Klein \cite{Klein} we
consider the situation $D=L$, where $L$ refers to the option
writer's liabilities, assumed to be a
constant.\footnote{Generalizations to $D=f(S^1_T)$ are easily
incorporated and allow for the option liability itself to influence
default, eg. $f(x) = h(x) + L$ was considered by Klein and Inglis
\cite{KI2001} in a risk neutral setting.} If the writer defaults,
the holder will receive the proportion $h(S^1_T)/L$ of the assets
$S^2$ that her option represents of the writer's liabilities, scaled
to reflect a proportional deadweight loss of $\alpha \in [0,1]$. The
payoff of the {\it vulnerable} option taking counterparty default
into account is
\begin{equation}\label{payoff_1}
g(S^1_T,S^2_T) = h(S^1_T) \emph{1}_{\{S^2_T\geq
L\}}+(1-\alpha)\frac{h(S^1_T)}{L} S^2_T\emph{1}_{\{S^2_T<L\}}.
\end{equation}
To guarantee $g$ is bounded,
a sufficient condition is that the payoff $h(S_T^1)$ is bounded, for
example, a put option. Note that there is a singular point of $g$ at
$S_T^2=L$, so we have to approximate $g$ by a sequence of
(nondecreasing) Lipschitz continuous functions $g^{\epsilon}$. For
the numerical simulation, we only need to choose one $g^{\epsilon}$
for $\epsilon$ small enough.
The underlying asset $S^1$ and the value of the counterparty's
assets $S^2$ are both taken to be non-traded assets so $n=2$ and
prices follow (\ref{dynamics of nontraded assets_2}). The option
holder faces some unhedgeable price risk (due to $S^1$) and some
unhedgeable counterparty default risk (due to $S^2$). She can
partially hedge risks by trading the financial index $P$ following
(\ref{P_equ_2}).
Our benchmark models for comparison are those of Johnson and Stulz
\cite{Johnson}, Klein \cite{Klein} and Klein and Inglis
\cite{KI2001} who take a structural approach to price vulnerable
options in a complete market setting and obtain two dimensional
Black Scholes style formulas. Other treatments of vulnerable options
include complete market models with intertemporal default (see Liang
and Ren \cite{LR2007} and the references therein). Implicit in this
prior literature are the twin assumptions that the asset underlying
the option and the assets of the counterparty can be traded, and
therefore, can be used to hedge the counterparty risk of
derivatives. Our use of the utility indifference approach is
motivated by its recent use in credit risk modeling where the
concern is the default of the reference name rather than the default
of the counterparty.\footnote{ Utility based pricing has also been
utilized by Bielecki and Jeanblanc \cite{Bielecki1}, Sircar and
Zariphopolou \cite{MR2642963} and recently Jiao et al \cite{Jiao1}
\cite{Jiao2} in an intensity based setting.} Several authors have
applied it in modeling of defaultable bonds where the problem
remains one dimensional, see in particular Leung et al \cite{leung}
and Liang and Jiang \cite{LJ2009} and Jaimungal and Sigloch
\cite{JS2009}. In contrast, options subject to counterparty risk are
a natural situation where two or more dimensions arise.
We were also motivated to study indifference pricing of derivatives
subject to counterparty risk by the work of Hung and Liu \cite{Hung}
and Murgoci \cite{Murgoci1}. These papers take a {\it good deal
bounds} approach to pricing, acknowledging the incompleteness of the
market but producing prices which are linear in quantity.
Furthermore, the method does not allow for any partial hedging on
the part of the investor and can produce bounds which can be quite
wide.
Based on Theorem \ref{semigrouptheorem}, we give the following
approximation scheme for the unit utility indifference price
$\mathfrak{C}(s_1,s_2,0)$ of the vulnerable option. Following
(\ref{logoperator}) we make the change of variable $x=\ln s_1$ and
$y=\ln s_2$, and define a new operator:
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta}=\bar{\sigma}_1\frac{\partial}{\partial
x}+\bar{\sigma}_2\frac{\partial}{\partial y}.$$
\begin{itemize}
\item (i) Partition $[0,T]$ into $N$ equal intervals:
$$0=t_0<t_1<\cdots<t_N=T.$$
\item (ii) On $[t_{N-1},t_N]$, predict the solution by solving the
following PDE with the given terminal data $g^{\epsilon}$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_t\mathfrak{C}^1+\frac12\partial_{\eta\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1-\frac{\gamma}{2}(1-\bar{\kappa}^P)(\partial_{\eta}\mathfrak{C}^1)^2=0,\\[+0.4cm]
\mathfrak{C}^1|_{t=t_{N}}=g^{\epsilon}.&
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
The above equation can be linearized via the Cole-Hopf
transformation:
$$\bar{\mathfrak{C}}^1=\exp(-\gamma(1-\bar{\kappa}^P)\mathfrak{C}^1).$$
In particular, we obtain $\mathfrak{C}^1|_{t=t_{N-1}}$.
\item (iii) On $[t_{N-1},t_N]$, correct the solution by solving the
following PDE with the terminal data
$\mathfrak{C}^1|_{t=t_{N-1}}$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{t}\mathfrak{C}^2+\frac12\sigma_1^2\partial_{xx}\mathfrak{C}^2+\frac12\sigma_2^2\partial_{yy}\mathfrak{C}^2+A_1\partial_x\mathfrak{C}^2+
A_2\partial_y\mathfrak{C}^2\\[+0.4cm]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\frac{\gamma}{2}\sigma_1^2(\partial_x\mathfrak{C}^2)^2-\frac{\gamma}{2}\sigma_2^2(\partial_y\mathfrak{C}^2)^2=0,\\[+0.4cm]
\mathfrak{C}^2|_{t=t_{N}}=\mathfrak{C}^1|_{t=t_{N-1}}
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
where $A_1, A_2$ are given in (\ref{Ai}) to be
$A_i=\mu_i-\frac{1}{2}(\sigma_i^2+\bar{\sigma}_i^2)-\bar{\vartheta}^P\bar{\sigma}_i;
\: \: i=1,2$. The above equation can also be linearized by making
the exponential transformation: $$\bar{\mathfrak{C}}^2=\exp(-\gamma
\mathfrak{C}^2).$$ In particular, we obtain
$\mathfrak{C}^2|_{t=t_{N-1}}$, which is used as the approximation of
$\mathfrak{C}|_{t=t_{N-1}}$.
\item (iv) Repeat the above procedure on $[t_{N-2},t_{N-1}]$, and
obtain $\mathfrak{C}|_{t=t_{N-2}}$ $\cdots$
\end{itemize}
We present results for the European put with payoff $h(S^1_T) =
(K-S^1_T)^+$. If $S^1$ and $S^2$ are positively correlated, this
means when the put option is valuable (in-the-money), the firm's
assets $S^2$ tend to be small, so there is a high risk of default.
It is important to take counterparty risk into account for puts in
this case, as it will have a relatively large impact on the price.
(This would be even more significant when the default trigger
involves the option liability). However, for a call, when the call
is in-the-money, there is little default risk, and so counterparty
risk is less important. Unless otherwise stated, the parameters are:
$K=150$; $T=1$; $S^1=50$; $S^2=100$; $L=1000$; $\alpha=0.05$;
$\gamma = 1$; $\mu_P = 0.1$; $\sigma_P = 0.15$; $\bar{\sigma}_P =
0.2$; $\mu_1 = 0.15$; $\sigma_1 = 0.25$; $\bar{\sigma}_1 = 0.3$;
$\mu_2 = 0.1$; $\sigma_2 = 0.3$; $\bar{\sigma}_2 =0.2$. These
parameters result in correlation between the underlying asset and
firm's assets of $\rho_{1 2}=0.4 $; and correlations between each
asset and the financial index $P$ of $ \rho_{1 P}=0.6;\ \ \rho_{2
P}=0.4.$.
In Figure \ref{Fig-N} we show how the approximation converges as we
increase the number of time steps $N$. For our parameter values,
$N=11$ steps is sufficient for the prices to converge and we use it
in all subsequent figures. We aim to compare the utility
indifference price with hedging in the {\it financial index} with
the benchmark risk neutral price in a complete market (computed as
in Lemma \ref{complete_lemma} with $n=2$, as studied in Klein
\cite{Klein}). We also compare to the situation where the financial
index is independent of the other assets and thus there is {\it no
hedging} carried out. This price was given earlier in Corollary
\ref{corollary1}. Figure \ref{Fig-approx} provides a demonstration
of the accuracy of the algorithm. We take $\bar{\sigma}_{P} = 0$ and
compare the splitting approximation to the formula in Corollary
\ref{corollary1}.
Figure \ref{Fig-S} shows the vulnerable option price(s) against the
underlying asset price $S^1$. The two panels of Figure \ref{Fig-S}
are intended to illustrate a ``close or likely to default'' scenario
(the left panel with $S^2=500$ relative to $L=1000$) and a ``far or
unlikely to default'' scenario (the right panel with $S_2=1400$
relative to $L=1000$). As expected, in both panels the risk neutral
or complete market price is the highest. In both panels, as the
underlying asset price becomes very large, all option prices tend to
zero, as the put is worthless, regardless of the default. At
$S^1=0$, in the right panel, the option price is equal to the option
strike $K=150$. In the left panel, the option price is lower due to
the risk of counterparty default. As $S^1$ increases, all option
prices decrease, as the moneyness of the put changes. When $S^1$ is
close to zero, we see a dramatic drop in the utility indifference
prices (relative to the risk neutral prices) due to the risk
aversion towards unhedgeable price and default risks. Recall that
since the underlying asset and firm's assets are positively
correlated, default risk becomes more important for low values of
the underlying asset. The price drop is much more significant in the
left panel (and in this extreme case, the option price drops down to
zero if no hedging can be carried out), where the likelihood of
counterparty default is higher. The option holder's risk aversion
causes the utility indifference prices to lie below the risk neutral
price (in each default scenario) with the relative discount to the
risk neutral price being much greater in the left panel where
default is more likely. Assuming the holder can hedge in the
financial index, there is a drop of around 75\% from the
risk-neutral price to the utility indifference price. In the right
panel, where the likelihood of default is relatively low, the
difference between the utility indifference price(s) and the
risk-neutral price is not as dramatic, and is at most around 20\% of
the risk-neutral price. We also see that the ability to hedge in the
correlated financial index (versus no hedging at all) is more
important when the default risk is higher (in the left panel).
Figure \ref{Fig-V} displays the impact of the option writer's asset
value $S^2$ on the option price for a fixed asset price $S^1$. We
see a dramatic difference in the behavior of the risk neutral price
and the utility indifference prices. Under risk neutrality, the
option price increases smoothly with $S^2$. However, under utility
indifference, the prices are low and do not change much with values
of $S^2$ below the default trigger of $L=1000$. This is despite the
put being in-the-money. As $S^2$ increases beyond the default level,
the likelihood of default diminishes, and the utility indifference
prices start to increase with $S^2$. Note that the utility price is
not always below the risk neutral price. Although Proposition
\ref{Asy2} tells us that the risk neutral price is obtained as a
limiting case of the utility indifference price, it requires
condition (\ref{CAPM}) to hold.
Figure \ref{Fig-gamma} compares how the vulnerable option price
changes with risk aversion parameter $\gamma$, and the idiosyncratic
volatilities $\sigma_1, \sigma_2$.The left panel plots vulnerable
option prices against maturity $T$ for various values of risk
aversion $\gamma$. We see that the more risk averse the option
holder is, the less she will pay for the option, consistent with
Proposition \ref{Asy1}. The other observation is that option prices
for a fixed $\gamma$ are decreasing with maturity $T$. The risk
neutral price is also decreasing with $T$, albeit very gradually.
This is in contrast to risk neutral prices for non-default European
put options which will increase in $T$ provided there are no
dividends. The reason is that there is a tradeoff between price and
default risk. If the maturity is longer, there is more chance for
both $S^1$ and $S^2$ to fall - $S^1$ falling means the put is more
valuable, but $S^2$ falling increases the default risk. For the
parameters considered, the default risk is the dominant factor and
thus the option price decreases with $T$. This is also in contrast
to the call option, where Klein \cite{Klein} reports that the risk
neutral price increases with maturity.
Recall that we do not expect price monotonicity in terms of the
correlations, except in the situation outlined in Proposition
\ref{prop-corr}. Here we give an example of prices for various
values of the idiosyncratic volatilities $\sigma_1, \sigma_2$. The
left panel sets parameters to be $\mu_1=0.1$ and $\mu_2=0.06$ to
satisfy the CAPM restriction on Sharpe ratios. If
$\sigma_1=\sigma_2=0$, then we have $\rho_{1 2}=1$, $\rho_{1 P}=0.8$
and $\rho_{2 P}=0.8$. Similarly if $\sigma_1=0.25$ and
$\sigma_2=0.3$ then $\rho_{1 2}=0.4$, $\rho_{1 P}=0.6$ and $\rho_{2
P}=0.4$. Finally, if $\sigma_1=\sigma_2=1$ then $\rho_{1 2}=0.06$,
$\rho_{1 P}=0.2$ and $\rho_{2 P}=0.16$. We see that as $\sigma_1,
\sigma_2$ increase, the utility indifference price falls.
Correspondingly, as the correlations $\rho_{1 2}, \rho_{1 P},
\rho_{2 P}$ increase, the option price rises.
\section{Concluding Remarks}\label{sec-conclude}
We close with several suggestions for further work. In this paper,
we prove the convergence of our splitting method for the utility
indifference pricing PDE but do not concern ourselves with the
convergence rate. Tools such as Krylov's idea of ``shaking the
coefficients'' (see \cite{Krylov}) and Barles and Jakobsen's
``switching system'' (see \cite{BJ}) could be useful. A second
suggestion for further investigation is to employ the splitting
method to give a numerical scheme to solve quadratic BSDEs. To
achieve this goal, the first problem may be to understand the
\emph{monotone scheme} from a probabilistic perspective, we refer to
Cont and Voltchkova \cite{Cont} and Dai and Wu \cite{Dai}.
Several developments in the Markovian setting of Section
\ref{sec-markovian} may be of interest. A first comment is that the
splitting relies on the special setup of the one factor model and it
does not seem possible to extend beyond this case. It would be
interesting to consider alternative numerical methods which could be
used in the general multidimensional framework. Second, following
Eberlein and Madan \cite{E&M} we could extend our counterparty risk
model in Section \ref{sec-application} to treat assets and
liabilities as separate stochastic processes. Finally, in this paper
we price European claims in a multidimensional non-traded assets
framework. Extensions to corresponding American claims in a
multidimensional model (following work of Oberman and Zariphopoulou
\cite{OZ} and Henderson \cite{Henderson-Real-option} in one
dimension) would allow us to consider intertemporal counterparty
default.
\setcounter{section}{0}
\section*{Appendix}
\textbf{Proof of Lemma \ref{Lemma for n nontraded assets}.} We
characterize the value function of the optimization problem
(\ref{optm1}) by the solution of quadratic BSDE. By plugging
(\ref{X_equ}) into (\ref{optm1}), we have
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{\pi\in\mathcal{A}_{ad}[0,T]}E^{\mathbf{P}}
\left[-e^{-\gamma\left(x-\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}
+\int_0^T\pi_s\left(\mu^P_sds+\langle\sigma^P_s,d\mathcal{W}_s\rangle\right)
+\lambda g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot}) \right)}\right]\\
=&-e^{-\gamma(x-\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda})}\inf_{\pi\in\mathcal{A}_{ad}[0,T]}
E^{\mathbf{P}}
\left[e^{-\gamma\left(\int_0^T\pi_s\left(\mu^P_sds+\langle\sigma^P_s,d\mathcal{W}_s\rangle\right)
+\lambda g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot}) \right)}\right]\\
=&-e^{-\gamma(x-\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda})}
\exp\left\{-\gamma\sup_{\pi\in\mathcal{A}_{ad}[0,T]}\mathcal{Y}_0(\pi)\right\},
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{Y}_0(\pi)$ denotes the risk-sensitive control
criterion:
$$\mathcal{Y}_0(\pi)=\frac{-1}{\gamma}
\ln E^{\mathbf{P}}
\left[e^{-\gamma\left(\int_0^T\pi_s\left(\mu^P_sds+\langle\sigma^P_s,d\mathcal{W}_s\rangle\right)
+\lambda g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot}) \right)}\right].$$ We further
introduce the risk-sensitive control problem:
$$\mathcal{Y}_0=\sup_{\pi\in\mathcal{A}_{ad}[0,T]}\mathcal{Y}_0(\pi).$$
In the following, we characterize both $\mathcal{Y}_0(\pi)$ and
$\mathcal{Y}_0$ by the solutions of quadratic BSDEs.
Let us first consider the risk-sensitive control criterion
$\mathcal{Y}_0(\pi)$. For any given trading strategy
$\pi\in\mathcal{A}_{ad}[0,T]$, we define $\mathbf{P}$-$BMO$
martingale:
\begin{equation*}
N_t=-\int_0^{t}\gamma\pi_s\langle\sigma^P_s,d\mathcal{W}_s\rangle,\
\ \ \text{for}\ t\in[0,T].
\end{equation*}
Indeed, for any $\mathcal{F}_t$-stopping time $\tau\in[0,T]$, we
have
\begin{align*}
\sup_{\tau}E^{\mathbf{P}}[|N_T-N_{\tau}|^2|\mathcal{F}_{\tau}]
=&\ \sup_{\tau}E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[\left.\int_{\tau}^T\gamma^2||\sigma_s^P||^2|\pi_s|^2ds\right|\mathcal{F}_{\tau}\right]\\
\leq&\
CT\sup_{\tau}E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[\left.\int_{\tau}^T|\pi_s|^2ds\right|\mathcal{F}_{\tau}\right]<\infty.
\end{align*}
Hence the Dol\'eans-Dade exponential $\mathcal{E}(N)$ is uniformly
integrable, and we change the probability measure by defining
$\frac{d\bar{\mathbf{Q}}}{d\mathbf{P}}=\mathcal{E}(N)$. Under the
new probability measure $\bar{\mathbf{Q}}$, the risk-sensitive
control criterion becomes
$$\mathcal{Y}_0(\pi)=
\frac{-1}{\gamma}\ln E^{\bar{\mathbf{Q}}}
\left[e^{-\int_0^T(\gamma\mu_s^P\pi_s-\frac{1}{2}\gamma^2||\sigma_s^P||^2|\pi_s|^2)ds}
e^{-\gamma\lambda g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})}\right]$$ which is the
unique solution to the following quadratic BSDE:
\begin{equation}\label{QBSDEwithconrol}
\mathcal{Y}_t(\pi)=\lambda g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})
+\int_t^{T}\left(F_s(\pi)-\frac{\gamma}{2}||\mathcal{Z}_s||^2\right)ds-
\int_t^{T}\langle\mathcal{Z}_s,d\bar{\mathcal{W}}_s\rangle
\end{equation}
with
$$F_s(\pi)=\mu_s^P\pi_s-\frac{\gamma}{2}||\sigma_s^P||^2|\pi_s|^2,$$
and $\bar{\mathcal{W}}=\mathcal{W}-[\mathcal{W},N]$ being the
Brownian motion under $\bar{\mathbf{Q}}$. Indeed, note that
(\ref{QBSDEwithconrol}) can be reformulated as
$$\mathcal{Y}_t(\pi)+\int_0^{t}F_s(\pi)ds=
\lambda g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})+\int_0^{T}F_s(\pi)ds-
\int_t^{T}\frac{\gamma}{2}||\mathcal{Z}_s||^2ds-
\int_t^{T}\langle\mathcal{Z}_s,d\bar{\mathcal{W}}_s\rangle.$$ By
changing variables:
$$\bar{\mathcal{Y}}_t(\pi)=e^{-\gamma\left(\mathcal{Y}_t(\pi)+\int_0^{t}F_s(\pi)ds\right)};\ \ \
\bar{\mathcal{Z}}_t=-\gamma\bar{\mathcal{Y}}_t(\pi)\mathcal{Z}_t,$$
we have
$$\bar{\mathcal{Y}}_t(\pi)
=e^{-\gamma\left(\lambda
g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})+\int_0^{T}F_s(\pi)ds\right)}-
\int_t^{T}\langle\bar{\mathcal{Z}}_s,d\bar{\mathcal{W}}_s\rangle,$$
which has the explicit solution:
\begin{align*}
\bar{\mathcal{Y}}_0(\pi)&=E^{\bar{\mathbf{Q}}}\left[e^{-\gamma\left(\lambda
g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})+\int_0^{T}F_s(\pi)ds\right)}\right]\\
&= E^{\bar{\mathbf{Q}}}
\left[e^{-\int_0^T(\gamma\mu_s^P\pi_s-\frac{1}{2}\gamma^2||\sigma_s^P||^2|\pi_s|^2)ds}
e^{-\gamma\lambda g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})}\right].
\end{align*}
Next, we consider the risk-sensitive control problem for
$\mathcal{Y}_0$. Note that under the probability measure
$\mathbf{P}$, (\ref{QBSDEwithconrol}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{QBSDEwithconrol2}
\mathcal{Y}_t(\pi)=\lambda g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})
+\int_t^{T}\left(F_s(\pi)-\gamma\langle\sigma_s^p,\mathcal{Z}_s\rangle\pi_s
-\frac{\gamma}{2}||\mathcal{Z}_s||^2\right)ds-
\int_t^{T}\langle\mathcal{Z}_s,d\mathcal{W}_s\rangle.
\end{equation}
By the comparison principle for quadratic BSDE,
$\mathcal{Y}_0=\sup_{\pi\in\mathcal{A}_{ad}[0,T]}\mathcal{Y}_0(\pi)$
is the unique solution to the following quadratic BSDE:
$$\mathcal{Y}_t=\lambda g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})+\int_0^TF_sds-
\int_t^{T}\langle\mathcal{Z}_s,d\mathcal{W}_s\rangle$$ with
\begin{align*}
F_s=&\sup_{\pi_s}\left\{F_s(\pi)-\gamma\langle\sigma_s^p,\mathcal{Z}_s\rangle\pi_s
-\frac{\gamma}{2}||\mathcal{Z}_s||^2\right\}\\
&=-\frac{\gamma}{2}||\mathcal{Z}_s||^2+\frac{\gamma}{2||\sigma_s^P||^2}\left|\langle\sigma_s^P,\mathcal{Z}_s\rangle-\frac{\mu_s^P}{\gamma}\right|^2,
\end{align*}
and
$$\bar{\pi}_s^*=-\frac{\langle\sigma_s^P,\mathcal{Z}_s\rangle}{||\sigma_s^P||^2}+\frac{\mu_s^P}{\gamma||\sigma_s^P||^2}.$$
To verify that $\bar{\pi}^*\in\mathcal{A}_{ad}[0,T]$, we only need
to note that
$\int_0^{\cdot}\langle\mathcal{Z}_s,d\mathcal{W}_s\rangle$ is a
$\mathbf{P}$-\emph{BMO} martingale and Assumptions (A1) and (A2) on
the coefficients.
The optimization problem (\ref{optm2}) is a special case of
(\ref{optm1}) with $\lambda=0$, whose solution is
$$-\exp\left\{-\gamma\left(x+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\int_0^T\frac{|\mu_s^P|^2}{||\sigma^P_s||^2}ds\right)\right\},$$
and the optimal trading strategy $\pi^{*}$ is given by
$\pi^*_t=\frac{\mu_t^P}{\gamma||\sigma_t^P||^2}.$
Finally, by Definition \ref{definition1}, the price
$\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}$ is given by the solution to
\begin{align*}
-e^{-\gamma\left(x- \mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}+{\cal{Y}}_0\right)}&
=E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[-e^{-\gamma\left(X_T^{x-\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}}
(\bar{\pi}^*)+\lambda g({\cal{S}}_{\cdot})\right)}\right]\\
&=E^{\mathbf{P}}\left[-e^{-\gamma
X_T^x(\pi^*)}\right]=-e^{-\gamma\left(x+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\int_0^T\frac{|\mu_s^P|^2}{||\sigma_s^P||^2}ds\right)},
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}&={\cal{Y}}_0-\frac{1}{2\gamma}\int_0^T\frac{|\mu_s^P|^2}{||\sigma_s^P||^2}ds\\
&=\lambda
g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})+\int_0^TF_sds-\int_0^T{\cal{Z}}_s\cdot
d{\cal{W}}_s-\frac{1}{2\gamma}\int_0^T\frac{|\mu_s^P|^2}{||\sigma_s^P||^2}ds\\
&=\lambda
g(\mathcal{S}_{\cdot})+\int_0^Tf(s,{\cal{Z}}_s)ds-\int_0^T{\cal{Z}}_s\cdot
d{\cal{W}}_s,
\end{align*}
and the hedging strategy for such $\lambda$ units of the option is
given by
$$\bar{\pi}^*_t-\pi^*_t=
-\frac{\langle\sigma_t^P,\mathcal{Z}_t\rangle}{||\sigma_t^P||^2}+\frac{\mu_t^P}{\gamma||\sigma_t^P||^2}-\frac{\mu_t^P}{\gamma||\sigma_t^P||^2}
=-\frac{\langle\sigma_t^P,\mathcal{Z}_t\rangle}{||\sigma_t^P||^2},$$
which completes the proof.\\
\textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{Corollary3}}. The type of FBSDE is in
fact a special case of functional differential equations studied by
Liang et al in \cite{LLQ2009} and \cite{LLQ2010}. We define
$\mathfrak{S}([0,T],\mathbb{R}^n)$, the space of continuous and
$\mathcal{F}_t$-adapted processes valued in $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that
$\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\sum_{i=1}^n|S^i_t|\in
L^2(\Omega,\mathcal{F}_T,\mathbf{Q})$ and endowed with the norm:
$$||\mathcal{S}||_{\mathfrak{S}}=
E^{\mathbf{Q}}\left\{\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\sum_{i=1}^n|S^i_t|^2\right\}^{1/2}.$$
Then for $\mathcal{S}^m$ and $\mathcal{S}^{m+1}$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\ E^{\mathbf{Q}}\left\{\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\sum_{i=1}^n|\ln
S_t^{m+1,i}-\ln S_t^{m,i} |^2\right\}^{1/2}\\
=&\ E^{\mathbf{Q}}\left\{\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\sum_{i=1}^n
\left|\int_0^t\frac{\gamma}{2}\langle\sigma_s^{i},\mathcal{Z}_s^{m}-\mathcal{Z}_s^{m-1}\rangle
-\frac{\gamma\langle\sigma_s^{i},\sigma_s^{P}\rangle}{2||\sigma_s^P||}\langle\sigma_s^P,\mathcal{Z}_s^{m}-\mathcal{Z}_s^{m-1}\rangle
ds\right|^2\right\}^{1/2}\\
\leq&\
C\sqrt{T}E^{\mathbf{Q}}\left\{\int_0^T||\mathcal{Z}_s^m-\mathcal{Z}_s^{m-1}||^2ds\right\}^{1/2}\\
=&\
C\sqrt{T}E^{\mathbf{Q}}\left\{\left|\int_0^T\langle\mathcal{Z}^m-\mathcal{Z}^{m-1},d\mathcal{B}_s\rangle\right|^2\right\}^{1/2}\\
\leq&\
C\sqrt{T}E^{\mathbf{Q}}\left\{|g(\mathcal{S}^m_{\cdot})-g(\mathcal{S}^{m-1}_{\cdot})|^2\right\}^{1/2}\\
\leq&\
CK\sqrt{T}E^{\mathbf{Q}}\left\{\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\sum_{i=1}^n|\ln
S_t^{m,i}-\ln S_t^{m-1,i}|^2\right\}^{1/2}.
\end{align*}
We iterate the above inequality and obtain
$$||\ln\mathcal{S}^{m+1}-\ln\mathcal{S}^{m}||_{\mathfrak{S}}\leq (CK\sqrt{T})^{m}||\ln\mathcal{S}^{1}-\ln\mathcal{S}^{0}||_{\mathfrak{S}}.$$
Hence if either $T$ or $K$ is small enough, for any natural number
$p$,
\begin{align*}
||\ln\mathcal{S}^{m+p}-\ln\mathcal{S}^{m}||_{\mathfrak{S}}&\leq\sum_{j=1}^{p}||\ln\mathcal{S}^{m+j}-\ln\mathcal{S}^{m+j-1}||_{\mathfrak{S}}\\
&\leq\frac{(CK\sqrt{T})^m}{1-CK\sqrt{T}}||\ln\mathcal{S}^{1}-\ln\mathcal{S}^{0}||_{\mathfrak{S}}\rightarrow
0
\end{align*}
when $m\rightarrow\infty$. Therefore, $\ln\mathcal{S}^{m}$ is a
Cauchy sequence in $\mathfrak{S}([0,T];\mathbb{R}^n)$ and converges
to some $\ln \mathcal{S}$, and moreover, by Dominated Convergence
Theorem,
$$\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}
E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\lambda
g(\mathcal{S}^m_{\cdot})]=E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\lambda
g(\mathcal{S}{\cdot})].$$
The rest of the proof is to verify $E^{\mathbf{Q}}[\lambda
g(\mathcal{S}{\cdot})]=\mathfrak{C}_0^{\lambda}$, which follows by a
reverse use of Girsanov's transformation in Theorem
\ref{new_prob_representation_theorem}, and we leave it to the
reader.\\
\newpage
\small
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Intro}
The Carmichael lambda function $\lambda(n)$ is defined to be the order of the largest cyclic subgroup of the multiplicative subgroup $(\Z / n\Z)^{\times}.$ It can be computed using the identity $\lambda(\lcm\{a,b\})=\lcm\{\lambda(a),\lambda(b)\}$ and its values at prime powers which are $\lambda(p^{k})=\phi(p^{k})=p^k-p^{k-1}$ for odd primes $p$ and $\lambda(2)=1,\lambda(4)=2,$ and $\lambda(2^{k})=\phi(2^{k})/2=2^{k-2}$ for $k \ge 3$.
Several properties of $\lambda(n)$ were studied by Erd\H os, Pomerance, and Schmutz in \cite{EPS}. In particular they showed that $\lambda(n)=n \exp(-(1+o(1))\log\log n \log\log\log n)$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$ for almost all $n$. Martin and Pomerance showed in \cite{MP} that $\lambda(\lambda(n))=n \exp(-(1+o(1))(\log\log n)^2 \log\log\log n)$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$ for almost all $n$. The $k$--fold iterated Carmichael lambda function is defined recursively to be
$$\lambda_1(n)=\lambda(n),~~\lambda_k(n)=\lambda(\lambda_{k-1}(n)).$$ We define $\phi_k(n)$ similarly.
In \cite{MP} it is conjectured that $$\lambda_{k}(n)=n \exp\bigg({-}\frac{1}{(k-1)!}(1+o_k(1))(\log\log n)^k \log\log\log n \bigg)$$ for almost all $n.$ In this paper we prove that conjecture.
\begin{theorem} \label{MainTheorem} For fixed $k$, the normal order of $\log \frac{n}{\lambda_{k}(n)}$ is $\frac{1}{(k-1)!}(\log\log{n})^{k}\log\log\log{n}$. \end{theorem}
We'll actually prove the theorem in the following slightly stronger form. Given any function $\psi(x)=o(\log\log\log x)$ and $\psi(x) \rightarrow \infty$ as $x \rightarrow \infty$ we have
$$\log\bigg(\frac{n}{\lambda_{k}(n)}\bigg) = \frac{1}{(k-1)!} (\log\log n)^{k} \bigg(\log\log\log n + O_k\big(\psi(n) \big)\bigg)$$ for all but $O(x/\psi(x))$ integers up to $x$.
We will also turn our attention to finding an asymptotic formula involving iterates involving $\lambda$ and $\phi$. Banks, Luca, S\u{a}id\u{a}k, and Stanic in \cite{BLSS} showed that for almost all $n$,
$$\lambda(\phi(n))=n \exp(-(1+o(1))(\log\log n)^2 \log\log\log n) \text{ and }$$
$$\phi(\lambda(n))=n \exp(-(1+o(1))(\log\log n) \log\log\log n).$$
As a corollary to Theorem \ref{MainTheorem} we will obtain asymptotic formulas for higher iterates involving $\lambda$ and $\phi.$ Specifically we prove the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{Second}
For $l\ge 0$ and $k \ge 1$, let $g(n)=\phi_l(\lambda(f(n)))$, where $f(n)$ is a $(k-1)$ iterated arithmetic function consisting of iterates of $\phi$ and $\lambda$. Then the normal order of $\log(n/g(n))$ is $\frac{1}{(k-1)!}(\log\log{n})^{k}\log\log\log{n}.$
\end{theorem} An example of the use of this theorem is for $\phi\phi\lambda\phi\phi\lambda\lambda\phi(n).$ Since $l=2,k=5,$ we get that the normal order of $\log \frac{n}{\phi\phi\lambda\phi\phi\lambda\lambda\phi(n)}$ is
$$\frac{1}{4!}(\log\log n)^5 \log\log\log n.$$
The proof of Theorem \ref{MainTheorem} involves breaking down $\frac{n}{\lambda_{k}(n)}$ in terms of the iterated Euler $\phi$ function by using
\begin{equation}\label{AA}\frac{n}{\lambda_k(n)}=\bigg(\frac{n}{\phi(n)}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\phi(n)}{\phi_2(n)}\bigg)\dots \bigg(\frac{\phi_{k-1}(n)}{\phi_{k}(n)}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\phi_{k}(n)}{\lambda_{k}(n)}\bigg)\end{equation} of which estimates for all but the last term are known. Hence $\log \frac{n}{\lambda_{k}(n)}$ can be written as a sum of the logarithms on the right side of \eqref{AA} and so we'll analyze the term $\log(\phi_k(n)/\lambda_k(n)).$ The following notations and conventions will be used throughout the paper. The letters $p,q,r$ will always denote primes and $k \ge 2$ will be a fixed integer. Note that the theorem has already been proven for $k=1.$ Let $v_{p}(n)$ be the largest power of $p$ which divides $n,$ so that
$$n= \prod_{p}p^{v_{p}(n)}.$$ Let the set $\p_n$ be $\{p : p \equiv 1 \pmod{n} \}.$ Throughout the paper we will assume $x>e^{e^e}$ and $y=y(x)=\log\log x.$ Also let $\psi(x)$ be any function going to $\infty$ such that $\psi(x)=o(\log y)=o(\log\log\log x).$ Whenever we use the phrase ``for almost all $n\le x$'' in a result, we mean that the result is true for all $n \le x$ except a set of size $O(x/\psi(x)).$ Lastly we note that any implicit constant may depend on $k.$
\section{Required Estimates}
The following estimates will be used throughout the paper. We use the Chebeshev bound
\begin{equation}\label{Cheb}
\sum_{n\le x} \Lambda(n) = \sum_{p\le x}\log p \ll x
\end{equation} where $\Lambda(n)$ is the von--Mangoldt function. We also require a formula of Mertens (See \cite[Theorem 2.7(b)]{MV})
\begin{equation} \label{Merten}
\sum_{q \le x} \frac{\log q}{q} = \log x + O(1).
\end{equation}
Using partial summation on \eqref{Cheb} we can obtain the tail estimates
\begin{equation} \label{logq_q2}
\sum_{q>x} \frac{\log q}{q^{2}} \ll \frac{1}{x}
\end{equation} and
\begin{equation} \label{1_q2}
\sum_{q>x} \frac{1}{q^{2}} \ll \frac{1}{x \log x}.
\end{equation}
Given $m,x$, let $A$ be the smallest $a$ for which $m^a>x.$ We can then manipulate the sums
$$\sum_{a \in \nat} \frac{P(a)}{m^{a}}=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{a=0}^{\infty} \frac{P(a)}{m^{a}} \text{ and } \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ m^{a}>x}}\frac{P(a)}{m^{a}} \ll \frac{1}{x}\bigg| \sum_{a=0}^{\infty} \frac{P(a)}{m^{a-A}}\bigg|=\frac{1}{x}\bigg| \sum_{a=A}^{\infty} \frac{Q(a)}{m^{a}}\bigg|$$ for $Q(x)=P(x+A).$ Then by noting that $\sum_{a=A}^{\infty} \frac{P(a)}{m^{a}}\ll_P 1$ uniformly for $m\ge 2$ and $A \ge 0$ we obtain the estimates
\begin{equation} \label{geometric}
\sum_{a \in \nat} \frac{P(a)}{m^{a}} \ll_{P} \frac{1}{m}, \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ m^{a}>x}} \frac{P(a)}{m^{a}} \ll_{P} \frac{1}{x}.
\end{equation}
From \cite[Corollary 1.15]{MV} we get
\begin{equation}\label{Recip1}
\sum_{s \le x} \frac{1}{s} = \log x + O(1)
\end{equation} from which it easily follows that
\begin{equation}\label{Recip2}
\sum_{\substack{D \le s \le x \\ s \equiv a \pmod{C}}} \frac{1}{s} \ll \frac{1}{D}+\frac{\log x}{C}.
\end{equation}
We will also make frequent use of the Brun-Titchmarsh inequality \cite[Theorem 3.9]{MV}
\begin{equation} \label{BT1}
\pi(t;n,a) \ll \frac{t}{\phi(n)\log(t/n)}.
\end{equation}
By partial summation on \eqref{BT1} we can obtain
\begin{equation} \label{BT2}
\sum_{\substack{p \le t \\ p \in \p_n}} \frac{1}{p} \ll \frac{\log\log t}{\phi(n)}.
\end{equation}
Whenever $n/\phi(n)$ is bounded, as it will be whenever $n$ is a prime, prime power or a product of two prime powers, we can replace this bound with
\begin{equation} \label{BT}
\sum_{\substack{p \le t \\ p \in \p_n}} \frac{1}{p} \le \frac{c\log\log t}{n}
\end{equation}
for some absolute constant $c$. We include the $c$ because occasionally we require an inequality as opposed to an estimate. We will also require the following asymptotic from \cite[Theorem 1]{P}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\substack{p \in \p_{n} \\ p \leq t}} \frac{1}{p}=\frac{\log \log t}{\phi(n)}+O\bigg(\frac{\log n}{\phi(n)}\bigg),
\end{equation}
which easily implies that
\begin{equation}\label{BT3}
\sum_{\substack{p \in \p_{n} \\ p \leq t}} \frac{1}{p-1}=\frac{\log \log t}{\phi(n)}+O\bigg(\frac{\log n}{\phi(n)}\bigg),
\end{equation}
since the difference is
\begin{align*}\sum\limits_{\substack{p \in \p_{n} \\ p \leq t}} \frac{1}{p(p-1)} \le \sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{mn(mn+1)} < \frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{m^2} \ll \frac{1}{n^2}.\end{align*}
\section{Required Propositions and Proof of Theorem \ref{MainTheorem}}\label{Props}
As mentioned previously, the main contribution to $\log(n/\lambda_k(n))$ will come from $\log(\phi_k(n)/\lambda_k(n)).$ Finding this term will involve a summation over prime powers which divide each of $\phi_k(n)$ and $\lambda_k(n).$ It turns out that the largest contribution to this term will come from small primes which divide $\phi_k(n).$ By small, we mean primes $q\le(\log\log x)^k=y^k.$ Hence we will split the sum into small primes and large primes $q>y^k.$ Therefore to prove Theorem \ref{MainTheorem} we will require the following propositions. The first summations deal with the large primes which divide $\phi_k(n)$ and the second involves the large primes whose prime powers divide $\phi_k(n).$ We will show that the contribution of these primes to the main sum is small and hence it will end up as part of the error term.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1} $$\sum_{\substack{q>y^{k} \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)=1}} (\nu_{q}(\phik)-\nu_{q}(\lamk))\log{q} \ll y^{k}\psi(x)$$ for almost all $n \leq x$. \end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop2} $$\sum_{\substack{q > y^{k}\\ \nu_{q}(\phik) \geq 2}} \nu_{q}(\phik) \log{q} \ll y^{k}\psi(x)$$ for almost all $n \leq x.$ \end{proposition}
Since the main contribution will come from small primes dividing $\phi_k(n)$, the next propostion will show that the contribution of small primes dividing $\lambda_{k}(n)$ to the main sum can also be merged into the error term.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop3} $$\sum_{q\leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(\lamk) \log{q} \ll y^{k}\psi(x)$$ for almost all $n \leq x.$ \end{proposition}
That will leave us with the contribution of small primes dividing $\phi_k(n).$ We will use an additive function to approximate this sum. Let $h_{k}(n)$ be the additive function defined by $$\hk(n) = \sum_{p_{1}\mid n} \sum_{p_{2}\mid p_{1}-1} \dots \sum_{p_{k} \mid p_{k-1}-1} \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(p_{k}-1)\log q.$$ The following propostion shows that the difference between the sum involving the small primes dividing $\phi_k(n)$ and the term $h_k(n)$ is small.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop4} $$\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(\phik)\log{q} = \hk(n) + O(y^{k-1}\log y \cdot \psi(x))$$ for almost all $n \leq x$, \end{proposition} That leaves us with $\log(\phi_k(n)/\lambda_k(n))$ being approximated by $h_k(n).$ The last proposition will obtain an asymptotic formula for $h_k(n).$ From there we will have enough armoury to tackle Theorem \ref{MainTheorem}.
\begin{proposition}\label{hkestimate} $$\hk(n) = \frac{1}{(k-1)!} y^{k} \log y + O(y^{k})$$ for almost all $n \leq x.$ \end{proposition}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{MainTheorem}] We start by breaking down the function $\log (n/\lambda_{k}(n)).$
$$\log\bigg(\frac{n}{\lambda_{k}(n)}\bigg)=\log\bigg(\frac{n}{\phi(n)}\bigg)+\log\bigg(\frac{\phi(n)}{\phi_{2}(n)}\bigg)+\dots+\log\bigg(\frac{\phi_{k-1}(n)}{\phi_{k}(n)}\bigg)+\log\bigg(\frac{\phi_{k}(n)}{\lambda_{k}(n)}\bigg).$$ Using the lower bound $\phi(m) \gg m/\log\log m,$ see \cite[Theorem 2.3]{MV} we have that
$$\log\bigg(\frac{n}{\phi(n)}\bigg)+\log\bigg(\frac{\phi(n)}{\phi_{2}(n)}\bigg)+\dots+\log\bigg(\frac{\phi_{k-1}(n)}{\phi_{k}(n)}\bigg) \ll \log\log\log n$$ and so
$$\log\bigg(\frac{n}{\lambda_{k}(n)}\bigg)=\log\bigg(\frac{\phi_{k}(n)}{\lambda_{k}(n)}\bigg)+O(\log\log\log n).$$ In fact we could have used a more precise estimate for $\phi_{i}(n)/\phi_{i+1}(n)$ for $i\ge 1$ which can be found in \cite{EGPS} but the one we used is more than good enough. Next we break down the remaining term into summations. We will break it up into small primes and large primes.
\begin{align*}
\log\bigg(\frac{\phi_{k}(n)}{\lambda_{k}(n)}\bigg) &= \sum_{\substack{q>y^{k}}} (\nu_{q}(\phik)-\nu_{q}(\lamk))\log{q} + \sum_{\substack{q \le y^{k}}} (\nu_{q}(\phik)-\nu_{q}(\lamk))\log{q} \\
& = \sum_{\substack{q>y^{k} \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)=1}} (\nu_{q}(\phik)-\nu_{q}(\lamk))\log{q} + \sum_{\substack{q>y^{k} \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)\ge 2}} (\nu_{q}(\phik)-\nu_{q}(\lamk))\log{q} \\ & \qquad + \sum_{q\leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(\phi_{k}(n)) \log{q}-\sum_{q\leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(\lamk) \log{q}.
\end{align*}
Note that if $a \mid b$, then $\lambda(a) \mid \phi(b)$ since $\lambda(a) \mid \phi(a) \mid \phi(ma)$ for any $m$. This quickly implies that $\lamk$ always divides $\phik$ for all $k$ and so we get
$$0\le \sum\limits_{\substack{q>y^{k} \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)\ge 2}} (\nu_{q}(\phik)-\nu_{q}(\lamk))\log{q} \le \sum\limits_{\substack{q>y^{k} \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)\ge 2}} (\nu_{q}(\phik)\log{q}.$$ Using Propositions \ref{prop1},\ref{prop2},\ref{prop3} and \ref{prop4} we get
$$\log\bigg(\frac{n}{\lambda_{k}(n)}\bigg) = \hk(n)+O\bigg(y^{k}\psi(x) \bigg)$$ for almost all $n \le x$. Finally by using Proposition \ref{hkestimate} we get
$$\log\bigg(\frac{n}{\lambda_{k}(n)}\bigg) = \frac{1}{(k-1)!} y^{k} \log y + O\bigg(y^{k}\psi(x) \bigg)$$ for almost all $n \le x,$ finishing the proof of Theorem \ref{MainTheorem}.
\end{proof}
\section{Prime Power Divisors of $\phi_{k}(n)$}\label{Intro}
For various reasons thoughout this paper, we are concerned with the number of $n \le x$ such that $q^{a}$ can divide $\phik$. We will analyze a few of those situations here:
Case 1: $q^{2} \mid n.$ Clearly the number of such $n$ is at most $\frac{x}{q^{2}}.$
Case 2: There exists $p_{1} \in \p_{q^{2}},p_{2} \in \p_{p_{1}},p_{3} \in \p_{p_{2}},...,p_{l} \in \p_{p_{l-1}}$ where $p_{l} \mid n.$ By using \eqref{BT} repeatedly we get that the number of such $n$ is
\begin{align*}\sum_{n \leq x} \sum_{p_{1} \in \p_{q^{2}}} \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{1}}}...\sum_{\substack{{p_{l} \in \p_{p_{l-1}}}\\ p_{l}|n}} 1 &= \sum_{p_{1} \in \p_{q^{2}}} \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{1}}}...\sum_{\substack{{p_{l} \in \p_{p_{l-1}}}\\ n \le x \\ p_{l}|n}} 1 \\
&\ll \sum_{p_{1} \in \p_{q^{2}}} \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{1}}}...\sum_{{p_{l} \in \p_{p_{l-1}}}} \frac{x}{p_{l}} \\
&\ll \sum_{p_{1} \in \p_{q^{2}}} \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{1}}}...\sum_{{p_{l-1} \in \p_{p_{l-2}}}} \frac{xy}{p_{l-1}} \\
&\ll \sum_{p_{1} \in \p_{q^{2}}} \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{1}}} \frac{xy^{l-2}}{p_{2}} \\
&\ll \sum_{p_{1} \in \p_{q^{2}}} \frac{xy^{l-1}}{p_{1}} \\
&\ll \frac{xy^{l}}{q^{2}}\end{align*}
Now that we've taken care of any case where $p \in \p_{q^{2}}$, we are just left with the possibilities not containing any powers of $q$. Unfortunately these cases still allow for many possibilities which we will display in an array. There are lots of ways for a prime power $q^a$ to arise in $\phi_k(n)$ we now define various sets of primes that are involved in generating these powers of $q$, and we will eventually sum over all possibilities for these sets of primes. The set $\LL_{h,i}$ will denote a finite set of primes. To begin, the set $\LL_{1,2}$ will be an arbitrary finite set of primes in $\p_q$ and let $\LL_{1,1}$ be empty. That is:
Case 3: \\
Level (1,2)
$$\LL_{1,2} \subseteq \p_q.$$
Level (2,1) (Obtaining the primes in the previous level)
$\LL_{2,1}$ is any set of primes with the property that for all $p \in \LL_{1,1}\cup \LL_{1,2},$ there exists a unique prime $r \in \LL_{2,1}$ such that $r \in \p_p.$ In other words $p$ will divide $\phi(r)$ and hence the primes in $\LL_{2,1}$ will create the primes in $\LL_{1,1}\cup \LL_{1,2}.$
Level (2,2) (New primes in $\p_q$)
$$\LL_{2,2} \subseteq \p_q.$$ In general for all $1 < h \le k$ we have for all $p \in \LL_{h-1,1}\cup \LL_{h-1,2} $ there exists a unique prime $r \in \LL_{h,1}$ such that $r \in \p_p, \LL_{h,2}$ is an arbitrary subset of $\p_q$, and
$$r\in \LL_{k,1}\cup\LL_{k,2} \Rightarrow r \mid n.$$
Some description of the terms are in order including some helpful definitions.
\begin{definition}
An incarnation $I$ of Case 3 is some specified description of how the primes in a lower level create the primes in the level directly above.
\end{definition}
For example, for $k=3$, an incarnation $I$ for which $q^4 \mid \phi_3(n)$ would be $s_1,s_2,s_3,r_3,r_4 \in \p_q$ where $r_1 \in \p_{s_1},r_2\in\p_{s_2s_3}, p_1 \in \p_{r_1r_2},p_2 \in \p_{r_3r_4},$ with $p_1p_2\mid n.$
\begin{definition}
An subincarnation of $I$ is an incarnation with added conditions. In other words if $J$ is a subincarnation of $I$ and an integer $n$ satisfies incarnation $J,$ then it will also satisfy incarnation $I.$
\end{definition}
For example, $I$ is a subincarnation of the incarnation $s_1,s_3,r_3,r_4 \in \p_q$ where $r_1 \in \p_{s_1},r_2\in\p_{s_3}, p_1 \in \p_{r_1r_2},p_2 \in \p_{r_3r_4},$ with $p_1p_2\mid n.$
Let $p$ be a prime in $\LL_{h,i}$ which we need to divide $\phi_{k-h+1}(n)$. The definition of $\LL_{h,i}$ ensures that there is a unique prime dividing $\phi_{k-h}(n)$ for which $p \mid r-1$. The primes in levels $(k,1),(k,2)$ dividing $n$ are for the base case of the recursion, so that each prime divides $\phi_0(n)=n$. When $i=2$ we are introducing new primes to get greater powers of $q$ in $\phik$. Note that it's not necessary to have any primes on the levels $(i,2).$ In fact the ``worst case scenario" that we will see has no primes on these except Level (1,2).
Now that we've described the way to get $q^{a} \mid \phik$, what is our exponent $a?$ Let $m_{h,i}=\#\LL_{h,i}.$ From the recursion above we can see that $q^{m_{k,2}}\mid \phi(n)$ and so do the primes in $\LL_{k-1,1}.$
For the second iteration of $\phi$, $q^{m_{k,2}-1+m_{k-1,2}}\mid \phi_2(n)$ and so do the primes in $\LL_{k-2,1}.$ Hence the power of $q$ which divides $\phi_{k}(n)$ is
\begin{equation}\label{H}\max_{1 \le j \le k} (m_{1,1}+\sum_{2 \le h \le j} (m_{h,2}-1))\end{equation}
where the sum can be empty if there are no primes in the second level $(j,2)$ or there are not enough to survive, i.e. $m_{j,2}<j-1$ and hence $q \nmid \phi_j(\prod_{\LL_{j,2}}p).$ Without loss of generality, we can assume the former, since the later is a subincarnation of the former.
Now we'll introduce some notation to be used in future propositions. For any single incarnation of Case 3, let $M$ be the total number of primes, $N$ be the total new primes introduced at the levels $(h,2)$ and $H$ be the maximum necessary level $(h,2).$ Specifically
$$M= \sum_{h}(m_{h,1}+m_{h,2})~~N=\sum_{h\le H}m_{h,2}$$ and $H$ yields the maximum value in \eqref{H}. Note that under this notation, $q^{N-H+1}\mid \phik.$ For example, in the incarnation $I$ above, $$\LL_{1,2}=\{s_1,s_2,s_3\},\LL_{2,1}=\{r_1,r_2\},\LL_{2,2}=\{r_3,r_4\},\LL_{3,1}=\{p_1,p_2\},\LL_{3,2}=\emptyset$$ as well as $$m_{1,2}=3,m_{2,1}=2,m_{2,2}=2,m_{3,1}=2,m_{3,2}=0.$$ Hence $M=9,N=5,H=2$ and so the power of $q$ which divides $\phi_3(n)$ is $5-2+1=4$ as expected.
Now that we've described Case 3, how many possible $n$ are in that case?
\begin{lemma}\label{NumberOfCases}
The number of $n \le x$ satisfying any incarnation of Case 3 is
$$O\bigg(c^M\frac{xy^{M}}{q^{N}}\bigg)$$
where $c$ is the constant from equation \eqref{BT}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\LL_h = \LL_{h,1}\cup\LL_{h,2}.$ We use Brun-Titchmarsh \eqref{BT} for all the primes at each level of Case 3, so the number of $n$ is
\begin{align*}\sum_{n \leq x} \sum_{p_1 \in \LL_1} \sum_{p_2 \in \LL_2}\dots\sum_{p_k \in \LL_k} 1 &= \sum_{p_1 \in \LL_1} \sum_{p_2 \in \LL_2}\dots \sum_{p_{k} \in \LL_{k}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \mid n \\ n \le x}}1 \\
&\ll \sum_{p_1 \in \LL_1} \sum_{p_2 \in \LL_2}\dots \sum_{p_{k} \in \LL_{k}}\frac{x}{\prod_{p_{k} \in \LL_{k}}p_k}.\end{align*} Note that we have repeatedly counted the same primes in the sum as we can reorder the primes in each level. It won't be important here, but will need to be more carefully addressed later.
Since the primes in level $(k,1)$ gave us some $p_k \in \p_{p_{k-1}}$ for all the primes in $\LL_{k-1}$, and for $p \in \LL_{k,k}$ we have $p \in \p_{q}.$ By Brun--Titchmarsh \eqref{BT} we get that the above sum is
$$\ll \sum_{p_1 \in \LL_1} \sum_{p_2 \in \LL_2}\dots \sum_{p_{k-1} \in \LL_{k-1}}\frac{x(cy)^{m_{k,1}+m_{k,2}}}{\prod_{p_{k-1} \in \LL_{k-1}}p_{k-1}q^{m_{k,2}}}.$$
Once again we get $m_{k-1,1}+m_{k-1,2}$ new applications of Brun-Titchmarsh giving the new primes in level $k-2$ as well as $m_{k-1,2}$ new powers of $q$. Continuing along in this manner we get:
\begin{align*}&\ll \sum_{p_1 \in \LL_1} \frac{x(cy)^{\sum_{2 \leq i \le k}(m_{i,1}+m_{i,2})}}{\prod_{p_{1} \in \LL_{1}}p_1q^{\sum_{2 \leq i \le k}m_{i,2}}} \\
&\ll \frac{x(cy)^{\sum_{1 \leq i \le k}(m_{i,1}+m_{i,2})}}{q^{\sum_{1 \leq i \le k}m_{i,2}}} = \frac{x(cy)^{M}}{q^{N}}.\end{align*}
\end{proof}
The last thing we'll consider in this section about the ways to obtain $\phi_k(n)$ is to determine the number of possible incarnations of Case 3. We note that there are lots of incarnations which are subincarnations of others. We will develop a concept of minimality.
\begin{definition}An incarnation of Case 3 is minimal if it does not contain any strings of $p_1 \in \p_{p_2},p_2\in \p_{p_3} \dots p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_k}$ where $p_k \mid n$.
\end{definition}
Note that any incarnation of Case 3 is a subincarnation of a minimal one. We now use this concept to show the number of necessary incarnations of Case 3 is small.
\section{Large Primes Dividing $\phi_k(n)$}\label{large}
In this section we will prove the two propostions dealing with $q$ being large. We'll start with the propostion where $\nu_{q}(\phik)=1.$
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop1}]
It suffices to show
$$\sum_{n \leq x}\sum_{\substack{q>y^{k} \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)=1}} (\nu_{q}(\phik)-\nu_{q}(\lamk))\log{q} \ll xy^{k}$$ as then there are at most $O\big(\frac{xy^{k}}{y^{k}\psi(x)}\big)= O\big(\frac{x}{\psi(x)}\big)$ such $n$ where the bound for the sum in Proposition \ref{prop1} fails to hold. We examine the cases where $\nu_{q}(\phik)=1$.
Using the notation in Lemma~\ref{NumberOfCases} we have two subcases for Case 3, whether $N=1$ or $N>1$.
Suppose $N=1$, then $H=1$, $m_{1,2}=1$ and $m_{h,2}=0$ for $1<h \le k$. Since $m_{h,1}\le m_{h-1,1}+m_{h-1,2}$ we get $m_{h,1} \le 1$ for all $1 \le h \le k$. Hence $m_{h,1} = 1$ for all $h \le k$ and so we get the case:
$$p_{1} \in \p_{q},p_{2} \in \p_{p_{1}},p_{3} \in \p_{p_{2}},\dots,p_{k} \in \p_{p_{k-1}}$$
where $p_{k} \mid n$.
However in this case we also get $\nu_{q}(\lamk))=1$ giving us no additions to our sum.
Suppose $N>1$, then $M= \sum_{h}(m_{h,1}+m_{h,2}) \le k\sum_{h}m_{h,2} = kN$ so the number of cases we get are
$$O\bigg(c^M\frac{xy^{M}}{q^{N}}\bigg) \ll \frac{c^Mxy^{kN}}{q^{N}} \ll \frac{c^Mxy^{2k}}{q^{2}}$$
since $y > q^{k}.$ Since $v_q(\phi_k(n))=N-H+1$ and $H\le k$, $N\le k$ implying that $M\le k^2$.Hence $c^M$ is bounded as a function of $k.$ Also since $M$ is bounded in terms of $k,$ there are $O_k(1)$ possible incarnations of Case 3, and the bound already absorbs the possiblities from Cases 1 and 2. Hence we have
\begin{align*}\sum_{q>y^{k}}\sum_{\substack{n \leq x \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)=1}} (\nu_{q}(\phik)-\nu_{q}(\lamk))\log{q} &\leq \sum_{q>y^{k}}\sum_{\substack{n \leq x \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)=1 \\ N>1}} \log{q} \\
&\ll \sum_{q>y^{k}} \frac{xy^{2k}\log q}{q^{2}} \\ &\ll xy^{k}\end{align*} by \eqref{logq_q2}.
\end{proof}
We turn our attention to $v_q(\phi_k(n))>1.$ We have to be more careful here since we can't guarantee that the number of incarnations of Case 3 is $O_k(1).$ We'll start by proving a lemma which can eliminate a lot of those cases.
\begin{lemma}\label{Eliminate}
Let $q>y^k$ and $S_q=S_{q}(x)$ consist of all $n \le x$ such that Case 1,2 or Case 3 where $M \le k(N-1)$ occurs. Then
$$\#S_q \ll \frac{xy^k}{q^2}$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
There are clearly $O_k(1)$ incarnations of Cases 1 and 2 and each yield at most $O(xy^k/q^2)$ such $n.$ By Lemma \ref{NumberOfCases} for each incarnation of Case 3, we get at most
$$O\bigg(\frac{c^My^M}{q^N}\bigg) \ll \frac{c^My^k}{q^2}$$ such $n$ since $M\le k(N-1)$ and $q>y^k.$ It remains to show we only require $O_k(1)$ such incarnations. Suppose $n$ satisfies an incarnation with $M\le k(N-1)$. Then it also satisfies a minimal incarnation with $M\le k(N-1)$ since removing a string of $p_1 \in \p_{p_2},p_2\in \p_{p_3} \dots p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_k}$, would decrease $N$ by $1$ and $M$ by $k$ leaving the inequality unchanged. Secondly we can assume that $n$ also satisfies an incarnation where $k(N-2) < M \le k(N-1)$ since we can keep eliminating primes in the $\LL_{i,2},$ which decrease $N$ by $1$, but $M$ by at most $k.$ This must eventually produce an incarnation where $k(N-2) < M \le k(N-1)$ since if we eliminate all primes in the $\LL_{i,2}$ but $1,$ then $M>k(N-1).$ Also note that the condition $m_{h,1} \le m_{h-1,1}+m_{h-1,2}$ forces $M \le kN.$ If $M$ is bounded between $k(N-2)$ and $kN$ and the incarnation is minimal, we get that $N$ is bounded by $2k$ since eliminating a prime in $\LL_{i,2}$ can only shrink $M$ by at most $k-1$ since our incarnation is minimal.
Therefore $n$ satisifies an incarnation where $N$ and hence $M$ are bounded functions of k. Since there are only $O_k(1)$ such incarnations, we get our result, noting that $c^M$ can be absorbed into the constant as well.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop2}]
Let $S=S(x) = \bigcup_{q>y^{k}} S_{q}$. Using Lemma \ref{Eliminate} we have
$$\#S \le \sum_{q>y^{k}} \# S_{q} \ll \sum_{q>y^{k}}\frac{xy^{k}}{q^{2}}
\ll xy^{k}\sum_{q>y^{k}}\frac{1}{q^{2}} \ll \frac{xy^{k}}{\log(y^{k})y^{k}} \ll \frac{x}{\psi(x)}
$$ by \eqref{1_q2}. As for the $n$ with $n \notin S$ and $a = \nu_{q}(\phik) >1,$ the only remaining case is that $M > k(N-1)$. Recall that $a = N+H-1.$ If $H=1$, then $N=m_{1,2}=a,$ and so $m_{2,1}=a-1$ or $a$. Otherwise for $k \ge 2,$
$$M= \sum_{h}m_{h,1} \leq a+ (k-1)m_{2,1} \le a+(k-1)(a-2) = k(a-1) - k + 2 \le (k-1)N$$ leading to a contradiction. If $H>1$, then we again wish to show that $m_{2,1} \ge a-k.$
\begin{align*}M &= \sum_{h}(m_{h,1}+m_{h,2}) \\ & \le km_{1,2} + (k-1)\sum_{h>1}m_{h,2} \\ &= m_{1,2} + (k-1)N \\ &= k(N-1) -N + k +m_{1,2}\end{align*}
which implies $m_{1,2} > N-k$ and so $\sum_{h>1}m_{h,2} = N - m_{1,1} < k.$ Therefore if $m_{2,1} < a-k,$ then
\begin{align*}M &= \sum_{h}(m_{h,1}+m_{h,2}) \\ &\le m_{1,2}+(k-1)m_{2,1} + (k-1)\sum_{h>1}m_{h,2} \le a+(k-1)(a-k-1) + (k-1)(k-1)
\\ &= ak -2k \\ &\le k(N-1)\end{align*} as $N>a$ again leading to a contradiction. Hence $m_{2,1} \ge a-k$ and so we can get
\begin{align*}\sum_{\substack{n \notin S \\ n \leq x}}\sum_{\substack{q>y^{k} \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)>1}} (\nu_{q}(\phik)\log{q} & \le 2\sum_{\substack{n \notin S \\ n \leq x}}\sum_{\substack{q>y^{k} \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)>1}} (\nu_{q}(\phik)-1)\log{q} \\
& \ll \sum_{\substack{q>y^{k}}}\log q\sum_{a \ge 2}a\sum_{\substack{n \leq x \\ n \notin S \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)=a }}1.
\end{align*}
Unfortunately, just blindly using the Brun-Titchmarsh inequality in \eqref{BT} won't be good enough as we must sum over all $a.$ Let $g(a,k)=(a-k)!$ if $a \ge k$ or $1$ otherwise and note that since we have $m_{1,2}\ge a-k$, we have at least $g(a,k)$ permutations of the same primes. Then by using Lemma \ref{NumberOfCases} we get
\begin{align*}a\sum_{\substack{q>y^{k}}}\log q\sum_{\substack{n \leq x \\ n \notin S \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)=a }}1 & \ll a\frac{x(cy)^{M}}{q^{N}g(a,k)} \ll \frac{ac^{k(a+k-1)}xy^{2k}}{q^2g(a,k)}
\end{align*} using the assumption that $q>y^k$ and $M \le kN \le k(a+k-1).$ Hence we get our sum is
\begin{align*}\sum_{\substack{n \notin S \\ n \leq x}}\sum_{\substack{q>y^{k} \\ \nu_{q}(\phik)>1}} (\nu_{q}(\phik)\log{q} & \ll \sum_{\substack{q>y^{k}}}\log q\sum_{a \ge 2}\frac{ac^{k(a+k-1)}xy^{2k}}{q^2g(a,k)} \\
& = xy^{2k}\sum_{q>y^{k}}\frac{\log q}{q^{2}}\sum_{a \ge 2}\frac{ac^{k(a+k-1)}}{g(a,k)}
\end{align*} However the latter sum converges to some function depending on $k$, and so we get
$$ \ll xy^{2k}\sum_{q>y^{k}}\frac{\log q}{q^{2}} \ll xy^{k}$$ by \eqref{logq_q2}.
\end{proof}
\section{Small Primes Dividing $\lambda_k(n)$}\label{lambda}
We now turn our attention to the bound involving $\lambda_k(n)$ in the summand. Just like when we were dealing with the number of cases where $q^a \mid \phi_k(n)$, we will need a lemma to deal with the number of cases where $q^a \mid \lambda_k(n).$ Fortunately this case is much simpler as the only two ways for $q^a \mid \lambda(n)$ is for $q^{a+1} \mid n$ or for there to exist $p \mid n$ with $p \in \p_{q^a}.$ Note that these conditions aren't sufficient, but are necessary when $q=2.$
\begin{lemma}\label{NumberOfCases2} The number of positive integers $n \le x$ for which $q^{a}\mid \lamk$ is $O(\frac{xy^{k}}{q^{a}}).$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We'll proceed by induction on $k$. If $k=1$, then $q^{a}\mid \lambda(n)$ if $q^{a+1}\mid n$ or $p \in \p_{q^{a}}$ with $p\mid n$. The number of such $n$ is at most
$$\sum_{\substack{n \le x\\ q^{a+1} \mid n }}1 +\sum_{\substack{n \le x\\ p \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p \mid n }}1 \ll
\frac{x}{q^{a+1}} +\sum_{p \in \p_{q^{a}}}\frac{x}{p} \ll \frac{x}{q^{a+1}}+\frac{xy}{q^{a}} \ll \frac{xy}{q^{a}}.$$ using \eqref{BT}.
Suppose the number of $n \le x$ for which $q^{a}\mid \lambda_{k-1}(n)$ is $O(\frac{xy^{k-1}}{q^{a}})$. If $q^{a}\mid \lamk$, then either $q^{a+1}\mid \lambda_{k-1}(n)$ or $p \in \p_{q^{a}}$ with $p \mid \lambda_{k-1}(n)$. Hence the number of such $n$ is bounded by
$$\sum_{\substack{n \le x\\ q^{a+1}\mid \lambda_{k-1}(n) }}1 +\sum_{\substack{n \le x\\ p \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p|\lambda_{k-1}(n) }}1 \ll
\frac{xy^{k-1}}{q^{a+1}} +\sum_{p \in \p_{q^{a}}}\frac{xy^{k-1}}{p} \ll \frac{xy^{k-1}}{q^{a+1}}+\frac{xy^{k}}{q^{a}} \ll \frac{xy^{k}}{q^{a}}$$ as needed.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop3}]
Like in the proof of previous propositions, we'll show $$\sum_{n \le x} \sum_{q\leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(\lamk) \log{q} \ll xy^{k}.$$ The left hand side is equal to
\begin{align*}\sum_{n \le x} \sum_{q\leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(\lamk) \log{q} &=\sum_{n \le x} \sum_{q\leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a}\mid \lamk}}1 \\
& \le \sum_{n \le x} \sum_{q\leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a} \le y^{k}}}1 + \sum_{n \le x} \sum_{q\leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a}\mid \lamk \\ q^{a} > y^{k}}}1.\end{align*}
The first sum is $$\sum_{n \le x} \sum_{q\leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a} \le y^{k}}}1 = \sum_{n \le x} \sum_{m\leq y^{k}} \Lambda(m) \ll \sum\limits_{n \le x} y^{k} \ll xy^{k},$$
and by Lemma \ref{NumberOfCases2} and using the geometric estimate in \eqref{geometric} the second sum becomes
$$\sum_{n \le x} \sum_{q\leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a}\mid \lamk \\ q^{a} > y^{k}}}1 \ll \sum_{q\leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a} > y^{k}}}\frac{xy^{k}}{q^{a}} \ll \sum_{q\leq y^{k}} \log q \frac{xy^{k}}{y^{k}} \ll xy^{k}.$$
\end{proof}
\section{Reduction To $h_k(n)$ For Small Primes}\label{reduction}
The small primes dividing $\phi_k(n)$ are what contributes to the asymptotic term of $\log(n/\lambda_k(n))$. In this section we show that the important case is the supersquarefree case of $p$ dividing $\phi_{k}(n)$ which is when $$p \in \p_{p_1}, p_1 \in \p_{p_2} \dots p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_k}, p_k \mid n.$$ For this reason we will approximate the sum $\sum_{q \le y^k}v_q(\phi_k(n))\log q$ with \begin{equation}\label{hkDef}\hk(n) = \sum_{p_{1}\mid n} \sum_{p_{2}\mid p_{1}-1} \dots \sum_{p_{k} \mid p_{k-1}-1} \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(p_{k}-1)\log q.\end{equation}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop4}]
For any fixed prime $q$, we know that $$v_{q}(\phi(m)) = \max \{ 0,v_{q}(m)-1 \} + \sum_{p\mid m}v_{q}(p-1),$$
which implies
$$\sum_{p \mid m}v_{q}(p-1) \le v_{q}(\phi(m)) \le v_{q}(m) + \sum_{p\mid m}v_{q}(p-1).$$
Repeated use of this inequality for $m=\phi_{l}(n)$ where $l$ ranges from $k-1$ to $0$ yields
\begin{equation}\label{howdy}\begin{split}\sum_{p\mid \phi_{k-1}(n)}v_{q}(p-1) & \le v_{q}(\phik) \\ & \le \sum_{p\mid \phi_{k-1}(n)}v_{q}(p-1) + \sum_{p\mid \phi_{k-2}(n)}v_{q}(p-1) \\ & \qquad\qquad + \dots + \sum_{p\mid \phi(n)}v_{q}(p-1)+v_{q}(n).\end{split}
\end{equation}
A prime $p$ divides $\phi_{k-1}(n)$ either in the supersquarefree case (ssf), or not in the supersquarefree case (nssf), yielding
\begin{align*}\sum_{ssf}v_{q}(p-1) &\le \sum_{p\mid \phi_{k-1}(n)}v_{q}(p-1) \\
& \le \sum_{ssf}v_{q}(p-1) + \sum_{nssf}v_{q}(p-1).\end{align*}
Combining this inequality with \eqref{howdy} yields
\begin{align*}\sum_{ssf} v_{q}&(p-1) \le v_{q}(\phik) \\ &\le \sum_{ssf}v_{q}(p-1) + \sum_{nssf}v_{q}(p-1) + \sum_{p\mid \phi_{k-2}(n)}v_{q}(p-1) + \dots + \sum_{p\mid \phi(n)}v_{q}(p-1)+v_{q}(n).\end{align*}
Subtracting the sum over the supersquarefree case, multiplying through by $\log q$ and summing over $q \le y^{k}$ we get
\begin{align*}0 & \le \sum\limits_{q \leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(\phik)\log{q} - \hk(n) \\
& \le \sum_{q \le y^{k}}\sum_{nssf}v_{q}(p-1)\log q + \sum_{q \le y^{k}}\sum_{p|\phi_{k-2}(n)}v_{q}(p-1)\log q+ \dots +\sum_{q \le y^{k}}\sum_{p\mid n}v_{q}(p-1)\log q \end{align*} where we get $h_k(n)$ from \eqref{hkDef}.
Hence it suffices to show that the sum on the right side becomes our error term. For the sum
\begin{align*}\sum_{n \le x}\sum_{q \le y^{k}}\sum_{p \mid \phi_{m}(n)}v_{q}(p-1)\log q & = \sum_{n \le x}\sum_{q \le y^{k}}\sum_{p\mid \phi_{m}(n)}\sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a} \mid p-1}}\log q \\
&= \sum_{n \le x}\sum_{q \le y^{k}}\log q \sum_{a \in \nat}\sum_{\substack{p \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p \mid \phi_m(n)}}1, \end{align*}
we'll split the sum over values of $p \le y^{k-1}$ and $p > y^{k-1}.$ For $p \le y^{k-1}$ we uniformly get for all $n$ that
\begin{align*}\sum_{q \le y^{k}}\log q \sum_{a \in \nat}\sum_{\substack{p \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p \le y^{k-1} \\ p \mid \phi_m(n)}}1 & \le \sum_{q \le y^{k}}\log q \sum_{a \in \nat}\pi(y^{k-1};q^{a},1)\\
& \ll \sum_{q \le y^{k}}\log q \sum_{a \in \nat}\frac{y^{k-1}}{\phi(q^{a})} \\
& \ll y^{k-1}\sum_{q \le y^{k}}\frac{\log q}{q}\\
& \ll y^{k-1}\log y
\end{align*} using the geometric estimate \eqref{geometric} and the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions. As for $p > y^{k-1}$ we fix an $M$ and $N$ from case 3 for which $ p\mid \phi_{m}(n)$, of which there are at most $O_k(1)$ such $M,N$ since $v_p(\phi(m))=1$. Therefore
\begin{align*}\sum_{n \le x}\sum_{q \le y^{k}}\log q \sum_{a \in \nat}\sum_{\substack{p>y^{k-1} \\ p \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p \mid \phi_m(n)}}1 & \ll \sum_{q \le y^{k}}\log q \sum_{a \in \nat}\sum_{\substack{p \in \p_{q^{a}}\\p>y^{k-1}}}\frac{xy^{M}}{p^{N}} \\
& \le \sum_{q \le y^{k}}\log q \sum_{a \in \nat}\sum_{p \in \p_{q^{a}}}\frac{xy^{M-(k-1)(N-1)}}{p} \\
& \ll \sum_{q \le y^{k}}\log q \sum_{a \in \nat}\frac{xy^{M-(k-1)(N-1)+1}}{q^{a}} \\
& \ll \sum_{q \le y^{k}}\frac{xy^{M-(k-1)(N-1)+1}\log q}{q} \\
& \ll xy^{M-(k-1)(N-1)+1}\log y^{k} \\
& \ll xy^{M-(k-1)(N-1)+1}\log y. \end{align*}
Since the $M,N$ were chosen for $\phi_{m}(n)$ we know that $M \le mN$ where equality holds if and only if we are in the supersquarefree case. Now either $m \le k-2$ or $m=k-1$ and we are not in the supersquarefreecase. In the former case we have an error of
$$O(xy^{(k-2)N-(k-1)(N-1)+1}\log y)=O(xy^{k-N}\log y) = O(xy^{k-1}\log y)$$ since $N \ge 1$, or in the latter case
$$O(xy^{(k-1)N-1-(k-1)(N-1)+1}\log y)=O(xy^{k-1}\log y).$$ Thus we get
\begin{align*}\sum_{n \le x}\bigg(\sum_{q \le y^{k}}\sum_{nssf}v_{q}(p-1)\log q & + \sum_{q \le y^{k}}\sum_{p|\phi_{k-2}(n)}v_{q}(p-1)\log q+ \dots \\ & +\sum_{q \le y^{k}}\sum_{p|n}v_{q}(p-1)\log q\bigg) \ll xy^{k-1}\log y\end{align*} and so
\begin{align*}\sum_{q \le y^{k}}\sum_{nssf}v_{q}(p-1)\log q & + \sum_{q \le y^{k}}\sum_{p|\phi_{k-2}(n)}v_{q}(p-1)\log q+ \dots \\ & +\sum_{q \le y^{k}}\sum_{p|n}v_{q}(p-1)\log q \ll y^{k-1}\log y \cdot \psi(x)\end{align*} as required.
\end{proof}
\section{Reduction to the First and Second Moments}\label{Turan}
The Tur\'{a}n-Kubilius inequality \cite[Lemma 3.1]{K} asserts that if $f(n)$ is a complex additive function, then there exists an absolute constant $C$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{TK}\sum_{n\le x}\abs{f(n)-M_1(x)}^2 \le CxM_2(x)\end{equation} where $M_1(x)=\sum_{p \leq x}\abs{f(p)}/p$ and $M_2(x)=\sum_{p \leq x}\abs{f(p)}^2/p.$ Since $h_k(n)$ is additive we can apply this inequality where $M_{1}(x)= \sum_{p \leq x}\hk (p)/p$, $M_{2}(x)= \sum_{p \leq x}\hk (p)^{2}/p.$ We will need to find bounds on $M_1$ and $M_2$ therefore it's our goal to prove the following two propositions:
\begin{proposition}\label{M1} For all $x>e^{e^{e}},$ $$M_{1}(x) = \frac{1}{(k-1)! } y^{k} \log y + O(y^{k})$$ \end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{M2} For all $x>e^{e^{e}},$ $$M_{2}(x) \ll y^{2k-1} \log^{k-1} y.$$ \end{proposition}
These will lead to a proof of Proposition \ref{hkestimate}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{hkestimate}]
Let $N$ denote the number of $n \leq x$ for which $\abs{\hk(n) - M_{1}(x)} > y^{k}.$ The contribution of such $n$ to the sum in \eqref{TK} is at least $Ny^{2k}.$ Thus Propostion \ref{M2} implies $N \ll x \log^{k-1}y /y$ and so Proposition \ref{M1} implies that $\hk(n) = \frac{1}{(k-1)!} y^{k} \log y + O(y^{k})$ except for a set of size $O(x (\log y)^{k-1} /y).$
\end{proof}
\section{Lots of Summations}
In our proofs of Propositions \ref{M1} and \ref{M2} we will see that $M_1(x)$ and $M_2(x)$ will reduce to summations involving $\pi(x;p,1).$ We will be using some sieve techniques to bound these sums and those will require some bounds on sums on multiplicative functions involving $\phi(m).$ This section will involve the estimation of the latter sums.
\begin{lemma}\label{PhiSumLem}
For any non-negative integer L we have
\begin{equation} \label{PhiSum}
\sum_{m \le t} \frac{m^{L}}{\phi(m)^{L+1}} \ll_{L} \log t.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $f(n)$ is a non-negative multiplicative function, we know that
\begin{equation} \label{Multi}
\sum_{n \le t}f(n) \le \prod_{p \le t}\sum_{r=0}^\infty f(p^{r}).
\end{equation}
Applying \eqref{Multi} with $\frac{m^{L}}{\phi(m)^{L+1}}$ yields
\begin{align*}\sum_{m \le t} \frac{m^{L}}{\phi(m)^{L+1}} & \le \prod_{p \le t}\bigg(1+\sum_{r=1}^\infty\frac{p^{rL}}{( p^{r}-p^{r-1})^{L+1}} \bigg) \\
& = \prod_{p \le t}\bigg(1+\sum_{r=1}^\infty\frac{p^{L-r+1}}{(p-1)^{L+1}} \bigg) \\
& = \prod_{p \le t}\bigg(1+\frac{1}{(p-1)^{L+1}}\frac{p^{L}}{1-\frac{1}{p}} \bigg) \\
& = \prod_{p \le t}\bigg(1+\frac{p^{L+1}}{(p-1)^{L+2}} \bigg) \\
& \le \exp\bigg( \sum_{p \le t}\log \bigg(1+\frac{p^{L+1}}{(p-1)^{L+2}} \bigg) \bigg)\\
& = \exp\bigg( \sum_{p \le t}\bigg( \frac{p^{L+1}}{(p-1)^{L+2}} + O_L\bigg(\frac{1}{p^{2}} \bigg) \bigg) \bigg)\\
& = \exp\bigg( \sum_{p \le t}\bigg(\frac{1}{p} + O_L\bigg(\frac{1}{p^{2}} \bigg) \bigg) \bigg)\\
& \ll_{L} \log t
\end{align*}
using \eqref{Merten}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{Sieve1}
Given a positive integer $C\le t^{\gamma}$ and non-negative integer $L$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{SieveSum1}
\sum_{m \le t} \frac{(Cm+1)^{L}}{\phi(Cm+1)^{L}\phi(m)} \ll_{L,\gamma} \log t.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It will suffice to show
$$\sum_{m \le t} \frac{(Cm+1)^{2L-1}}{\phi(Cm+1)^{2L}} \ll_{L} \frac{\log t}{C}$$
as then by Cauchy--Schwarz we can get that
\begin{align*}
\bigg(\sum_{m \le t} \frac{(Cm+1)^{L}}{\phi(Cm+1)^{L}\phi(m)}\bigg)^{2} &\le \sum_{m \le t} \frac{(Cm+1)^{2L-1}}{\phi(Cm+1)^{2L}}\sum_{m \le t} \frac{(Cm+1)}{\phi(m)^{2}} \\
& \ll_{L}\bigg(\frac{\log t}{C}\bigg)C \log t \\
& \ll_{L} \log^{2} t
\end{align*}
by using \eqref{PhiSum}. Using Mobius inversion, let $s(n)$ be the multiplicative function defined by
$$\frac{n^{2L}}{\phi(n)^{2L}} = 1 * s = \sum_{d \mid n}s(d).$$ Testing at prime powers, we can easily see that
$$s(1)=1,s(p)=\bigg(1-\frac{1}{p}\bigg)^{-2L}-1 \text{ and } s(p^{k})=0 \text{ for all } k\ge 2.$$
Hence
\begin{align*}
\sum_{m \le t} \frac{(Cm+1)^{2L-1}}{\phi(Cm+1)^{2L}} &= \sum_{\substack{C<n \le Ct+1 \\ n \equiv 1 \pmod{C}}} \frac{n^{2L-1}}{\phi(n)^{2L}} \\
&= \sum_{\substack{C<n \le Ct+1 \\ n \equiv 1 \pmod{C}}}\frac{1}{n} \frac{n^{2L}}{\phi(n)^{2L}} \\
& = \sum_{\substack{C<n \le Ct+1 \\ n \equiv 1 \pmod{C}}}\frac{1}{n} \sum_{d \mid n} s(d) \\
& = \sum_{d\le Ct+1} s(d)\sum_{\substack{C<n \le Ct+1 \\ d \mid n \\ n \equiv 1 \pmod{C}}}\frac{1}{n} .
\end{align*}
By \eqref{Recip2} and noticing that $C$ and $d$ are relatively prime we get
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{C<n \le Ct+1 \\ d \mid n \\ n \equiv 1 \pmod C}}\frac{1}{n} \ll \frac{1}{C+1}+ \frac{\log t}{dC}
\end{align*} where the first term occurs only if $d \mid C+1.$ We require some estimates on $s(d).$
\begin{align*}
\sum_{d\le Ct+1} \frac{s(d)}{d} &\le \prod_{p\le Ct+1}\bigg(1 + \frac{(1-1/p)^{-2L}-1}{p} \bigg) \\
& \le \prod_{p\le Ct+1}\bigg(1 + \frac{C_L}{p^2} \bigg) \\
& = \exp\bigg(\sum_{p\le Ct+1}\log\bigg(1 + \frac{C_L}{p^2}\bigg)\bigg) \\
& = \exp\bigg(\sum_{p\le Ct+1}O_L\bigg(\frac{1}{p^2}\bigg)\bigg) \\
& = \exp(O_L(1)) \\
& \ll_L 1
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{d\le Ct+1 \\ d \mid C+1}} s(d) & \le \sum_{d \mid C+1} s(d) \\
& = (1*s)(C+1)\\
& = \bigg(\frac{C+1}{\phi(C+1)}\bigg)^{2L}\\
& \ll (\log\log C)^{2L}\\
&\ll_{\gamma} (\log\log t)^{2L}\\
&\ll_{L,\gamma}\log t.
\end{align*}
Therefore
$$\sum_{m \le t} \frac{(Cm+1)^{2L-1}}{\phi(Cm+1)^{2L}} \ll \sum_{\substack{d\le Ct+1 \\ d\mid C+1}} \frac{s(d)}{C+1}+ \sum_{d\le t}\frac{s(d)\log t}{Cd} \ll_{L,\gamma} \frac{\log t}{C}$$ as needed.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{Sieve2}
For positive integers $C_1,C_2,\dots,C_r\le t^{\gamma}$ and non-negative integers $L_1,L_2,\dots,L_r$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{SieveSum2}
\sum_{m \le t} \frac{(C_{1}m+1)^{L_{1}}(C_{2}m+1)^{L_{2}}\dots(C_{r}m+1)^{L_{r}}}{\phi(C_{1}m+1)^{L_{1}}\phi(C_{2}m+1)^{L_{2}}\dots\phi(C_{r}m+1)^{L_{r}}\phi(m)} \ll_{L_{1},\dots,L_{r},\gamma} \log t.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction. The case $r=1$ is covered by Lemma \ref{Sieve1}.
Suppose
$$\sum_{m \le t} \frac{(C_{1}m+1)^{L_{1}}(C_{2}m+1)^{L_{2}}...(C_{r}m+1)^{L_{r}}}{\phi(C_{1}m+1)^{L_{1}}\phi(C_{2}m+1)^{L_{2}}\dots\phi(C_{r}m+1)^{L_{r}}\phi(m)} \ll_{L_{1},\dots,L_{r},\gamma} \log t.$$
By Cauchy--Schwarz, we get that
\begin{align*}
\bigg( \sum_{m \le t} & \frac{(C_{1}m+1)^{L_{1}}(C_{2}m+1)^{L_{2}}\dots(C_{r+1}m+1)^{L_{r+1}}}{\phi(C_{1}m+1)^{L_{1}}\phi(C_{2}m+1)^{L_{2}}\dots\phi(C_{r+1}m+1)^{L_{r+1}}\phi(m)}\bigg)^2 \\
& \le \sum_{m \le t} \frac{(C_{1}m+1)^{2L_{1}}(C_{2}m+1)^{2L_{2}}\dots(C_{r}m+1)^{2L_{r}}}{\phi(C_{1}m+1)^{2L_{1}}\phi(C_{2}m+1)^{2L_{2}}\dots\phi(C_{r}m+1)^{2L_{r}}\phi(m)}\sum_{m \le t} \frac{(C_{r+1}m+1)^{2L_{r+1}}}{\phi(C_{r+1}m+1)^{2L_{r+1}}\phi(m)} \\
& \ll_{L_{1},\dots,L_{r+1},\gamma} \log^2 t
\end{align*}
by Lemma \ref{Sieve1}, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{Sieve3}
For positive integers $C_1,C_2,...,C_r\le t^{\gamma}$ and non-negative integers $L_1,L_2,...,L_r,L$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{SieveSum3}
\sum_{m \le t} \frac{(C_{1}m+1)^{L_{1}}(C_{2}m+1)^{L_{2}}...(C_{r}m+1)^{L_{r}}m^{L-1}}{\phi(C_{1}m+1)^{L_{1}}\phi(C_{2}m+1)^{L_{2}}\dots\phi(C_{r}m+1)^{L_{r}}\phi(m)^{L}} \ll_{L_{1},\dots,L_{r},L,\gamma} \log t.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Once again we'll use Cauchy--Schwarz and the previous lemmas.
\begin{align*}
\bigg(\sum_{m \le t} & \frac{(C_{1}m+1)^{L_{1}}(C_{2}m+1)^{L_{2}}\dots(C_{r}m+1)^{L_{r}}m^{L-1}}{\phi(C_{1}m+1)^{L_{1}}\phi(C_{2}m+1)^{L_{2}}\dots\phi(C_{r}m+1)^{L_{r}}\phi(m)^{L}} \bigg)^2 \\
& \le \sum_{m \le t}\frac{(C_{1}m+1)^{2L_{1}}(C_{2}m+1)^{2L_{2}}\dots(C_{r}m+1)^{2L_{r}}}{\phi(C_{1}m+1)^{2L_{1}}\phi(C_{2}m+1)^{2L_{2}}\dots\phi(C_{r}m+1)^{2L_{r}}\phi(m)}\sum_{m \le t} \frac{m^{2L-2}}{\phi(m)^{2L-1}} \\
& \ll_{L_{1},\dots,L_{r},L,\gamma} \log^2 t
\end{align*} by Lemmas \ref{PhiSumLem} and \ref{Sieve2}.
\end{proof}
\section{More Summations involving $\pi(t,p,1)$}\label{MoreSums}
The previous section involved lemmas required to prove summations including terms such as $\pi(t,p,1).$ A lot of these summations will involve sieving techniques. This section will be split into proofs of two lemmas involving the summations required for the sums arising from the Propositions \ref{M1} and \ref{M2}.
\begin{lemma}\label{Sums}
Let $b,k,l$ be positive integers with $2 \le l \le k.$ Let $t>e^{e}$ be a real number and let constants $\al,\al_1,\al_2$ satisfy $0<\al<1/2$ and $0<\al_{1}<\al_{2}<1/2.$
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] If $b>t^{\al},$ then
\begin{equation}\label{Sum1}\sum_{p_{k} \in \p_{b}} \sum_{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_k}} \dots \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{p_3}} \pi(t;p_{2},1) \ll \frac{t \log t (\log \log t)^{k-2} }{b}.\end{equation}
\item[(b)] If $b\le t^{\al_{1}},$ then
\begin{equation}\label{Sum2}\sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{b}\\p_ l>t^{\al_{2}}}} \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{p_l}} \dots \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{p_3}} \pi(t;p_{2},1) \ll \frac{b^{l-1}t}{\phi(b)^{l} \log t}.\end{equation}
\item[(c)] If $b\le t^{\al_{1}},$ then
\begin{equation}\label{Sum3}\sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{b}}} \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{p_l}} \dots \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{p_3}} \pi(t;p_{2},1) \ll \frac{t (\log \log t)^{l-1}}{\phi(b) \log t}.\end{equation}
\end{enumerate} The implicit constants in $(a)-(c)$ depend on the choices of the $\alpha.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For \eqref{Sum1} we just use the trivial estimate $\pi(t;p_{2},1) \le t/p_{2}$ and several uses of Brun-Titchmarsh \eqref{BT} to get
\begin{align*}
\sum_{p_{k} \in \p_{b}} \sum_{p_{k-1} \in \p_{k}} \dots \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{3}} \pi(t;p_{2},1) & \le \sum_{p_{k} \in \p_{b}} \sum_{p_{k-1} \in \p_{k}} \dots \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{3}} \frac{t}{p_{2}} \\
& \ll t \sum_{p_{k} \in \p_{b}} \sum_{p_{k-1} \in \p_{k}} \dots \sum_{p_{3} \in \p_{4}} \frac{\log \log t}{p_{3}} \\
& \ll t \sum_{p_{k} \in \p_{b}} \frac{(\log \log t)^{k-2}}{p_{k}} \\
& \le t \sum_{\substack{m \equiv 1 \pmod{b} \\ t^{\alpha} \le m \le t}} \frac{(\log \log t)^{k-2}}{m} \\
& \le \frac{t \log t(\log \log t)^{k-2}}{b}
\end{align*} where $m>1$ and $m \equiv 1 \pmod{b}$ imply that $m>b$ and by using \eqref{Recip1}. As for \eqref{Sum2} we get
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{b}\\ l>t^{\al_{2}}}} & \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{l}} \dots \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{3}} \pi(t;p_{2},1) \\
& = \sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{b}\\ l>t^{\al_{2}}}} \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{l}} \dots \sum_{p_{3} \in \p_{4}} \#\{ (m_{1},p_{2}): p_{2}=1 \pmod{p_{3}}, p_{2}>t^{\al_{2}},m_{1}p_{2}+1 \le t, p_{2}, m_{1}p_{2}+1 \text{ prime} \} \\
& = \sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{b}\\ l>t^{\al_{2}}}} \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{l}} \dots \sum_{p_{4} \in \p_{5}} \#\{ (m_{1},m_{2},p_{3}): p_{3}=1 \pmod{p_{4}}, p_{3}>t^{\al_{2}},m_{1}(m_{2}p_{3}+1)+1 \le t, \\ & \hskip10mm \{p_{3}, m_{2}p_{3}+1, m_{1}(m_{2}p_{3}+1)+1\} \text{ prime} \} \\
&= \#\{ (m_{1},m_{2},\dots,m_{l-1},p_{l}): p_{l}=1 \pmod{b}, p_{l}>t^{\al_{2}}, m_{1}(m_{2}\dots(m_{l-2}(m_{l-1}p_{l}+1)+1)+\dots\\ & \hskip10mm +1 \le t, \{ p_{l}, m_{l-1}p_{l}+1, m_{l-2}(m_{l-1}p_{l}+1)+1,\dots,m_{1}(m_{2}\dots(m_{l-2}(m_{l-1}p_{l}+1)+1)\\& \hskip20mm+\dots+1\} \text{ prime} \} \\
& \le \sum_{m_{1}\dotsm_{l-1} \le t^{1-\al_{2}}}\#\{ p_{l} < t/m_{1}\dots m_{l-1}: p_{l}=1 \pmod{b}, \\ &\hskip10mm \{ p_{l}, m_{l-1}p_{l}+1, m_{l-2}(m_{l-1}p_{l}+1)+1,\dots,m_{1}(m_{2}...(m_{l-2}(m_{l-1}p_{l}+1)+1)+\dots+1\} \text{ prime} \}.
\end{align*}
From here will need to use Brun's Sieve method (see \cite[Theorem 2.4]{HR}) to get that
\begin{align*}
\#\{ p_{l} < & t/m_{1}\dots m_{l-1}: p_{l}=1 \pmod{b}, \\ & \{ p_{l}, m_{l-1}p_{l}+1, m_{l-2}(m_{l-1}p_{l}+1)+1,\dots,m_{1}(m_{2}\dots(m_{l-2}(m_{l-1}p_{l}+1)+1)+\dots+1\} \text{ prime} \} \\
& \ll \frac{E^{l-1}}{\phi(E)^{l-1}}\frac{b^{l-1}}{\phi(b)^{l-1}}\frac{bc_{1}\dots c_{l-1}}{\phi(bc_{1}\dots c_{l-1})}\frac{t/m_{1}\dots m_{l-1}b}{(\log t/m_{1}\dots m_{l-1}b)^{l}}
\end{align*}
where the $c_{i}$ and $E$ are
\begin{align*}
E=&\bigg(\prod_{i=1}^{l-1}m_{i}^{i(i+1)/2}\bigg)(1+m_{1}+m_{1}m_{2}+\dots +m_{1}\dots m_{l-3})(1+m_{2}+m_{2}m_{3}+\dots +m_{2}\dots m_{l-3})\\ & \dots (1+m_{l-3})(1+m_{1}+m_{1}m_{2}+\dots +m_{1}\dots m_{l-4})(1+m_{2}+m_{2}m_{3}+\dots +m_{2}\dots m_{l-4})\\ & \dots (1+m_{l-4})\dots (1+m_1)
\end{align*}
and for $1 \le i \le l-1,$
\begin{align*}
c_{i}=1+ m_{i} + m_{i}m_{i+1} + \dots + m_{i} \dots m_{l-2}, c_{l-1}=1.
\end{align*}
Now using $\phi(mn) \le \phi(m)\phi(n)$ and $m_{1}\dots m_{l-1}b \le t^{1+\al_{1}-\al_{2}}$ where $1+\al_{1}-\al_{2} < 1$ we get
\begin{align*}
& \ll \frac{E^{l-1}}{\phi(E)^{l-1}}\frac{b^{l-1}}{\phi(b)^{l}}\frac{c_{1}}{\phi(c_{1})}\dots \frac{c_{l-1}}{\phi(c_{l-1})}\frac{t}{m_{1}\dots m_{l-1}(\log t)^{l}}.
\end{align*}
Using $$\frac{m^{L}}{\phi(m^{L})}=\frac{m}{\phi(m)},$$ we get the sum
$$\sum_{m_{1}\dots m_{l-1} \le t^{1-\al_{2}}}\frac{E^{l-1}}{\phi(E)^{l-1}}\frac{c_{1}}{\phi(c_{1})}\dots\frac{c_{l-1}}{\phi(c_{l-1})}\frac{1}{m_{1}\dots m_{l-1}} = \sum_{m_{1}\dots m_{l-1} \le t^{1-\al_{2}}}\frac{(E^*)^{l-1}}{\phi(E^*)^{l-1}}\frac{c_{1}}{\phi(c_{1})}\dots \frac{c_{l-1}}{\phi(c_{l-1})}\frac{1}{m_{1}\dots m_{l-1}}$$ where
\begin{align*}
E^*=&(1+m_{1}+m_{1}m_{2}+\dots +m_{1}\dots m_{l-3})(1+m_{2}+m_{2}m_{3}+\dots +m_{2}\dots m_{l-3})\\ & \dots (1+m_{l-3})(1+m_{1}+m_{1}m_{2}+\dots +m_{1}\dots m_{l-4})(1+m_{2}+m_{2}m_{3}+\dots +m_{2}\dots m_{l-4})\\ & \dots (1+m_{l-4})\dots (1+m_1).
\end{align*}
We have that every factor in $E^*$ as well as the $c_{i}$ are of the form $1+Cm_{i}$ for some $i$ or of the form $m_{i}^L$. Hence using $l-1$ applications of Lemmas \ref{PhiSumLem}, \ref{Sieve2} or \ref{Sieve3} we can pick off the factors of the form $(1+Cm_i)$ one at a time.
\begin{align*}\sum_{m_{1}\dots m_{l-1} \le t^{1-\al_{2}}}& \frac{E^{l-1}}{\phi(E)^{l-1}}\frac{c_{1}}{\phi(c_{1})}...\frac{c_{l-1}}{\phi(c_{l-1})}\frac{1}{m_{1}\dots m_{l-1}} \\
& \ll \sum_{m_{2}\dots m_{l-1} \le t^{1-\al_{2}}}\frac{(E')^{l-1}}{\phi(E')^{l-1}}\frac{c'_{1}}{\phi(c'_{1})}\dots\frac{c'_{l-1}}{\phi(c'_{l-1})}\frac{1}{m_{2}\dots m_{l-1}}(\log t) \\
& \ll \sum_{m_{3}\dots m_{l-1} \le t^{1-\al_{2}}}\frac{(E'')^{l-1}}{\phi(E'')^{l-1}}\frac{c''_{1}}{\phi(c''_{1})}\dots \frac{c''_{l-1}}{\phi(c''_{l-1})}\frac{1}{m_{3}\dots m_{l-1}}(\log^2 t) \\
& \ll \dots \ll (\log t)^{l-1}.\end{align*} where the $E^{(e)},c^{(e)}_i$ denote the $E^*$ and $c_i$ terms with the factors of the form $1+Cm_1$ through $1+Cm_e$ removed. Note that the $C$ are at most $1+t+t^2+\dots+t^{k-3}\le t^{k-2}$ and $l\le k$ so the implied constant only depends on $k$.
Therefore
$$\sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{b}\\ l>t^{\al_{2}}}} \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{l}} \dots \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{3}} \pi(t;p_{2},1) \ll \frac{tb^{l-1}}{\phi(b)^{l}(\log t)^{l}}(\log t)^{l-1} = \frac{tb^{l-1}}{\phi(b)^{l}\log t}.$$
As for part (c), first note that $b/\phi(b) \ll \log\log b,$ so for $p_l>t^{\alpha_2}$, we get that part $(b)$ implies our bound. As for $p_l\le t^{\alpha_2}$ we'll split it into cases where $p_3$ is less than or greater than $t^{\alpha_2}.$ If $p_3\le t^{\alpha_2},$ then
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{b}\\p_ l \le t^{\al_{2}}}} \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{l}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{3}\\ p_2 \le t^{\alpha_2}}} \pi(t;p_{2},1) & \ll \sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{b}\\p_ l \le t^{\al_{2}}}} \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{l}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{3}\\ p_2 \le t^{\alpha_2}}} \frac{t}{\phi(p_{2})\log t/p_{2}} \\
& \ll \sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{b}\\p_ l \le t^{\al_{2}}}} \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{l}}\dots \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{3}\\ p_2 \le t^{\alpha_2}}} \frac{t}{p_{2}\log t} \\
& \ll \sum_{p_{l} \in \p_{b}}\frac{t (\log\log t)^{l-2}}{p_{l} \log t} \\
& \ll \frac{t (\log\log t)^{l-1}}{\phi(b) \log t}
\end{align*}
If $p_3> t^{\alpha_2},$ then since $b\le t^{\alpha_2}$ there is a minimum $m$ such that $p_m\le t^{\alpha_2}$. So using part (b) with $l=m$ we get
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{b}\\p_ l \le t^{\al_{2}}}} \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{l}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{3}\\ p_2 > t^{\alpha_2}}} \pi(t;p_{2},1) & \ll \sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{b}\\p_ l \le t^{\al_{2}}}} \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{l}} \dots \sum_{p_{m+1} \in \p_{m+2}} \frac{(p_{m-1})^{m-1}t}{\phi(p_{m-1})^m\log t} \\
& \ll \sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{b}\\p_ l \le t^{\al_{2}}}} \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{l}} \dots \sum_{p_{m+1} \in \p_{m+2}} \frac{t}{p_{m-1}\log t}\\
& \ll \frac{t (\log\log t)^{l-m}}{\phi(b) \log t} \\
& \ll \frac{t (\log\log t)^{l-1}}{\phi(b) \log t}
\end{align*}
since $m\ge 2$ and by using Brun-Titchmarsh \eqref{BT} which finishes part (c) and the lemma.
\end{proof}
As for the summations requires for the second moment, we'll note that we need twice as many sums due to $h_k(p)^2$. However the techniques required are similar.
\begin{lemma}\label{Doubles} Let $t> e^e$ and $0<2\alpha_1 < \alpha_2 <1/2$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] If $b_{1}>t^{\alpha_{1}}$ or $b_{2}>t^{\alpha_{1}}$ then
\begin{equation} \label{Doublea}
\sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ r_{2} \in \p_{b_{2}}}} \pi(t;p_{2}r_{2},1) \ll \frac{t\log^{2}t}{b_{1}b_{2}}.
\end{equation}
\item[(b)] If neither $b_{1}$ nor $b_{2}$ exceeds $t^{\alpha_{1}},$ then
\begin{equation} \label{Doubleb}
\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{b_{2}} \\ p_{k}r_{k}>t^{\alpha_2} }} ... \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}} \\ r_{2} \in \p_{r_{3}}}} \pi(t;p_{2}r_{2},1) \ll \frac{t(\log \log t)^{k-1}b_{2}^{k-1}}{\phi(b_{1})\phi(b_{2})^{k}\log t} + \frac{t(\log \log t)^{k-1}b_{1}^{k-1}}{\phi(b_{2})\phi(b_{1})^{k}\log t}.
\end{equation}
\item[(c)] If neither $b_{1}$ nor $b_{2}$ exceeds $t^{\alpha_{1}},$ then
\begin{equation} \label{Doublec}
\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{b_{2}}}} ... \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}} \\ r_{2} \in \p_{r_{3}}}} \pi(t;p_{2}r_{2},1) \ll \frac{t (\log\log t)^{2k-2}}{\phi(b_{1})\phi(b_{2}) \log t}.
\end{equation}
\item[(d)] If neither $b_{1}$ nor $b_{2}$ exceeds $t^{\alpha_{1}},$ then
\begin{equation} \label{Doubled}
\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{b_{2}}}} ... \sum_{\substack{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}} \\ r_{3} \in \p_{r_{4}}}}\sum_{s \in \p_{p_{3}} \cap \p_{r_{3}}} \pi(t;s,1) \ll \frac{t (\log\log t)^{2k-2}}{\phi(b_{1})\phi(b_{2}) \log t}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate} Again the implicit constants depend on our choice of the $\alpha.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(a) is similar to part (a) of Lemma \ref{Sums}.
For part (b) we first assume that $p_{k} \le r_{k}$, then
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{b_{2}}\\ p_{k}\le r_{k} \\ p_{k}r_{k}>t^{\alpha_2} }} & ... \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}} \\ r_{2} \in \p_{r_{3}}}} \pi(t;p_{2}r_{2},1) \\
& = \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{b_{2}} \\ p_{k}r_{k}>t^{\alpha_2} }} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}} \\ r_{3} \in \p_{r_{4}}}} \#\{ (m_{1},p_{2},r_{2}): p_{2}=1 \pmod{p_{3}}, r_{2}=1 \pmod{r_{3}}, r_{2}p_{2}>t^{\al_{2}}, \\ & \hskip10mm m_{1}r_{2}p_{2}+1 \le t, p_{2}, m_{1}r_{2}p_{2}+1 \text{ prime} \} \\
& = \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ p_{k}\le r_{k}}} \sum_{p_{k-1} \in \p_{k}} \dots \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{3}}\sum_{\substack{r_{k} \in \p_{b_{2}}\\ p_{k}r_{k}>t^{\al_{2}}}} \sum_{r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}} \dots \sum_{r_{4} \in \p_{r_{5}}} \#\{ (m_{1},m_{2},r_{3}): r_{3}=1 \pmod{r_{4}}, \\ & \hskip10mm r_{3}p_{2}>t^{\al_{2}},m_{1}p_{2}(m_{2}r_{3}+1)+1 \le t, \{r_{3}, m_{2}r_{3}+1, m_{1}p_{2}(m_{2}r_{3}+1)+1\} \text{ prime} \} \\
&= \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ p_{k}\le r_{k}}} \sum_{p_{k-1} \in \p_{k}} \dots \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{3}} \#\{ (m_{1},m_{2},\dots,m_{l-1},r_{l}): r_{l}=1 \pmod{b_{2}}, p_{2}r_{k}>t^{\al_{2}}, \\ & \hskip10mm m_{1}p_{2}(m_{2}\dots (m_{k-2}(m_{k-1}r_{k}+1)+1)+\dots+1 \le t, \{ r_{k}, m_{k-1}r_{k}+1, \\ & \hskip20mm m_{k-2}(m_{k-1}r_{k}+1)+1, \dots, \\ & \hskip30mm m_{1}p_{2}(m_{2}\dots (m_{k-2}(m_{k-1}r_{k}+1)+1)+\dots+1\} \text{ prime} \} \\
& \le \sum_{m_{1}\dots m_{l-1} \le t^{1-\al_{2}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ p_{k}\le r_{k}}} \sum_{p_{k-1} \in \p_{k}}\dots \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{3}} \#\{ r_{k} < t/p_{2}m_{1}...m_{k-1}: r_{k}=1 \pmod{b_{2}}, \\ & \hskip10mm \{ r_{k}, m_{k-1}r_{k}+1, m_{k-2}(m_{k-1}r_{k}+1)+1,\dots,\\ & \hskip20mm p_{2}m_{1}(m_{2}\dots (m_{k-2}(m_{k-1}r_{k}+1)+1)+\dots+1\} \text{ prime} \}
\end{align*}
Just like in Lemma \ref{Sums} we use Brun's Sieve. However, notice that we have almost the same set, except with $m_{1}$ replaced with $m_{1}p_{2}.$ Hence we have
\begin{align*}
\#\{ r_{k} & < t/p_{2}m_{1}\dotsm_{k-1}: r_{k}=1 \pmod{b_{1}}, \{ r_{k}, m_{k-1}r_{k}+1, m_{k-2}(m_{k-1}r_{k}+1)+1, \\ & \hskip10mm \dots,p_{2}m_{1}(m_{2}\dots (m_{k-2}(m_{k-1}r_{k}+1)+1)+\dots+1\} \text{ prime} \} \\
& \ll \frac{E^{k-1}}{\phi(E)^{k-1}}\frac{b_{2}^{k-1}}{\phi(b_{2})^{k-1}}\frac{b_{2}c_{1}\dots c_{k-1}}{\phi(b_{2}c_{1}\dots c_{k-1})}\frac{t/p_{2}m_{1}\dots m_{k-1}b_{2}}{(\log t/p_{2}m_{1}\dots m_{k-1}b_{2})^{k}}
\end{align*}
where the $c_{i}$ and $E$ are
\begin{align*}
E=& p_{2}\bigg(\prod_{i=1}^{l-1}m_{i}^{i(i+1)/2}\bigg)(1+p_{2}m_{1}+p_{2}m_{1}m_{2}+...+p_{2}m_{1}\dots m_{k-3})(1+m_{2}+m_{2}m_{3}+\dots\\ & \hskip10mm +m_{2}\dots m_{k-3}) \dots (1+m_{k-3})(1+p_{2}m_{1}+p_{2}m_{1}m_{2}+\dots+p_{2}m_{1}\dots m_{k-4})\\ & \hskip20mm (1+m_{2}+m_{2}m_{3}+\dots+m_{2}\dots m_{k-4}) \dots (1+m_{k-4})\dots (1+p_{2}m_1)
\end{align*}
and for $2 \le i \le k-1,$
\begin{align*}
& c_{1}=1+ p_{2}m_{1} + p_{2}m_{1}m_{2} + \dots + p_{2}m_{1}\dots m_{k-2},\\ & \hskip10mm c_{i}=1+ m_{i} + m_{i}m_{i+1} + \dots + m_{i}\dots m_{k-2}, c_{k-1}=1.
\end{align*}
By the same methods as Lemma \ref{Sums} and using that $p_{2}/\phi(p_{2})$ is bounded and noting that
$$\frac{t}{p_{2}m_{1}...m_{k-1}b_{2}} > \frac{r_{k}}{b_{1}} > t^{\alpha_{2}/2-\alpha_{1}}=t^{\epsilon}$$ for some $\epsilon>0$ since $\alpha_{2}>2\alpha_{1}$, we get that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{b_{2}} \\ p_{k}r_{k}>t^{\alpha_2} }} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}} \\ r_{2} \in \p_{r_{3}}}} \pi(t;p_{2}r_{2},1) & \ll \frac{tb_{2}^{k-1}}{\phi(b_{2})^{k}\log t}\sum_{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}}} \sum_{p_{k-1} \in \p_{k}} \dots \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{3}}\frac{1}{p_{2}} \\
& \ll \frac{tb_{2}^{k-1}}{\phi(b_{2})^{k}\log t}\sum_{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}}}\frac{(\log \log t)^{k-2}}{p_{k}} \\
& \ll \frac{t(\log \log t)^{k-1}b_{2}^{k-1}}{\phi(b_{1})\phi(b_{2})^{k}\log t}.
\end{align*} The case for $r_{k}\le p_{k}$ is similar.
As for part (c), first note that $b_{i}/\phi(b_{i}) \ll \log\log b_{i}$ for $i \in \{1,2\}.$ taking care of the case where $p_{k}r_{k}>t^{\alpha_{2}}.$ As for $p_{k}r_{k}\le t^{\alpha_{2}}$ we get
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{b_{2}} \\ p_{k}r_{k}\le t^{\alpha_2} }} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}} \\ r_{2} \in \p_{r_{3}}}} \pi(t;p_{2}r_{2},1) & \ll \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{b_{2}} \\ p_{k}r_{k}\le t^{\alpha_2} }} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}} \\ r_{2} \in \p_{r_{3}}}} \frac{t}{\phi(p_{2}r_{2})\log t/p_{2}r_{2}} \\
& \ll \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{b_{2}} \\ p_{k}r_{k}\le t^{\alpha_2} }} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}} \\ r_{2} \in \p_{r_{3}}}} \frac{t}{p_{2}r_{2}\log t} \\
& \ll \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{b_{1}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{b_{2}} \\ p_{k}r_{k}\le t^{\alpha_2} }}\frac{t(\log \log t)^{2k-4}}{p_{k}r_{k}\log t} \\ \\
& \ll \frac{t (\log\log t)^{2k-2}}{\phi(b_{1})\phi(b_{2}) \log t}
\end{align*} using Brun-Titchmarsh, \eqref{BT} finishing part (c). As for part (d) we note that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}} \\ r_{3} \in \p_{r_{4}}}}& \sum_{s \in \p_{p_{3}} \cap \p_{r_{3}}} \pi(t;s,1) \\
& = \sum_{\substack{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}} \\ r_{3} \in \p_{r_{4}}}}\#\{ (m_{1},s): s=1 \pmod{p_{3}r_{3}}, m_{1}s+1 \le t, s, m_{1}s+1 \text{ prime} \} \\
& = \sum_{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}}} \#\{ (m_{1},m_{2},r_{3}): r_{3}=1 \pmod{r_{4}}, m_{1}(m_{2}p_{3}r_{3}+1)+1 \le t, \\ & \hskip30mm \{m_{2}p_{3}r_{3}+1, m_{1}(m_{2}p_{3}r_{3}+1)+1 \text{ prime} \} \\
\end{align*} and so on, yielding a similar sieve as part (b).
\end{proof}
\section{Reduction of $\sum h_k(p)$ to small values of $p_k$}
We will be using Euler Summation on the sum $\sum_{p \leq t}\hk (p)$ in our efforts to find our estimate for $M_1(x).$ It will turn out that the large primes do not contribute much to the some. The sum will involve estimating $\pi(t;p,1)$ by $\li(t)/p-1.$ The following lemma will deal with those errors and will involve the Bombieri--Vinogradov Theorem.
\begin{lemma}\label{BVreduction}
For all $2\le l\le k$, $x>e^{e^{e}}$ and $v>e^{e},$
\begin{align*}\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q & \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}}\bigg(\pi(v,p_{k-l+2},1)- \frac{\li(v)}{p_{k-l+2}}\bigg) \\
& \ll \frac{v\log y}{\log v}+\li(v)(\log\log v)^{l-2}.\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $E(t;r,1)=\pi(t;r,1)-\frac{\li(t)}{r-1}.$ Then we have
\begin{align*}\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q & \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}}\bigg(\pi(v,p_{k-l+2},1)- \frac{\li(v)}{p_{k-l+2}-1}\bigg)\\
& = \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}} E(v; p_{k-l+2},1) \\
& \ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}} \abs{E(v; p_{k-l+2},1)}.\end{align*}
Let $\Omega(m)$ denote the number of divisors of $m$ which are primes or prime powers. We use the estimate $\Omega(m) \ll \log m$ to get
\begin{align*}\sum_{q \leq y^{k}}& \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}} \abs{E(v; p_{k-l+2},1)} \\
& \leq \log(y^{k})\sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}} \abs{E(v; p_{k-l+2},1)} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+3} \mid p_{k-l+2}-1 \\ p_{3} \leq v^{1/9}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+4} \mid p_{k-l+3}-1 \\ p_{k-l+4} \leq v^{1/27}}} \dots \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a} \mid p_{k}-1}}1 \\
& \leq \log(y^{k})\sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}} \abs{E(v; p_{k-l+2},1)} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+3} \mid p_{k-l+2}-1 \\ p_{3} \leq v^{1/9}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+4} \mid p_{k-l+3}-1 \\ p_{k-l+4} \leq v^{1/27}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k}\le v^{1/3^{k-1}} \\ p_{k} \mid p_{k-1}-1}}\Omega(p_{k}-1) \\
& \ll \log y\sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}} \abs{E(v; p_{k-l+2},1)} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+3} \mid p_{k-l+2}-1 \\ p_{3} \leq v^{1/9}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+4} \mid p_{k-l+3}-1 \\ p_{k-l+4} \leq v^{1/27}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k}\le v^{1/3^{k-1}} \\ p_{k} \mid p_{k-1}-1}}\log t.\end{align*} Continuing in this manner we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat}& \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}} \abs{E(v; p_{k-l+2},1)}\\ & \ll \log y (\log v)^{l-1} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}} \abs{E(v; p_{k-l+2},1)} \ll \frac{v \log y}{\log t}\end{align*} using Bombieri--Vinogradov. As for the difference between
$$\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}}\frac{\li(v)}{p_{k-l+2}-1}$$ and
\begin{equation}\label{Miles}\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}}\frac{\li(v)}{p_{k-l+2}}\end{equation} we get that it is
\begin{align*}\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q & \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}} \frac{\li(v)}{p_{k-l+2}(p_{k-l+2}-1)} \\
& \leq \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \frac{\li(v)}{(ip_{k-l+3}+1)(ip_{k-l+3})} \\
&\ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+3} \in \p_{p_{k-l+4}}\\ p_{k-l+3} \leq v^{1/9}}} \frac{\li(v)}{p_{k-l+3}^{2}} \\
&\ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+3} \in \p_{p_{k-l+4}}\\ p_{k-l+3} \leq v^{1/9}}} \frac{\li(v)}{p_{k-l+3}q^a} \\
& \ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \frac{\li(v)(\log\log v)^{l-2}}{q^{2a}} \\
& \ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}}\frac{\li(v)(\log\log v)^{l-2} \log q}{q^{2}} \\
& \ll \li(v)(\log\log v)^{l-2}\end{align*} using the Brun--Titchmarsh inequality \eqref{BT}, the inequality $p_{k-l+3} \ge q^a$ and noting that the sum over $q$ converges.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{hk1} For all $x>e^{e^{e}}$ and $t>e^{e}$,
\begin{align*}\sum_{p \leq t}\hk (p) = \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q & \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq t^{1/3^{k-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq t^{1/3^{k-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}}\\ p_{2} \leq t^{1/3}}} \pi(t;p_2,1) \\ & + O\bigg(t^{1-1/3^{k}} \log t (\log \log t)^{k-2} y^{k}+\frac{t (\log \log t)^{k-2}\log y}{\log t} \bigg).\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For a prime $p$,
\begin{align*}\hk (p) &= \sum_{p_{1}\mid p} \sum_{p_{2}\mid p_{1}-1} \dots \sum_{p_{k}\mid p_{k-1}-1} \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(p_{k}-1)\log q \\
& =\sum_{p_2 \mid p-1} \dots \sum_{p_{k}\mid p_{k-1}-1} \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(p_{k}-1)\log q\end{align*} since the only prime which can divide $p$ is $p$ itself. Hence
\begin{align*}\sum_{p \leq t}\hk (p) &= \sum_{p \leq t} \sum_{p_{2}\mid p-1} \dots \sum_{p_{k}\mid p_{k-1}-1} \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(p_{k}-1)\log q \\
& = \sum_{p \leq t} \sum_{p_{2}\mid p_{1}-1} \dots \sum_{p_{k}\mid p_{k-1}-1} \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ a \in \nat}} \log q \\
& = \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}}} \sum_{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}} \dots \sum_{p_2 \in \p_{p_{3}}} \sum_{\substack{p \leq t\\ p \in \p_{p_{2}}}} 1 \\
& = \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}}} \sum_{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}} \dots \sum_{p_2 \in \p_{p_{3}}} \pi(t;p_{2},1).\end{align*}
We wish to approximate $\pi(t;p_{2},1)$ by $\frac{\li(t)}{p_{2}-1}$ and use the Bombieri-Vinogradov Theorem to deal with the error. However this approximation only allows primes up to say $t^{1/3}.$ So we use the estimations in Lemma \ref{Sums} to bound these errors. We will see that the main contribution comes from $p_{i} \leq t^{1/3^{i-1}}$ and $q^{a} \leq t^{1/3^{k}}.$
Using Lemma \ref{Sums}, we get for large $q^{a}$
$$\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a} > t^{1/3^{k}}}} \sum_{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}}} \sum_{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}} \dots \sum_{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{2}}} \pi(t;p_{2},1)
\ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a} > t^{1/3^{k}}}} \frac{t \log t (\log \log t)^{k-2} }{q^{a}}.$$
By geometric estimates, if $a^{*}$ is the smallest $a$ where $q^{a} > t^{1/3^{k}}$, then we get that the above is
\begin{align*}&\ll t \log t (\log \log t)^{k-2} \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \frac{\log q }{q^{a^{*}}} \\
& \leq t^{1-1/3^{k}} \log t (\log \log t)^{k-2} \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \\
& \ll t^{1-1/3^{k}} \log t (\log \log t)^{k-2} y^{k}.\end{align*} Now suppose $q^{a} \leq t^{1/3^{k}}.$ Let $l$ be the last index (supposing one exists) where $p_{i} > t^{1/3^{i-1}}$ By using \eqref{Sum2} where $l$ ranges from $2$ to $k,$ we can bound the large values of the $p_i$.
\begin{align*}\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q & \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a} \leq t^{1/3^{k}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p^{k} \leq t^{1/3^{k-1}}}}\dots \sum_{\substack{p_{l+1} \in \p_{p_{l+2}} \\ p_{l+1} \leq t^{1/3^{l}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{l} \in \p_{p_{l+1}} \\ p_{l} > t^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{p_{l-1} \in \p_{p_{l}}} \dots \sum_{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}}} \pi(t;p_{2},1) \\
& \ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a} \leq t^{1/3^{k}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq t^{1/3^{k-1}}}}\dots\sum_{\substack{p_{l+2} \in \p_{p_{l+3}} \\ p_{l+2} \leq t^{1/3^{l+1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{l+1} \in \p_{p_{l+2}} \\ p_{l+1} > t^{1/3^{l}}}} \frac{(p_l)^{l-1}t }{\phi(p_{l})^{l} \log t} \\ & \ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a} \leq t^{1/3^{k}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq t^{1/3^{k-1}}}}\dots \sum_{\substack{p_{l+2} \in \p_{p_{l+3}} \\ p_{l+2} \leq t^{1/3^{l+1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{l+1} \in \p_{p_{l+2}} \\ p_{l+1} > t^{1/3^{l}}}} \frac{t }{p_{l+1} \log t}\end{align*} since $p_l$ is prime and $l\le k$. By Brun-Titchmarsh \eqref{BT} we get
\begin{align*}& \ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a} \leq t^{1/3^{k}}}} \frac{t (\log \log t)^{k-l}}{q^{a} \log t} \\
& \ll \sum\limits_{q \leq y^{k}} \frac{t (\log \log t)^{k-l}\log q}{q \log t} \\
& \ll \frac{t (\log \log t)^{k-2}\log y}{\log t}\end{align*} by \eqref{Merten} and since $l\ge 2$. Hence we get
\begin{align*}
\sum_{p \leq t}\hk (p) = \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q & \sum_{\substack{a \in \nat \\ q^{a} \leq t^{1/3^{k}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq t^{1/3^{k-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq t^{1/3^{k-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}}\\ p_{2} \leq t^{1/3}}} \pi(t,p_{2},1) \\
& + O\bigg(t^{1-1/3^{k}} \log t (\log \log t)^{k-2} y^{k}+\frac{t (\log \log t)^{k-2}\log y}{\log t} \bigg)\end{align*} finishing the lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Evaluation of the Main Term}\label{EvalMainTerm}
Now we'll deal with the main term from Lemma \ref{hk1}. We will deal with estimating the individual sums recursively. Hence we wish to make the following definition.
\begin{definition}Let $2 \le l\le k$ and $2\le u \le t$. Then define
$$g_{k,l}(u)=\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq u^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq u^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq u^{1/3}}} \pi(u;p_{k-l+2},1).$$
\end{definition}
Note that $g_{k,k}(t)$ is the summation in Lemma \ref{hk1}. Next we'll exhibit the recursive formula satisfied by the $g_{k,l}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{Recursion}
Let $3\le l\le k$, then
\begin{equation}
g_{k,l}(v)=\li(v)\int_{2}^{v^{1/3}} \frac{1}{u^{2}} g_{k,l-1}(u)du + O\bigg(\frac{v (\log \log v)^{l-2}\log y}{\log v} \bigg).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We'll proceed by approximating $\pi$ by $\li$ and then use partial summation to recover $\pi.$ Using Lemma \ref{BVreduction} we get
\begin{align*}
g_{k,l}(v)&= \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}} \pi(v;p_{k-l+2},1) \\ & \ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}} \frac{\li(v)}{p_{k-l+2}}+O\bigg(\frac{v\log y}{\log v}+ \li(v)(\log\log v)^{l-2} \bigg).
\end{align*}
We use Euler summation on the inner sum to get
$$\sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+2} \in \p_{p_{k-l+3}}\\ p_{k-l+2} \leq v^{1/3}}} \frac{1}{p_{k-l+2}} = \frac{\pi(v^{1/3};p_{k-l+3},1)}{v^{1/3}}+\int_{2}^{v^{1/3}} \frac{\pi(u;p_{k-l+3},1)}{u^{2}}du $$ and so we get that
\begin{align*}
g_{k,l}(v)&=\li(v)\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+3} \in \p_{p_{k-l+4}}\\ p_{k-l+3} \leq v^{1/3}}}\bigg(\frac{\pi(v^{1/3};p_{k-l+3},1)}{v^{1/3}}\\ & \hskip25mm+\int_{2}^{v^{1/3}} \frac{\pi(u;p_{k-l+3},1)}{u^{2}}du \bigg)+O\bigg(\frac{v\log y}{\log v}+\li(v)(\log\log v)^{l-2} \bigg).
\end{align*}
Inside the sum by trivially estimating $\pi(x;q,1)$ by $x/q$ inside the sum and using Brun--Titchmarsh \eqref{BT} we get
\begin{align*}
\sum_{q \leq y^{k}}& \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+3} \in \p_{p_{k-l+4}}\\ p_{k-l+3} \leq v^{1/3}}}\frac{\pi(v^{1/3};p_{k-l+3},1)}{v^{1/3}} \\
& \ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq v^{1/3^{l-1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}}\\ p_{k-1} \leq v^{1/3^{l-2}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{k-l+3} \in \p_{p_{k-l+4}}\\ p_{k-l+3} \leq v^{1/3}}}\frac{1}{p_{k-l+3}} \\
& \ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \frac{(\log\log v)^{l-2}}{q^a}\\
& \ll \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \frac{(\log\log v)^{l-2}}{q}\\
& \ll (\log\log v)^{l-2}\log y.
\end{align*} Multiplying through by $\li(v)$ finishes the lemma.
\end{proof}
We now require a lemma to find the asymptotic formula for $h_k$ using the previous recurrence relation
\begin{lemma}\label{hk}
Let $2\le l\le k$.
$$g_{k,l}(u)=\frac{ku(\log\log u)^{l-1}\log y}{(l-1)!\log u}+O\bigg(\frac{u(\log\log u)^{l-1}}{\log u}+\frac{u(\log\log u)^{l-2}\log ^2y}{\log u}\bigg)$$
which implies
\begin{align*}
\sum_{p \leq t}\hk (p) & = \frac{kt(\log\log t)^{k-1}\log y}{(k-1)!\log t}+O\bigg(\frac{t(\log\log t)^{k-1}}{\log t}\\ & \hskip10mm+\frac{t(\log\log t)^{k-2}\log ^2y}{\log t}+t^{1-1/3^k}\log t(\log\log t)^{k-2}y^k\bigg).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The second formula is derived from the first by setting $l=k$, $u=t$ and using Lemma \ref{hk1}. We'll proceed with the first formula by induction on $l$. Using the estimates we obtained via Bombieri--Vinogradov in Lemma \ref{BVreduction}, we have for $l=2$
\begin{align*}g_{k,2}(u) &= \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq u^{1/3}}}\pi(u;p_k,1) \\
& = \li(u)\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q^{a}} \\ p_{k} \leq u^{1/3}}} \frac{1}{p_{k}} + O\bigg(\li(u)+\frac{u \log y}{\log u}\bigg).\end{align*}
We then use \eqref{BT3} and
$$\log\log(u^{1/3})=\log\log u + O(1)$$
to get
\begin{align*}g_{k,2}(u)&=\li(u)\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat}\bigg( \frac{\log \log u^{1/3}}{\phi(q^{a})}+O\bigg(\frac{\log(q^{a})}{\phi(q^{a})} \bigg)\bigg)+ O\bigg(\frac{u \log y}{\log u}\bigg) \\
& =\li(u)(\log \log u + O(1))\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log q \sum_{a \in \nat}\bigg( \frac{1}{q^{a}}+O\bigg(\frac{1}{q^{a+1}}\bigg)\bigg)+O\bigg(\li(u)\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \log^{2} q \sum_{a \in \nat} \frac{a}{q^{a}}\bigg) \\
& \hskip10mm+ O\bigg(\frac{u \log y}{\log u}\bigg) \\
&=\li(u)(\log \log u + O(1))\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \bigg(\frac{\log q}{q} + O\bigg(\frac{\log q}{q^{2}}\bigg)\bigg)+O\bigg(\li(u)\sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \frac{\log^{2} q}{q}+\frac{u \log y}{\log u}\bigg)\\
&=\li(u)\log \log u \log(y^k) + O\bigg(\li(u)(\log y + \log \log u + \log^{2}y) +\frac{u \log y}{\log u}\bigg) \\
& =\frac{ku \log \log u \log y}{\log u} + O\bigg(\frac{u \log \log u}{\log u} +\frac{u \log^{2} y}{\log u}\bigg),\end{align*} completing the base case.
Now using Lemma \ref{Recursion} we get
\begin{align*}g_{k,l}(v)& =\li(v)\int_{2}^{v^{1/3}} \frac{1}{u^{2}} g_{k,l-1}(u)du + O\bigg(\frac{v (\log \log v)^{l-2}\log y}{\log v} \bigg)\\
&=\li(v)\int_{2}^{v^{1/3}} \frac{1}{u^{2}}\bigg(\frac{ku(\log\log u)^{l-2}\log y}{(l-2)!\log u}+O\bigg(\frac{u(\log\log u)^{l-2}}{\log u}+\\
& \hskip10mm\frac{u(\log\log u)^{l-3}\log ^2y}{\log u}\bigg)\bigg)du + O\bigg(\frac{v (\log \log v)^{l-2}\log y}{\log v} \bigg) \\
&=\li(v)\int_{2}^{v^{1/3}} \bigg(\frac{k(\log\log u)^{l-2}\log y}{(l-2)!u\log u}+O\bigg(\frac{(\log\log u)^{l-2}}{u\log u}+\frac{(\log\log u)^{l-3}\log ^2y}{u\log u}\bigg)\bigg)du\\
& \hskip10mm + O\bigg(\frac{v (\log \log v)^{l-2}\log y}{\log v} \bigg)\\
&= \frac{k\li(v)(\log\log v^{1/3})^{l-1}\log y}{(l-1)!}+O\bigg(\li(v)(\log\log v^{1/3})^{l-1}+ \li(v)(\log\log v^{1/3})^{l-2}\log ^2y \\
& \hskip10mm +\frac{v (\log \log v)^{l-2}\log y}{\log v} \bigg).
\end{align*}
Once again by using $$\log\log v^{1/3}=\log\log v +O(1)$$ we get
\begin{align*}
& \frac{kv(\log\log v)^{l-1}\log y}{(l-1)!\log v} +O\bigg(\frac{v(\log\log v)^{l-1}}{\log v}+
\frac{v(\log\log v)^{l-2}\log ^2y}{\log v}+\frac{v (\log \log v)^{l-2}\log y}{\log v} \bigg) \\
&=\frac{kv(\log\log v)^{l-1}\log y}{(l-1)!\log v} +O\bigg(\frac{v(\log\log v)^{l-1}}{\log v}+
\frac{v(\log\log v)^{l-2}\log ^2y}{\log v}\bigg),
\end{align*} completing the induction.
\end{proof}
\section{The Proof of the First Moment}
We now are in a position to prove the propostion for the first moment.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{M1}]
\begin{align*} M_{1}(x)& = \sum_{p \leq x}\frac{\hk (p)}{p} \\
& = \sum_{p \leq e^{e}}\frac{\hk (p)}{p} + \sum_{e^{e} < p \leq x}\frac{\hk (p)}{p} \\
& = O(1) + \sum_{e^{e} < p \leq x}\hk (p)\bigg(\frac{1}{x}+ \int_{p}^{x}\frac{dt}{t^{2}}\bigg) \\
& =O(1)+ \frac{1}{x}\sum_{e^{e} < p \leq x}\hk (p) + \int_{e^{e}}^{x} \frac{dt}{t^{2}}\sum_{e^{e} < p \leq t}\hk (p).\end{align*}
Using $t=x$ in Lemma \ref{hk} we get that
$$\sum_{e^{e} < p \leq x}\hk (p) \ll \frac{xy^{k-1}\log y}{\log x}$$ and since $$\sum_{e^{e} < p \leq t}\hk (p)$$ differs from $$\sum_{p \leq t}\hk (p)$$ by a constant, we get that
\begin{align*}M_{1}(x)&= O(1) + \frac{1}{x}O\bigg(\frac{xy^{k-1}\log y}{\log x}\bigg) + \int_{e^{e}}^{x} \frac{dt}{t^{2}}\bigg(\frac{kt(\log\log t)^{k-1}\log y}{(k-1)!\log t}+O\bigg(\frac{t(\log\log t)^{k-1}}{\log t}\\ & \hskip10mm+\frac{t(\log\log t)^{k-2}\log ^2y}{\log t}+t^{1-1/3^k}\log t(\log\log t)^{k-2}y^k\bigg)\bigg)\end{align*} using Lemma \ref{hk}. Noting that
\begin{align*}\int_{e^{e}}^{x}& \frac{dt}{t^{2}}t^{1-1/3^k}\log t(\log\log t)^{k-2}y^k \\
& = \int_{e^{e}}^{x}\frac{y^k dt}{t^{1+\epsilon}}\\
& \ll y^k \end{align*} yields
\begin{align*}
O(y^k)&+O\bigg(\frac{y^{k-1}\log y}{\log x}\bigg) + \int_{e^{e}}^{x} \frac{dt}{t^{2}}\bigg(\frac{kt(\log\log t)^{k-1}\log y}{(k-1)!\log t}+O\bigg(\frac{t(\log\log t)^{k-1}}{\log t}\\ & \hskip10mm+\frac{t(\log\log t)^{k-2}\log ^2y}{\log t}\bigg)\bigg) \\
& = O(y^k)+ \frac{k(\log\log x)^{k}\log y}{k(k-1)!}+O\bigg((\log\log x)^{k}+ (\log\log x)^{k-1}\log ^2y\bigg) \\
& = \frac{y^{k}\log y}{(k-1)!}+O(y^k) \end{align*} as needed.
\end{proof}
\section{The Proof of the Second Moment}
We now turn our attention to the second moment. Our first lemma will bound the case where $p_3=r_3$ and then we'll use the summations from Lemma \ref{Doubles} to take care of the rest.
\begin{lemma} \label{DoubleSum}
\begin{align*}\sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2}& \sum_{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat}\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q_{1}^{a_{1}}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}} \\ r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}}}\dots \sum_{\substack{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}} \\ r_{3} \in \p_{r_{4}}}}\sum_{s \in \p_{p_{3}} \cap \p_{r_{3}}}\sum_{\substack{p \le t \\ p \in \p_{s}}}1 \\ & \ll t^{1-\eps}y^{k}\log y + \frac{t(\log \log t)^{2k-2}}{\log t}\log ^{2} y \end{align*} for some $\epsilon > 0.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Our sum is
\begin{align*}\sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}&\log q_{1} \log q_{2}\sum_{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat}\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q_{1}^{a_{1}}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}} \\ r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}}}\dots \sum_{\substack{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}} \\ r_{3} \in \p_{r_{4}}}}\sum_{s \in \p_{p_{3}} \cap \p_{r_{3}}}\sum_{\substack{p \le t \\ p \in \p_{s}}}1 \\
& =\sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2}\sum_{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat}\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q_{1}^{a_{1}}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}} \\ r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}}}\dots \sum_{\substack{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}} \\ r_{3} \in \p_{r_{4}}}}\sum_{s \in \p_{p_{3}r_3}}\pi(t;s,1).\end{align*}
We split up into two cases. If $q_{1}^{a_{1}}q_{2}^{a_{2}} > t^{\alpha}$, then suppose $q_{1}^{a_{1}}>t^{\alpha/2}.$ (the other case is analogous) We get from the trivial bound on $\pi(t;s,1)$ that
\begin{align*}\sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}& \log q_{1} \log q_{2}\sum_{\substack{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat \\ q_{1}^{a_{1}}>t^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q_{1}^{a_{1}}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}} \\ r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}}}\dots \sum_{\substack{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}} \\ r_{3} \in \p_{r_{4}}}}\sum_{s \in \p_{p_{3}r_3}}\pi(t;s,1) \\
& = \sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2}\sum_{\substack{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat \\ q_{1}^{a_{1}}>t^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q_{1}^{a_{1}}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}} \\ r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}}}\dots \sum_{\substack{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}} \\ r_{3} \in \p_{r_{4}}}} \sum_{s \in \p_{p_{3}r_3}}\frac{t\log t}{s} \\
& = \sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2}\sum_{\substack{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat \\ q_{1}^{a_{1}}>t^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q_{1}^{a_{1}}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}} \\ r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}}}\dots \sum_{\substack{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}} \\ r_{3} \in \p_{r_{4}}}}\frac{t\log t \log\log t}{p_3r_3} \\
& = \sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2}\sum_{\substack{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat \\ q_{1}^{a_{1}}>t^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}}\frac{t\log t (\log\log t)^{2k-3}}{q_1^{\alpha_1}q_2^{\alpha_2}}.
\end{align*}
By letting $A = \min \{a | q_{1}^{a_{1}}>t^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\} $ we get
\begin{align*}& \ll \sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2}\frac{t \log t (\log \log t)^{k-1}}{q_{1}^{A}q_{2}} \\
& \le t^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}} \log t (\log \log t)^{2k-3}\sum_{q_{1} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1}\sum_{q_{2} \le y^{k}}\frac{\log q_{2}}{q} \\ & \ll t^{1-\eps}y^{k} \log y.\end{align*}
If $q_{1}^{a_{1}}q_{2}^{a_{2}} > t^{\alpha}$, then by Lemma \ref{Doubles} part (d) we get
\begin{align*}\sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}& \log q_{1} \log q_{2}\sum_{\substack{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat \\ q_{1}^{a_{1}}q_{2}^{a_{2}}\le t^{\alpha}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q_{1}^{a_{1}}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}} \\ r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}}}\dots \sum_{\substack{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}} \\ r_{3} \in \p_{r_{4}}}}\sum_{s \in \p_{p_{3}r_3}}\pi(t;s,1) \\
& \ll \sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2}\sum_{\substack{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat \\ q_{1}^{a_{1}}q_{2}^{a_{2}}\le t^{\alpha}}}\frac{t (\log\log t)^{2k-2}}{q_{1}^{a_{1}}q_{2}^{a_{2}} \log t} \\
& \ll \sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2}\frac{t (\log\log t)^{2k-2}}{q_{1}q_{2} \log t} \\
& = \frac{t (\log\log t)^{2k-2}}{\log t}\bigg( \sum_{q \le y^{k}}\frac{\log q}{q}\bigg)^2 \\
& \ll \frac{t (\log\log t)^{2k-2}}{\log t}\log^2 y \end{align*} by \eqref{Merten}, completing the lemma.
\end{proof}
We now have enough to finish the second moment which is the final piece of the puzzle.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{M2}]
\begin{align*}\sum_{p \leq t}\hk (p)^{2} &=\sum_{p \leq x}\bigg(\sum_{p_{1}\mid p} \sum_{p_{2}\mid p_{1}-1} \dots \sum_{p_{k}\mid p_{k-1}-1} \sum_{q \leq y^{k}} \nu_{q}(p_{k}-1)\log q\bigg)^{2}
\\ &=\sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2}\sum_{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat}\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q_{1}^{a_{1}}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}} \\ r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}}}\dots \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}} \\ r_{2} \in \p_{r_{3}}}}\sum_{\substack{p \le t \\ p \in \p_{p_{2}} \\ p \in \p_{r_{2}}}}1
\end{align*}
since the condition $p_{1} \mid p$ only occurs if $p_{1} = p.$ We then split up the sum according to whether or not $p_2=r_2.$ Lemma \ref{DoubleSum} deals with the part where $s=p_2=r_2$ leaving us with
\begin{align*}\sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2} &\sum_{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat}\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q_{1}^{a_{1}}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}} \\ r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}}}...\sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}} \\ r_{2} \in \p_{r_{3}} \\ p_{2} \ne r_{2}}}\sum_{\substack{p \le t \\ p \in \p_{p_{2}} \\ p \in \p_{r_{2}}}}1 \\ &+ O\bigg(t^{1-\eps}y^{k}\log y + \frac{t(\log \log t)^{2k-2}}{\log t}\log ^{2} y \bigg).\end{align*}
The sum becomes
$$\sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2} \sum_{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat}\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q_{1}^{a_{1}}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}} \\ r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}}}\dots\sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}} \\ r_{2} \in \p_{r_{3}}}} \pi(t;p_{2}r_{2},1).$$
If $q_{1}^{a_{1}} > t^{\alpha_{1}}$, then so is $p_{2}$, and hence by \eqref{Doublea} we get
\begin{align*}&\sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2} \sum_{\substack{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat \\ q_{1}^{a_{1}} > t^{\alpha_{1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q_{1}^{a_{1}}}\\ r_{k} \in \p_{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}} \\ r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}}}\dots\sum_{\substack{p_{3} \in \p_{p_{4}} \\ r_{3} \in \p_{r_{4}}}} \frac{t\log^{2}t}{p_{3}r_{3}}
\\ &\ll \sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2} \sum_{\substack{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat \\ q_{1}^{a_{1}} > t^{\alpha_{1}}}}\frac{t\log^{2}t (\log\log t)^{2k-4}}{q_{1}^{a_{1}}q_{2}^{a_{2}}}
\\ &\ll t^{1-\alpha_{1}}\log^{2}t (\log\log t)^{2k-4}\sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2} \sum_{a_{2} \in \nat }\frac{1}{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}
\\ &\ll t^{1-\alpha_{1}}\log^{2}t (\log\log t)^{2k-4}\sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\frac{\log q_{1} \log q_{2}}{q_{2}}
\\ &\ll t^{1-\alpha_{1}}\log^{2}t (\log\log t)^{2k-4} (y^{k}\log y ). \end{align*}
We similarly get the same bound if $q_{2}^{a_{2}} > t^{\alpha_{1}}.$ If neither of $q_{1}^{a_{1}},q_{2}^{a_{2}}$ exceed $ t^{\alpha_{1}},$ then by \eqref{Doublec} and using that for $b_{i}=q_{i}^{a_{i}}$
$$\frac{b_{i}}{\phi(b_{i})} \ll 1, \frac{1}{\phi(b_{i})} \ll \frac{1}{b_{i}},$$ we get
\begin{align*}\sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} &\log q_{2} \sum_{\substack{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat \\ q_{1}^{a_{1}},q_{2}^{a_{2}} \le t^{\alpha_{1}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k} \in \p_{q_{1}^{a_{1}}} \\ r_{k} \in \p_{q_{2}^{a_{2}}}}}\sum_{\substack{p_{k-1} \in \p_{p_{k}} \\ r_{k-1} \in \p_{r_{k}}}}\dots\sum_{\substack{p_{i} \in \p_{p_{i+1}} \\ r_{i} \in \p_{r_{i+1}}}} \sum_{\substack{p_{i-1} \in \p_{p_{i}} \\ r_{i-1} \in \p_{r_{i}}}} \dots \sum_{\substack{p_{2} \in \p_{p_{3}} \\ r_{2} \in \p_{r_{3}}}} \pi(t;p_{2}r_{2},1) \\
& \ll \sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\log q_{1} \log q_{2} \sum_{\substack{a_{1},a_{2} \in \nat \\ q_{1}^{a_{1}},q_{2}^{a_{2}} \le t^{\alpha_{1}}}}\frac{t(\log \log t)^{2k-2}}{q_{1}^{a_{1}}q_{2}^{a_{2}}\log t} \\
& \ll \frac{t(\log \log t)^{2k-2}}{\log t} \sum_{q_{1},q_{2} \le y^{k}}\frac{\log q_{1} \log q_{2}}{q_{1}q_{2}} \\
& \ll \frac{t(\log \log t)^{2k-2}\log ^2 y}{\log t}.
\end{align*}
Hence the above gives us that
$$\sum_{p \leq t}\hk (p)^{2} \ll t^{1-\eps}y^{k}\log y + \frac{t(\log \log t)^{2k-2}\log ^{2} y}{\log t}.$$
Using partial summation we have
\begin{align*}
M_2(x) &= \sum_{p \leq x}\frac{\hk (p)^{2}}{p} = \sum_{p \leq e^{e}}\frac{\hk (p)^{2}}{p} + \frac{1}{x}\sum_{e^{e} \le p \leq x}\hk (p)^{2} + \int_{e^e}^{x}\frac{dt}{t^{2}}\sum_{e^{e} \le p \leq t}\hk (p)^{2} \\
& \ll 1+\frac{1}{x}\bigg( x^{1-\eps}y^{k}\log y + \frac{x(\log \log x)^{2k-2}\log ^{2} y}{\log x}\bigg) \\
& \hskip10mm+ \int_{e^e}^{x}\bigg(t^{-1-\eps}y^{k}\log y + \frac{(\log \log t)^{2k-2}\log ^{2} y}{t\log t}\bigg)dt \\
&\ll \frac{y^{2k-2}\log ^{2} y}{\log x} + x^{-\eps}y^k \log y + (\log \log x)^{2k-1}\log ^2 y \\
&\ll y^{2k-1}\log ^2 y
\end{align*} completing the proof of Proposition \ref{M2} and hence Theorem \ref{MainTheorem}.
\end{proof}
\section{Theorem \ref{Second}}\label{Theorem2}
We now turn our attention to the proof of Theorem \ref{Second}. It will be necessary to use the following upper bound for the Carmichael function of a product.
\begin{lemma}
Let $a,b$ be natural numbers, then
\begin{equation}\label{lambdabound}
\lambda(ab) \le b\lambda(a).
\end{equation}
\begin{proof}
We first note that it suffices to show the inequality whenever $b$ is prime, because if
$$b=p_1\dots p_k$$ where the $p_i$ are not necessarily distinct, then repeated use of the theorem where $b$ is prime yields
$$\lambda(ab) = \lambda(ap_1\dots p_k) \le p_1\lambda(ap_2\dots p_k)\le \dots \le p_1\dots p_k\lambda(a) = b\lambda(a).$$
If $b$ is a prime which divides $a$, then
$$a=b^ep_1^{e_1}\dots p_k^{e_k} \text{ and } ab=b^{e+1}p_1^{e_1}\dots p_k^{e_k}.$$
Therefore \begin{align*}\lambda(ab)&=\lcm\bigg(\lambda(b^{e+1}),\lambda(p_1^{e_1}),\dots ,\lambda(p_k^{e_k})\bigg) \\
&\le \lcm\bigg(b\lambda(b^{e}),\lambda(p_1^{e_1}),\dots,\lambda(p_k^{e_k})\bigg) \\
& \le b * \lcm\bigg(\lambda(b^{e}),\lambda(p_1^{e_1}),\dots,\lambda(p_k^{e_k})\bigg) \\
& = b\lambda(a)\end{align*} where the first inequality is in fact an equality if $b^e=4$. Also note that in this case, it would not be hard to show that $\lambda(ab) \mid b\lambda(a).$ If $(a,b)=1$, then
\begin{align*}\lambda(ab)&=lcm\bigg(b-1,\lambda(p_1^{e_1}),\dots,\lambda(p_k^{e_k})\bigg) \\
& \le (b-1) \lcm\bigg(\lambda(p_1^{e_1}),\dots,\lambda(p_k^{e_k})\bigg) \\
& < b\lambda(a),\end{align*} ending the proposition.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
Suppose that $g(n)$ is an arithmetic function of the form $\phi(h(n))$ where $h(n)$ is a $(k-1)$--fold iterate involving $\phi$ and $\lambda$. Then we can use equation \eqref{lambdabound} to get
$$\lambda_{l+k}(n) \le \lambda_l(g(n)) \le \lambda_l\bigg(\frac{g(n)}{\lambda_k(n)}\lambda_k(n) \bigg) \le \lambda_{l+k}(n)\frac{g(n)}{\lambda_k(n)}.$$
Since $g(n)\le n$ we have that $$\frac{g(n)}{\lambda_k(n)} \le \frac{n}{\lambda_k(n)} = \exp\bigg(\frac{1}{(k-1)!}(1+o_k(1)) (\log\log{n})^{k}\log\log\log{n} \bigg)$$ by Theorem \ref{MainTheorem} and hence
$$\lambda_{l+k}(n) \le \lambda_l(g(n)) \le \lambda_l\bigg(\frac{g(n)}{\lambda_k(n)}\lambda_k(n) \bigg) \le \lambda_{l+k}(n)\exp\bigg(\frac{1}{(k-1)!} (\log\log{n})^{k}(1+o_k(1))\log\log\log{n} \bigg).$$
From the fact that
$$\lambda_{l+k}(n)=n\exp\bigg(-\frac{1}{(k+l-1)!}(1+o_{l,k}(1))(\log\log{n})^{k+l}\log\log\log{n} \bigg)$$ we get
$$\lambda_l(g(n))=n\exp\bigg(-\frac{1}{(k+l-1)!}(1+o_{l,k}(1))(\log\log{n})^{k+l}\log\log\log{n} \bigg).$$
As for $\phi(g(n))$ we note that unless $g(n)=\phi_k(n)$, $g(n)$ can be writen as $\phi_l(h(n))$ where $h(n)$ is a $(k-l)$--fold iterate beginning with a $\lambda$. From above we can see that
$$h(n)=n\exp\bigg(-\frac{1}{(k-l-1)!}(1+o_{k}(1))(\log\log{n})^{k-l}\log\log\log{n} \bigg)$$ and so $\phi(h(n))$ is bounded above by $h(n)$ and below by
\begin{align*}\frac{h(n)}{e^{\gamma}\log\log h(n) + \frac{3}{\log\log h(n)}} &= \frac{h(n)}{e^{\gamma}\log\big(\log n - \frac{1}{(k-l-1)!}(1+o_{k}(1))(\log\log{n})^{k-l}\log\log\log{n} \big)} \\
& = \frac{h(n)}{e^{\gamma}\log\log n - O\big(\frac{1}{(k-l-1)!\log n}(1+o_{k}(1))(\log\log{n})^{k-l}\log\log\log{n} \big)} \\
& =h(n)\exp\big(O(\log\log\log n) \big)
\end{align*} which is within the error of $h(n)$. Hence any string of $\phi$ will not change our estimate. Therefore if $g(n)$ is a $k$--fold iteration of $\phi$ and $\lambda$ which is not $\phi_k(n)$, but which begins with $l$ copies of $\phi$, then
$$g(n)=n\exp\bigg(-\frac{1}{(k-l-1)!}(1+o_{k}(1))(\log\log{n})^{k-l}\log\log\log{n} \bigg)$$ yielding our theorem.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author would like to thank Greg Martin for his assistance and guidance.
|
\section{Introduction \label{intro}}
There are several keystone works (Mandelbrot 1974, Parisi and Frisch 1985, Benzi \etal 1984, Halsey \etal 1986, Meneveau and Sreenivasan 1987, Nelkin 1990, Hosokawa 1991, Benzi \etal 1991, She and Leveque 1994, Dubrulle 1994, She Z-S and Waymire 1995, Arimitsu T and N 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2002, Arimitsu N and T 2002, Biferale \etal 2004, Chevillard \etal 2006)
providing the multifractal aspects for fully developed turbulence.
Only a few works (Benzi \etal 1991, Arimitsu T and N 2001, 2002, Arimitsu N and T 2002, Biferale \etal 2004, Chevillard \etal 2006)
analyze the probability density functions (PDFs) for physical quantities
representing intermittent character.
The other works
deal with only the scaling property of the system, e.g., comparison of
the scaling exponents of velocity structure function.
Among the researches analyzing PDFs, multifractal probability density function theory
(MPDFT) (Arimitsu T and N 2001, 2002, 2011, Arimitsu N and T 2002, 2011)
provides the most precise analysis of the fat-tail PDFs.
MPDFT is a statistical mechanical ensemble theory constructed by the authors (T.A.\ and N.A.)
in order to analyze intermittent phenomena providing fat-tail PDFs.
To extract the intermittent character of
the fully developed turbulence, it is necessary to have
information of self-similar hierarchical structure of the system.
This is realized by producing a series of PDFs for
responsible singular quantities with different lengths
\be
\ell_{n}= \ell_0 \delta^{-n}, \quad \delta>1
\quad ({n}=0,1,2,\cdots)
\label{def of delta}
\ee
that characterize the regions in which the physical quantities are coarse-grained.
The value for $\delta$ is chosen freely by observers.
Let us assume that the self-similar structure of fully developed turbulence is such
that the choice of $\delta$ should not affect the theoretical estimation of the values for
the fundamental quantities characterizing the turbulent system
under consideration.
A\&A model within the framework of MPDFT itself tells us that
this requirement is satisfied if the scaling relation has
the form
(Arimitsu T and N 2011, Arimitsu N and T 2011)
\be
\ln 2 / (1-q)\ln \delta = 1 / \alpha_- - 1 / \alpha_+.
\label{new scaling relation}
\ee
Here, $q$ is the index associated with the R\'enyi entropy
(R\'enyi 1961) or with the Havrda-Charvat
and Tsallis
(HCT) entropy (Havrda and Charvat 1967, Tsallis 1988);
$\alpha_\pm$ are zeros of the multifractal spectrum $f(\alpha)$
(see below in section \ref{Brief intro}).
The multifractal spectrum is uniquely related to the PDF for $\alpha$
(see (\ref{Tsallis prob density}) below). The PDF of $\alpha$ is related to
the tail part of PDFs within MPDFT for those quantities revealing
intermittent behavior whose singularity exponents can have values $\alpha < 1$,
e.g., the energy dissipation rates, through the variable transformation
between $\alpha$ and the physical quantities (see (\ref{epsilon alpha}) below
for the case of the energy dissipation rates $\varepsilon_n$).
With the new scaling relation (\ref{new scaling relation}),
observables have come to depend on the parameter $\delta$ only in the combination
$
(1-q)\ln \delta
$.
The difference in $\delta$ is absorbed in the entropy index $q$.
\footnote{
Since almost all the PDFs that had been provided previously
were for the case where $\delta = 2$, it has been possible
to analyze PDFs
(Arimitsu T and N 2001, 2002, Arimitsu N and T 2002) with the scaling relation
$
1/(1-q) = 1/\alpha_- - 1/\alpha_+
\label{Tsallis scaling relation}
$
proposed by
Costa \etal (1998) and Lyra and Tsallis (1998)
in connection with the $2^\infty$ periodic orbit.
The orbit having the marginal instability of zero Liapunov exponent appears
at the threshold to chaos via a period-doubling bifurcation in one-dimensional
dissipative maps.
}
In the preceding papers, we analyzed PDFs for energy transfer rates
(Arimitsu T and N 2011)
and PDFs for energy dissipation rates
(Arimitsu N and T 2011),
which are given in figure~11 of Aoyama \etal (2005),
with the help of the new scaling relation,
and checked the independence of the PDFs from $\delta$.
It was found that the adjustable parameters for the central part PDF provide us with
$\delta$-independent scaling behaviors as functions of $r/\eta$, and that
the scaling properties are satisfied in much wider region not restricted to inside of
the inertial range.
However, the number of data points used in drawing the PDFs in figure~11 of Aoyama \etal (2005)
is not enough, especially, for the precise analyses of the central part of the PDFs
performed in
Arimitsu T and N (2011)
and
Arimitsu N and T (2011).
Therefore, we will perform, as one of the aims of the present paper, the same analyses,
which were done for DNS, with the help of PDFs created
from wind tunnel turbulence with a higher enough resolution in order to make sure
if the characteristics discovered previously with rather poor resolution at the central part
are correct or not.
Since we have the raw time-series data taken from wind tunnel turbulence,
we can create PDFs for energy dissipation rates with enough resolutions
fit to our needs.
In this paper, we analyze the PDFs for energy dissipation rates
extracted out from the time series of the velocity field
of a fully developed turbulence which were observed
by one of the authors (H.M.)
in his experiment conducted in a wind tunnel (Mouri \etal 2008).
In section~\ref{Brief intro}, we present the formulae of theoretical PDFs
within A\&A model which are necessary
in the following sections for the analyses of PDFs obtained from
the experimental turbulence.
In section~\ref{pdf edr}, we analyze
the observed PDFs for energy dissipation rates
in a high precision with the theoretical PDF within A\&A model of MPDFT,
and verify the proposed assumption related to the magnification $\delta$.
In section~\ref{sec:physical inv of the results edr}, in order to see
what information we can extract out from the time-series data,
we compare two different PDFs for energy dissipation rates
created from the time series data with different approximation for temporal derivative.
We may learn from this how to treat the central part of PDFs to derive the information
of incoherent fluctuating motion around the coherent turbulent motion.
Summary and discussion are provided in section~\ref{summary}.
\section{Singularity exponent and PDFs for energy dissipation rates
\label{Brief intro}}
MPDFT is constructed under the assumption, following Parisi and Frisch
(1985), that for high Reynolds number
the singularities distribute themselves in a multifractal way in real physical space.
The singularities stem from the invariance of the Navier-Stokes (N-S) equation
for an incompressible fluid under the scale transformation
$
{\vec x} \rightarrow {\vec x}' = \lambda {\vec x}
$,
accompanied by the scale changes
$
{\vec u} \rightarrow {\vec u}'= \lambda^{\alpha/3} {\vec u}
$
in velocity field,
$
t \rightarrow t' = \lambda^{1- \alpha/3} t
$
in time and
$
p \rightarrow p'=\lambda^{2\alpha/3} p
$
in pressure with an arbitrary real number $\alpha$,
in the limit of large Reynolds number, i.e., the contribution from the dissipation term
in N-S equation, which is proportional to the kinematic viscosity $\nu$, is negligibly small
compared with the convection term.
In treating an actual turbulent system, however, the value $\nu$ is fixed to
a finite value unique to the material of fluid prepared for an experiment.
We should keep in mind that the dissipation term can become
effective depending on the region under consideration, since the term breaking the invariance
does exist, i.e., non-zero (see the discussion in the following).
The invariance under the scale transformation leads to the scaling property
\be
\varepsilon_n / \epsilon = \left(\ell_n / \ell_0 \right)^{\alpha -1}
\label{epsilon alpha}
\ee
for the energy dissipation rate $\varepsilon_n$ averaged in the regions with diameter $\ell_n$.
Here, we put $\varepsilon_0 = \epsilon$ whose value is assumed to be constant.
The energy dissipation rate becomes singular for $\alpha < 1$, i.e.,
$
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \varepsilon_n
= \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \ell_n^{\alpha -1}
\rightarrow \infty
$.
The degree of singularity is specified by the singularity exponent $\alpha$
(Parisi and Frisch 1985).
Let us consider $\alpha$ to be a stochastic variable whose PDF $P^{(n)}(\alpha)$ is given by
the R\'enyi
or HCT
type function (Arimitsu T and N 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2002, 2011, Arimitsu N and T 2002, 2011):
\be
P^{(n)}(\alpha) \propto \left[ 1 - (\alpha - \alpha_0)^2/(\itDelta \alpha)^2 \right]^{n/(1-q)}
\label{Tsallis prob density}
\ee
with
$
\itDelta \alpha = \left[2X/(1-q) \ln \delta \right]^{1/2}
$.
The domain of $\alpha$ is
$\alpha_{\rm min} \leq \alpha \leq \alpha_{\rm max}$ with
$\alpha_{\rm min}$ and $\alpha_{\rm max}$ being given by
$
\alpha_{\rm min/ max} = \alpha_0 \mp \itDelta \alpha
$.
$q$ is the entropy index.\footnote{
The function (\ref{Tsallis prob density}) is the MaxEnt PDF derived from the R{\'e}nyi entropy
or from the HCT entropy with two constraints, one is the normalization condition
and the other is a fixed $q$-variance
(Tsallis 1988).
This choice of PDF is also quite natural since the R{\'e}nyi entropy and the HCT entropy
are directly related to the generalized dimension
(Hentschel and Procaccia 1983) describing
those systems containing multifractal structures
(Grassberger 1983).
Note that for the HCT entropy the relation is given with the help of
the $q$-exponential
(Tsallis 2001) which is a function satisfying
a scaling invariance
(Suyari and Wada 2006) and reduces to the ordinary exponential for
$q \rightarrow 1$.
}
From (\ref{Tsallis prob density}), we have for $n \gg 1$ the expression
of the multifractal spectrum
\be
f(\alpha) = 1 + \ln \left[ 1 -
(\alpha - \alpha_0)^2 / (\itDelta \alpha )^2 \right] / (1-q)\ln \delta.
\label{Tsallis f-alpha}
\ee
The independence of $f(\alpha)$ from $n$ is interpreted as a manifestation of the existence of
self-similar hierarchical structure responsible for the intermittent fluid motion of turbulence.
The three parameters $\alpha_0$, $X$ and $q$ appeared in $P^{(n)}(\alpha)$ are determined
as the functions of the intermittency exponent $\mu$ with the help of the three conditions.
One is the energy conservation law
$
\bra \varepsilon_n \ket = \epsilon
$.
Another is the definition of the intermittency exponent $\mu$, i.e.,
$
\bra (\varepsilon_n/\epsilon )^2 \ket
= (\ell_n/\ell_0 )^{-\mu}
$.
The last condition is the scaling relation (\ref{new scaling relation})
with $\alpha_\pm$ being the solution of $f(\alpha_\pm) =0$, which
is a generalization of the one introduced by Tsallis and his coworkers
(Costa \etal 1998, Lyra and Tsallis 1998)
to which (\ref{new scaling relation}) reduces when $\delta=2$.
Here, the average $\bra \cdots \ket$ is taken with $P^{(n)}(\alpha)$.
The parameter $q$ is determined, altogether with $\alpha_0$ and $X$,
as a function of $\mu$ only in the combination $(1-q)\ln \delta$.
The difference in $\delta$ is absorbed into the entropy index $q$,
therefore changing the zooming rate $\delta$
may result in picking up the different hierarchy, containing the entropy
specified by the index $q$, out of self-similar structure of turbulence.
As the parameters are dependent on $q$ only in the combination $(1-q)\ln \delta$,
we are naturally led to the replacement of $n$ in the expression
of $P^{(n)}(\alpha)$ in (\ref{Tsallis prob density}) with
$
n= \tilde{n} / \ln \delta
$.
If $\tilde{n}$ does not depend on $\delta$, $P^{(n)}(\alpha)$ becomes also
independent of $\delta$.\footnote{
The introduction of $\tilde{n}$ is intimately related to the infinitely divisible process
(Dubrulle 1994, She and Waymire 1995).
It is confirmed by the observation in the preset paper that $\tilde{n}$ is independent of $\delta$
and has values of ${\cal O}(1)$ (see table~\ref{pdf edr parameters4/1}).
Then, taking the limit $\delta \rightarrow 1+$ with a fixed value of $\tilde{n}$, one has
an infinitely divisible distribution.
A detailed investigation of A\&A model from this view point will be given elsewhere
in the near future.}
Note that, with the new number $\tilde{n}$, $\ell_n$ introduced
in (\ref{def of delta}) reduces to
\be
\ell_{n}= \ell_0 \me^{-\tilde{n}}.
\label{ell n tilde}
\ee
MPDFT provides us with a systematic framework to make a connection between
the PDF $P^{(n)}(\alpha)$ of the singularity exponent $\alpha$ and
the PDF of the observed quantity such as the energy dissipation rate
representing intermittent singular behavior in its time-evolution.
The element of fluid motion specified by the singularity exponent satisfying $\alpha <1$
takes care of the intermittent large (singular) spikes observed in the time-evolution of
energy dissipation rate, and contributes to the tail part of PDF for energy dissipation rates
(see figure~\ref{Divisions of PDF} (a) and (b)).
This element is directly related to a coherent hierarchical structure such as
the multi-scale Cantor set characterized by the multifractal spectrum $f(\alpha)$.
Therefore, the fluid motion controlled by this element is referred to as
a {\em coherent} motion.
There is another element of fluid motion due to the symmetry breaking term, i.e.,
the dissipation term in N-S equation, which produces fluctuation of fluid surrounding
the coherent turbulent motion.
This element contributes mainly to the central part of PDF
(see figure~\ref{Divisions of PDF} (a) and (b)).
The fluid motion provided by this element is referred to as an {\em in-coherent} motion.
Note that the central part of the PDF is constituted of two elements,
i.e., the in-coherent and coherent motions.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\hspace*{-1.5cm}
\begin{minipage}{0.34\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=75mm]{figure1a.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=74mm]{figure1b.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=75mm]{figure1c.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Two kinds of divisions of PDF $\Pi_3^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n)$.
One into $\Pi^{(n)}_{3,\rS}(\varepsilon_n)$ and $\itDelta \Pi_3^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n)$
are given on (a) linear and (b) log scale in the vertical axes.
The other into $\hat{\Pi}_{3, {\rm cr}}^{(n)}(\xi_n)$
and $\hat{\Pi}_{3, {\rm tl}}^{(n)}(\xi_n)$ is given in (c) on log scale.
The open circles represent an experimental PDF for energy dissipation rates.
The contribution of $\itDelta \Pi_3^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n)$ to the tail part
$\hat{\Pi}_{3, {\rm tl}}^{(n)}(\xi_n)$ is negligibly small.
\label{Divisions of PDF}}
\end{figure}
Based on the above consideration, we assume that the probability
$\Pi^{(n)}_{3}(\varepsilon_n) d\varepsilon_n$
can be, generally, divided into two parts as
\be
\Pi_3^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n) d\varepsilon_n = \Pi^{(n)}_{3,\rS}(\varepsilon_n) d\varepsilon_n
+ \itDelta \Pi_3^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n) d\varepsilon_n
\label{def of Pi phi}
\ee
(see figure 1 (a) and (b)).
The first term describes the coherent motion, i.e., the contribution from the abnormal part of
the physical quantity $\varepsilon_n$ due to the fact that its singularities
distribute themselves multifractal way in real space.
This is the part representing a coherent turbulent motion given in
the limit $\nu \rightarrow 0$ but is not equal to zero ($\nu \neq 0$).
The second term represents the contribution from the incoherent fluctuating motion.
The normalization of PDF is specified by
$
\int_0^{\infty} d\varepsilon_n \Pi_3^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n) =1
$.
We assume that the coherent contribution is given by
(Arimitsu T and N 2001)
$
\Pi^{(n)}_{3,\rS}(\varepsilon_n) d \varepsilon_n
= \bar{\Pi}_{3,\rS}^{(n)} P^{(n)}(\alpha) d \alpha
$
with the variable transformation (\ref{epsilon alpha}).
For the expression of $\bar{\Pi}_{3,\rS}^{(n)}$, see Arimitsu N and T (2011).
Let us introduce another division of the PDF (see figure 1 (c)),
i.e.,
\be
\hat{\Pi}_3^{(n)}(\xi_n) = \hat{\Pi}_{3, {\rm cr}}^{(n)}(\xi_n)
+ \hat{\Pi}_{3, {\rm tl}}^{(n)}(\xi_n),
\label{PDF cr tl}
\ee
where $\hat{\Pi}_3^{(n)}(\xi_n)$ is introduced by the relation
$\hat{\Pi}_3^{(n)}(\xi_n) d \xi_n = \Pi_3^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n) d\varepsilon_n$
with the variable transformation
$\xi_n = \varepsilon_n / \dbra \varepsilon_n^2 \dket_{\rm c}^{1/2}$
where the cumulant average $\dbra \cdots \dket_{\rm c}$ is taken with
the PDF $\Pi_3^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n)$.
The two parts of the PDF, the tail part
$\hat{\Pi}_{3, {\rm tl}}^{(n)}(\xi_n)$
and the central part
$\hat{\Pi}_{3, {\rm cr}}^{(n)}(\xi_n)$,
are connected at
$
\xi_n = \xi_n^*
$
under the conditions that they have the common value
and the common log-slope there.
Note that $\xi_n^*$ is related to $\varepsilon_n^*$
by $\xi_n^* = \varepsilon_n^* / \dbra \varepsilon_n^2 \dket_{\rm c}^{1/2}$
and to $\alpha^*$ by (\ref{epsilon alpha}).
The value of $\alpha^*$ is determined for each PDF as an adjusting parameter
in the analysis of PDFs obtained by ordinary or numerical experiments.
When one creates a PDF from the time-evolution data for microscopic energy dissipation rate,
he puts each realization into an appropriate bin according to the value $\varepsilon_n$
which is obtained by averaging the microscopic energy dissipation rates in each time interval
corresponding to the length $\ell_n$.
For larger $\varepsilon_n$ values belonging to the tail part domain of the PDF,
most of the realizations in a bin at the interval
$\varepsilon_n \sim \varepsilon_n + d \varepsilon_n $ come from the time interval
containing at least one intermittently large spike (singular spike) of
microscopic energy dissipation rates.
The bin may have negligibly small proportion of the number of realizations coming from
those intervals with only fluctuations compared to the number of realizations
with at least one singular spike.
On the other hand, for smaller $\varepsilon_n$ values belonging to
the central part PDF domain, the number of realizations coming from
the time intervals containing singular spikes with smaller heights is about the same order as
the number of realizations from the time intervals containing only fluctuations,
since the height of singular spikes contributing to this bin must be about the same height
as fluctuations.
Under the above interpretation, it may be reasonable to assume that, for the tail part
of PDF $\hat{\Pi}_{3, {\rm tl}}^{(n)}(\xi_n)$,
the contribution from the first term $\Pi_{3,\rS}^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n)$
in (\ref{def of Pi phi}) to the intermittent rare events dominates,
and the contribution from
the second term $\itDelta \Pi_3^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n)$ to the events is negligible, i.e.,
\be
\hat{\Pi}_{3, {\rm tl}}^{(n)}(\xi_n)\ d \xi_n
= \Pi^{(n)}_{3,\rm S} (\varepsilon_n)\ d \varepsilon_n
\label{PDF phi large}
\ee
for $\xi_n^* \leq \xi_n$.
For $0 \leq \xi_n \leq \xi_n^*$, as there is no theory for the central part of PDF
$\hat{\Pi}_{3, {\rm cr}}^{(n)}(\xi_n)$ at present, we put
\bea
\hat{\Pi}_{3, {\rm cr}}^{(n)}(\xi_n) d \xi_n
\aeq \bar{\Pi}_{3}^{(n)} \me^{-[g_3(\xi_n) - g_3(\xi_n^*)]}
\ \left(\ell_n / \ell_0 \right)^{1 -f(\alpha^*)}\
\left(\bar{\xi}_n / \xi_n^* \right) d \xi_n
\label{PDF phi small}
\eea
with
$
\bar{\Pi}_3^{(n)} = \bar{\Pi}_{3,S}^{(n)}
\sqrt{\vert f^{\prime \prime}(\alpha_0) \vert / 2\pi \vert \ln (\ell_n/\ell_0) \vert} / \bar{\xi}_n
$
and a trial function of the Tsallis-type
\bea
\lefteqn{\me^{-g_3(\xi_n)} = \left(\xi_n / \xi_n^* \right)^{\theta - 1}
}
\nonumber\\
&&
\times \left\{1- \left(1-q^\prime \right)
\left[\theta+f^\prime(\alpha^*) \right]
\left[\left(\xi_n / \xi_n^* \right)^{w_3} -1 \right] / w_3 \right\}^{1/(1-q^\prime)}
\label{exp g edr}
\eea
containing minimal number of adjustable parameters, i.e., $q'$, $\theta$ and $w_3$.
The parameter $w_3$ is adjusted by the property of the experimental PDFs
around the connection point;
$q^\prime$ is the entropy index different from $q$
in (\ref{Tsallis prob density});
$\theta$ is determined by the property of PDF near $\xi_n = 0$.
For the expression of $\bar{\xi}_n$, see Arimitsu N and T (2011).
The contribution to $\hat{\Pi}_{3, {\rm cr}}^{(n)}(\xi_n)$ comes
both from coherent and incoherent motions (see figure~\ref{Divisions of PDF}).
The reason why we chose the trial function (\ref{exp g edr}) for the central part PDF
is because it is a natural generalization of the $\chi$-square distribution function
for the variable $y_n = (\xi_n/\xi_n^*)^{w_3}$.
The observed value of $q'$ is in the range $1.03 \leq q' \leq 1.09$
(see table~\ref{pdf edr parameters4/1}).
Note that in the limit $q' \rightarrow 1$ the trial function reduces to
the $\chi$-square distribution function for $y_n$. The quantity $(\theta + w_3 -1)/w_3$
provides us with an estimate for the number of independent degrees of freedom
for the dynamics contributing to the central part of PDF.
\section{Verification of assumptions through the analyses of experimental PDFs
\label{pdf edr}}
\subsection{Experimental setup and extraction of PDFs}
By means of the theoretical formula within MPDFT summarized in the last section,
we analyze PDFs of energy dissipation rates created from the time series data (Mouri \etal 2008)
for the turbulence produced by a grid in a wind tunnel (see table~\ref{exp params}).
Measurements are performed by a hot-wire anemometer
with a crossed-wire probe placed on the centerline of the tunnel at $4$ m downstream
from the grid.
It is expected that turbulence around the probe is homogeneous in both
stream-wise and span-wise directions, as the cross-section $16$ cm $\times$ $16$ cm
of each open square surrounded by the rods constituting the grid is
small enough compared with the cross-section $3$ m $\times$ 2 m of the wind tunnel.
The cross section of a rod is $4$ cm $\times$ $4$ cm.
We also expect that the turbulence around the probe is isotropic even for larger
scales since the values of RMS one-point velocity fluctuations for span-wise and
stream-wise components are almost equal (see table 1).
There are still possible pitfalls about the assumption of isotropy
(Biferale and Procaccia 2005) because of the difference of values between
the averaged energy dissipation rates estimated with the span-wise velocity component $v$, i.e.,
$15 \nu \dbra (\partial v/\partial x)^2 \dket/2 = \dbra \varepsilon \dket = 7.98$ m$^2$ sec$^{-3}$,
and the one estimated with the stream-wise velocity fluctuation $u$, i.e.,
$15 \nu \dbra (\partial u/\partial x)^2 \dket = 8.58$ m$^2$ sec$^{-3}$
(Mouri \etal 2008).
However, as the difference is less than 10 \%, we expect that anisotropy, even if it exists,
may not affect the following analyses seriously.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Parameters of the grid turbulence in a wind tunnel (Mouri \etal 2008).
The inertial range is determined as the region where the second moment of
the velocity differences for longitudinal component scales with the exponent $2/3$
with respect to the distance between the positions of two velocities used to derive
the velocity difference.
\label{exp params}}
\begin{center}
{\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{c c}
Quantity & Value \\
\hline
Microscale Reynolds number Re$_\lambda$ & 409 \\
Kolmogorov length $\eta$ & $0.138$ mm \\
Kinematic viscosity $\nu$ & $1.42 \times 10^{-5}$ m$^2$ sec$^{-1}$ \\
Mean velocity of downstream wind $U$ & 21.16 m sec$^{-1}$ \\
Mean energy dissipation rate
$\dbra \varepsilon \dket = 15 \nu \dbra (\partial v/\partial x)^2 \dket/2$ & 7.98 m$^2$ sec$^{-3}$ \\
Correlation length of longitudinal velocity & $17.9$ cm \\
Inertial range & $50 \lesssim r/\eta \lesssim 150$ \\
RMS of span-wise velocity fluctuations
$\dbra v^2 \dket^{1/2}$ & 1.06 m sec$^{-1}$ \\
RMS of stream-wise velocity fluctuations $\dbra u^2 \dket^{1/2}$ & 1.10 m sec$^{-1}$ \\
Sampling interval $\itDelta t$ & $1.43 \times 10^{-5}$ sec \\
Number of data points & $4 \times 10^8$ \\
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
Assuming isotropy of the grid turbulence, we adopted the surrogate
$15 \nu (\partial v/\partial x)^2/2 = 15 \nu (\partial v/\partial t)^2/2 U^2$
for the energy dissipation rate
(Cleve \etal 2003, Mouri \etal 2008) with the mean velocity $U$ of downstream wind
(see table~\ref{exp params})
where $x$-axis is chosen to the direction of the mean flow
in a wind tunnel and $v$ is the span-wise velocity component.
Here, we used Taylor's frozen hypothesis in replacing the variable from time $t$
to space $x$ (see
Mouri \etal (2008) for detail).
For the estimation of $\partial v/\partial t$, we use here the difference formula
\bea
\partial v / \partial t \simeq \itDelta^{(3)} v/\itDelta t \aeq \left\{ 8\
[v(t+\itDelta t)-v(t-\itDelta t)]
\right. \nonumber\\
&& \left.
- [v(t+2 \itDelta t)-v(t-2 \itDelta t)] \right\} /12 \itDelta t
\label{vel der correct up to 4th order}
\eea
where $\itDelta t$ is the sampling interval observing velocity
(see table~\ref{exp params}).
With this formula, we can have a better estimate of the velocity time derivative
by means of $\itDelta^{(3)} v/\itDelta t$ without contamination
up to the term of ${\cal O}(\itDelta t)^3$.
We represent the {\em local} energy dissipation rates derived
from (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order}) by the symbol $\varepsilon$, i.e.,
$
\varepsilon = 15 \nu (\itDelta^{(3)} v/\itDelta t)^2/2 U^2
$.
In creating the experimental PDFs for energy dissipation rates, $4 \times 10^8$ data points
are put into $2 \times 10^4$ bins along the $\xi_n$ axis.
We discarded those bins containing the number of data points less than 25.
Note that the average number of data points per bin is $2 \times 10^4$.
In drawing the created PDFs for energy dissipation rates, not all the bins but
every $10^2$ bins are plotted for better visibility.
The experimental PDF in the region near the right-most end points are scattered
because of the lower statistics due to smaller number of data points in the bins
located there (see figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr delta_3}~(a) and
figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr delta_3 comp 1st}~(a)).
\subsection{Analyses of experimental PDFs}
The experimental PDF is analyzed with the help of the theoretical formula for PDF
by the following procedure:
(i) Pick up three experimental PDFs with consecutive $r$ values, say,
$r_1$, $r_2 = r_1 \delta$ and $r_3 = r_1 \delta^2$.
(ii) With a trial $\mu$ value, analyze each of the three experimental PDFs
to find out tentative but the best values $q'$, $w_3$, $\theta$, $\alpha^*$
and $n_i = \ln (r_i/\ell_0) / \ln \delta$ ($i = 1$, 2, 3) for the theoretical PDF.
(iii) Check if the differences $n_3 -n_2$ and $n_2 - n_1$ are close to 1 or not.
(iv) If not, change $\mu$ value, and repeat the processes (ii) and (iii) until
one arrives at the set of best fit parameters under the condition
$n_3 - n_2 = n_2 - n_1 \simeq 1$ within a settled accuracy.
(v) With thus determined common $\mu$ value, determine the best fit values
$q'$, $w_3$, $\theta$ and $\alpha^*$ for each of other PDFs which are not
picked out for the above processes (i) to (iv).
One notices that $n_i - n_{i-1} \simeq 1$ are satisfied automatically for every
PDFs created from the experiment.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\resizebox*{5.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{figure2a.eps}
\hspace*{1cm}
\resizebox*{5.65cm}{!}{\includegraphics{figure2b.eps}
\caption{PDFs of energy dissipation rates for $\delta = 3$
on (a) log and (b) linear scale in the vertical axes.
For better visibility,
each PDF is shifted by $-2$ unit along the vertical axis in (a) and by $-0.4$
unit along the vertical axis in (b).
Closed circles are the experimental PDFs for $r/\eta = 21.9$, $65.7$, $197$ and $591$
from the smallest value (top) to the largest value (bottom) where $r$ corresponds to $\ell_n$.
Solid lines represent the curves given by the present theory with
parameters listed in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters4/1}~(a).
\label{fig:pdf edr delta_3}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
The PDFs of energy dissipation rates are analyzed
in figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr delta_3} for the magnification $\delta = 3$
on (a) log and (b) linear scale in the vertical axes.
For better visibility,
each PDF is shifted by appropriate unit along the vertical axis.
Closed circles are the experimental data points for PDFs for the cases
$r/\eta = 21.9$, $65.7$, $197$ and $591$ from the smallest value (top)
to the largest value (bottom) where $r$ corresponds to $\ell_n$.
Solid lines represent the theoretical PDFs given by (\ref{PDF cr tl})
with (\ref{PDF phi large}) and (\ref{PDF phi small}).
The parameters necessary for the theoretical PDF of A\&A model are
determined as $(1-q)\ln \delta = 0.393$, $\alpha_0=1.15$ and $X=0.310$,
which turn out to be independent of $\delta$.
Other parameters are listed in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters4/1}~(a)
and table~\ref{pdf edr connection points4/1}~(a).
We performed the same analyses for other magnifications, $\delta = 2$ and 5, and
found that the extracted value $\mu = 0.260$ for the intermittency exponent
is common to three cases in which PDFs are created with the different values of magnification,
i.e., $\delta = 2$, 3, 5.
It means that, within the analysis of the energy dissipation rates,
the turbulent system under consideration is characterized by a unique $\mu$ value
as it should be.
\begin{table}
\caption{Parameters of PDFs created by
(a) the formula (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order}) and
(b) the formula (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order}).
For both cases, $\mu = 0.260$ ($(1-q)\ln \delta = 0.393$, $\alpha_0=1.15$, $X=0.310$) giving $q=0.642$.
\label{pdf edr parameters4/1}}
\begin{center}
{\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
& \multicolumn{5}{c |}{\scriptsize (a)} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\scriptsize (b)} \\
\hline
$r/\eta$ & $n$ & $\tilde{n}$ & $q'$ & $w_3$ & $\theta$ & $n$ & $\tilde{n}$ & $q'$ & $w_3$ & $\theta$ \\
\hline
6.57 & 5.50 & 6.04 & 1.03 & 0.250 & 2.10 & 5.20 & 5.71 & 1.03 & 0.250 & 3.50 \\
21.9 &4.00 & 4.39 & 1.02 & 0.250 & 3.50 & 4.00 & 4.39 & 1.04 & 0.380 & 5.30 \\
65.7 & 3.00 & 3.30 & 1.05 & 0.490 & 4.10 & 3.00 & 3.30 & 1.04 & 0.450 & 5.00 \\
197 & 1.60 & 1.76 & 1.06 & 0.780 & 4.50 & 2.00 & 2.20 & 1.07& 0.750 & 6.00 \\
591 & 0.60 & 0.416 & 1.09 & 1.25 & 5.80 & 0.580 & 0.637 & 1.09 & 1.24 & 6.20 \\
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Connection points between the central and the tail part PDFs
created by
(a) the formula (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order}) and
(b) the formula (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order}).
$\dbra \varepsilon \dket = 7.98$ m$^2$ sec$^{-3}$.
\label{pdf edr connection points4/1}}
\begin{center}
{\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
& \multicolumn{3}{c |}{(a)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(b)} \\
\hline
$r/\eta$ & $\alpha^{*}$ & $\varepsilon_n^{*}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket$ & $\xi_n^*$ & $\alpha^{*}$ & $\varepsilon_n^{*}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket$ & $\xi_n^*$ \\
\hline
6.57 & 0.750 & 4.53 & 3.30 & 0.750 & 4.17 & 3.56 \\
21.9 & 0.700 & 3.74 & 3.56 & 0.550 & 7.22 & 5.24 \\
65.7 & 0.500 & 5.20 & 5.25 & 0.500 & 5.20 & 6.25 \\
197 & 0.280 & 3.54 & 13.6 & 0.300 & 4.66 & 13.2 \\
591 & 0.180 & 1.72 & 16.0 & 0.180 & 1.69 & 15.3 \\
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=51mm]{figure3a.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=49mm]{figure3b.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=48mm]{figure3c.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{$r/\eta$ ($=\ell_n/\eta$) dependence of (a) $\tilde{n}$, (b) $\alpha^*$ and (c) $\theta$.
In (a), the data points extracted by the present analysis via (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order})
are plotted by closed circles for $\delta=2$, by closed squares for $\delta=3$,
by closed triangles for $\delta=5$, whereas those extracted by
the DNS analysis (Arimitsu N and T 2011) are plotted by symbols nabla for $\delta=2^{1/4}$,
by times for $\delta=2^{1/2}$, by pluses for $\delta=2$.
The empirical formula for the present (DNS) analysis is given by
$\tilde{n}=-2.39\log_{10}(r/\eta)+7.31$
($\tilde{n}=-2.33 \log_{10}(r/\eta)+8.74$).
In (b) and (c), the data points extracted by the present analyses
via (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order}) (via (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order}))
are plotted by closed (open) circles for $\delta=2$, by closed (open) squares for $\delta=3$,
by closed (open) triangles for $\delta=5$.
Solid (dashed) lines are the empirical formulae
(b) $\alpha^* = - 0.326 \log_{10}(r/\eta)+1.05$
($\alpha^* = - 0.285 \log_{10}(r/\eta)+0.966$) and
(c) $\theta=1.83\log_{10}(r/\eta)+0.460$
($\theta=1.32\log_{10}(r/\eta)+2.70$).
The empirical formulae are obtained by using all the data points for different values of $\delta$.
The inertial range for the present (DNS) analysis is the region between the vertical
dash-dotted (dotted) lines.
\label{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation}}
\end{figure}
The dependence of $\tilde{n}$ on $r/\eta$ ($= \ell_n/\eta$) for the present analysis
with the series of PDFs derived through (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order})
is given in figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation} (a)
by closed circles for $\delta = 2$, by closed squares for $\delta = 3$
and by closed triangles for $\delta = 5$.
The empirical formula for $\tilde{n}$ obtained by making use of all the data points
for $\delta = 2$, 3 and 5 with the method of least squares has the expression
$
\tilde{n} = - 1.03 \ln (r/\eta) + 7.31
$
which is drawn by a solid line (lower line in the figure).
This proves the correctness of the assumption that
the fundamental quantities of turbulence are independent of $\delta$.
We also include in the figure, for comparison, the data points of $\tilde{n}$
for $4096^3$ DNS taken from figure 4 in Arimitsu N and T (2011) and the empirical formula
$
\tilde{n} = - 1.01 \ln (r/\eta) + 8.74
$
(upper solid line) derived with the data points by the method of least squares.
For the DNS, $\mu = 0.345$ (Arimitsu N and T 2011).
How much $\tilde{n}$ data points are scattered
from the empirical formula (see figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation}~(a))
and also from the theoretical formula (\ref{ell n tilde}) with $\ell_n = r$ provides us with
a measure how much we perform appropriate extraction of parameters.
The data points of $\tilde{n}$ for the turbulence in the wind tunnel are scattered more
compared with those for the turbulence in $4096^3$ DNS, as the time-series raw data
from wind tunnel include indispensable measurement errors associated with
readout processes, e.g., mainly, electrical noises.
The $r/\eta$ ($= \ell_n/\eta$) dependences of $\alpha^*$ and $\theta$ are given,
respectively, in figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation} (b) and (c)
by closed circles for $\delta = 2$, by closed squares for $\delta = 3$
and by closed triangles for $\delta = 5$,
which are extracted from the series of PDFs derived through (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order}).
The solid line in each figure, (b) and (c), represents an empirical formula obtained from
all the data points for $\delta = 2$, 3 and 5 by the method of least squares.
These figures prove again the correctness of the assumption that
the fundamental quantities of turbulence are independent of $\delta$.
The value of $q^\prime$ is found to be about $q^\prime = 1.05$
(see table~\ref{pdf edr parameters4/1}~(a)).
We found that $w_3$ is also independent of $\delta$ and has
a common line
$
\log_{10} w_3 = 0.372 \log_{10} (r/\eta) + \log_{10} 0.112
$.
Note that the empirical formulae for $\tilde{n}$, $\alpha^*$ and $\theta$
is effective only for the region $r/\eta \gtrsim 2$ since $\theta$ should satisfy
$\theta > 1$ (see figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation}~(c)).
We observe that the parameters $q'$, $\theta$, $w_3$ for the central part PDF and
the connection point $\alpha^*$ have scaling behaviors in much wider region
not restricted to inside of the inertial range.
\section{Comparison of PDFs produced with full and less contaminations
\label{sec:physical inv of the results edr}}
In this section, we analyze the PDFs for the energy dissipation rates
derived from the time-series data with the difference formula
\be
\partial v / \partial t \simeq \itDelta^{(0)} v /\itDelta t
= \left[ v(t+\itDelta t)-v(t) \right] / \itDelta t
\label{vel der correct up to 1st order}
\ee
in order to study what difference comes out compared with the PDFs analyzed
in section~\ref{pdf edr} which is derived by means of the difference formula
(\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order}).
Note that the formula (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order}) estimates the values of
velocity time derivative with $\itDelta^{(0)} v /\itDelta t$
which may contain full contamination, i.e., from the 1st order term with respect to
$\itDelta t$.
We introduce the symbol $\varepsilon^{(0)}$ for the {\em local} energy dissipation rates
derived from (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order}), i.e.,
$
\varepsilon^{(0)} = 15 \nu (\itDelta^{(0)} v/\itDelta t)^2/2 U^2
$.\footnote{
We observe that $\dbra \varepsilon^{(0)} \dket = 8.08$ m$^2$ sec$^{-1}$ which is larger than
$\dbra \varepsilon \dket$.
}
In creating the experimental PDFs for the energy dissipation rates,
we took the same procedure as used in section~\ref{pdf edr}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=51mm]{figure4a.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{figure4b.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.34\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=51mm]{figure4c.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{figure4d.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=49mm]{figure4e.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=49mm]{figure4f.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Comparison of PDFs for energy dissipation rates
$\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$ and
$\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
created, respectively, with the formulae (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order})
and (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order}).
In (a) and (d)--(f), closed (open) circles and full (dashed) lines
are, respectively, the experimental and theoretical PDFs
for $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
($\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$) with
$\mu = 0.260$.
PDFs in (a) represent for the cases $r/\eta = 6.57$ (top), $21.9$ (middle)
and $65.7$ (bottom), shifted by $-2$ unit along the vertical axis
for better visibility.
The magnification of the central part PDFs for each $r$ ($=\ell_n$) is given in (d)--(f).
The relative difference
$\Delta_n = [\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)
- \Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)]/\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
is given for (b) $r/\eta = 6.57$ and (c) 65.7, in which closed circles (full lines) are
experimental (theoretical) $\Delta_n$.
The error bar is the standard deviation of 100 hidden (not appeared in the figures) data points
for $\Delta_n$ which locate between the adjacent data points for $\Delta_n$ appeared in the figures.
The shown error bars are thinned out.
Note that (a) and (b)--(f) are, respectively, drawn on log and linear scale in the vertical axes.
\label{fig:pdf edr delta_3 comp 1st}}
\end{figure*}
We compare, in figures~\ref{fig:pdf edr delta_3 comp 1st} (a) and (d)--(f),
the PDFs of energy dissipation rates $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
and $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$ which are created, respectively,
with the help of formulae (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order})
and (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order}).
Note that the arguments for every PDFs are scaled by $\dbra \varepsilon \dket$
which does not depend on $r$ ($= \ell_n$).
In figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr delta_3 comp 1st}~(a) each PDF is displayed
on log scale in vertical axis for the cases $r/\eta = 6.57$ (top),
$21.9$ (middle) and $65.7$ (bottom), which
are shifted by $-2$ unit along the vertical axis for better visibility.
The magnification of their central part PDFs are displayed
in figures~\ref{fig:pdf edr delta_3 comp 1st}~(d) $r/\eta = 6.57$, (e) $21.9$ and (f) $65.7$
on linear scale in vertical axis.
The closed (open) circles and the full (dashed) lines
are, respectively, the experimental and theoretical PDFs
for $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
($\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$) with
$\mu = 0.260$.
Note that the values of the intermittency exponent $\mu$ for
$\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$ and for
$\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$ turn out to be the same.
Other parameters are listed in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters4/1} and
table~\ref{pdf edr connection points4/1}.
The relative differences
$\Delta_n = [\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)
- \Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)]/\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
for $r/\eta =$ $6.57$ and $65.7$ are given, respectively,
in figures~\ref{fig:pdf edr delta_3 comp 1st}~(b) and (c), in which
closed circles (full lines) represent experimental (theoretical) mean values of $\Delta_n$.
The error bar in these figures is the standard deviation of 100 hidden
(not appeared in the figures) data points for $\Delta_n$ which locate between
the adjacent data points for $\Delta_n$ appeared in the figures.
These figures show that the mean relative difference $\Delta_n$ in the region of central part of PDFs
is about 10 times larger than the mean relative difference in the region of tail part.\footnote{
Note that the connection points of $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
($\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$) for
$r/\eta = 6.57$ and $65.7$ locate, respectively, at
$\varepsilon^*/\dbra \varepsilon \dket = 4.06$ ($\varepsilon^{(0) *}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket = 4.17$)
and $\varepsilon^*/\dbra \varepsilon \dket = 5.20$
($\varepsilon^{(0) *}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket = 5.20$).
}
The small negative but nearly constant mean values of $\Delta_n$ in the tail part region
tell us that the tail of $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
and that of $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$ are parallel
with each other, which gives the reason why we obtained the same $\mu$ value for both PDFs.
We observe that the error bars in the tail part region become larger toward the rightmost end of PDF,
which may be attributed to the smaller number of realizations in each bin there.
Actually, the length of an error bar associated with a bin is quite close to the value
$\sqrt{1/N + 1/N^{(0)}}$ which estimates the standard deviation of
$\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)
/\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
with the help of the number of the realizations $N$ ($N^{(0)}$) in the bin under consideration
for $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
($\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$).
The numbers of realizations in figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr delta_3 comp 1st} (c) are, for example,
$N = 21$, $N^{(0)} = 23$ for the rightmost error bar,
$N = 206$, $N^{(0)} = 192$ for the fifth error bar from the rightmost error bar,
$N = 31508$, $N^{(0)} = 31327$ for an error bar at $\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket \approx 5$ and
$N = 2861811$, $N^{(0)} = 2886837$ for an error bar at around the peak point of
$\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$ where
$\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket \approx 0.25$.
The $\varepsilon$-dependence of the mean values of $\Delta_n$ in the central region indicates
that the central part of $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$ around
its peak point moves to rightwards relative to the central part of
$\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$.
On the other hand, from the $\varepsilon$-dependence of the mean values of $\Delta_n$
in the tail region, it may be appropriate to interpret that the tail part of
$\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$ moves to leftwards relative to
the tail part of $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$.
If the number of realizations in each bin are increased, i.e., statistics are raised,
we expect that the standard deviations of $\Delta_n$ should reduce their values
and that the fluctuation of the mean values of $\Delta_n$ in the tail region should disappear.
The difference of the squared time derivatives of (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order})
and (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order}) gives
$
(\itDelta^{(0)} v/\itDelta t )^2 - (\itDelta^{(3)} v/\itDelta t )^2
= (\partial v /\partial t ) ( \partial^2 v /\partial t^2 ) \itDelta t
+ {\cal O} (\itDelta t )^4
$.
From the direction of the relative horizontal shift of the PDFs,
we know that the net contributions of the velocity component $v$ for the region
around the peak point and of the tail region satisfy, respectively,
\be
\left(\partial v / \partial t \right)\ \left(\partial^2 v / \partial t^2 \right) > 0
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
\left(\partial v / \partial t \right)\ \left(\partial^2 v / \partial t^2 \right) < 0.
\label{outcome from the direction of shift}
\ee
Taking into account the smallness of the gradient of tail part PDFs, we see that
the absolute value of the latter in (\ref{outcome from the direction of shift})
is quite large compared with the former value.
The dependence of $\alpha^*$ and $\theta$ on $r/\eta$ ($= \ell_n/\eta$)
are given, respectively, in figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation} (b) and (c)
by open circles for $\delta = 2$, by open squares for $\delta = 3$
and by open triangles for $\delta = 5$,
which are extracted from the series of PDFs cleated with (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order}).
The dashed line in each figure, (b) and (c), represents
an empirical formula obtained from all the data points for $\delta = 2$, 3 and 5
by the method of least squares.
These figures prove again, even for the case of full contamination, the correctness of
the assumption that the fundamental quantities of turbulence are independent of $\delta$.
We also found that $w_3$ is independent of $\delta$ and has
a common line
$
\log_{10} w_3 = 0.318 \log_{10} \left(r / \eta \right) + \log_{10} 0.141
$.
The value of $q^\prime$ is found to be about $q^\prime = 1.05$
(see table~\ref{pdf edr parameters4/1}~(b)).
There is only a slightly visible difference of the lines for $\alpha^*$, $w_3$
and of the values $q'$ between those obtained from the two kinds of PDFs,
one with less contamination (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order})
and the other with full contamination (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order})
(see figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation}~(b);
see also table~\ref{pdf edr parameters4/1} and table~\ref{pdf edr connection points4/1}).
The significant difference appears in the $r/\eta$ dependence of $\theta$
which are shown in figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation}~(c).
The difference in $\theta$ explains the shift of the peak points between the two PDFs
(see figures~\ref{fig:pdf edr delta_3 comp 1st}~(d)--(f)).
\section{Summary and Discussion \label{summary}}
The new scaling relation (\ref{new scaling relation}) is essential for the parameters
$\alpha_0$, $X$ and $q$, associated with the tail part PDF, to be determined
self-consistently as functions of the intermittency exponent $\mu$, and to be independent of
the magnification rate $\delta$.
On the other hand, we introduced the trial function (\ref{exp g edr}) for the central part PDF
with three adjustable parameters $q'$, $w_3$ and $\theta$, and found that these parameters
are also independent of $\delta$,
and satisfy scaling behaviors in wider area not restricted to the inertial range.
The independence of $\tilde{n}$ from $\delta$ ensures
the uniqueness of the PDF of $\alpha$ for any value of $\delta$.
The comparison between the empirical formulae for $\tilde{n}$ given in
figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation}~(a) and the theoretical formula (\ref{ell n tilde})
provides us with the estimation $\ell_0 = 20.6$ cm
which is about the same as the correlation length $17.9$ cm or the separation $20$ cm
of the axes of adjacent rods forming the grid.
Here, we are assuming that the empirical formulae are effective even for $r/\eta \lesssim 2$
(see the discussion in section~\ref{pdf edr} about the effective region of $r/\eta$).
Note that $\ell_0$ gives an estimation of the diameter of the largest eddy
within the energy cascade model.
As for the parameters appeared in the trial function for the central part PDFs,
$\exp[-g(\xi_n)]$ in (\ref{exp g edr}),
the discoveries that $q' \simeq 1.05$ and that $\theta$ and
$\ln w_3$ reveal scaling properties are quite attractive for the research
looking for the nature of the fluctuations
surrounding the coherent turbulent motion of fluid.
The fact that the value $q'$ is quite close to 1 indicates that
the HCT type function in (\ref{exp g edr}),
i.e., the part giving $\exp[-g(\xi_n)] (\xi_n^*/\xi_n)^{\theta-1}$,
is close to an exponential function.
There is no theoretical prediction yet, which is based on an ensemble theoretical aspect
or on a dynamical aspect starting with the N-S equation, to produce
the formula for the central part PDF that represents the contributions both
of the coherent turbulent motion providing
intermittency and of incoherent fluctuations (background flow) around
the coherent motion.
If one could succeed to formulate a dynamical theory which produces properly
the formula for the central part of PDFs starting with the N-S equation,
it may provide us with the physical meaning of the parameters $q'$, $\theta$ and $w_3$,
and with an appropriate pathway to the dynamical approach,
e.g., the renormalization group approach,
to fully developed turbulence.
A study to this direction is in progress.
Introducing two difference formulae (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order})
and (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order}) for the estimate of $\partial v/\partial t$,
i.e., $\itDelta^{(3)} v /\itDelta t$ with less contamination
and $\itDelta^{(0)} v /\itDelta t$ with full contamination,
we performed a trial for the extraction of information from PDFs by comparing
two kinds of PDFs for energy dissipation rates,
$\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
and $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
with $\varepsilon \propto (\itDelta^{(3)} v /\itDelta t)^2$ and
$\varepsilon^{(0)} \propto (\itDelta^{(0)} v /\itDelta t)^2$.
We observed that the intermittency exponents for the two kinds of PDFs
turn out to take the same value $\mu = 0.260$
(see table~\ref{pdf edr parameters4/1} and table~\ref{pdf edr connection points4/1}
for other parameters).
Through the accurate analyses of PDFs,
it was also revealed that the parameters for $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
and for $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
are independent of $\delta$ thanks to the new scaling relation (\ref{new scaling relation}),
and that they show quite similar scaling behaviors extending to the regions
with smaller and larger $r/\eta$ values outside the inertial range
(see figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation}).
The connection points $\alpha^*$ of the tail and central parts of the PDFs take
almost the same value for each $r/\eta$
(see table~\ref{pdf edr connection points4/1} and
figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation}~(b)).
It is found that, among the parameters controlling the central part, only $\theta$ has
a relatively larger deviation between the two different PDFs
(see table~\ref{pdf edr parameters4/1} and figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation}~(c)),
which is related to the shift of the peak point occurred between the two kinds of PDFs.
Other parameters $q'$ and $w_3$ do not have significant difference among the two PDFs
(see table~\ref{pdf edr parameters4/1}).
Observing the relative difference $\Delta_n$ between
$\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon^{(0)}/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
and $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$ in
figures~\ref{fig:pdf edr delta_3 comp 1st} (b) and (c) with
the values $\varepsilon_n^* / \dbra \varepsilon_n \dket = 4.53$ for
$r/\eta = 6.57$ and $\varepsilon_n^* / \dbra \varepsilon_n \dket = 5.20$ for
$r/\eta = 65.7$, we notice that the connection point $\varepsilon_n^*$ of
the center part PDF and the tail part PDF provides us with the boundary dividing two regions
according to their nature of stability specified by the inequalities in
(\ref{outcome from the direction of shift}).
It seems to tell us that the net behavior of incoherent motion of fluid
contributing mainly around the peak point (central part) of PDF is
an {\em unstable} time-evolution, whereas that of coherent turbulent motion
contributing mainly to the tail part of PDF is a {\em stable} time-evolution.
The former may be attributed to a manifestation of fluctuations,
whereas the latter to the characteristics of intermittency.
Note that we assumed that the central part $\hat{\Pi}_{3,{\rm cr}}^{(n)}(\xi_n)$
is constituted of two contributions, one from the coherent contribution
$\Pi_{3,{\rm S}}^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n)$
and the other from the incoherent contribution $\itDelta \Pi_3^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n)$,
and that almost all the contribution to the tail part $\hat{\Pi}_{3,{\rm tl}}^{(n)}(\xi_n)$
comes from the coherent intermittent motion of turbulence.
Further investigation about these outcomes and their interpretation is necessary,
which we leave as one of the attractive future problems.\footnote{
We observed that there is no visible difference
between $\Pi_3^{(n)} (\varepsilon/\dbra \varepsilon \dket)$
and the PDF extracted with the formula
$
\partial v/\partial t \simeq [v(t+ \itDelta t) - v(t -\itDelta t)]/2\itDelta t
$
which is correct without contamination up to the term of ${\cal O}(\itDelta t)$.
}
Let us close this paper by noting the studies in progress which are deeply related to
the present work.
It has been revealed (Motoike and Arimitsu 2012) that the new scaling relation
(\ref{new scaling relation}) is intimately related to the $\delta^\infty$ periodic orbits
($\delta \geq 3$) located at the threshold to chaos via
the $\delta$ ($\geq 3$) times ramification (bifurcation)
in $\delta$-period windows in the chaotic region, for example, of the logistic map.
The self-similar nesting structure of $\delta^k$-period windows ($k=1,2,3,\cdots$)
can be an origin of intermittent coherent motion in fully developed turbulence.
We expect that further investigation to this direction to extract a message provided
by the new scaling relation may lead us to a novel interpretation of
fully developed turbulence.
We are also performing a precise comparison between the results extracted in this paper
for the grid turbulence in a wind tunnel and those for 4096$^3$ DNS turbulence
by raising the resolution of PDFs, i.e., by creating more data points for PDFs.
The results of these studies will be published elsewhere in the near future.
\ack
The authors (T.A. and N.A.) would like to thank Prof.~T.~Motoike,
Dr.~K.~Yoshida, Mr.~M.~Komatsuzaki and Mr.~K.~Takechi for fruitful discussion.
\section*{References}
\begin{harvard}
\item[] Aoyama T, Ishihara T, Kaneda Y, Yokokawa M, Itakura K and Uno A 2005
Statistics of energy transfer in high-resolution direct numerical simulation of
turbulence in a periodic box
{\it J.\ Phys.\ Soc.\ Jpn.} {\bf 74} 3202--3212
\item[] Arimitsu N and Arimitsu T 2002
Multifractal analysis of turbulence by using statistics based on non-extensive
Tsallis' or extensive R\'enyi's entropy
{\it J. Korean Phys. Soc.} {\bf 40} 1032--1036
\item[] Arimitsu N and Arimitsu T 2011
Verification of the scaling relation within MPDFT by analyzing PDFs for energy
dissipation rates out of 4096$^3$ DNS
{\it Physica \rm A} {\bf 390} 161--176
\item[] Arimitsu T and Arimitsu N 2000a
Analysis of Fully Developed Turbulence in terms of Tsallis Statistics
{\it Phys. Rev.\ \rm E} {\bf 61} 3237--3240
\item[] Arimitsu T and Arimitsu N 2000b
Tsallis statistics and fully developed turbulence
{\it J.\ Phys.\ {\rm A}: Math.\ Gen.} {\bf 33} L235--L241
[{\footnotesize CORRIGENDUM}: 2001 {\bf 34} 673--674]
\item[] Arimitsu T and Arimitsu N 2001
Analysis of turbulence by statistics based on generalized entropies
{\it Physica \rm A} {\bf 295} 177--194
\item[] Arimitsu T and Arimitsu N 2002
PDF of velocity fluctuation in turbulence by a statistics based on generalized entropy
{\it Physica \rm A} {\bf 305} 218--226
\item[] Arimitsu T and Arimitsu N 2011
Analysis of PDFs for energy transfer rates from 4096$^3$ DNS
---Verification of the scaling relation within MPDFT
{\it J.\ Turbulence} {\bf 12} 1--25
\item[] Benzi R, Paladin G, Parisi G and Vulpiani A 1984
On the multifractal nature of fully developed turbulence and chaotic systems
{\it J.\ Phys.\ {\rm A}: Math.\ Gen.} {\bf 17} 3521-3531
\item[] Benzi R, Biferale L, Paladin G, Vulpiani A and Vergassola M 1991
Multifractality in the statistics of the velocity gradients in turbulence
{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf 67} 2299--2302
\item[] Biferale L, Boffetta G, Celani A, Devenish B J, Lanotte A and Toschi F 2004
Multifractal statistics of Lagrangian velocity and acceleration in turbulence
{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf 93} 064502-1-4
\item[] Biferale L and Procaccia I 2005 Anisotropy in Turbulent Flows and in Turbulent Transport
{\it Phys.\ Rep.} {\bf 414} 43--164
\item[] Chevillard L, Castaing B, L\'ev\^eque E and Arneodo A 2006
Unified multifractal description of velocity increments statistics in turbulence:
Intermittency and skewness
{\it Physica \rm D} {\bf 218} 77--82
\item[] Cleve J, Greiner M and Sreenivasan K R 2003
On the effects of surrogacy of energy dissipation in determining the intermittency exponent
in fully developed turbulence
{\it Europhys.\ Lett.} {\bf 61} 756--761
\item[] Costa U M S, Lyra M L, Plastino A R and Tsallis C 1997
Power-law sensitivity to initial conditions within a logistic-like family of maps:
Fractality and nonextensivity
{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ \rm E} {\bf 56} 245--250
\item[] Dubrulle B 1994
Intermittency in fully developed turbulence: log-Poisson statistics and
generalized scale covariance
{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf 73} 959--962
\item[] Grassberger P 1983
Generalized dimension of strange attractors
{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \rm A} {\bf 97} 227--229
\item[] Halsey T C, Jensen M H, Kadanoff L P, Procaccia I and Shraiman B I 1986
Fractal measures and their singularities: The characterization of strange sets
{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ \rm A} {\bf 33} 1141--1151
\item[] Havrda J H and Charvat F 1967
Quantification methods of classification processes: Concepts of
structural $\alpha$ entropy
{\it Kybernatica} {\bf 3} 30--35
\item[] Hentschel H G E and Procaccia I 1983
The infinite number of generalized dimensions of fractals and strange attractors
{\it Physica \rm D} {\bf 8} 435--444
\item[] Hosokawa I 1991
Turbulence models and probability distributions of dissipation and relevant
quantities in isotropic turbulence
{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf 66} 1054--1057
\item[] Lyra M L and Tsallis C 1998
Nonextensivity and multifractality in low-dimensional dissipative systems
{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf 80} 53--56
\item[] Mandelbrot B B 1974
Intermittent turbulence in self-similar cascades: Divergence of high moments
and dimension of the carrier
{\it J.\ Fluid Mech.} {\bf 62} 331--358
\item[] Meneveau C and Sreenivasan K R 1987
The multifractal spectrum of the dissipation field in turbulent flows
{\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ \rm B ({\it Proc.\ Suppl.})} {\bf 2} 49--76
\item[] Motoike T and Arimitsu T 2012
in preparation to submit
\item[] Mouri H, Hori A and Takaoka M 2008
Fluctuations of statistics among subregions of a turbulence velocity field
{\it Phys.\ Fluids} {\bf 20} 035108-1--6
\item[] Nelkin M 1990
Multifractal scaling of velocity derivatives in turbulence
{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ \rm A} {\bf 42} 7226-7229
\item[] Parisi G and Frisch U 1985
{\it Turbulence and predictability in geophysical fluid dynamics and climate dynamics}
(New York: North-Holland/American Elsevier) pp~84-87
\item[] R\'{e}nyi A 1961
On measures of entropy and information
{\it Proc. of the 4th Berkeley Symp. on Mathematical Statistics and Probability}
(Berkeley: USA) pp~547--561
\item[] She Z-S and Leveque E 1994
Universal scaling laws in fully developed turbulence
{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf 72} 336--339
\item[] She Z-S and Waymire E C 1995
Quantized energy cascade and log-Poisson statistics in fully developed turbulence
{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf 74} 262--265
\item[] Suyari H and Wada T 2006
Scaling property and Tsallis entropy derived from a fundamental nonlinear
differential equation
{\it Proc.\ of the 2006 Int.\ Symp.\ on Inf.\ Theory and its Appl.}
(ISITA2006) pp~75--80 ({\it Preprint} cond-mat/0608007)
\item[] Tsallis C 1988
Possible generation of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics
{\it J.\ Stat.\ Phys.} {\bf 52} 479--487
\item[] Tsallis C 2001
Nonextensive statistical mechanics and thermodynamics: Historical background and
present status {\it Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications}
ed S Abe and Y Okamoto (Berlin: Springer-Verlag) pp~3--98
\end{harvard}
\end{document}
\begin{table}
\caption{Parameters extracted from PDFs for energy dissipation rates derived by
(a) the formula (\ref{vel der correct up to 4th order}) and
(b) the formula (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order}) for $\delta =3$.
For both cases, $\mu = 0.260$ ($(1-q)\ln \delta = 0.393$, $\alpha_0=1.15$, $X=0.310$) giving $q=0.642$.
\label{pdf edr parameters4/1}}
\begin{center}
{\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
& \multicolumn{7}{c ||}{(a)} & \multicolumn{7}{c}{(b)} \\
\hline
$r/\eta$ & $n$ & $\tilde{n}$ & $q'$ & $w_3$ & $\theta$ & $\alpha^{*}$ & $\xi_n^*$ & $n$ & $\tilde{n}$ & $q'$ & $w_3$ & $\theta$ & $\alpha^{*}$ & $\xi_n^*$ \\
\hline
6.57 & 4.50 & 4.94 & 1.04 & 0.350 & 1.60 & 0.650 & 5.57 & 3.70 & 4.06 & 1.04 & 0.350 & 5.50 & 0.650 & 7.46 \\
21.9 & 3.58 & 3.93 & 1.04 & 0.370 & 2.50 & 0.550 & 7.93 & 3.58 & 3.93 & 1.04 & 0.370 & 5.70 & 0.550 & 8.24 \\
65.7 & 2.61 & 2.87 & 1.05 & 0.510 & 3.50 & 0.405 & 11.4 & 2.58 & 2.83 & 1.04 & 0.500 & 6.50 & 0.400 & 11.3 \\
197 & 1.60 & 1.76 & 1.06 & 0.780 & 4.50 & 0.280 & 13.6 & 1.58 & 1.74 & 1.06 & 0.800 & 7.50 & 0.300 & 12.0 \\
591 & 0.600 & 0.416 & 1.08 & 1.25 & 5.50 & 0.180 & 16.0 & 0.580 & 0.400 & 1.08 & 1.30 & 8.50 & 0.200 & 15.7 \\
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=51mm]{figure4a.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=49mm]{figure4b.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=48mm]{figure4c.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{$r/\eta$ ($=\ell_n/\eta$) dependence of (a) $\tilde{n}$, (b) $\alpha^*$ and (c) $\theta$
extracted from the series of PDFs derived via (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order})
for $\delta=2$ (open circles), $\delta=3$ (crosses), $\delta=5$ (open triangles).
Dashed lines are the empirical formulae (a) $\tilde{n}=-2.37\log_{10}(r/\eta)+7.18$,
(b) $\alpha^* = - 0.239 \log_{10}(r/\eta)+0.860$ and (c) $\theta=1.72\log_{10}(r/\eta)+3.71$
obtained from all the data points for $\delta = 2$, 3 and 5.
Solid lines are those drawn, respectively,
in figures~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation}~(a), (b) and (c).
The inertial range is the region between the vertical
dash-dotted lines.
\label{fig:pdf edr n_als_theta relation}}
\end{figure}
We observe that the new scaling relation (\ref{new scaling relation})
is deeply related to the $\delta$-scale Cantor sets
(Halsey \etal 1986)
created from $\delta^\infty$ periodic orbits.
Although the extracted number $n$, which is introduced in (\ref{def of delta}),
does not take integer numbers but real numbers,
it increases by one within the accuracy of the present observation for every $\delta$
when we go deeper into smaller region, i.e.,
$r/\eta = 591 \rightarrow$ 197 $\rightarrow$ 65.7 $\rightarrow$ 21.9 $\rightarrow$ 6.57
(see table~\ref{pdf edr parameters4/1}).
Therefore, it may be reasonable to interpret that $n$ represents the number of stages
in the $\delta$-scale Cantor sets.\footnote{
The $\delta$ independent number $\tilde{n}$ may provide us with a number of steps
appropriate for the interpretation of turbulence within the energy cascade model.
}
From the present analyses, we conjecture that the system of the
fully developed turbulence consists of the accumulation of
the Cantor sets characterized by unstable $\delta^\infty$ periodic orbits
with different values of $\delta$.
Observation of the system with a specific magnification $\delta$ extracts
the information of the $\delta$-scale Cantor sets constituting
the turbulence.
Further investigations to this direction is now in progress, and will be
reported elsewhere in the near future.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\resizebox*{5.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{bhist(g01-v-edr-exp-d2)log-110831.eps}
\hspace*{1cm}
\resizebox*{5.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{bhist(g01-v-edr-exp-d2)linear-110831.eps}
\caption{The PDFs of energy dissipation rates for $\delta = 2$
on (a) log and (b) linear scale in the vertical axes.
For better visibility,
each PDF is shifted by $-1$ unit along the vertical axis in (a) and by $-0.4$
unit along the vertical axis in (b).
Open circles are the experimental PDFs for $r/\eta = 6.57$, $13.1$, $26.3$, $50.4$, $98.6$, $197$, $394$
from the smallest value (top) to the largest value (bottom) where $r$ corresponds to $\ell_n$.
Solid lines represent the curves given by the present theory with
$\mu = 0.260$ ($(1-q)\ln \delta = 0.393$, $\alpha_0=1.15$, $X=0.310$).
Note that $q=0.433$. Other parameters are listed in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters2}.
\label{fig:pdf edr delta_2}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\resizebox*{5.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{bhist(g01-v-edr-exp-d5)log-110831.eps}
\hspace*{1cm}
\resizebox*{5.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{bhist(g01-v-edr-exp-d5)linear-110831.eps}
\caption{\label{fig2} The PDFs of energy dissipation rates for $\delta = 5$
on (a) log and (b) linear scale in the vertical axes.
For better visibility,
each PDF is shifted by $-1$ unit along the vertical axis in (a) and by $-0.4$
unit along the vertical axis in (b).
Open circles are the experimental PDFs for $r/\eta = 8.76$, $39.4$, $197$
from the smallest value (top) to the largest value (bottom) where $r$ corresponds to $\ell_n$.
Solid lines represent the curves given by the present theory with
$\mu = 0.260$ ($(1-q)\ln \delta = 0.393$, $\alpha_0=1.15$, $X=0.310$).
Note that $q=0.756$. Other parameters are listed in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters2}.
\label{fig:pdf edr delta_5}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}
\caption{The values of $\delta$ and the parameters extracted in the course
of theoretical analyses of PDFs for energy dissipation rates.
The number $n$ specifying the series of PDFs is introduced in (\ref{Tsallis prob density}), and
the number $\tilde{n}$ of steps in the energy cascade model is
in (\ref{Tsallis prob density with n tilde}).
The parameters $q^\prime$, $w_3$ and $\theta$ for the central part of the PDF appear
in the trial function given in (\ref{exp g edr}).
The relation between the connection points $\alpha^*$ and $\xi_n^*$ are given
in (\ref{xi-star alpha-star}).
\label{pdf edr parameters2}}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.55}{
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
& \multicolumn{7}{c||}{$\delta = 2$} & \multicolumn{7}{c||}{$\delta =3$}
& \multicolumn{7}{c}{$\delta=5$} \\
\hline\hline
$r/\eta$ & $n$ & $\tilde{n}$ & $q'$ & $w_3$ & $\theta$ & $\alpha^{*}$ & $\xi_n^*$ & $n$ & $\tilde{n}$ & $q'$ & $w_3$ & $\theta$ & $\alpha^{*}$ & $\xi_n^*$ & $n$ & $\tilde{n}$ & $q'$ & $w_3$ & $\theta$ & $\alpha^{*}$ & $\xi_n^*$ \\
\hline\hline
6.57 & 7.50 & 5.20 & 1.05 & 0.350 & 1.80 & 0.630 & 7.09 & 4.50 & 4.94 & 1.04 & 0.350 & 1.60 & 0.650 & 5.57 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
8.76 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 3.50 & 5.63 & 1.04 & 0.350 & 1.70 & 0.650 & 5.39 \\
13.1 & 6.50 & 4.51 & 1.04 & 0.350 & 2.00 & 0.630 & 5.81 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
21.9 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 3.58 & 3.93 & 1.04 & 0.370 & 2.50 & 0.550 & 7.93 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
26.3 & 5.50 & 3.81 & 1.04 & 0.390 & 2.50 & 0.550 & 7.30 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
39.4 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 2.20 & 3.54 & 1.05 & 0.450 & 3.30 & 0.480 & 10.3 \\
50.4 & 4.30 & 2.98 & 1.06 & 0.550 & 2.90 & 0.450 & 10.7 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
65.7 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 2.61 & 2.87 & 1.05 & 0.510 & 3.50 & 0.405 & 11.4 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
98.6 & 3.50 & 2.43 & 1.05 & 0.600 & 3.90 & 0.350 & 13.1 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
197 & 2.40 & 1.66 & 1.07 & 0.800 & 4.80 & 0.290 & 13.5 & 1.60 & 1.76 & 1.06 & 0.780 & 4.50 & 0.280 & 13.6 & 1.20 & 1.93 & 1.07 & 0.800 & 4.40 & 0.300 & 11.7 \\
394 & 1.50 & 1.04 & 1.07 & 1.00 & 5.50 & 0.220 & 14.7 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
591 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.600 & 0.416 & 1.08 & 1.25 & 5.50 & 0.180 & 16.0 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
This is also shown in the expression of
the $m$th moment of the structure function
(Arimitsu T and N 2002, Arimitsiu N and T 2002)
\be
\dbra \vert \varepsilon_n \vert^m \dket = \gamma^{(n)}_{3,m}
+ (1-\gamma^{(n)}_{3,0} ) \
a_{3 m} \ \left(\ell_n / \ell_0 \right)^{\zeta_{3 m}}
\label{structure func m}
\ee
with the corresponding scaling exponents $\zeta_{3 m}$ defined
by (\ref{def of scaling exp phi}).
Here, the average $\dbra \cdots \dket$ is taken with $\Pi_3^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n)$.
The first and second terms in the right-hand side of (\ref{structure func m}) represent,
respectively, the incoherent and coherent contributions.
Since we ignored approximately but in a high accuracy the incoherent contribution
to the tail part PDF in the application of A\&A model within MPDFT, the contribution
to the first term in the right-hand side of (\ref{structure func m}) comes solely
from the incoherent contribution in the central part PDF.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{r-nt-edr110831.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The relation between $\tilde{n}$ and $r/\eta$ in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters2}
which is extracted from the PDFs of energy dissipation rates for $\delta=2$ (open circles),
for $\delta=3$ (crosses) and for $\delta=5$ (open triangles).
The line is $\tilde{n}=-2.43\log_{10}(r/\eta)+7.29$.
Here, $r$ corresponds to $\ell_n$.
Note that the inertial range is the region between the vertical
dash-dotted lines.
\label{fig:pdf edr n_r relation}}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{r-als-edr110831.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The relation between $\alpha^*$ and $r/\eta$ in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters2}
which is extracted from the PDFs of energy dissipation rates for $\delta=2$ (open circles),
for $\delta=3$ (crosses) and for $\delta=5$ (open triangles).
The line is
$
\alpha^* = - 0.253 \log_{10}(r/\eta)+0.878
$.
Here, $r$ corresponds to $\ell_n$.
Note that the inertial range is the region between the vertical
dash-dotted lines.
\label{fig:pdf edr n_als relation}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{r-xis-edr110831.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The relation between $\xi_{n}^*$ and $r/\eta$ in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters2}
which is extracted from the PDFs of energy dissipation rates for $\delta=2$ (open circles),
for $\delta=3$ (crosses) and for $\delta=5$ (open triangles).
The line is
$
\xi_{n}^* = 5.22\log_{10}(r/\eta)+1.25
$.
Here, $r$ corresponds to $\ell_n$.
Note that the inertial range is the region between the vertical
dash-dotted lines.
\label{fig:pdf edr n_xis relation}}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{r-qp-edr110831.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The relation between $q'$ and $r/\eta$ in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters2}
which is extracted from the PDFs of energy dissipation rates for $\delta=2$ (open circles),
for $\delta=3$ (crosses) and for $\delta=5$ (open triangles).
The line is $q^\prime=1.82 \times 10^{-2}\log_{10}(r/\eta)+1.02$.
Here, $r$ corresponds to $\ell_n$.
Note that the inertial range is the region between the vertical
dash-dotted lines.
\label{fig:pdf edr n_qp relation}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{r-w-edr110831.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The relation between $w_3$ and $r/\eta$ in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters2}
which is extracted from the PDFs of energy dissipation rates for $\delta=2$ (open circles),
for $\delta=3$ (crosses) and for $\delta=5$ (open triangles).
The line is
$
\log_{10} w_3 = 0.339 \log_{10} (r/\eta) + \log_{10} 0.133
$.
Here, $r$ corresponds to $\ell_n$.
Note that the inertial range is the region between the vertical
dash-dotted lines.
\label{fig:pdf edr n_w relation}}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{r-theta-edr110831.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The relation between $\theta$ and $r/\eta$ in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters2}
which is extracted from the PDFs of energy dissipation rates for $\delta=2$ (open circles),
for $\delta=3$ (crosses) and for $\delta=5$ (open triangles).
The line is
$
\theta=2.08\log_{10}(r/\eta)-0.227
$.
Here, $r$ corresponds to $\ell_n$.
Note that the inertial range is the region between the vertical
dash-dotted lines.
\label{fig:pdf edr theta relation}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\caption{The values of $\delta$ and the parameters obtained in the course
of theoretical analyses of PDFs for energy dissipation rates
extracted out with the help of the formula (\ref{vel der correct up to 1st order}).
The number $n$ specifying the series of PDFs is introduced in (\ref{Tsallis prob density}), and
the number $\tilde{n}$ of steps in the energy cascade model is
in (\ref{Tsallis prob density with n tilde}).
The parameters $q^\prime$, $w_3$ and $\theta$ for the central part of the PDF appear
in the trial function given in (\ref{exp g edr}).
The relation between the connection points $\alpha^*$ and $\xi_n^*$ are given
in (\ref{xi-star alpha-star}).
\label{pdf edr parameters1}}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.55}{
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
& \multicolumn{7}{c||}{$\delta = 2$} & \multicolumn{7}{c||}{$\delta =3$}
& \multicolumn{7}{c}{$\delta=5$} \\
\hline\hline
$r/\eta$ & $n$ & $\tilde{n}$ & $q'$ & $w_3$ & $\theta$ & $\alpha^{*}$ & $\xi_n^*$ & $n$ & $\tilde{n}$ & $q'$ & $w_3$ & $\theta$ & $\alpha^{*}$ & $\xi_n^*$ & $n$ & $\tilde{n}$ & $q'$ & $w_3$ & $\theta$ & $\alpha^{*}$ & $\xi_n^*$ \\
\hline\hline
6.57 & 6.30 & 4.37 & 1.03 & 0.300 & 5.00 & 0.69 & 4.78 & 3.70 & 4.06 & 1.04 & 0.35 & 5.50 & 0.650 & 7.46 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
8.76 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 2.30 & 3.70 & 1.02 & 0.250 & 6.00 & 0.600 & 8.66 \\
13.1 & 6.40 & 4.44 & 1.03 & 0.300 & 5.50 & 0.630 & 6.00 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
21.9 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 3.58 & 3.93 & 1.04 & 0.370 & 5.70 & 0.550 & 8.24 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
26.3 & 5.70 & 3.95 & 1.04 & 0.400 & 6.00 & 0.550 & 7.39 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
39.4 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 2.10 & 3.38 & 1.04 & 0.45 & 6.20 & 0.480 & 9.14 \\
50.4 & 4.50 & 3.12 & 1.05 & 0.550 & 6.50 & 0.450 & 10.4 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
65.7 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 2.58 & 2.83 & 1.04 & 0.500 & 6.50 & 0.400 & 11.3 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
98.6 & 3.50 & 2.43 & 1.04 & 0.600 & 7.00 & 0.350 & 12.4 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
197 & 2.50 & 1.73 & 1.05 & 0.800 & 7.50 & 0.290 & 12.5 & 1.58 & 1.74 & 1.06 & 0.800 & 7.50 & 0.300 & 12.0 & 1.10 & 1.77 & 1.06 & 0.800 & 7.50 & 0.300 & 11.7 \\
394 & 1.50 & 1.04 & 1.06 & 1.00 & 8.90 & 0.220 & 14.4 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
591 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.580 & 0.400 & 1.08 & 1.30 & 8.50 & 0.200 & 15.7 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{r-xis-edr101024-110901.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of the $r/\eta$ dependences of $\xi_{n}^*$ between
the one (dashed line) given in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters1} and
the other (solid line) drawn in figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_xis relation}.
The dashed line is
$
\xi_{n}^* =4.21\log_{10}(r/\eta)+2.80
$
which is derived by the method of least squares
from the same amount of data points for $\delta=2$, $\delta=3$
and $\delta=5$ as in the case of figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr n_xis relation}.
The solid line is
$
\xi_{n}^* = 5.22\log_{10}(r/\eta)+1.25
$.
Here, $r$ corresponds to $\ell_n$.
Note that the inertial range is the region between the vertical
dash-dotted lines.
\label{fig:pdf edr n_xis relation 1st}}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{r-theta-edr101024-110901.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of the $r/\eta$ dependences of $\theta$ between
the one (dashed line) given in table~\ref{pdf edr parameters1} and
the other (solid line) drawn in figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr theta relation}.
The dashed line is
$
\theta=1.72\log_{10}(r/\eta)+3.71
$
which is derived by the method of least squares
from the same amount of data points for $\delta=2$, $\delta=3$
and $\delta=5$ as in the case of figure~\ref{fig:pdf edr theta relation}.
The solid line is
$
\theta=2.08\log_{10}(r/\eta)-0.227
$.
Here, $r$ corresponds to $\ell_n$.
Note that the inertial range is the region between the vertical
dash-dotted lines.
\label{fig:pdf edr theta relation 1st}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\bea
K_{3,m}^{(n)} \aeq \frac{3}{3}
\left(\frac{\ell_n}{\ell_0}\right)^{
1-f(\alpha^*) + m3 \alpha^*/3}
\sqrt{\frac{\vert f^{\prime \prime}(\alpha_0) \vert}
{2\pi \vert \ln \left(\ell_n/\ell_0 \right) \vert}}
\int_0^1 dz\ z^m
\me^{-[g_{3}(\xi_n^* z)-g_{3}(\xi_n^*)]},
\label{K}
\eea
\bea
L_{3,m}^{(n)} \aeq \left(\frac{\ell_n}{\ell_0}\right)
\sqrt{\frac{\vert f^{\prime \prime}(\alpha_0) \vert
\vert \ln \left(\ell_n/\ell_0\right) \vert}{2\pi}}
\int_{\alpha^*}^{\alpha_{\rm max}} d\alpha \
\left(\frac{\ell_n}{\ell_0}\right)^{\ m\alpha 3/3 - f(\alpha)}.
\label{L}
\eea
|
\section{The model}
The local magnetic moment at a Sn impurity diluted in $R$Fe$_{2}$ and $R$Co$_{2}$ or Cd in $R$Co$_{2}$,
has the following contributions: one from the $R$ ions, consisting of a polarization of the $\textit{s-p}$ impurity level by 4f and 5d rare-earth electrons and from a potential ($V$) due to the presence of the impurity. Also included in $V$, is the nearest-neighbor hopping change due to the break of translational invariance by the impurity. The other one, from the transition metal, is a magnetic field produced by the neighbors of the impurity, which occupies a rare earth site (see Ref.( \cite {Oliveira2003}) and references therein).
The Hamiltonian to describe the formation of the local {\it s-p} magnetic moment and hyperfine field is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}=H_{R}+V+H_{M}.\label{eq:ham1}
\end{equation}
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:ham1}),
\begin{equation}
H_{R} = \sum_{ i,\sigma }\varepsilon _{\sigma }^{{\rm h}}c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{i\sigma }
+\sum_{i,j, \sigma }t_{ij}c_{i\sigma }^{\dagger}c_{j\sigma},
\label{eq:HR}
\end{equation}
defines an effective pure rare earth host which consists in a conduction \textit{s-p} band polarized by the 4f and 5d electrons. In Eq.~(\ref{eq:HR}), $\varepsilon _{\sigma }^{{\rm h}}$ is the center of the {\it s-p} energy band, now depending on the spin $\sigma $ orientation, $c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}$ ($c_{i\sigma}$) is the creation (annihilation) operator of conduction electrons at site $i$ with spin $\sigma $ and $t_{ij}$ is the electron hopping energy between neighboring $i$ and $j$ sites.
The second term of Eq.~(\ref{eq:ham1}) is the potential due to the presence of the impurity at site $i=0$.
\begin{equation}
V=\sum_{\sigma}{V_{0\sigma }c_{0\sigma }^{\dagger}c_{0\sigma } }
+\tau\sum_{l\neq 0,\sigma }t_{0l}\left( c_{0\sigma }^{\dagger }c_{l\sigma }+c_{l\sigma }^{\dagger }c_{0\sigma }\right),
\label{eq:V}
\end{equation}
where $V_{0\sigma}=(\varepsilon _{0\sigma }^{\rm I}-\varepsilon _{\sigma }^{\rm h})$ is a spin dependent local term, $\varepsilon _{0\sigma }^{\rm I}$ being the {\it s-p} impurity state energy level. The parameter $\tau $ takes into
account the change in the hopping energy associated with the
presence of the impurity~\cite{Oliveira2003,Acker91b,Oliveira95},$\tau=0$ meaning no disorder in the hopping.
The last term of Eq.~(\ref{eq:ham1}),
\begin{equation}
H_{M}=-\sum_{l\neq 0,\sigma }\sigma J^{{\rm sd}}\left\langle S^{M}\right\rangle c_{l\sigma }^{\dagger }c_{l\sigma },
\end{equation}
is the interaction energy between the magnetic field from the $M$ ions and the impurity spin. $J^{{\rm sd}}$ is an exchange parameter and $\left\langle S^{M}\right\rangle $ is the average magnetic moment at $M$ sites.
Let us first solve the problem with $H_{M}=0$.
Using Dyson equation, the
exact Green's functions $\widetilde{g}_{ij\sigma }(z)$ due to the charge perturbation
at the origin, is~\cite{Oliveira2003}
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{g}_{ij\sigma }(z) &=& g_{ij\sigma }(z)+g_{i0\sigma }(z)
\frac{V_{{\rm eff}}^{\sigma }(z)}{\alpha^{2} - g_{00\sigma }(z)V_{{\rm eff}}^{\sigma }(z)}g_{0j\sigma }(z) \nonumber \\
&&+\left( \alpha - 1\right)^{2} \frac{
g_{00\sigma }(z)\delta _{i0}\delta _{0j}}{\alpha ^{2}-g_{00\sigma }(z)V_{{\rm eff}}^{\sigma }(z)} \nonumber \\
&&-\left( \alpha - 1\right) \frac{\alpha \left( g_{i0\sigma }(z)\delta _{0j}+\delta
_{i0}g_{0j\sigma }(z)\right) }{\alpha ^{2}-g_{00\sigma }(z)V_{{\rm eff}}^{\sigma }(z)}.
\label{eq:4}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $g_{ij\sigma }(z)$ is the Green's functions for the pure host with $z=\varepsilon+i0$, and $\alpha = \tau +1$.
The effective potential $V_{{\rm eff\,}}^{\sigma }(z)$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
V_{{\rm eff}}^{\sigma }(z)=V_{0\sigma }+(\alpha ^{2}-1)(z-\varepsilon^{\rm h}_{\sigma } ).,
\end{equation}
For the full Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:ham1}), the perturbed
Green's functions $G_{ij\sigma }(z)$ is
\begin{equation}
G_{ij\sigma }(z)=\widetilde{g}_{ij\sigma }(z)
+\sum_{l\neq 0}\widetilde{g}_{il\sigma }(z)T_{ll}^{\sigma }\widetilde{g}_{lj\sigma }(z)
\end{equation}
with:
\begin{equation}
T_{ll}^{\sigma }=\frac{V_{nn}^{\sigma }}{1-g_{ll\sigma }(z)V_{nn}^{\sigma }},
\end{equation}
where $V_{nn}^{\sigma } = -\sigma Z_{\rm nn}J^{sd}\left\langle S^{M}\right\rangle$ is the magnetic coupling between the impurity and the $M$ sites and $Z_{{\rm nn}}$ is the number of the nearest neighbor $M$ ions
surrounding a \textit{s-p} (Sn or Cd) impurity.
At this point we adopt the following approximation: one consider only the contribution of nearest neighbor $M$ sites; and in this sense we have a cluster-like approach to calculate the contribution to the magnetic moment arising from $M$ ions.
We assume that $V_{\rm nn}^{\sigma }$ is small
compared to $V_{0\sigma }$ thus justifying the Born approximation, $T_{ll}^{\sigma }\approx V_{\rm nn}^{\sigma }$.
The local Green's functions $G_{00\sigma }(z)$ at the
impurity site is then
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{00\sigma }(z)&=&\frac{g_{00\sigma }(z)}{\alpha ^{2}-g_{00\sigma }(z)\,V_{\rm eff}^{\sigma }(z)}
+
\frac{\alpha ^{2}V_{{\rm nn}}^{\sigma
}}{\left[ \alpha ^{2}-g_{00\sigma }(z)\,V_{\rm eff}^{\sigma }(z)\right] ^{2}} \nonumber \\
&&\times \left[
\frac{\partial g_{00\sigma }(z)}{\partial z}+\left(
g_{00\sigma }(z)\right) ^{2}\right] .
\end{eqnarray}
Note that in the local Green's functions $G_{00\sigma }(z)$, the
first term is due to the rare-earth ions whereas the second comes from
the polarization produced by the $M$ ions. The local potential $V_{0\sigma }$
is self consistently determined using the Friedel screening condition (see for instance Ref.~\cite
{Oliveira95}) for the total charge difference $\Delta Z$ between impurity and
rare earth atoms.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.60\textwidth]{DOSRCo2.eps}
\caption{Calculated local density of states $\rho ^{\sigma }_{0}(\varepsilon)$ (a) at the Cd and (b) at the Sn impurity site both in GdCo$_{2}$. Due to the splitting and the band deformation caused by the scattering produced by the charge difference between the impurity and host, these local DOS's will generate local magnetic moments in the indicated directions (see text). } \label{fig:dos}
\end{figure}
Assuming that the screening of this charge
difference is made by the {\it s-p} band then $\Delta Z=\Delta Z_{\uparrow }+\Delta Z_{\downarrow },$ where $
\Delta Z_{\sigma }$ is
\begin{equation}
\Delta Z_{\sigma }=-\frac{1}{\pi }{\rm Im}\ln \left[ \alpha ^{2}-g_{00\sigma }(\varepsilon_{\rm F})\,V_{\rm eff}^{\sigma
}(\varepsilon_{\rm F})\right] ,
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_{\rm F}$ is the Fermi energy level. The local {\it s-p} density of states per spin direction at
the impurity site are calculated by $\rho _{\sigma }(\varepsilon
)=\left( -1/\pi \right) {\rm Im\,}G_{00\sigma }(z)$. \ The
local {\it s-p} electron occupation number, $n_{0\sigma
}$, is obtained by integrating the corresponding
local density of states up to the Fermi level $\varepsilon _{{\rm F}}$. \ The
total magnetic moment ($\widetilde{m_{0}}$) at a {\it s-p} impurity, given by $\widetilde{m_{0}}=n_{0\uparrow }-n_{0\downarrow }$ is
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{m_0}=\widetilde{m}_{0}^{R}+\widetilde{m}^{{\rm ind}}_{0},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{m}_{0}^{R}=-\frac{1}{\pi }\sum_{\sigma }\int_{-\infty
}^{\epsilon _{{\rm F}}}{\rm Im\,}\,\frac{\sigma\; g_{00\sigma }(z)}{\alpha ^{2}-g_{00\sigma }(z)V_{\rm eff}^{\sigma
}(z)}\,{\rm d}z \label{eq:momR}
\end{equation}
is the contribution from rare-earth ions and
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{m}^{{\rm ind}}_0&=&+\frac{1}{\pi }\sum_{\sigma
}\int_{-\infty }^{\epsilon _{{\rm F}}}{\rm Im\,}\frac{\alpha ^{2}Z_{\rm nn}J^{{\rm sd}}\left\langle S^{M}\right\rangle }{\left[ \alpha
^{2}-g_{00\sigma }(z)\;V_{\rm eff}^{\sigma
}(z)\right] ^{2}} \nonumber \\ &&\times \left[ \frac{\partial g_{00\sigma
}(z)}{\partial z}+\left( g_{00\sigma }(z)\right) ^{2}\right] \;{\rm d}z
\end{eqnarray}
is the contribution from the $M$ nearest neighbor ions. The total magnetic
hyperfine field at the impurity site is
\begin{equation}
B_{hf}=A(Z_{{\rm imp}})\widetilde{m}_{0},
\label{chf}
\end{equation}
where $A(Z_{{\rm imp}})$ is the Fermi-Segr\`{e} contact coupling parameter. Similarly we define $B_\mathrm{hf}^\mathrm
{ind}$ and $B_\mathrm{hf}^{R}$.
\section{Results}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.60\textwidth]{SnRM2b.eps}
\caption{Calculated total magnetic moment $\widetilde{m_0}$ at Sn impurity diluted in (a) $RFe_{2}$ and (b) $RCo_2$ (solid lines). The dotted lines correspond to the contribution from the rare earth and the dashed lines correspond to the contribution of the $M$ ions.} \label{fig:mmSn}
\end{figure}
Our calculations are restricted to compounds where the rare earth ions are trivalent. This precludes Ce$M_{2}$, Yb$M_{2}$and Eu$M_{2}$ compounds: Ce is in a mixed valence state and Yb and Eu are divalent.
In order to calculate the local moments and the magnetic hyperfine fields at a Sn or Cd impurity diluted in $RM_{2}$ we have to fix some model parameters. Here, we adopt a standard paramagnetic {\it s-p} density of
states extracted from first-principles calculations. The exchange splitting in the {\it s-p} energy bands induced by the local moments of the rare-earth ions, was properly chosen to yield the {\it s-p} magnetic moment at the $R$ sites of the host, which is assumed to be of the order of 0.1 of the {\it d} magnetization at the $R$ sites. The parameter $\alpha $ which renormalizes the hopping energy, was chosen $\alpha\simeq 1$ giving the ratio between the extension of the host and impurity {\it s-p} wave functions. For the whole rare earth series we adopted $J^{sd} = 0.2 \times 10^{-3}$ in units of the {\it s-p} bandwidth in the case of $R$Fe$_{2}$, while for $R$Co$_{2}$, we adopted $J^{sd} = 0.4 \times 10^{-3}$ for heavy rare-earth ions and $J^{sd}=0.5 \times 10^{-3}$ for light rare-earth ions both also in units of the {\it s-p} bandwidth. These choices are enough to reproduce the systematics of the respective series. The magnetic moments at a Fe site in $R$Fe$_{2}$ $\left( \left\langle S^{{\rm Fe}}\right\rangle \right) $ and at a Co site in $RCo_{2}$ $\left( \left\langle S^{{\rm Co}}\right\rangle \right) $ were obtained from Ref.~\cite{Delyagin2007}. In the present case, since we are discussing Laves phase compounds, $Z_{{\rm nn}}=12$. Keeping fixed these parameters, we self-consistently determined the local magnetic moment and the corresponding magnetic hyperfine field at the Cd or Sn impurity.
Fig.~\ref{fig:dos} exhibits a typical local density of states (a) at the Cd impurity, and (b) at the Sn impurity diluted at $R$Co$_{2}$, namely for $R$ = Gd (Cd is not soluble\cite{priva} in $R$Fe$_{2}$). The local charge potential $V_{0}^{\sigma }$ and the exchange interaction with the $M$ ions are such as to produce a slight deformation and a shift of the up and down sub-bands generating a total local magnetic moment in down direction for the Cd impurity
and up direction for Sn impurity (for the latter see also Fig.~\ref{fig:mmSn}~(b)).
In fact the Cd impurity local DOS- here $\Delta Z =1.2$- is close to the rare earth {\it s-p} DOS, which has also a negative {\it s-p} magnetization. On the other hand for the Sn impurity the local potential- now $\Delta Z =3.2$ -, piles up the down and the up spin states in such way that the contribution of the up states to the DOS overcomes that of the down, thus generating a change of sign of the magnetic moment with respect to the one from the {\it s-p} rare earth.
In table \ref{tab:SnRFe2} and \ref{tab:SnRCo2}, the calculated contribution to the magnetic hyperfine fields as well the experimental measurements collected from Ref.~\cite{Delyagin2007} for a Sn impurity diluted at $R$ site of the $R$Fe$_{2}$and $R$Co$_{2}$ respectively are displayed. The results of a Cd impurity at $R$Co$_{2}$ are shown in the table \ref{tab:bhfcd}. In both tables the agreement with the experimental data are fairly good.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Calculated contributions (from $R$, induced and total) to the magnetic hyperfine fields, in Tesla, at Sn impurity in $R$Fe$_{2}$. Experimental data were collected from Ref.~\cite{Delyagin2007}. The mean-square errors is about $0.6$~T.}
\begin{tabular}{llccccc}
\hline\hline
& $R$ & Gd & Tb & Dy & Ho & Er \\ \hline
&$B_{hf}^{R}$ & $-$4.5 & $-$3.4 & $-$2.6 & $-$2.3 & $-$2.1 \\
&$B_{hf}^{\rm ind}$& 56.9 & 53.7 & 52.5 & 49.6 & 49.3 \\
&$B_{hf}$ & 52.4 & 50.3 & 49.9 & 47.3 & 47.2 \\ \hline
Exp. &$B_{hf}$ & 52.6 & 51.2 & 48.8 & 47.5 & 48.0 \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:SnRFe2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Calculated contributions (from $R$, induced and total) to the magnetic hyperfine fields, in Tesla, at Sn impurity in $R$Co$_{2}$. Experimental data were collected from Ref.~\cite{Delyagin2007}. The mean-square errors is about $0.6$~T.}
\begin{tabular}{llccccc}
\hline\hline
& $R$ & Gd & Tb & Dy & Ho & Er \\ \hline
&$B_{hf}^{R}$ & $-$5.3 & $-$2.1 & $-$0.9 & $-$0.4 & $-$0.4 \\
&$B_{hf}^{\rm ind}$& 57.2 & 50.9 & 45.7 & 43.9 & 42.7 \\
&$B_{hf}$ & 51.9 & 48.8 & 44.8 & 43.5 & 42.3 \\ \hline
Exp. &$B_{hf}$\, & 52.1 & 47.9 & 45.0 & 43.4 & 41.3 \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:SnRCo2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\small{
\caption{Calculated contributions (from $R$, induced and total) to the magnetic hyperfine fields, in Tesla, at Cd impurity in $R$Co$_{2}$. Experimental data were collected from Ref.~\cite{Presa2000}. The mean-square errors is about $0.09$~T.}
\begin{tabular}{llccccccccc}
\hline\hline
& $R$ &Pr &Nd &Pm &Sm & Gd & Tb & Dy & Ho & Er \\ \hline
& $B_{hf}^{R}$ &$-$5.43 &$-$5.00 &$-$3.50 &$-$2.00&$-$7.57 & $-$6.36 & $-$5.66 & $-$5.03 & $-$4.62 \\
& $B_{hf}^{\rm ind}$&$-$7.57 &$-$10.95&$-$13.55&$-$16.14&$-$13.63& $-$13.20 & $-$12.74 & $-$12.68 & $-$12.56 \\
& $B_{hf}$ &$-$13.00&$-$15.95&$-$17.05&$-$18.14&$-$21.20& $-$19.56 & $-$18.40 & $-$17.71 & $-$17.18 \\ \hline
Exp.& $|B_{hf}|$ &12.61 &15.98 & --- &18.17 & 21.18 & 19.49 & 18.30 & 17.66 & 17.22 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:bhfcd}
}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.60\textwidth]{bhfsnb.eps}
\caption{Calculated ratio $B_\mathrm{hf}/\mu_{3d}$ at Sn impurity in $R$Co$_{2}$ (full line) and $R$Fe$_{2}$ (dashed line). The open circles and full circles represent their respective experimental data displayed in tables \ref{tab:SnRFe2} and \ref{tab:SnRCo2}. The ratio is almost constant in $R$Fe$_{2}$ but varies in $R$Co$_{2}$ along the rare earth series (see text).}
\label{fig:bhfsn}
\end{figure}%
Figure \ref{fig:mmSn}~shows the self-consistently calculated magnetic moments at a Sn impurity site in (a) $R$Fe$_{2}$ and (b) $R$Co$_{2}$. From this figure one can see that the contribution to the local magnetic moment arising from the 3d neighboring ions, $\widetilde{m}^{\rm ind}_{0}$, is larger than the one originated from the rare-earth ions $ \widetilde{m}^{R}_{0}$, in modulus.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.60\textwidth]{RCo2Cdb.eps}
\caption{Calculated contributions to the total magnetic hyperfine fields $B_{\rm hf}$ at Cd impurity in $R$Co$_{2}$ (solid line). The dotted line correspond to the contribution from the rare earth and the dashed from the Co ions, both with the same sign. The squares represent experimental data, based on table~\ref{tab:bhfcd}.}
\label{fig:bhfcd}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.60\textwidth]{cdrni2.eps}
\caption{Calculated magnetic hyperfine fields at Cd impurity diluted in $R$Ni$_{2}$. Squares represent experimental data. Now the hyperfine field varies along the rare earth series. See text.} \label{fig:cdrni2}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:bhfsn} exhibits the $B_\mathrm{hf}/\mu_{3d}$ ratio, in T/$\mu_{B}$, where $\mu_{3d}$ is the magnetic moment of the $3d$ (Fe or Co) atom. We can observe the different behavior between Sn:$R$Co$_{2}$ and Sn:$R$Fe$_{2}$ systematics. While in the $R$Fe$_{2}$ series the $B_\mathrm{hf}/\mu_{3d}$ ratio remains almost constant, in $R$Co$_{2}$ the ratio decreases from $R$ = Gd to $R$ = Er.
In both compounds the dominant contribution is from the $3d$ ions (see tables~\ref{tab:SnRFe2} and \ref{tab:SnRCo2}), the contribution from the rare-earth ions being very small. However, the amplitude of the total hyperfine field is about twice larger in $R$Co$_{2}$ than in $R$Fe$_{2}$ as one goes from Gd to Er. In addition, Co has $\mu_{3d} \approx 1\mu_{B}$ along the series while Fe has about twice larger $\mu_{3d}$. The combination of these aspects, and not an absent contribution from the rare-earth sublattice~\cite{Delyagin2007}, reduce the ratio amplitude in $R$Fe$_{2}$ by a factor $\approx 4$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:bhfcd} exhibits the contributions to the total magnetic hyperfine fields at the Cd impurity diluted in $R$Co$_{2}$. In this case, $B_{hf}^{R}$ and $B_{hf}^{\rm ind}$ have the same sign in agreement with the previous discussion about figure~\ref{fig:dos}.
Now, a few remarks concerning the magnetic hyperfine field at Cd impurity in $R$Ni$_{2}$, where some experimental data are available~\cite{Presa2004}. In this case, the d-band associated to the Ni sublattice is completely filled so no induced magnetic moment produced by Ni ions at the Cd impurity is present. Then, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:cdrni2}, only contribution due to the rare earth sublattice is present. The calculated $B_\mathrm{hf}$ is thus smaller, in absolute value, than those of $R$Co$_{2}$.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We acknowledge the support from the Brazilian agencies PCI/MCT and CNPq and useful discussion with Prof. M. Forker and Prof. H. Saitovich.
|
\section{Introduction}
Faraday rotation is a physical phenomenon where the position angle
of linearly polarized radiation propagating through a magneto-ionic
medium is rotated as a function of frequency. The work on astrophisical Faraday
rotation has been initiated in \citep{Burn1966}, and since then several
important contributions have been added to this topic \citep{Gardner1966,Sokoloff1998,Sokoloff1999,Kronberg1994,Vallee1980,Widrow2002}.
Recently, Faraday rotation measure (RM) synthesis has been re-introduced
as an important method for analyzing multichannel polarized radio
data, where multiple emitting regions are present along the single
line of sight of the observations \citep{Brentjens2005,Heald2009}. In practice,
the method requires the recovery of the Faraday dispersion function
from measurements restricted to limited wavelength ranges, which is
an ill-conditioned deconvolution problem, raising important computational
difficulties. Since then, three different approaches have been proposed
to solve this problem. A first approach uses an adaptation of the
Hogbom CLEAN algorithm \citep{Hogbom1974} to the RM deconvolution \citep{Heald2009}.
The second approach is wavelet-based, and assumes field symmetries
in order to project the observed data onto $\lambda^{2}<0$ \citep{Frick2010}.
The third approach \citep{Wiaux2009,Li2011} is based on the compressed
sensing paradigm \citep{Donoho2006,Candes2006}. All these methods are more or
less successful in the case of mixed problems, i.e. when both thin
and thick components are included in the model. For example, in a recent
paper it has been shown that RM Synthesis may yield an erroneous Faraday
structure in the presence of multiple, interfering RM components,
even when cleaning of the Faraday spectrum is performed \citep{Farnsworth2011}.
Also, to our knowledge these methods have not been evaluated in the
presence of noise added to the observed data, a situation that makes
the deconvolution problem even more difficult. Thus, the development
of robust deconvolution methods for the recovery of the Faraday dispersion
function in a given spectral range becomes crucial for the RM synthesis
applications.
Inspired by the above mentioned contributions, in this paper we discuss
the case of sparse approximation of the complex Faraday dispersion
function, i.e. we assume that $F(\phi)$ can be approximated by a
small number of discrete components, which can be both thin or thick.
Also, we present the implementation of a greedy deconvolution algorithm,
and we illustrate the described method with several numerical simulations
which emphasize the effect of the covered range and sampling resolution in
the Faraday depth space, and the effect of noise on the observed data.
The numerical results show that the described method performs quite
well for simple component mixtures, at typical sampling resolution values and
coverage range in the Faraday depth space, and it is quite robust
in the presence of noise. We show that the described technique is
well suited for exploratory data analysis, where prior information
about the component distributions is not available, and it can be used
as a complement to the previously proposed methods.
Although a sparse solution is an idealized model of a complex
astrophysical system, the potential complexity of the solutions is
adequate for a wide range of astrophysical situations. The sparseness
requirement steers the solution to include the smallest number of
components required to fit an observed Faraday depth spectrum.
Double-lobed radio galaxies that are not resolved by the telescope may
experience different Faraday rotation in each lobe because the
differences in the foreground on scales smaller than the beam. The
lobes themselves may be extended and experience differential Faraday
rotation as well. A sparse solution may consist of two discrete
Faraday components representing each lobe. If the data are good enough
to detect differential Faraday rotation across the source, the
solution may include one or more components with a finite extent in
Faraday depth. Complex source structure may be built up out of a
dictionary of basic thin and thick Faraday components, subject to the
requirement that the solution remains sparse.
In the diffuse interstellar medium, a case where Faraday rotation of
Galactic synchrotron emission is dominated by a single HII region
along the line of sight is an example of a system that is well
approximated with two components in Faraday depth, e.g. the circular
Faraday screen discussed by \citet{haverkorn2003} and
\citet{debruyn2009}. As in the case of double lobed radio sources, the
sparse solution is not limited by two delta functions in Faraday
depth, as it can increase in complexity if warranted by the data.
The assumption of sparseness may fail in case there is
a power on a large range of Faraday depths, defined by the minimum and
maximum Faraday depth detectable in a survey. This may occur in some
supernova remnants with complex structure and strong magnetic fields.
\section{Rotation measure synthesis}
In this section we give a brief description of the Faraday RM synthesis
problem, following the formulation introduced in \citet{Brentjens2005}.
The Faraday rotation is characterized by the Faraday depth (in $\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$),
which is defined as:\begin{equation}
\phi(r)=0.81\int_{source}^{observer}n_{e}B\cdot dr,\end{equation}
where $n_{e}$ is the electron density (in $cm^{-3}$) , $B$ is
the magnetic field (in $\mu G$), and $dr$ is the infinitesimal path
length (in parsecs). We also define the complex polarization as:\begin{equation}
P(\lambda^{2})=Q(\lambda^{2})+iU(\lambda^{2})=pIe^{2i\chi(\lambda^{2})},\end{equation}
where $p$ is the fractional polarization, $I$, $Q$, $U$ are the Stokes parameters, and $\chi(\lambda^{2})$ is the polarization
angle observed at wavelength $\lambda$:\begin{equation}
\chi(\lambda^{2})=\frac{1}{2}\arctan\frac{U(\lambda^{2})}{Q(\lambda^{2})}.\end{equation}
The Faraday RM is defined as the derivative of the polarization angle $\chi(\lambda^{2})$, with respect to $\lambda^{2}$:
\begin{equation}
RM(\lambda^{2})=\frac{d\chi(\lambda^{2})}{d\lambda^{2}}.\end{equation}
We now identify RM with the Faraday depth $\phi$, and we assume that
the observed polarization $P(\lambda^{2})$ originates from the emission
at all possible values of $\phi$, such that:
\begin{equation}
P(\lambda^{2})=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}F(\phi)e^{2i\phi\lambda^{2}}d\phi,\end{equation}
where $F(\phi)$ is the complex Faraday dispersion function (the
intrinsic polarized flux, as a function of the Faraday depth). Thus,
in principle $F(\phi)$ is the inverse Fourier transform of the observed
quantity $P(\lambda^{2})$:\begin{equation}
F(\phi)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}P(\lambda^{2})e^{-2i\phi\lambda^{2}}d\lambda^{2}.\end{equation}
However, this operation is ill-defined since we cannot observe $P(\lambda^{2})$
for $\lambda^{2}<0$, and also in practice the observations are limited
to an interval $[\lambda_{min}^{2},\lambda_{max}^{2}]$.
In order to deal with the above limitations, the observed polarization
is defined as:\begin{equation}
\tilde{P}(\lambda^{2})=W(\lambda^{2})P(\lambda^{2}),\end{equation}
where $W$ is the observation window function, with $W(\lambda^{2})>0$
for $\lambda^{2}\in[\lambda_{min}^{2},\lambda_{max}^{2}]$, and $W(\lambda^{2})=0$
otherwise. Therefore, we obtain the reconstructed dispersion function:\begin{equation}
\tilde{F}(\phi)=A\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\tilde{P}(\lambda^{2})e^{-2i\phi\lambda^{2}}d\lambda^{2},\end{equation}
where \begin{equation}
A=\left[\int_{\lambda_{min}^{2}}^{\lambda_{max}^{2}}W(\lambda^{2})d\lambda^{2}\right]^{-1},\end{equation}
is the normalization constant for the observation window. The reconstructed
dispersion function can also be written as:\begin{equation}
\tilde{F}(\phi)=R(\phi)\circ F(\phi),\end{equation}
where $\circ$ is the convolution operator, and\begin{equation}
R(\phi)=A\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}W(\lambda^{2})e^{-2i\phi\lambda^{2}}d\lambda^{2},\end{equation}
is the RM spread function (RMSF).
Using the shift theorem, we can also write:\begin{equation}
\tilde{F}(\phi)=R(\phi)\circ F(\phi)=A\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\tilde{P}(\lambda^{2})e^{-2i\phi(\lambda^{2}-\bar{\lambda}^{2})}d\lambda^{2},\end{equation}
and\begin{equation}
R(\phi)=A\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}W(\lambda^{2})e^{-2i\phi(\lambda^{2}-\bar{\lambda}^{2})}d\lambda^{2}.\end{equation}
where $\bar{\lambda}^{2}$ is the mean of the sampled values in $[\lambda_{min}^{2},\lambda_{max}^{2}]$.
The goal of the analysis is to find $F(\phi)$ from the observed values
$\tilde{P}(\lambda_{n}^{2})=\tilde{P}_{n}$ (i.e. $\tilde{Q}_{n}$
and $\tilde{U}_{n}$) over $N$ discrete channels $\lambda_{n}^{2}\in[\lambda_{min}^{2},\lambda_{max}^{2}]$,
$n=0,1,...,N-1$, with the given weights $W(\lambda_{n}^2)=W_{n}$.
Since the measured values are discrete (each value constitutes an
integral over the channel centered at $\lambda_{n}^{2}$), we should
consider the discrete versions of the above equations, i.e.:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{F}(\phi)\simeq A\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\tilde{P}_{n}e^{-2i\phi(\lambda_{n}^{2}-\bar{\lambda}^{2})},\end{equation}
and respectively \begin{equation}
R(\phi)\simeq A\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}W_{n}e^{-2i\phi(\lambda_{n}^{2}-\bar{\lambda}^{2})}.\end{equation}
The reconstructed function $\tilde{F}(\phi)$ depends on the window
$W(\lambda^{2})$, which acts as a filter, and improves substantially
by increasing its coverage in the $\lambda^{2}$ space. Obviously,
$\tilde{F}(\phi)$ is a {}``dirty'' reconstruction of $F(\phi)$,
i.e. the convolution of $F(\phi)$ with $R(\phi)$, and and a deconvolution
step is necessary to recover $F(\phi)$.
\section{Sparse approximation}
\subsection{Discrete representation}
In general, the number of data points is limited by the number of
independent measurement channels, and therefore there are many different
potential Faraday dispersion functions consistent with the measurements
\citep{Burn1966,Brentjens2005,Heald2009,Frick2010,Li2011,Farnsworth2011}. The usual approach
to resolving such ambiguities, is to impose some extra constraints
on the Faraday dispersion function.
Our approach is based on the recently introduced framework of compressive sensing \citep{Donoho2006,Candes2006}.
Compressive sensing relies on the observation that many types of signals
can be well-approximated by a sparse expansion in terms of a suitable
basis, or dictionary of functions. The main idea of compressive sensing is that if
the signal is sparse, then a small number of measurements contain
sufficient information for its approximate or exact recovery. In our
case, the problem is to reconstruct a sparse $F(\phi)$ from a relatively
small number of $\tilde{P}(\lambda^{2})$ measurements.
Therefore, we assume that the model of $F(\phi)$
is sparse in an over-complete dictionary of functions. By over-complete
we understand that the number of functions in the dictionary is larger
than the number of independent observation channels. Thus,
the dictionary functions may be redundant (linearly dependent), and
therefore non-orthogonal. In order to give a proper formulation of
this approach we need to introduce a discrete representation of the
$\phi$ space.
It is known \citep{Brentjens2005} that, for a discrete sampled Faraday dispersion function,
the full width at half maximum of the main peak of the RMSF is given by:
\begin{equation}
\delta\phi=\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{\Delta\lambda^{2}},
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\lambda^{2}$ is the width of the observation interval.
Also, using a uniform grid in $\lambda^{2}$ space one can estimate the maximum observable Faraday depth by:
\begin{equation}
\phi_{max}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{\delta\lambda^{2}},
\end{equation}
where $\delta\lambda^{2}=\Delta\lambda^{2}/N$ is the width of an observing channel \citep{Brentjens2005}.
This estimation of $\phi_{max}$ is only an approximation, since in reality only the frequency $\nu$
is sampled linearly. Therefore, in our discrete representation we consider
a nonlinear grid in the $\lambda^{2}$ space: $\lambda_{n}^{2}=c^{2}/\nu_{n}^{2}$,
where $\nu_{n}=(\nu_{max}-\nu_{min})/N$ is the centered frequency
of the channel $n=0,1,...,N-1$, and $c$ is the speed of light.
Also, we consider a linear grid in the $\phi$ space, where the computational window $\phi_{win}$,
the sampling resolution $\phi_{R}$, and the number of points $M$ are set to:
\begin{equation}
\phi_{win}\leq\phi_{max},\quad\phi_{R}\leq\delta\phi,\quad M=\left\lfloor \frac{\phi_{win}}{\phi_{R}}\right\rfloor ,
\end{equation}
where $\left\lfloor x\right\rfloor $ is the integer part of $x$.
The model of $F(\phi)$ is therefore characterized by a uniform grid, $\phi_{m}=-\phi_{win}+m\phi_{R}$, $m=0,1,...,M-1$,
and a vector $z=[z_{0},z_{1},...,z_{M-1}]\in\mathbb{\mathbb{C}}^{M}$, which
is assumed sparse, i.e. it has a small number of non-zero components,
corresponding to the complex amplitudes of the sources located on the $\phi_{m}$
grid. For example, a thin source with the amplitude $z_{m}$, located
at $\phi_{m}$ , will be approximated by the product of $z_{m}$ with
a Dirac function $\delta(\phi-\phi_{m})$, while a thick source will
be characterized by a contiguous set of non-zero amplitudes in the
vector $z$, which requires a different set of adaptive functions, capable
of capturing their position and extensive support in the $\phi$ space.
The goal of the analysis is to find the vector
$z$, which is a discrete approximation of the Faraday dispersion
function $F(\phi)$, from the measurements $\tilde{Q}_{n}$ and $\tilde{U}_{n}$,
$n=0,1,...,N-1$.
\subsection{Dirac approximation}
Since, in general we can have $M\geq N$, the Dirac functions $\delta(\phi-\phi_{m})$,
$m=0,1,...,M-1$, form an over-complete dictionary in the $\phi$
space. The decomposition of $F(\phi)$ with respect
to the Dirac over-complete dictionary is:\begin{equation}
F(\phi)=\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}z_{m}\delta(\phi-\phi_{m}).\end{equation}
From the equations (5) and (7) we obtain: \begin{equation}
\tilde{P}(\lambda^{2})=W(\lambda^{2})\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}z_{m}\delta(\phi-\phi_{m})e^{2i\phi\lambda^{2}}d\phi=W(\lambda^{2})\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}z_{m}e^{2i\phi_{m}\lambda^{2}}.\end{equation}
We observe that the transformation of $F(\phi)$ into $\tilde{P}(\lambda^{2})$
can be written in a matrix form as following:\begin{equation}
W\Psi z=\tilde{p},\end{equation}
where \begin{equation}
\tilde{p}=[\tilde{P}_{0},\tilde{P}_{1},...,\tilde{P}_{N-1}]^{T}\in\mathbb{C}^{N},\end{equation}
is the $N$-dimensional complex vector of observations, and $\Psi\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times M}$
is the $N\times M$ matrix with the Fourier terms:\begin{equation}
\Psi_{n,m}=e^{2i\phi_{m}\lambda_{n}^{2}},\end{equation}
and $W$ is the $N\times N$ diagonal matrix, with the diagonal elements
equal with the channel weights: $W_{n,n}\equiv W_{n}$.
If we are searching for the sparsest solution possible, then the $\ell_{0}$
norm of $z$:
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{0}=\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}h(z_{m}),\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
h(z_{m})=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & if & \left|z_{m}\right|>0\\
0 & if & z_{m}=0\end{array}\right.,\end{equation}
should be minimized. This sparseness assumption leads to the following
optimization problem:\begin{equation}
\min_{z}\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{0}\quad subject\: to\quad W\Psi z=\tilde{p}.\end{equation}
However, finding the minimum $\ell_{0}$ norm is an NP-complete problem,
which requires a combinatorial search of the parameter space and therefore
is practically unfeasible \citep{Donoho2006,Candes2006}. A better approach is
to replace the $\ell_{0}$ norm with the $\ell_{1}$ norm:\begin{equation}
\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{1}=\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}\left|z_{k}\right|,\end{equation}
which transforms the combinatorial problem into a convex problem,
that can be solved in polynomial time \citep{Boyd2004}, and it has been
shown to give solutions close to the $\ell_{0}$ norm solutions \citep{Chen2001}.
Thus, the problem can be reformulated as finding the vector $z$ such
that:\begin{equation}
\min_{z}\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{1}\quad subject\: to\quad W\Psi z=\tilde{p}.\end{equation}
One can see that we do not make any assumption on the number of non-zero
components, we just assume that their number is smaller than $M$.
So far we have not considered the influence of noise on the observed
data. We assume a complex noise vector $\eta\in\mathbb{C}^{N}$, with
the components $\eta_{n}\in\mathbb{C}$ having the real and respective
imaginary parts sampled from a normal distribution with zero mean
and standard deviation $\sigma$: $\mathrm{Re}\{\eta_{n}\},\mathrm{Im}\{\eta_{n}\}\in N(0,\sigma)$.
Thus, the transformation of $F(\phi)$ into $\tilde{P}(\lambda^{2})$
can be rewritten as:\begin{equation}
W\Psi z+\eta=\tilde{p},\end{equation}
and the minimization problem can be reformulated as:\begin{equation}
\min_{z}\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{1}\quad subject\: to\quad\left\Vert W\Psi z-\tilde{p}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}\leq(\beta\sigma)^{2}.\end{equation}
The use of the $\ell_{1}$ norm induces sparsity in $z$, while the
constraint ensures $W\Psi z\approx\tilde{p}$. Since $\tilde{p}$
is observed in the presence of noise, it is reasonable to not enforce
$W\Psi z=\tilde{p}$ exactly, and to stop the minimization process
when the norm of the residual becomes comparable with the standard
deviation of the noise ($\beta\sim\sqrt{N}$).
\subsection{Generalization}
Dirac functions can be used to approximate thin sources only. In orderDonoho2006
to approximate thick sources we extend the dictionary by incorporating
a set of functions, characterized by adaptive translation and scaling
properties, such that they are capable to capture the position and
the extent of thick sources in the $\phi$ space. Thus, we assume
that $F(\phi)$ has a sparse approximation in an over-complete dictionary
$\Phi$ of functions $\varphi_{j}(\phi)\in\Phi$, called atoms \citep{Mallat1993}:
\begin{equation}
F(\phi)=\sum_{j=0}^{J}\xi_{j}\varphi_{j}(\phi).\end{equation}
Here, $J\geq M$ is the number of atoms in the dictionary, and only
a small number of the complex coefficients $\xi_{j}$ are assumed
to be non-zero. Thus, by introducing the $M\times J$ complex matrix
$\Phi\in\mathbb{C}^{M\times J}$, with the elements $\Phi_{m,j}=\varphi_{j}(\phi_{m})$,
and the sparse complex vector $\xi=[\xi_{0},\xi_{1},...,\xi_{J-1}]^{T}\in\mathbb{C}^{J}$,
and taking into account that: \begin{equation}
\Phi\xi=z,\end{equation}
we obtain the following minimization problem:\begin{equation}
\min_{\xi}\left\Vert \xi\right\Vert _{1}\quad subject\: to\quad\left\Vert \Gamma\xi-\tilde{p}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}\leq(\beta\sigma)^{2},\end{equation}
where\begin{equation}
\Gamma=W\Psi\Phi,\end{equation}
is a $N\times J$ complex matrix. In this more general case, the goal
is to find the sparse vector $\xi\in\mathbb{C}^{J}$ in the dictionary
space. Obviously, when the dictionary is reduced to the Dirac basis
we have $J=M$, $\xi\equiv z$ and $\Phi\equiv I$, where $I$ is
the $M\times M$ identity matrix, and therefore $\Gamma$ reduces
to the weighted Fourier matrix, $\Gamma=W\Psi$.
\subsection{Over-complete dictionaries}
We should note that an over-complete dictionary $\Phi$ that leads
to sparse representations can be chosen as a pre-specified set of
analysis functions (wavelets, Gaussian packets, Gabor functions etc.),
or designed by modeling its content to a given set of signal examples
\citep{Candes2006,Mallat1993}. The success of such dictionaries in applications
depends on how suitable they are to sparsely describe the signals
in question. A general family of analysis functions can be obtained
by scaling and translating a single normalized window function $\varphi(\phi)$,
with $\left\Vert \varphi\right\Vert _{2}=1$. Therefore, for any scale
$a>0$ and translation $b\in\mathbb{R}$ we define the atom $\varphi_{j}$
of the dictionary $\Phi$ as following:\begin{equation}
\varphi_{j}(\phi)\equiv\varphi_{j(a,b)}(\phi)\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{a}}\varphi\left(\frac{\phi-b}{a}\right).\end{equation}
Therefore, the index $j$ of the atom function depends on both $a$
and $b$ parameters: $j=j(a,b)$. Thus, in order to represent $F(\phi)$
in the dictionary $\Phi$, we need to select an appropriate countable
subset of atoms $\varphi_{j}$, $j=0,1,...,J-1$, such that $F(\phi)$
can be written as a linear expansion. Depending on the choice of the
atoms $\varphi_{j}$, the expansion coefficients will give explicit
information about the behavior of $F(\phi)$. For example, we should
note here that different wavelet transforms correspond to different
families of atoms. In our definition, we do not limit the dictionary
to a single wavelet basis, on contrary we consider an over-complete
set, which also may contain different concatenated families (sub-dictionaries)
of such analysis functions. In order to illustrate numerically this
approach, let us consider the boxcar dictionary, defined as: \begin{equation}
\varphi_{j(a,b)}(\phi)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
1/\sqrt{a} & if & b\leq\phi<b+a\\
0 & & otherwise\end{array}\right..\end{equation}
An important characteristic of the boxcar dictionary is that it can
capture sources with arbitrary thickness. Another advantage is its
easy discretization. In our case, the discretization grid has $M$
points $\phi_{m}$ with the sampling resolution $\phi_{R}$. Thus, assuming
that the maximum width of a boxcar atom is $a_{max}=S\phi_{R}$, where
$S\leq\left\lfloor M/2\right\rfloor $, then for each scale $a=s\phi_{R}$,
$s=1,2,...,S$, and translation $b=l\phi_{R}$, $l=0,1,...,M-s$
we can define a boxcar function with the index $j=j(s,l)$, such that:\begin{equation}
\varphi_{j}(\phi_{m})\equiv\varphi_{j(s,l)}(\phi_{m})=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
1/\sqrt{s\phi_{R}} & if & l\leq m<l+s\\
0 & & otherwise\end{array}\right..\end{equation}
Therefore, one can define maximum $J=SM-S(S+1)/2$ boxcar functions
on such a grid, and we can easily build a discrete dictionary matrix
$\Phi$ of size $M\times J$. In this paper we limit our discussion
to the boxcar dictionary defined above, since it is simple enough
to illustrate the approach, and to provide meaningful results. Also,
this dictionary includes by construction the Dirac set of functions,
which in this case are the first $M$ functions with $s=1$.
A similar approach can be used to build sub-dictionaries corresponding
to other families of analysis functions.
\subsection{Multi-scale analysis}
The sparse decomposition can also be used to perform a multi-scale
analysis, by considering all the dictionaries $\Phi_{S}$, where $S=1,2,...,S_{max}\leq\left\lfloor M/2\right\rfloor $.
Also, let us assume that $z_{S}=\Phi_{S}\xi$ is the solution obtained
for the scale $S$, i.e. the recovered discrete representation of
$F(\phi)$ with the dictionary $\Phi_{S}$. We consider a $S_{max}\times M$
matrix $\Xi$, where each line with the index $S$ corresponds to
the solution obtained for the scale $S$, i.e. $\Xi_{S}\equiv z_{S}=\Phi_{S}\xi$.
Obviously, the solution $z_{S}$ will depend on the maximum scale
$S$ used in each dictionary $\Phi_{S}$, and by visualizing the matrix
$\Xi$, we obtain a representation of the behavior of the solution
at different scales.
\section{Matching pursuit}
The sparse optimization problem, defined in the previous section,
is known as Basis Pursuit Denoising (BPD) \citep{Donoho2006}, and if written
in a Lagrangian form: \begin{equation}
\min_{\xi}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert \Gamma\xi-\tilde{p}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}+\alpha\left\Vert \mathbf{\xi}\right\Vert _{1}\right],\end{equation}
it can be thought of as a least squares problem with an $\ell_{1}$
regularizer, where $\alpha>0$ is a parameter that controls the trade-off
between sparsity and reconstruction fidelity. Thus, BPD solves a regularization
problem with a trade-off between having a small residual and making
the solution simple in the $\ell_{1}$ sense. The solutions of BPD
are often the best computationally tractable approximation of the
under-determined system of equations \citep{Donoho2005}. In our case, since
the direct space and the inverse Fourier space are perfectly incoherent,
the problem can be solved using linear programming techniques whose
computational complexities are polynomial. However, for the sparse
RM approximation problem, the BPD approach requires the solution of
a very large convex, non-quadratic optimization problem, and therefore
suffers from high computational complexity. Due to the complexity
of the linear programming approach, several other $\ell_{1}$ optimization
methods have been proposed to solve the BPD problem \citep{Donoho2006,Candes2006}.
Here, we consider a method based on sub-optimal greedy algorithms,
which requires far less computation. Our goal is not only to obtain
a good sparse expansion, but also to provide a fast computational
method, therefore here we focus our attention on the greedy Matching
Pursuit (MP) algorithm \citep{Mallat1993}, which is the fastest known
algorithm for the BPD problem \citep{Chen2001}. MP has many applications
in signal and image coding, shape representation and recognition,
data compression etc. One of its main features is that it can be applied
to arbitrary dictionaries.
Starting from an initial approximation $\xi(0)=0$ and residual $r(0)=\tilde{p}$,
the algorithm uses an iterative greedy strategy to pick the column
vectors $\Gamma^{(j)}$ which best reduce the residual. At every time
step $t$ the current residual $r(t)$ can be decomposed as following:
\begin{equation}
r(t)=\left\langle r(t),\Gamma^{(j)}\right\rangle \left\Vert \Gamma^{(j)}\right\Vert _{2}^{-2}\Gamma^{(j)}+r(t+1),\end{equation}
where $r(t+1)$ is the future residual, and $\left\langle .,.\right\rangle $
is the standard inner product operator in the complex Hilbert space.
Since $r(t+1)$ and $\Gamma^{(j)}$ are orthogonal, $\left\langle r(t+1),\Gamma^{(j)}\right\rangle =0$,
we have:\begin{equation}
\left\Vert r(t+1)\right\Vert _{2}^{2}=\left\Vert r(t)\right\Vert _{2}^{2}-\left|\left\langle r(t),\Gamma^{(j)}\right\rangle \right|^{2}\left\Vert \Gamma^{(j)}\right\Vert _{2}^{-2}.\end{equation}
In order to minimize the norm of the future residual, the algorithm
should choose the column vector $\Gamma^{(j)}$ which maximizes the
projection on the current residual:
\begin{equation}
k_{t}=\arg\max_{j}\left\{ \left|\left\langle r(t),\Gamma^{(j)}\right\rangle \right|\left\Vert \Gamma^{(j)}\right\Vert _{2}^{-1}\right\} .\end{equation}
Therefore, after choosing the best column $\Gamma^{(k_{t})}$ one
can update the solution and the residual as following:\begin{equation}
\xi(t+1)=\xi(t)+c\Gamma^{(k_{t})},\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
r(t+1)=r(t)-c\Gamma^{(k_{t})},\end{equation}
where \begin{equation}
c=\left\langle r(t),\Gamma^{(k_{t})}\right\rangle \left\Vert \Gamma^{(k_{t})}\right\Vert _{2}^{-2}.\end{equation}
Thus, after $t$ iteration steps the resulted solution is a sparse
vector $\xi$ with the non-zero coefficients $\xi_{k_{t}}$. The algorithm
stops when the maximum number of iterations has been reached (which
usually is set to $J$), or when the norm of the residual becomes
comparable with the standard deviation of the noise. The reconstruction
of the target signals is then given by: \begin{equation}
z=\sum_{j=0}^{J-1}\xi_{j}\Phi^{(j)}=\Phi\xi,\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{p}=\sum_{j=0}^{J-1}\xi_{j}\Gamma^{(j)}=\Gamma\xi.\end{equation}
The pseudo-code of the RM-MP algorithm is listed in the Appendix.
\section{Numerical results}
\subsection{Two different experiment layouts}
In order to illustrate the described deconvolution method, we have
considered two different experiment configurations, corresponding to two
different ranges of observed frequencies. The first one is consistent
with the observations with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope
(WSRT) in the frequency range 315 MHz to 375 MHz, as described in
\citep{Brentjens2005}. The second one is consistent with the observations
with the Arecibo telescope in the frequency range 1225 MHz to 1525
MHz, for The Galactic ALFA Continuum Survey (GALFACTS), as described
in \citep{Taylor2010}. The separation between the frequency windows is
roughly 1 GHz, and therefore the maximum observable Faraday depth
and the half maximum of the main peak of the RMSF are quite different.
Here we will show that the RM-MP method provides very good
results in both cases.
As a testbed for numerical simulations, we have considered a mixed scenario consisting
of three components with different widths, such that the simulation results provide the response of the algorithm
to a full range of component widths.
The first one is a thin component given by: $F(-0.5\phi_{win})=9-8i$.
The second is a thick component given by: $F(\phi)=-7+8i$ if $-0.02\phi_{win}\leq\phi<0.02\phi_{win}$,
and $F(\phi)=0$ otherwise. The third is a thicker component defined
by: $F(\phi)=8-6i$ if $0.46\phi_{win}\leq\phi<0.54\phi_{win}$, and
$F(\phi)=0$ otherwise. Thus, this scenario can be easily scaled for different
computational windows $[-\phi_{win},\phi_{win}]$, where $\phi_{win}$ is given in $\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$.
Also, we have considered that all the observational
channels are equally weighted: i.e. $W_{n}=1$, $n=0,1,...,N$, and
$A=1/N$.
\subsection{WSRT}
The various parameters
associated with the WSRT experiment layout \citep{Brentjens2005} are listed
bellow:
\medskip{}
Frequency range: $\nu_{min}=315\,\mathrm{MHz}$, $\nu_{max}=375\,\mathrm{MHz}$;
Wave length range: $\lambda_{min}^{2}=0.639\,\mathrm{m}^{2}$, $\lambda_{max}^{2}=0.905\,\mathrm{m}^{2}$,
$\triangle\lambda^{2}=0.266\,\mathrm{m}^{2}$;
Number of channels: $N=126$;
Half maximum of the main peak of the RMSF: $\delta\phi=12.990\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$;
Maximum observable Faraday depth: $\phi_{max}=818.414\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$;
\medskip{}
Let us first consider the ideal noiseless case, when the sampling resolution
in the $\phi$ space is equal with the half maximum of the main peak
of the RMSF, $\phi_{R}=\delta\phi$, and the computational window is $\phi_{win}=\phi_{max}$.
In this particular case, as shown in Figure 1, the RM-MP algorithm
provides an exact solution, since $N=M=126$ and therefore no information
is lost in the measurement. One can also notice that in this noiseless
exact sampling case, the solution is independent of the scale used
in the dictionary, as it can be seen on the multi-scale representation
for $0<S\leq25$. However, the problem becomes ill-defined in the
following situations: the noise is present; the sampling resolution becomes finer than the half maximum of the
main peak of the RMSF, $\phi_{R}<\delta\phi$; and the number of independent
observed channels is smaller than the number of points in the $\phi$
space, $N<M$. In this case the system becomes under-determined, and
therefore some information is lost. In order to exemplify this situation,
we consider a scenario in which all these factors are present. We
add noise with the standard deviation $\sigma=\sqrt{N}=11.22$, to
the $Q$ and $U$ values. We limit the computational window to $\phi_{win}=126\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}<\phi_{max}$,
and we increase the number of points on the $\phi$ grid to $M=252$,
which is double of the number of observation channels $N=126$. This
results in a sampling resolution of $\phi_{R}=1\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}\ll\delta\phi$.
The obtained results (for $\beta=\sqrt{2N}$, $S=25$) are shown in
Figure 2. One can see that the phase of some components cannot be reliably
recovered anymore, since there is not enough information in the signal
to be detected properly. We should note that the problem
is correctly resolved in the noiseless case (not shown here). Thus,
the effect of noise addition consists in a partial loss of information
about the phase of $F(\phi)$, which is expected, since the number
of solutions compatible with the data increases dramatically with
the added noise. Also, we should point out that the solution improves
by increasing the signal-to-noise ratio, as shown in Figure 3, where we have
increased the amplitude of the components by a factor of 1.5, keeping their
phase unchanged. One can see that in this case, the RM-MP method resolves correctly all
the components. This result suggests that an adequate signal to noise
ratio should be taken into account, in order for the method to be
successful.
\subsection{Arecibo}
The GALFACTS survey, carried out with the Arecibo telescope, has the following parameters:
Frequency range: $\nu_{min}=1225\,\mathrm{MHz}$, $\nu_{max}=1525\,\mathrm{MHz}$;
Wave length range: $\lambda_{min}^{2}=0.0386\,\mathrm{m}^{2}$, $\lambda_{max}^{2}=0.0598\,\mathrm{m}^{2}$,
$\triangle\lambda^{2}=0.0212\,\mathrm{m}^{2}$;
Half maximum of the main peak of the RMSF: $\delta\phi=163.044\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$;
The maximum observable Faraday depth, $\phi_{max}$, is inverse proportional
with the width of the observation channel $\delta\lambda$, and by
increasing the number of channels, the maximum observable Faraday
depth becomes unreasonable high. Therefore, in order to obtain some meaningful results, we have to limit both the number
of observation channels in the $\lambda^{2}$ space, and the computational window in the $\phi$ space.
First we consider that the compuational window is limited to $\phi_{win}=1800\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$
and the number of observation channels is $N=200$. Also, we consider
the same testbed as for WSRT case, and we add noise with the standard
deviation $\sigma=\sqrt{N}=14.14$. In addition, we increase the number
of points on the $\phi$ grid to $M=300$, and therefore we obtain
a sampling resolution: $\phi_{R}=12\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}\ll\delta\phi$.
The obtained results (for $\beta=\sqrt{2N}$, $S=25$) are shown in
Figure 4. One can see that all the components are relatively well resolved,
with a small error in the phase, but with almost exact amplitudes.
In the next experiment we zoom more in the $\phi$ space, and we impose
a computational window of $\phi_{win}=900\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$,
keeping the same number of observation channels and number of points
on the $\phi$ grid, such that $\phi_{R}=6\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$.
The results are again reasonable good, as shown in Figure 5, with
a small variation of the phase due to the uncertainty introduced by the
noise addition. However, if we zoom further in the $\phi$ space the
solution is not as good anymore, as it can be seen in Figure 6. In
this case we have a much finer sampling resolution $\phi_{R}=3\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$,
corresponding to a computational window of $\phi_{win}=600\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$,
number of observation channels $N=400$, and the number of points
on the $\phi$ grid $M=400$. This is a consequence of the fact that
by increasing $N$, we have increased also the standard deviation
of the noise to $\sigma=\sqrt{N}=20$, such that the signal to noise
ratio is smaller than before. Again, an improved solution can be obtained
by increasing the amplitude of the components, such that the signal to noise ratio is higher.
\subsection{Beyond the RMSF resolution}
In the previous numerical experiments we have shown that the RM-MP algorithm is able to resolve correctly the components
from the input $F(\phi)$ model, if the separation between the components is higher than the half maximum of the main peak of the RMSF.
In order to estimate the response of the RM-MP algorithm at resolutions beyond the RMSF limit, we consider two Dirac components,
$F(\phi-\Delta\phi_{in}/2)=9-7i$, and respectively $F(\phi+\Delta\phi_{in}/2)= -9+7i$,
separated by $\Delta\phi_{in}<\delta\phi$, where $\delta\phi$ is the half maximum of the main peak of the RMSF. The numerical experiments show that
the RM-MP algorithm cannot resolve correctly the two components, but returns a boxcar function centered at the exact position value $\phi$,
with a width equal with the separation between the two components. In order to illustrate this result we consider the WSRT scenario, with
$\phi_{win}=\phi_{max}$, $N=126$ and $M=4N=1008$, which gives a sampling resolution $\phi_{R}=0.812\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$, in the $\phi$ space.
In Figure 8 we give the width of the output boxcar function $\Delta\phi_{out}$ as a function of the input separation $\Delta\phi_{in}$. One can see that
for all performed experiments we have $\Delta\phi_{out} = \Delta\phi_{in}$. Also, in Figure 9 we show a typical example, where the input separation is
$\Delta\phi_{in}=5\phi_{R}=4.06\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$, or approximatively $30\%$ from $\delta\phi$. Thus, even at resolutions beyond
the half maximum of the main peak of the RMSF, the RM-MP algorithm provides some useful information, i.e. the position and the separation width of the two components.
\subsection{Discussion}
The above numerical experiments have shown that the sparse RM-MP method works
well for relatively simple sparse problems. We should note that the method can be used
to recover more complex dispersion functions. For example, let us consider the situation from Figure 7,
where we have two thin components and two thick components. The first thick component is modeled as a Gaussian,
while the second is modeled as a boxcar function. Also, we assume the noisy WSRT experiment configuration, with:
$\sigma=\sqrt{N}$, $\phi_{win}=818.414\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$, $M=220$ and $\phi_{R}=7.440\,\mathrm{rad}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}<\delta\phi$.
One can see that all the sources are almost exactly recovered, including the thick Gaussian, even though the dictionary
does not contain any Gaussian functions. In fact, the shape of the Gaussian is reconstructed from several boxcar functions
from the dictionary. Thus, the boxcar dictionary can be used to recover more complex functions.
However, the success of the method depends on another aspect which has not yet been discussed.
More specifically, the performance of the RM-MP method depends on the
number of observation channels $N$, the number of points $M$ on the $\phi$ grid, and the number $K$
of non-zero components in the discrete representation
of the Faraday depth function $F(\phi)$.
An important question here is that given $N$ and $M$, what is the maximum value of $K$, for a faithful
recovery of $F(\phi)$? In \citep{Donoho2006,Candes2006} it has been shown that
any $K$-sparse signals of length $M$, with $K\ll M$, can be recovered from only
$N\geq cK<M$ random measurements (projections), where $c\sim\log(M/K)$.
The answer to this question is not obvious for the sparse RM synthesis problem, since the reconstruction
process will depend on experiment layout, i.e. the observed frequency band and the half maximum of the main peak of the RMSF.
This is an important theoretical question which we would like to address in the future development,
in order to improve the performance of the method.
\section{Conclusions}
The recently introduced Faraday RM synthesis is becoming an important
tool for analyzing multichannel polarized radio data, and derive properties of astrophysical
magnetic fields. The method requires the solution of an ill-conditioned
deconvolution problem, in order to recover the intrinsic Faraday dispersion
function, and therefore the development of robust methods has become
crucial for the RM Synthesis applications. Here, we have assumed that
the complex Faraday dispersion function $F(\phi)$ can be approximated
by a small number of discrete components from an over-complete dictionary,
and we have developed a greedy algorithm to solve the deconvolution
problem. The method uses an over-complete dictionary of functions
which can be efficiently used in a multi-scaling context, and it can
easily include different types of analysis functions. We also have
presented several numerical simulations showing the effect of the
covered range and sampling resolution in the Faraday depth space, and the effect
of noise on the observed data. The numerical results show that the
described method performs well at common resolution values and coverage
range in the Faraday depth space, and it is quite robust in the presence
of noise. Therefore, the described technique is well suited for exploratory
data analysis, and it can be used as a complement to the previously
proposed methods.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\label{sec-intro}
Atomic and molecular hydrogen are the primary constituents of the interstellar medium (ISM) in galaxies.
Knowledge of the abundance and distribution of \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ is thus important for understanding all aspects of the ISM -- e.g., kinematics and dynamics (on both large and small scales), metallicities, the depletions of heavier elements, and chemistry (in both diffuse and denser gas).
Moreover, understanding the relationship between \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ is crucial for understanding the formation of molecular clouds -- with consequent implications for star formation and galactic evolution.
The abundance of H$_2$ is typically set by a balance between formation on grains and photodissociation by ambient UV radiation in the gas phase.
Because the dissociation happens via line transitions, self-shielding is possible once sufficient H$_2$ column density is achieved -- leading to rapid, dramatic increases in the molecular fraction.
Theoretical models thus suggest a fairly sharp transition between locally \ion{H}{1}-dominated and H$_2$-dominated regions.
In extragalactic systems, the distribution of atomic gas is usually determined from radio observations of \ion{H}{1} 21~cm emission.
Because H$_2$ is difficult to measure directly in emission, its abundance is usually inferred from tracer species such as CO, often via the so-called ``$X$-factor'' derived from observations of dense molecular clouds (e.g., Dame, Hartmann, \& Thaddeus 2001).
Such estimates depend on several assumptions -- e.g., that the clouds are virialized and that the H$_2$ and CO are more or less coextensive -- which may not always be satisfied.
Moreover, the $X$-factor may vary with metallicity (e.g., Israel 1997; Leroy et al. 2007, 2011).
Both theoretical models of interstellar chemistry and observations of the Galactic ISM suggest that the relationship between CO and H$_2$ can be rather complex.
While CO also can self-shield, C and O are much less abundant than H -- so the H$_2$ will self-shield first (at lower overall column densities), and the regions where CO is the dominant carbon-containing species will be fewer and smaller than those where hydrogen is mostly molecular.
There thus may be substantial amounts of ``dark'' H$_2$ not traced by CO emission even in the nearby Galactic ISM (e.g., Goldsmith et al. 2008; Wolfire, Hollenbach, \& McKee 2010); such regions are expected to be even more extensive in lower-metallicity systems, due to both reduced dust shielding and stronger UV radiation fields (Maloney \& Black 1988; Pak et al. 1998).
Conversely, measurable CO emission can arise even from relatively diffuse molecular gas characterized by modest molecular fractions $f$(H$_2$) = 2$N$(H$_2$)/[$N$(\ion{H}{1})+2$N$(H$_2$)] (Liszt, Pety, \& Lucas 2010) -- and thus does not necessarily signify the presence of dense, predominantly molecular gas.
The distribution of H$_2$ has also been inferred by comparing observations of the IR emission from dust (which is thought to trace both atomic and molecular gas) and the 21~cm emission from the atomic component.
While this method also involves several assumptions -- e.g., equal dust-to-gas ratios for both the \ion{H}{1}- and H$_2$-dominated gas and optically thin 21~cm emission -- such analyses have provided additional evidence for significant amounts of H$_2$ not traced by CO emission (e.g., Leroy et al. 2007, 2009; Bernard et al. 2008; Roman-Duval et al. 2010).
The abundances of both \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ may also be measured and compared directly, via their UV absorption features in the spectra of suitable background targets.
For respective column densities greater than about 10$^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$, both the \ion{H}{1} Lyman-$\alpha$ line at 1216 \AA\ and the strongest rotational transitions (from $J$=0,1) in the far-UV Lyman and Werner bands of H$_2$ exhibit damped profiles, from which accurate total $N$(\ion{H}{1}) and $N$(H$_2$) may be obtained.
Such measurements can be more sensitive than the emission-line observations and are not complicated by differences in beam size -- but they are limited to individual sight lines and generally cannot distinguish individual velocity components.
General surveys of Galactic absorption, based on UV spectra obtained with the {\it Copernicus}, {\it International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE)}, and/or {\it Far-Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE)} satellites, have been undertaken for both \ion{H}{1} (Bohlin, Savage, \& Drake 1978; Shull \& van Steenberg 1985; Diplas \& Savage 1994a) and H$_2$ (Savage et al. 1977; Rachford et al. 2002, 2009; Gillmon et al. 2006) -- though such surveys have generally been limited to within several kpc in the Galactic plane due to extinction by dust.
The relatively nearby Magellanic Clouds, characterized by metallicities roughly 0.5$\times$solar (LMC) and 0.2$\times$solar (SMC) (e.g., Smith 1999; see also references in appendices to Welty et al. 1997, 1999), provide convenient venues for exploring both local and global relationships between atomic and molecular gas in lower-metallicity systems.
High-resolution surveys of the emission from \ion{H}{1} (Stanimirovi\'{c} et al. 1999; Kim et al. 2003), CO (Fukui et al. 2008; Wong et al. 2011), and dust (Leroy et al. 2007; Bernard et al. 2008) have been performed for both the LMC and SMC -- enabling detailed inter-comparisons of the distribution and abundances of those tracers for diverse locations and environments in the Magellanic Clouds.
Comparisons of the emission maps with absorption-line data (from UV/optical/radio spectra of targets both within and beyond the Magellanic Clouds) can provide both information on the 3-dimensional structure of the ISM and an environmental context for the elemental abundances and physical conditions derived from the spectroscopic data.
Such multi-faceted studies of the ISM in the Magellanic Clouds should aid in understanding more distant low-metallicity systems, where only lower-resolution emission maps and/or few (if any) absorption-line probes will be available.
Unfortunately, the existing UV absorption-line measurements of \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ in the Magellanic Clouds are somewhat limited (in number and/or accuracy).
Most previous determinations of $N$(\ion{H}{1}) from Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption, for example, were based on relatively low-resolution, low-S/N spectra obtained with {\it IUE} (e.g., Fitzpatrick 1985a, 1985b, 1986) -- allowing only fairly rough overall estimates for dust-to-gas ratios, with no information on H$_2$.
Accurate values for $N$(H$_2$), derived from far-UV spectra obtained with {\it FUSE}, have since been reported for about 80 MC sight lines (Tumlinson et al. 2002; Cartledge et al 2005).
Tumlinson et al. (2002) found both generally lower molecular fractions $f$(H$_2$) and generally higher H$_2$ rotational excitation in the Magellanic Clouds, compared to typical values in the local Galactic ISM.
Those characteristics seem to require both lower H$_2$ formation rates (due largely to the lower dust-to-gas ratios) and enhanced destruction of H$_2$ (due to stronger UV radiation fields).
Because of the paucity of reliable Lyman-$\alpha$ data then available, however, Tumlinson et al. (2002) used estimates for $N$(\ion{H}{1}) derived from 21~cm emission, with an uncertain average adjustment for foreground-background and small-scale structure effects, in order to obtain molecular fractions.
Moreover, most of the sight lines in that study are fairly lightly reddened and exhibit fairly small molecular fractions, as they were chosen for studies of the properties of the target stars themselves.
In the course of examining the far-UV extinction behavior in the Magellanic Clouds, Cartledge et al. (2005) subsequently estimated H$_2$ column densities for a small number of more heavily reddened sight lines, including two sight lines with $f$(H$_2$) $>$ 0.5.
Since those studies, suitable UV spectra of many more LMC and SMC sight lines have been obtained with {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)} (now totalling more than 200 sight lines) and {\it FUSE} (nearly 300 sight lines) -- with significant overlap between the two data sets.
In this paper, we present an expanded sample of \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ column densities (particularly for the higher column density regime in H$_2$) for the Magellanic Clouds, combining values from our analyses of the \ion{H}{1} Lyman-$\alpha$ and H$_2$ Lyman-band absorption in those archived UV spectra with previously published values.
For each sight line in our sample, we also list new determinations of $E(B-V)$ (derived from spectral types and photometry from the literature) and estimates of the total sight line \ion{H}{1} column density derived from the ATCA+Parkes 21~cm emission spectra.
Section 2 describes the UV spectral data and methods used to determine the \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ column densities.
Section 3 compares the \ion{H}{1} column densities obtained from Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption and 21~cm emission, examines the gas-to-dust ratios [both average values and variations; as estimated from $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) and $E(B-V)$], and briefly explores some implications of these data for understanding the atomic-to-molecular transition in low-metallicity gas and for evaluating predictions of H$_2$ abundances based on comparisons of IR emission from dust and \ion{H}{1} 21~cm emission.
Section 4 summarizes our results.
\section{DATA}
\label{sec-data}
\subsection{Stellar Sample}
\label{sec-stel}
Tables~\ref{tab:smclos}~and~\ref{tab:lmclos} list the 126 SMC and 159 LMC sight lines included in this survey.
For each sight line, the tables give equatorial coordinates (J2000)\footnotemark, spectral types, $V$, $B-V$, $E(B-V)$ (both total and MC), the column densities of \ion{H}{1} (from Lyman-$\alpha$ or Lyman-$\beta$ absorption), H$_2$, and \ion{H}{1} (from 21~cm emission), the H$_2$ rotational temperature $T_{01}$, and the peak 21~cm brightness temperature $T_{\rm pk}$.
\footnotetext{The coordinates are from the catalogs compiled by B. Skiff, available at ftp.lowell.edu/pub/bas/starcats.}
Figures~\ref{fig:smclos} and \ref{fig:lmclos} show the locations of the sight lines on maps of $T_{\rm pk}$(21~cm) (Stanimirovi\'{c} et al. 1999; Kim et al. 2003), with the symbols coded by $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ (see Sec.~\ref{sec-gdr}).
A wide variety of regions in the two galaxies has been sampled, with broad coverage of both the main stellar ``bar'' and the ``wing'' region in the SMC and many locations across the LMC; a number of sight lines in the NGC~346 region of the SMC and in the LH10, LMC~4, and 30~Dor regions of the LMC are included.
The sight lines sample a variety of environmental conditions --- as indicated by overall column densities, molecular fractions, proximity to \ion{H}{2} regions and molecular clouds, UV extinction characteristics (e.g., Gordon et al. 2003), and inferred local physical conditions (e.g., Welty et al. 2006).
It is not an unbiased sample, however, as many of the \ion{H}{1} targets were originally chosen for studies of stellar properties (and are typically lightly reddened), while others were chosen for studies of interstellar extinction (and thus are more heavily reddened).
The sight lines with new measurements of molecular hydrogen were selected, via inspection of the spectra in the {\it FUSE} Magellanic Clouds Legacy archive (Blair et al. 2009), specifically to have relatively high $N_{\rm MC}$(H$_2$).
For the SMC, there are now 119 sight lines with a detection or upper limit for \ion{H}{1} (92 new) and 65 sight lines with a detection or limit for H$_2$ (39 new); 57 sight lines have a detection or limit for both species.
For the LMC, there are now 136 sight lines with a detection or limit for \ion{H}{1} (89 new) and 80 sight lines with a detection or limit for H$_2$ (30 new); 57 sight lines have a detection or limit for both species.
Spectral types, $V$ magnitudes, and $B-V$ colors for the target stars were taken from the references given in footnotes to the tables.
Nearly all of the types are based on slit spectra.
Most of the stars are O or early B supergiants, with 11.0 $\la$ $V$ $\la$ 15.0; some appear to be unresolved binary or multiple systems.
In general, we preferred photometry derived from ccd observations (e.g., Massey 2002), which should allow more reliable corrections for near neighbors and local background fluctuations than is generally possible for aperture photometry.
For $V$ $\la$ 15.0 mag, the uncertainties on $B$ and $V$ (and $B-V$) are typically $\le$ 0.03 mag (Massey 2002).
In most cases, the total $E(B-V)$ color excesses (including both Galactic and Magellanic Clouds contributions) were obtained using the intrinsic colors adopted by FitzGerald (1970) or Walborn (2002).
Uncertainties in $(B-V)_0$ corresponding to those in assigned spectral type are typically $\la$ 0.01--0.02 mag for the early-type stars in this sample.
While intrinsic colors could be estimated from theoretical spectral energy distributions for some of the Wolf-Rayet stars (e.g., Crowther 2007), the contributions of the emission lines to the broadband fluxes render such estimates rather uncertain for some of the other W-R subtypes.
Given the variations both in the Galactic foreground contributions and in the strength of the 2175 \AA\ extinction bump in the SMC and LMC (e.g., Gordon et al. 2003), estimates of W-R reddening based on ``removing the 2175 \AA\ bump'' from the observed stellar fluxes also are likely to be rather uncertain.
Color excesses thus are not given for some of the W-R stars in our sample.
For the SMC sight lines, values of 0.03 to 0.04 mag were adopted for the Galactic portion of the total $E(B-V)$ (Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis 1998; adjusted based on the strength of the Galactic 21~cm emission in each case).
For the LMC sight lines, Galactic values ranging from 0.02 to 0.09 mag were estimated from Figure 13 of Staveley-Smith et al. (2003) [which is based on \ion{H}{1} 21~cm emission data and the relationship between $N$(H) and $E(B-V)$ for Galactic halo sight lines found by Burstein \& Heiles 1978].
The second $E(B-V)$ entry listed for each sight line represents the portion due to dust in the SMC or LMC (total minus Galactic); negative values of $E(B-V)_{\rm MC}$ obtained for several sight lines have been retained in the tables.
The Magellanic Clouds color excesses range from $-$0.03 to 0.33 for the SMC sight lines and from 0.00 to 0.74 for the LMC sight lines;
only 12 SMC and 32 LMC sight lines have $E(B-V)_{\rm MC}$ greater than 0.2 mag.
The uncertainties in $E(B-V)_{\rm MC}$ -- including contributions from the photometry, spectral typing, and Galactic foreground -- are typically 0.03--0.04 mag.
\subsection{Observations and Data Processing}
\label{sec-obs}
The {\it HST} data for the \ion{H}{1} Lyman $\alpha$ absorption lines analyzed in this survey were obtained under various observing programs, many of which were aimed at understanding the properties of the target stars themselves (Appendix Table~\ref{tab:prog}).
Table~\ref{tab:prog} lists the instrumental configurations employed in those programs, with effective spectral resolutions at Lyman $\alpha$ ranging from 0.011 \AA\ (2.75 km~s$^{-1}$) for STIS/E140H to $\sim$1.2 \AA\ ($\sim$300 km~s$^{-1}$) for STIS/G140L.
For comparison, the resolutions characterizing the high- and low-resolution spectra of Lyman-$\alpha$ obtained with {\it IUE} are of order 0.1 and 6.0 \AA, respectively.
The pipeline-processed spectra were retrieved from the MAST archive\footnotemark.
\footnotetext{http://archive.stsci.edu/hst}
For the highest resolution STIS echelle spectra, the multiple spectral orders within the range 1170--1260 \AA\ were smoothed and combined, using a linear ``tilt'' within each order (when necessary) to match the flux levels in adjacent orders.
A constant background, gauged from any non-zero flux in the saturated core of the Lyman $\alpha$ line (and not due to geocoronal emission), was subtracted from some of the lower resolution spectra (e.g., FOS/G130H).
Far-UV spectra of nearly 300 LMC and SMC targets are available through the {\it FUSE} Magellanic Clouds Legacy Project (Blair et al. 2009).
The {\it FUSE} data for \ion{H}{1} Lyman-$\beta$ and H$_2$ absorption, for sight lines exhibiting strong Magellanic Clouds H$_2$ absorption in the $J$ = 0 and 1 lines of the strongest Lyman bands, were retrieved from the Legacy Program website\footnotemark.
\footnotetext{http://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/fuse\_mc}
The LiF1a spectra were smoothed by a factor of 3 to achieve approximately optimal sampling, assuming a resolution of $\sim$ 20 km~s$^{-1}$.
Low order polynomial fits to line-free continuum regions were used to normalize the spectra near the strong R0, R1, and P1 lines of the H$_2$ Lyman bands chosen for fitting.
Several surveys of \ion{H}{1} 21~cm emission from the Magellanic Clouds are now available: the high-resolution surveys of the SMC and LMC based on data from the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) and the 64-m Parkes telescope (FWHM $\sim$ 1.0--1.5 arcmin; Stanimirovi\'{c} et al. 1998, 1999; Kim et al. 2003; Staveley-Smith et al. 2003) and the lower-resolution but more extensive Leiden-Argentina-Bonn (LAB; FWHM = 30--36 arcmin; Kalberla et al. 2005) and Galactic All-Sky Surveys (GASS; FWHM = 14.4 arcmin; Kalberla et al. 2010).
The emission profiles for all the sight lines in our sample were retrieved from the respective survey web sites\footnotemark.
\footnotetext{http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/smc\_h1/get\_spectrum.html; http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/hisurvey/profile/}
For the ATCA+Parkes data, the SMC spectra cover the velocity range from about 88 to 215 km~s$^{-1}$ (sampled every 1.65 km~s$^{-1}$) on 60\arcsec pixels; the LMC spectra cover the velocity range from about 190 to 386 km~s$^{-1}$ on 80\arcsec pixels.
The Magellanic Clouds \ion{H}{1} column density and peak brightness temperature derived from the ATCA+Parkes 21~cm profile for the nearest neighbor grid point are listed for each of the SMC and LMC sight lines in Tables~\ref{tab:smclos} and \ref{tab:lmclos}.
The LAB and GASS spectra cover the velocity range from $-$400 to 400 km~s$^{-1}$ (sampled every 1.03 km~s$^{-1}$) -- thus including the Galactic emission; interpolated profiles are produced for each queried sight line.
\subsection{Determination of Column Densities}
\label{sec-cd}
\subsubsection{\ion{H}{1} Lyman-$\alpha$ Absorption}
\label{sec-h1abs}
Most of the new \ion{H}{1} column densities given in Tables~\ref{tab:smclos} and \ref{tab:lmclos} were derived by applying the standard continuum reconstruction method (Bohlin et al. 1978; Diplas \& Savage 1994a) to the observed Lyman-$\alpha$ profiles, using atomic data from Morton (2003).
In that method, the observed profile is divided by a theoretical profile composed of one or more Voigt profiles, varying the parameters of the theoretical profile until the division yields a ''reasonable'' restored continuum.
In general, the best-fit $N_{\rm MC}$(\ion{H}{1}) is determined by the width of the saturated core of the Lyman-$\alpha$ line and by the quality of the reconstructed continuum shortward of that core, as the opposite (red-ward) wing of the line is often blended with the \ion{N}{5} stellar wind P Cygni profile in these early-type stars.
In all cases, the absorption was assumed to be due to two components: a Galactic foreground component and a component due to gas in the SMC or LMC.
For each sight line, the column density of the Galactic component was obtained from the GASS 21~cm emission profile, assuming optically thin emission.
The foreground $N$(\ion{H}{1}) thus range from 2.6--3.7 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ toward the SMC and from 3.3--7.4 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ toward the LMC.
These values are in good agreement with the $N_{\rm MW}$(\ion{H}{1}) = 3--4 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ adopted by Fitzpatrick (1986) for SMC sight lines, and with the values from 4--8 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ estimated from fig.~13 of Staveley-Smith et al. (2003) toward the LMC.
The velocity separation between the Galactic and Magellanic Clouds components was estimated from observations of other species which typically are concentrated in the main \ion{H}{1} component(s) [e.g., \ion{Na}{1} (Welty \& Crowther, in prep.) and/or H$_2$], for the same or other nearby sight lines.
Use of more complex component structures -- e.g., as determined from high-resolution UV spectra of \ion{Zn}{2} absorption -- yields total $N$(\ion{H}{1}) essentially indistinguishable from the values derived in the two-component fits (for the few cases where such UV spectra are available).
Figure~\ref{fig:lyafit} gives two examples of this procedure -- for the sight lines toward Sk~38, with $N_{\rm SMC}$(\ion{H}{1}) = 6.2 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, and Sk$-$66~172, with $N_{\rm LMC}$(\ion{H}{1}) = 1.7 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.
Sk~38 was observed with STIS/E140M, at a resolution of about 6.6 km~s$^{-1}$; Sk$-$66~172 was observed with FOS/G130H, at a resolution of about 225 km~s$^{-1}$.
The upper panel for each sight line shows the adopted best fit to the observed profile (solid lines), with the Galactic and Magellanic Clouds contributions given by the short-dashed and long-dashed lines, respectively.
In both cases, the absorption is dominated by the Magellanic Clouds component; note also the \ion{N}{5} stellar wind P Cygni profile blended with the red-ward wing of the interstellar Lyman-$\alpha$ line.
The narrow geocoronal Lyman-$\alpha$ emission near 0 km~s$^{-1}$ seen in these spectra can be much broader in spectra obtained through wider slits -- making it difficult to determine accurate column densities from the lower-resolution spectra of some of the lower-$N$(\ion{H}{1}) sight lines, as the width of the geocoronal emission can be comparable to that of the saturated core of the interstellar absorption feature in such cases.
The lower panel for each sight line shows the adopted best fit and corresponding reconstructed continuum (solid lines), as well as the fits and continua for Magellanic Clouds column densities higher and lower by about 10\% (dotted lines) -- which is typical of the uncertainties adopted for $N_{\rm MC}$(\ion{H}{1}) $\ga$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.
The \ion{H}{1} column densities derived from fitting the Lyman-$\alpha$ profiles range from about 6 to 110 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the SMC and from about 3.5 to 150 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the LMC.
For individual sight lines observed with more than one {\it HST} instrumental configuration, the differences in the $N_{\rm MC}$(\ion{H}{1}) derived from those multiple observations are generally less than about 5\% (0.02 dex).
Where the possible Magellanic Clouds contribution is less than about 3--4 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ (i.e., comparable to the Galactic contribution toward the SMC and the minimum Galactic contribution toward the LMC), a limit 3 times that possible $N_{\rm MC}$ is adopted.
Limits are also given for target star spectral types later than B3 (for supergiants) or B1 (for main-sequence stars), where there can be significant stellar contributions to the Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption (e.g., Diplas \& Savage 1994a).
Where {\it HST} spectra of Lyman $\alpha$ were not available, an attempt was made to determine \ion{H}{1} column densities from the Lyman-$\beta$ line in the {\it FUSE} LiF1a spectra near 1025 \AA\ -- again using the continuum reconstruction method.
In general, column densities derived from fits to the Lyman-$\beta$ line have somewhat larger uncertainties -- as the damping wings are weaker than for Lyman $\alpha$ and as there can be significant blending with both stellar features (absorption for very early O stars, emission for B supergiants), interstellar H$_2$ absorption [the strong R0, R1, and P1 lines of the Lyman (6-0) band], and telluric emission from several transitions of \ion{O}{1} (in addition to the geocoronal Lyman-$\beta$ emission).
Figure~\ref{fig:lybfit} gives an example of the fit to the Lyman-$\beta$ line toward the SMC star Sk~18.
The upper panel shows the overall best fit to the profile (smooth solid line), as well as the individual contributions from the SMC \ion{H}{1} (dotted line), the Galactic \ion{H}{1} (short-dashed line), and the SMC (and Galactic) H$_2$ (long-dashed line); note that the geocoronal Lyman-$\beta$ line has been removed.
The best fit to the profile yielded $N_{\rm SMC}$(\ion{H}{1}) = 6.5 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ -- somewhat higher than the value derived from fits to the corresponding Lyman-$\alpha$ profile (5.0 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$).
The lower panel shows the fits and the corresponding reconstructed continua for the adopted $N_{\rm SMC}$(\ion{H}{1}) and for values roughly 15\% higher and lower.
\subsubsection{H$_2$ Absorption}
\label{sec-h2abs}
For sight lines exhibiting fairly strong Magellanic Clouds H$_2$ absorption, column densities for the lowest two rotational levels ($J$ = 0 and 1) were determined in two ways.
The first method employed a slightly modified version of the IDL-based program {\bf h2gui}, which was constructed and used by Tumlinson et al. (2002).
For strong lines with column densities $\ga$ 10$^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$, the program determines total H$_2$ column densities and rotational excitation temperatures $T_{01}$ via iterative Voigt-profile fits to the lines from $J$ = 0 and 1 in the normalized spectra.
(Other, weaker H$_2$ lines from higher rotational levels are also fitted, but the derived column densities of those lines depend rather sensitively on the generally poorly determined $b$-value -- and are thus unreliable.)
As the program fits absorption from various transitions at a single velocity, any Galactic absorption features or weaker Magellanic Clouds components must be masked in the fits.
The Lyman (4-0) band of H$_2$ was chosen as the primary band for fitting, as it is a strong band [$f$(R0) = 0.023; Abgrall \& Roueff 1989] in a fairly clean region of the spectrum -- exhibiting little blending with stellar or other interstellar features.
Similar fits to the weaker Lyman (1-0) band [$f$(R0) = 0.0058] generally yielded consistent results, with little dependence on $b$, for sight lines with $N$(H$_2$) $\ga$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$; the values derived for lower column density sight lines were more sensitive to the derived $b$, however.
For $\sim$40 of the sight lines, more detailed fits were performed with the program {\bf fits6p} (e.g., Welty et al. 2003) to provide a further check on the results from the {\bf h2gui} fits.
The {\bf fits6p} fits include the absorption from Galactic H$_2$ (and any other species) and also allow for multiple Magellanic Clouds components.
Figure~\ref{fig:h2fit} shows the detailed fits to a portion of the Lyman (4-0) H$_2$ band toward three SMC stars, with $N_{\rm SMC}$(H$_2$) ranging from about 1.5 to 12 $\times$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$.
In the figure, the smooth solid lines show the adopted best fits to the profiles; the dotted lines show the profiles for changes in $N$($J$=0) and $N$($J$=1) by $\pm$20\% (0.08 dex).
The fits are particularly sensitive in the wings of the profiles of the strong R0, R1, and P1 lines -- especially in the regions where those lines overlap.
Note also the differences in velocity separation between the SMC and Galactic absorption for the three sight lines -- which also can affect those overlap regions.
For sight lines with $N$(H$_2$) between about 10$^{18}$ and 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$, both the Lyman (4-0) and (1-0) bands were fitted, varying the $b$-value (usually between 2 and 10 km~s$^{-1}$) until consistent H$_2$ column densities were obtained from the two bands.
In most cases, the total H$_2$ column densities derived using {\bf h2gui} are within $\pm$0.1 dex of the values obtained via these more detailed fits.
For our full sample, the derived $N$(H$_2$) range from 0.3--90 $\times$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$ for the SMC and from 0.2--25 $\times$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$ for the LMC.
Uncertainties are typically of order 10--20 per cent for $N$(H$_2$) $\ga$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$, but are somewhat larger for lower $N$(H$_2$), where the damping wings for the lines from $J$=0,1 are weak (even for the strongest bands) and the derived column densities are more sensitive to $b$.
Where possible, we adopt the values derived using {\bf fits6p}, which account explicitly for blending of Galactic and Magellanic Clouds absorption and possible multiple velocity components in the Magellanic Clouds.
Approximately 130 {\it FUSE} sight lines with weaker Magellanic Clouds H$_2$ absorption are not included in this study.
For about half of those sight lines, only upper limits (typically below 10$^{15}$ cm$^{-2}$) will be obtainable.
Determination of accurate $N$(H$_2$) for the rest will require more detailed profile fitting, using component structures derived from higher resolution spectra and/or detailed curve of growth analyses, based on measurements of as many H$_2$ lines as possible, from all rotational levels.
We expect, however, that the total SMC or LMC $N$(H$_2$) generally will be less than 10$^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$, and that H$_2$ will be at most a minor contributor to the total hydrogen column densities in those sight lines.
For any such low-$N$(H$_2$) sight lines included in Tables~\ref{tab:smclos} and \ref{tab:lmclos}, the H$_2$ column densities are indicated approximately as moderate (``mod''), weak (``wk''), or upper limit (``ul'').
\subsubsection{\ion{H}{1} 21~cm Emission}
\label{sec-h1em}
For any given sight line, the 21~cm emission seen in the ATCA+Parkes, LAB, and GASS surveys covers very similar velocity ranges, with broadly similar overall shape.
There can be significant differences in detailed profile structure, however, with the lower resolution GASS and LAB spectra generally exhibiting smoother profiles.
Total Magellanic Clouds \ion{H}{1} column densities were derived for each sight line from each of the three data sets by simple integration over the full range of SMC or LMC velocities included in the line profiles, assuming the emission to be optically thin.
The $N_{\rm MC}$(\ion{H}{1}) thus obtained from the nearest-neighbor ATCA+Parkes (AP) spectra range from about 17 to 130 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the SMC and from about 2 to 60 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the LMC.
[The column densities obtained from interpolated AP spectra (using the four nearest neighbors on 1 arcmin grids) are very similar, with average differences less than 0.002 dex and rms deviations less than 0.02 dex for both galaxies.]
Integrations over the corresponding lower resolution GASS and LAB 21~cm profiles generally yielded slightly lower $N$(\ion{H}{1}) for the higher column density sight lines and somewhat higher $N$(\ion{H}{1}) for the lower column density sight lines, with larger differences for the LAB data (Fig.~\ref{fig:21comp}; see Sec.~\ref{sec-emcomp} below).
The Galactic column densities derived from the GASS and LAB profiles (for $v$ $\le$ 60 km~s$^{-1}$ toward the SMC and $v$ $\le$ 100 km~s$^{-1}$ toward the LMC) are generally in much better agreement, however, and the GASS and LAB values toward the LMC both agree well with those obtained from fig.~13 of Staveley-Smith et al. (2003).
Approximate 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties for $N$(21~cm) were estimated by integrating the typical rms noise values cited for each survey over the full LMC or SMC velocity ranges.
The resulting uncertainties (in cm$^{-2}$) for the AP spectra are 3.3$\times$10$^{19}$ (SMC) and 7.5$\times$10$^{19}$ (LMC); for the GASS spectra are 1.5$\times$10$^{18}$ (SMC) and 1.7$\times$10$^{18}$ (LMC); and for the LAB spectra are 2.2$\times$10$^{18}$ (SMC) and 2.4$\times$10$^{18}$ (LMC).
Corresponding 3-$\sigma$ upper limits for several low-$N$(\ion{H}{1}) sight lines in the LMC are given as 2.3$\times$10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ (20.35 dex).
\section{RESULTS / DISCUSSION}
\label{sec-res}
\subsection{Comparisons with Previous Studies}
\label{sec-prev}
Most of the previously published \ion{H}{1} column densities for the Magellanic Clouds were derived from high- or low-dispersion spectra of Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption obtained with {\it IUE} (Bouchet et al. 1985; Fitzpatrick 1985a, 1985b, 1986; Gordon et al. 2003); a smaller number were derived from analyses of {\it FUSE} spectra of Lyman $\beta$ and/or {\it HST} spectra of Lyman $\alpha$ (Evans et al. 2004a, 2004b, 2004c; Crowther et al. 2002).
Unfortunately, the high-dispersion {\it IUE} spectra generally have very low S/N ratios near Lyman $\alpha$, and the combined effects of Galactic absorption, geocoronal emission, and the \ion{N}{5} stellar wind lines make it difficult to derive precise and accurate $N_{\rm MC}$(\ion{H}{1}) from the low-dispersion (6 \AA) spectra; Fitzpatrick (1985a) estimated uncertainties of $\pm$50\%, for example.
Comparison of Fitzpatrick's results with the more precise values derived from the {\it HST} spectra, however, indicates generally good agreement -- with slope $\sim$ 1.0 and rms deviation $\sim$ 0.1 dex for the twelve sight lines in common.
Our new \ion{H}{1} column densities also exhibit reasonably good agreement with the values from Bouchet et al. (1985), Evans et al. (2004a, 2004b, 2004c), and Crowther et al. (2002), if those previous values are adjusted for contributions from Galactic \ion{H}{1} absorption.
Our $N$(\ion{H}{1}) also agree in most cases with those found by Gordon et al. (2003), after adjusting their differential values for the Magellanic Clouds \ion{H}{1} observed toward their comparison stars (which can be as high as 4 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$).
We find a much lower $N$(\ion{H}{1}) toward the SMC star Sk~143, however (see also Howk et al. 2010).
For some sight lines (particularly in the SMC), the $N$(\ion{H}{1}) derived in this paper differ slightly from those listed in Welty \& Crowther (2010), due to small differences in the adopted Galactic foreground contributions (Sec.~\ref{sec-h1abs}).
For sight lines with appreciable amounts of molecular material [$N_{\rm MC}$(H$_2$) $\ga$ 3 $\times$ 10$^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$] previously analyzed by Tumlinson et al. (2002), both the total $N_{\rm MC}$(H$_2$) and the $T_{01}$ obtained in our fits are generally in good agreement with the published values (rms deviation $\sim$ 0.1 dex).
Because Tumlinson et al. fitted a number of the H$_2$ bands [instead of just the Lyman (4-0) and (1-0) bands analyzed in this paper], we adopt their values for all but three of the sight lines in common.
For those three sight lines (Sk~10, AV~47, and Sk~116), the H$_2$ column densities derived from our fits to the (1-0) and (4-0) bands are consistent for smaller $b$-values [and thus significantly higher $N$(H$_2$)] than those found by Tumlinson et al. via curves of growth.
Even the (4-0) band $J$=0,1 lines are at most weakly damped in those three sight lines, however, and the derived column densities (2-3 $\times$ 10$^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$) are rather uncertain.
The agreement is slightly poorer (rms deviation $\sim$ 0.15 dex) with the values for the sight lines reported by Cartledge et al. (2005); for example, we find a significantly higher $N$(H$_2$) toward Sk$-$68~140.
\subsection{Comparison of Three 21~cm Emission Surveys}
\label{sec-emcomp}
As noted above (Sec.~\ref{sec-h1em}), there are systematic differences in the Magellanic Clouds \ion{H}{1} column densities derived from the ATCA+Parkes, LAB, and GASS 21~cm emission surveys.
The values determined from the lower resolution LAB and GASS surveys are generally lower than those obtained from the AP spectra for the highest $N$(\ion{H}{1}) sight lines, and generally higher for the lowest $N$(\ion{H}{1}) sight lines (Fig.~\ref{fig:21comp}).
In the figure, the slopes for the LMC ratios are similar to those for the SMC, if the LMC sample is restricted to $N$(AP) $\ge$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ (more comparable to the range in the SMC sample): for both SMC and LMC sight lines, the slopes are of order $-$0.2 for GASS/AP vs. AP; of order $-$0.4 for LAB/AP vs. AP; and of order $-$0.2 for LAB/GASS vs. GASS.
These differences presumably reflect the differences in spatial resolution -- and consequent sampling of the complex structure of the ISM in the SMC and LMC -- in the three surveys.
At 50 kpc (the approximate distance to the LMC), the resolutions of the three 21~cm data sets correspond to 14.5--21.8 pc (ATCA+Parkes), 210 pc (GASS), and 438 pc (LAB) -- scales over which significant variations would be expected.
For the sight lines with highest $N$(\ion{H}{1}) seen with ATCA+Parkes, the larger GASS and LAB beams thus must typically sample somewhat lower values (on average), and vice versa.
Although beyond the scope of this paper, more detailed analyses of such comparisons might yield information on the scales, amplitudes, and properties of structures characterizing the predominantly neutral gas in the SMC and LMC (e.g., Wakker et al 2011).
The inferred structural characteristics could then be compared with the structure seen in even higher resolution IR images of the Magellanic Clouds.
\subsection{$N$(Lyman-$\alpha$ Absorption) vs. $N$(21~cm Emission)}
\label{sec-la21}
Differences in the \ion{H}{1} column densities derived from absorption and emission can reflect the line-of-sight distribution of the atomic gas (background vs. foreground), small-scale spatial structure in the ISM (in the plane of the sky), and possible saturation in the 21~cm emission.
Figure~\ref{fig:lavs21} plots the Magellanic Clouds $N$(\ion{H}{1}) derived from the ATCA+Parkes 21~cm emission profiles versus the column density obtained from Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption, for sight lines in the SMC ({\it left}) and LMC ({\it right}).
For the SMC, $N$(21~cm) is generally comparable to $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) [= $N$(\ion{H}{1})] for the highest column density sight lines, but becomes progressively higher than $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) for the lower column density sight lines; the slope of the relationship is of order 0.4 (not considering upper limits).
For the LMC, $N$(21~cm) is again larger than $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) at low $N$(\ion{H}{1}), but there are a number of (primarily) higher column density sight lines where $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) exceeds $N$(21~cm) -- by factors up to $\sim$ 3.
Comparison of the emission- and absorption-line profiles can provide some insight into the reasons for the observed differences in derived column density.
In the SMC, the 21~cm emission profiles typically exhibit multiple peaks, in many cases with a local minimum at $v$ $\sim$ 150-160 km~s$^{-1}$.
Some investigations of the structure of the SMC have interpreted that multi-peaked emission as arising from several distinct ``sheets'' of \ion{H}{1} (e.g., Songaila et al. 1986; Wayte 1990; and references therein).
More recent studies based on the higher resolution ATCA+Parkes data have suggested, however, that numerous expanding shells of gas may be responsible for the observed complex profile structure (e.g., Staveley-Smith et al. 1997; Stanimirovi\'{c}, Staveley-Smith, \& Jones 2004).
While the exact locations of the various neutral gas components and the physical depth of the SMC are somewhat uncertain, the structural studies have generally concluded that the gas at $v$ $\sim$ 160--200 km~s$^{-1}$ is more distant than the gas at 100--140 km~s$^{-1}$.
Although it is difficult to assign precise velocities to the broad damped Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption lines (especially in the lower resolution spectra), examination of the absorption from other species that should trace the strongest \ion{H}{1} components [e.g., \ion{Na}{1}, \ion{K}{1}, CH, H$_2$ (Tumlinson et al. 2002; Welty et al. 2006; this paper; Welty \& Crowther, in prep.)] indicates that the strongest absorption generally corresponds to the lower velocity emission peaks (e.g., for Sk~143 in Fig.~\ref{fig:emabs}) -- consistent with the results of the studies of SMC structure.
So while the higher 21~cm column densities at lower $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) could reflect the broader spatial sampling of the 21~cm beam (as discussed above), they more likely are due primarily to the inclusion of higher velocity emission beyond the target stars that is not sampled in absorption.
For sight lines in which the main SMC \ion{Na}{1} and/or H$_2$ absorption components lie within the range of the lower-velocity 21~cm component(s), the $N$(21~cm) derived from just those lower-velocity components are generally in much better agreement with $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) (see Fig.~\ref{fig:h1pred} and discussions in the next section).
While the 21~cm emission profiles in the LMC also are clearly complex, most do not exhibit the relatively well-separated peaks seen in many of the SMC sight lines.
Using 21~cm data from the Parkes single dish (resolution $\sim$ 15 arcmin), Luks \& Rohlfs (1992) identified two large-scale components in the LMC.
The main ``D'' component, seen throughout the LMC, can be modeled as a differentially rotating, nearly face-on disk; the lower velocity ``L'' component, seen primarily in the eastern part of the LMC, appears to be more distant.
As for the SMC, however, the higher resolution ATCA data for the LMC have revealed many localized shells and filaments contributing to the complex emission profiles (Kim et al. 1998, 2003), and it is generally difficult to locate individual velocity components along a given line of sight.
Toward SN 1987A, for example, where light echo data have provided additional distance constraints, there does not seem to be a monotonic relationship between the distance and velocity of the various interstellar components (Xu \& Crotts 1999; Welty et al. 1999a).
As in the SMC, however, the sight lines with $N$(21~cm) greater than $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) -- especially the lower-$N$(\ion{H}{1}) sight lines -- probably have a significant amount of neutral gas located beyond that seen in absorption.
For example, the relatively weak \ion{Na}{1} absorption observed toward BI~229 [Fig.~\ref{fig:emabs}; with $N$(21~cm)/$N$(Ly-$\alpha$) $\sim$ 1.5] is at a velocity well removed from the main \ion{H}{1} emission -- which thus must originate beyond the star.
Foreground-background effects do not account for the (mostly) higher-$N$(\ion{H}{1}) LMC sight lines where $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) is greater than $N$(21~cm), however.
In such cases, the lower column densities derived from the 21~cm emission must be due to the broader 21~cm beam sampling (on average) lower-$N$(\ion{H}{1}) material and/or to underestimation of the true column density from the emission-line observations (due to unrecognized saturation and/or self-absorption).
While the comparisons among the three 21~cm surveys (Sec.~\ref{sec-emcomp}) suggest that beam-size effects do play a role, there are indications that saturation effects may also be significant for some of the sight lines in our sample.
For many of the 16 LMC sight lines with $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) $\ga$ 1.5 $\times$ $N$(21~cm) [including the seven with highest $N$(Ly-$\alpha$)], most of the emission appears to be concentrated in 1--3 relatively strong, narrow components -- for which the optically thin assumption may underestimate the true column density.
Where absorption-line data are available for those sight lines, the main components seen in \ion{Na}{1} and/or $H_2$ absorption generally are found at very similar velocities to the main components in \ion{H}{1} emission (e.g., for BI~237 in Fig.~\ref{fig:emabs}) -- suggesting that the bulk of the neutral gas lies between us and the target star.
In addition to two obvious cases of \ion{H}{1} self-absorption -- in the ATCA+Parkes 21~cm profiles toward Mk~42 and Sk$-$69~243 (in the core of 30 Dor) -- there are seven other LMC sight lines where both the dominant absorption from \ion{Na}{1} and/or H$_2$ and the peak in the GASS 21~cm emission coincide with a possible self-absorption feature in the AP profile (e.g., for BI~184 in Fig.~\ref{fig:emabs}).
These sight lines generally have modest \ion{H}{1} column densities, $N$(GASS)/$N$(AP) ranging from about 1.5 to 11, and represent many of the low-$N$(AP) LMC sight lines with high $N$(GASS)/$N$(AP) and $N$(LAB)/$N$(AP) in Fig.~\ref{fig:21comp}.
While sight lines with $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) $>$ $N$(21~cm) may be found throughout the LMC, a number of them are located in or near regions of recent star-formation, nebulosity, and/or CO emission -- e.g., 30~Dor, LH~10, LH~90, LH~101, He~206.
In figure~\ref{fig:n206}, for example, sight lines with data for \ion{H}{1} and/or H$_2$ absorption near the star-forming region He~206 (in the southern LMC, near $\alpha$, $\delta$ = $5^{h}30^{m}$, $-$71$\arcdeg$) are noted on maps comparing the AP 21~cm emission ({\it right}) and the 8$\mu$m and CO emission ({\it left}; Meixner et al. 2006; Wong et al. 2011).
The sight lines to BI~184 and Sk$-$71~38 (northern-most adjacent triangles), located at the edge of a seeming ``hole'' in the AP \ion{H}{1} and 8$\mu$m distributions, both exhibit AP 21~cm profiles suggestive of self-absorption (Fig.~\ref{fig:emabs}).
Toward BI~184, there is fairly strong absorption from both \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$, with $N$(Ly-$\beta$) = 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ and $N$(H$_2$) = 4.5 $\times$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$.
The GASS 21~cm profile, which samples both the ``hole'' and the surrounding stronger emission, has $N$(GASS) = 1.8 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ -- slightly smaller than $N$(Ly-$\beta$), but significantly larger than the $N$(AP) = 0.7 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.
The AP 21~cm profile (Fig.~\ref{fig:emabs}) exhibits a clear minimum, with $T_{\rm br}$ $<$ 0, at about 240 km~s$^{-1}$ -- the same velocity as the GASS 21~cm emission, the main H$_2$ absorption, and the nearby CO emission (Fukui et al. 2008; Wong et al. 2011).
The significant molecular fraction [$f$(H$_2$) = 0.036], the relatively low $T_{01}$(H$_2$) = 55 K, and the possible self-absorption in \ion{H}{1} [though at modest $N$(\ion{H}{1})] suggest that this sight line intercepts a fairly small, cold, neutral cloud.
The sight lines to LMC1-233 and LMC1-246 (southwestern-most squares in the figure) have $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) = 3.7--4.5 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ -- roughly twice the value obtained from the corresponding AP and GASS 21~cm profiles; most of the \ion{H}{1} emission there is in a single relatively narrow component, also at about 240 km~s$^{-1}$.
Studies of \ion{H}{1} 21~cm absorption toward continuum sources behind the LMC and SMC have yielded similar indications of saturation in the 21~cm emission profiles.
Roughly half of the LMC (36 of 62) and SMC (13 of 28) sight lines examined so far exhibit 21~cm absorption (Dickey et al. 1994, 2000; Marx-Zimmer et al. 2000; Wong et al., in prep.).
For the LMC, the general conclusion is that the gas seen in absorption is either cooler (30--40 K) or more prevalent than in the Milky Way (Mebold et al. 1997; Marx-Zimmer et al. 2000).
In the SMC, the gas is again cooler ($\la$ 40 K), but seems less abundant ($<$ 15\% of the total \ion{H}{1}) (Dickey et al. 2000).
Both the low temperatures and the strength of the 21~cm absorption suggest that the corresponding 21~cm emission will be somewhat saturated, particularly where the observed 21~cm brightness temperature is significantly greater than the temperature of the cold gas.
Based on the results for the SMC, Stanimirovi\'{c} et al. (1999; see also Leroy et al. 2009) adopted an empirical column density ``correction factor'' $f_{c}$ which increases linearly from 1.0 to 1.4 as the optically thin estimate for log[$N$(21~cm)] increases from 21.4 to 22.0.
Using a somewhat different approach, Bernard et al. (2008) assumed a constant spin temperature of 60 K to estimate the saturation in the LMC emission profiles as a function of velocity, and obtained median column density correction factors of 1.3 and 3.9 for log[$N$(21~cm)] = 21.0 and 21.3, respectively.
Ratios $N$(Ly-$\alpha$)/$N$(21~cm) $\sim$ 2--3 seen for some LMC sight lines thus may be due entirely to uncorrected saturation in the 21~cm emission.
\subsection{Estimating $N$(\ion{H}{1}) without Lyman-$\alpha$ Absorption}
\label{sec-predh1}
While observations of damped Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption yield the most direct, sensitive, and accurate interstellar \ion{H}{1} column densities, the requisite UV spectra are not always available or usable (e.g., for main-sequence stars later than B1 or giants later than B3, where the stellar \ion{H}{1} absorption becomes significant; Diplas \& Savage 1994a).
In order to enable estimates of $N$(\ion{H}{1}) for a wider variety of sight lines (e.g., for comparison with absorption-line data for other species), it would thus be advantageous to identify suitable proxies for Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption -- i.e., other, more readily observable quantities that are well-correlated with $N$(Ly-$\alpha$).
Several such surrogates have been suggested and employed in various investigations of interstellar material: the color excess $E(B-V)$; the column densities of dominant ions of little-depleted elements (e.g., \ion{O}{1}, \ion{S}{2}, \ion{Zn}{2}); the relative abundances of species characterized by different levels of depletion (Jenkins 2009); the column densities of trace neutral species (e.g., \ion{Na}{1}, \ion{K}{1}); and the equivalent width of the diffuse interstellar band at 5780.5 \AA\ (Herbig 1993; Friedman et al. 2011).
Unfortunately, most of these trace the total (atomic plus molecular) hydrogen column density better than that of \ion{H}{1} [so that some estimate for $N$(H$_2$) is also needed], their behavior in lower-metallicity systems may not be well established, and each has its own particular additional shortcomings.
Observations of 21~cm emission provide direct measures of \ion{H}{1}, but (as discussed above) those measures can include background gas not seen in absorption and can be affected both by saturation and by small-scale structure within the radio beam.
Because Lyman-$\alpha$ data were not then available for most of the 70 sight lines in their survey of H$_2$, Tumlinson et al. (2002) estimated \ion{H}{1} column densities from the ATCA+Parkes 21~cm profiles -- adopting 0.75$\pm$0.25 $\times$ $N$(21~cm) to account in an average sense for those effects.
Now that more Lyman-$\alpha$ spectra have been obtained, those estimates may be compared with values or limits derived from the absorption-line data for 55 of the sight lines (top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:h1pred}).
While at least eighteen of the estimates are consistent with the measured values (within the fairly generous assumed uncertainties), at least fourteen of the sight lines exhibit differences greater than a factor of 3; on average, the differences are larger for the SMC.
The estimated values are greater than 1.5 $\times$ $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) in more than half of the sight lines (including thirteen of the fourteen most discrepant) -- presumably due to significant amounts of \ion{H}{1} lying beyond the target stars.
These comparisons indicate that the molecular fractions derived for the LMC and SMC were thus somewhat underestimated (on average and with increased scatter) -- particularly for the SMC.
In principle, it should be possible to significantly improve the $N$(\ion{H}{1}) estimated from 21~cm emission by eliminating (as much as possible) the contributions from neutral gas beyond the target stars.
For example, moderate- to high-resolution observations of absorption lines from species that are well-correlated with \ion{H}{1} (or that at least trace the main neutral components) can reveal the dominant foreground velocity components.
For now, we take that velocity information from existing observations of H$_2$ (Tumlinson et al. 2002; this paper) and \ion{Na}{1} (Vladilo et al. 1993; Cox et al. 2006, 2007; Welty et al. 2006; Welty \& Crowther, in prep.).\footnotemark
Integration of the 21~cm emission profiles only over the velocities seen for those absorption-line tracers then should provide better estimates for the intervening $N$(\ion{H}{1}).
\footnotetext{While \ion{Ca}{2} has been used in some of the structural studies of the SMC and LMC, it is not as reliable a tracer of the main neutral components, due to the large variations in calcium depletion.
The \ion{Ca}{2} absorption often covers a much wider velocity range than the \ion{Na}{1} absorption, but the larger \ion{Ca}{2}/\ion{Na}{1} ratios in those ``extra'' components suggest that calcium is just much less depleted there -- not that there is a significant amount of neutral gas.
In many cases, there is no discernible 21~cm emission corresponding to those ``extra'' \ion{Ca}{2} components (Welty \& Crowther, in prep.).}
As noted above (Sec.~\ref{sec-la21}), in many of the SMC sight lines, the absorption from \ion{Na}{1} and H$_2$ appears to be associated with the lower-velocity component(s) seen between about 100 and 150 km~s$^{-1}$ in the 21~cm emission profiles.
The middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:h1pred} compares the SMC \ion{H}{1} column densities estimated from just the lower-velocity 21~cm emission (for sight lines where the \ion{Na}{1} and H$_2$ absorption is seen at those lower velocities) with the values obtained from Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption (cf. the left-hand panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:lavs21}, where all the 21~cm emission is included).
For each sight line, the integration over the 21~cm profile is taken from about 90 km~s$^{-1}$ to the velocity corresponding to the local minimum in emission between the lower- and higher-velocity component(s) (typically near 150 km~s$^{-1}$).
Even for this relatively crude restriction in velocity, the correlation between the two estimates for $N$(\ion{H}{1}) is quite good (linear correlation coefficient $r$ = 0.855), the relationship is nearly linear (slopes $\sim$ 1.0--1.2 for weighted and unweighted fits), and the scatter about the best-fit lines is fairly small (rms deviation $\sim$ 0.11--0.12 dex).
The bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:h1pred} shows a similar comparison for a slightly different way of restricting the 21~cm velocity interval, for sight lines in the SMC and LMC with existing high-resolution \ion{Na}{1} spectra (Vladilo et al. 1993; Cox et al. 2006, 2007; Welty et al. 2006; Welty \& Crowther, in prep.).
In this case, the integration limits are set to slightly beyond the actual velocity intervals exhibiting \ion{Na}{1} absorption (typically 5 km~s$^{-1}$ beyond the range in fitted \ion{Na}{1} components), to allow for the somewhat broader \ion{H}{1} profiles for each component (Table~\ref{tab:21vel}).
Again, the correlation is fairly good ($r$ = 0.792), the relationship is nearly linear (slopes $\sim$ 0.8--1.0), and the scatter is fairly small (rms $\sim$ 0.12--0.13 dex).
Only four of the 40 sight lines have differences between $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) and $N$(21~lim) greater than a factor of 2.
The one significant positive outlier, AV~321 in the SMC, has a weak \ion{Na}{1} component at the edge of the (very) dominant higher-velocity 21~cm emission peak; in this case, the integration over the 21~cm profile (though restricted) is likely to include a significant contribution from background gas.
These simple exercises suggest that reasonably accurate foreground $N$(\ion{H}{1}) may be derived from 21~cm emission profiles if the velocity range of the foreground gas can be determined from absorption-line observations of suitable tracers.
Of course, high spatial resolution should be employed at 21~cm to minimize the effects of small-scale structure within the radio beam.
This method may yield poorer estimates for $N$(\ion{H}{1}), however, if there is significant saturation in the 21~cm emission and/or if foreground and background components overlap significantly in velocity (as for the one discrepant sight line in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:h1pred}).
Detailed multi-component fits to the 21~cm profiles, using component structures derived from high-resolution spectra of the absorption from tracers of the neutral gas (e.g., Fitzpatrick \& Spitzer 1997), can yield estimates for the \ion{H}{1} in individual components (that are unresolved in the broad, saturated Lyman-$\alpha$ profiles) -- and might enable overlapping foreground and background components to be identified and separated.
\subsection{$N$(\ion{H}{1}), $N$(H$_2$), $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$), and $E(B-V)$: Gas-to-Dust Ratios}
\label{sec-gdr}
The interstellar gas-to-dust ratio (GDR) can be estimated using observations of either the absorption or the emission from the gas and dust.
In general, the GDR depends primarily on the metallicity of the ISM and the fraction of heavy elements in the dust (i.e., the overall level of depletion), but also on the composition and size distribution of the dust grains (which can affect the relationships between the dust mass and the absorption, scattering, and emission characteristics of the dust).
The use of absorption data [typically $E(B-V)$ and $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)] has the advantages that the data sample the same pencil beam volume toward the background target, accurate $N$(\ion{H}{1}) and $N$(H$_2$) are directly obtained, and the often poorly known dust emission properties are not required.
On the other hand, only specific sight lines can be probed, UV spectra of both \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ are needed, and the color excesses can be somewhat uncertain.
[And while it might be better to use the total visual extinction $A_{\rm v}$ (which should be more directly related to the amount of dust present) instead of $E(B-V)$, values for $A_{\rm v}$ often are not known.]
The use of emission data (typically 21~cm, CO, and IR emission) can provide wider spatial information, but requires fairly broad wavelength coverage in the IR (for adequate coverage of the spectral energy distribution), accurate knowledge of the dust emission properties, and reliable conversion of the 21~cm emission to $N$(\ion{H}{1}) and of the CO emission to $N$(H$_2$).
For the local Galactic ISM, the average GDR is well determined from observations of \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ absorption for sight lines with known $E(B-V)$: $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ $\sim$ 5.6--5.9$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ (Bohlin et al. 1978; Shull \& van Steenberg 1985; Diplas \& Savage 1994b; Rachford et al. 2009; see also Table~\ref{tab:ratgal}); the corresponding average for just the atomic gas is $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$ $\sim$ 4.4--5.2$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$.
For Galactic sight lines in which the hydrogen is predominantly neutral, $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ is (on average) essentially independent of $E(B-V)$ for $E(B-V)$ $\la$ 1.0 mag; $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$ is roughly constant for $E(B-V)$ $\la$ 0.5 mag, but appears to decline somewhat at higher reddenings (e.g., Figures~\ref{fig:rvsebv} and \ref{fig:avgrat}).
The reddening is better correlated with the total (atomic plus molecular) hydrogen column density (with linear correlation coefficient $r$ = 0.89) than with $N$(\ion{H}{1}) alone ($r$ = 0.81).
There are indications that the GDR may vary, both regionally and in some individual sight lines (e.g., Burstein \& Heiles 1978; Diplas \& Savage 1994b).
While the low values for some low-$N$(\ion{H}{1}) sight lines may be due to unaccounted-for \ion{H}{2}, and some of the high values to larger-than-average $R_{\rm v}$ = $A_{\rm v}$/$E(B-V)$ (e.g., for some sight lines in Orion and Sco-Oph), variations in the gas-to-dust mass fraction also seem to be required (Barbaro et al. 2004).
Differences in the GDR along longer sight lines sampling the inner Galaxy may reflect a Galactic metallicity gradient (e.g., Watson 2011).
While it has been evident that the gas-to-dust ratios in the Magellanic Clouds generally are higher than the average Galactic values, different studies have yielded somewhat different results.
The average $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$ ratios determined from the earliest observations of Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption in the LMC and SMC range from about 22--24$\times$10$^{21}$ and 37--87$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ (4.6--5.0 and 7.7--18 times the average Galactic value), respectively (Koornneef 1982; Bouchet et al. 1985; Fitzpatrick 1985a, 1985b, 1986).
Those studies employed relatively small samples, however, with $N$(\ion{H}{1}) determined from {\it IUE} spectra and with no data for H$_2$.
A more recent study by Gordon et al. (2003), also based primarily on {\it IUE} spectra, found both somewhat smaller average $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$ and possible regional variations: $\sim$ 19$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ for the LMC2 region, $\sim$ 11$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ for all other LMC sight lines, $\sim$36$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ for sight lines in the main SMC ``bar'', and $\sim$ 15$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ in the near ``wing'' region toward Sk~143.\footnotemark
\footnotetext{The UV extinction observed toward Sk~143 is unique (in the very small current sample of SMC sight lines) in having a Milky Way-like 2175 \AA\ bump and a shallower far-UV rise than the other SMC curves.
Such extinction may not be characteristic of the SMC wing region, however, as examination of the low-resolution {\it IUE} spectra of other (somewhat less reddened) wing sight lines reveals no obvious indications of the 2175 \AA\ bump and suggests that the far-UV extinction is fairly steep (as in the SMC bar).}
More recent studies based on 21~cm, CO, and IR emission from the Magellanic Clouds have yielded both average values for the gas-to-dust ratios and indications of possible regional variations within each galaxy.
In those studies, the GDRs are often given as mass ratios, with the dust mass typically estimated from the optical depth at some far-IR wavelength (for an assumed dust model) and the total gas-phase hydrogen mass multiplied by 1.36 to account for helium.
For the SMC, Leroy et al. (2007) combined {\it Spitzer} maps at 24, 70, and 160 $\mu$m with the ATCA+Parkes 21~cm and NANTEN CO data to obtain an overall average GDR $\sim$ 1000 (10 times the adopted Galactic value of 100), with the $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$\tau$(160 $\mu$m) ratios about 70\% higher in the wing region than in the main SMC bar.
Leroy et al. (2011) incorporated additional {\it Spitzer} data, and found a lower overall GDR for the SMC (by a factor $\sim$ 3), with the total GDR in the wing {\it lower} than in the bar.
Bolatto et al. (2011) adopted an iterative approach to determining the SMC GDR (on scales of $\sim$ 200 pc), and obtained a median GDR roughly 14 times that found for Galactic cirrus clouds; again, the GDR values typically are higher in the wing than in the bar.
For the LMC, Bernard et al. (2008) analyzed data from {\it Spitzer} and {\it IRAS} and obtained an overall average GDR roughly 3 times the typical Galactic value, with values in the outlying regions $\sim$ 50\% higher than that.
Dobashi et al. (2008), using visual/near-IR extinctions derived from 2MASS photometric data, found an average LMC $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$A_{\rm v}$ 3.6 times the Galactic value, with lower values in the 30 Dor region and higher values in the outlying regions.
Roman-Duval et al. (2010) have examined {\it Herschel} data at 250 and 350 $\mu$m and CO data from the MAGMA survey (Wong et al. 2011) for two molecular cloud complexes in the LMC and determined average GDRs of about 350 and 235, with little apparent variation in GDR within each cloud.
Initial results from the {\it Planck} satellite suggest average GDRs higher than Galactic by factors of 2.4 in the LMC and 13 in the SMC (Planck collaboration 2011b) -- reasonably consistent with the earlier studies.
The emission-based studies thus generally suggest values for the GDR that are 2--4 times the local Galactic average for the LMC and 8--15 times the Galactic average for the SMC.
\subsubsection{Average Gas-to-Dust Ratios}
\label{sec-gdravg}
Table~\ref{tab:ratgal} lists the average values for $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$, $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$, and several other ratios for our larger sample of Magellanic Clouds \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ data, with corresponding values for the local Galactic ISM given for comparison.
The LMC and SMC samples are each divided into two regional subsets thought to be characterized by differences in the UV extinction curves (e.g., Gordon et al. 2003): the LMC2 region (extending to the southeast of 30 Dor) and the rest of the LMC (here denoted ``LMC main''), and the main ``bar'' and ``wing'' regions of the SMC.
For several of the ratios, two values are given: the ``wlog'' values are weighted means of log(ratio), while the ``nlin'' values are log(unweighted mean of ratio).
Sight lines with $E(B-V)$ $<$ 0.05 (where the uncertainties on the reddening are relatively large) and significant outliers ($>$ 2.5$\sigma$) have been omitted in calculations of the mean ratios for all three galaxies.
The ``wlog'' values are somewhat less sensitive to any remaining large positive outliers, but somewhat more sensitive to large negative outliers.
The median values for the $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$ and $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ ratios lie between the ``wlog'' and ``nlin'' values.
Inclusion of upper limits (at the limiting values) generally decreases the overall average values by less than about 10\%.
The ``$\Delta$'' value (given below each average ratio) gives the difference with respect to the corresponding average Galactic value.
Figure~\ref{fig:rvsebv} shows the ratios of $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$, $N$(H$_2$)/$E(B-V)$, and $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$, versus $E(B-V)$, for individual sight lines in our Galaxy, the LMC, and the SMC, with the mean values for the \ion{H}{1} and H$_{\rm tot}$ ratios for the three galaxies shown by dotted horizontal lines.\footnotemark
\footnotetext{Uncertainties for the individual points are not given in the figure, in order to more clearly show the relative distributions of the ratios for the three galaxies.
Typical uncertainties for $E(B-V)$ are 0.03--0.04 mag, for $N$(\ion{H}{1}) and $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) are 0.04--0.08 dex, and for $N$(H$_2$) are 0.1--0.2 dex.}
Figure~\ref{fig:avgrat} shows those three ratios averaged over 0.1-mag bins in $E(B-V)$ [giving a clearer view of the trends with $E(B-V)$]; Figure~\ref{fig:hist} shows histograms of the distributions of the three ratios (giving a clearer view of the scatter in each ratio).
For some of the sight lines in the Galactic, LMC, and SMC samples represented in Table~\ref{tab:ratgal} and Figures~\ref{fig:rvsebv}, \ref{fig:avgrat}, and \ref{fig:hist}, there are no data for H$_2$, and $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) has been set equal to $N$(\ion{H}{1}).
In order to gauge the effects of that choice, $N$(H$_2$) has been estimated for those sight lines via the observed average Galactic relationship between $N$(H$_2$)/$E(B-V)$ and $E(B-V)$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:avgrat}) (likely giving overestimates for the LMC and SMC sight lines; see below).
For 19 of the 61 Galactic sight lines with no H$_2$ data, independent estimates for $N$(H$_2$) may be obtained from the observed correlation between $N$(H$_2$) and $N$(CH) (Danks, Federman, \& Lambert 1984; Mattila 1986; Rachford et al. 2002; Welty et al. 2006).
While the two estimates generally agree within a factor of 2, the $N$(H$_2$) estimated from $E(B-V)$ are much too high for several sight lines in the Orion Trapezium region, where strong radiation fields have significantly reduced the molecular abundances -- even for $E(B-V)$ $\ga$ 0.5 mag.
In most cases, the estimated values for H$_2$ suggest that $N$(H$_2$)/$N$(\ion{H}{1}) is less than about 0.1 (Milky Way) or less than about 0.05 (LMC, SMC), and imply increases in $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) of more than 0.1 dex for only 11 of the 61 Galactic sight lines, 2 of the 51 LMC sight lines (Sk$-$66~21, LMC2-702), and 3 of the 40 SMC sight lines (Sk~36, Sk~101, AV~326); none of the LMC or SMC values for $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) is increased by more than 0.15 dex.
The corresponding increases in the average $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ are at most 0.01 dex for all three galaxies (``H2est'' entries in Table~\ref{tab:ratgal}).
For $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$, the new absorption-line data imply somewhat smaller average ratios for the Magellanic Clouds than those found previously (more consistent with the results of Gordon et al. 2003): 15--16$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ for the LMC and 21--30$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ for the SMC.
For $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$, the average values are 15--17$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ for the LMC and 23--30$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ for the SMC.
The average $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$ ratios thus are higher in the LMC and SMC by factors of 3.5 and 4.8--6.3, respectively, and the average $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ ratios are higher by factors of 2.8--2.9 and 4.1--5.2, respectively (relative to the Galactic values given in the first column of Table~\ref{tab:ratgal}).
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) tests indicate that the $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ ratios for our samples of Milky Way, LMC, and SMC sight lines are unlikely (probability $<$ 0.001) to be drawn from a common distribution -- and that the differences in the mean values are significant.
For both the LMC and SMC, the new data indicate that the differences in the gas-to-dust ratios are more comparable to the differences in metallicity (relative to our Galaxy) than had been suggested by many of the previous estimates -- particularly for the SMC.
The $N$(H$_2$)/$E(B-V)$ ratio behaves somewhat differently than the corresponding ratios involving $N$(\ion{H}{1}) and $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$).
First, while the Galactic $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$ and $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ ratios depend weakly (at most) on $E(B-V)$, the average $N$(H$_2$)/$E(B-V)$ increases by a factor of 3--4 as $E(B-V)$ increases from about 0.1 to 0.9 mag (Fig.~\ref{fig:avgrat}).
Second, the $N$(H$_2$)/$E(B-V)$ ratios in the LMC and SMC are generally more comparable to those seen in our Galaxy (as suggested by Gunderson et al. 1998, Richter 2000, and Cartledge et al. 2005 for much smaller samples) (Figs.~\ref{fig:rvsebv} and \ref{fig:hist}).
However, the new LMC and SMC samples are still fairly small, the scatter for each is large, and there are as yet no measurements of H$_2$ for sight lines with $E(B-V)$ $>$ 0.4 mag in the Magellanic Clouds (Fig.~\ref{fig:rvsebv}).
If the Galactic sample is further restricted to $E(B-V)$ $\le$ 0.35 (similar to the range covered in the LMC and SMC), then the average log[$N$(H$_2$)/$E(B-V)$] = 20.80 is slightly smaller -- closer to the corresponding averages for the LMC and SMC (``EBV35'' entries in Table~\ref{tab:ratgal}) -- and the K-S probabilities that the LMC and SMC ratios could be drawn from the Galactic distribution increase to several percent.
[Note that only sight lines with $N$(H$_2$) $>$ 3 $\times$ 10$^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$ (where the H$_2$ is self-shielded and generally correlated with CH, \ion{Na}{1}, and \ion{K}{1}) have been included in calculations of the mean ratios.]
\subsubsection{Variations in Gas-to-Dust Ratios?}
\label{sec-gdrvar}
Besides providing better definition of the mean relationships between $N$(\ion{H}{1}), $N$(H$_2$), $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$), and $E(B-V)$ in the Magellanic Clouds, the new data enable both exploration of possible regional variations in the gas-to-dust ratios (as suggested by some of the studies of IR emission and/or UV extinction) and identification of individual ``discrepant'' sight lines.
In Figures~\ref{fig:smclos} and \ref{fig:lmclos}, the SMC and LMC sight lines included in this survey are coded by log(GDR), in three ranges.
The plots of the ratios for individual sight lines (Fig.~\ref{fig:rvsebv}) suggest that the scatter in the values for each galaxy is greater than the typical uncertainties of the individual values, particularly in the LMC and SMC.
For the GDR $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$, for example, the typical uncertainties are $\la$ 0.15 dex for LMC and SMC sight lines with $E(B-V)$ $>$ 0.1 mag, but the overall rms deviations are 0.22 and 0.34 dex, respectively (Table~\ref{tab:ratgal}).
While some of the scatter could be due to differences in $R_{\rm v}$ (as noted above for some Galactic sight lines), most of the $R_{\rm v}$ derived so far for LMC and SMC sight lines are between 2.3 and 3.7 (Gordon et al. 2003).
In the LMC, the ratios for both \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ (and thus H$_{\rm tot}$) may be slightly higher (and exhibit less scatter) in the LMC~2 supershell region, but the ratios there generally are still consistent with the overall average values, within the mutual 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties (Table~\ref{tab:ratgal}).
The six sight lines in the LH~10 association (in the N11 star-forming region) all have lower than average ratios for H$_2$, and five of the six have $N$(H$_2$)/$E(B-V)$ $<$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ -- factors $\ga$ 4 smaller than the overall LMC average -- even though $E(B-V)$ $\ge$ 0.14 (Table~\ref{tab:lmclos}; Fig.~\ref{fig:rvsebv}).
Stronger than average radiation fields in LH~10 may suppress the H$_2$ abundance there (as may also be the case for some Galactic sight lines in Orion and Sco-Oph); determination of the relative populations in the higher H$_2$ rotational levels ($J$ = 4,5) could provide corroboration.
In the SMC wing region, the average ratio for \ion{H}{1} is a factor $\sim$2 lower than in the main SMC bar, but the average ratio for H$_2$ is a factor $\sim$2 higher.
There is significant scatter in both ratios, however; both SMC wing and SMC bar samples, for example, include sight lines with very low and very high $N$(H$_2$)/$E(B-V)$ ratios.
K-S tests suggest that there may be differences in $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ between the LMC2 and LMC main subsamples (presumably reflecting the small dispersion in the LMC2 values), but are inconclusive for the SMC bar and wing subsamples.
At least some of the (relatively small) differences in the regional average values thus may just be due to local environmental effects and small-number statistics; the absorption-line data reveal no obvious very large-scale regional variations in the GDRs in the Magellanic Clouds.
Whether there are regional variations or not, there are individual sight lines (in all three galaxies) whose ratios differ significantly from the corresponding mean values.
For several of the sight lines with $E(B-V)$ $<$ 0.03 mag (AV~104, NGC330-B37, NGC346-E46), the high ratios for \ion{H}{1} and H$_{\rm tot}$ might be (at least partly) due to underestimated $E(B-V)$, as such high values are not seen for more reddened sight lines.
The high $N$(H$_2$)/$E(B-V)$ ratios for several more reddened sight lines (Sk~18, NGC346-12, Sk~143, Sk~150, AV~476, Sk~191, Sk$-$67~2), however, appear to be accurate.
Several of these ratios are higher than those found for nearly all Galactic sight lines -- reflecting a combination of strongly self-shielded H$_2$ and lower dust-to-gas ratios.
On the other hand, there are also a number of LMC and SMC sight lines (covering a range in reddening) with values of $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$ and/or $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ that are comparable to or lower than the average Galactic values.
For the LMC WC4 stars (especially Sk$-$66~21, Sk$-$68~15, and Sk$-$69~234), the low values may be due in part to overestimated $E(B-V)$; the adopted $(B-V)_0$ = $-$0.40 may be too small.
The sight lines toward Sk$-$67~2 (LMC) and Sk~143 (SMC) [the only Magellanic Clouds sight lines in our sample with $f$(H$_2$) $>$ 0.5] have low values for $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$, but high values for $N$(H$_2$)/$E(B-V)$.
The resulting ratio for H$_{\rm tot}$ is consistent with the LMC average for Sk$-$67~2 (Cartledge et al. 2005), but is still closer to the Galactic average for Sk~143 [8.2 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ -- significantly lower than the value found (for \ion{H}{1} alone) by Gordon et al. 2003].
Of the other sight lines with low ratios for \ion{H}{1} and $E(B-V)$ $>$ 0.15 mag (Sk~5, Sk~36, Sk~101, Sk~142, Sk$-$69~142a, LMC1-548, LMC2-702), only Sk$-$69~142a has data for H$_2$ (an upper limit), but we consider it unlikely that inclusion of any molecular gas in those sight lines [all with $E(B-V)$ $<$ 0.3 mag] would increase $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) by more than about 50\% (see above).\footnotemark
\footnotetext{The $E(B-V)$ for Sk$-$69~142a may be significantly overestimated.}
Unlike Sk~143, none of the four other SMC sight lines with low $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$E(B-V)$ ratios shows any obvious indications of the 2175 \AA\ bump in the existing low-dispersion {\it IUE} spectra.
Sk~143 thus remains unique in the SMC in having both UV extinction and gas-to-dust ratio more like those in the Galactic ISM; those properties do not appear to be characteristic of the SMC wing.
The assumption of similar gas-to-dust ratios in both atomic and molecular gas (commonly adopted in studies attempting to infer the amount of H$_2$ from comparisons of IR, CO, and \ion{H}{1} emission; see below) seems consistent with the observed good correlations between $E(B-V)$ and the total hydrogen column density in our Galaxy, the LMC, and the SMC.
It would not seem unreasonable, however, for the dust to be more closely associated with the H$_2$ than with the \ion{H}{1} -- as H$_2$ is formed on grain surfaces and as the grains would be expected to survive and grow more readily in denser gas, where the molecular fraction is likely to be higher.
For the simplest case of constant (but different) GDRs associated with atomic and molecular gas, we would expect to observe the atomic GDR for sight lines with low molecular fraction [e.g., $f$(H$_2$) $\la$ 0.1], with a gradual transition to the molecular GDR as $f$(H$_2$) approaches 1.0.
Figure~\ref{fig:rvsf} shows the $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ ratio as a function of $f$(H$_2$), for sight lines in our Galaxy, the LMC, and the SMC.
While the scatter is large and there are few sight lines with $f$(H$_2$) $>$ 0.1 for the LMC and SMC, there is an intriguing possible trend of declining GDR for $f$(H$_2$) $>$ 0.1 in the Galactic data (Figure~\ref{fig:rvsf2}).
Fits to the Galactic data for both log[$N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$] and log[$N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$A_{\rm v}$] yield slopes $\sim$ $-$0.2 over the range $-$1.0 $<$ log[$f$(H$_2$)] $<$ 0.0 -- suggesting that the GDR in Galactic molecular gas could be lower by a factor of 1.5--2.0 than in predominantly atomic gas.
Such a decrease in the gas-to-dust ratio in molecular gas would be consistent with a recent analysis of the dust emission from 350 $\mu$m to 3 mm in the Taurus molecular complex, measured with the {\it Planck} satellite, which finds a factor-of-2 increase in the ratio of dust optical depth to total hydrogen column density for molecular gas with $A_{\rm v}$ $\ga$ 1 (Planck collaboration 2011a).
It also appears to be at least qualitatively consistent with the increased dust-phase abundances of significant dust constituents (C, O, Mg, Si) in sight lines exhibiting the most severe depletions (Jenkins 2009) and with models of grain growth in dense interstellar clouds (e.g., Dwek 1998).
On the other hand, Roman-Duval et al. (2010) found no significant differences in GDR within two LMC molecular cloud complexes, ascribing variations in the ratio of far-IR emission to gas surface density to the presence of a significant amount of H$_2$ not traced by the CO emission (see discussion below).
\subsection{Depletions and Diffuse Cloud Chemistry}
\label{sec-depl}
Larger samples of accurate $N$(\ion{H}{1}) and $N$(H$_2$) provide reference abundances for broader studies of depletions and diffuse cloud chemistry in the Magellanic Clouds.
Preliminary values of some of the color excesses and \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ column densities listed in Tables~\ref{tab:smclos} and \ref{tab:lmclos} were used in studies of CH, CH$^+$, CN, and several of the DIBs (Welty et al. 2006) and of the depletion of titanium (Welty \& Crowther 2010).
As noted above, some of the SMC $N$(\ion{H}{1}) have been adjusted slightly for differences in the adopted Galactic contribution to the Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption, and new or revised values for \ion{H}{1} and/or H$_2$ are now available for a number of the sight lines in Welty et al. (2006).
The revised values do not significantly change any of the results of the \ion{Ti}{2} survey: the depletion of Ti remains less severe in the LMC and (especially) the SMC than in the local Galactic ISM, for any given $N$(H), $E(B-V)$, or molecular fraction $f$(H$_2$) (Welty \& Crowther 2010).
In principle, comparisons of the gas-to-dust ratios and metallicities in the Milky Way and Magellanic Clouds can yield constraints on the relative depletions of the major dust constituents (generally thought to be C, O, Mg, Si, Fe) in the three galaxies.
For the LMC, the mean $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ for our sample is nearly 3 times the average local Galactic value, slightly larger than the factor-of-2 difference in metallicities -- perhaps indicative of generally somewhat less severe depletions in the LMC.
While that would be at least qualitatively consistent with the observed titanium depletions (Welty \& Crowther 2010), Ti is not a major dust constituent.
For the SMC, the mean $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ for our sample is more comparable to the difference in metallicities -- despite the even less severe depletions of Ti in the SMC (Welty \& Crowther 2010) and suggestions that Mg and Si might be significantly less depleted in at least some SMC sight lines (Welty et al. 2001 and in prep.; cf. Sofia et al. 2006).
Such comparisons, however, might also be affected by differences in the relationships between $E(B-V)$ and the total amount of dust, differences in dust composition, and/or differences in the relative total abundances of the individual major dust constituents.
Surveys of additional refractory species (particularly the significant dust constituents) and determinations of total visual extinctions for more sight lines are needed to better understand the apparent differences in depletion patterns and gas-to-dust ratios in the Magellanic Clouds.
The only significant change regarding the study of the diatomic molecules and DIBs is the more clearly defined relationship in the LMC between the equivalent width of the $\lambda$5780.5 DIB and $N$(\ion{H}{1}) -- which is now seen to run roughly parallel to the corresponding Galactic relation (Herbig 1993; Friedman et al. 2011), with $W$(5780.5) smaller by a factor of $\sim$10 (Fig.~\ref{fig:5780} and Table~\ref{tab:ratgal}).
As that difference is much larger than the factor-of-2 difference in metallicity, the metallicity dependence of the $W$(5780.5)/$N$(\ion{H}{1}) ratio is not yet understood.
The average $N$(CH)/$N$(H$_2$) ratio in the LMC (six sight lines) remains very similar to that seen in the local Galactic ISM, despite the lower metallicity in the LMC.
Additional optical spectra of sight lines with higher $E(B-V)$, $N$(\ion{H}{1}), and/or $N$(H$_2$) would provide a clearer view of the relationships between those three quantities, the column densities of the diatomic molecules, and the DIBs in the Magellanic Clouds -- and thus a better understanding of diffuse cloud chemistry in low-metallicity galaxies.
While the new values for $N$(\ion{H}{1}) imply somewhat higher molecular fractions for a number of the sight lines in the H$_2$ survey of Tumlinson et al. (2002) (particularly in the SMC), the $f$(H$_2$) still require both reduced H$_2$ formation and enhanced H$_2$ destruction in the LMC and SMC, relative to the local Galactic ISM.
\subsection{Understanding the Atomic-to-Molecular Transition in Galaxies}
\label{sec-trans}
The formation of molecular gas is generally considered to be a key factor for determining the star formation rate -- and thus for driving galactic evolution.
A number of recent theoretical studies, incorporating detailed treatments of the formation, shielding, and destruction of H$_2$, therefore have attempted to understand how the relationship between atomic and molecular gas depends on such properties as the metallicity, dust content, gas column or volume density, and radiation field (e.g., Gnedin, Tassis, \& Kravtsov 2009; Pelupessy \& Papadopoulos 2009; Krumholz, McKee, \& Tumlinson 2009; McKee \& Krumholz 2010; Gnedin \& Kravtsov 2011).
These studies generally conclude that the molecular fraction $f$(H$_2$) depends primarily on the total column density and metallicity (or gas-to-dust ratio), with a somewhat weaker dependence on the ambient radiation field.
The predicted relationships seem reasonably consistent with the distributions of atomic and molecular gas (as traced by \ion{H}{1} 21~cm and CO emission) in nearby galaxies [e.g., Krumholz et al. 2009 (KMT09)].
Another approach to this issue, starting with the observed distributions of atomic and molecular gas in nearby galaxies, has revealed a correlation between the H$_2$/\ion{H}{1} ratio ($R_{\rm mol}$) and the total interstellar pressure ($P_{\rm tot}$) at the galactic midplane (e.g., Wong \& Blitz 2002; Blitz \& Rosolowsky 2004, 2006).
That empirical correlation is then taken to reflect a dependence of the molecular fraction on the total pressure -- at least on scales greater than several hundred pc.
Both the H$_2$ and the pressure are estimated indirectly, however, and the physical process(es) underlying the correlation have not been identified.
Recent work by Ostriker, McKee, \& Leroy (2010), considering the relationships between the relative amounts of dense (molecular) and diffuse (atomic) gas, the rate of star formation, the photoelectric heating of the gas, and the thermal pressure -- as set by the coupled conditions of thermal and dynamical equilibrium -- may provide some theoretical support for the empirical $R_{\rm mol}$--$P_{\rm tot}$ relationship.
Fumagalli, Krumholz, \& Hunt (2010) suggest that observations of low-metallicity dwarf galaxies with high stellar densities should allow some discrimination between the two approaches.
For a given $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$), the models based on H$_2$ microphysics would predict lower molecular fractions (due to the low metallicities), while the pressure-driven models would predict higher molecular fractions (due to the high stellar densities).
Unfortunately, the \ion{H}{1}, CO, and IR emission data used to test these ideas all come with significant caveats, so that additional diagnostics would be valuable.
While the existing H$_2$ microphysics-based models are designed to describe the average or bulk behavior of molecular clouds, direct absorption-line measures of \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ -- which sample specific lines of sight through the clouds -- can (in principle) provide such additional diagnostics.
Figure~\ref{fig:mckee} compares the relationships between $N$(H$_2$) and $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) predicted by the simple analytic approximation given in eqn.~89 of McKee \& Krumholz (2010), for metallicities corresponding to the Milky Way (1.0 $\times$ solar; top panel, black curve), the LMC (0.5 $\times$ solar; bottom panel, green curve), and the SMC (0.2 $\times$ solar; bottom panel, red curve), with the column densities of H$_2$ and total hydrogen observed for sight lines in those three galaxies (black crosses, green circles, and red triangles, respectively).\footnotemark
The three model curves all exhibit the expected rapid rise in $N$(H$_2$) due to self-shielding, once sufficient total hydrogen column density has been reached; the predicted threshold for self-shielding occurs at higher $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) for lower metallicities, due (presumably) to the lower dust abundances.
\footnotetext{Note that the figure shows the relationships in terms of column densities ($N$, in cm$^{-2}$), rather than surface densities ($\Sigma$, in M$_{\odot}$~pc$^{-2}$).
For reference, log[$\Sigma$(H)] = log[$N$(H)] $-$ 19.96 (which includes a factor of 1.36 for helium).}
There is some qualitative agreement between the measured column densities and the trends with metallicity predicted by the KMT09 models, in that higher $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) are generally required for high $N$(H$_2$) in the lower metallicity LMC and SMC.
As recognized by Krumholz et al. (2009) for Galactic sight lines, however, many of the observed points (for all three galaxies) lie above and/or to the left of the predicted curves -- indicating higher $N$(H$_2$) than those predicted by the models.
While the observed points with $N$(H$_2$) $\la$ 10$^{16}$ cm$^{-2}$ represent the small amounts of unshielded H$_2$ commonly present in low-$N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) sight lines (and ignored in the KMT09 models), the points with $N$(H$_2$) $\ga$ 10$^{18}$ represent self-shielded H$_2$ -- and their presence at lower than predicted $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) is opposite to what would be expected for absorption-line observations randomly sampling individual molecular clouds.
Simple simulations of such sampling of spherical clouds (over ranges of total cloud column densities and impact parameters), for example, suggest that sight lines near the cloud centers would probe slightly higher molecular fractions (relative to the cloud average values), while the more numerous sight lines farther from the centers would see lower than average molecular fractions.
The ensemble of observed column densities would thus populate a region largely to the right of the predicted curve -- bounded on the left by a curve starting at somewhat higher $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) for low $N$(H$_2$) and increasing to just slightly above the predicted curve when $f$(H$_2$) exceeds $\sim$0.5 (see the discussion of similar simulations and associated fig.~12 in Krumholz et al. 2009).
Moreover, removal of any predominantly atomic gas that is unrelated to the H$_2$ [which is currently included in the observed $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)] along the sight lines would move the observed points even further to the left in Figure~\ref{fig:mckee}.
The KMT09 models thus appear to overestimate the $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) at which self-shielding becomes effective -- and consequently at which significant amounts of H$_2$ can be present.
For the Milky Way, that transition occurs at $E(B-V)$ $\sim$ 0.08 (Savage et al. 1977), corresponding to log[$N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)] $\sim$ 20.65 (for the average gas-to-dust ratio listed in Table~\ref{tab:ratgal}) -- quite consistent with the more extensive Galactic data shown in the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:mckee}, but a factor of $\sim$3 lower than the column density threshold predicted by the solar metallicity model.
While the corresponding transition column densities are not yet as well characterized for the LMC and SMC, the presence of self-shielded H$_2$ at significantly lower $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) than the corresponding predicted lower-metallicity thresholds suggests that the threshold values may be overestimated there as well.
This discrepancy between observed and predicted thresholds is at least qualitatively consistent with Leroy et al.'s (2009) observation that the $\Sigma$(H$_2$)/$\Sigma$(\ion{H}{1}) ratios inferred for the N83 region (in the SMC wing) were most consistent with the KMT09 models for metallicities somewhat higher than that of the SMC.
The simulations of Gnedin \& Kravtsov (2011) yield similar trends for the molecular fraction with dust-to-gas ratio (a proxy for the metallicity), but with broader transition regions [in $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)] -- more like those observed for both the Galactic and Magellanic Clouds sight line samples in Fig.~\ref{fig:mckee}.
The lower metallicity KMT09 models also predict generally higher molecular fractions, for self-shielded H$_2$, than those observed so far in the LMC and SMC.
While part of the difference may reflect the set of sight lines selected for observation with {\it FUSE}, nearly all the observed Magellanic Clouds sight lines with strong H$_2$ absorption have been included in this study.
As concluded by Tumlinson et al. (2002), enhanced photodissociation of H$_2$ by stronger radiation fields appears to be required, in addition to reduced formation, to account for the abundance of H$_2$ in the Magellanic Clouds.
\subsection{Predicting $N$(H$_2$) from \ion{H}{1} 21~cm and Far-IR Emission}
\label{sec-predh2}
Because cold H$_2$ is difficult to measure directly in emission, the amount of cold molecular gas is often inferred from tracer molecules -- e.g., CO, typically assuming a ``standard'' value for the CO-to-H$_2$ ``$X$-factor'' derived from observations of Galactic molecular clouds.
Strictly speaking, the use of the $X$-factor assumes that the molecular material is in virial equilibrium (which may not always be the case).
Moreover, at low metallicities, the $X$-factor may differ significantly from the Galactic value (e.g., Israel 1997; Leroy et al. 2007, 2011).
An alternative approach is to use the far-IR emission from dust (thought to trace both atomic and molecular gas) to infer the total gas mass, and then to subtract the contribution from \ion{H}{1} (from 21~cm observations) to obtain the amount of H$_2$.
This approach also depends on several assumptions: that the gas-to-dust ratio is the same in both predominantly atomic and predominantly molecular gas, that the 21~cm emission is optically thin, and that reference regions free of H$_2$ can be identified (in order to calibrate the gas-to-dust ratio).
Studies aplying this approach to the Magellanic Clouds generally find that use of a Galactic $X$-factor underestimates the H$_2$ mass by factors $\ga$5 in the LMC and $\ga$10 in the SMC (Bot et al. 2007; Bernard et al. 2008; Leroy et al. 2009) -- suggesting that substantial ``dark'' H$_2$ envelopes may surround the CO-emitting portions of molecular clouds.
Those results are qualitatively consistent with theoretical expectations that the more abundant H$_2$ should self-shield more readily, and thus occupy a larger volume than CO -- particularly in lower metallicity systems, where C, O, and the dust (for shielding the CO in more diffuse molecular gas) are all less abundant (e.g., Maloney \& Black 1988; Wolfire et al. 2010).
On the other hand, as discussed above, the gas-to-dust ratio may be somewhat lower in predominantly molecular gas, and the 21~cm emission may be somewhat saturated in regions near/surrounding the molecular clouds.
Adjusting for those effects would reduce the amount of H$_2$ inferred from the ``excess'' IR emission.
As one example of this approach to estimating the molecular content, we consider a recent detailed study of the N83/N84 star-forming region, located in the SMC wing (Figure~\ref{fig:leroy}).
Leroy et al. (2009) combined IR data from {\it Spitzer} and {\it IRAS}, the ATCA+Parkes 21~cm data, and CO 1-0 and 2-1 maps from Bolatto et al. (2003) to investigate the detailed structure and molecular content of this region.
Using an estimated gas-to-dust ratio of 5 $\times$ 10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ (8.6 times the Galactic value), they inferred a substantial amount of H$_2$ outside the CO contours, with a CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor (averaged over the entire complex) 20--55 times the typical Galactic value (but locally much lower near the peaks of the CO emission).
Absorption-line probes near the molecular cores seen in CO emission can provide checks of the $N$(H$_2$) inferred from the IR and 21~cm emission -- and can also yield estimates for abundances and physical conditions to aid in characterizing the diffuse molecular gas.
Table~\ref{tab:smclos} includes five sight lines in the vicinity of N83/N84 with data for $E(B-V)$, $N$(\ion{H}{1}), and $N$(H$_2$).
Two of these (AV~476, Sk~155) lie just within the CO emission contours; the three others (Sk~156, Sk~157, Sk~159) lie slightly to the east of the CO emission; Leroy et al. used data for Sk~159 (the farthest of the five) in estimating the gas-to-dust ratio in the region.
The heliocentric velocities of the various CO peaks identified by Bolatto et al. (2003) range from about 162 to 179 km~s$^{-1}$, which fall within the strong higher-velocity peak in the 21~cm emission in this region.
The available high-resolution spectra of interstellar \ion{Na}{1} and \ion{Ca}{2} absorption toward Sk~155, Sk~156, and Sk~159, however, indicate that the strongest absorption is at somewhat lower velocities (Wayte 1990; Welty et al. 2001, 2006; Andr\'{e} et al. 2004; Welty \& Crowther, in prep.) -- suggesting that those three stars lie in front of the N83/N84 complex, even though they all exhibit significant absorption from H$_2$ [with $N$(H$_2$) $\sim$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$].
The sight line to AV~476 (closest to the strong CO emission) does appear to probe material in the N83/N84 complex, however.
This sight line has the highest $N$(H$_2$) in our SMC sample (at 9 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$), and the corresponding absorption from CH and \ion{Na}{1} is at the same velocity (within about 1 km~s$^{-1}$) as the two nearest CO peaks (Bolatto et al. 2003; Welty et al. 2006).
The gas-to-dust ratio toward AV~476 is about 4.5 $\times$ 10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ -- slightly higher than the values toward the other four stars in the region and for the SMC wing region as a whole (Table~\ref{tab:ratgal}), but close to the value estimated by Leroy et al. (2009).
The mass surface density of molecular gas $\Sigma$(H$_2$) toward AV~476 predicted from the IR and 21~cm emission is between 150 and 200 M$_{\odot}$ pc$^{-2}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:leroy}), which corresponds to $N$(H$_2$) $\sim$ 7--9 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ (eqn.~11 of Leroy et al. 2009) -- nearly an order of magnitude higher than the value determined from UV absorption.
The significant difference between measured and inferred $N$(H$_2$) for this one sight line might (in principle) be ascribed to small-scale structure effects (unresolved at the 23 arcsec resolution of the CO 2-1 data and the 36 arcsec resolution of the 160$\mu$m data) and/or to AV~476 perhaps not lying completely behind the molecular material.
Indeed, Bolatto et al. (2003) concluded that the high CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) ratios in the region around AV~476 might indicate that the CO emission comes from many small ($r$ $\sim$ 0.1 pc) clumps.
On the other hand, as discussed above, the H$_2$ would likely be distributed more broadly than the CO (i.e., less strongly clumped).
Moreover, the \ion{H}{1} column densities determined from both Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption and 21~cm emission (at the 1.5 arcmin resolution of the AP 21~cm data) agree to better than 10\%.
Unless the 21~cm emission significantly underestimates the true $N$(\ion{H}{1}) -- which would also have implications for the $N$(H$_2$) inferred from the emission data -- there is thus likely to be little atomic gas beyond AV~476.
Similar comparisons, for other regions exhibiting CO emission in the LMC and SMC, would be valuable for gauging the general reliability of the $N$(H$_2$) inferred from the IR, CO, and 21~cm emission data.
\section{SUMMARY / CONCLUSIONS}
\label{sec-summ}
In order to examine the relationships between atomic gas, molecular gas, and dust in the ISM of the Magellanic Clouds, we have collected the following data for a set of 126 sight lines in the SMC and 159 sight lines in the LMC:\footnotemark
\footnotetext{These data (and future updates) may be obtained at http://astro.uchicago.edu/$\sim$dwelty/mcoptuv.html and coldens\_mc.html.}
\begin{itemize}
\item{Column densities of \ion{H}{1} for 255 sight lines (181 newly determined, mostly from archival {\it HST} spectra of Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption)}
\item{Corresponding estimates for $N$(\ion{H}{1}) from three recent 21~cm emission surveys covering the Magellanic Clouds (for all 285 sight lines)}
\item{Column densities of H$_2$ for 145 sight lines (69 newly determined from archival {\it FUSE} spectra of Lyman-band absorption)}
\item{Spectral types and $B$, $V$ photometry for nearly all of the 285 sight lines (from the literature) --- enabling new estimates for $E(B-V)$ (both Galactic and Magellanic Clouds contributions)}
\end{itemize}
Some of these data have already been used in an exploratory study of diffuse cloud chemistry and diffuse interstellar bands in the Magellanic Clouds (Welty et al. 2006) and in a survey of titanium depletions in the Milky Way and Magellanic Clouds (Welty \& Crowther 2010).
Revised values for $E(B-V)$, $N$(\ion{H}{1}), $N$(H$_2$) presented here yield no significant changes to the conclusions of those earlier papers, other than a more well defined relationship between the equivalent width of the DIB at 5780.5 \AA\ and $N$(\ion{H}{1}) for sight lines in the LMC.
Comparisons among these data examined in this paper indicate or suggest the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item{Systematic differences in the Magellanic Clouds $N$(\ion{H}{1}) derived from surveys of 21~cm emission undertaken at different spatial resolutions most likely reflect structure in the ISM in the LMC and SMC on scales smaller than the radio beams.}
\item{Differences in the Magellanic Clouds $N$(\ion{H}{1}) determined from 21~cm emission and Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption can be due to foreground-background effects [typically with $N$(21~cm) $>$ $N$(Ly-$\alpha$)], small-scale structure in the ISM, and/or possible saturation or self-absorption in the 21~cm data [typically with $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) $>$ $N$(21~cm)].
Comparisons between the 21~cm emission profiles and moderate-to-high resolution UV/optical absorption-line spectra of species such as H$_2$ and \ion{Na}{1} can aid in understanding those differences in $N$(\ion{H}{1}).
For some sight lines in the LMC, the $N$(21~cm) determined even from the high-resolution ATCA+Parkes data can be lower than the $N$(\ion{H}{1}) obtained from Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption by as much as a factor of 3 -- likely due to saturation in the 21~cm emission.
Some of the 21~cm profiles seem to suggest self-absorption in the \ion{H}{1}.}
\item{Use of information from \ion{Na}{1} and/or H$_2$ absorption to restrict the velocity range over which the 21~cm profiles are integrated generally yields $N$(21~cm) in better agreement with $N$(Ly-$\alpha$) -- minimizing foreground-background effects and thus providing a way of estimating more accurate $N$(\ion{H}{1}) from 21~cm data if Lyman-$\alpha$ data are not available.
In principle, estimates for $N$(\ion{H}{1}) may also be obtained from the strength of the DIB at 5780.5 \AA, if the typical $N$(\ion{H}{1})/$W$(5780.5) ratio (dependent on metallicity and other factors) can be determined for a given system.}
\item{Comparisons of the column densities of \ion{H}{1}, H$_2$, and H$_{\rm tot}$ with the color excess $E(B-V)$ indicate that the best correlation is between $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) and $E(B-V)$.
In the local Galactic ISM, the average gas-to-dust ratio $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$)/$E(B-V)$ $\sim$ 5.8 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$, apparently independent of reddening for $E(B-V)$ $\la$ 1 mag.
In the Magellanic Clouds, that average ratio is higher by factors of 2.8--2.9 in the LMC and 4.1--5.2 in the SMC -- more similar to the differences in metallicity than indicated by previous such estimates -- especially for the SMC.
While there are real variations in the GDR for individual sight lines within each galaxy, any very large-scale regional variations in the GDR in the LMC or SMC are difficult to discern, given the scatter in individual sight line values.
In the Galactic ISM, the average $N$(H$_2$)/$E(B-V)$ ratio increases by a factor of 3--4 as $E(B-V)$ increases from 0.1 to 0.9 mag; on average, that ratio is more similar in the three galaxies, at any given $E(B-V)$.
The Galactic data for sight lines with molecular fraction $f$(H$_2$) $\ga$ 0.1 suggest that the GDR may be lower in predominantly molecular gas by a factor of 1.5--2, compared to its value in more diffuse, predominantly atomic gas.}
\item{Comparison of the column densities of \ion{H}{1}, H$_2$, and H$_{\rm tot}$ for the Milky Way, LMC, and SMC with the predictions of the theoretical models of McKee \& Krumholz (2010) for the relationship between atomic and molecular gas indicates that while the models correctly predict that the atomic-to-molecular transition occurs at higher total hydrogen column densities for lower-metallicity systems, they appear to overestimate the specific threshold $N$(H$_{\rm tot}$) for the Milky Way (and probably for the LMC and SMC as well) by a factor of at least 3, and they also may overestimate the molecular fractions in the lower-metallicity LMC and SMC.}
\item{For one sight line within the CO contours of the N83/N84 star-forming region in the SMC wing region, the $N$(H$_2$) determined directly from Lyman-band absorption is nearly an order of magnitude smaller than the value estimated from the IR and 21~cm emission along that sight line.}
\end{itemize}
This expanded set of column densities for \ion{H}{1} and H$_2$ provides reference abundances for future studies of the metallicity, depletions, and chemistry in the diffuse atomic and molecular gas in the Magellanic Clouds.
Some of the sight lines with relatively high $E(B-V)$ and/or $N$(H$_2$) would be good candidates for future observations of various molecular species and DIBs -- to better characterize diffuse cloud chemistry and the atomic-to-molecular transition in these lower-metallicity systems.
Determination of $N$(H$_2$) for the rest of the sight lines in the {\it FUSE} Magellanic Clouds Legacy Archive -- and of the higher-$J$ populations for the entire sample -- should help to better define and characterize the atomic-to-molecular transition in the Magellanic Clouds.
More extensive comparisons with the predictions for H$_2$ based on considerations of 21~cm, CO, and IR emission should help to refine the predictions -- and thus more accurately gauge the amount of ``dark'' H$_2$ not traced by CO.
\acknowledgements
We thank Jason Tumlinson both for supplying the {\bf h2gui} package and for constructive comments on the paper and Mark Krumholz for several stimulating discussions.
The {\it HST} and {\it FUSE} data analyzed in this paper were obtained from the Multimission Archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute (MAST). STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. Support for MAST for non-{\it HST} data is provided by the NASA Office of Space Science via grant NAG5-7584 and by other grants and contracts.
The Australia Telescope Compact Array and Parkes radio telescope are part of the Australia Telescope National Facility which is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO.
Work on this project was begun under NASA archival grant HST-AR-10692.01-A from STScI, and finished under NASA ADAP grant 10-ADAP10-0137; DEW also acknowledges support from the CARMA project at UIUC, which is funded by NSF URO grant AST-0838226.
{\it Facilities:} \facility{HST (COS, FOS, GHRS, STIS)}, \facility{FUSE}, \facility{IUE}
|
\section{}
\section{Introduction}
The European Space Agency's (ESA) Rosetta spacecraft passed by the
main belt asteroid (21) Lutetia with a relative velocity of $\sim
15$~km/s on 10 July 2010 at 15:44:56~UTC. The Rosetta-Lutetia
distance at closest approach (CA) was 3170~km. During the flyby the
solar phase angle (sun-object-observer) decreased from the initial
11$^{\circ}$ to a minimum of 0.15$^{\circ}$ 18 minutes before CA, then
increased again to 80$^{\circ}$ at CA and finally reached a maximum of
139$^{\circ}$ when the observations were stopped. A total of 400
images were obtained by the Optical, Spectroscopic, and Infrared
Remote Imaging System (OSIRIS), which consists of two imagers: the
Wide Angle Camera (WAC) and the Narrow Angle Camera (NAC)
\citep{kel07}. The best resolution at CA corresponded to a scale of
60~m/px at the asteroid surface.\\
Lutetia has an orbital semi-major axis of about 2.43~AU, an
eccentricity of 0.16 and an inclination of 3.06$^{\circ}$. Its shape
can be fitted by an ellipsoid having axes of $121 \times 101 \times
75$~km \citep{sie11}.\\
Previous space missions have visited and acquired detailed data for a
total of 6 asteroids, namely four main belt asteroids \citep[951
Gaspra, 243 Ida, 253 Mathilde, 2867
Steins;][]{vev99a,bel92,bel94,kel10} and two near-Earth objects
\citep[433 Eros, 25143 Itokawa;][]{vev99b,sai06}. Itokawa is the
smallest of them, with dimensions of $0.45 \times 0.29 \times
0.21$~km. The other asteroids have average sizes ranging from
$\sim5$~km to $\sim53$~km. In this respect, Lutetia with its average
size of 98~km is the second largest asteroid ever visited by a
spacecraft so far (at the moment of the writing -October 2011-, Dawn
mission is orbiting around the 500-km sized asteroid (4) Vesta).\\
This paper analyzes some of the highest resolution OSIRIS images with
the aim to study the crater size-frequency distributions (SFDs) on the
different units that have been identified on the basis of geological
investigations \citep{sie11,mas11,nic11}. This analysis provides
constraints on Lutetia's bulk structure and surface evolution. The
observed crater SFDs are also used to compare the cratering process
among the different units, to derive absolute ages and provide a
chronology of the major events that affected Lutetia evolution.\\
\section{Lutetia crater population}
The NAC high resolution images acquired during the flyby where used to
identify major regions on Lutetia (see Fig. \ref{units}). These
regions have been defined by taking into account several factors,
including local topography, geological features, surface texture,
crater spatial density and stratigraphic relationships
\citep{nic11,mas11}. In this respect, each region is characterized by
distinct properties of one or more of the above listed factors. The
regions indentified have been further divided into several units.
Thanks to this selection criterion, the defined units reflect major
differences in their evolution \citep{mas11,nic11}. Note that the
actual unit boundaries are in some cases not well established due to
the lack of resolution and/or unfavorable illumination conditions
\citep{mas11,nic11}.\\
Among the major regions, only 4 were imaged with enough quality for
accurate crater counting to be performed. These are Achaia,
Narbonensis, Noricum and Baetica. Their geological properties show
remarkable differences, therefore they will described individually in
the following sections.\\
{\bf Achaia.} This region is defined by a remarkably flat and uniform
area. It is bounded by Baetica, Narbonensis and Etruria. Its
boundaries with Baetica and Narbonensis are defined mainly by texture
and topography, respectively. The boundary with Etruria is defined by
the same means but, due to low contrast of the images in these
regions, it is less precisely established\footnote{Note that several
choices of the Etruria-Achaia boundary have been performed in
our analysis. The influence on the actual choice on the resulting
Achaia crater SFD is negligible.}. The illumination conditions
within Achaia are very good and uniform, therefore craters are clearly
visible and their size estimate is performed with precision
\citep{vin11}.\\
The Achaia region (Ac1+Ac2) is heavily cratered, showing a large range
of crater sizes, from 21.6~km (Nicea crater) down to the resolution
limit (we used a minimum of 4~pixels to identify craters, thus about
0.2~km). The overall spatial distribution of the 157 craters $>0.6$~km
is uniform and there appears to be no evident contamination from
adjacent units (see Fig. \ref{craters}, panel b). At smaller sizes,
several crater-like features may not be of impact origin. Many
circular depressions are close to, or overlap linear features,
therefore may not represent bona fide craters. The presence of
secondary craters (formed by boulders ejected during the formation of
other craters) can also be possible at these small crater sizes,
although it is unclear how likely can secondary craters form on Lutetia,
given its low escape velocity.\\
For the purpose of age assessment, we are interested in primary craters
(i.e. formed by impacts with asteroids), therefore our analysis
focuses on craters $>0.6$~km. The resulting crater SFD is shown in
Fig. \ref{csfd} (panel a).\\
An interesting result is that Achaia's crater SFD exhibits a marked
flexure point at about $4-7$~km. Note that the observed flexure point
is unlikely due to observational biases, like uncertainties in the
identification of craters or resolution issues. This is because Achaia
region is a remarkably flat area and it has been imaged with uniform
conditions of illumination, while the flexure point is well above the
image resolution. Moreover, thanks to the boundary selection, we also
exclude that the observed flexure is due to obliteration of small
craters due to crater ejecta coming from nearby units (e.g.,
Beatica). For the same reason, it seems also unlikely that the
formation of the large crater Massalia (see next sections) played a
role in the formation of the flexure point in Achaia crater SFD.\\
{\bf Noricum.} This unit has a very complex topography. It contains a
number of closely packed and prominent circular features, likely
impact craters, showing several stages of degradation \citep{vin11}.
Moreover, this unit looks ``compressed'' among the impact craters of
Baetica, Massalia crater, and possibly another large crater on the
dark side of Lutetia (namely, Pannonia region; see Fig.~\ref{units}),
the presence of which may be inferred thanks to the circular
terminator of part of Noricum. These factors are likely at the origin
of Noricum complex topography.\\
Crater counts have been performed in unit Nr1+Nr2 (for semplicity we
will refer to Noricum region in the rest of the work). The overall
viewing geometry is not optimal (i.e. nearly edge-on), therefore the
size estimate of some of the 76 identified craters ($>0.6$~km) is
problematic (see Fig.~\ref{craters}, panel a). The resulting crater
SFD shows a clear transition at about 2~km (see Fig.~\ref{csfd}, panel
b): the slope of the crater SFD for $D>2$~km is considerably shallower
than that for $D<2$~km. The feature resembles somewhat the flexure seen
on Achaia crater SFD, although in this case it may be due to imprecise
size estimate for several large craters due to their nearly edge-on
view. The crater spatial density for $D<2$~km is very similar to that
of Achaia.\\
{\bf Narbonensis.} This region corresponds to the interior of the
55-km-sized crater Massalia, the largest impact structure detected on
Lutetia. Crater count has been performed in unit Nb1 (for simplicity
we will refer to Narbonensis region in the rest of the work). A total
of 47 craters $>0.6$~km have been identified (see Fig. \ref{craters},
panel c). Notably, several craters appear deformed by sliding of their
rims due to the relatively high topographic slope present in large
part of the unit \citep[][see also Fig.~\ref{slopes}, upper panels]{vin11}.
In these cases, the determination of the actual
crater size is not very accurate.\\
Overall, the crater spatial density of Narbonensis is lower than that
of Achaia (see Fig. \ref{csfd}, panel c). The shapes of the crater
SFDs of the two units also differ. In particular, the Narbonensis
crater SFD has a shallower slope at small sizes than Achaia. It is not
clear whether this difference is due to poor count statistics or it is
a real feature. In the latter case, it might be due to variation in
the local properties of the terrains or due to some later modification
(as we will discuss later).\\
{\bf Baetica.} This region, unlike the previous ones, shows marked
evidence of several major modification processes (landslides, ejecta
blanketing etc) that have been used to establish sub-units that likely
formed at different epochs \citep{nic11,mas11}. Moreover, this region
is also characterized by large topographical slope variations (from 0
to 45~deg, see Fig.~\ref{slopes}, lower panels), and by the presence of
many large boulders \citep{kue11}.\\
Overall, the Baetica region presents much fewer craters than adjacent
regions. Some Baetica's units appear extremely young, showing no
detectable impact craters. For these reasons, we restrict our analysis
to a unit, named Bt1a (see Fig.~\ref{units}), which apparently has not
been affected by recent geological processes (e.g., landslides), it is
relatively flat and uniform, and does contain a fair number of small
impact craters. In this case, we boost crater detection by using
Laplacian-filtered images\footnote{ The Laplacian filter technique uses
secondary derivatives in two directions to enhance the contrast of
the input image and it is known to be very effective in revealing
small, high frequency features \citep{bes11}. }. We identify 62
craters in the range $0.2-1$~km (see Fig.~\ref{craters}, panel d).\\
The Bt1a crater SFD shows an overall shape consistent with those of
other units, and it is characterized by a much lower crater spatial
density (see Fig. \ref{csfd}, panel d). Interestingly, Bt1a contains
a fresh and large ($\sim7$~km) crater, plus a second highly degraded
crater having similar dimensions that has not been counted since it
probably formed before Bt1a \citep{nic11,vin11}.\\
\section{The Model Production Function chronology}
The crater SFDs of the units presented in the previous section can be
used to derive their crater retention ages. The age of units is
crucial information, since it provides constraints on the formation
and evolution of Lutetia. In this respect, Lutetia stands out with
respect to all previously visited asteroids (except Vesta), for its
complex geological evolution. Therefore, the crater retention ages of
its units are important to set a timeline for this evolution.
Moreover, the study of the cratering process along with geological
assessment can be used to constrain the physical properties of the
target.\\
In this work, crater retention ages are derived in the framework of
the Model Production Function (MPF) chronology \citep{mar09}. With
this approach Lutetia's crater production function (i.e., the expected
number of craters per year per unit surface) is computed by modeling
its impactor flux and by using a crater scaling law in order to
compute the resulting crater population. The resulting crater MPF
gives the cumulative density of craters (per year) as a function of
the crater size.\\
In analogy with previous work, the impactor flux is characterized by
its size-frequency distribution and impact velocity distribution. The
impactor SFD is taken from the model population of main belt asteroids
of \cite{bot05a}. In this work, we will also consider a second
MBA population derived by the Sub-Kilometer Asteroid Diameter Survey
(SKADS) \citep[][ see Fig.~\ref{mba}]{gla09}. Using the
\cite{far92} algorithm, we computed that the intrinsic collision
probability between MBAs and Lutetia is
$P_i=4.21\cdot10^{-18}$~km$^{-2}$yr$^{-1}$. Note that this $P_i$
value is significantly higher that the average value for the main
belt, namely $2.86\cdot10^{-18}$~km$^{-2}$yr$^{-1}$. Using the same
algorithm, we also computed the Lutetia's impact velocity
distribution (see Figure~\ref{vel}).\\
Concerning the crater scaling law, we adopted a Pi-group scaling law
\citep{hol07}. These scaling laws allow us to estimate the size of a
crater given the dimension ($d$) and velocity ($v$) and density
($\delta$) of the impactor along with the density ($\rho$) and
strength ($Y$) of the target. In addition to these quantities, two
parameters ($\nu, \mu$) account for the nature of the terrains
(hard rock, cohesive soil, porous material). In this paper, we
investigate both hard rock and cohesive soils scaling laws, whose
parameters are $\nu=0.4, \mu=0.55$ and $\nu=0.4, \mu=0.41$,
respectively. We assume $Y=2\cdot10^8$~dyne/cm$^2$ for typical
hard rock and an impactor density of $\delta=2.6$~g/cm$^3$
\citep{mar10}. The bulk density of Lutetia is $\rho=3.4$~g/cm$^3$
\citep{sie11}. Values of density and strength for cohesive soils will
be given in Section~4. Further details about the crater scaling law
can be found in \cite{mar11}. Note that no correction for the
transient-to-final crater size has been applied, because the crater
modification stage is not likely to occur on Lutetia given its low
gravity.\\
Absolute ages can be computed by knowing the time dependence of the
impactor flux in the past. Unfortunately, such time-dependence is not
known for main belt asteroids. Two approaches can be used to overcome
such a limitation. First, one can assume that the present impact rate
for main belt asteroids remained constant over the age of the solar
system. This scenario requires a constant main belt population, where
no big modification (e.g., in its orbital architecture and total mass)
occured. However, it is known that the main belt was more massive in
the past and that during the early phases of the solar system it was
shaped by major events \citep[e.g.,][]{mor10}. However, these
processes have not yet been modeled with enough certainty and accuracy
to enable the determination of the time evolution of the impact rate.
An alternative approach is to refer to the lunar impactor flux, which
has been calibraterd on the basis of radiometric ages of lunar samples
\citep{neu94,mar09}. This scenario assumes that the impactor flux
variation experienced by the Moon also applies to main belt asteroids.
In reality, since the Moon is not embedded in the main belt, it is
likely that the Moon and MBAs had very different impact histories.
For instance, consider the case that the lunar impact cataclysm
between 4.1 and 3.8~Gy ago was due to a temporary destabilization of
the main belt that removed a part of its asteroids. Then the Moon
would have suffered an impact spike, while the impact rate in the
asteroid belt would have decreased (i.e., without impact spike) from
an initial higher but rougly constant value in the $4.5-4.1$~Ga
time-interval, to the current value. Thus, the time evolutions of the
impact rate on the Moon and in the asteroid belt would have been
totally different. On the other hand, in the case of a large cometary
contribution to the lunar cataclysm (i.e., from a source region
outside the main belt) these bodies would have produced an impact
spike on both the Moon and MBAs.\\
In the assumption that the evolution of the impact rate in the
asteroid belt and on the Moon was the same, and assuming that all
craters that are formed are retained on the surface, the crater MPF
function for an asteroid at a time $t$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
{\rm MPF}(D,t)={\rm MPF}(D,1{\rm yr})\cdot\frac{N_1(t)}{N_1(1{\rm yr})} \label{mpf_eq}
\end{equation}
where $D$ is the crater size and $N_1(t)$ expresses the lunar crater
cumulative number at 1~km as a function of time according to the
following equation:
\begin{equation}
N_1(t)=a(e^{bt}-1)+ct \label{chrono_eq}
\end{equation}
where $t$ is in Gyr ($t=0$ is the present time),
$a=1.23\times10^{-15}$, $b=7.85$, $c=1.30\times10^{-3}$
\citep{mar09}\footnote{The parameters $a,b,c$ for the lunar
chronology curve are determined by best fit of lunar calibration data
and their actual values may vary according to different authors
\cite[e.g.,][]{neu94}. However, the variation of the actual values
for $a,b,c$ has a negligible impact on the age determination. }.
Note that setting $a=0$ would correspond to the constant flux
scenario. The MPF($D,t$) is used to derive the model cratering age by
a best fit of the observed crater SFD that minimizes the reduced chi
squared value, $\chi_r^2$. Data points are weighted according to
their measurement errors. The formal errors on the best age
correspond to a 50\% increase of the $\chi_r^2$ around the minimum
value. Other sources of uncertainties are neglected \citep[see][for
more details]{mar11}.\\
Equation~\ref{mpf_eq} basically implies that MPF($D,t$) is obtained by
simply y-axis shifting MPF($D$,1yr) by a proper amount. It has been
shown by previous studies on asteroid cratering, however, that several
crater obliteration processes may be at work
\citep[e.g.,][]{obr06}. In the case that crater obliteration occurs,
the shape of the MPF changes over time and may reach a steady-state in
the case that crater saturation occurs (namely, the newly formed
craters erase previous ones leaving the overall crater spatial
density unchanged). In this paper, we take into account crater
obliteration processes as described in \cite{mar10}.\\
\section{Crater retention age estimates}
One important aspect of MPF methodology is that it depends on the
assumed properties of the target body \citep{mas09,mar11}. Therefore,
the analysis of crater SFDs on different terrains on the same body (or
different asteroids) should be done with caution, since changes in the
material properties may invalidate direct comparison \citep{mar11}.
Generally speaking, material properties are not known in detail,
however, in some cases, they can be constrained on the basis of
geomorphological and geological analysis. Therefore, whenever
possible, MPF chronology allows to derive cratering ages taking into
account explicitly the effect of the inferred material properties. In
this section we present the results of our MPF-based age estimate for
each unit investigated.\\
{\bf Achaia.} As described in the previous section, Achaia crater SFD
is characterized by a flexure point located at
$4<D<7$~km. Figure~\ref{achaia_mpf} reports the results of MPF best
fitting of the observed crater SFD. The left panel shows the best
fits obtained by using \cite{bot05a} population (P1 hereinafter) and
the crater scaling law for hard rock both with and without crater
obliteration. Concerning the crater obliteration process, we took into
account local regolith jolting and crater superposition and adopted
the same parameters used by \cite{obr06}. Global seismic effects and
cumulative seismic shaking have not been considered because of the
large size of Lutetia\footnote{ To see this, we rescaled the Ida's
global erasing curve from the Figure~4 of \cite{obr06} to Lutetia.
It results that a crater of about 100~km would be needed to
globally erase craters $\ge1$~km. This result also suggests that
it is unlikely that the formation of Massalia crater triggered
global surface reset.}. The present fits are achieved anchoring
the MPF to the large crater end of the crater SFD. The quality of the
fit is basically the same in the two scenarios, except for a slightly
older age in case of crater obliteration. These results clearly show
that P1 is not able to accurately reproduce the observed cratering. A
similar conclusion is reached also using the \cite{gla09} population
(P2 hereinafter). In particular, the observed flexure in the crater
SFD has no correspondence is either MBA populations. Indeed, the
impactor population is not known at the impactor size relevant for the
flexure ($\sim0.5-0.8$~km) and therefore it is possible that the real
main belt SFD may account for it. Nevertheless, the fact that such a
feature has not been observed on other large asteroids, like Ida and
Mathilde \citep{sie11}, makes this unlikely.\\
We have excluded that the flexure is due to the impactor flux, global
and local obliteration processes, and observational biases (see also
discussion in Section~2). A further possibility is that the flexure
is related to terrain properties. As shown for Mercury \citep{mar11},
the presence of a stratified target having fractured material at the
surface overlying a more competent interior would produce a crater SFD
showing a characteristic flexure. Such a flexure is the combined
result of i) adopting different material parameters for the fractured
layer and the competent interior and ii) using cohesive soil and hard
rock scaling laws for the two layers \citep{mar11}. The position of
the flexure is mainly determined by the thickness of the fractured
material, which can be chosen in order to produce a best fit of the
observed crater SFD. We investigated this possibility, by modeling a
transition in the Achaia properties, as done in \cite{mar11}. The
results are shown in Figure~\ref{achaia_mpf} (right panel). The P1
best fit is now improved, being in overall good agreement with the
crater SFD. The resulting age is $3.6\pm 0.1$~Ga, obtained for a
fractured layer depth of 3~km. It must be clear that the above
age derives from the lunar chronology (Equ.~\ref{mpf_eq}), whose
applicatibily to main belt asteroids is unclear. It is also
noteworthy that extrapolating the present main belt impact rate in
the past would lead to an age older than that of the solar system.
This suggests that the main belt experienced a heavy bombardment in
the past, although not necessarily with the time-dependence
described by equ.~\ref{mpf_eq}. The use of the lunar chronology
probably provides a lower bound to the real age, whereas the age
computed assuming a constant flux provides an upper bound (in this
case a trivial one).\\
The best fit presented in figure~\ref{achaia_mpf} shows a residual
mismatch for craters $0.6-2$~km (much above resolution limit), the
origin of which is unclear. Here we show that, using a shallower MBA
population -such as P2- would produce a better match of the observed
crater SFD. The resulting age is $3.7\pm 0.1$~Ga. Note, however,
even in the presence of a shallower population a stratified target is
needed in order to explain the flexure (Figure~\ref{achaia_mpf}, left
panel). It must be clear that the SKAD survey is valid down to an
absolute magnitude of $\sim18$ (corresponding to a size of 0.8~km for
a geometric albedo of 0.15). Such impactors would produce crater sizes
of the order of several km, therefore in our fit we extrapolated P2
slope outside its range of validity.\\
We also find that, independently of the MBA population used, the
Achaia crater SFD is not saturated. Indeed, at least with the
crater obliteration parameters adopted here, the saturation occurs
at an higher crater density than observed on Achaia. However, we
caution that this conlcusion depends on the not-well-known process of
crater obliteration. A more thorough analysis of this issue is
deferred to future work. \\
{\bf Baetica.} This unit is characterized by the presence of a
widespread regolith layer. The thickness of this layer is unknown,
although both crater and landslide morphologies have been used to
constrain its depth to be at least 100s of meters \citep{vin11}.
Therefore, it seems likely that all the craters (except maybe for the
few largest ones) detected in Bt1a formed in highly granular, cohesive
soils. As for the strength, reference values are from the lunar
regolith ($Y\sim3\cdot10^{4}$ at a depth of 3 meters) and terrestrial
alluvium ($Y\sim7\cdot10^{5}$). Here, we investigate strength values
ranging from $10^5$ to $10^7$~dyne/cm$^2$. We also take a density of
$2$~g/cm$^3$, typical of lunar regolith.\\
The resulting MPF best fit, using P1 population, is shown if
Fig.~\ref{bt1a_mpf}. The main conclusion is that Bt1a is very young,
ranging from $\sim4$ to $\sim50$~Ma, according to the value of the
strength used. The same figure also shows the best fit achieved with
P2. The quality of the fit is now much improved, given the SKADS'
shallower SFD slope. In this case the derived ages range from
$\sim50$ to $\sim220$~Ma. Note that the last age is in better
agreement with the boulder lifetime estimated for the central (and
youngest) unit of Baetica \citep{kue11}.\\
The overall wavy shape of the observed crater SFD is not accurately
reproduced by the MPFs. This may have several explanations, including
low crater statistics and a poor knowledge of the MBA SFD at these
small sizes. Note that it is also possible, given the large
topographical slopes present in this area, that small craters are not
well preserved (see Fig.~\ref{slopes}, lower panels).\\
{\bf Noricum and Narbonensis.} These two units present several
difficulties in their age assessment. Both crater SFDs are not well
fit by the MPFs, possibly because of errors in the crater size
measurements (Noricum) and poor statistics (Narbonensis). Some
constraints on the expected evolution of these units come for
geological analysis. First of all, it is clear from stratigraphical
arguments that Massalia crater formed later in time with respect to
both Achaia and Noricum \citep{mas11}. Therefore, the Narbonensis
unit is younger than Achaia and Noricum. Moreover, in the light of
the arguments discussed in previous sections, it appears difficult
that the formation of Massalia globally reset Lutetia's surface. This
conclusion is also in agreement with hydrocode simulations of Massalia
formation. Note that these simulations \citep{cre11} predict that the
Massialia event triggered the formation of a fractured layer generated
all over the surface of Lutetia. The actual damage of the fractured
layer depends on the resolution of the simulations, nevertheless it is
believed to be not sufficient to cause global resurfacing
(K. W\"unnemann pers. comm. on 27 June 2011)\footnote{ We also
acknowledge the fact that these conclusions are based on scaling
laws and simulations which depend on poorly constrained
parameters. Thus, it is possible -although unlikely- that the
formation of Massalia crater triggered major crater reset on nearby
regions.}.\\
If the above scenario is correct, then we expect that Noricum has
similar properties as Achaia. Figure~\ref{no_nb_mpf} (left panel)
shows the MPF best fit using a stratified target model and crater
obliteration. The best fit is achieved with a fractured layer depth of
1.3~km. The resulting Noricum age is $\sim3.4$ and $\sim3.7$~Ga for P1
and P2 respectively, which is consistent with being coeval with Achaia
(again, we point out that these ages are derived using the lunar
chronology). The relatively shallow layer of fractured material may
also be consistent with the complex topography of the units (possibly
reflecting a more competent near-surface interior).\\
Figure~\ref{no_nb_mpf} (right panel) shows the MPF best fit of
Narbonensis. In this case, the observed crater SFD does not show
evidences of a flexure, possibly due to the poor crater statistics,
that would suggest the presence of stratified terrains. Nevertheless,
according to \cite{cre11}, the interior of the Massalia crater is
expected to be fractured up to the depth of several km. Therefore, by
using the same crater scaling law and a fractured layer depth of
3.5~km (although larger depths are also possible), we obtain a best-fit
age of $\sim0.95$ and $\sim1.3$~Ga for population P1 and P2,
respectively. \\
This latter result is puzzling, since such a large crater is not
expected to be so young. Note that the inferred age is quite
insensitive to the adopted scaling law or impactor population. We
estimated that the impactor that formed Massalia was in the size range
7-9~km \citep{sie11}. The current frequency of such impacts is about
one every 9~Ga. The computed a priori probability that such an event
happened in the last $1$~Ga, is $\sim11\%$. On the other hand, knowing
that the Massalia event did happen within the last 4.5~Ga, the
probability that such event occurred in the last 1~Ga, is
$\sim25\%$. These numbers apply for the present main belt impact rate,
and thus certainly represent an upper limit because it is believed
that the impact rate in the primordial main belt was at least a factor
$\sim2-4$ more intense than today \citep{mor10}. This would imply
that Massalia event more likely happened early on rather than
recently. Thus, in conclusion, it is likely that other processes
may be responsible for a lack of craters within Narbonensis
\citep{mas11,nic11}.\\
As discussed in the previous section, this unit has relatively high
topographical slopes and episodes of slopes slumping may have induced
crater erasing (see Fig. \ref{slopes}, upper panels). The presence of
significant rims slumping is supported by the V-shaped topographical
profile of the crater \citep{pre11}. Comparing the observed profile
with a typical profile of a fresh crater \citep{cre11}, we derive that
several 100s~m of rim material may have been displaced toward the
center of the crater, which may be enough to explain the relatively
young age of this unit.
\section{Discussions and conclusions}
The main result of our crater retention age analysis is that it
confirms a prolonged and complex collisional evolution of Lutetia. As
shown for previous asteroids visited by spacecraft, collisions play a
major role in the evolution of any asteroid, being largely responsible
of their shapes, internal structure and geomorpohological
features. The latter play also an important role for the
understanding of surface specrophotometric properties.\\
All these collisional-related processes are well documented on
Lutetia, and can be used to constrain its evolution. The derived ages
of the main units of Lutetia show its active collisional history,
lasting for about 4~Ga. The extremely young Bt1a unit, with an
age of $<220$~Ma, indicates that major (collisional) events occurred
until very recent times. We also find evidence on the oldest Achaia
region -and possibly Noricum region-, of a non-uniform radial strength
profile, possibly due to the effects of previous collisions that
produced a highly fractured surface on top a competent interior. In
this respect, Lutetia resembles what has been found on other much
larger bodies like Mercury and the Moon \citep{mar11}. It is also
noteworthy that the observed cratering seems to be produced by a
population having a shallower cumulative slope than predicted by the
\cite{bot05a} model. The overall slope seems to be consistent with
recent observations \citep{gla09}, although our size range of
interest extends beyong their obsevational limits. This result, if
confirmed by further studies, will require a revision of the present
collisional models.\\
On the other hand, according to the present theories of main belt
evolution, Lutetia should be a primordial object \citep{bot05a}. This
is also confirmed by Lutetia's high density that makes it unlikely to
be a fragment of a larger body \citep{wei11}. This consideration is,
however, in contradiction with the derived crater retention ages.
Either the chronology scheme is not accurate, or some major event
occurred in Lutetia history to reset its surface.\\
Concerning the adopted lunar chronology, it likely underestimates
the real ages of main belt asteroids. Indeed, the exponential
increase of the lunar impactor flux for ages older than 3.5~Ga did
not likely take place in the main belt unless the main belt suffered
an intense cometary bombardment. In fact, in the current scenario of
main belt evolution during the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) at $\sim
3.9$~Ga, the main belt depleted by a factor of 2-4 at most
\citep{mor10}. On the other hand, the lunar chronology
(Equ.~\ref{chrono_eq}) predicts an increase in the impactor flux of
about a factor of $\sim5$ and $\sim40$ in the time spans
$3.5-3.9$~Ga and $3.5-4.2$~Ga, respectively. This steep
increase in the impactor flux results in too young crater
retention ages of asteroid surfaces. However, dynamical models of
the early evolution of the main belt are not yet robust enough to
successfully be used for precise age determination.\\
Concerning possible resetting event(s), the most energetic event that
we can infer is the formation of Massalia crater, which, according to
the previous discussion, was not able to reset the whole
surface. Unless this conclusion is affected by poorly constrained
parameters or other more energetic event(s) took place in the
Lutetia southern hemisphere (not imaged by OSIRIS), this option
appears untenable. \\
Lutetia's crater age conundrum still remains unsolved. Nevertheless,
we expect major improvements in our theoretical and observational
understandings of the main belt in the near future. In particular,
the Dawn mission arrived at Vesta, the second largest asteroid, in
July 2011. High resolution imaging of Vesta will help to constrain the
early impact history of the main belt and the evolution of its
primordial asteroids, Lutetia included.\\
{\bf Acknowledgments}
We thank the referee D.~O'Brien and an anonymous referee for helpful
comments which improved the manuscript.\\
OSIRIS was built by a
consortium of the Max-Planck-Institut f{\"u}r Sonnensystemforschung,
Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, CISAS - University of Padova, Italy, the
Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, France, the Instituto de
Astrofísica de Andalucia, CSIC, Granada, Spain, the Research and
Scientific Support Department of the European Space Agency, Noordwijk,
The Netherlands, the Instituto Nacional de Tecnica Aeroespacial,
Madrid, Spain, the Universidad Politechnica de Madrid, Spain, the
Department of Physics and Astronomy of Uppsala University, Sweden, and
the Institut f{\"u}r Datentechnik und Kommunikationsnetze der
Technischen Universit{\"a}t Braunschweig, Germany.
The support of the national funding agencies of Germany (DLR), France
(CNES), Italy (ASI), Spain (MEC), Sweden (SNSB), and the ESA Technical
Directorate is gratefully acknowledged.\\
We thank the Rosetta Science Operations Centre and the Rosetta Mission
Operations Centre for the successful flyby of (21) Lutetia.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
The M31 X-ray source RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115, named following \citet{supper97}, was originally identified as a black hole X-ray binary by \citet{barnard03}, after analyzing 4 XMM-Newton observations from 2000--2002. It apparently exhibited power density spectra (PDS) that were well described by a broken power law, with spectral index $\alpha$ changing from $\sim$0 to $\sim$1 at some break frequency; such a PDS is consistent with the low/hard states observed in all X-ray binaries, whether the accretor is a neutron star or black hole \citep[see e.g.][]{vdk94,wijnands99}. Neutron star X-ray binaries tend to exhibit such behaviour at luminosities around 10$^{36}$--10$^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$, yet RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 exhibited this variability at 0.3--10 keV luminosities of $\sim$1--3$\times 10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$. \citet{barnard03} concluded that RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 contained a black hole.
However, it was later discovered that these PDS and those reported by other groups were contaminated by artifacts caused by the XMM-Newton data reduction software \citep{barnard07}. The problem arose because all XMM-newton lightcurves start at the arrival time of the first photon by default; hence, source and background lightcurves, and lightcurves from the three EPIC detectors--- MOS1, MOS2, and pn--- are asynchronous by default. Combining these lightcurves (e.g. combining instruments, or background subtraction) often resulted in PDS with artificial broken power law shapes.
Therefore we make no use of the PDS and instead rely on our well established method of using low state emission spectra \citep[power law emission with photon index 1.4--1.7 and little to no thermal emission, ][]{mr06} at conspicuously high luminosities to identify black hole candidates \citep{barnard08, barnard09,barnard11b}. We present the most detailed justification of our selection criteria in \citet{barnard11b}.
In this paper we present our analysis of 84 Chandra ACIS observations of RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 over $\sim$12 years, and our serendipitous HST observation, along with our re-analysis of the 60 ks 2002 XMM-Newton observation. We use the HST data to place RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 in M31, and argue for a low mass donor. We use long-term and short-term variability, and also emission spectra, to reinstate RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 as a black hole candidate. We discuss the observations and data analysis in the next section, followed by our results in Section 3, and a discussion in Section 4.
\section{Observations and analysis}
We analyzed 84 Chandra ACIS observations of the central region of M31, spaced over $\sim$12 years, using CIAO version 4.3. For each observation we extracted 0.3--7.0 keV source and background spectra from circular regions with 10$''$ radius; the background region was close to the source region, and source free. Corresponding response matrices and ancillary response files were also made. We obtained 0.3--10 keV luminosities from each observation using XSPEC version 12.6.0.
Observations with $>$200 net source counts were freely fitted with absorbed power law models; spectra were grouped to give at least 20 counts per bin. For observations with $<$200 net source counts we assumed an absorbed power law model with $N_{\rm H}$ =1.0$\times$10$^{21}$ atom cm$^{-2}$ and $\Gamma$ = 1.5, and found the 0.3--10 keV luminosity equivalent to 1 count s$^{-1}$, then multiplied this conversion factor by the intensity; we chose this model because it approximates the best fit to our deepest Chandra observation of RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 in its low state. Luminosity uncertainties for freely fitted spectra are estimated by XSPEC by calculating a range of fluxes obtained by varying the emission parameters; the uncertainties for the faint spectra are derived directly from intensity uncertainties.
Additionally, we analyzed the 60 ks 2002 January XMM-Newton observation of M31 (Rev 381) with SAS version 10.0.0. We extracted 0.3--10 keV EPIC-pn lightcurves and spectra from circular source and background regions with 15$''$ radius. The background region was on the same CCD as the source region, and at a similar off-axis angle. The spectra were grouped to ensure a minimum of 50 counts per bin.
RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 was serendipitously observed in one of our HST ACS/WFC observations of M31 transients. Observation j9ud17010 was made on 2009 August 25, with the F435W filter for 4360 s. We registered a combined Chandra 0.3--7.0 keV image and the HST image to the same B band image provided by the Local Group Galaxy Survey \citep{massey06} using the IRAF task {\sc ccmap}; we used X-ray bright globular clusters to register the Chandra image, and bright, unsaturated stars to register the HST image. We determined the best X-ray position of RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 with the IRAF task {\sc imcentroid}. We used the IRAF package DAOPHOTII to perform photometry on the stars within 3$\sigma$ of the position of RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115.
\section{Results}
\subsection{The search for an optical counterpart}
The centroid of the X-ray emission from RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 was located at RA = 00:42:22.954, Dec = 41:15:35.23, with 1$\sigma$ uncertainties of 0.009$''$ in RA and 0.007$''$ in Dec. Combining this with the r.m.s. uncertainties in registration yields X-ray positional uncertainties of 0.09$''$ in RA and 0.19$''$ in Dec.
Figure~\ref{opt} shows a detail our HST image, superposed with an ellipse representing the 3$\sigma$ uncertainties in the position of RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115. There are several stars within the ellipse, the brightest of which has a Vega B magnitude of 25.4$\pm$0.2. We therefore constrain the B band magnitude to $\ga$24.8. We see no evidence for a background galaxy; the region is relatively uncrowded, as it is $\sim$4$'$ from the M31 bulge, and the detection limit is B $<$ 28. There is no evidence for a counterpart in the 2MASS All Sky Catalog \citep{skrutskie2006}, hence RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 cannot be associated with a late type star in our Galaxy. We conclude that it is located in M31.
The distance modulus for M31 $\sim$24.5, and we can estimate $A_{\rm B}$ by using the empirical relations $A_{\rm V}$ $\sim$ $N_{\rm H}$/1.8$\times 10^{21}$ atom cm $^{-2}$ \citep{predehl95}, and E(B-V) $\sim$ $A_{\rm V}$/3. The column density varied significantly between observations, hence the variable component was probably internal to the system. Since the donor is unlikely to suffer this extra absorption, we assume $N_{\rm H}$ = 1.0$\times$10$^{21}$ atom cm$^{-2}$ (see below), and $A_{\rm B}$ = 0.7. Therefore $M_{\rm B}$ $\ga$ $-$0.4.
The known counterparts of high mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) in the SMC have apparent V magnitudes in the range 13 $\la$ $m_{\rm V}$ $\la$ 18, and $B-V$ in the range $-0.32$ $\le$ B-V $\le$ 0.06 \citep[see e.g.][]{coe05,antoniou09}. For a distance of $\sim$60 kpc, this equates to $-$6 $\la$ $M_{\rm B}$ $\la$ $-1$, all brighter than our threshold of $M_{\rm B}$ $\ga$ $-$0.4.
The three known BH HMXBs are Cygnus X-1, LMC X-1 and LMC X-3. Cygnus X-1 has a counterpart with $M_{\rm V}$ = $-$6.5 \citep{walborn72} and B$-$V = 0.8 \citep{hiltner56}. The counterpart to LMC X-1 has magnitude V = 14.60$\pm$0.02 and B$-$V = 0.17$\pm$0.08 \citep{orosz09}; hence $M_{\rm B}$ $\sim$ $-$4.2 for a distance of 50 kpc. LMC X-3 has a B $\sim$ 17 counterpart \citep[see e.g.][]{brocksopp01}, and $M_{\rm B}$ $\sim$ $-$1.5; this is $\sim$8$\sigma$ brighter than the brightest star within the ellipse.
RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 is therefore most likely to be a low mass X-ray binary (LMXB).
\subsection{Time variability}
We present the $\sim$12 year 0.3--10 keV luminosity lightcurve of RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 created from the 84 ACIS observations in Fig.~\ref{acislc}; circles mark luminosities from freely-fitted bright spectra, while crosses represent faint spectra where we assume $N_{\rm H}$ = 1.0$\times$10$^{21}$ atom cm s$^{-2}$, and $\Gamma$ = 1.5. Uncertainties are quoted at a 1$\sigma$ level. The lightcurve is extremely variable, with the luminosity varying over $\sim$0.5--3$\times$10$^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$. We note that the spectral fits to all bright observations are consistent with a constant $\Gamma$, although $N_{\rm H}$ varied by a factor $\sim$5; the faint observations may be up to 40\% times brighter.
RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 appears to be persistently bright. By contrast, most Galactic black hole LMXBS are transient. One exception is GRS 1915+105; a 7 year RXTE/ASM lightcurve of GRS\thinspace 1915+105 showed it to be persistently bright \citep{mr06}. Another possible exception is GRS 1758-258; it is thought to be a Galactic LMXB, but its true nature is not confirmed due to the high degree of absorption \citep[see e.g.][ and references within]{munoz_arjonilla10}
We also examined the short term variability of RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 during the long XMM-Newton observation. We present the 0.3--10 keV EPIC-pn intensity lightcurve for RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 in Fig.~\ref{xmmlc}, along with the background lightcurve in grey for comparison. The intensity varies by a factor 2 (4$\sigma$ deviation) in $<$10 ks, hence the emission is dominated by a single source. The probability of RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 consisting of multiple bright variable sources is very low, especially since it is not associated with any globular cluster.
\subsection{Spectral analysis}
\subsubsection{ Chandra observation OBSID1575}
The longest ACIS observation of RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 was OBSID1575, an ACIS-S observation with a $\sim$40 ks exposure time; the net source spectrum contained 7690 photons. An on-axis source with this intensity would be in danger of pile-up; however, RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 was $\sim$4$'$ off-axis, and the photons were spread over a large number of pixels ($>$100). Each incoming photon is assessed by its impact on a 3x3 array of ACIS pixels ; ``good'' photons are detected in only 2 of the 9 pixels, while cosmic rays etc. are detected in 3 or more \citep{davis01}. We therefore estimated the probability of pile up from the brightest pair of pixels; this pair accumulated 807 photons over $\sim$38 ks, or one photon every $\sim$14 frames. Hence, we conclude that pile up is unlikely to have been significant.
The 0.3--7.0 keV spectrum of RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 during observation OBSID1575 is well described by an absorbed power law, with line-of-sight absorption $N_{\rm H}$ = 1.0$\pm$0.2$\times 10^{21}$ atom cm$^{-1}$ and photon index $\Gamma$ = 1.46$\pm$0.05; $\chi^2$/dof = 211/204. The 0.3--10 keV luminosity was 2.08$\pm$0.08$\times$10$^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Uncertainties are quoted at a 90\% confidence level. Figure~\ref{1575spec} shows the unfolded 0.3--7.0 keV spectrum multiplied by the channel energy, assuming the best fit absorbed power law model.
When a disk blackbody component was added to the power law emission, XSPEC set the inner disk temperature to 8.2$\times$10$^{-4}$ keV, with $N_{\rm H}$ = 1.0$\pm$0.2$\times 10^{21}$ atom cm$^{-1}$, and $\Gamma$ = 1.46$\pm$0.05; $\chi^2$/d.o.f = 211/202. Hence there is no trace of a disk component in the 0.3--7.0 keV spectrum. We therefore conclude that RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 was in its low state during this observation; since the theoretical upper luminosity limit for low states in neutron star X-ray binaries is $\sim$3$\times 10^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$ , RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 is a likely black hole candidate \citep[see e.g.][ and references within]{barnard11b}.
\subsubsection{XMM-Newton Rev 381}
The 0.3--10 keV EPIC-pn spectrum of RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 contained 21765 net source photons over $\sim$55 ks of live time, or $\sim$0.4 count s$^{-1}$. The detector was operated in Full Frame mode, with 73.4 ms frame time; hence, pile-up was negligible.
An absorbed power law model failed to fit the spectrum; the best fit model yielded $N_{\rm H}$ $\sim$1.5$\times$10$^{21}$ atom cm$^{-2}$ and $\Gamma$ $\sim$1.7, but $\chi^2/$dof = 412/348, with a null hypothesis probability of 0.011.
We also tried an absorbed disk blackbody model, since this is characteristic of the thermal high state identified in black hole binaries \citep[e.g.][]{mr06}. The best fit column density was a factor $\sim$3 lower than the Galactic line-of-sight density (6.7$\times$10$^{20}$ atom cm$^{-2}$), hence we fixed it to this value. This resulted in an inner disk temperature of 1.5 keV, but $\chi^2$/dof = 765/349 and a null hypothesis probability of 3$\times 10^{-33}$. Hence, RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 was clearly not in the thermal high state.
A disk blackbody + power law model described the spectrum very well, with $N_{\rm H}$ = 2.4$\pm$0.06$\times 10^{21}$ atom cm$^{-2}$, inner disk temperature k$T_{\rm in}$ = 2.24$\pm$0.15 keV, $\Gamma$ = 3.0$\pm$0.6, and $\chi^2$/dof = 343/346. Figure~\ref{xmmspec} shows the unfolded spectrum multiplied by channel energy, assuming the best fit model. The 0.3--10 keV luminosity was 2.41$\pm$0.05$\times$10$^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$, with the power law component contributing $\sim$45\%. Such a spectrum is consistent with the steep power law black hole binary state described by \citet{mr06}. The disc temperature is rather higher than usual, but consistent with
the Galactic black hole binary system GRS\thinspace 1915+105; \citet{mr06} provide a sample spectral fit for GRS\thinspace 1915+105 with k$T_{\rm in}$ = 2.19$\pm$0.04 keV and $\Gamma$ = 3.46$\pm$0.02.
Some authors have claimed that such a model is unphysical, because the power law component exceeds the thermal component at low energies; they argue that the observed soft excess is an artifact of the two component model \citep[see e.g.][]{roberts05, goncalves06}. These arguments assume a compact corona that can only access photons from the inner disk. However, there is substantial evidence for extended coronae in X-ray binaries at high luminosities; the ingress times of photo-electric absorption dips in high inclination binaries indicate coronae with diameters of $\sim$20,000--700,000 km \citep{church01,cbc04}, while broadened emission lines in Chandra observations of Cygnus X-2 suggest a hot, dense corona of up to $\sim$10$^{5}$ km \citep{schulz09}.
Such coronae would have access to the soft photons from the outer regions of the disc as well as the hot photons from the inner disc.
Indeed, fitting the spectrum with a more physically motivated model ({\sc diskbb + comptt} in XSPEC) yielded the same values for $N_{\rm H}$ and k$T_{\rm in}$ as the disk blackbody + power law model, along with a seed photon temperature of $\sim$0.02 keV, an electron temperature of $\sim$40 keV and an optical depth $\sim$0.2; $\chi^2$/dof = 343/344; the electron temperature was unconstrained, and good fits were obtained for electron temperatures of 100 keV and 300 keV also, typical for the BH low state. Tying the seed photon temperature to k$T_{\rm in}$ resulted in an unacceptable fit: $\chi^2$/dof $\ge$ 453/346 (null hypothesis probability $< 1\times 10^{-4}$). These results are entirely consistent with an extended, optically thin corona, and reject a compact corona that only sees the innermost region of the disk.
\section{Discussion}
Although the original evidence for RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 being a black hole binary was contaminated by artifacts in the XMM-Newton data reduction software, we now have new evidence that it is indeed a black hole candidate.
Our constraint on the B magnitude (M$_{\rm B}$ $>$ 24.8 at the 3$\sigma$ level) is extremely useful for interpreting the system. RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 is clearly not located in our galaxy, and there is no background galaxy with B $\la$ 28; hence we locate RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 in M31. The 3$\sigma$ upper limit to $M_{\rm B}$ = $-$0.4, meaning that a low mass donor is most likely.
We have observed two distinct spectral states from this system, consistent with the low/hard and steep power law black hole states. The low state was observed at a 0.3--10 keV luminosity of 2.08$\pm$0.08$\times 10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$, while the steep power law state was observed at 2.41$\pm$0.05$\times 10^{31}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Since transitions from the low state occur at $L$ $\la $0.1 $L_{\rm Edd}$ in the 0.01--1000 keV band for NS systems \citep{glad07}, and in the 15--50 keV band for neutron star and black hole systems \citep{tang11}, we suggest that RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 was near 0.1 $L_{\rm Edd}$ during Chandra observation 1575. Such a system would require a $\sim$20 M$_{\odot}$ black hole; this is larger than for any Galactic black hole binary, but smaller than the dynamically confirmed black hole in IC10 X-1, which has a best mass estimate of 32.7$\pm$2.6 $M_{\odot}$, and a lower limit of 23.1$\pm$2.1 $M_{\odot}$ \citep{silverman08}.
RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 has been persistently bright for the last $\sim$12 years; this is quite unlike the transient behaviour of most Galactic black hole LMXBs. The only known persistently bright black hole LMXB is GRS\thinspace 1915+105, which has remained bright since its discovery in 1992 \citep{mcclintock06}. The X-ray behavior of GRS\thinspace 1915+105 is unmatched by any Galactic black hole binary, and may be explained by the primary spinning in the same direction as the accretion disk at extreme speeds \citep[$>$98\% of the maximum][]{mcclintock06}. Such prograde spinning allows the last stable orbit to be significantly closer to the black hole than for a non-spinning black hole, resulting in a higher disk luminosity and also a higher k$T_{\rm in}$ \citep{zhang97}.
The inner disk temperature for RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 in the steep power law state (2.24$\pm$0.15 keV) was remarkably similar to that of GRS\thinspace 1915+105 \citep[2.19$\pm$0.04 keV for an example spectrum,][]{mr06}. Hence, the persistent X-ray emission from RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115 may also be due to extreme prograde spin. However, we note that 5 out of the 6 black hole candidates that we have associated with M31 globular clusters are persistent also \citep{barnard08,barnard09,barnard11b}; such systems are consistent with theoretical predictions for tidal capture of main sequence donor stars \citep{kalogera04}, or ultra-compact systems with degenerate donors \citep{ivanova10}. Therefore, several mechanisms can promote persistently bright black hole binaries.
Finally we note that compact corona models where the seed photon energy is tied to the inner disk temperature were all rejected by the XMM-Newton Rev 381 spectrum of RX\thinspace J0042.3+4115. However, free fitting of the seed photon energy yielded a good fit at 0.02 keV; this result gives strong support for an extended corona in the intermediate/steep power law state, which is able to access the cooler photons in the outer disc. We drew the same conclusions for the confirmed black hole + Wolf-Rayet binary IC10 X-1 \citep{barnard10}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank the anonymous referee for thoughtful comments that significantly improved this paper. We also thank Z. Li for providing the merged ACIS image. This research has made use of data obtained from the Chandra data archive, and software provided by the Chandra X-ray Center (CXC). This work also used an observation from XMM-Newton, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA member states and the US (NASA). Furthermore, this work has used data from the Hubble Legacy Archive.
R.B. is funded by Chandra grant GO9-0100X and HST grant GO-11013. M.R.G. and S.S.M. are both partially supported by NASA grant NAS8-03060.
{\it Facilities:} \facility{CXO (ACIS)} \facility{HST (ACS)} \facility{XMM-Newton (EPIC-pn)}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Billions of astronomical objects are detected in large astronomical surveys, for which thousands of properties are quantified.
The classical way to handle catalog data produced by large surveys, is to create a static relational database with a direct interface to the user.
This classical approach has several conceptual drawbacks.
The catalogs are published in releases as is; there is very limited flexibility in the derivation of the data.
Redoing part of the data reduction entails downloading a large part of the original data and reprocessing it offline.
Scientists require knowledge about the internal representation of the data to access it.
Examples of such an approach are the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) \citep{2002cs........2013S,2002cs........2014G} and the WFCAM Science Archive \citep{2008MNRAS.384..637H}.
It is possible to create user-defined tables in the `CasJobs' service\footnote{\url{http://casjobs.sdss.org/CasJobs/}} of SDSS.
These are of a limited size and there is no facility to reprocess the data.
This is an inherently \textit{pushing} or \textit{forward chaining} approach, that is, scientists create derived catalogs in a stepwise fashion---starting from the released catalogs---until they reach their required end product.
The used database queries are stored within the tables, but there is no conceptual information about what the data in the catalogs represent.
This paper discusses the design of novel mechanisms to handle such large catalogs in {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace through request driven processing.
That is, scientists request their required end product, and the information system autonomously determines the best way to provide this catalog.
We achieve a high level of automation and implicit scalability, while enhancing flexibility in processing and sharing of data.
This is done by using an object oriented data model that focuses on storing information about processing; storing the catalog data itself is of secondary importance.
\subsection{{\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace}
\label{sec:proctargetintro}
The {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace consortium has designed a new paradigm
and has implemented a fully scalable information system to overcome the huge information avalanche produced by wide-field astronomical surveys \citep{Mwebaze:2009:ATU:1683300.1683752, awpipeline}.
This is achieved by capturing in a generic way the reality of end-to-end survey operations into a conceptual data model which is translated into hierarchical classes.
The model maps all links between dependencies:
objects are stored in the database, which links all data products to their dependencies.
This creates a \textit{dependency graph} with the \textit{full data lineage} of the entire processing chain.
{\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace uses the advantages of Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) to process data in the simplest and most powerful ways.
In essence, it turns the objects that represent conventional astronomical science products, into OOP objects, called \textit{process targets\xspace}.
Every individual science product, such as frame or catalog, is an instantiation of a specific process target\xspace class.
Each of these process target\xspace instances knows how to process itself to create the data product it represents.
Each process target\xspace has associated \textit{processing parameters}, which are configurable parameters that guide the processing of that target.
The most unique aspect of {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace is its ability to process data based on the final desired result to an arbitrary depth.
This data pulling is the heart of {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace and is called \textit{target processing}.
Contrary to the typical case of forward chaining such as in the SDSS CasJobs service, the {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace database links allow the dependency chain to be examined from the intended \textit{process target\xspace} all the way back to the raw data.
A target's dependencies are checked to see if it is \textit{up-to-date}: if there is a newer dependency or if the target does not exist, the target is (re)created.
\subsection{A Functional Approach to Catalogs as Process Targets\xspace}
\label{sec:introcontributionssc}
Target processing has been incorporated in the image reduction part of the {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace\ information system since its inception \citep{Mwebaze:2009:ATU:1683300.1683752}.
Originally, only a few classes were available in {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace to handle catalog data, of which the SourceList is the most prominent.
The SourceList is primarily used to create catalogs with attributes derived from images and has limited functionality for creating new catalogs from existing catalogs.
In particular such derived catalogs do not have full data lineage and can therefore not be pulled.
Furthermore they can require large amounts of duplication of catalog data, leading to scalability problems.
This paper describes how data lineage and data pulling mechanisms are extended to cover astronomical catalogs with the design of process target\xspace classes---which we call \textit{Source Collections\xspace}---for catalog data.
A Source Collection\xspace instance represents a collection of sources (astronomical objects) with attributes (or parameters) that quantify physical properties.
There are separate process target\xspace classes for different operations to create and manipulate catalogs (\refsec{sec:operatorsummary}).
The Source Collection\xspace classes take data pulling mechanisms to a higher level than is necessary for images; in particular it is not required to store the catalog data that a Source Collection\xspace represents in its entirety.
The full data lineage allows any target to be processed at any time for any reason, since the process parameters unambiguously define how to do so.
Ultimately, this means that it is not necessary to process a target completely, or at all.
In a sense, this turns the Object-Oriented approach into a Functional one:
A process target\xspace can also be seen as a representation of the operation that is used derive the science product, in addition to seeing it as a representation of the result itself.
The actual processing of the object and storing the result is then optional.
These two viewpoints are equivalent and interchangeable and the contributions in this work stem from this dual perspective:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We allow Source Collections\xspace to be created---and used as a dependency for other process targets\xspace---by specifying their data lineage, without requiring them to be processed, unlike other process targets\xspace in {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace.
\item \begin{sloppypar}Dependency graphs of Source Collections\xspace are created automatically through data pulling.
These mechanisms create new Source Collections\xspace in a way that maximizes their reusability for future data pulling requests.\end{sloppypar}
\item We present a novel way to process only the part of a Source Collection\xspace that is required for the last process target\xspace in a dependency graph.
This is done by using the power of backward chaining to temporarily optimize the dependency graph.
\item We use a novel algorithm (\citet{setrelationspaper}, hereafter Paper II) to infer the logical relationships between catalogs from their data lineage directly.
This is required because the exact set of sources that a catalog represents might not be evaluated.
This algorithm is used to find Source Collections\xspace and for the optimization of dependency graphs.
\item The methods to calculate new attributes from existing attributes are decoupled from their application.
This offers scientists flexibility in implementing their own methods while reinforcing the principles of data pulling.
\item The catalog objects and data pulling mechanisms are designed to be used in query driven visualization \citep{qdvpaper}.
The high level of automation allows the data pulling to be abstracted, which implicitly minimizes the processing required to create the visualized datasets.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Outline}
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows.
The Source Collection\xspace concept is introduced and demonstrated with an example in \refsec{sec:introducingsourcecollections}.
This is followed by a short description of the different Source Collection\xspace classes that are implemented in {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace in \refsec{sec:ssoperators} and a discussion about storing Source Collections\xspace and the catalog data they represent in \refsec{sec:sckeystorelineage}.
Subsequently the concept of \textit{dependency graphs} is explained in \refsec{sec:dependencygraphs} and their automatic creation through data pulling in \refsec{sec:scpullingdata}.
The optimization of dependency graphs is discussed in \refsec{sec:sctreemodifications} and their processing in \refsec{sec:scprocessingandstoring}.
A summary and conclusion is provided in \refsec{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Introducing Source Collections\xspace}
\label{sec:introducingsourcecollections}
A Source Collection\xspace is an {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace process target\xspace (\refsec{sec:proctargetintro}) for the handling of astronomical catalogs.
These catalogs consist of sets of sources and attributes that quantify properties of the sources.
The exact set of sources and the values of the attributes is determined by processing a Source Collection\xspace.
When we refer to \textit{catalog data}, we mean this processing result.
A Source Collection\xspace can also be seen as a representation of the action required to derive the catalog data, since a Source Collection\xspace can be created without being processed.
We refer to this action in a conceptual sense as the \textit{operator} of a Source Collection\xspace and define separate process target\xspace classes for different operations on catalogs (\refsec{sec:operatorsummary}).
Every source in a Source Collection\xspace has a unique identifier and two Source Collections\xspace are considered to represent the same sources if and only if the identifiers of their sources are identical.
A source itself can be seen as an object in the computer science reading of the term.
A parametrized property of a source can then be seen as an attribute of such an object.
We will use the term \textit{attribute} instead of \textit{parameter}, which originates from this object oriented approach.
Attributes quantify physical properties of the sources in a Source Collection\xspace and the set of attributes forms the Source Collection\xspace dimensions.
The label of an attribute only describes what physical property is represented by the attribute.
This labeling could be standardized, for example with Unified Content Descriptors; for the scope of this paper we will refer to attributes by their name only.
Every Source Collection\xspace instance is linked to its dependencies, forming a dependency graph all the way to the raw data.
Dependencies of a Source Collection\xspace that are Source Collections\xspace themselves are also called its \textit{parents}, because the catalog represented by the Source Collection\xspace is derived from them.
Such a dependency graph can be visualized as interconnected nodes.
In the figures in this paper, the dependencies of a process target\xspace are shown above it.
Therefore the data processing runs from top to bottom and the data lineage from bottom to top.
Such a dependency graph can conceptually be extended in both directions.
The top nodes will contain photometric attributes and can be connected to nodes representing frames that were used to measure these attributes.
The bottom nodes can be connected to nodes representing hypothetical process targets\xspace for graphs or other analysis products.
\subsection{Source Collection\xspace Example}
\label{sec:scexample}
We demonstrate the Source Collection\xspace concept with a simplified example of data pulling.
We assume the existence of a Source Collection\xspace (labeled $A$, \reffig{fig:scintroexample}) that contains apparent magnitudes and redshifts for a large set of galaxies.
A scientist pulls a dataset with both absolute and apparent magnitudes for nearby galaxies.
First, the scientist formulates a data pulling request (\reffig{fig:scintroexample}) in which three pieces of information are specified:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item The data set from which the sources should be selected: Source Collection\xspace $A$.
\item The selection criterion for the sources: a redshift below 0.1.
\item The required attributes: absolute and apparent magnitudes.
\end{itemize}
\noindent Subsequently, the information system creates the required Source Collections\xspace (\reffig{fig:scintreexamplepers}):
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item Source Collection\xspace $B$ is created to select all sources that match the given selection criterion.
\item The information system determines that no absolute magnitudes have been defined for these sources and it creates Source Collection\xspace $C$ to calculate absolute magnitudes from apparent magnitudes.
\item The information system determines that the calculation can be performed on all sources in Source Collection\xspace $A$.
Therefore, it optimizes for generality and uses Source Collection\xspace $A$ as dependency for Source Collection\xspace $C$, instead of $B$.
The Source Collection\xspace is not yet processed at this stage.
\item Source Collection\xspace $D$ and $E$ are created to combine the attributes represented by different Source Collections\xspace and select the required ones.
\end{itemize}
\noindent Finally, the created dependency graph is optimized and processed (\reffig{fig:scintreexampletrans}):
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item The information system creates a temporary copy of the dependency graph in order to optimize it for scalability to fulfill the request as quickly as possible.
\item It reorganizes the dependency graph to minimize the required processing by placing the selection of sources before the calculation of absolute magnitudes.
\item The information system retrieves the data of Source Collection\xspace $b$ and uses this to process Source Collection\xspace $c$ completely.
The calculated attributes will be stored for future requests as part of Source Collection\xspace $C$, because they cannot be derived on the fly.
\item The other Source Collections\xspace are processed on the fly while retrieving the catalog data of Source Collection\xspace $e$.
The catalog data is subsequently returned to the scientist.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\subfloat[Primitive]
{\label{figscintroexampleprimitive}\includegraphics[height=0.16\linewidth]{scexampleprimitive}}
\subfloat[Example]
{\label{figscintroexamplesc}\includegraphics[height=0.16\linewidth]{scexampleAonly}}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\subfloat[A scientist pulling data from the information system.]
{\label{figscintroexampleman}\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{scintrofigtopright}}
\caption{
(a) A Source Collection\xspace primitive, (b) a representation of a Source Collection\xspace used in the example and (c) the scientist formulating a data pulling request.
The following elements can be seen in the Source Collection\xspace representation:
Top left: a unique identifier of this Source Collection\xspace.
Top right: the operator of the Source Collection\xspace.
The second row represents the process parameters, if any.
The next row describes the sources of the Source Collection\xspace.
The number on the right is the number of sources and the letter between parenthesis represents the exact set of sources.
Source Collection\xspace with the same symbol represent the exact same set of sources; different symbols might represent different sets.
At the bottom: the names of the attributes that are represented by this Source Collection\xspace; in this case celestial coordinates, an apparent magnitude in the $u$ band and a redshift.
}
\label{fig:scintroexample}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\subfloat[Persistently Stored Source Collections\xspace]{\label{fig:scintreexamplepers}\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{scexampleA}}
\subfloat[Transient Source Collections\xspace used for Processing]{\label{fig:scintreexampletrans}\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{scexampleB}}
\caption{Two dependency graphs of Source Collection\xspace, generated by the information system. Every box represents a Source Collection\xspace.
The Source Collections\xspace on the left are persistently stored, where the Attribute Calculator\xspace\ is defined as general as applicable, to facilitate reuse.
The Source Collections\xspace on the right are temporary and transient, where the Attribute Calculator\xspace\ is defined as specific as possible, to minimize the required processing.}
\label{fig:scintroexample2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Key Features in Example}
\label{sec:scfeaturesexample}
The example in section \ref{sec:scexample} highlights the key aspects of the Source Collection\xspace:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item Catalog data is pulled and new Source Collections\xspace are created to compute attributes that do not yet exist (section \ref{sec:scpullingdata}).
\item The final catalog has full data lineage: any attribute value can be recalculated and the selection criterion is stored (\refsec{sec:sckeystorelineage}).
\item Calculations are defined to be as general as applicable. Source Collection\xspace $C$ can be reused if at a later stage absolute magnitudes are requested for another subset of Source Collection\xspace $A$
(section \ref{sec:scpullingdata}).
\item The information system reorganizes the order of the Source Collections\xspace to prevent the calculation of unnecessary data (\refsec{sec:sctreemodifications}).
The algorithm to determine logical relationships between sets of sources of Paper II\xspace is used for more complex dependency graphs.
\item Source Collection\xspace $C$ is processed partially by processing its smaller copy $c$ entirely and sharing the result (sections \ref{sec:sckeystorelineage}, \ref{sec:sctreemodifications}).
\item The calculation of the absolute magnitudes can be performed on the workstation of the scientist or on a distributed computing cluster, while the selection of data can be performed on the database (\refsec{sec:processingscs}).
\end{itemize}
\section{Source Collection\xspace Classes: Elementary Operations on Catalogs}
\label{sec:operations}
\label{sec:ssoperators}
\label{sec:sckeyoperators}
Many of the novel features of the Source Collections\xspace originate from the ability of the information system to assess aspects of the catalogs by inspecting only the data lineage.
This is achieved by having a predefined set of operations that can be used to process a Source Collection\xspace.
Separate process target\xspace classes are designed for the different operations.
We use the term \textit{operator} to refer to the action required to create the catalog data.
These operators are designed to be as elementary as possible in order to maximize the information that can be inferred from the data lineage directly.
Therefore, there are no Source Collection\xspace operators that are entirely user-defined.
However, the behavior of Source Collections\xspace can be influenced by setting the process parameters.
For example, we do define an operator to calculate new attributes of sources from existing attributes (\refsec{sec:sckeycalculator}).
This allows scientist to specify their own calculation method as a process parameter.
There are two main effects of the elementary operators:
firstly, they allow the information system to determine whether a Source Collection\xspace can be used in the construction of a dependency graph (section \ref{sec:scpullingdata}).
Secondly, they allow efficient reorganization of the dependency graph, e.g. for partial processing (section \ref{sec:sctreemodifications}).
Most operators we define are modeled after relation operations \citep{Codd:1970:RMD:362384.362685} to allow them to be evaluated on the {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace database.
In essence, we extend SQL commands to target processing, although this is not directly our goal.
The important aspect in the design of the operators is maximizing the information that can be inferred from the data lineage.
Not all operators we describe can be evaluated on SQL and vice versa, most operators can be evaluated in the {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace Python\xspace environment as well.
\subsection{List of classes}
\label{sec:operatorsummary}
We summarize the operators that are most important for our research:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item \textbf{Select Attributes\xspace}: Selects a subset of attributes from a parent Source Collection\xspace.
\item \textbf{Concatenate Attributes\xspace}: Combines the different attributes from several parent Source Collections\xspace that represent the same sources.
\item \textbf{Rename Attributes\xspace}: Renames attributes of a parent Source Collection\xspace.
\item \textbf{Filter Sources\xspace}: Selects a subset of sources from a parent Source Collection\xspace by evaluating a selection criterion.
\item \textbf{Select Sour\-ces\xspace}: Selects a subset of sources from a parent Source Collection\xspace by listing the required sources explicitly.
\item \textbf{Con\-ca\-te\-na\-te Sour\-ces\xspace}: Combines the different sources of several parent Source Collections\xspace that represent the same attributes.
\item \textbf{Relabel Sources\xspace}: Changes the source identifiers of a parent Source Collection\xspace.
\item \textbf{Attribute Calculator\xspace}: Calculates new attributes from existing attributes for the sources in a parent Source Collection\xspace (\refsec{sec:sckeycalculator}).
\item \textbf{External\xspace}: Represents a catalog without data lineage.
\item \textbf{Pass\xspace}: Represents the exact same catalog as its parent.
\item \textbf{SourceList Wrapper\xspace}: A special Source Collection\xspace to use the {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace SourceList class as a Source Collection\xspace. The SourceList class is used to detect sources from images and measure photometric and related attributes.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Generic Operator for Attribute Calculation}
\label{sec:sckeycalculator}
A special Source Collection\xspace class is designed for the calculation of new attributes of sources from existing attributes.
The calculation performed by a Source Collection\xspace of this class, is decoupled from the definition of the class and is stored as another persistent object, which can be created by scientists themselves.
This auxiliary object is called an \textit{Attribute Calculator Definition\xspace} and contains both information about how to perform the calculation as well as information about the calculation itself: which attributes are calculated, which attributes are required and which process parameters can be set.
This allows the information system to discover attribute derivation methods in order to instantiate Source Collections\xspace to calculate these attributes for a requested set of sources.
This offers scientists flexibility in implementing their own methods while reinforcing the principles of data pulling.
Multiple Attribute Calculator Definitions\xspace might exist for the calculation of the same attribute, for example through different methods or different versions of the same method.
{\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace has functionality to indicate that stored objects should not be used anymore by invalidating them, for example when a newer version of the object exist.
This is used within the Source Collections\xspace to indicate that newer versions of Attribute Calculator Definitions\xspace exist.
This allows existing functionality to be used for ensuring that catalogs are always created with the latest method and that out-dated catalogs are flagged for possible recreation.
\section{Storing Data Lineage instead of Tables}
\label{sec:sckeystorelineage}
SourceCollections can be created and stored by specifying their data lineage only; it is not required to process them.
That is, the actual determination of the exact composition of sources in a catalog, and the calculation of the values of their attributes, is delayed as long as possible.
Furthermore, the result of the processing is stored only if necessary for performance reasons and the results can be shared between Source Collections\xspace.
We summarize the benefits of this approach:
\begin{itemize}
\item Different Source Collection\xspace can represent partially identical catalogs without any duplication of stored data.
\item The processing of intermediate Source Collection\xspace can be limited to those subsets that are required for the end node of a dependency graph.
Source Collections\xspace can therefore be created with arbitrary sizes without performance penalties.
This ensures maximum reusability of the created Source Collections\xspace.
\item No results have to be stored at all for Source Collections\xspace that can be processed on the fly.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Source Collection\xspace Persistent Properties}
\label{sec:definitionofsc}
The \textit{persistent properties} of a process target\xspace are the properties of the object that are stored in a database.
These properties can be grouped in the following types, a categorization that is especially important for Source Collections\xspace:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item \textbf{Data Lineage}: Properties that define the catalog that is represented by the Source Collection\xspace.
These are dependencies and process parameters.
Dependencies are other process targets\xspace from which the catalog represented by this Source Collection\xspace is derived, often Source Collections\xspace as well.
Process parameters that influence the processing as defined by the class of the Source Collection\xspace.
The dependencies and process parameters together unambiguously define the catalog that the Source Collection\xspace represents.
\item \textbf{Processing Results}: Results of processing the Source Collection\xspace, detailed in section \ref{sec:processingresults}.
\item \textbf{Other Properties}: Properties that do not refer directly to the processing or the processing results.
These include identifiers of the object, a human readable name of the Source Collection\xspace, a reference to its creator, status of the processing, etc. Some of these can be specified by the user, others are set automatically by the information system.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Processing Results}
\label{sec:processingresults}
The result of processing a process target\xspace instance (\refsec{sec:proctargetintro}) can be stored persistently.
The processing results of image classes are primarily the values of the pixels of the image, which in {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace are stored as FITS files on the dataserver.
For Source Collections\xspace the primary result is the catalog data it represents, which in {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace is stored in the database.
The Source Collection\xspace classes are designed to allow partial processing of objects, for example because only a part of the catalog data is required at a specific moment.
The processing results are split up in distinct components in order to achieve this.
These components can, in principle, be processed separately.
The following results can be distinguished:
\begin{itemize}
\item The catalog the Source Collection\xspace represents: the values of all the attributes for all the sources. This is the primary processing result and can be decomposed in the partial results that follow.
\item A partial catalog: the values of the attributes for a subset of the sources or attributes.
\item The set of sources the Source Collection\xspace represents, which can be seen as a list of identifiers of the sources. This can be further split up into the number of sources, or an identification of the set without actually enumerating all the sources individually.
\item The set of attributes of the sources. That is, which physical properties the Source Collection\xspace represents, not the actual values of the attributes.
\end{itemize}
To process a Source Collection\xspace partially, a new process target\xspace is created that only represents the required component, which is subsequently processed in its entirety.
Such a component is either stored in its entirety or not at all, and can be shared between Source Collections\xspace.
The sharing of processing results leads to multiple paths to the same stored data.
The dependency graphs representing these different paths are only created automatically by the information system through modifications of existing dependency graphs (\refsec{sec:graphmodification}).
The information system ensures that the different paths are equivalent by only performing modifications where this is guaranteed.
\section{Source Collection\xspace Dependency Graphs}
\label{sec:dependencygraphs}
A Source Collection\xspace represents a catalog that is derived from its dependencies, which again have dependencies themselves.
These dependencies chain a Source Collection\xspace back to the raw data and form a graph of process targets\xspace.
The term \textit{dependency graph} is used to refer to this complete set of dependencies of a Source Collection\xspace.
These graphs are \textit{directed acyclic graphs}, or \textit{acyclic digraphs}, because there are no cyclic dependencies \citep{Thulasiraman92}.
In the figures depicting dependency graphs in this paper, the dependencies of a Source Collection\xspace are shown above it.
Therefore the data processing runs from top to bottom and the data lineage from bottom to top.
There are no arrows on the shown edges, because the preferred direction is dependent on context.
This paper only treats the part of such a dependency graph that considers Source Collections\xspace.
\subsection{Modifications of Dependency Graphs}
\label{sec:graphmodification}
The information system can modify dependency graphs of Source Collections\xspace, e.g. while constructing new ones or when optimizing existing ones as discussed in the next sections.
All modification steps in the following algorithms are performed by replacing a Source Collection\xspace with another one.
There are two ways to do this:
\begin{itemize}
\item Replacing a Source Collection\xspace with another one that represents the exact same catalog. This is the only mechanism that is used in the dependency graph optimization (section \ref{sec:sctreemodifications}).
\item Replacing a Source Collection\xspace with one that represents a different catalog. This is only performed during the creation of new dependency graphs (section \ref{sec:sctreemodifications}) and only on dependencies of the Pass\xspace Source Collections\xspace at the end of the graph.
\end{itemize}
The individual modifications themselves are designed in a way that separates the knowledge of \textit{how} to perform a modification and \textit{why} to do so.
How to perform a modification is part of the definition of the Source Collection\xspace classes.
Whether a specific modification should be applied is the responsibility of the part of the information system that governs the entire dependency graph.
Therefore, all modifications are between a Source Collection\xspace and its direct dependencies, because an individual Source Collection\xspace has no knowledge of other objects.
A specific kind of modifying a dependency graph is `moving' Source Collections\xspace through the graph.
The way this should be interpreted---in simplified form---is that copies of a Source Collection\xspace and its parent are created, but with their dependencies swapped.
The original Source Collection\xspace is then replaced by these copies.
As a result, Source Collections\xspace can only be moved `up' the graph.
To move a Source Collection\xspace down, the Source Collection\xspace with that Source Collection\xspace as a parent should be moved up.
Some modifications can only be performed if the relationship between the sets of sources of the involved Source Collections\xspace is known.
The information system uses the algorithm of Paper II\xspace to provide this information to the individual Source Collections\xspace.
\section{Pulling Catalogs}
\label{sec:scpullingdata}
The `pushing' way to use catalogs such as represented by the Source Collections\xspace is to define the catalog, process and store it, and then request subsets of the catalog.
This order is changed with target processing \citep{Mwebaze:2009:ATU:1683300.1683752}.
Source Collections\xspace are primarily created automatically by pulling data, which means that the evaluation of processing starts at the end of the chain by requesting the final catalog that is required.
The information system will autonomously create a dependency graph of Source Collection\xspace which ends with a Source Collection\xspace that represents the requested catalog (Algorithm \ref{algo:pullcatalogtree}).
There are two main goals of the data pulling mechanisms with respect to the creation of the dependency graph:
Firstly, they ensure that existing Source Collections\xspace will be reused as much as possible and secondly, new Source Collections\xspace are created in a way that maximizes their reusability.
\subsection{Data Pulling: Formulating a Request}
The pulling of data starts with a request for a specific dataset.
In our research we have limited such requests to three pieces of information:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item A starting Source Collection\xspace from which a selection is made.
\item A list of required attributes, not necessarily represented by the starting Source Collection\xspace.
\item Optionally, a selection criterion for the sources.
\end{itemize}
\begin{algorithm}[hbtp]
\caption{Creating Target Dependency Graph}
\label{algo:pullcatalogtree}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Receive and parse a request for catalog data.
\STATE Instantiate the starting Source Collection\xspace.
\STATE Create a Select Attributes\xspace that selects an empty attribute list from this Source Collection\xspace.
\STATE Create a Pass\xspace Source Collection\xspace with the Select Attributes\xspace as parent.
\IF{a selection criterion is specified}
\STATE Select the right sources (Algorithm \ref{algo:pullcatalogselect}).
\ENDIF
\FORALL{requested attributes}
\STATE Add the attribute to the Pass\xspace Source Collection\xspace (Algorithm \ref{algo:pullcatalogaddattribute}).
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection[Derivation Preferences]{Data Pulling: Derivation Preferences}
The information system will use existing and newly created Source Collections\xspace to create a dependency graph which ends with a Source Collection\xspace representing the requested catalog.
The information system is able to autonomously decide how to proceed if there are multiple Source Collections\xspace that can be used to fulfill a particular dependency.
This is done by applying a ranking function to all Source Collections\xspace that can be used and select the one with the highest ranking.
Scientists can influence this process by specifying their own ranking function or by overruling the choices made by the information system manually.
\subsection[Selecting Sources]{Data Pulling: Selecting Sources}
Fulfilling a request for a catalog begins with creating a Source Collection\xspace with the correct the composition of sources (Algorithm \ref{algo:pullcatalogselect}).
The resulting Source Collection\xspace will only represent the selected set of sources at this stage, without attributes.
In this paper we restrict ourselves to requesting subsets of sources that are already represented by an existing Source Collection\xspace, because our focus is on operations on catalogs.
In particular we assume the existence of Source Collections\xspace with photometric and related attributes derived from images.
These catalogs could be created through pulling mechanisms as well; this is beyond the scope of this paper.
The logical relations algorithm of Paper II\xspace is used to search for an existing Source Collection\xspace that represents the requested selection.
First all Source Collections\xspace that represent the same sources as the original Source Collection\xspace are found.
Subsequently a Filter Sources\xspace is sought, one with the specified selection criterion and with one of these Source Collections\xspace as parent.
New Source Collections\xspace are created to select the required sources if no suitable Source Collection\xspace is found.
This might require more than only a single Filter Sources\xspace Source Collection\xspace because the information system has to ensure that the attributes used in the selection criteria are available.
For example, the specified selection criterion in the example in \refsecp{sec:scexample} depends on the availability of the redshift attribute.
The information system would have tried to find this attribute if it would not have been included in Source Collection\xspace $A$.
A Select Attributes\xspace Source Collection\xspace is created to select no attributes from the found or created Source Collection\xspace with the sources.
The required attributes are subsequently added to this new Source Collection\xspace with only sources (\refsec{sec:selectingattributes}).
\begin{algorithm}[hbtp]
\caption{Selecting Sources}
\label{algo:pullcatalogselect}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Search for all Source Collections\xspace representing the original sources.
\STATE Search for all Filter Sources\xspace with one of these Source Collections\xspace as parent and the specified criterion as parameter.
\STATE Rank all found Source Collections\xspace.
\IF{a suitable Source Collection\xspace is found}
\STATE Use the highest ranking Source Collection\xspace to represent the sources.
\ELSE
\STATE Use algorithm \ref{algo:pullcatalogtree} to create a Source Collection\xspace with all attributes referenced in the selection criterion.
\STATE Create a new Filter Sources\xspace to represent the sources.
\ENDIF
\STATE Create a Select Attributes\xspace to select no attributes from the Source Collection\xspace representing the sources.
\STATE Create a Select Sour\-ces\xspace with the original Source Collection\xspace as parent and the Select Attributes\xspace to specify the selected sources.
\STATE Use the Select Sour\-ces\xspace as the parent of the final Pass\xspace Source Collection\xspace.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection[Selection Attributes]{Data Pulling: Selecting Attributes}
\label{sec:selectingattributes}
A catalog pulling request should contain a list of required attributes.
For every requested attribute, the information system will search for an existing Source Collection\xspace that represents this attribute for the requested sources.
A hierarchy of Select Attributes\xspace and Concatenate Attributes\xspace Source Collections\xspace is created to add the attribute to the Pass\xspace Source Collection\xspace already representing the sources (Algorithm \ref{algo:pullcatalogaddattribute}).
Requested attributes for which no suitable Source Collections\xspace can be found, are derived with new Source Collections\xspace (Algorithm \ref{algo:pullcatalognewcalculators}).
In this paper we limit ourselves to attributes that are derived from other attributes using Attribute Calculators\xspace Source Collections\xspace.
The calculation performed by an Attribute Calculator\xspace is specified through a process parameter referencing an Attribute Calculator Definition\xspace object.
New Attribute Calculator\xspace Source Collections\xspace are instantiated for all Attribute Calculator Definitions\xspace that can be used to derive the requested attribute.
The search for attributes is applied recursively if more attributes are required for the derivation of the requested attributes, as specified by the Attribute Calculator Definition\xspace.
Source Collections\xspace that require the calculation of new attributes will automatically be defined to operate on the largest dataset the calculation is applicable for.
This is done by giving Source Collections\xspace which represent a larger set of sources a higher ranking when searching for attributes.
\begin{algorithm}[hbtp]
\caption{Adding Attributes}
\label{algo:pullcatalogaddattribute}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Search for all Source Collections\xspace representing the attribute.
\STATE Rank all found Source Collections\xspace.
\IF{a suitable Source Collection\xspace is found}
\STATE Use the highest ranking Source Collection\xspace to represent the attribute.
\ELSE
\STATE Create an Attribute Calculator\xspace to represent the attribute (Algorithm \ref{algo:pullcatalognewcalculators}).
\ENDIF
\STATE Create a Select Attributes\xspace that selects the requested attribute from this Source Collection\xspace.
\STATE Create a Concatenate Attributes\xspace with the original parent of the final Pass\xspace Source Collection\xspace and the new Select Attributes\xspace as parents.
\STATE Use the Concatenate Attributes\xspace as new parent of the final Pass\xspace.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[hbtp]
\caption{Instantiate Attribute Calculators\xspace}
\label{algo:pullcatalognewcalculators}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Search for all Attribute Calculator Definitions\xspace that can be used to calculate the required attribute.
\FORALL{found Attribute Calculator Definitions\xspace}
\STATE Create a Source Collection\xspace with all the attributes required by the Attribute Calculator Definition\xspace (Algorithm \ref{algo:pullcatalogtree}).
\STATE Create an Attribute Calculator\xspace with that Source Collection\xspace as parent, using the Attribute Calculator Definition\xspace.
\ENDFOR
\STATE Rank all created Attribute Calculators\xspace.
\STATE Use the highest ranking Attribute Calculator\xspace to represent the attribute.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection[Catalog Processing]{Data Pulling: Storing Source Collections\xspace}
The result of data pulling is the creation of a dependency graph that ends with a Source Collection\xspace that represents the requested catalog.
The Source Collections\xspace in this dependency graph might be stored persistently if necessary.
The information system will subsequently optimize this graph to process it in the most optimal way (\refsec{sec:modifyingsc}).
\section{Optimization of Dependency Graphs and Processing}
\label{sec:processingscs}
\label{sec:modifyingsc}
\label{sec:sctreemodifications}
\label{sec:sclazydata}
\label{sec:sccachingdata}
The information system will optimize the dependency graph of a Source Collection\xspace before processing the Source Collections\xspace that it contains.
There are two goals to these optimizations: minimization of the required processing and optimization of the processing itself.
These optimizations are performed on a temporary transient copy of the dependency graph, which can be discarded after the processing is completed.
Reducing the necessary processing to the minimum required for the last Source Collection\xspace is the primary goal of this paper.
In essence this is done by placing filtering Source Collections\xspace before Source Collections\xspace that create new attributes and removing parts of the dependency graph that are not necessary for the final result.
This will ensure that the Source Collections\xspace in the dependency graph only represent data that is required for the requested catalog data.
These mechanisms allow the information system, or the scientist, to create and store Source Collections\xspace instances in their most general and reusable form, (e.g. as in \reffig{fig:scintreexamplepers}), because the creation and storage of the catalog data is minimized automatically (e.g. as in \reffig{fig:scintreexampletrans}).
Optimization of the processing itself is a secondary goal of this paper.
This is done by reorganizing the dependency graphs such that the processing can be performed on the most suitable subsystem of the information system.
For example, Source Collections\xspace that can best be processed on the database are placed such that they can be combined into one SQL query and processed together.
Parts of the dependency graph can be parallelized in order to process large Source Collections\xspace on a distributed cluster, especially those that cannot be processed on the database.
Optimizing the dependency graph of the example in figure \ref{fig:scintroexample2} is depicted in figure \ref{fig:scintreexampledata}.
The required processing in this example is dominated by a calculation of absolute magnitudes.
Without optimization, absolute magnitudes have to be calculated for 100\thinspace000 sources; with optimization the calculation is only performed for the 1000 sources that are actually requested, resulting in a factor 100 increase in performance.
The optimizations required to determine the exact set of sources in a Source Collection\xspace is depicted in figure \ref{fig:scintreexamplesources}.
In this case, the calculation of absolute magnitudes is removed from the dependency graph entirely and the entire graph can be processed on the database.
\subsection{Dependency Optimization: Strategy}
\label{sec:optimizationstrategy}
The best strategy for the optimization of dependency graphs depends on many factors, such as the size of the catalogs, how they will be processed, etc.
Therefore it is not possible to give a one-size-fits-all optimization strategy.
Algorithms \ref{algo:optimizeforload} and \ref{algo:simplifyforload} are procedures that cover most scenarios, they can be adjusted for particular cases.
The steps described in the algorithms are detailed in the rest of the section.
\begin{algorithm}[hbtp]
\caption{Optimization for Processing}
\label{algo:optimizeforload}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Create transient copy of the involved Source Collections\xspace.
\STATE Simplify the dependency graph (Algorithm \ref{algo:simplifyforload}). Perform this step after every movement-step.
\STATE Move all Select Attributes\xspace up the graph, to remove parts of the graph.
\STATE Convert all Filter Sources\xspace to Select Sour\-ces\xspace, to move them through the graph.
\STATE Move all Select Sour\-ces\xspace down, to copy them to every part of the graph.
\STATE Move all Select Sour\-ces\xspace up the graph, to limit processing to the required subset.
\STATE Move all Select Attributes\xspace up the graph once more, to simplify the graph further.
\STATE Move all Select Sour\-ces\xspace up the graph in order to combine them.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[hbtp]
\caption{Simplification for Processing}
\label{algo:simplifyforload}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REPEAT
\STATE Convert processed Source Collections\xspace to External\xspace Source Collections\xspace.
\STATE Remove parts of the graph with unnecessary dependencies.
\STATE Remove Source Collections\xspace that are essentially a Pass\xspace Source Collection\xspace.
\STATE Integrate Source Collections\xspace and their parents if possible.
\STATE Unite identical Source Collections\xspace, especially those with the same parents.
\UNTIL no more of these modifications are possible.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Dependency Optimization: Simplifications}
A dependency graph of Source Collections\xspace can be simplified as part of the optimization routines (Algorithm \ref{algo:simplifyforload}).
A Source Collection\xspace that has already been fully processed does not have to be processed again.
All these Source Collections\xspace can be substituted with an External\xspace Source Collection\xspace that represents the same catalog.
Furthermore, the complexity of a dependency graph can be reduced by combining operators or removing redundant ones.
For example, the initial Source Collection\xspace in \reffigp{fig:scintroexample2} is an External\xspace Source Collection\xspace for simplicity.
In a realistic scenario, this Source Collection\xspace would have dependencies of its own and would only be substituted with an External\xspace Source Collection\xspace just before processing.
In \reffigp{fig:scintreexamplesources1} two serial Select Attributes\xspace Source Collections\xspace are combined and in \reffigp{fig:scintreexampledata4} two parallel Select Sour\-ces\xspace Source Collections\xspace are combined.
\subsection{Dependency Optimization: Removing Dependencies}
Unnecessary parts of a dependency graph can be removed by moving Select Attributes\xspace Source Collections\xspace up in the graph (Algorithm \ref{algo:optimizeforload}).
The result of moving a Select Attributes\xspace up past a Concatenate Attributes\xspace, might be that one of the dependencies of the Concatenate Attributes\xspace does not represent attributes anymore.
The part of the graph that ends with this dependency might be removed from the graph in its entirety.
The set of sources of a Concatenate Attributes\xspace is the intersection of the sets of sources of its parents.
Therefore it is only possible to remove this part of the dependency graph if doing so does not influence the selection of sources.
The logical relations algorithm of Paper II\xspace is used to determine whether this is the case.
\subsection{Dependency Optimization: Sources Limitation}
\label{sec:optimization:sourceslimitation}
Select Sour\-ces\xspace Source Collections\xspace are moved through the dependency graph to ensure that
only those parts of the Source Collections\xspace are processed that are required to create the catalog data of the end node (Algorithm \ref{algo:optimizeforload}).
Filter Sources\xspace Source Collections\xspace first have to be converted into a Select Sour\-ces\xspace.
Before moving the Select Sour\-ces\xspace Source Collections\xspace up the dependency graph, they are moved down in order to copy them to all parts of the dependency graph they are applicable to.
In \reffigp{fig:scintreexampledata} the Select Sour\-ces\xspace Source Collection\xspace is moved up through the Attribute Calculator\xspace Source Collection\xspace.
This creates a copy of the Attribute Calculator\xspace that represents a subset of the sources of the original.
\subsection{Dependency Optimization: Parallelization}
\label{sec:treeparallelization}
The Source Collections\xspace are well suited for parallelization because they are processed on a per-source basis.
A Source Collection\xspace can be parallelized by creating a set of Select Sour\-ces\xspace (or Filter Sources\xspace) Source Collections\xspace that each select a subset of the original target, such that all sources are selected exactly once.
The set of Select Sour\-ces\xspace Source Collections\xspace is then combined with a Concatenate Sources\xspace Source Collection\xspace which can replace the original Source Collection\xspace in the dependency graph.
Further optimization can move the Select Sour\-ces\xspace up to parallelize the entire graph.
The parallelization algorithm is currently not implemented in {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace.
\section{Processing and Storage}
\label{sec:scprocessingandstoring}
The result of the dependency graph optimization is a set of Source Collections\xspace that requires the least amount of processing to create the requested catalog data.
The information system will recursively process the Source Collections\xspace and store the results if necessary.
The mechanisms designed for the research presented in this paper are intended be used in conjunction with existing large-scale data storage and processing facilities.
Therefore, the precise way catalog data is processed and stored is largely beyond the scope of this paper and will depend on what is available in the information system.
We give a general discussion of how the processing and storage could be achieved and highlight how this is implemented in {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace.
In particular, for this paper we assume the existence of mechanisms for authentication of users, privilege management and for queuing requests when processing Source Collections\xspace on shared resources.
\subsection{Processing: Processing Source Collections\xspace}
\label{sec:derivingandstoringdata}
\label{sec:scviewsandbackends}
The information system can process the Source Collections\xspace on the most suitable subsystem to achieve scalability for large scale catalogs and real time interaction for small scale catalogs.
We describe the different subsystems to evaluate the operators on:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Database}:
The selection and combining operators are designed to be evaluated on a database.
The operators of consecutive Source Collections\xspace can be combined into one database query.
The database can create indexes on columns containing attributes that are frequently used in selection criteria and can automatically cache the results.
Some Source Collections\xspace, in particular Attribute Calculators\xspace, will not be suitable to be processed on the database.
\item \textbf{Workstation}:
The processing can be performed on the workstation of the scientist for Source Collection\xspace that cannot be processed on the database.
Furthermore, all the relational operators should also be evaluated on the local machine during interactive visualization of small datasets.
The latency of a round trip to the database or distributed computing facility is too large for responsive interaction.
Such a local implementation of the Source Collections\xspace holds all the catalog data in memory or in files.
\item \textbf{Distributed Computation}:
Operators that require large computations can be performed on a distributed processing cluster.
This is done by parallelizing the respective parts of the dependency graph and evaluating each sub-graph on a cluster node.
\end{itemize}
Within {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace, most operators can be performed on both the Oracle 11g database or in the Python.
Database queries usually scale linearly; requests similar to the example of section \ref{sec:scexample} are typically delivered with speeds of 100\thinspace000 source attributes per second in the current setup.
There is currently no explicit functionality to process Source Collections\xspace on the distributed processing cluster.
\subsection[Storing Catalog]{Processing: Storing Catalog Data}
\label{sec:subsubstoringdata}
The result of processing a Source Collection\xspace---the exact set of sources and the values of the attributes---only has to be stored if this is necessary for performance reasons.
Therefore we make no explicit distinction between storing and caching of catalog data.
The optimization process (\refsec{sec:sctreemodifications}) creates copies of Source Collections\xspace that represent subsets of the originals.
If the information system decides to store the processing result of such a copy, it will append the catalog data of the copy to that of the original.
Deciding what should be stored is primarily the responsibility of the information system.
The decision should be made for individual processing results.
\label{sec:sccachingsources}
For example, it can be useful to store the identifiers of the sources without storing the values of the attributes in order to store the result of evaluating a complex selection criterion.
Different Source Collections\xspace that represent the same sources can share this processing result.
A key principle of the presented research, inherited from {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace, is that a Source Collection\xspace cannot be altered once stored.
Therefore, any stored catalog data of a Source Collection\xspace cannot change either.
Reliability of the data storage, e.g. ACID properties \citep{Gray1981}, is automatically achieved as a result.
For example, an incomplete database transaction will not leave the database in an invalid state because these will only append data that could also be ingested partially in the first place.
Stored catalog data can, in principle, also be deleted at any time, since it can always be recreated.
A deletion mechanism is currently not incorporated in {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace; instead, all catalog data is backed up regularly to be able to recover quickly from database failures.
\subsection[Retrieving Catalog Data]{Processing: Retrieving Catalog Data}
The last node in the dependency graph represents the requested catalog.
Once it has been processed, the catalog data can be returned to the scientist or used for further analysis or visualization.
Any temporary transient Source Collections\xspace instantiated for the processing are discarded.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
The presented work shows a novel approach for the handling of source catalogs, as incorporated in {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace.
The core difference between the {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace approach and the way astronomical catalogs are traditionally disclosed, is that the user works with data models rather than a set of tables in a relation database.
We showed how data pulling is extended to source catalogs, a first step to data pulling and data lineage in the analysis domain.
A process target\xspace---labeled a Source Collection\xspace---is designed to represent catalog data and operations thereon.
We summarize the key features of our design:
\begin{itemize}
\item Source Collections\xspace are primarily created automatically by the information system through data pulling.
Source Collections\xspace that derive new data are created as general as possible in order to facilitate reuse and to prevent duplication of data.
\item Source Collections\xspace allow a functional approach to target processing: they can be seen as the operation to create the catalog data.
A Source Collection\xspace is only processed when this is required, not necessarily at the moment it is created.
Every Source Collection\xspace class correspond to an elementary operation on catalogs; complex operations should be split over multiple Source Collection\xspace instances.
\item The Source Collection\xspace have full data lineage, which allows the information system to assess aspects of the catalogs without processing them.
For example, it allows the information system to optimize the a dependency graph of Source Collections\xspace before processing it.
\item A Source Collection\xspace is processed by creating temporary copy of the dependency graph and reordering the dependencies so they are as specific as possible in order to minimize the required processing.
\item A generic Source Collection\xspace class is designed for the calculation of new attributes from existing attributes. This offers a framework for scientists to implement their own methods while enforcing the benefits of full data lineage and data pulling.
\end{itemize}
The {\sf Astro-WISE}\xspace way of handling astronomical catalogs takes care of most of the administrative tasks automatically.
Discovery of existing catalogs and creation of new catalog is done in the same way, by requesting the required end product.
Catalogs are shared implicitly, because existing catalogs are discovered automatically.
New catalogs are automatically created in their most general form, but only the necessary parts are processed.
Together, this allows scientists to focus on the data itself and the science they want to perform instead of how the data is handled.
\begin{acknowledgements}
This research is part of the project ``Astrovis'', research program STARE
(STAR E-Science), funded by the Dutch National Science Foundation (NWO),
project no.\ 643.200.501.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Although this program has not been realized, Voevodsky has constructed a triangulated category of geometric motives over a perfect field, which has many of the properties expected of the derived category of the conjectural abelian category of motives. The construction of the triangulated category of motives has been extended by Cisinski-D\'{e}glise (\cite{cd}) to a triangulated category of motives over a base-scheme $S$, denoted $DM_S$. Hanamura (\cite{hana}) has also constructed a triangulated category of motives over
a field, using the idea of a ``higher correspondence", with morphisms built out of Bloch's cycle complex.
Recently, Bondarko (in \cite{bondarko}) has refined Hanamura's idea and limited it to smooth projective varieties to construct a DG category of motives. Assuming resolution of singularities, the homotopy category of this DG category is equivalent to
Voevodsky's category of effective geometric motives.
Soon after, Levine (in \cite{smmot}) extended this idea to construct a DG category of ``smooth motives''
over a base-scheme $S$ generated by the motives of smooth projective $S$-schemes,
where $S$ is itself smooth over a perfect field. Its homotopy category is equivalent to the full subcategory of Cisinski-D\'{e}glise category of effective motives over $S$ generated by the smooth
projective $S$-schemes.
Both these constructions lack a tensor structure in general. However, passing to $\mathbb{Q}$-coefficients, Levine replaced the cubical construction with alternating cubes, which yields a tensor structure on his DG category.
In \cite{tenssmmot}, a pseudo-tensor structure is constructed on a DG category ${dg_e} Cor_S$ which induces a tensor structure on the homotopy category of DG complexes, such that, in case $S$ is semi-local and essentially smooth over a field of characteristic zero, it
induces a tensor structure on the category of smooth motives over $S$. It is proved that
\begin{thmintro}\label{int} Suppose $S$ is semi-local and essentially smooth over a field of characteristic zero. Then,
there is a tensor structure on the category $SmMot^{\mathrm{eff}}_{gm}(S)$ of smooth effective geometric motives over $S$ making it into a tensor triangulated category.
\end{thmintro}
In \cite{smmot}, Levine constructed a functor from his category of smooth motives to the Cisinski-D\'{e}glise category of motives over $S$
\[\rho_S:SmMot_{gm}(S)\to DM_S. \]
In this article, we show that
\begin{thmintro}\label{tf} If $S$ is semi-local and essentially smooth over a field of characteristic zero, then $\rho_S$ is a tensor functor with respect to the tensor structure on $SmMot_{gm}(S)$ defined in Theorem~\ref{int}.
\end{thmintro}
This is done by first defining a morphism $\rho_S(M)\otimes\rho_S(N)\to \rho_S(M\otimes N)$ in $DM_S$, for objects $M,N$ in $SmMot_{gm}(S)$, and then showing that this is an isomorphism for $M=M_S(X)$ and $N=M_S(Y)$, where $X,Y$ are smooth projective schemes and $M_S$ is the functor $\mathbf{Proj}_S\to SmMot_{gm}(S)$. We also show that
\begin{corintro}
Under the same conditions on $S$, we have an exact duality
\[ SmMot_{gm}^{op}(S)\to SmMot_{gm}(S). \]
\end{corintro}
We begin with proving some general results on pseudo-tensor DG categories and pseudo-tensor functors, and then prove Theorem~\ref{tf} over the next two sections.
\section{Generalities on pseudo-tensor categories}
In this section, we extend some results from \cite[\S~2.3]{tenssmmot}. Let $(\mathcal{A}, P^\mathcal{A})$ and $(\mathcal{B}, P^\mathcal{B})$ be pseudo-tensor DG categories.
\begin{dfn}
A DG functor $X:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B}$ is called a pseudo-tensor functor if $X$ induces a map of complexes
\[P^\mathcal{A}_I(\{E_i\},F)^*\longrightarrow P^\mathcal{B}_I(\{X(E_i)\},X(F))^*. \]
which is compatible with composition as given by the following commutative diagram:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pstfunc}
\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{ P^\mathcal{A}_I(\{F_i\},G)^*\otimes\bigotimes_{i\in I}P^\mathcal{A}_{J_i}(\{E_j\}_{j\in J_i},F_i)^*\ar[d]\ar[r] & P^\mathcal{A}_J(\{E_j\},G)^*\ar[d]\\
P^\mathcal{B}_I(\{X(F_i)\},X(G))^*\otimes\bigotimes_{i\in I}P^\mathcal{B}_{J_i}(\{X(E_j)\}_{j\in J_i},X(F_i))^*\ar[r] & P^\mathcal{B}_J(\{X(E_j)\},X(G))^*
}
\end{xy}\end{equation} and $X({\operatorname{id}}_{E})={\operatorname{id}}_{X(E)}$.
Furthermore, let $(\mathcal{A}, P^\mathcal{A})$ and $(\mathcal{B}, P^\mathcal{B})$ be {\em homotopy tensor categories}, that is, their pseudo-tensor structure induce a tensor structure on their respective homotopy categories. $X$ would be called a {\em homotopy
tensor functor}, if, in addition, $H^0X:H^0\mathcal{A}\to H^0\mathcal{B}$ is a tensor functor with respect to the tensor structures on $H^0\mathcal{A}$ and $H^0\mathcal{B}$ induced by $P^\mathcal{A}$ and $P^\mathcal{B}$ respectively.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}
A functor $X:\mathcal{A}\to \mathcal{B}$ between tensor categories $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ is called a {\em lax tensor functor}, if for every $E,F\in ob(\mathcal{A})$, there is a morphism \[
X(E)\otimes_{\mathcal{B}}X(F) \longby{\theta_{E,F}} X(E\otimes_{\mathcal{A}}F)\]
in $\mathcal{B}$, which is associative, commutative and unital (see \cite[Part II, Chap.~1, \S 1.3.7]{Mxmot}. In \cite{Mxmot}, Levine calls such a functor a pseudo-tensor functor -- we would not use this terminology to avoid confusion).
\end{dfn}
\begin{rem}
Note that a pseudo-tensor functor between two tensor categories (with pseudo-tensor structures induced by the respective tensor structures) is a lax tensor functor. \end{rem}
Thus, if $(\mathcal{A}, P^\mathcal{A})$ and $(\mathcal{B}, P^\mathcal{B})$ are homotopy tensor categories and $X:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B}$ a pseudo-tensor DG functor,
then $H^0X:H^0\mathcal{A}\to H^0\mathcal{B}$ is a { lax tensor functor}.
The set of small homotopy tensor categories form a category whose morphisms are homotopy tensor functors. It is shown in \cite[\S~2.3]{tenssmmot} that if $\mathcal{A}$ is a homotopy tensor category, so is $\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$. Here, we are going to show that the assignment $\mathcal{A}\mapsto\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$ is an endofunctor of the category of small homotopy tensor categories.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:homtens}
{\it i.} If $X:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B}$ is a pseudo-tensor DG functor between pseudo-tensor DG categories $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$, then there is an induced pseudo-tensor DG functor
$X^\mathrm{pretr}:\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}\to\mathcal{B}^\mathrm{pretr}$.\\
\noindent {\it ii.} Further, if $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are homotopy tensor categories, then $H^0X^\mathrm{pretr}:H^0\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}\to H^0\mathcal{B}^\mathrm{pretr}$ is a lax tensor functor.\\
\noindent {\it iii.} Also, if in addition, $X:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B}$ is a homotopy tensor functor, so is $X^\mathrm{pretr}:\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}\to\mathcal{B}^\mathrm{pretr}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
{\it i.} Given a DG functor $X:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B}$, we define a functor $X^\mathrm{pretr}:\text{Pre-Tr}(\mathcal{A})\to\text{Pre-Tr}(\mathcal{B})$ as follows:\\
Let $\mathcal{E}=\{E_i,\,e_{ij}:E_j\to E_i\}$ be an object in $\text{Pre-Tr}(\mathcal{A})$. We define $X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{E}):={\{X(E_i),\,X(e_{ij}):X(E_j)\to X(E_i)\}}$ and for a morphism $\phi:\mathcal{E}\to\mathcal{F}$ in $\text{Pre-Tr}(\mathcal{A})$, $X(\phi):={\{X(\phi_{ij}):X(E_j)\to X(F_i)\}}$. $X^\mathrm{pretr}$ is a DG functor since so is $X$. Clearly, by definition, we have
\[ X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{E}[n])=X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{E})[n];\quad X^\mathrm{pretr}(Cone(\phi))=Cone(X^\mathrm{pretr}(\phi)). \]
Thus, restricting to $\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$, we get a functor \[ X^\mathrm{pretr}:\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}\to\mathcal{B}^\mathrm{pretr}. \]
Now, for objects $\mathcal{E}^1,\ldots,\mathcal{E}^n,\mathcal{F}$ in $\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$, and $I=\{1,\ldots,n\}$, the pseudo-tensor structure on $\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$ is defined as:
\[ P^{\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}}_I(\{\mathcal{E}^i\},\mathcal{F}):=\bigoplus_{j,k} P^\mathcal{A}_I(\{E^i_j\},F_k)[j-k]. \]
Thus, since $X$ is a pseudo-tensor functor, we have the map
\[
\begin{xy}\xymatrix{ P^{\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}}_I(\{\mathcal{E}^i\},\mathcal{F}) \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{-->}[r] & P^{\mathcal{B}^\mathrm{pretr}}_I(\{X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{E}^i)\},X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{F})) \ar@{=}[d] \\
\bigoplus_{j,k} P^\mathcal{A}_I(\{E^i_j\},F_k)[j-k] \ar[r] & \bigoplus_{j,k} P^\mathcal{B}_I(\{X(E^i_j)\},X(F_k))[j-k]}
\end{xy}
\]
It also follows that the required commutativity of the square \eqref{eq:pstfunc} is satisfied, thus proving {\em i}.
{\it ii.} Let $\mathcal{E},\,\mathcal{F}\in Ob(H^0\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr})$. We first show that
\begin{clm} We have the following isomorphism in $H^0\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$:
\[\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{F}\by{\sim}\{(\oplus_{i+j=l}E_i\otimes F_j)_l,g_{kl}:\oplus_{i+j=l}E_i\otimes F_j\to\oplus_{i+j=k}E_i\otimes F_j\}
\] where $g_{kl}:=\oplus_i\left((-1)^{(l-k+1)(l-i)}e_{(i+k-l),i}\otimes{\operatorname{id}}_{F_{l-i}} + (-1)^i{\operatorname{id}}_{E_i}\otimes f_{(k-i),(l-i)}\right)$.
\end{clm}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Claim]
We make use of the fact that $\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$ is generated by $i(\mathcal{A})$ by taking translations and cones and proceed by induction. For objects $E,F$ in $\mathcal{A}$, and any $\mathcal{G}$ in $\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$, we have
\begin{align*}
Hom_{H^0\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}}(i(E)\otimes i(F),\mathcal{G})& \by{\sim} H^0P^{\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}}(\{i(E),i(F)\},\mathcal{G})\\
& \by{\sim} \bigoplus_kH^0P^\mathcal{A}(\{E,F\},G_k)[-k]\\
& \by{\sim} \bigoplus_kH^0Hom_\mathcal{A}(E\otimes F,G_k)[-k]\\
& \by{\sim} Hom_{H^0\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}}(i(E\otimes F),\mathcal{G})
\end{align*}
This implies $i(E)\otimes i(F)\by{\sim} i(E\otimes F)$ in $H^0\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$. Thus, $(i(E)\otimes i(F))_0=E\otimes F$ and $(i(E)\otimes i(F))_l=0$ for $l\neq 0$. Also $(i(E)\otimes i(F))_{ij}=0$.
Also, note that it follows from the definition of the pseudo-tensor structure on $\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$, $\mathcal{E}[n]\otimes\mathcal{F}\by{\sim}(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{F})[n]$ and $\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{F}[n]\by{\sim}(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{F})[n]$ in $H^0\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$. Now, we show that for objects $\mathcal{E},\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}$ and a morphism $\phi\in Z^0Hom_{\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}}(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})$, if the claim is true for $\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{G}$, then it is true for
$\mathcal{E}\otimes Cone(\phi)$. That is, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{F})_l &\by{\sim} & \bigoplus_{i+j=l}E_i\otimes F_j\\
(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{G})_k &\by{\sim} & \bigoplus_{i+p=k}E_i\otimes G_k
\end{eqnarray*}
We have from \cite[Proposition~6.1]{tenssmmot} that in $H^0\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$, $\mathcal{E}\otimes Cone(\phi)\by{\sim} Cone(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{F}\to\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{G})$. Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\mathcal{E}\otimes Cone(\phi))_l &=& (\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{G})_l\oplus (\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{F})_{l+1}\\
&=& (\oplus_{i+j=l}E_i\otimes F_j)\oplus(\oplus_{i+p=l+1}E_i\otimes G_p)\\
&=& \oplus_{i+k=l}E_i\otimes Cone(\phi)_{l-i}
\end{eqnarray*}
Also, $(\mathcal{E}\otimes Cone(\phi))_{kl}=cone(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{F}\to\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{G})_{kl}=$
\[ \left(\begin{array}{lr}
\oplus_i\big((-1)^{(l-k+1)(l-i)}e_{(i+k-l)\,i}\otimes{\operatorname{id}}_{G_{l-i}}+(-1)^i{\operatorname{id}}_{E_i}\otimes g_{(k-i)\,(l-i)}\big) & \hspace*{-7.5cm} \oplus_i(-1)^i\phi^*_{(k-i)\,(l-i+1)}\\
0 & \hspace*{-7.5cm}\oplus_i\big((-1)^{(l-k+1)(l-i+1)}e_{(i+k-l)\,i}\otimes{\operatorname{id}}_{F_{l-i+1}}+(-1)^i{\operatorname{id}}_{E_i}\otimes f_{(k-i+1)\,(l-i+1)}\big)
\end{array}\right) \]
which is equal to
\[ \bigoplus_i\Big[(-1)^{(l-k+1)(l-i)}e_{(i+k-l)\,i}\otimes{\operatorname{id}}_{Cone(\phi)_{l-i}}
+(-1)^i{\operatorname{id}}_{E_i}\otimes \left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{(k-i)\,(l-i)}& \phi_{(k-i)\,(l-i+1)}\\0& f_{(k-i+1)\,(l-i+1)}\end{array}\right)\Big] \]
This proves the claim.
\end{proof}
Thus, we have in $H^0\mathcal{B}^\mathrm{pretr}$, \begin{eqnarray*}
X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{F})&=&\{(\oplus_{i+j=l}X(E_i\otimes F_j))_l;\\
&&{\displaystyle\oplus_i\left((-1)^{(l-k+1)(l-i)}X(e_{(i+k-l),i}\otimes{\operatorname{id}}_{F_{l-i}})\right.}\\
&& \left. + (-1)^iX({\operatorname{id}}_{E_i}\otimes f_{(k-i),(l-i)})\right)\}\\
\text{and\hspace*{3cm}}&& \\
X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{E})\otimes X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{F})&=&\{(\oplus_{i+j=l}X(E_i)\otimes X(F_j))_l;\\
&&{\displaystyle\oplus_i\left((-1)^{(l-k+1)(l-i)}X(e_{(i+k-l),i})\otimes{\operatorname{id}}_{X(F_{l-i})}\right.}\\
&& \left. + (-1)^i{\operatorname{id}}_{X(E_i)}\otimes X(f_{(k-i),(l-i)})\right)\}
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that, for objects $\mathcal{G}:=\{{G_i},g_{ij}:G_j\to G_i\},\,\mathcal{H}:=\{H_n,h_{mn}:h_n\to h_m\}$ in $\mathcal{B}^\mathrm{pretr}$, if we have maps $\phi_{ii}:G_i\to H_i$ in $H^0\mathcal{B}$ such that $\phi_{ii}g_{ij}=h_{ij}\phi_{jj}$, then we get
a morphism $\phi:=\{\phi_{ij}\}:\mathcal{G}\to\mathcal{H}$ in $H^0\mathcal{B}^\mathrm{pretr}$ defined as $\phi_{ij}=\phi_{ii}$ if $i=j$ and $0$ otherwise.
Since $H^0X$ is a lax tensor functor, it follows from above that there is a map $\theta:X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{E})\otimes X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{F})\to X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{F})$ in $H^0\mathcal{B}^\mathrm{pretr}$, that is $H^0X^\mathrm{pretr}$ is also a lax tensor functor.
{\it iii.}
If $X$ is a homotopy tensor functor, by the argument above, \[X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{E})\otimes X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{F})\by{\sim} X^\mathrm{pretr}(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{F})\] in $H^0\mathcal{B}^\mathrm{pretr}$. Indeed, if the $\phi_{ii}:E_i\to F_i$ are isomorphisms in $H^0\mathcal{B}$, then so is $\phi:\mathcal{E}\to\mathcal{F}$ in $H^0\mathcal{B}^\mathrm{pretr}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:lax}
Note that in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:homtens}{\it ii.}, $X$ need not be a pseudo-tensor functor, we only need that $X$ is a DG functor and $H^0X$ is a lax tensor functor.
\end{rem}
\section{The functor $\mathcal{K}^b(dgPrCor_S)\to DM^{\mathrm{eff}}(S)$ is lax tensor}
In \cite[\S~6.3]{smmot}, Levine constructs an exact functor
\[ \rho^\mathrm{eff}_S: SmMot^\mathrm{eff}_{gm}(S)\to DM^\mathrm{eff}(S). \]
The aim in this section is to show that when $S$ is regular semi-local and essentially smooth over
a field of characteristic zero,
$\rho^\mathrm{eff}_S$ is a lax tensor functor.
Recall from \cite[Lemma~1.9]{smmot} that we can associate a DG category $dg\mathcal{C}$ to a tensor category $(\mathcal{C},\otimes)$ with a co-cubical object $\square^*$ with co-multiplication $\delta^*$.
$dg\mathcal{C}$ has the same objects as $\mathcal{C}$, and for objects $X,Y$ in $dg\mathcal{C}$, $Hom_{dg\mathcal{C}}(X,Y)^*$
is the non-degenerate complex associated with the cubical abelian group
\[ \underline{n}\mapsto Hom_\mathcal{C}(X\otimes\square^{n},Y). \]
i.e.\ \[ Hom_{dg\mathcal{C}}(X,Y)^n:= Hom_\mathcal{C}(X\otimes\square^{-n},Y)/\mathrm{degn}. \] (Also see \cite[\S~1.2.5]{tenssmmot}.)
We also have the extended DG category ${dg_e}\mathcal{C}$, with the same objects as $\mathcal{C}$. The Hom complexes are defined as follows: For each $m$, we have the non-degenerate complex $Hom_{dg\mathcal{C}}(X,Y\otimes\square^m)^*$; let
$Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(X,Y\otimes\square^m)^*_0$ be the subcomplex consisting of $f$ such that
\[
p_{m,i}\circ f=0\in Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(X,Y\otimes\square^{m-1})^*;\quad i=1,\ldots, m.
\]
Then,
\[
Hom_{{dg_e}\mathcal{C}}(X,Y)^p:=\prod_{m-n=p}Hom_{dg\mathcal{C}}(X,Y\otimes\square^m)^{-n}_0.
\]
See \cite[\S~1.3.3]{tenssmmot} for details. It is shown in \cite[Theorem~2.4.2]{tenssmmot} that there is a homotopy tensor structure on ${dg_e}\mathcal{C}$, when $\square^*$ admits bi-multiplication and is homotopy invariant.
Let us assume that $S$ is semi-local and essentially smooth over
a field of characteristic zero. From \cite[Remark~1.4.4]{tenssmmot}, we have that $SmMot^\mathrm{eff}_{gm}(S)$ is equivalent to $\mathcal{K}^b(dgPrCor_S)^\natural$ where $^\natural$ denotes the idempotent completion. We describe below the construction of Levine in \cite[\hbox{\it loc. cit}]{smmot} to give a functor
\[ \rho^\mathrm{eff}_S: SmMot^\mathrm{eff}_{gm}(S)\to DM^\mathrm{eff}(S). \]
We also recall from \cite[\S~5.1]{smmot} that for $X, Y$ in $\boldsymbol{Sm}/S$, the cubical Suslin complex $C^S(Y,r)^*(X)$ is the complex associated to the cubical object \[ n\mapsto z^S_{equi}(Y,r)(X\times\square^n_S), \]
where $\square^n_S\simeq\mathbb{A}^n_S$ and $z^S_{equi}(Y,r)(X)$ is the free abelian group on the integral subschemes $W\subset X\times_S Y$
such that the projection $W\to X$ dominates an irreducible component $X'$ of $X$, and such that, for each $x\in X$, the fiber $W_x$ over $x$
has pure dimension $r$ over $k(x)$, or is empty. If $X$ is in $\mathbf{Proj}/S$, then $C^S(X,0)$ is the presheaf $Hom_{dgCor_S}(\underline{\;\;},X)^*$ on
$\boldsymbol{Sm}/S$.
Sending $U$ in $\boldsymbol{Sm}/S$ to $C^S(X,0)(U)$ gives the object $C^S(X)$ in $C^-(Sh^{tr}_{\mathrm{Nis}}(S))$.
For $X, Y$ in $\mathbf{Proj}/S$, the composition law in $dgCor_S$ defines a natural map
\[ \tilde{\rho}_{X,Y}:Hom_{dgPrCor_S}(X,Y)^*\to Hom_{C(Sh^{tr}_{\mathrm{Nis}}(S))}(C^S(X),C^S(Y)). \]
This defines a DG functor
\[ \tilde{\rho}:dgPrCor_S\to C(Sh^{tr}_{\mathrm{Nis}}(S)).\]
Applying the functor $\mathcal{K}^b$ and composing with the total complex functor
\[ {\operatorname{\rm Tot}}:\mathcal{K}^b(C(Sh^{tr}_{\mathrm{Nis}}(S)))\to K(Sh^{tr}_{\mathrm{Nis}}(S))\]
and the quotient functor
\[ K(Sh^{tr}_{\mathrm{Nis}}(S))\to DM^\mathrm{eff}(S) \]
gives us the exact functor
\[ \mathcal{K}^b(dgPrCor_S)\to DM^\mathrm{eff}(S). \]
Extending canonically to the idempotent completion, we define the exact functor
\[ \rho^\mathrm{eff}_S: SmMot^\mathrm{eff}_{gm}(S)\to DM^\mathrm{eff}(S). \]
We also have a map (see \cite[Proposition~1.3.5]{tenssmmot})
\[ \pi_{X,Y}: Hom_{{dg_e} PrCor_S}(X,Y)^* \to Hom_{dgPrCor_S}(X,Y)^* \]
giving us a functor of DG categories
\[ \hat{\rho}:=\tilde{\rho}\circ\pi: {dg_e} PrCor_S \to C(Sh^{tr}_{\mathrm{Nis}}(S)). \]
We will first show that
\begin{prop}\label{prop:pstensf}
$\hat{\rho}$ is a pseudo-tensor functor with respect to the pseudo-tensor structure on ${dg_e} PrCor_S$ defined in \cite{tenssmmot} and one induced from the tensor structure $\otimes^{tr}_S$ on $C(Sh^{tr}_{\mathrm{Nis}}(S))$. \end{prop}
The tensor structure $\otimes^{tr}_S$ on $Sh^{tr}_{\mathrm{Nis}}(S)$ is defined as follows: we take the canonical left resolution $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{F})$ of a sheaf
$\mathcal{F}$ by taking the canonical surjection
\[ \mathcal{L}_0(\mathcal{F}):=\bigoplus_{\begin{array}{c}\scriptstyle X\in\boldsymbol{Sm}/S \\ \scriptstyle s\in\mathcal{F}(X)\end{array}}\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(X)\longby{\phi_0}\mathcal{F} \]
where $\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(X):=Cor_S(\underline{\;\;},X)$ is the representable presheaf for $X\in\boldsymbol{Sm}/S$. Setting $\mathcal{F}_1:=\ker \phi_0$ and iterating, we get the complex
$\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{F})$. Then, we define
\[ \mathcal{F}\otimes^{tr}_S\mathcal{G}:=H_0(\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{F})\otimes^{tr}_S\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{G})) \]
using the fact that
\[ \mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(X)\otimes^{tr}_S\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(X'):=\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(X\times_S X'). \]
\begin{lem}
For $X,X'\in \mathbf{Proj}_S$, there exists a map of presheaves
\[ C^S(X)^m\otimes^{tr}_S C^S(X')^n \to C^S(X\times_S X')^{m+n}. \]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\[ \mathcal{L}_0(C^S(X)^m)=\bigoplus_{\begin{array}{c}\scriptstyle Y\in\boldsymbol{Sm}/S \\ \scriptstyle s\in C^S(X)^m(Y)\end{array}}\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(Y)
\longby{\;\phi_0^{X,m}}C^S(X)^m \]
where $Cor_S(Y\times_S\square^*_S,X)_0$ is the non-degenerate complex associated to the cubical abelian group $\underline{n}\mapsto Cor_S(Y\times_S\square^n_S,X)$.
Firstly, we want to produce a map of presheaves
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Lmap}
\mathcal{L}_0(C^S(X)^m)\otimes^{tr}_S\mathcal{L}_0(C^S(X')^n) \to \mathcal{L}_0(C^S(X\times_S X')^{m+n}).
\end{equation}
We have $\mathcal{L}_0(C^S(X)^m)\otimes^{tr}_S\mathcal{L}_0(C^S(X')^n) =$ \\
\begin{align*}
= & \Big( \bigoplus_{\begin{array}{c}\scriptstyle Y\in\boldsymbol{Sm}/S \\ \scriptstyle s\in C^S(X)^m(Y)\end{array}}\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(Y)\Big) \otimes^{tr}_S \Big( \bigoplus_{\begin{array}{c}\scriptstyle Y'\in\boldsymbol{Sm}/S \\ \scriptstyle s'\in C^S(X')^n(Y')\end{array}}\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(Y')\Big) \\
=& \bigoplus_{\begin{array}{c}\scriptstyle Y,Y'\in\boldsymbol{Sm}/S \\ \scriptstyle s\in C^S(X)^m(Y)\\ \scriptstyle s'\in C^S(X')^n(Y')\end{array}}\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(Y\times_SY')
\end{align*}
Using the map \eqref{eqn:cstimes}, we thus get a map
\[ \xymatrix{ \mathcal{L}_0(C^S(X)^m)\otimes^{tr}_S\mathcal{L}_0(C^S(X')^n)\ar[r]& \displaystyle\bigoplus_{\begin{array}{c}\scriptstyle Y\times_SY'\in\boldsymbol{Sm}/S \\
\scriptstyle s\boxtimes s'\in C^S(X\times_S X')^{m+n}(Y\times_SY')\end{array}}\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(Y\times_SY') \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\
\mathcal{L}_0(C^S(X\times_S X')^{m+n}) \ar@{=}[r] & \displaystyle\bigoplus_{\begin{array}{c}\scriptstyle Y''\in\boldsymbol{Sm}/S \\
\scriptstyle t\in C^S(X\times_S X')^{m+n}(Y'')\end{array}}\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(Y'') } \]
The map \begin{equation}\label{eqn:cstimes} C^S(X)^m(Y)\otimes C^S(X')^n(Y') \by{\boxtimes} C^S(X\times_S X')^{m+n}(Y\times_SY') \end{equation}
is given as follows:
\[ \xymatrix{ Hom_{dgCor_S}(Y,X)^m\otimes Hom_{dgCor_S}(Y',X')^n \ar[d]^{F_{Y,X}\otimes F_{Y',X'}} \\
Hom_{{dg_e} Cor_S}(Y,X)^m\otimes Hom_{{dg_e} Cor_S}(Y',X')^n \ar@{=}[d] \\
P_1^{{dg_e} Cor_S}(\{Y\},X)^m\otimes P_1^{{dg_e} Cor_S}(\{Y'\},X')^n \ar[d]^-{[\text{By representability of the pseudo-tensor structure }P^{{dg_e} Cor_S}]} \\
P_2^{{dg_e} Cor_S}(\{Y,Y'\},X\times_S X')^{m+n} \ar[d]^{\sum_{a=0}^{m+n}\delta^*_{a,m+n-a}} \\
Hom_{{dg_e} Cor_S}(Y\times_S Y',X\times_S X')^{m+n} \ar[d]^{\pi_{Y\times_S Y',X\times_S X'}} \\
Hom_{dgCor_S}(Y\times_S Y',X\times_S X')^{m+n} } \]
Here, $\delta^*_{a,b}$ is induced by the map $\delta_{a,b}$ defined as the composition
\[ \square^{a+b}\longby{\delta^{a+b}}\square^{a+b}\otimes\square^{a+b}\xrightarrow{p^1_{a,b}\otimes p^2_{a,b}}\square^{a}\otimes\square^{b}. \]
Composing the map \eqref{eqn:Lmap} with $\phi_0^{X\times_S X',m+n}$ gives us a map
\[ \mathcal{L}_0(C^S(X)^m)\otimes^{tr}_S\mathcal{L}_0(C^S(X')^n) \to C^S(X\times_S X')^{m+n}. \]
The fact that this induces a map on $H_0(\mathcal{L}(C^S(X)^m)\otimes^{tr}_S\mathcal{L}(C^S(X')^n))$ follows from definition, noting that
\begin{multline*}
(\mathcal{L}(C^S(X)^m)\otimes^{tr}_S\mathcal{L}(C^S(X')^n))_1=\\
=\Big(\bigoplus_{\begin{array}{c}\scriptstyle Z,Z'\in\boldsymbol{Sm}/S \\ \scriptstyle t\in \ker(\phi_0^{X,m})(Z)\\ \scriptstyle t'\in C^S(X')^n(Z')\end{array}}\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(Z\times_SZ')\Big)\oplus\Big(\bigoplus_{\begin{array}{c}\scriptstyle Z,Z'\in\boldsymbol{Sm}/S \\ \scriptstyle t\in C^S(X)^m(Z)\\ \scriptstyle t'\in \ker(\phi_0^{X',n})(Z')\end{array}}\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(Z\times_SZ')\Big) \\
\overset{(\phi_1^{X,m}\otimes^{tr}_S{\operatorname{id}}) + ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes^{tr}_S\phi_1^{X',n})}{\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3.4cm}}} \bigoplus_{\begin{array}{c}\scriptstyle Y,Y'\in\boldsymbol{Sm}/S \\ \scriptstyle s\in C^S(X)^m(Y)\\ \scriptstyle s'\in C^S(X')^n(Y')\end{array}}\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(Y\times_SY')\\
=(\mathcal{L}(C^S(X)^m)\otimes^{tr}_S\mathcal{L}(C^S(X')^n))_0
\end{multline*}
and that $\phi_0^{X\times_S X',m+n}\circ\big((\phi_1^{X,m}\otimes^{tr}_S{\operatorname{id}}) + ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes^{tr}_S\phi_1^{X',n})\big)=0$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:pstensf}]
It directly follows from the lemma that we have a map in $C(Sh^{tr}_{\mathrm{Nis}}(S))$,
\[ C^S(X)\otimes^{tr}_S C^S(X') \longby{\gamma_{X,X'}} C^S(X\times_S X'). \]
Note that $\gamma_{X,X'}$ is natural in $X$ and $X'$, since so is $\boxtimes$ (in \eqref{eqn:cstimes}).
Thus, we have maps, for $X,Y,Z$ in $\mathbf{Proj}_S$,
\[ \xymatrix{ P_2^{{dg_e} PrCor_S}(\{X,Y\},Z) \ar[r] & Hom_{{dg_e} PrCor_S}(X\times_S Y,Z) \ar[d]^{\pi_{X\times_S Y,Z}} \\
& Hom_{dgPrCor_S}(X\times_S Y,Z) \ar[dl]_{\tilde{\rho}_{X\times_S Y,Z}} \\ Hom_{C(Sh^{tr}_{\mathrm{Nis}}(S))}(C^S(X\times_S Y),C^S(Z)) \ar[r]_-{\gamma^*_{X,X'}} & Hom_{C(Sh^{tr}_{\mathrm{Nis}}(S))}(C^S(X)\otimes^{tr}_S C^S(Y),C^S(Z)).} \]
That this map is compatible with composition follows from the fact that $\gamma_{X,X'}$ is natural in $X$ and $X'$. This shows that $\hat{\rho}$ is a pseudo-tensor functor.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
If $S$ is regular semi-local and essentially smooth over
a field of characteristic zero, $\rho^\mathrm{eff}_S$ is a lax tensor functor.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Combining Proposition~\ref{prop:pstensf} with Proposition~\ref{prop:homtens}.{\it ii.} and noting that $\mathcal{K}^b(\mathcal{A})$ is equivalent to $H^0\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{pretr}$, we get that $\mathcal{K}^b(\hat{\rho})$ is a lax tensor functor. Recall from \cite[\S~1.3.3]{tenssmmot}, that there is a quasi-equivalence $dgPrCor_S\by{F}{dg_e} PrCor_S$ such that $\pi\circ F={\operatorname{id}}$. Thus, $\tilde{\rho}=\hat{\rho}\circ F$.
Since the tensor structure on the category $\mathcal{K}^b(dgPrCor_S)$ is induced from $\mathcal{K}^b({dg_e} PrCor_S)$ via the equivalence of categories $\mathcal{K}^b(F)$, we have that $\mathcal{K}^b(\tilde{\rho})$ is also a lax tensor functor.
Since ${\operatorname{\rm Tot}}$ is a tensor functor and the tensor structure $\otimes_S$ on $DM^\mathrm{eff}(S)$ is induced from the tensor product $\otimes^{tr}_S$ via the localization map, we get that
\[ \mathcal{K}^b(dgPrCor_S)\to DM^\mathrm{eff}(S) \]
is a lax tensor functor.
Since extending to idempotent completion preserves tensor structure, it follows from definition that $\rho^\mathrm{eff}_S$ is a lax tensor functor.
\end{proof}
\section{$\rho^\mathrm{eff}_S$ is a tensor functor}
Let $\tilde{ChMot}^\mathrm{eff}_S$ be the category with the same objects as $\mathbf{Proj}_S$ and with morphisms (for $X\to S$ of pure dimension $d_X$
over $S$)
\[ Hom_{\tilde{ChMot}^\mathrm{eff}_S}(X,Y):=CH_{d_X}(X\times_S Y), \]
and let ${ChMot}^\mathrm{eff}(S)$ be its idempotent completion. We have the functor
\[ c_S: \mathbf{Proj}_S \to ChMot^\mathrm{eff}(S) \]
sending a morphism $f:X\to Y$ to the graph of $f$. In \cite{smmot}, Levine showed that
\begin{prop}[\cite{smmot}, Proposition~5.19]\label{prop:chmot} {\it i}. There is a fully faithful embedding $\psi^\mathrm{eff}_S:ChMot^\mathrm{eff}(S)\to SmMot^\mathrm{eff}_{gm}(S)$ such that
there is a commutative diagram \[
\xymatrix{ \mathbf{Proj}_S \ar[rd] \ar[r]^-{c_S} & ChMot^\mathrm{eff}(S) \ar[d]^{\psi^\mathrm{eff}_S} \\ & SmMot^\mathrm{eff}_{gm}(S) } \]
\noindent {\it ii}. $\psi^\mathrm{eff}$ extends to a fully faithful embedding $\psi:ChMot(S)\to SmMot_{gm}(S)$. \\
\noindent {\it iii}. The maps $\psi^\mathrm{eff}$ and $\psi$ are compatible with the action of $Cor_S$.
\end{prop}
Note that we have the following commutative diagram of functors
\[ \xymatrix{ \mathbf{Proj}_S \ar[r]_-{M_S} \ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^{m_S} \ar[rd]_{c_S} & SmMot_{gm}^\mathrm{eff}(S) \ar[r]_-{\rho^\mathrm{eff}_S} & DM^\mathrm{eff}(S) \\
& ChMot^\mathrm{eff}(S) \ar[u]^{\psi^\mathrm{eff}_S} & } \]
where $m_S(X)$ is the image of $\mathbb{Z}^{tr}_S(X)$ in $DM^\mathrm{eff}(S)$. That $m_S=\rho^\mathrm{eff}_S\circ M_S$ follows from \cite[Lemma~6.8]{smmot}. We first show that
\begin{lem} For $X,Y$ in $\mathbf{Proj}_S$, we have
\[ \rho^\mathrm{eff}_S(M_S(X)\otimes M_S(Y))\by{\sim} \rho^\mathrm{eff}_S(M_S(X))\otimes_S\rho^\mathrm{eff}_S(M_S(Y)). \]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:chmot}.{\it iii}. that,
\[ \psi^\mathrm{eff}_S(c_S(X)\otimes c_S(Y))\by{\sim} \psi^\mathrm{eff}_S(c_S(X))\otimes\psi^\mathrm{eff}_S(c_S(Y)). \]
Also, since $c_S(X)\otimes c_S(Y) \by{\sim} c_S(X\times_S Y)$, we have
\[ M_S(X\times_S Y) \by{\sim} M_S(X)\otimes M_S(Y). \]
Composing both sides with $\rho^\mathrm{eff}_S$, we get
\[ m_S(X\times_S Y) \by{\sim} \rho^\mathrm{eff}_S(M_S(X)\otimes M_S(Y)). \]
But, $m_S(X\times_S Y)=m_S(X)\otimes_Sm_S(Y)$ by definition. The lemma follows by noting that $m_S=\rho^\mathrm{eff}_S\circ M_S$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
The functors $\rho^\mathrm{eff}_S$ and $\rho_S$ are tensor functors.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
In the previous section, we have already shown that $\rho^\mathrm{eff}_S$ is a lax tensor functor. That is, for objects $M, N$ in $SmMot^\mathrm{eff}_{gm}(S)$, there is a morphism in $DM^\mathrm{eff}(S)$
\[ \rho^\mathrm{eff}_S(M)\otimes_S\rho^\mathrm{eff}_S(N) \to \rho^\mathrm{eff}_S(M\otimes N). \]
which is natural in $M$ and $N$. But, by the above lemma, this is an isomorphism when $M=M_S(X)$ and $N=M_S(Y)$ for $X,Y$ in $\mathbf{Proj}_S$. Since $SmMot_{gm}^\mathrm{eff}(S)$ is generated by objects in $\mathbf{Proj}_S$ as an idempotently complete triangulated category, this shows that $\rho_S^\mathrm{eff}$ is a tensor functor.
Since the composition
\[ SmMot_{gm}^\mathrm{eff}(S) \xrightarrow{\rho_S^\mathrm{eff}} DM^\mathrm{eff}(S)\to DM(S) \]
is a tensor functor that sends $\underline{\;\;}\otimes\mathbb{L}$ to an invertible endomorphism, it factors through a canonical extension
\[ \rho_S: SmMot_{gm}(S) \to DM(S) \]
which is also a tensor functor.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
For $X\in \mathbf{Proj}_S$ of dimension $d$, $X\mapsto X^D:=X\otimes \mathbb{L}^{-d}$ gives an exact duality
\[ D: SmMot_{gm}(S)^{op}\rightarrow SmMot_{gm}(S).\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Note that for $X\in \mathbf{Proj}_S$ of dimension $d$ over $S$, the dual of $m_S(X)$ is $m_S(X)(-d)[-2d]$ in $DM(S)$. Since $\rho_S$
is fully faithful (see \cite[Corollary~6.14]{smmot}) and $\rho_S(X\otimes\mathbb{L}^{-d})=m_S(X)(-d)[-2d]$, we immediately get the duality in $SmMot_{gm}(S)$ as required. Since the dual object in a tensor category is unique upto unique isomorphism, this defines an exact duality involution $D$.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The concept of left Hopf algebroids provides a natural
framework for unifying and extending classical constructions in homological
algebra. Group, groupoid, Lie algebra, Lie algebroid and Poisson (co)homology, Hochschild and cyclic homology for associative algebras, as well as Hopf-cyclic homology for Hopf algebras, are all special cases of the cyclic homology of left Hopf algebroids
since the rings over which these theories can be expressed as derived functors are all left Hopf algebroids
(see, for example, \cite{BoeSte:CCOBAAVC, ConMos:HACCATTIT, Cra:CCOHA, Kow:HAATCT, KowKra:CSIACT, KowPos:TCTOHA} for more details).
As for every (co)homology theory it is an interesting issue to examine its behaviour under (any suitable notion of) Morita equivalence. Nevertheless, a satisfactory notion of Morita equivalence between two possibly noncommutative left Hopf algebroids is up to our knowledge far from being obvious. The difficulty comes out when, for instance, one tries to understand how the notion of Morita equivalence between two Lie algebroids, in the sense of \cite{Cra:DAACVEIACC, Gin:GGOPVB} and others, can be reflected to their respective associated (universal) left Hopf algebroids in such a way that invariant properties, especially homological ones, between equivalent Lie algebroids remain invariant at the level of left Hopf algebroids.
In the commutative case, that is, for commutative Hopf algebroids, several notions already exist in the literature, see, e.g., \cite{Hovey:02, Hovey/Strickland:05}.
In this paper, we restrict ourselves to the case of Morita base change left Hopf algebroids. That is, we study from a cyclic (co)homology point of view two Morita equivalent left Hopf algebroids of the form $(R,U) \sim (S,\tilde{U})$, where $R \sim S$ are Morita equivalent base rings and $\tilde{U}$ is constructed from $U$. It is worth noticing that for the case of commutative Hopf algebroids or Hopf algebras, this notion reduces to simply changing the base ring by an isomorphism.
Nevertheless, this restriction is not far from geometric applications since, for example, the algebra of smooth functions on a smooth manifold ${\mathcal M}$ is Morita equivalent to the endomorphism algebra of global smooth sections of a vector bundle on ${\mathcal M}$.
More precisely, one can start with a smooth vector bundle ${\mathcal P} \to {\mathcal M}$ and a Lie algebroid $({\mathcal M}, {\mathcal E})$, then associate to them a Morita base change $({\mathcal C}^{\infty}({\mathcal M}),{\mathcal V}\Gamma({\mathcal E})) \sim ({\rm End}(\Gamma({\mathcal P})), \widetilde{{\mathcal V}\Gamma({\mathcal E}))})$, where $({\mathcal C}^{\infty}({\mathcal M})
,{\mathcal V}\Gamma({\mathcal E}))$ is the associated (universal) left Hopf algebroid attached to $({\mathcal M}, {\mathcal E})$, see Section 5. In the aim of illustrating our methods, we give an explicit application concerning the noncommutative $2$-torus {with rational parameter}.
A left Hopf algebroid ($\times_R$-Hopf algebra) $U$ is, roughly speaking, a Hopf algebra whose ground ring is not
a commutative ring ${\Bbbk}$ but a possibly noncommutative ${\Bbbk}$-algebra $R$, see \cite{Boe:HA,Schau:DADOQGHA, Tak:GOAOAA}. In categorical terms, $U$ is a ring extension of the enveloping ring $\Reh=R\tensor{\Bbbk}R^{o}$ of the base algebra $R$, where the category of left $U$-modules is a right closed monoidal category, and the forgetful functor to the category of left $\Reh$-modules is strict monoidal and preserves right inner hom-functors.
As ${\Bbbk}$-bialgebras are underlying Hopf algebras, (left) $R$-bialgebroids are the underlying structure of (left) Hopf algebroids, but for bialgebroids the forgetful functor is in general not right inner-hom preserving.
Morita base change for bialgebroids (following \cite{Schau:MBCIQG}) provides a possibility to produce new bialgebroids by replacing the base algebra $R$ by a Morita equivalent base algebra $S$ in such a way that the resulting $R$-bialgebroid has a monoidal category of representations equivalent to that of the original $R$-bialgebroid. More generally, the base algebra $R$ can be replaced by a $\sqrt{\mbox{Morita}}$ equivalent algebra $S$, see \cite{Tak:squareMorita}: two algebras are $\sqrt{\mbox{Morita}}$ equivalent if one has an equivalence of ${\Bbbk}$-linear monoidal categories of bimodules $ {}_{R^{\Sf{e}}}{\rm Mod} \simeq {}_{S^{\Sf{e}}}{\rm Mod}$.
Such an equivalence relation between two bialgebroids is weaker than to consider two bialgebroids to be equivalent if their monoidal categories of (co)representations are so. In particular, Morita base change establishes a relation between two bialgebroids
in a way that is meaningless for ordinary ${\Bbbk}$-bialgebras, as already
said before.
Apart from what we mentioned above, the importance of the notion of Morita base change moreover consists in unifying seemingly different concepts: for example, every weak ${\mathbb{C}}$-bialgebra (which can be considered as bialgebroids \cite[\S3.2.2]{Boe:HA}) can be shown to be a face algebra (which are examples of
bialgebroids as well \cite{Schau:FAATRB}) up to Morita base change \cite[\S5.2]{Schau:MBCIQG}. Here we present no application in this direction, this will be left for a future project.
Useful for our purposes is the fact that Morita base change equivalence carries over to the
Hopf structure: an $R$-bialgebroid is left Hopf if and only if its Morita base change equivalent $S$-bialgebroid is left Hopf as well \cite[Prop.~4.6]{Schau:MBCIQG}.
In this paper, we will consider the cyclic (co)homology for left Hopf algebroids from \cite{KowKra:CSIACT} and confront it with the Morita base change theory from \cite{Schau:MBCIQG}. Our aim is to give, in the spirit of \cite{McC:MEACH}, the explicit chain morphisms and chain homotopies that establish equivalences of (co)cyclic modules between the original left Hopf algebroid and the Morita base change left Hopf algebroid $\td{U}$; see, however, Remark \ref{cat} for a comment on a categorical approach.
As a consequence, we obtain our central theorem which we copy here, see the main text for the details and in particular the notation used:
{\renewcommand{\thetheorem}{\bf{A}}
\begin{thm}{\em (Morita base change invariance of (Hopf-)cyclic (co)homology)}
Let $(R, U)$ be a left Hopf algebroid, $M$ a left $U$-comodule right $U$-module which is stable anti Yetter-Drinfel'd, and $(R,S,P,Q,\phi,\psi)$ a Morita context. Consider its induced $\sqrt{\mbox{Morita}}$ context $(R^{\Sf{e}},\Se,\Pe,\Qe,\phi^{\Sf{e}},\psi^{\Sf{e}})$ and the Morita base change left Hopf algebroid $(S,\tilde{U}:= \Pe \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}U\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Qe)$. Then
$$
\begin{array}{rclcrcl}
H_\bull(U, M) &\simeq& H_\bull(\td{U}, P \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} Q), && H^\bull(U, M) &\simeq& H^\bull(\td{U}, P \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} Q), \\
HC_\bull(U, M) &\simeq& HC_\bull(\td{U}, P \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} Q), && HC^\bull(U, M) &\simeq& HC^\bull(\td{U}, P \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} Q)
\end{array}
$$
are isomorphisms of $\Bbbk$-modules.
\end{thm}
}
As an application, we first indicate how the classical result of Morita invariance for cyclic homology of associative algebras (see, e.g., \cite{Con:NCDG, DenIgu:HHATSOFP, McC:MEACH}) fits into our general theory.
Second, we consider a Morita context between the complex-valued smooth functions on the commutative real $2$-torus $\mathbb{T}^2$
and the coordinate ring of the noncommutative $2$-torus with rational parameter. After reviewing the construction for this case, we apply the Morita invariance to the universal left Hopf algebroid associated to the Lie algebroid of vector fields on $\mathbb{T}^2$ and its Morita base change left Hopf algebroid $\widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}$ over this noncommutative $2$-torus, which establishes a passage from commutative to noncommutative geometry: in the spirit of considering left Hopf algebroids as the noncommutative analogue of Lie algebroids and their primitive elements as the noncommutative analogue of (generalised) vector fields, the primitive elements of $\widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}$ can be seen to consist of vector fields on the noncommutative torus.
{\renewcommand{\thetheorem}{\bf{B}}
\begin{cor}
Let $\Sf{q} \in \mathbb{S}^1$ be a root of unity,
and consider the Lie algebroid $\big(R=C^\infty(\mathbb{T}^2),K = \mathrm{Der}_{\mathbb{C}}(C^\infty(\mathbb{T}^2))\big)$ of vector fields on the complex torus $\mathbb{T}^2$ and its associated left Hopf algebroid $(R,{\mathcal V} K)$.
Let $M$ be a right ${\mathcal V} K$-module
and $(R,S,P,Q,\phi,\psi)$ the Morita context of Eq.~\eqref{Eq: Morita torus}.
We then have the following natural ${\mathbb{C}}$-module isomorphisms
$$
\begin{array}{rclcrcl}
H_\bull({\mathcal V} K , M) &\simeq & H_\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}), && HC_\bull({\mathcal V} K, M) &\simeq& HC_\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}), \\
H^\bull({\mathcal V} K , M) &\simeq & H^\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}), && HC^\bull({\mathcal V} K, M) &\simeq& HC^\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}),
\end{array}
$$
where $\widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}$ is the Morita base change left Hopf algebroid over the noncommutative torus ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}_{\Sf{q}}^2)$ whose structure maps are given as in \S\ref{subsect:Morita}.\\
Furthermore, assume that $M$ be $R$-flat. Then we have that
$$
\begin{array}{rclcrcl}
H_\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}) &\!\!\!\!\simeq&\!\!\!\! H_\bull(K, M), &&
HC_\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}) &\!\!\!\!\simeq&\!\!\!\! \textstyle\bigoplus_{i \geq 0}H_{\bull -2i}(K,M), \\
H^\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}) &\!\!\!\!\simeq&\!\!\!\! M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \textstyle\bigwedge^\bull_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} K, &&
HP^\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}) &\!\!\!\!\simeq&\!\!\!\! \textstyle\bigoplus_{i \equiv \bull {\rm mod} 2}H_{i}(K,M) \\
\end{array}
$$
are natural $\mathbb{C}$-module isomorphisms,
where $H_\bull(K, M) := {\rm Tor}^{{\mathcal V} K}_\bull(M, R)$,
and where $HP^\bull$ denotes periodic cyclic cohomology.
\end{cor}
}
\smallskip
\textbf{Acknowledgements.}
It is a pleasure to thank J.~G\'omez-Torrecillas, M.~Khalkhali, U.~Kr\"ahmer, and A.~Weinstein for stimulating discussions and comments. The authors are also grateful to the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the useful comments.
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Some conventions}
Throughout this note, ``ring'' means associative algebra over a fixed commutative ground ring $\Bbbk$.
All other algebras, modules etc., will have an underlying structure of a central
$\Bbbk$-module.
Given a ring $R$, we denote by ${}_R\Mod$ the category of
left $R$-modules,
by $R^{o}$ the
opposite ring and by
$R^\mathrm{e} := R \otimes_{\Bbbk} R^{o}$
the enveloping algebra
of $R$.
An {\em $R$-ring} is a monoid
in the monoidal
category $({}_{\Reh}\Mod, \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}, R)$ of $\Reh$-modules (i.e., $(R,R)$-bimodules
with symmetric action of $\Bbbk$), fulfilling
associativity and unitality. Likewise,
an {\em $R$-coring} is a comonoid in
$({}_{\Reh}\Mod, \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}, R)$,
fulfilling coassociativity and
counitality.
Our main object is an $\Reh$-ring $U$.
Explicitly, such an $\Reh$-ring is given by a $\Bbbk$-algebra
homomorphism
$
\eta=\eta_U : R^\mathrm{e} \rightarrow U
$
whose restrictions
\begin{equation}
\label{wind&rain}
s:= \eta( - \otimes_{\Bbbk} 1) :
R \to U
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
t := \eta(1 \otimes_{\Bbbk} -) :
\Rop \to U
\end{equation}
will be called the {\em source} and {\em
target} map, respectively. Left and right multiplication in $U$
give rise to an
$(\Reh,\Reh)$-bimodule structure on $U$,
that is, four actions of $R$
that we denote by
\begin{equation*}\label{bimod-lmod}
r \lact u \ract r' :=s(r)t(r')u,\quad
r \blact u \bract r'
:=us(r')t(r),
\quad r,r'\in R, \ u \in U,
\end{equation*}
which are commuting, in the sense that, for every $a, a', r, r' \in R$ and $u,v \in U$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{pouvoir}
a' \blact\lr{ r \lact u \ract r'} \bract a &=& r \lact \lr{a'\blact u \bract a} \ract r'; \\
\nonumber
\lr{u \bract r} \lr{ v \ract a} &=& \lr{a \blact u} \lr{r \lact v}.
\end{eqnarray}
If not stated otherwise, we view $U$ as
an $(R,R)$-bimodule using the actions $\lact,\ract$, denoted ${}_{\lact}U_{\ract}$.
In particular, we define
the tensor product
$U \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} U$
with respect to this bimodule structure.
On the other hand, using the
actions $\blact, \bract$ permits to define the
{\em Sweedler-Takeuchi product}, see \cite{Swe:GOSA, Tak:GOAOAA}:
\begin{equation*}
\label{taki}
U \times_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} U :=
\left\{\underset{}{} \textstyle\sum_i u_i \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}
v_i
\in U \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} U \mid
\sum_i r \blact u_i
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} v_i =
\sum_i u_i \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} v_i \bract r,
\ \forall r \in R\right\}.
\end{equation*}
One easily verifies that $U \times_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} U$ is an $\Reh$-ring via factorwise multiplication, with unit element $1_{\scriptscriptstyle{U}} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} 1_{\scriptscriptstyle{U}}$ and $\eta_{{\scriptscriptstyle{U}} \times_{\scriptscriptstyle{{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}}} {\scriptscriptstyle{U}}}(r \otimes_\Bbbk r') = s(r) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} t(r')$, for $r, r' \in R$.
\subsection{Bialgebroids} \cite{Tak:GOAOAA}
Bialgebroids are a generalisation of
bialgebras. An important subtlety
is that the algebra and coalgebra
structure are defined in
different monoidal categories.
\begin{definition}\label{left-bialg}
Let $R$ be a $\Bbbk$-algebra.
A {\em left bialgebroid} over $R$
is an $\Reh$-ring $U$
together with two homomorphisms of
$\Reh$-rings
$$
\Delta : U \rightarrow U
\times_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} U,\quad
\hat \varepsilon : U \rightarrow \mathrm{End}_{\Bbbk}(R)
$$
which turn $U$ into an $R$-coring
with coproduct $\Delta$ (viewed as a
map $U \rightarrow U_\ract \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \due U \lact {}$) and
counit $\varepsilon : U \rightarrow R$,
$u \mapsto (\hat\varepsilon (u))(1)$.
\end{definition}
So one has for example for $u \in U$, $r, r' \in R$
\begin{equation}
\label{panuelos}
\Delta (r \lact u \ract r')=
r \lact u_{(1)} \otimes_{{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}}
u_{(2)} \ract r',\quad
\Delta (r \blact u \bract r')=
u_{(1)} \bract r' \otimes_{{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}} r \blact u_{(2)},
\end{equation}
using Sweedler's shorthand
notation
$u_{(1)} \otimes_{{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}} u_{(2)}$
for $\Delta(u)$, as well as in $U \times_{{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}} U$ the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{takinew}
r \blact u_{(1)} \otimes_{{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}} u_{(2)} =
u_{(1)} \otimes_{{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}} u_{(2)} \bract r.
\end{equation}
The counit, on the other hand, fulfills for any $u, v \in U$ and $r, r' \in R$
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:counit}
\varepsilon(r \lact u \ract r') = r\varepsilon(u)r', \quad \varepsilon (u \bract r) = \varepsilon(r \blact u), \quad
\varepsilon(uv) = \varepsilon(u \bract \varepsilon (v)) = \varepsilon(\varepsilon (v) \blact u).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Left Hopf algebroids} {\cite{Schau:DADOQGHA}}
Left Hopf algebroids have been
introduced by Schauenburg
under the name {\em $\times_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}$-Hopf
algebras} and
generalise Hopf
algebras towards left bialgebroids.
For a left bialgebroid $U$ over $R$, one
defines the
{\em (Hopf-)Galois map}
\begin{equation*}
\label{Galois}
\beta: {}_\blact U \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} U_\ract \to
U_\ract \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} {}_\lact U, \quad u
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} v \mapsto
u_{(1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u_{(2)}v,
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{tata}
{}_\blact U \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} U_\ract = U
\otimes_{\Bbbk} U/
{{\rm
span}\{r \blact u \otimes_{\Bbbk} v - u
\otimes_{\Bbbk} v \ract r \mid
u,v \in U, r \in R \}}.
\end{equation}
\begin{dfn}\cite{Schau:DADOQGHA}
\label{hopftimesleft}
A left $R$-bialgebroid $U$ is
called a
{\em left Hopf algebroid}
(or {\em $\times_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}$-Hopf algebra}) if
$\beta$ is a bijection.
\end{dfn}
\noindent By means of a Sweedler-type notation
\begin{equation*}
\label{pm}
u_+ \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u_- :=
\beta^{-1}( u \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} 1)
\end{equation*}
for the translation map
$
\beta^{-1}(- \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} 1) : U \rightarrow
{}_\blact U \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} U_\ract,
$
one obtains for all $u, v \in U$, $r, r'\in R$ the following useful identities
\cite[Prop.~3.7]{Schau:DADOQGHA}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Sch1}
u_{+(1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u_{+(2)} u_- &=& u \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} 1 \in U_\ract \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} {}_\lact U, \\
\label{Sch2}
u_{(1)+} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u_{(1)-} u_{(2)} &=& u \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} 1 \in {}_\blact U
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} U_\ract, \\
\label{Sch3}
u_+ \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u_- & \in
& U \times_\Rop U, \\
\label{Sch38}
u_{+(1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u_{+(2)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u_{-} &=& u_{(1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}
u_{(2)+} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u_{(2)-},\\
\label{Sch37}
u_+ \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u_{-(1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u_{-(2)} &=& u_{++} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}
u_- \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u_{+-}, \\
\label{Sch4}
(uv)_+ \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} (uv)_- &=& u_+v_+
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} v_-u_-,
\\
\label{Sch47}
u_+u_- &=& s (\varepsilon (u)), \\
\label{Sch48}
u_+ t (\varepsilon (u_-)) &=& u, \\
\label{Sch5}
(s (r) t (r'))_+ \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} (s (r) t (r') )_-
&=& s (r) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} s (r'),
\end{eqnarray}
where in (\ref{Sch3}) we mean the Sweedler-Takeuchi product
\begin{equation*}
\label{petrarca}
U \times_\Rop U:=
\left\{\underset{}{} \textstyle\sum_i u_i \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} v_i \in
{}_\blact U \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} U_\ract\,|\,
\sum_i u_i \ract r \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} v_i=
\sum_i u_i \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} r \blact
v_i, \,\, \forall r \in R
\right \},
\end{equation*}
which is an algebra by factorwise
multiplication, but with opposite
multiplication on the second factor.
Note that in (\ref{Sch37}) the tensor product
over $R^{o}$ links the first and
third tensor component.
By (\ref{Sch1}) and (\ref{Sch3}), one can write
$$
\beta^{-1}(u \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} v) = u_+ \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u_-v.
$$
\subsection{$U$-modules}
Let $(R, U)$ be a left bialgebroid.
Left and right $U$-modules are defined as modules over the ring $U$, with respective actions denoted by juxtaposition.
We denote the respective categories by
${}_U\Mod$ and ${}_{U^\op}\Mod$; while ${}_U\Mod$ is
a monoidal category, ${}_{U^\op}\Mod$ in general is
not \cite{Schau:BONCRAASTFHB}. One has a forgetful functor
${}_{U}\Mod \rightarrow {}_{\Reh}\Mod$ using which
we consider every left
$U$-module $N$ also as an $(R,R)$-bimodule
with actions
\begin{equation}\label{brot}
anb := a \lact n \ract b := s(a)t(b)n,\quad
a,b \in R,n \in N.
\end{equation}
Similarly, every right $U$-module $M$ is also
an $(R,R)$-bimodule via
\begin{equation}
\label{salz}
amb:= a \blact m \bract b :=
m s(b) t(a),\quad
a,b \in R,m \in M,
\end{equation}
and in both cases we usually prefer to express these actions just by juxtaposition if no ambiguity is to be expected.
\subsection{$U$-comodules}
Similarly as for coalgebras, one may
define comodules over
bialgebroids, but the underlying
$R$-module structures need some extra
attention. For the following definition
confer e.g.\
\cite{Schau:BONCRAASTFHB,Boe:GTFHA,
BrzWis:CAC}.
\begin{dfn}
\label{tempo}
A {\em left $U$-comodule} for a left bialgebroid $(R, U)$
is a left comodule of the underlying $R$-coring $(U, \Delta,
\varepsilon)$,
i.e., a left $R$-module $M$ with action $L_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}: (r,m) \mapsto rm$ and a
left $R$-module map
\begin{equation*}
\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle{M}}:
M \to U_\ract \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M,
\quad
m \mapsto m_{(-1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_{(0)}
\end{equation*}
satisfying the usual coassociativity and
counitality axioms. We denote the category of left
$U$-comodules
by ${}_U\bf Comod$.
\end{dfn}
\noindent On any left $U$-comodule
one can additionally define
a right $R$-action
\begin{equation}
\label{grimm}
mr := \varepsilon\big(m_{(-1)}\bract r\big)m_{(0)}.
\end{equation}
This action originates in fact from the algebra morphism
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:U*}
R \to U^*, \quad
r \mapsto \left[u \mapsto \varepsilon(u\bract r) \right],
\end{equation}
where $U^*:=\operatorname{Hom}_{R}(U_\ract,R_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}})$ is the right convolution ring of the underlying $R$-coring $U$, and the canonical functor ${}_U{\bf Comod} \to \Mod_{U^*}$ that endows any left $U$-comodule $X$ with a right $U^*$-action given by
$$
x\, \sigma \,\, =\,\, \sum_{(x)} \sigma(x_{(-1)}) x_{(0)}
$$
for every $x \in X$ and $\sigma \in U^*$.
The above action is then the restriction to scalars associated to the algebra morphism \eqref{Eq:U*},
and the action \eqref{grimm} is the unique one that turns $M$ into a left
$\Reh$-module in such a way that the coaction is an
$\Reh$-module morphism
$$
\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle{M}}: M \to U \times_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M,
$$
where $U \times_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M$ is the Sweedler-Takeuchi product
$$
U \times_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M := \left\{\underset{}{} \textstyle\sum_i u_i \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_i
\in U \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M \mid
\sum_i u_it (a) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_i
= \sum_i u_i \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_i a, \
\forall a \in R\right\}.
$$
In other words, $M$ becomes a left $\times_R$-$U$-comodule. Conversely, any left $\times_R$-$U$-comodule gives rise to a left $U$-comodule. This correspondence establishes in fact an isomorphism of categories.
As a result of the previous discussion, $\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle{M}}$ satisfies the identities
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{maotsetung}
\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle{M}}(rmr') &=&
\lr{r \lact m_{(-1)} \bract r'} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}
m_{(0)}, \\
\label{douceuretresistance}
m_{(-1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_{(0)}r
&=&
\lr{ r \blact m_{(-1)}} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_{(0)}.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Cyclic homology for left Hopf algebroids}
\subsubsection{Stable anti Yetter-Drinfel'd modules}
The following definition is the left
bialgebroid right module and left
comodule version of the corresponding notion in
\cite{BoeSte:CCOBAAVC, HajKhaRanSom:SAYD}.
\begin{dfn}
\label{SAYD}
Let $(R, U)$ be a left Hopf algebroid, and let
$M$ simultaneously be a left
$U$-comodule and a right $U$-module with
action denoted by $(m, u) \mapsto mu$
for $u \in U$, $m \in M$. We call $M$
an {\em anti Yetter-Drinfel'd (aYD)
module} if:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The two $\Reh$-module structures on $M$ originating from its nature as $U$-comodule resp.\ right $U$-module coincide:
for all $r, r' \in R$, $m \in M$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{campanilla1}
rm &=& r \blact m, \\
\label{campanilla2}
mr' &=& m \bract r',
\end{eqnarray}
where the right $R$-module structure on the left hand side is given by \rmref{grimm}.
\item
For $u \in U$ and $m \in M$ one has the following compatibility between action and coaction:
\begin{equation}
\label{huhomezone}
\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle{M}}(mu) =
u_- m_{(-1)} u_{+(1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_{(0)} u_{+(2)}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
The aYD module $M$ is
said to be {\em stable (SaYD)} if,
for all $m \in M$, one has
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:SaYD}
m_{(0)}m_{(-1)} = m.
\end{equation}
\end{dfn}
\subsubsection{Cyclic (co)homology}
\label{almeria}
We will not recall the formalism of cyclic (co)homology in
full detail; see, e.g., \cite{FeiTsy:AKT, Lod:CH} for more information. However,
recall that
para-(co)cyclic ${\Bbbk}$-modules generalise
(co)cyclic ${\Bbbk}$-modules by dropping the
condition that the (co)cyclic operator
implements an action of
$\mathbb{Z}/(n+1)\mathbb{Z}$ on the
degree $n$ part. Thus a para-cyclic
${\Bbbk}$-module is a simplicial
${\Bbbk}$-module
$(C_\bull,d_\bull,s_\bull)$
and a para-cocyclic ${\Bbbk}$-module is a
cosimplicial ${\Bbbk}$-module
$(C^\bull,\delta_\bull,\sigma_\bull)$,
together with ${\Bbbk}$-linear maps
$t_n : C_n \rightarrow C_n$ resp.~$\tau_n : C^n \rightarrow C^n$
satisfying, respectively
\begin{equation}\label{belleville}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{rcl}
d_i \circ t_n &\!\!\!\!\!\!=&\!\!\!\!\!\! \left\{\!\!\!
\begin{array}{ll}
t_{n-1} \circ d_{i-1}
& \!\!\!\! \mbox{if} \ 1 \leq i \leq n, \\
d_n & \!\!\!\! \mbox{if} \
i = 0,
\end{array}\right. \\
\\
s_i \circ t_n &\!\!\!\!\!\!=&\!\!\!\!\!\! \left\{\!\!\!
\begin{array}{ll}
t_{n+1} \circ s_{i-1} & \!\!\!\!
\mbox{if} \ 1 \leq i \leq n, \\
t^2_{n+1} \circ s_n
& \!\!\!\! \mbox{if} \
i = 0, \\
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}
\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!
\begin{array}{rcll}
\tau_n \circ \gd_i &\!\!\!\!\!=&\!\!\!\!\! \left\{\!\!\!
\begin{array}{l}
\gd_{i-1}\circ \tau_{n-1} \\
\gd_n
\end{array}\right. & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \begin{array}{l} \mbox{if} \ 1
\leq i \leq n,
\\ \mbox{if} \ i = 0,
\end{array} \\
\\
\tau_n \circ \sigma_i &\!\!\!\!\!=&\!\!\!\!\! \left\{\!\!\!
\begin{array}{l}
\sigma_{i-1} \circ \tau_{n+1} \\
\sigma_n \circ \tau^2_{n+1}
\end{array}\right. & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\begin{array}{l} \mbox{if} \ 1 \leq i
\leq n,
\\ \mbox{if} \ i = 0. \end{array}
\end{array}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Such a para-(co)cyclic module is called {\em (co)cyclic} if $t^{n+1}_n = {\rm id}$ (resp.\ $\tau^{n+1}_n = {\rm id}$).
Any cyclic module $C_\bull$
gives rise to a cyclic bicomplex $C_{\bull\bull}$, see, e.g., \cite{FeiTsy:AKT} for details. The only thing we recall here is that the differential on the $b$-columns is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:b}
b = \sum_{i=0}^{n} (-1)^i\, d_i,
\end{equation}
and likewise $\beta := \sum^{n+1}_{i=0} (-1)^i \gd_i$ for a cocyclic module.
\subsubsection{The para-(co)cyclic module associated to a left Hopf algebroid
{\rm (\cite{KowKra:CSIACT}, cf.~also \cite{KowPos:TCTOHA})}}\label{ssubsect:CUM}
Let $M$ be simultaneously a left $U$-comodule and a right $U$-module with compatible left $R$-action as in \rmref{campanilla1}.
Set
$$
C_\bull(U,M) \, := \,\,M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} (\due U \blact \ract)^{\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \bull},
$$
and in each degree $n$ define the following structure maps on it:
\!\!\!\!
\begin{equation}
\label{adualnightinpyongyang}
\!\!\!
\begin{array}{rcll}
d_i(m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x) &\!\!\!\! =&\!\!\!\!
\left\{ \!\!\!
\begin{array}{l}
m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \big(\varepsilon(u^n) \blact u^{n-1}\big)
\\
m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} (u^{n-i} u^{n-i+1})
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^n
\\
(mu^1) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^2 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}
u^n
\end{array}\right. & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \, \begin{array}{l} \mbox{if} \ i \!=\! 0, \\ \mbox{if} \ 1
\! \leq \! i \!\leq\! n-1, \\ \mbox{if} \ i \! = \! n, \end{array} \\
\ \\
s_i(m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x) &\!\!\!\! =&\!\!\!\! \left\{ \!\!\!
\begin{array}{l} m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^1
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}
u^n \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} 1
\\
m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^{n-i}
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} 1
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^{n-i+1} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}
\cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^n
\\
m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} 1
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^n
\end{array}\right. & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \begin{array}{l}
\mbox{if} \ i\!=\!0, \\
\mbox{if} \ 1 \!\leq\! i \!\leq\! n-1, \\ \mbox{if} \ i\! = \!n, \end{array} \\
\ \\
t_n(m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x)
&\!\!\!\!=&\!\!\!\!
(m_{(0)} u^1_+) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^2_+ \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^n_+ \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} (u^n_- \cdots u^1_- m_{(-1)}),
& \\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where we abbreviate $x:=u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^n$.
As explained in detail in \cite{KowKra:CSIACT}, this cyclic module is the generalised ``cyclic dual'' to the following cocyclic module:
set
$$
C^\bull(U,M) \, := \,\, (\due U \lact \ract)^{\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \bull} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M,
$$
with structure maps in degree $n$ given by
\begin{equation}
\!\! \begin{array}{rll}
\label{anightinpyongyang}
\gd_i(z \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m) \!\!\!\!&= \left\{\!\!\!
\begin{array}{l} 1
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \cdots
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u^n \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m
\\
u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \Deltaell (u^i) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \cdots
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u^n \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m
\\
u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u^n \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_{(-1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_{(0)}
\end{array}\right. \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
& \!\! \hspace*{-2cm} \begin{array}{l} \mbox{if} \ i=0, \\ \mbox{if} \
1 \leq i \leq n, \\ \mbox{if} \ i = n + 1, \end{array} \\
\\
\gd_j(m) \!\!\!\! &= \left\{ \!\!\!
\begin{array}{l}
1
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \quad
\\
m_{(-1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_{(0)} \quad
\end{array}\right. & \!\! \hspace*{-2cm}
\begin{array}{l} \mbox{if} \ j=0, \\ \mbox{if} \
j = 1 , \end{array} \\
\\
\gs_i(z \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m) \!\!\!\!
&= u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}
{\varepsilon} (u^{i+1}) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u^n \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m & \! \,
\hspace*{1pt} \hspace*{-2cm} 0 \leq i \leq n-1,
\\
\\
\tau_n(z \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m) \!\!\!\!
&= u^1_{-(1)}u^2 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u^1_{-(n-1)}u^n\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u^1_{-(n)}m_{(-1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_{(0)}u^1_+, &
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where we abbreviate $z:=u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}
\cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u^n$.
In \cite{KowKra:CSIACT} it was shown that, under the minimal assumption \rmref{campanilla1}, the maps \rmref{adualnightinpyongyang} (resp.~\rmref{anightinpyongyang})
give rise to a para-cyclic (resp.~para-cocylic) module, which is cyclic (resp.~cocyclic) if $M$ is SaYD, i.e., additionally fulfills \rmref{campanilla2}--\rmref{Eq:SaYD}.
Let us denote by $H_\bull(U,M)$ and $HC_\bull(U,M)$ the resulting simplicial and cyclic homology groups of $C_\bull(U,M)$, and likewise by $H^\bull(U,M)$ and $HC^\bull(U,M)$ the resulting simplicial and cyclic cohomology groups of $C^\bull(U,M)$.
\section{$\sqrt{\mbox{Morita}}$ theory and Morita base change Hopf algebroids}
In this section, we first recall some general facts about Morita contexts and their induced $\sqrt{\mbox{Morita}}$ theory in the sense of Takeuchi \cite{Tak:squareMorita}. Secondly, we explain how this theory
was used by Schauenburg to introduce Morita base change (left) Hopf algebroids in \cite{Schau:MBCIQG}.
In order to establish our main result, we explicitly give here the structure maps of Schauenburg's Morita base change (left) Hopf algebroids.
From now on, the unadorned symbol $\otimes$ stands for the tensor product over ${\Bbbk}$, the commutative ground ring.
\subsection{Morita contexts}
\label{ssec: context}
Let $R$ and $S$ be two rings and let ${}_SP_R$ and ${}_RQ_S$ be two bimodules, together with the following bimodule isomorphisms:
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Morita maps}
\begin{array}{rclrcl}
\phi: P \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} Q &{\overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}}& S, & \phi^{-1}(1_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}}) &=& \sum p'_j \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} q'_j, \\
\psi: Q \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} P &{\overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}}& R, & \psi^{-1}(1_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}) &=& \sum q_i \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} p_i.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
It is known from Morita theory (see, e.g., \cite[p.\ 60]{Bas:AKT}) that, up to natural isomorphisms, $\phi$ and $\psi$ can be chosen in such a way that
\begin{equation}
\label{energiaproxima}
(\phi\tensor{S}P) \,\,=\,\, (P\tensor{R}\psi) \quad \text{ and } \quad
(\psi\tensor{R}Q) \,\,=\,\, (Q\tensor{S}\phi).
\end{equation}
Thus $(R,S,P,Q,\phi,\psi)$ can be considered as a Morita context. In what follows,
we will usually make use of the notation
$$
p'q' := \phi(p' \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} q') \quad \mbox{and} \quad qp := \psi(q \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} p),\quad \forall \, p,p' \in P,\,\, q,q' \in Q.
$$
We then have
$$
\sum_{j} p_j' \, q_j' \,\,=\,\, 1_S, \quad \quad \sum_{i} q_i \, p_i \,\,=\,\, 1_R,
$$
as well as
$$
a(bp) \,\,=\,\, (ab)p \quad \mbox{in} \quad {}_SP_R, \quad \quad
b(aq) \,\,=\,\, (ba) q \quad \mbox{in} \quad {}_RQ_S,
$$
for all pairs of elements $a, p \in P$ and $b,q \in Q$.
The above context is canonically extended to a Morita context between the enveloping rings $\Reh$ and $\Se$.
That is, $(\Reh,\Se,\Pe,\Qe,\phi^{\rm e},\psi^{\rm e})$ is a Morita context as well,
where the underlying bimodules are defined by
$$
\begin{array}{rcl}
\Pe := P \otimes Q^\op &\in& \due \Mod \Se \Reh, \\
\Qe := Q \otimes P^\op &\in& \due \Mod \Reh \Se.
\end{array}
$$
Here ${}_{R^\op}P^\op_{S^\op}$ and ${}_{S^\op}Q^\op_{R^\op}$ are the opposite
bimodules, and $\phi^{\rm e},\psi^{\rm e}$ are the obvious maps. As was argued in \cite{Tak:squareMorita}, this is an induced $\sqrt{\mbox{Morita}}$ equivalence between $R$ and $S$, in the sense that the last context induces a monoidal equivalence between the monoidal categories of bimodules $ \due \Mod R R$ and $ \due \Mod S S$.
Explicitly, such a monoidal equivalence is set up by the following functors
$$
\xymatrix@C=80pt{ \due \Mod R R \simeq {}_{\Reh}\Mod \ar@<.5ex>[r]^-{\Pe\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}-} & {}_{\Se}\Mod \simeq \due \Mod S S. \ar@<.5ex>[l]^-{\Qe\tensor{\Se}-} }
$$
One of the monoidal structure maps of the functor $\Qe\tensor{\Se}-$ is explicitly given by the following natural isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:Phi}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\lr{\Qe\tensor{\Se}X}\tensor{R} \lr{\Qe\tensor{\Se}Y} &\overset{\simeq}{\lra}& \Qe\tensor{\Se}(X\tensor{S}Y), \\
\lr{(q\tensor{}p^o) \tensor{\Se} x} \tensor{R} \lr{(b\tensor{}a^o) \tensor{\Se} y} &\lma& (q\tensor{}a^o) \tensor{\Se} \lr{x(pb)\tensor{S}y}, \\
\sum_j \lr{(q\tensor{}p'_j{}^o)\tensor{S}x}\tensor{R}\lr{(q_j'{}\tensor{}p^o)\tensor{S}y} &\longmapsfrom& (q\tensor{}p^o)\tensor{\Se}(x\tensor{S}y).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
An alternative way of defining these functors is via the following natural isomorphisms:
$$
\Qe\tensor{\Se}- \simeq Q\tensor{S}-\tensor{S}P, \qquad \Pe\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}- \simeq P\tensor{R}-\tensor{R}Q.
$$
Repeating the same process, we end up with two mutually inverse functors (up to natural isomorphisms)
$$
\xymatrix@C=100pt{ \due \Mod \Reh \Reh \ar@<.5ex>[r]^-{\Pe\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(-)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Qe} & \due \Mod \Se \Se. \ar@<.5ex>[l]^-{\Qe\tensor{\Se}(-)\tensor{\Se}\Pe} }
$$
Using the Morita context, this equivalence is canonically lifted to the category of monoids.
Thus, if we denote by $\Rings{\Reh}$ the category of $\Reh$-rings, i.e., algebra extensions of $\Reh$,
we have a commutative diagram
$$
\xymatrix@C=90pt@R=40pt{\Rings{\Reh}\ar@<.5ex>[rr]^-{\Pe\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(-)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Qe} \ar@{->}_-{\Scr{O}_R}[d] & & \Rings{\Se} \ar@{->}^-{\Scr{O}_S}[d] \ar@<.5ex>[ll]^-{\Qe\tensor{\Se}(-)\tensor{\Se}\Pe} \\ \due \Mod \Reh \Reh \ar@<.5ex>[rr]^-{\Pe\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(-)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Qe} & & \due \Mod \Se \Se, \ar@<.5ex>[ll]^-{\Qe\tensor{\Se}(-)\tensor{\Se}\Pe} }
$$
whose vertical arrows are the forgetful functors. For any $\Reh$-ring $T$ we then have
functors connecting the categories of left modules:
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:modules}
\xymatrix@C=90pt@R=40pt{{}_T\Mod\ar@<.5ex>[rr]^-{\Pe\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(-)} \ar@{->}_-{\Scr{F}}[d] & & {}_{\Pe\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}T\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Qe}\Mod \ar@{->}^-{\Scr{F}'}[d] \ar@<.5ex>[ll]^-{\Qe\tensor{\Se}(-)} \\ {}_{\Reh}\Mod \ar@<.5ex>[rr]^-{\Pe\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(-)} & & {}_{\Se}\Mod. \ar@<.5ex>[ll]^-{\Qe\tensor{\Se}(-)} }
\end{equation}
\subsection{Morita base change for left bialgebroids}
\label{subsect:Morita}
In \cite{Schau:MBCIQG}, Schauenburg used one of these functors to construct a functor
from the category of left Hopf algebroids over $R$ to the category of left Hopf algebroids over $S$, known as
\emph{Morita base change left Hopf algebroids}.
In what follows,
we will need an explicit description of this Morita base change left Hopf algebroid structure. So, it will be convenient to review this construction in more detail.
Let $(R,S,P,Q,\phi,\psi)$ be a Morita context. As one can realise from diagram \eqref{Eq:modules}, the following two assertions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] the category of $T$-modules is a monoidal category and the forgetful functor $\Scr{F}$ is strict monoidal;
\item[(ii)] the category of $(\Pe\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}T\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Qe)$-modules is a monoidal category and the forgetful functor $\Scr{F}'$ is strict monoidal.
\end{enumerate}
Therefore, by Schauenburg's result \cite[Theorem 5.1]{Schau:BONCRAASTFHB}, starting with a left Hopf algebroid $(R, U)$ we can construct a new one $(S, \tilde{U})$ as follows. Denote by
$$
\tilde{U} := \Pe \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} U \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} \Qe
$$
the image of $U$. Using the natural isomorphism \eqref{Eq:Phi} and the diagram \eqref{Eq:modules} for the underlying $\Reh$-ring $U$, we can compute the structure maps of the left Hopf algebroid $(S,\tilde{U})$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\em Source and target.}
Source and target are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:tilde_eta}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\tilde{\eta}: \quad \Se &\lra & \Pe \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} U \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} \Qe, \\
s \otimes \td{s}^o &\lma & \sum_{i,\, j} (sp'_j \otimes {q'_i}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} 1_{{\scriptscriptstyle{U}}} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (q'_j \otimes {(\td{s}p'_i)}^o).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\item {\em Ring structure.}
The multiplication in $\tilde{U}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:tilde_mu}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\tilde{\mu}: \tilde{U} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Se}} \tilde{U} &\lra & \tilde{U}, \\
\td{u} \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Se}}} \td{v} &\lma & (a_1 \otimes b_1^o) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} \lr{\big(u \bract (c_1a_2)\big)\big((b_2d_1) \lact v \big) }
\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} (c_2 \otimes d_2^o),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\td{u}:= \lr{(a_1 \otimes b_1^o) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} u \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} (c_1 \otimes d_1^o)}$ and $\td{v}:= \lr{(a_2 \otimes b_2^o) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} v \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} (c_2 \otimes d_2^o)}$.
The identity element is given by the image $\td{\eta}(1_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Se}})$:
$$
1_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Se}} \lma \sum (p'_j \otimes {q'_i}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} 1_{{\scriptscriptstyle{U}}} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (q'_j \otimes {p'_i}^o).
$$
\item {\em Coring structure.}
The comultiplication is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:tilde_Delta}
\begin{small}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\tilde{\Delta}: \tilde{U} &\lra& \tilde{U} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} \tilde{U}, \\
\td{u} &\lma& \underset{i,\, j}{\sum} \lr{(a \otimes q_i^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u_{(1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (c \otimes {p'_j}^o)}
\otimes_{{\scriptscriptstyle{S}}} \lr{(p_i \otimes b^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u_{(2)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (q'_j \otimes d^o)},
\end{array}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
where $\td{u}:= \lr{(a \otimes b^o) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} u \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} (c \otimes d^o)}$,
and the counit is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:tilde_epsilon}
\tilde{\varepsilon}: \tilde{U} \longrightarrow S, \quad \td{u} \longmapsto a\varepsilon(u \bract (cd))b.
\end{equation}
\item {\em The left Hopf structure.}
The explicit expression for the translation map reads
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:tilde_beta}
\begin{small}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\tilde{\gb}^{-1}: \tilde{U} &\lra & \tilde{U} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}} \tilde{U}, \\
\td{u} &\lma & \underset{i,\, j}{\sum}\lr{(a \otimes {q'_j}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u_+ \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (c \otimes p_i^o)}
\otimes_{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}} \lr{(d \otimes q_i^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u_- \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (b \otimes {p'_j}^o)},
\end{array}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
where again $\td{u}:= \lr{(a \otimes b^o) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} u \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} (c \otimes d^o)}$.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{$\tilde{U}$-modules and $\tilde{U}$-comodules}
\label{ssection:mod comod}
Consider the diagram
analogous to \eqref{Eq:modules} for right $U$-modules.
The functor of the first column in that diagram is explicitly given on objects as follows.
For $M \in \Mod_{U}$, the right $\td{U}$-module $\tilde{M} := P \otimes_R M \otimes_R Q$ is equipped with the following action:
denote
$$
\tilde{m} := p\tensor{R}m\tensor{R}q \in \td{M}\quad \text{ and }\quad \td{u} := (a\tensor{}b^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}u\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} (c\tensor{}d^o) \in \td{U},
$$
and define
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:act_tildeM}
\td{m} \td{u} :=
d \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \big((bp) \blact m \bract (qa)\big) u \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} c.
\end{equation}
As shown in \cite{Schau:MBCIQG}, there is also a monoidal equivalence connecting
the categories of left comodules.
More precisely, if $M \in {}_U\bf Comod$, then $\tilde{M}$ is a left $\tilde{U}$-comodule with coaction
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:coact_tildeM}
\Delta_{\tilde{{\scriptscriptstyle{M}}}}(\td{m}) := \sum_{i,\, j} \big((p \otimes q_i^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} m_{(-1)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (q \otimes {p'_j}^o)\big) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} (p_i \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_{(0)} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} q'_j),
\end{equation}
which exactly coincides with the formula given in \cite{Schau:MBCIQG} in the special case where the left module $\due U \lact {}$ is finitely generated projective.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lemma:I}
Let $M$ be a right $U$-module and left $U$-comodule. Then $M$ is aYD (resp. SaYD)
if and only if $\tilde{M}$ is.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is sufficient to prove, say, the direct implication as the opposite direction then follows at once since both directions in the Morita base change induced equivalence between $U$-modules and $\td{U}$-modules as well as in the induced equivalence between $U$-comodules and $\td{U}$-comodules work the same way.
So assume that $M$ is aYD.
Then, for any $s, t \in S$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\td{m}\, \td{\eta}( t\tensor{}s^o) &=& \sum_{i,\, j}
\Big(p\tensor{R}m\tensor{R}q \Big) \, \Big( ((t p'_j)\tensor{}q'_j{}^o) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}1_{U}
\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} (q_j'\tensor{}(sp_i')^o) \Big) \\ &\overset{\eqref{Eq:act_tildeM}}{=}&
\sum_{i,\,j} (sp_i'\tensor{R}\lr{(q_i'p)\blact m\bract (qtp_j')}\tensor{R} q_j'
\\ &\overset{{\eqref{campanilla1},\eqref{campanilla2}}}{=}& \sum_{i,\,j} (sp_i'\tensor{R}\lr{(q_i'p) m (qtp_j')}\tensor{R} q_j' \\ &=& \sum_{i,\,j} (sp_i'q_i'p)\tensor{R}m\tensor{R}(qtp_j'q_j') \\ &=& (sp)\tensor{R}m\tensor{R}(qt) \,\, =\,\, s\td{m}t,
\end{eqnarray*}
which gives \eqref{campanilla1} and \eqref{campanilla2} for $\td{M}$.
Now, let us show \eqref{huhomezone} for $\td{M}$, and
start with $\td{m}\td{u}\,=\, d\tensor{R}\big((bp)\blact m \ract(qa)\big)u\tensor{R} c$ as defined in \eqref{Eq:act_tildeM}.
Once computed the coaction of the middle term in the latter tensor product
and taking into account \eqref{huhomezone} for $M$, apply \eqref{Eq:coact_tildeM} to obtain
\begin{footnotesize}
$$
\Delta_{\td{{\scriptscriptstyle{M}}}}(\td{m}\td{u}) = \sum_{i,\, j} \LR{(d\tensor{}q_i^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\lr{(u_-\bract(bp))(m_{(-1)}\bract(qa))u_{+(1)}} \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} (c\tensor{}p_j'{}^o)} \tensor{S} \lr{p_i\tensor{R}m_{(0)}u_{+(2)}\tensor{R}q_j'}.
$$
\end{footnotesize}
On the other hand, using \eqref{Eq:tilde_Delta} and \eqref{Eq:tilde_beta},
we get
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\td{u}_- & \td{m}_{(-1)}\td{u}_{+(1)}\tensor{S}\td{m}_{(0)}\td{u}_{+(2)} \\
& = \sum_{i_0, i_1, i_2; \, j_0, j_1,j_2} \LR{ (d\tensor{}q_{i_1}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Big(((q_{i_0}p_{j_1}')\blact u_-\bract(bp))((q_{i_2}p_{j_0}')\blact m_{(-1)} \bract (qa))u_{+(1)}\Big)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} (c\tensor{}p_{j_2}'{}^o)} \\ & \qquad \qquad
\tensor{S}\LR{ p_{i_1}\tensor{R} \Big( (m_{(0)}\bract(q'_{j_0}p_{i_2}))((q'_{j_1}p_{i_0})\blact u_{+(2)})\Big)\tensor{R}q_{j_2}' } \\
& \!\! \overset{\eqref{douceuretresistance},\eqref{campanilla2}}{=}
\sum_{i_0, i_1; \, j_1,j_2} \LR{ (d\tensor{}q_{i_1}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Big(((q_{i_0}p_{j_1}')\blact u_-\bract(bp))(m_{(-1)} \bract (qa))u_{+(1)}\Big)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} (c\tensor{}p_{j_2}'{}^o)} \\ & \qquad \qquad
\tensor{S}\LR{ p_{i_1}\tensor{R} \Big( (m_{(0)})((q'_{j_1}p_{i_0})\blact u_{+(2)})\Big)\tensor{R}q_{j_2}' }
\\
& \!\! \overset{\eqref{panuelos}, \rmref{Sch3}}{=}
\sum_{i_1; \, j_2} \LR{ (d\tensor{}q_{i_1}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\lr{(u_-\bract (bp))(m_{(-1)} \bract (qa))u_{+(1)}}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} (c\tensor{}p_{j_2}'{}^o)} \tensor{S}\LR{ p_{i_1}\tensor{R} \Big( m_{(0)}u_{+(2)}\Big)\tensor{R}q_{j_2}' } \\
&= \Delta_{\td{{\scriptscriptstyle{M}}}}(\td{m}\td{u}),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{footnotesize}
where in the last equality we used \rmref{maotsetung} along with \rmref{campanilla1}--\rmref{huhomezone}.
Analogously one checks the stability condition for $\td{M}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Morita base change invariance in Hopf-cyclic (co)homology}
This section contains our main results, Theorems \ref{thm:main1} \& \ref{thm:main2}. More precisely,
we construct two morphisms between the cyclic modules $C_{\bull}(U, M)$ and $C_{\bull}(\tilde{U}, \tilde{M})$,
where $(S, \tilde{U})$ is a Morita base change of $(R,U)$, and show that they form quasi-isomorphisms
by giving an explicit homotopy. This establishes the Morita base change invariance for cyclic homology.
For the Morita base change invariance of cyclic {\em co}homology, we follow the same path although we shall not give the proofs
since they are similar to the homology case.
Fix a Morita context $(R, S, P, Q, \phi, \psi)$ and assume we are given a left Hopf algebroid $(R, U)$, with
Morita base change left Hopf algebroid $(S, \tilde{U})$ as constructed in \S\ref{subsect:Morita}.
Recall the notation of \S\ref{ssection:mod comod}, and from now on,
the symbol $i_{0,\ldots,n}$ stands for the set of indices $\{i_0,\cdots,i_n\}$.
\subsection{The homology case}
Consider the cyclic module $\big(C_\bull(U,M), d_\bull, s_\bull, t_\bull\big)$ as in \rmref{adualnightinpyongyang}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lemma:II}
Let $M$ be a right $U$-module left
$U$-comodule, subject to both \eqref{campanilla1} and \eqref{campanilla2}.
Then the cyclic operator $\tilde{t}: C_n(\tilde{U}, \tilde{M}) \to C_n(\tilde{U}, \tilde{M})$
for the left Hopf algebroid $\tilde{U}$ with coefficients in $\td{M}$ is explicitly given by
\begin{multline*}
\tilde{t}: \tilde{m} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}} \tilde{x} \lma \\
\underset{i_{1,\ldots,n}}{\sum}\lr{p_{i_1}\tensor{R}m_{(0)}u^1_{+}\tensor{R}c_1}\tensor{S^\op}
\lr{(a_2\tensor{}q_{i_1}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}u^2_{+}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} (c_2\tensor{}p_{i_2}^o)}\tensor{S^\op} \\ \cdots\tensor{S^\op} \lr{(a_n\tensor{}q_{i_{n-1}}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}u^n_{+}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(c_n\tensor{}p_{i_n}^o)} \tensor{S^\op} \\ \LR{(d_n\tensor{}q_{i_n}^o) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\LR{(u^n_-\bract (b_nd_{n-1}))(u^{n-1}_-\bract (b_{n-1}d_{n-2}))\cdots (u^1_{-}\bract (b_1p)) \, m_{(-1)}}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(q\tensor{}a_1^o)},
\end{multline*}
using the notation $\td{m} := p\tensor{R}m \tensor{R}q \in \td{M}$ as well as
$\td{x}:= \td{u}^1\tensor{S^\op}\cdots\tensor{S^\op}\td{u}^{n}$, where $\td{u}^{k} := (a_k\tensor{}b_k^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}u^k\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(c_k\tensor{}d_k^o)$ for $1 \leq k \leq n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Eq.~\rmref{campanilla1} is not directly needed in the computation, but rather to make the operator $\tilde{t}$ well-defined.
By definition we know that
$$
\td{t}(\td{m}\tensor{S^\op}\td{u}^1\tensor{S^\op}\cdots\tensor{S^\op}\td{u}^n)\,:=\,\td{m}_{(0)}\td{u}^1_{+} \tensor{S^\op}\td{u}^2_{+}\tensor{S^\op} \cdots \tensor{S^\op}\td{u}^n_{+}\tensor{S^\op} \lr {\td{u}^n_{-}\td{u}^{n-1}_- \cdots \td{u}^1_{-}\td{m}_{(-1)}}.
$$
Using the formula for the translation map $\td{\beta}$ in \eqref{Eq:tilde_beta}, we have, along with Eqs.~\rmref{Eq:act_tildeM}, \rmref{Eq:coact_tildeM}, \rmref{salz}, and repeatedly using the multiplication formula \rmref{Eq:tilde_mu}
\begin{multline*}
\td{t}(\td{m}\tensor{S^\op}\td{u}^1\tensor{S^\op}\cdots\tensor{S^\op}\td{u}^n) \\ \,=\,
\underset{\underset{i_{0,\ldots, n}}{j_{0,\ldots, n}}}{\sum} \Big(p_{i_1} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \big((q'_{j_1}p_{i_0}) \blact m_{(0)} \bract (q'_{j_0}a_1)\big) u_{+}^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} c_1\Big)\tensor{S^\op}\lr{(a_2\tensor {}q_{j_2}'{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}u^2_{+}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(c_2\tensor{}p_{i_2}^o)} \\ \tensor{S^\op} \cdots \tensor{S^\op}\lr{(a_{n}\tensor {}q_{j_{n}}'{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}u^{n}_{+}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(c_{n}\tensor{}p_{i_n}^o)} \tensor{S^\op} \left[\underset{}{} (d_{n}\tensor{}q_{i_n}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} \right. \\ \Big[ \lr{(q_{i_{n-1}}p'_{j_n})\blact u^{n}_{-} \bract (b_nd_{n-1})} \lr{(q_{i_{n-2}}p'_{j_{n-1}})\blact u^{n-1}_{-} \bract (b_{n-1}d_{n-2})} \cdots \lr{(q_{i_{0}}p'_{j_{1}})\blact u^{1}_{-} \bract (b_{1}p)}m_{(-1)} \Big] \\ \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}
(q\tensor{}p'_{j_0}{}^o) \left. \underset{}{} \right] \\ \,=\,
\underset{\underset{i_{0,\ldots, n}}{j_{0,\ldots, n}}}{\sum} \Big( p_{i_1}\tensor{R} \lr{(m_{(0)}\bract (q_{j_0}'a_1))(u_{+}^1 \ract (q_{j_1}'p_{i_0}))}\tensor{R}c_1\Big)\tensor{S^\op}\lr{(a_2\tensor {}q_{j_2}'{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}u^2_{+}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(c_2\tensor{}p_{i_2}^o)} \\ \tensor{S^\op} \cdots \tensor{S^\op}\lr{(a_{n}\tensor {}q_{j_{n}}'{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}u^{n}_{+}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(c_{n}\tensor{}p_{i_n}^o)} \tensor{S^\op} \left[\underset{}{} (d_{n}\tensor{}q_{i_n}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} \right. \\ \Big[ \lr{(q_{i_{n-1}}p'_{j_n})\blact u^{n}_{-} \bract (b_nd_{n-1})} \lr{(q_{i_{n-2}}p'_{j_{n-1}})\blact u^{n-1}_{-} \bract (b_{n-1}d_{n-2})} \cdots \lr{(q_{i_{0}}p'_{j_{1}})\blact u^{1}_{-} \bract (b_{1}p)}m_{(-1)} \Big] \\ \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}
(q\tensor{}p'_{j_0}{}^o) \left. \underset{}{} \right].
\end{multline*}
By Eqs.~\eqref{campanilla2} and \eqref{douceuretresistance}, we can eliminate the sum with the index $j_0$. Thus we have
\begin{multline*}
\td{t}(\td{m}\tensor{S^\op}\td{u}^1\tensor{S^\op}\cdots\tensor{S^\op}\td{u}^n) \\ \,=\,
\underset{\underset{i_{0,\ldots,n}}{ j_{1,\ldots,n}}}{\sum} \Big( p_{i_1}\tensor{R} \lr{m_{(0)}(u_{+}^1 \ract (q_{j_1}'p_{i_0}))}\tensor{R}c_1\Big)\tensor{S^\op}\lr{(a_2\tensor {}q_{j_2}'{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}u^2_{+}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(c_2\tensor{}p_{i_2}^o)} \\ \tensor{S^\op} \cdots \tensor{S^\op}\lr{(a_{n}\tensor {}q_{j_{n}}'{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}u^{n}_{+}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(c_{n}\tensor{}p_{i_n}^o)} \tensor{S^\op} \left[\underset{}{} (d_{n}\tensor{}q_{i_n}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} \right. \\ \Big[ \lr{(q_{i_{n-1}}p'_{j_n})\blact u^{n}_{-} \bract (b_nd_{n-1})} \lr{(q_{i_{n-2}}p'_{j_{n-1}})\blact u^{n-1}_{-} \bract (b_{n-1}d_{n-2})} \cdots \lr{(q_{i_{0}}p'_{j_{1}})\blact u^{1}_{-} \bract (b_{1}p)}m_{(-1)} \Big] \\ \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}
(q\tensor{}a_1^o) \left. \underset{}{} \right].
\end{multline*}
Repeating the same process, but now using repeatedly \eqref{Sch3}, we can eliminate the sums indexed by $i_0,j_1,\cdots,j_n$, and obtain the stated formula.
\end{proof}
In order to show invariance of Hopf-cyclic homology, we will first of all construct a quasi-isomorphism between the $b$-columns,
denoted again by $C_\bull(U,M)$ resp.\ $C_\bull(\td{U},\td{M})$,
of the cyclic bicomplexes $CC_{\bull\bull}(U,M)$ and $CC_{\bull\bull}(\td{U},\td{M})$ associated to the respective cyclic modules (cf.\ \S\ref{almeria}).
Define the map $\theta_n: C_n(U,M) \to C_n(\tilde{U},\tilde{M})$ as follows: for $n=0$, set
$$
\theta_0: M \longrightarrow \tilde{M}, \quad m \longmapsto \sum_i p_i \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} q_i,
$$
and for $n \geq 1$, abbreviating $x:= u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^n$, set
\begin{equation}
\label{recattolico1}
\begin{split}
\theta_n:
m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x \longmapsto \sum_{\scriptscriptstyle{i_{0, \ldots, {n-1}}} \atop \scriptscriptstyle{j_{0, \ldots, n}}}
& (p_{i_0} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} q_{j_0}) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}} \big((p_{j_0} \otimes q_{i_0}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (q_{j_1} \otimes p_{i_1}^o)\big) \\
&\quad \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}} \big((p_{j_{n-1}} \otimes q_{i_{n-1}}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u^{n} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (q_{j_{n}} \otimes p_{j_{n}}^o)\big).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In the opposite direction, introduce the map $\gamma_n: C_n(\tilde{U},\tilde{M}) \to C_n(U,M)$, which is, for $n=0$,
$$
\gamma_0: \tilde{M} \longrightarrow M, \quad \big( \td{m}:=p \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} q\big) \longmapsto \sum_{j}(q'_jp)m(qp'_j),
$$
and for $n \geq 1$ it is given as
\begin{equation}
\label{reinacattolica1}
\begin{footnotesize}
{
\begin{split}
& \gamma_n: \tilde{m} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}} \tilde{x} \longmapsto \sum_{j_{0, \ldots, n}}
m(q p'_{j_0}) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \lr{ (q'_{j_0}a_1) \lact u^1 \ract (b_1p) \bract (c_1p'_{j_1}) } \\
& \quad \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \lr{(q'_{j_1}a_2) \lact u^2 \ract (b_2d_1) \bract (c_2p'_{j_2})} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}
\cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \lr{(q'_{j_n} d_n) \blact (q'_{j_{n-1}}a_n) \lact u^n \ract (b_nd_{n-1}) \bract (c_np'_{j_n})},
\end{split} }
\end{footnotesize}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{u}^i := (a_i \otimes b^o_i) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u^i \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (c_i \otimes d^o_i) \,\in \td{U}$
for $1 \leq i \leq n$, and
$\tilde{x}:= \tilde{u}^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}} \tilde{u}^n$.
\begin{lem}
\label{revell}
The maps $\theta_{\bull}$ and $\gamma_{\bull}$ are morphisms of chain complexes.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We only check the compatibility of the differential with $\gamma_n$ since the computation for $\theta_n$ is similar but less complicated.
Decompose
$$
b\gamma_n\,\,=\,\, \overset{=:(i)}{\overbrace{d_0\gamma_n}} \,+\, \overset{=:(ii)}{\overbrace{\sum_{1\leq \, k\, \leq n-1} (-1)^k d_k \gamma_n}} \,+\, \overset{=:(iii)}{\overbrace{(-1)^n d_n\gamma_n}},
$$
where $b$ is the differential \rmref{Eq:b} of the underlying simplicial structure of $C_{\bull}({U}, {M})$ as in \eqref{adualnightinpyongyang}.
When applying this map to an element of the form
$\td{m}\tensor{S^\op}\td{u}^1\tensor{S^\op}\cdots\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}}\td{u}^n$
(using the notation above), each term is explicitly given by
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{eqnarray*}
(i) &\!\!\!\!\!\!=&\!\!\!\!\!\! \underset{j_{0,\, \ldots,n}}{\sum} (m(qp_{j_0}') \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Big( \lr{(q_{j_0}'a_1)\lact u^1\ract(b_1p)}\bract (c_1p_{j_1}')\Big) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\cdots \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}
\\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! &\!\!\!\!
\!\!\!\!\!\! \LR{ \varepsilon\Big( (q_{j_n}'d_n)\blact \lr{(q_{j_{n-1}}'a_n)\lact u^n\ract(b_nd_{n-1})}\bract(c_np_{j_n}')\Big) \blact \Big( \lr{(q_{j_{n-2}}'a_{n-1})\lact u^{n-1}\ract(b_{n-1}d_{n-2})}\bract(c_{n-1}p_{j_{n-1}}') \Big)}
\\
\!\!\!\!
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\overset{\eqref{Eq:counit}}{=} &\!\!\!\!\!\!
\underset{j_{0,\, \ldots,n-1}}{\sum} (m(qp_{j_0}') \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Big( \lr{(q_{j_0}'a_1)\lact u^1\ract(b_1p)}\bract (c_1p_{j_1}')\Big) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\cdots \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} \\ & & \LR{\Big((q_{j_{n-1}}'a_{n}) \varepsilon( u^n\bract(c_nd_n))(b_nd_{n-1})\Big) \blact \Big( \lr{(q_{j_{n-2}}'a_{n-1})\lact u^{n-1}\ract(b_{n-1}d_{n-2})}\bract(c_{n-1}p_{j_{n-1}}') \Big)};
\\
(ii) &\!\!\!\!\!\!=&\!\!\!\!\!\!
\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\underset{j_{0,\ldots,{n-k-1},{n-k+1},\ldots,{n}}}{\sum}(m(qp_{j_0}')\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Big( \lr{(q_{j_0}'a_1)\lact u^1\ract(b_1p)}\bract (c_1p_{j_1}')\Big) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\cdots \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} \\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \LR{ \Big( (b_{n-k-1}d_{n-k})\blact \lr{(q_{j_{n-k-1}}'a_{n-k})\lact u^{n-k} \ract (b_{n-k}d_{n-k-1})}\bract (c_{n-k}a_{n-k+1})\Big) \Big( u^{n-k+1} \bract(c_{n-k+1}p_{j_{n-k+1}}')\Big) } \\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!\!\! \qquad \qquad
\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\cdots \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}
\Big((q_{j_n}'d_n) \blact \lr{(q_{j_{n-1}}'a_n)\lact u^{n}\ract(b_nd_{n-1})}\bract (c_np_{j_n}')\Big); \\
(iii) &\!\!\!\!\!\!=&\!\!\!\!\!\!
\sum_{j_{1, \ldots,n}} (-1)^n \Big( m\lr{\lr{(qa_1)\lact u^1\ract(b_1p)}\bract (c_1p_{j_1}') }\Big)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}
\\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\cdots \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} \Big((q_{j_n}'d_n) \blact \lr{(q_{j_{n-1}}'a_n)\lact u^{n}\ract(b_nd_{n-1})}\bract (c_np_{j_n}')\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{footnotesize}
On the other hand, we can also write
$$
\gamma_{n-1}\td{b}\,\,=\,\, \overset{=:\widetilde{(i)}}{\overbrace{\gamma_{n-1} \td{d}_0}} \,+\, \overset{=:\widetilde{(ii)}}{\overbrace{\sum_{1\leq \, k\, \leq n-1} (-1)^k \gamma_{n-1}\td{d}_k}} \,+\, \overset{=:\widetilde{(iii)}}{\overbrace{(-1)^n \gamma_{n-1}\td{d}_n}},
$$
where $\td{b}$ is analogously the differential of the underlying simplicial structure of $C_{\bull}(\td{U}, \td{M})$.
Applying $\gamma_{n-1} \td{b}$ to the same element $\td{m}\tensor{S^\op}\td{u}^1\tensor{S^\op}\cdots\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}}\td{u}^n$,
we find that the first term is
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widetilde{(i)} &=& \underset{j_{0, \ldots,{n-1}}}{\sum} m(qp_{j_0}') \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Big( \lr{(q_{j_0}'a_1)\lact u^1\ract(b_1p)}\bract (c_1p_{j_1}')\Big) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\\
&& \quad \cdots \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} \Big( (q_{j_{n-1}}'\hat{d}_{n-1})\blact \lr{ (q_{j_{n-2}}'\hat{a}_{n-1})\lact \hat{u}^{n-1}\ract(\hat{b}_{n-1}d_{n-2}) } \bract(\hat{c}_{n-1}p_{j_{n-1}}') \Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{footnotesize}
where we denoted the elements $\td{\varepsilon}(\td{u}^n)\blact \td{u}^{n-1} =:
(\hat{a}_{n-1}\tensor{}\hat{b}_{n-1}{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\hat{u}^{n-1}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(\hat{c}_{n-1}\tensor{}\hat{d}_{n-1}{}^o)$.
Computing explicitly this term, we obtain
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\td{\varepsilon}(\td{u}^n)\blact \td{u}^{n-1}&\!\!\!\!\!\!
=&\!\!\!\!\!\! \td{u}^{n-1}\td{\eta}(1\tensor{}\td{\varepsilon}(\td{u}^n)^o) \nonumber \\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\overset{\eqref{Eq:tilde_eta} }{=}&\!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{i_n,\, j_n}
({a}_{n-1}\tensor{}{b}_{n-1}{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Big ((q_{i_n}'d_{n-1})\blact{u}^{n-1} \bract (c_{n-1}p_{j_n}') \Big) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(q_{j_n}'\tensor{}(\td{\varepsilon}(\td{u}^n) p_{i_n}'){}^o) \nonumber \\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\overset{\eqref{Eq:tilde_epsilon}}{=}&\!\!\!\!\!\!
\sum_{i_n,\, j_n}
({a}_{n-1}\tensor{}{b}_{n-1}{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Big ((q_{i_n}'d_{n-1})\blact{u}^{n-1} \bract (c_{n-1}p_{j_n}') \Big) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(q_{j_n}'\tensor{}\lr{a_n \varepsilon(u^n\bract (c_nd_n)) b_n p_{i_n}'){}^o} \nonumber\\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!=&\!\!\!\!\!\!
\sum_{ j_n}
({a}_{n-1}\tensor{}{b}_{n-1}{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Big ({u}^{n-1} \bract (c_{n-1}p_{j_n}') \Big) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(q_{j_n}'\tensor{}\lr{a_n \varepsilon(u^n\bract (c_nd_n)) b_n d_{n-1}){}^o}
\nonumber\\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!=&\!\!\!\!\!\!
({a}_{n-1}\tensor{}{b}_{n-1}{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}{u}^{n-1} \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Big(\big( c_{n-1}(\sum_{ j_n} p_{j_n}'q_{j_n}') \big)\tensor{}\lr{a_n \varepsilon(u^n\bract (c_nd_n)) b_n d_{n-1}){}^o} \Big) \nonumber \\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!= &\!\!\!\!\!\!
({a}_{n-1}\tensor{}{b}_{n-1}{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\, {u}^{n-1} \, \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} \Big(c_{n-1}\tensor{}\lr{a_n \varepsilon(u^n\bract (c_nd_n)) b_n d_{n-1}){}^o}\Big),
\label{Eq:T1}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{footnotesize}
thence,
$$
\hat{a}_{n-1}=a_{n-1},\quad \hat{b}_{n-1}= {b}_{n-1}, \quad \hat{u}^{n-1}=u^{n-1},\quad \text{ and } \quad \hat{d}_{n-1}=a_n \varepsilon(u^n\bract (c_nd_n)) b_n d_{n-1}.
$$
Inserting this into the expression of $\widetilde{(i)}$ above, one obtains $\widetilde{(i)}=(i)$.
The second term can be written as follows:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{multline*}
\widetilde{(ii)} \,=\, \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\underset{j_{0,\ldots,{n-k-1},{n-k+1},\ldots,{n}}}{\sum}(m(qp_{j_0}')\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\Big( \lr{(q_{j_0}'a_1)\lact u^1\ract(b_1p)}\bract (c_1p_{j_1}')\Big) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\cdots \\ \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}
\Big( \lr{(q_{j_{n-k-1}}'\bara{a}_{n-k})\lact \bara{u}^{n-k} \ract (\bara{b}_{n-k}d_{n-k-1})}\bract (\bara{c}_{n-k}p_{j_{n-k+1}}')\Big) \\ \qquad \qquad \qquad \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}
\Big( \lr{(q_{j_{n-k+1}}'a_{n-k+2})\lact u^{n-k+2} \ract (b_{n-k+2}\bara{d}_{n-k}) }\bract(c_{n-k+2}p_{j_{n-k+1}}')\Big) \\
\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\cdots \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} \Big((q_{j_n}'d_n) \blact \lr{(q_{j_{n-1}}'a_n)\lact u^{n}\ract(b_nd_{n-1})}\bract (c_np_{j_n}')\Big),
\end{multline*}
\end{footnotesize}
where we denoted the elements
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{eqnarray}
\td{u}^{n-k} \td{u}^{n-k+1} &\!\!\!\!\!\!:=&\!\!\!\!\!\! (\bara{a}_{n-k}\tensor{}\bara{b}_{n-k}{}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\bara{u}^{n-k}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(\bara{c}_{n-k}\tensor{}\bara{d}_{n-k}{}^o)
\nonumber \\
\label{Eq:T2}
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\overset{\eqref{Eq:tilde_mu}}{\,=}&\!\!\!\!\!\! (a_{n-k}\tensor{}b_{n-k}^o)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} \lr{(b_{n-k+1}d_{n-k}) \blact u^{n-k} \bract (c_{n-k}a_{n-k+1})} u^{n-k+1} \\
\nonumber
&& \hspace*{8cm} \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}(c_{n-k+1}\tensor{}d_{n-k+1}^o).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{footnotesize}
Therefore, $\widetilde{(ii)} = (ii)$ after substituting
\eqref{Eq:T2} in $\widetilde{(ii)}$.
As for the third term, we have
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widetilde{(iii)} &=& \sum_{j_{1, \ldots,n}} (-1)^n \Big( m\lr{\lr{(qa_1)\lact u^1\ract(b_1p)}\bract (c_1p_{j_1}') }\Big)\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}}\hspace{3cm} \\ & & \hspace{2cm} \cdots \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}}} \Big((q_{j_n}'d_n) \blact \lr{(q_{j_{n-1}}'a_n)\lact u^{n}\ract(b_nd_{n-1})}\bract (c_np_{j_n}')\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{footnotesize}
which is obviously $(iii)$. We conclude that $\gamma_{\bull}$ is a morphism of chain complexes.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: h}
The composite $\gamma_n \theta_n$ is homotopic to the identity, the homotopy $h_n: C_n(U, M) \to C_{n+1}(U,M)$
being explicitly given by the following map: for $n=0$, define
$$
h_0: m \mapsto \sum_{i,\,j} m(q_ip'_j) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} ((q'_jp_i) \lact 1_{\scriptscriptstyle{U}}),
$$
and for $n\geq 1$, set
\begin{equation}\label{reyescattolicos}
\begin{footnotesize}
{
\begin{split}
h_n: m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x \mapsto
& \sum^n_{k=0} \underset{\underset{i_{0, \ldots, k}}{j_{0,\ldots, k}}}{\sum} (-1)^{k+n} m(q_{i_0}p'_{j_0})
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \lr{ (q'_{j_0}p_{i_0}) \lact u^1 \bract (q_{i_1}p'_{j_1}) }
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \\
& \quad \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}\lr{ (q'_{j_{k-1}}p_{i_{k-1}}) \lact u^k \bract (q_{i_k}p'_{j_k}) } \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \Big( (q'_{j_k}p_{i_k}) \lact 1_{\scriptscriptstyle{U}} \Big) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^{k+1} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^n
\end{split} }
\end{footnotesize}
\end{equation}
abbreviating $x:=u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^n$ as before.
Similarly, $\theta_n \gamma_n$ is homotopic to the identity as well.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We need to check $bh_0 = \gamma_0 \theta_0 - {\rm id}$ for $n=0$ and $bh_n + h_{n-1}b = \gamma_n \theta_n - {\rm id}$ for $n > 0$.
As for the first one, it is immediate that
\begin{equation*}
b h_0(m) = \sum_{i,j} \varepsilon((q'_jp_i) \lact 1_{\scriptscriptstyle{U}}) \blact m(q_ip'_j) - m \\
= \sum_{i, j} (q'_jp_i)\big(m) (q_ip'_j) - m
= \gamma_0 \theta_0(m) - m.
\end{equation*}
In case $n > 0$, since multiplying two consecutive tensor factors of $h_n$ kills the respective $q, p$ as well as the $q', p'$
between them,
it is
straightforward to see that
\begin{equation}
\label{ronda}
\sum_{k=1}^n (-1)^k d_k h_n(m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x) + \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} (-1)^k h_{n-1} d_k (m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x) =0.
\end{equation}
As for the remaining terms, we have
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&(-1)^{n+1} d_{n+1} h_n(m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x) \\
&= - m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x
+ (-1)^{n+1} \sum^n_{k=1} \underset{\underset{i_{1, \ldots, k}}{j_{1,\ldots, k}}}{\sum} (-1)^{k+n} mu^1(q_{i_1}p'_{j_1})
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}\lr{ (q'_{j_{k-1}}p_{i_{k-1}}) \lact u^k \bract (q_{i_k}p'_{j_k}) } \\
& \hspace*{8cm} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \Big( (q'_{j_k}p_{i_k}) \lact 1_{\scriptscriptstyle{U}} \Big) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^{k+1} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^n \\
& = - m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x
+ (-1)^{n+1} \sum^{n-1}_{k=0} \underset{\underset{i_{0, \ldots, k}}{j_{0,\ldots, k}}}{\sum} (-1)^{k+(n-1)} (mu^1)(q_{i_0}p'_{j_0})
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \lr{ (q'_{j_{0}}p_{i_{0}}) \lact u^{2} \bract (q_{i_1}p'_{j_1}) } \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \\
& \hspace*{3.5cm} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \lr{ (q'_{j_{k-1}}p_{i_{k-1}}) \lact u^{k+1} \bract (q_{i_k}p'_{j_k}) } \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \Big( (q'_{j_k}p_{i_k}) \lact 1_{\scriptscriptstyle{U}} \Big) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^{k+2} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^n \\
&= (- {\rm id} - (-1)^n h_{n-1} d_n) (m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{footnotesize}
Moreover,
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& d_{0} h_n(m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x) \\
& =\sum^{n-1}_{k=0} \underset{\underset{i_{0, \ldots, k}}{j_{0,\ldots, k}}}{\sum} (-1)^{k+n} (m \bract (q_{i_0}p'_{j_0}) )
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \lr{ (q'_{j_0}p_{i_0}) \lact u^1 \bract (q_{i_1}p'_{j_1}) }
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \\
&\qquad \quad \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}\lr{ (q'_{j_{k-1}}p_{i_{k-1}}) \lact u^k \bract (q_{i_k}p'_{j_k}) } \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \Big( (q'_{j_k}p_{i_k}) \lact 1_{\scriptscriptstyle{U}} \Big) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^{k+1} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} u^{n-2} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \big(\gve(u^n) \blact u^{n-1}\big) \\
&
\quad + \underset{\underset{i_{0,\ldots,{n}}}{j_{0,\ldots,{n}}}}{\sum} (m \bract (q_{i_0}p'_{j_0}) )
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \lr{ (q'_{j_0}p_{i_0}) \lact u^1 \bract (q_{i_1}p'_{j_1}) }
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}
\big((q'_{j_{n-1}}p_{i_{n-1}}) \lact (q'_{j_n}p_{i_n}) \blact u^n \bract (q_{i_n}p'_{j_n}) \big),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{footnotesize}
where we have used Eqs.~\rmref{pouvoir} and \rmref{Eq:counit}.
The first sumand is easily seen to be equal to $- h_{n-1} d_0$ and we are left with computing the last sumand:
by definition of $\theta_n$ and $\gamma_n$ (see Eqs.~\eqref{recattolico1}--\eqref{reinacattolica1})
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_n\theta_n(m\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x) &=& \gamma_n\Big[
\sum_{\scriptscriptstyle{k_{0, \ldots, {n-1}}} \atop \scriptscriptstyle{j_{0, \ldots, n}}}
(p_{k_0} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} q_{j_0}) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}} \big((p_{j_0} \otimes q_{k_0}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (q_{j_1} \otimes p_{k_1}^o)\big) \\
& & \qqquad \qqquad
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}
\big((p_{j_{n-1}} \otimes q_{k_{n-1}}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u^{n} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (q_{j_{n}} \otimes p_{j_{n}}^o)\big)\underset{\underset{}{}}{\underset{}{}} \Big]
\\ &=&
\sum_{\scriptscriptstyle{k_{0, \ldots, {n-1}}} \atop \scriptscriptstyle{j_{0, \ldots, n};\, i_{0,\ldots,n}}}
m (q_{j_0}p_{i_0}') \otimes_\Rop \big((q_{i_0}'p_{j_0})\lact u^1 \ract (q_{k_0}p_{k_0}) \bract (q_{j_1}p'_{i_1}) \big)
\\
&& \qquad \qquad \otimes_\Rop \cdots \otimes_\Rop
\big((q'_{i_{n}}p_{j_n})\blact (q_{i_{n-1}}'p_{j_{n-1}}) \lact u^{n} \ract (q_{k_{n-1}} p_{k_{n-1}}) \bract(q_{j_{n}} p_{i_{n}}')\big) \\
&= &
\quad \underset{\underset{i_{0,\ldots,{n}}}{j_{0,\ldots,{n}}}}{\sum} (m \bract (q_{i_0}p'_{j_0}) )
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \lr{ (q'_{j_0}p_{i_0}) \lact u^1 \bract (q_{i_1}p'_{j_1}) }
\\ & &
\qquad \qquad
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}
\big((q'_{j_{n-1}}p_{i_{n-1}}) \lact (q'_{j_n}p_{i_n}) \blact u^n \bract (q_{i_n}p'_{j_n}) \big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{footnotesize}
where \rmref{campanilla2} was used in the last line and which, as is seen by interchanging the indices, is exactly the last term in the expression of $d_{0} h_n(m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x)$ above. Hence we have shown that
$$
d_{0} h_n(m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x) \, =\, \big(-h_{n-1} d_0 + \gamma_n \theta_n\big)(m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} x).
$$
Combining this with \rmref{ronda}, we obtain
$
bh_n + h_{n-1}b = \gamma_n \theta_n - {\rm id},
$
and this finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
To pass to the cyclic case, we prove first:
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lemma:tgamma}
The morphisms of chain complexes $\theta_{\bull}$ and $\gamma_{\bull}$ are morphisms of cyclic objects. That is, they satisfy:
$$ \gamma_{\bull} \, \td{t}_{\bull}\,\,=\,\, t_{\bull} \, \gamma_{\bull},\qquad
\theta_{\bull} \, t_{\bull}\,\,=\,\, \td{t}_{\bull} \, \theta_{\bull}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We only check the first equation.
Take an element
$\td{m}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}}\td{u}^1 \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}}\cdots\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}} \td{u}^n \in C_n(\td{U},\, \td{M})$, for $n \geq 0$. Then, applying equations \eqref{Sch47}, \eqref{Sch5}, and \eqref{maotsetung}, we can write
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
t_n \gamma_n(\td{m}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}}\td{u}^1 \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}}\cdots\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}} \td{u}^n)
&= \sum_{j_{0,\ldots,n}} \Big( \lr{m_{(0)}\bract (q_{j_0}'a_1)}\lr{u_{+}^1 \bract (c_1p_{j_1}')}\Big) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}} \Big( (q_{j_1}'a_2)\lact u_{+}^2 \bract (c_2p_{j_2}')\Big) \\
& \qquad
\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}} \cdots\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}}\Big((q_{j_{n-1}}'a_n) \lact u_{+}^n \bract (c_np_{j_n}')\Big) \\
& \qquad
\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}}\left[\underset{}{} ((q_{j_n}'d_n) \lact u^n_{-})((b_nd_{n-1}) \lact u^{n-1}_{-}) ((b_{n-1}d_{n-2}) \lact u^{n-2}_{-}) \cdots \right. \\
& \qquad
\cdots \left. \underset{}{} ( (b_2d_1)\lact u^1_{-}) ( (b_1p) \lact m_{(-1)}\bract(qp_{j_0}')) \right].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{footnotesize}
On the other hand, we have
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_n\td{t}_n(\td{m}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}}\td{u}^1 \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}}\cdots\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Sop}}} \td{u}^n)
\!\!\!\!&=\!\!\!\!& \sum_{j_{0,\ldots,n}} \Big( \lr{m_{(0)}u_{+}^1} \bract (c_1p_{j_0}')\Big) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}} \Big( (q_{j_0}'a_2)\lact u_{+}^2 \bract (c_2p_{j_1}')\Big) \\
&& \qquad
\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}} \cdots\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}}\Big( (q_{j_{n-2}}'a_n) \lact u_{+}^n \bract (c_np_{j_{n-1}}')\Big) \\
&& \qquad
\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}}\left[\underset{}{} ((q_{j_{n-1}}'d_n)\lact u^n_{-})((b_nd_{n-1}) \lact u^{n-1}_{-}) ((b_{n-1}d_{n-2}) \lact u^{n-2}_{-}) \cdots \right. \\
&& \qquad\qquad
\cdots \left.\underset{}{} ((b_2d_1) \lact u^1_{-}) \Big( (b_1p) \lact \lr{ (q_{j_n}'a_1) \blact m_{(-1)}\bract(qp_{j_n}')} \Big) \right] \\
\!\!\!\!
&\overset{\eqref{douceuretresistance}}{=}\!\!\!\!& \sum_{j_{0,\ldots,n}} \Big( \lr{(m_{(0)}\bract(q_{j_n}'a_1))u_{+}^1} \bract (c_1p_{j_0}')\Big) \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}} \Big( (q_{j_0}'a_2)\lact u_{+}^2 \bract (c_2p_{j_1}')\Big) \\
&& \qquad
\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}} \cdots\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}}\Big( (q_{j_{n-2}}'a_n) \lact u_{+}^n \bract (c_np_{j_{n-1}}')\Big) \\
&& \qquad
\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}}\left[\underset{}{} ((q_{j_{n-1}}'d_n)\lact u^n_{-})((b_nd_{n-1}) \lact u^{n-1}_{-}) ((b_{n-1}d_{n-2}) \lact u^{n-2}_{-}) \cdots \right. \\
&& \qquad \qquad
\cdots \left.\underset{}{} ((b_2d_1) \lact u^1_{-}) \Big( (b_1p) \lact \lr{ m_{(-1)} \bract (qp_{j_n}') } \Big) \right].
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{footnotesize}
Now, renumbering the indices we find the equality, and this finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
Combining Lemma \ref{revell}, Proposition \ref{prop: h}, and Lemma \ref{Lemma:tgamma},
we conclude that $\theta_\bull$ and $\gamma_\bull$ are in particular {\em equivalences} of cyclic modules. Consequently, we
can now formulate the main theorem of this paper:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main1}
{\rm (Morita base change invariance of (Hopf-)cyclic homology).}
Let $(R, U)$ be a left Hopf algebroid, $M$ a left $U$-comodule right $U$-module which is SaYD (i.e., satisfies \eqref{campanilla1}--\eqref{Eq:SaYD}), and $(R,S,P,Q,\phi,\psi)$ a Morita context. We then have the following natural $\Bbbk$-module isomorphisms:
\begin{eqnarray*}
H_\bull(U, M) &\simeq& H_\bull(\td{U}, P \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} Q), \\
HC_\bull(U, M) &\simeq& HC_\bull(\td{U}, P \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} Q).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This follows at once by using the $SBI$ sequence for cyclic modules, cf.~\cite[\S2.5.12]{Lod:CH} for details.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The cohomology case}
In this section, we will consider the case of Hopf-cyclic cohomology under Morita base change. Since all steps are basically analogous to the preceding section, we refrain from spelling out the details and just indicate the main ingredients.
Consider the cocyclic module
$\big(C^\bull(U,M), \gd_\bull, \gs_\bull, \tau_\bull\big)$
as in \rmref{anightinpyongyang}. In the spirit of \rmref{recattolico1} and \eqref{reinacattolica1},
define first the map $\zeta_n: C^n(U,M) \to C^n(\tilde{U},\tilde{M})$ as follows: for $n=0$, define
$$
\zeta_0: M \longrightarrow \tilde{M}, \quad m \longmapsto \sum_j p'_j \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} q'_j,
$$
and for $n \geq 1$, abbreviating $y:= u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u^n$, define
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\zeta_n:
y \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \longmapsto \sum_{\scriptscriptstyle{i_{0, \ldots, {n-1}}} \atop \scriptscriptstyle{j_{0, \ldots, n}}}
& \big((p'_{j_0} \otimes q_{i_0}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (q'_{j_0} \otimes {p'_{j_1}}^o)\big) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}}
\big((p_{i_0} \otimes q_{i_1}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u^2 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (q'_{j_1} \otimes {p'_{j_2}}^o)\big) \\
&\quad \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} \big((p_{i_{n-2}} \otimes q_{i_{n-1}}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u^{n} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (q'_{j_{n-1}} \otimes {p'_{j_{n}}}^o)\big) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} (p_{i_{n-1}} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} q'_{j_n}).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{footnotesize}
Second, define the map $\xi_n: C^n(\tilde{U},\tilde{M}) \to C^n(U,M)$, which is
$$
\xi_0: \tilde{M} \longrightarrow M, \quad \big( \td{m}:=p \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} q\big) \longmapsto \sum_i(q_ip)m(qp_i),
$$
in degree $n = 0$, and for $n \geq 1$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{footnotesize}
{
\begin{split}
& \xi_n: \td{y} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} \tilde{m} \longmapsto
\sum_{i_{0, \ldots, n}}
\lr{ (q_{i_0}a_1) \lact (q_{i_1}d_1) \blact u^1 \ract (b_1a_2) \bract (c_1p_{i_0}) } \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}
\lr{(q_{i_2}d_2) \blact u^2 \ract (b_2a_3) \bract (c_2p_{i_1}) } \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \cdots
\\
& \quad \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \lr{(q_{i_{n-1}}d_{n-1}) \blact u^{n-1} \ract (b_{n-1}a_n) \bract (c_{n-1}p_{i_{n-2}})}
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}
\lr{(q_{i_n} d_n) \blact u^n \ract (b_n p) \bract (c_np_{i_{n-1}})} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m(qp_{i_n}),
\end{split} }
\end{footnotesize}
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{u}^i := (a_i \otimes b^o_i) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} u^i \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (c_i \otimes d^o_i) \,\in \td{U}$
for $1 \leq i \leq n$, and
$\tilde{y}:= \tilde{u}^1 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} \tilde{u}^n$.
Third, introduce the homotopy $h_n: C^{n+1}(U, M) \to C^{n}(U,M)$ as follows: in degree $n=0$, set
$$
h_0: u \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \longmapsto \sum_{i,\,j} \gve\big((q_i p'_j) \blact u\big) m(q'_jp_i),
$$
and for $n\geq 1$ define
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{amagica}
h_n: y' \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \longmapsto
& \sum^n_{k=0} \underset{\underset{i_{0, \ldots, k}}{j_{0,\ldots, k}}}{\sum} (-1)^{k+n}
u^0 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u^{n-k-1} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \gve\big((q_{i_0} p'_{j_0}) \blact u^{n-k}\big) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \\
&
\lr{ (q_{i_1}p'_{j_1}) \blact u^{n-k+1} \bract (q'_{j_0}p_{i_0}) }
\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}}
\lr{ (q_{i_k}p'_{j_k}) \blact u^{n} \bract (q'_{j_{k-1}}p_{i_{k-1}}) } \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m(q'_{j_k}p_{i_k}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
abbreviating here $y':=u^0 \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} u^n$.
Now, with the construction of $\td{U}$ and $\td{M}$ as in \S\ref{subsect:Morita} and analogously to Lemma \ref{Lemma:II}, one can construct a cocyclic module $C^\bull(\td{U}, \td{M})$; we leave the tedious details to the reader.
Similarly as in Lemma \ref{revell}, Proposition \ref{prop: h}, and Lemma \ref{Lemma:tgamma}, one then proves:
\begin{lem}
The maps $\zeta_{\bull}$ and $\xi_{\bull}$ are morphisms of cochain complexes, and $\xi_\bull \zeta_\bull$ is homotopic to the identity by means of the homotopy \rmref{amagica}; likewise, $\zeta_\bull \xi_\bull$ is homotopic to the identity as well. In particular, $\zeta_\bull$ and $\xi_\bull$ are equivalences of cocyclic modules.
\end{lem}
This enables us to conclude:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main2}
{\rm (Morita base change invariance of (Hopf-)cyclic cohomology).}
Let $(R, U)$ be a left Hopf algebroid, $M$ a left $U$-comodule right $U$-module which is SaYD (i.e., satisfies \eqref{campanilla1}--\eqref{Eq:SaYD}), and $(R,S,P,Q,\phi,\psi)$ a Morita context. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
H^\bull(U, M) &\simeq& H^\bull(\td{U}, P \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} Q), \\
HC^\bull(U, M) &\simeq& HC^\bull(\td{U}, P \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} Q)
\end{eqnarray*}
are isomorphisms of $\Bbbk$-modules.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
\label{cat}
The proofs of both Theorems \ref{thm:main2} \& \ref{thm:main1} are based on an explicit construction of (co)chain homotopies. One could wonder if a more categorical way implicitly leads to the same result but with less computational effort.
Closest to our setting is perhaps \cite{BoeSte:CCOBAAVC}, where a categorical approach to the cyclic (co)homology of bialgebroids was developed based on the notion of admissible septuples.
Our situation fits in the particular examples of admissible septuples of \cite[Propositions 1.15 \& 1.25]{BoeSte:CCOBAAVC}; nevertheless, none of the (co)cyclic objects that, after some additional steps, can be deduced from
{\em loc.~cit.}
coincides with our (co)cyclic modules from \rmref{adualnightinpyongyang} and \rmref{anightinpyongyang}, respectively. Since also the involved tensor products differ, the two approaches are not even related by considering cyclic duals.
That is, our cyclic (co)homology seems to be different from the one considered in \cite{BoeSte:CCOBAAVC}.
Let us explain how far one can go in applying the approach of \cite{BoeSte:CCOBAAVC} to Morita base change invariance.
Following the notation of \cite{BoeSte:CCOBAAVC}, one can show that given a category ${\mathcal C}$, two equivalent categories ${\mathcal M}$, ${\mathcal N}$, and an admissible septuple $\mathcal{S}=({\mathcal M}, {\mathcal C}, \boldsymbol{T}_l, \boldsymbol{T}_r, \boldsymbol{\Pi}, \boldsymbol{t}, \boldsymbol{i})$ over ${\mathcal M}$, there is an admissible septuple $\td{\mathcal{S}}=({\mathcal N}, {\mathcal C},\td{ \boldsymbol{T}}_l,\td{ \boldsymbol{T}}_r, \td{\boldsymbol{\Pi}}, \td{\boldsymbol{t}}, \td{\boldsymbol{i}})$ over ${\mathcal N}$, whose corresponding categories of transposition morphisms ${\mathcal W}_{{\mathcal S}}$ and ${\mathcal W}_{\td{{\mathcal S}}}$ are also equivalent.
Under some natural assumption on ${\mathcal C}$, we know from \cite[Corollary 1.11]{BoeSte:CCOBAAVC} that there is a functor
$\hat{Z}^*({\mathcal S}, -): {\mathcal W}_{{\mathcal S}} \to \boldsymbol{\Delta C}^{\,{\mathcal C}}$ to the category of cocyclic objects of ${\mathcal C}$.
In this way, the Morita invariance theory in this context can be interpreted as follows.
Consider a transposition morphism
$(X, \omega) \in {\mathcal W}_{{\mathcal S}}$ and its image $(\td{X},\td{\omega}) \in {\mathcal W}_{\td{{\mathcal S}}}$. One can then
assign to them two cocyclic objects $\hat{Z}^*({\mathcal S},
(X,\omega))$ and $\hat{Z}^*(\td{{\mathcal S}}, (\td{X},\td{\omega}))$ in ${\mathcal C}$.
Morita invariance now claims that the associated (co)chain complexes were quasi-isomorphic.
At this level of generality, there is seemingly no way which directly furnishes such a quasi-isomorphism if not, analogously to our approach, by manually constructing such a map in special cases (e.g., the aforementioned particular admissible septuples of \cite[Propositions 1.15 \& 1.25]{BoeSte:CCOBAAVC}).
\end{rem}
\section{Applications and Examples.}
We give two applications. The first one deals with the well-known Morita invariance of the usual Hochschild and cyclic homology for associative algebras.
We show that this invariance theory is a consequence of our main Theorem \ref{thm:main1} by applying it to the
left Hopf algebroids $\Reh$ and $\Se$.
In the second application we specialise our general results to the Morita context between the complex-valued smooth functions on the commutative real $2$-torus $\mathbb{T}^2:=\mathbb{S}^1 \times \mathbb{S}^1$ and the coordinate ring of the noncommutative $2$-torus with rational parameter, establishing thereby a passage from commutative to noncommutative geometry. We will first review the construction of this context, and next apply the Morita base change invariance of the cyclic homology between the left Hopf algebroid attached to the Lie algebroid of vector fields on $\mathbb{T}^2$, and the associated Morita base change left Hopf algebroid over this noncommutative $2$-torus whose structure maps are deduced from \S\ref{subsect:Morita}.
\subsection{Morita invariance of cyclic homology for associative algebras}\label{ssec:algebras}
Recall from \cite{Schau:DADOQGHA} the left Hopf algebroid structure of the enveloping algebra $\Reh$.
Its structure maps are given as follows: $s(r) := r \otimes 1$, $t(r^o) := 1 \otimes r^o$,
$\Delta(r \otimes \tilde{r}^o) := (r \otimes 1) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} (1 \otimes \tilde{r}^o)$,
$\varepsilon(r \otimes \tilde{r}^o) := r\tilde{r}$, and the inverse of the Hopf-Galois map is given as
$
(r \otimes \td{r}^o)_+ \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} (r \otimes \td{r}^o)_- := (r \otimes 1) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} (\td{r} \otimes 1).
$
Let now $M$ be a right $\Reh$-module which is also an $\Reh$-comodule with compatible left $R$-actions as in \rmref{campanilla1}, and denote the coaction by $m \mapsto (m'_{(-1)} \otimes m^{''}_{(-1)}) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m_{(0)}$, omitting the summation symbol in all what follows.
Under the isomorphism
$C_\bull(\Reh, M) =
M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \Reh^{\otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}
\bull}
\simeq M \otimes R^{\otimes \bull}$
given by
\begin{equation}
\label{kababking}
m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} (r_1 \otimes \tilde{r}^o_1) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \cdots \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} (r_n \otimes \td{r}_n^o)
\lma
\td{r}_n \cdots \td{r}_1 m \otimes r_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes r_n,
\end{equation}
the para-cyclic operators
\rmref{adualnightinpyongyang} assume the form
\begin{equation}
\label{ceuta}
\!\!\!
\begin{array}{rcll}
d_i(m \otimes y) &\!\!\!\!\! =& \!\!\!\!\!
\left\{ \!\!\!
\begin{array}{l}
r_n m \otimes r_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes r_{n-1}
\\
m \otimes \cdots \otimes r_{n-i} r_{n-i+1} \otimes \cdots \otimes r_{n}
\\
m r_1 \otimes r_2 \otimes \cdots \otimes
r_n
\end{array}\right. & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \begin{array}{l} \mbox{if} \ i \!=\! 0, \\ \mbox{if} \ 1
\! \leq \! i \!\leq\! n-1, \\ \mbox{if} \ i \! = \! n, \end{array} \\
\
\\
s_i(m \otimes y) &\!\!\!\!\! =&\!\!\!\!\! \left\{ \!\!\!
\begin{array}{l} m \otimes r_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes r_n \otimes 1
\\
m \otimes \cdots \otimes r_{n-i} \otimes 1 \otimes r_{n-i+1} \otimes \cdots \otimes r_{n}
\\
m \otimes 1 \otimes r_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes r_n
\end{array}\right. & \!\!\!\!\!\!\! \begin{array}{l}
\mbox{if} \ i\!=\!0, \\
\mbox{if} \ 1 \!\leq\! i \!\leq\! n-1, \\ \mbox{if} \ i\! = \!n, \end{array} \\
\
\\
t_n(m \otimes y)
&\!\!\!\!\!=&\!\!\!\!\!
m^{''}_{(-1)} m_{(0)} r_1 \otimes r_2 \otimes \cdots
\otimes r_n \otimes m'_{(-1)},
& \\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where we abbreviate $y:=r_1
\otimes \cdots \otimes r_n$, and as before $C_\bull(\Reh,M)$ is
cyclic if $M$ is SaYD.
Using the isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{bancopopular}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\Pe \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} \Reh \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} \Qe &\overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}& \Se, \\
(a \otimes b^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (r \otimes \td{r}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (c \otimes d^o)
&\longmapsto& \phi(a \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} rc) \otimes \phi(d\td{r} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} b)^o, \\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\phi$ is as in \eqref{Eq: Morita maps},
together with \rmref{energiaproxima} and
the isomorphism $C_\bull(\Se, \td{M}) \simeq \td{M} \otimes S^{\otimes n}$ analogously to \rmref{kababking},
a straightforward computation reveals that the morphism of chain complexes \rmref{recattolico1} reads
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\theta_n:
m \otimes y \longmapsto \sum_{\scriptscriptstyle{i_{0, \ldots, n}}}
& (p_{i_0} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} q_{i_1}) \otimes \phi(p_{i_1} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} r_1 q_{i_2}) \otimes \cdots \otimes \phi(p_{i_n} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} r_n q_{i_0}).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
In the other direction, we make use of the isomorphism
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Qe \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Se}} \Se \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Se}} \Pe &\overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}& \Reh, \\
(c \otimes d^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Se}} (s \otimes \td{s}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Se}} (a \otimes b^o)
&\longmapsto& \psi(c\td{s} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} a) \otimes \psi(b \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} sd)^o,
\end{eqnarray*}
together with the inverse of \rmref{bancopopular} given by, cf.~\rmref{Eq:tilde_eta},
$$
\Se \lra \Pe \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} \Qe, \quad s \otimes \td{s}^o \lma \sum_{i,\, j} (sp'_j \otimes {q'_i}^o) \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Reh}} (q'_j \otimes {(\td{s}p'_i)}^o),
$$
to conclude that the morphism of chain complexes \rmref{reinacattolica1} becomes here
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\gamma_n:
(p & \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} m \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} q) \otimes z \longmapsto \\
& \sum_{\scriptscriptstyle{j_{0, \ldots, n}}}
(\psi(q'_{j_0} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} p) m \psi(q \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} p'_{j_1})
\otimes \psi(q'_{j_1} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} s_1 p'_{j_2})
\otimes \cdots \otimes \psi(q'_{j_n} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} s_n p'_{j_0}),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
abbreviating $z := s_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes s_n$.
In a similar manner, one derives the homotopy \rmref{reyescattolicos} in this case: for $n=0$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& h_0: m \longmapsto \sum_{i,j} m \psi(q_i\tensor{}p_j') \tensor{} \psi(q_j'\tensor{}p_i) ,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and for $n \geq 1$:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{multline*}
h_n: m \otimes y \longmapsto
\sum_{k=0}^{n}\,\,\underset{\underset{i_{0, \ldots,k}}{j_{0, \ldots, k}}}{\sum} (-1)^{n+k}
(m \psi (q_{i_0}\tensor{} p'_{j_0}) ) \otimes \Big( \psi(q'_{j_0}\tensor{}p_{i_0}) r_1 \psi (q_{i_1}\tensor{}p'_{j_1}) \Big)
\otimes \cdots \\ \quad \otimes \Big( \psi(q'_{j_{n-k-1}}\tensor{}p_{i_{n-k-1}}) r_k \psi (q_{i_{n-k}}\tensor{} p'_{j_{n-k}}) \Big)
\otimes \psi(q'_{j_{n-k}}\tensor{} p_{i_{n-k}}) \otimes r_{k+1} \otimes \cdots \otimes r_n,
\end{multline*}
\end{footnotesize}
where we abbreviate $y:=r_1
\otimes \cdots \otimes r_n$.
One recovers the explicit maps given in \cite{McC:MEACH} for this situation, and hence from Theorem \ref{thm:main1} the classical result \cite{McC:MEACH, DenIgu:HHATSOFP}
of Morita invariance in Hochschild theory follows. In case $M = R$, with \cite[Prop.~3.1]{KowPos:TCTOHA}, one furthermore
reproduces the classical result of Morita invariance of cyclic homology of associative algebras from \cite{Con:NCDG, LodQui:CHATLAHOM,McC:MEACH}:
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:alg}
Let $R$ be an associative $\Bbbk$-algebra,
$M$ an $(R,R)$-bimodule, and $(R,S,P,Q,\phi,\psi)$ a Morita context.
We then have the following natural $\Bbbk$-module isomorphism
$$
H^{\rm alg}_\bull(R, M) \simeq H^{\rm alg}_\bull(S, P \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} Q),
$$
and in case $M:=R$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{seitenbachervollkornmuesli}
HC^{\rm alg}_\bull(R) \simeq HC^{\rm alg}_\bull(S).
\end{equation}
\end{cor}
Observe that for this corollary no SaYD condition is needed: there is no coaction required to compute the homology of the underlying simplicial object in \rmref{ceuta} (resp.~\rmref{adualnightinpyongyang}), and for the cyclic homology in \rmref{seitenbachervollkornmuesli} we only considered the case $M:=R$, with action given by multiplication and coaction $R \to \Reh \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} R \simeq \Reh, \ r \mapsto r \otimes_k 1$, which is easily seen to define an SaYD module.
\subsection{Morita base change invariance in Lie algebroid theory and the noncommutative torus}
\subsubsection{Lie algebroids and associated left Hopf algebroids}
\label{ssection: Lie alg}
Assume that $R$ is a commutative $\Bbbk$-algebra (here $\Bbbk$ is a ground field of characteristic zero)
and denote by $\mathrm{Der}_{\Bbbk}(R)$ the Lie algebra of all $\Bbbk$-linear derivations of $R$.
Consider a $\Bbbk$-Lie algebra $L$ which is also an $R$-module,
and let $\omega: L \to \mathrm{Der}_{\Bbbk}(R)$ be a morphism of $\Bbbk$-Lie algebras.
Following \cite{Rin:DFOGCA}, the pair $(R,L)$ is called \emph{Lie-Rinehart algebra} with \emph{anchor} map $\omega$, provided
\begin{eqnarray*}
(aX) (b) &=& a(X(b)), \qquad \\
{[ X, aY ]} &=& a{[X,Y]}+X(a)Y,
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $X, Y \in L$ and $a, b \in R$, where $X(a)$ stands for $\omega(X)(a)$.
A \emph{morphism $(R,L) \to (R,L')$ of Lie-Rinehart algebras over $R$} is a map $\varphi: L \to L'$ of $\Bbbk$-Lie algebras such that
$$
\xymatrix{ L \ar@{->}_-{\omega}[rd] \ar@{->}^-{\varphi}[rr] & & L' \ar@{->}^-{\omega'}[ld] \\ & \mathrm{Der}_{\Bbbk}(R) & }
$$
is a commutative diagram. These objects form a category which we denote by $\mathbf{LieRine}_{(\Bbbk,\,R)}$.
\begin{example}
\label{Exam: bundles}
Here are the basic examples which we will be dealing with, and which motivate the above general definition:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The pair $(R, \mathrm{Der}_{\Bbbk}(R))$ trivially admits the structure of a Lie-Rinehart algebra.
\item A \emph{Lie algebroid} is a vector bundle $\mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{M}$ over a smooth manifold, together with a map $\omega: \mathcal{E} \to T\mathcal{M}$ of vector bundles and a Lie structure $[-,-]$ on the vector space $\Gamma({\mathcal E})$ of global smooth sections of $\mathcal{E}$, such that the induced map $\Gamma(\omega): \Gamma({\mathcal E}) \to \Gamma(T\mathcal{M})$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism, and for all $X, Y \in \Gamma({\mathcal E})$ and any $f \in \mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})$ one has $[X,fY]\,=\, f[X,Y]+ \Gamma(\omega)(X)(f)Y$. Then the pair $(\mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathcal{M}), \Gamma({\mathcal E}))$ is obviously a Lie-Rinehart algebra.
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
Associated to any Lie-Rinehart algebra $(R, L)$ there is a universal object denoted by $(R,{\mathcal V} L)$, see \cite{Rin:DFOGCA, Hue:PCAQ}.
Using the notion of \emph{smash product} (or, more general, of \emph{distributive law between two algebras}), we give here an alternative construction (of which the {\em Massey-Peterson algebra} in \cite{MasPet:TCSOCFS,Hue:PCAQ} is a special case) of this object:
let $UL$ be the universal enveloping algebra of $L$ with its canonical Hopf algebra structure, and consider the $\Bbbk$-linear map $L \overset{\omega}{\longrightarrow}
\mathrm{Der}_{\Bbbk}(R)$.
Extending this map to $UL$, we obtain the structure of a $UL$-module algebra on $R$. Following \cite[pp.~117--118]{Swe:GOSA}, the smash product $R\# UL$ admits the structure of a left $R$-bialgebroid, where the source and the target map coincide.
Now take the following factor $R$-algebra of $R\# UL$:
$$
\pi: R\# UL \longrightarrow {\mathcal V} L:=\,\, \frac{R\# UL}{{\mathcal J}_L},
$$
where
$$
{\mathcal J}_L: ={\langle a \# X - 1\# aX\rangle}_{a \in R,\, X \in L}
$$
is the two sided ideal generated by the set $\{a \# X - 1\# aX\}_{a \in R,\, X \in L}$.
The $R$-bialgebroid structure of $R\# UL$ projects to ${\mathcal V} L$ (see \cite{Xu:QG}), and by \cite[\S4.2.1]{Kow:HAATCT} one also has that ${\mathcal V} L$ carries a left Hopf algebroid structure, the
translation map on generators $a \in R$, $X \in L$ of ${\mathcal V} L$ being given by
$$
a_{+}\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}} a_{-} := a\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}} 1, \qquad X_{+}\tensor{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}}}X_{-}:= X\tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}}1 - 1 \tensor{{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}}} X,
$$
where ${\mathcal V} L \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} {\mathcal V} L := \due {{\mathcal V} L} \blact {} \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{\Rop}} \due {{\mathcal V} L} {} \ract$ is as in \rmref{tata} (which is why we stick to the symbol $\Rop$ although $R$ is commutative), and where we identify the elements of $R$ and $L$ with their respective images by the universal maps $\iota_R: R \to {\mathcal V} L$, $a \mapsto a\# 1 + {\mathcal J}_L$
and $\iota_L: L \to {\mathcal V} L$, $X \mapsto 1\# X +{\mathcal J}_L$.
\subsubsection{Vector bundles versus $\sqrt{\mbox{Morita}}$ theories} \label{ssection: versus}
Let $R$ be a commutative $\Bbbk$-algebra as in \S\ref{ssection: Lie alg}.
Assume we are given a finitely generated and projective module $P_R$ which is faithful over $R$.
Then it is well known (see, for example, \cite[Corollary 1.10]{DeMeyer/Ingraham:1971}) that $R$ is Morita equivalent to the endomorphism
ring $\End{P_R}$ since $R$ is commutative. The context maps are given by
$$
\begin{array}{rrrllll}
\phi:& P\tensor{R}P^* & \overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}& \End{P_R}, & (p\tensor{}\sigma & \longmapsto & [ p' \mapsto p\sigma(p')]), \\
\psi:& P^*\tensor{\End{P_R}} P & \overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}& R, & (\sigma\tensor{}p & \longmapsto & \sigma(p)),
\end{array}
$$
where $P^*={\rm Hom}(P_R, R_R)$.
Following \cite[Example 2.3.3]{Khalkhali:book}, we apply this Morita context to the situation where $R$ is the algebra of smooth functions over a manifold ${\mathcal M}$.
By the Serre-Swan theorem, it is well known that for a (complex) smooth vector bundle $\pi: {\mathcal P} \to {\mathcal M}$ of constant rank $\geq 1$
the global smooth sections $P:=\Gamma({\mathcal P})$ form a finitely generated projective module over the commutative ring $R:={\mathcal C}^{\infty}({\mathcal M})$ of complex-valued smooth functions on ${\mathcal M}$, see, for instance, \cite[Remark, p.~183]{Nestruev:03}. One can furthermore show \cite[Remarque 2, p.~145]{Bou:AC12} that $P$ is of constant rank $\geq 1$ (the rank of $\pi$), and as such, $P$ becomes a faithful $R$-module (as follows from \cite[p.~142, Corollaire, \& p.~143, Th\'eor\`eme 3 (ii)]{Bou:AC12}).
Therefore, ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}({\mathcal M})$ is Morita equivalent to the endomorphism algebra $\End{P_{{\mathcal C}^{\infty}({\mathcal M})}} \simeq \Gamma(\End{{\mathcal P}})$.
In this way, there is a functor from the category $\mathbf{LieRine}_{(\mathbb{C},\, {\mathcal C}^{\infty}({\mathcal M}))}$
to the category of left Hopf algebroids over $\End{P_{{\mathcal C}^{\infty}({\mathcal M})}}$.
This functor is defined on objects by sending any complex Lie-Rinehart algebra $(L,R)$ to the left $\End{P_R}$-Hopf algebroid $\Pe\tensor{\Reh}{\mathcal V} L\tensor{\Reh}\Qe$, where $\Pe$, $\Qe$ are defined as in \S\ref{ssec: context} and correspond to the Morita context $(R, \End{P_R},P, P^*, \phi,\psi)$, i.e., with $Q\,=\, P^*$.
\begin{rem}\label{remark:field extension problem}
An analogue to the previous functor can, in fact, descend to the category of Lie algebroids
over a smooth manifold ${\mathcal M}$ if we take a real vector bundle and the algebra ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}({\mathcal M},\, \mathbb{R})$
of real-valued smooth functions instead of ${\mathcal C}^\infty({\mathcal M}) = {\mathcal C}^{\infty}({\mathcal M},\, \mathbb{C})$.
We know from Example \ref{Exam: bundles}(ii) that there is a canonical faithful functor
from the category of Lie algebroids over ${\mathcal M}$ to the category of real Lie-Rinehart algebras over ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}({\mathcal M},\, \mathbb{R})$.
Now we can compose this functor with the one constructed by the same process as in \S\ref{ssection: versus}.
In general, there is no obvious functor connecting the categories $\mathbf{LieRine}_{(\mathbb{R},\, {\mathcal C}^
{\infty}({\mathcal M},\, \mathbb{R}))}$ and $\mathbf{LieRine}_{(\mathbb{C},\, {\mathcal C}^{\infty}({\mathcal M},\, \mathbb{C}))}$, except perhaps when ${\mathcal M}$ is an almost complex manifold (i.e., a smooth manifold with a smooth endomorphism field $J: T{\mathcal M} \to T{\mathcal M}$ satisfying $J_x^2=-{\rm id}_{T{\mathcal M}_x}$ for all $x\in {\mathcal M}$).
Let us mention that due to our interest in the noncommutative torus, we have been forced to extend the base field by using the complex-valued functions instead of real-valued ones.
\end{rem}
The material of the following subsection will appear well known to the reader who is familiar with noncommutative differential geometry techniques.
For the convenience of the rest of the audience, we include a detailed exposition following ideas from \cite[\S3.1]{DKMM:2001}, \cite[\S1.1]{Khalkhali:book}.
\subsubsection{Noncommutative torus revisited.}\label{ssubsec:Tq}
Consider the Lie group $\mathbb{S}^1=\{z \in \mathbb{C}\setminus \{0\} \mid |z|= 1\}$ as a real $1$-dimensional torus by identifying it with the additive quotient $\mathbb{R}/2\pi \mathbb{Z}$.
Likewise, the real $d$-dimensional torus $\mathbb{T}^d := \mathbb{S}^1 \times \cdots \times \mathbb{S}^1$ is identified with $\mathbb{R}^d/2\pi\mathbb{Z}^d$. The complex algebra of all smooth complex-valued functions on $\mathbb{T}^2$ will be denoted by ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2)$.
Fix a root of unity $\Sf{q} \in \mathbb{S}^1$
and take $N \in \mathbb{N}$ to be the smallest natural number such that $\Sf{q}^N\,=\, 1$. Let us consider the semidirect product group ${\mathcal G}:=\mathbb{Z}_N^2 \ltimes \mathbb{S}^1$ where $\mathbb{Z}_N\,=\, \mathbb{Z}/N\mathbb{Z}$,
and operation
$$
(m,n,\theta) (m',n',\theta') := (m+m',n+n',\theta\theta'\Sf{q}^{mn'}),$$ for every pair of elements $(m,n,\theta), \, (m',n',\theta') \in {\mathcal G}$.
There is a right action of the group ${\mathcal G}$ on the torus $\mathbb{T}^3$ given as follows:
$$
(\Sf{x},\Sf{y},\Sf{z}) (m,n,\theta) :=
(\Sf{q}^m\Sf{x}, \Sf{q}^n \Sf{y}, \theta \Sf{z}\Sf{y}^m), \quad (\Sf{x}, \Sf{y},\Sf{z}) \in \mathbb{T}^3, \quad (m,n,\theta) \in {\mathcal G}.
$$
Now, we can show that the map
$$
{\bf p} : \mathbb{T}^3 \longrightarrow \mathbb{T}^2, \quad (\Sf{x},\Sf{y},\Sf{z}) \longmapsto (\Sf{x}^N,\Sf{y}^N)
$$
satisfies:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\bf p$ is a surjective submersion;
\item ${\mathcal G}$ acts freely on $\mathbb{T}^3$ and the orbits of this action coincide with the fibres of $\bf p$.
\end{enumerate}
As a consequence and by applying \cite[Lemma 10.3]{Kolar/Michor/Slovak:1993}, we see that
$(\mathbb{T}^3,\mathbf{p},\mathbb{T}^2,{\mathcal G})$ is a principal fibre bundle.
We then
want to associate a non-trivial vector bundle to the trivial bundle $\mathbb{T}^3 \times \mathbb{C}^N \to \mathbb{T}^3$. So, we need to extend the ${\mathcal G}$-action on $\mathbb{T}^3$ to $\mathbb{T}^3 \times \mathbb{C}^N$, which
is possible by considering the following left ${\mathcal G}$-action on $\mathbb{C}^N$
$$
{\mathcal G} \longrightarrow \mathrm{End}_{\mathbb{C}}(\mathbb{C}^N), \quad
(m,n,\theta) \longmapsto \big\{ \omega \longmapsto \theta U_0^nV_0^{-m}\omega \big\},
$$
where $U_0,V_0$ are the $(N\times N)$-matrices
$$
U_0\,=\, \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1& 0 & 0 & \cdots \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots \\ \vdots & & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & \cdots & & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},
\qquad
V_0\,=\, \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0& \cdots & \cdots & 0 \\ 0 & \Sf{q} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \sf{q}^{2} & \cdots & 0 \\ \vdots & & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \sf{q}^{N-1} \end{pmatrix},
$$
which satisfy the relations
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:quantum}
U_0V_0\,\,=\,\, \Sf{q} V_0U_0,\qquad U_0^N\,=\, V_0^N\,=\, \mathbb{I}_N.
\end{equation}
Therefore, we have a right ${\mathcal G}$-action on $\mathbb{T}^3\times \mathbb{C}^N$ defined by
$$
\big( (\Sf{x},\Sf{y},\Sf{z}); \omega\big)\, (m,n,\theta) := \Big( (\Sf{x}, \Sf{y}, \Sf{z})(m,n,\theta);\,\, (m,n,\theta)^{-1} \omega \Big)=
\Big( (\Sf{q}^m\Sf{x}, \Sf{q}^n \Sf{y}, \theta \Sf{z}\Sf{y}^m);\,\, \theta^{-1}U_0^{-n}V_0^{m}\omega \Big).
$$
The orbit space $(\mathbb{T}^3\times \mathbb{C}^N)/{\mathcal G} = \mathbb{T}^3\times_{{\mathcal G}} \mathbb{C}^N$ with elements $u\times_{{\mathcal G}}\omega$ will be denoted by ${\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}}$. Notice that by definition one has the following formula:
$$
(ug) \times_{{\mathcal G}}\omega \,\,=\,\, u\times_{{\mathcal G}} (g \omega), \text{ for every } u \in \mathbb{T}^3,\, \omega \in \mathbb{C}^N
, \text{ and } g \in {\mathcal G}.
$$
By applying \cite[Theorem 10.7, \S10.11]{Kolar/Michor/Slovak:1993} we can associate a
non-trivial vector bundle to the trivial bundle $\mathbb{T}^3 \times \mathbb{C}^N \to \mathbb{T}^3$, that is,
there is a morphism of vector bundles
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:Eqp}
\xymatrix{ \mathbb{T}^3 \times \mathbb{C}^N \ar@{->}[rr] \ar@{->}_{pr_1}[d] & & {\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}}
\ar@{-->}^-{\bara{\bf p}}[d] \\ \mathbb{T}^3 \ar@{->}_-{{\bf p}}[rr] & & \mathbb{T}^2.}
\end{equation}
By the results of \S\ref{ssection: versus}, we have that ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2)$
is Morita equivalent to
$\End{\Gamma({\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}})} \simeq \Gamma\big( \End{{\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}}} \big)$.
Now, using \cite[Theorem 10.12]{Kolar/Michor/Slovak:1993},
$\Gamma({\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}})$ is identified with the ${\mathcal G}$-equivariant subspace ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^3,\, \mathbb{C}^N)^{{\mathcal G}}$ of
${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^3,\, \mathbb{C}^N)$, that is, those $f \in {\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^3,\, \mathbb{C}^N)$ for which
$f(ug)\,=\, g^{-1} f(u) $, for every $u \in \mathbb{T}^3$, $g \in {\mathcal G}$.
Hence, we have an isomorphism $\Gamma({\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}})\, \simeq \, {\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^3,\, \mathbb{C}^N)^{{\mathcal G}}$ of ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2)$-modules.
Next, we want to describe the noncommutative complex algebra $\End{\Gamma({\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}})} \simeq \Gamma\big( \End{{\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}}} \big)$. Observe
that there is a left $\mathbb{Z}_N^2$-action on the $(N\times N)$-matrix algebra ${\rm M}_N(\mathbb{C})$ with complex entries, defined by
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: matrix action}
(m,n) A := U_0^nV_0^{-m}AV_0^{m}U_0^{-n},\;\; \text{ for every } A \in {\rm M}_N(\mathbb{C}), \, (m,n ) \in \mathbb{Z}_N^2.
\end{equation}
There is also a free right $\mathbb{Z}_N^2$-action on $\mathbb{T}^2$ given by
$$
(\Sf{x},\Sf{y}) (m,n) := (\Sf{q}^m\Sf{x},\Sf{q}^n\Sf{y}), \;\; \text{ for every } (\Sf{x},\Sf{y}) \in \mathbb{T}^2, \, (m,n) \in \mathbb{Z}_N^2.
$$
As before, one can construct
the orbit space $\mathbb{T}^2 \times_{\mathbb{Z}_N^2} {\rm M}_N(\mathbb{C})$ after extending these actions to the trivial algebra bundle $\mathbb{T}^2 \times {\rm M}_N(\mathbb{C})$. It turns out that the endomorphism algebra bundle $\End{{\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}}}$ is isomorphic
to this orbit space, and clearly $\Gamma(\End{{\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}}})$ consists of $\mathbb{Z}_N^2$-equivariant sections, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:T}
\Sf{T} \in \Gamma(\End{{\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}}})\;\; \text{ if and only if }\,\, \Sf{T}(\Sf{q}^m\Sf{x},\Sf{q}^n\Sf{y}) \,\,=\,\,(m,n) \Sf{T}(\Sf{x}, \Sf{y}),\;
\end{equation}
for every $(\Sf{x}, \Sf{y}) \in \mathbb{T}^2$ and $ (m,n) \in \mathbb{Z}_N^2$, where on the right hand side we mean the action \eqref{Eq: matrix action}.
On the other hand, it is well known that ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2)$
can be identified with the algebra of all smooth functions on $\mathbb{R}^2$ that are $2\pi$-periodic w.r.t.\ each of their arguments. By Fourier expansion ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2)$ consists of all functions
$$
f \,\,=\,\, \sum_{(k,\,l) \, \in \, \mathbb{Z}^2} f_{k,l} u^kv^l,
$$
where $\{f_{k, l}\}_{(k,\,l) \, \in \mathbb{Z}^2}$ is any rapidly decreasing sequence of complex numbers, that is, for every $r \in \mathbb{N}$, the seminorm
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:Frechet}
\| f\|_r\,\,=\,\, \underset{k,\, l\, \in\mathbb{Z}}{\mathrm{sup}}\Big( |f_{k, l}| (1+ |k|+|l|)^r\Big) \, < \infty,
\end{equation}
and where $u=e^{i2\pi t}$, $v=e^{i2\pi s}$ are the coordinate functions on the torus $\mathbb{T}^2$.
It is also well known that the complex matrix algebra ${\rm M}_N(\mathbb{C})$ is generated as $\mathbb{C}$-algebra by the elements $U_0, V_0$.
Thus, Eqs.~\eqref{Eq:quantum} and \eqref{Eq:T} force any $\Sf{T} \in \Gamma(\End{{\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}}})$ to be of the form
$$
\Sf{T} \,\, =\,\, \sum_{k,l,\, \in \mathbb{Z}} \Sf{T}_{k,\, l}(uU_0)^k(vV_0)^l ,
$$
with coefficients $\{ \Sf{T}_{k,\, l}\}_{\mathbb{Z}^2}$ satisfying Eq.~\eqref{Eq:Frechet}.
Therefore, there is now a $\mathbb{C}$-algebra isomorphism
\begin{equation*}
\label{Eq:nocom torus}
\Gamma(\End{{\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}}}) \to {\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2_{\Sf{q}}), \quad
\big( (uU_0) \mapsto U, \quad (vV_0) \mapsto V\big),
\end{equation*}
where ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2_{\Sf{q}})$ refers to the complex noncommutative $2$-torus whose elements are formal power Laurent series in $U, V$ with a rapidly decreasing sequence of coefficients (cf.~\eqref{Eq:Frechet}), subject to $UV = \Sf{q} VU$.
In conclusion, we have the
Morita context $({\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2), {\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}_{\Sf{q}}^2), \Gamma({\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}}), \Gamma({\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}})^*)$, where in addition
${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2)$ and ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}_{\Sf{q}}^2)$ are related by the algebra map
$$
{\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2) \longrightarrow {\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}_{\Sf{q}}^2), \quad( u \mapsto U^N, \,\, v \mapsto V^N).
$$
In the next subsection, we will use the Morita context stated above
together with Theorems \ref{thm:main1} and \ref{thm:main2} to prove the Morita invariance of both cyclic homology and cohomology from the left Hopf algebroid attached to the Lie algebroid of vector fields over the classical $2$-torus to the associated Morita base change left Hopf algebroid over the noncommutative $2$-torus (the primitive elements of which can be seen to consist of noncommutative vector fields, cf.\ the comment in the Introduction), using the construction performed in \S\ref{subsect:Morita}.
\subsubsection{The cyclic homology for the left Hopf algebroid over the noncommutative torus}\label{ssubsec:q}
Now we will direct our attention to the Morita invariance of the cyclic homology
between the trivial Lie algebroid $\big( {\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2),\, K:={\rm Der}_{\mathbb{C}}\big( {\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2)\big)\big)$ and its induced
left Hopf algebroid $(S, \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}:=\Pe\tensor{\Reh}{\mathcal V} K \tensor{\Reh} \Qe)$, where
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Morita torus}
R:={\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2), \;\; S:= {\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}_{\Sf{q}}^2),\;\; P:=\Gamma({\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}}),\;\; Q:= \Gamma({\mathcal E}_{\Sf{q}})^{*},
\end{equation}
and where the notation is that of \S\ref{ssubsec:Tq}. Here we can explicitly compute the structure maps of the left Hopf algebroid $\widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}$ by using the general description of \S\ref{subsect:Morita}, as well as the dual basis of $P$ which can be extracted from the dual basis of the trivial bundle $\mathbb{T}^3 \times \mathbb{C}^N$, see Eq. \eqref{Eq:Eqp}. Applying Theorems \ref{thm:main1} \& \ref{thm:main2} as well as \cite[Theorem 5.2]{KowKra:CSIACT} (and its dual version, cf.~\cite[Theorem~3.14]{KowPos:TCTOHA}), we obtain
\begin{cor}
Let $\Sf{q} \in \mathbb{S}^1$ be a root of unity,
and consider the Lie algebroid $(R,K)$ of vector fields of the complex torus $\mathbb{T}^2$ and its induced left Hopf algebroid $(R,{\mathcal V} K)$.
Let $M$ be a right ${\mathcal V} K$-module
and $(R,S,P,Q,\phi,\psi)$ the Morita context of Eq.~\eqref{Eq: Morita torus}.
We then have the following natural $\mathbb{C}$-module isomorphisms
$$
\begin{array}{rclcrcl}
H_\bull({\mathcal V} K , M) &\simeq & H_\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}), && HC_\bull({\mathcal V} K, M) &\simeq& HC_\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}), \\
H^\bull({\mathcal V} K , M) &\simeq & H^\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}), && HC^\bull({\mathcal V} K, M) &\simeq& HC^\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}),
\end{array}
$$
where $\widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}$ is the Morita base change left Hopf algebroid over the noncommutative torus ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}_{\Sf{q}}^2)$.\\
Furthermore, assume that $M$ be $R$-flat. Then we have that
$$
\begin{array}{rclcrcl}
H_\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}) &\!\!\!\!\simeq&\!\!\!\! H_\bull(K, M), &&
HC_\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}) &\!\!\!\!\simeq&\!\!\!\! \textstyle\bigoplus_{i \geq 0}H_{\bull -2i}(K,M), \\
H^\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}) &\!\!\!\!\simeq&\!\!\!\! M \otimes_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} \textstyle\bigwedge^\bull_{\scriptscriptstyle{R}} K, &&
HP^\bull( \widetilde{{\mathcal V} K}, \td{M}) &\!\!\!\!\simeq&\!\!\!\! \textstyle\bigoplus_{i \equiv \bull {\rm mod} 2}H_{i}(K,M) \\
\end{array}
$$
are natural $\mathbb{C}$-module isomorphisms,
where $H_\bull(K, M) := {\rm Tor}^{{\mathcal V} K}_\bull(M, R)$,
and where $HP^\bull$ denotes periodic cyclic cohomology (see, e.g., \cite[\S5.1.3]{Lod:CH} for the definition of $HP$).
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}
In \cite[Theorem 5.2]{Zharinov:2005}, the Hochschild cohomology of the algebra $R={\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2)$ was computed in terms of the exterior algebra of a two-dimensional complex vector space.
So we can apply Corollary \ref{cor:alg} to deduce the Hochschild cohomology of the noncommutative torus ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}_{\Sf{q}}^2)$, where $q$ is not a root of unity. On the other hand, the same result \cite[Theorem 5.2]{Zharinov:2005} shows that $K={\rm Der}_{\mathbb{C}}\big( {\mathcal C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^2)\big)$
is a free $R$-module of rank $2$. One can therefore also consider another application of Theorems \ref{thm:main1} \& \ref{thm:main2} by taking the canonical Morita context $(R, M_4(R),K, K^*, db, ev)$ and the left Hopf algebroid $(R,{\mathcal V} K)$. Here $M_4(R)$ denotes the $(4 \times 4)$-matrices over $R$, whereas $ev : K^*\tensor{M_4(R)}K \to R, \varphi\tensor{M_4(R)}x \mapsto \varphi(x)$ stands for the evaluation map and $db : K\tensor{R}K^* \to \rm{End}(K_R) \cong M_4(R) $ for the dual basis map which sends any element $x\tensor{R} \varphi$ to the $(4\times 4)$-matrix attached to the $R$-linear map $\left[ y \mapsto x \varphi(y)\right]$. The details of this application are left to the reader.
\end{rem}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the oldest and most important problems in galactic dynamics is the
determination of the mass distribution based on the observations of the circular
velocity or rotation curve \citep{HURE}, defined as the speed of the stars moving
in the galactic plane in circular orbits around the center. Now, if we assume a
particular model for the composition of the galaxy, the fit of that model with
the rotation curve of a particular galaxy can, in principle, completely determine
the distribution of mass. So then, the rotation curve provides the most direct
method to measure the distribution of mass of a galaxy \citep{BT}.
Currently, the most accepted description of the composition of spiral galaxies is
that a significant portion of its mass is concentrated in a thin disc, while the
other contributions to the total mass of the galaxy comes from a spherical halo
of dark matter, a central bulge and, perhaps, a central black hole \citep{BT}.
Now, since all components contribute to the gravitational field of the galaxy,
obtaining appropriate models that include the effects of all parts is a problem
of great difficulty. However, the contribution of each part is limited to
certain distance scales, so in a reasonably realistic model is not necessary to
include the contribution of all components \citep{FAB}.
In particular, the gravitational influence of the central black hole is
appreciable only within a few parsecs around the center of the galaxy
\citep{NAT}, so it can be completely neglected when studying the dynamics in the
disc, or in regions outside the central bulge, while the bulge mainly dominates
the inner region of the galaxy to a few kiloparsec. So then, the main
contributions to the gravitational field of the galaxy come from the galactic
disc and the dark matter halo \citep{FAB}. However, it is commonly accepted that
many aspects of galactic dynamics can be described, in a fairly approximate way,
using models that consider only the contribution of a thin galactic disc
\citep{BT}.
Accordingly, the study of the gravitational potential generated by an idealized
thin disc is a problem of great astrophysical relevance and so, through the
years, different approaches have been used to obtain such kind of thin disc
models (see \citet{BT} and references therein). So, once an expression for the
gravitational potential has been derived, corresponding expressions for the
surface mass density of the disc and for the circular velocity of the disc
particles can be obtained. Then, if the expression for the circular velocity can
be adjusted to fit the observational data of the rotation curve of a particular
galaxy, the total mass can be obtained by integrating the corresponding surface
mass density.
However, although most of these thin disc models have surface densities and
rotation curves with remarkable properties, many of them mainly represent discs
of infinite extension and thus they are rather poor flat galaxy models.
Therefore, in order to obtain more realistic models of flat galaxies, is better
to consider methods that permit obtaining finite thin disc models. Now, a simple
method to obtain the gravitational potential, the surface density and the
rotation curve of thin discs of finite radius was developed by \citet{HUN}, the
simplest example of a disc obtained by this method being the well known
\citet{KAL} disc.
In a previous paper \citep{GR} we use the Hunter method in order to obtain an
infinite family of thin discs of finite radius with a well behaved surface mass
density. This family of disc models was derived by requiring that the surface
density behaves as a monotonously decreasing function of the radius, with a
maximum at the center of the disc and vanishing at the edge. Furthermore, the
motion of test particles in the gravitational fields generated by the first four
members of this family was studied in \citet{RLG}. So, although the mass
distribution of this family of discs presents a satisfactory behaviour in
such a way that they could be considered adequate as flat galaxy models, their
corresponding rotation curves do not present a so good behavior as they do not
reproduce the flat region of the observed rotation curve.
On the other hand, in \citet{PRG} a new family of discs was obtained as a
superposition of members of the previously obtained family, by requiring that the
surface density be expressed as a well behaved function of the gravitational
potential, in such a way that the corresponding distribution functions can be
easily obtained. Furthermore, besides presenting a well-behaved surface density,
the models also presented rotation curves with a better behavior than the
generalized Kalnajs discs. However, although these discs are stable against
small radial perturbations of disc star orbits, they are unstable to small
perturbations vertical to the disc plane. Then, apart of the stability problems,
these discs can be considered as quite adequate models in order to describe
satisfactorily a great variety of galaxies.
Based on these works, in \citet{GPR} were obtained some thin disc models in which
the circular velocities were adjusted to very accurately fit the observed
rotation curves of four spiral galaxies of the Ursa Major cluster, galaxies
NGC3877, NGC3917, NGC3949 and NGC4010. These models presented well behaved
surface densities and the obtained values for the corresponding total mass it
agrees with the expected order of magnitude. However, the models presented a
central region with strong instability to small vertical perturbations. Now,
this result was expected as a consequence of the fact that the models only
consider the thin galactic disc. Therefore, more realistic models must be
considered that include the non-thin character of the galactic disc or the
mass contribution of the spheroidal halo.
In agreement with the above considerations, in this paper we will consider a
family of models obtained by expressing the gravitational potential as the
superposition of a potential generated by the thin galactic disc and a potential
generated by the spheroidal halo, in such a way that the model implies
a linear relationship between the masses of the thin disc and the spheroidal
halo. By adjusting the corresponding expression for the circular velocity to the
observed data of the rotation curve of some specific galaxies, some particular
models will be analysed. Then, from the corresponding expressions for the disc
surface density and the density of the halo, estimate values for the total mass
of the disc and the total mass of the halo will be obtained. The paper is organised as follows. First, in Section 2, we present the thin disc plus halo model. Then, in Section 3, we obtain the corresponding expressions for particular models and, in Section 4, the models are fitted to data of the observed rotation curve of some galaxies of the Ursa Mayor Cluster, as reported in \citet{VS}. Finally, in Section 5, we discuss the obtained results.
\section{The thin disc plus halo model}
In order to obtain galaxy models consisting of a thin galactic disc and a
spheroidal halo, we begin considering an axially symmetric gravitational
potential $\Phi = \Phi(R,z)$, where $(R,\varphi,z)$ are the usual cylindrical
coordinates. Also, besides the axial symmetry, we suppose that the potential
has symmetry of reflection with respect to the plane $z = 0$,
\begin{equation}
\Phi (R,z) = \Phi (R,-z), \label{parity}
\end{equation}
which implies that the normal derivative of the potential satisfies the relation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial z} (R,-z) = - \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial z}
(R,z), \label{reflect}
\end{equation}
in agreement with the attractive character of the gravitational field. We also
assume that $\partial \Phi / \partial z$ does not vanish on the plane $z = 0$,
in order to have a thin distribution of matter that represents the disc.
On the other hand, in order to separately describe the thin disc and the
spheroidal halo, we consider that the gravitational potential can be written as
the superposition of two independent components
\begin{equation}
\Phi (R,z) = \Phi_d (R,z) + \Phi_h (R,z), \label{poten}
\end{equation}
where $\Phi_d (R,z)$ is the part of the potential generated by the thin galactic
disc, while $\Phi_h (R,z)$ corresponds to the spheroidal halo component. The
disc component $\Phi_d (R,z)$ must be a solution of the Laplace equation
everywhere outside the disc,
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2 \Phi_d = 0, \label{lapec}
\end{equation}
while the halo component $\Phi_h (R,z)$ satisfies the Poisson equation
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2 \Phi_h = 4 \pi G \varrho, \label{posec}
\end{equation}
where $\varrho (R,z)$ is the mass density of the halo.
So, given a potential $\Phi(R,z)$ with the previous properties, we can easily
obtain the circular velocity $v_c (R)$, defined as the velocity of the stars
moving at the galactic disc in circular orbits around the center, through the
relationship
\begin{equation}
v_{c}^{2}(R) = R \left. \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial R} \right|_{z=0},
\label{vc2}
\end{equation}
while the surface mass density $\Sigma(R)$ of the thin galactic disc is given by
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(R) = \left. \frac{1}{2 \pi G} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial z}
\right|_{z=0^{+}},
\end{equation}
which it is obtained by using the Gauss law and the reflection symmetry of
$\Phi(R,z)$.
Accordingly, in order that the potential of the spheroidal halo does not
contribute to the disc surface density, we will impose the condition
\begin{equation}
\left. \frac{\partial \Phi_h}{\partial z} \right|_{z=0^{+}} = 0.
\label{cond1}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, in order to have a surface density corresponding to a finite
disclike distribution of matter, we impose boundary conditions in the form
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\left. \frac{\partial \Phi_d}{\partial z} \right|_{z=0^{+}} \neq 0;
\quad R \leq a, \label{cond2}\\
\left. \frac{\partial \Phi_d}{\partial z} \right|_{z=0^{+}} = 0; \quad R > a,
\label{cond3}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
in such a way that the matter distribution is restricted to the disc $z = 0$, $0
\leq R \leq a$, where $a$ is the radius of the disc.
In order to properly pose the boundary value problem, we introduce the oblate
spheroidal coordinates, whose symmetry adapts in a natural way to the geometry
of the model. These coordinates are related to the usual cylindrical coordinates
by the relation (\citeauthor{MF} \citeyear{MF})
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
R &= a \sqrt{(1+\xi^{2})(1-\eta^{2})},\\
z &= a \xi \eta,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $0 \leq \xi < \infty$ and $-1 \leq \eta < 1$. The disc has the
coordinates $\xi=0$, $0 \leq \eta^{2} < 1$. On crossing the disc, the $\eta$
coordinate changes sign but does not change in absolute value. The singular
behaviour of this coordinate implies that an even function of $\eta$ is a
continuous function everywhere but has a discontinuous $\eta$ derivative at the
disc.
Now, in terms of the oblate spheroidal coordinates, the Laplace operator acting
over any axially symmetric function $\Phi ( \xi,\eta)$ gives
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2 \Phi = \frac{\left[(1 + \xi^{2}) \Phi_{,\xi} \right]_{,\xi} +
\left[(1 - \eta^{2}) \Phi_{,\eta} \right]_{,\eta}}{a^2 (\xi^2 + \eta^2)},
\label{lapop}
\end{equation}
whereas the boundary condition (\ref{cond1}) is equivalent to
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\left. \frac{\partial \Phi_h}{\partial \xi} \right|_{\xi = 0} &= 0,
\label{cond1a} \\
\left. \frac{\partial \Phi_h}{\partial \eta} \right|_{\eta = 0} &= 0,
\label{cond1b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and the boundary conditions (\ref{cond2}) and (\ref{cond3}) reduce to
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\left. \frac{\partial \Phi_d}{\partial \xi} \right|_{\xi = 0} &\neq 0,
\label{cond2a} \\
\left. \frac{\partial \Phi_d}{\partial \eta} \right|_{\eta = 0} &= 0.
\label{cond2b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Moreover, in order that the gravitational potential be continuous everywhere,
$\Phi (\xi,\eta)$ must be an even function of $\eta$, which grants also the
fulfilment of conditions (\ref{cond1b}) and (\ref{cond2b}).
Accordingly, by imposing the previous boundary conditions over the general
solution of the Laplace equation in oblate spheroidal coordinates, we can write
the gravitational potential of the galactic disc as (\citeauthor{BAT}
\citeyear{BAT})
\begin{equation}
\Phi_n (\xi,\eta) = - \sum_{l=0}^{n} C_{2l}\ q_{2l}(\xi) P_{2l}(\eta),
\label{potend}
\end{equation}
where $n$ is a positive integer, which it defines the model of disc
considered. Here $P_{2l}(\eta)$ are the usual Legendre polynomials and $q_{2l}
(\xi)=i^{2l+1}Q_{2l}(i\xi)$, with $Q_{2l}(x)$ the Legendre functions of second
kind (see \citeauthor{AW} \citeyear{AW} and, for the Legendre functions of
imaginary argument, \citeauthor{MF} \citeyear{MF}, page 1328). The coefficients
$C_{2l}$ are, in principle, arbitrary constants, but which must be specified to
obtain any particular model. We will do this after, by adjusting the circular
velocity of the model with the observed data of the rotation curve of some
specific galaxies.
With this expression for the gravitational potential of the disc, the surface
density is given by
\begin{equation}
\Sigma({\widetilde R}) = \frac{1}{2\pi a G \eta}\sum_{l=0}^{n} C_{2l} (2l+1)
q_{2l+1}(0) P_{2l}(\eta), \label{density}
\end{equation}
where, as $\xi = 0$, $\eta = \sqrt{1 - {\widetilde R}^2}$, with ${\widetilde R}
= R/a$. Then, by integrating on the total area of the disc, we find the value
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathcal{M}_d G}{a} = C_0\label{masa}
\end{equation}
for the total mass of the disc. Now, it is clear that the surface density
diverges at the disc edge, when $\eta = 0$, unless that we impose the condition
(\citeauthor{HUN} \citeyear{HUN})
\begin{equation}
\sum_{l = 0}^{n} C_{2l} (2l+1) q_{2l+1}(0) P_{2l}(0) = 0, \label{finitden}
\end{equation}
that, after using the identities
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&P_{2n} (0) = (-1)^n \frac{(2n - 1)!!}{(2n)!!}, \\
&q_{2n+1} (0) = \frac{(2n)!!}{(2n + 1)!!},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
which are easily obtained from the properties of the Legendre functions, leads
to the expression
\begin{equation}
C_0 = \sum_{l = 1}^{n} (-1)^{l + 1} C_{2l}, \label{constant0}
\end{equation}
which gives, through (\ref{masa}), the value of the dics mass
$\mathcal{M}_d$ in terms of the constants $C_{2l}$, with $l \geq 1$.
Now, to properly choose the gravitational potential of the spheroidal halo,
first we consider the product functions
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{j}^{k} (\xi,\eta) = q_{j}^{k} (\xi) P_{j}^{k} (\eta), \label{phijk}
\end{equation}
where (\citeauthor{LAM} \citeyear{LAM})
\begin{equation}
q_{j}^{k} (\xi) = (1 + \xi^2)^{\frac{k}{2}} \frac{d^k q_{j}(\xi)}{d\xi^n},
\label{qjk}
\end{equation}
are the solutions of the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{d }{d\xi} \left[(1 + \xi^2) \frac{dq_{j}^{k}}{d\xi} \right] = \left[j(j+1)
- \frac{k^2}{1 + \xi^2}\right] q_{j}^{k} (\xi), \label{dqjk}
\end{equation}
while the associated Legendre functions (\citeauthor{AW} \citeyear{AW}),
\begin{equation}
P_{j}^{k} (\eta) = (1 - \eta^2)^{\frac{k}{2}} \frac{d^k P_{j}(\eta)}{d\eta^k},
\label{pjk}
\end{equation}
are the solutions of the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{d }{d\eta} \left[(1 - \eta^2) \frac{dP_{j}^{k}}{d\eta} \right] =
\left[\frac{k^2}{1 - \eta^2} - j(j+1)\right] P_{j}^{k} (\eta), \label{dpjk}
\end{equation}
where $j$ and $k$ are integers, with $j \geq k$.
With the previous expressions, and using the Laplace operator (\ref{lapop}),
we can now compute the mass density associated with a gravitational potential
given by $\Phi_j^k (\xi, \eta)$. Thus, from the Poisson equation
(\ref{posec}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
4 \pi G \varrho_j^k (\xi,\eta) = \frac{k^2 \Phi_{j}^{k} (\xi,\eta)}{a^2
(1 + \xi^2) (1 - \eta^2)}, \label{rhokj}
\end{equation}
with $k \neq 0$, while the density is identically zero when $k = 0$. Then, as
$P_{j}^{k} (\eta)$ is finite at the interval $- 1 \leq \eta \leq 1$ and
$q_{j}^{k} (\xi)$ goes to zero when $\xi \to \infty$, $\varrho_j^k (\xi,\eta)$
properly vanishes at infinity. On the other hand, from (\ref{pjk}) it is easy
to see that $\varrho_j^k (\xi,\eta)$ diverges at $\eta = \pm 1$ (the $z$ axis)
unless that $k \geq 2$, while for $k > 2$ this function vanishes at $\eta = \pm
1$. On the other hand, due to the discontinuous character of $\eta$, $\Phi_j^k
(\xi, \eta)$ will be continuous across the disc only if $(j - k)$ is an even
number, since then $P_{j}^{k} (\eta)$ will be an even function of $\eta$.
In agreement with the above considerations, we will take for the gravitational
potential of the spheroidal a simple combination of the product functions
$\Phi_j^k (\xi, \eta)$ given by
\begin{equation}
\Phi_h (\xi,\eta) = B_{00} \Phi_0^0 (\xi, \eta) + B_{20} \Phi_2^0 (\xi, \eta)
+ B_{22} \Phi_2^2 (\xi, \eta), \label{potenh}
\end{equation}
where $B_{00}$, $B_{20}$ and $B_{22}$ are, in principle, arbitrary constants.
Then, after using the explicit expressions for $q_{j}^{k} (\xi)$ and $P_{j}^{k}
(\eta)$, the halo density can be written as
\begin{equation}
\varrho (\xi) = \frac{3 B_{22}}{\pi G a^2} \left\{ 3 \cot^{-1} \xi - \frac{\xi
(3 \xi^2 + 5)}{(1 + \xi^2)^2} \right\}, \label{denh}
\end{equation}
which is maximum at the disc surface, when $\xi = 0$, and then fastly
decreases being constant at the oblate spheroids defined by $\xi = \rm cte$. By
integrating over all the space, we obtain the expression
\begin{equation}
B_{22} = \frac{\mathcal{M}_h G}{16 a}, \label{b22}
\end{equation}
where ${\mathcal M}_h$ is the total mass of the halo. Finally, from the
condition (\ref{cond1a}), we obtain
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
B_{00} &= - \frac{\mathcal{M}_h G}{a}, \label{b00} \\
B_{20} &= \ \frac{\mathcal{M}_h G}{2 a}, \label{b20}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and so all the constants in (\ref{potenh}) are expressed in terms of the halo
mass ${\mathcal M}_h$.
On the other hand, if we restrict to particles moving in the thin disc, the circular
velocity (\ref{vc2}) is written in terms of the spheroidal coordinates as
\begin{equation}
v_c^2 = \left. \frac{(\eta^2 - 1)}{\eta} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial \eta}
\right|_{\xi=0},
\end{equation}
which, by using (\ref{poten}), (\ref{potend}), (\ref{potenh}) and the
properties of the Legendre functions, reduces to
\begin{equation}
v_c^2 ({\widetilde R}) = \frac{{\widetilde R}^2}{\eta} \sum_{l=1}^{n}
{\widetilde C}_{2l} P'_{2l} (\eta), \label{vcsph}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\widetilde C}_2 = q_2 (0) \left[ C_2 + \frac{\mathcal{M}_h G}{4 a} \right],
\label{c2til}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
{\widetilde C}_{2l} = q_{2l} (0) C_{2l}, \label{c2ltil}
\end{equation}
for $l \geq 2$. Then, by using (\ref{constant0}), (\ref{c2til}) and
(\ref{c2ltil}), it is easy to see that
\begin{equation}
\frac{{\mathcal M}_d G}{a} + \frac{{\mathcal M}_h G}{4 a} = \sum_{l=1}^{n}
\frac{(-1)^{l+1}{\widetilde C}_{2l}}{q_{2l}(0)}, \label{linear}
\end{equation}
and thus the model implies a linear relationship between ${\mathcal M}_d$ and
${\mathcal M}_h$, in which the independent term is determined by the constants
${\widetilde C}_{2l}$, with $l \geq 1$. Now, it is clear that the above
relationship makes sense only if the right hand side it is positive, which
should be checked for every set of constants ${\widetilde C}_{2l}$ corresponding
to any particular model.
\section{Obtaining of Particular Models}
In order to obtain particular models, we must to specify the constants
${\widetilde C}_{2l}$ of the general model. So, we will adjust these constants
in such a way that the circular velocity $v_{c}^{2}({\widetilde R})$ it fits the
data of the rotation curve of some particular galaxy. Now, as expression
(\ref{vcsph}) for the circular velocity only involves derivatives of the
Legendre polynomials of even order, it is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
v_{c}^{2}({\widetilde R}) = \sum_{l=1}^{n} A_{2l} {\widetilde R}^{2l},
\label{velr2n}
\end{equation}
where the $A_{2l}$ constants are related with the previous constants
${\widetilde C}_{2l}$, for $l \neq 0$, through the relation
\begin{equation}
{\widetilde C}_{2l} = \frac{4l + 1}{4l(2l + 1)}\sum_{k = 1}^{n} A_{2k} I_{kl},
\label{relation}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
I_{kl} = \int_{-1}^{1} \eta(1 - \eta^{2})^{k} P'_{2l}(\eta) d\eta,
\end{equation}
which is obtained by equaling expressions (\ref{vcsph}) and (\ref{velr2n})
and by using the orthogonality properties of the associated Legendre functions
(\citeauthor{AW} \citeyear{AW}).
Then, if the constants $A_{2l}$ are determined by a fitting of the observational
data of the corresponding rotation curve, the corresponding values of the
coefficients ${\widetilde C}_{2l}$ can be determined by means of relation
(\ref{relation}), obtaining then a particular case of (\ref{linear})
corresponding to a specific galaxy model, which can be written in terms of the
constants $A_{2l}$ as
\begin{equation}
\frac{{\mathcal M}_d G}{a} + \frac{{\mathcal M}_h G}{4 a} = \sum_{l=1}^{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n}
\frac{(-1)^{l+1} (4 l + 1) A_{2k} I_{kl}}{4 l (2 l + 1) q_{2l}(0)}; \label{lineara2n}
\end{equation}
however, this relation does not determine completely the values of
${\mathcal M}_d$ and ${\mathcal M}_h$, only gives a linear relationship between
them. So, in order to restrict the allowed values of these masses, it is needed
to analyse the behaviour of some other quantities characterizing the kinematics
of the model.
Besides the circular velocity, two other important quantities concerning the
kinematics of the models are the epicycle or radial frequency, $\kappa^{2} (R)$,
and the vertical frequency, $\nu^{2} (R)$, which describe the stability against
radial and vertical perturbations of particles in quasi-circular orbits
(\citeauthor{BT} \citeyear{BT}, Section 2.2.3, page 164). These two quantities,
which must be positive in order to have stable circular orbits, are defined as
\begin{align}
&\kappa^{2} (R) = \left. \frac{\partial^{2} \Phi_{\rm eff}}{\partial R^{2}}
\right|_{z=0}, \label{epicycle} \\
& \nonumber \\
&\nu^{2} (R) = \left. \frac{\partial^{2} \Phi_{\rm eff}}{\partial z^{2}}
\right|_{z=0}, \label{vertical}
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\rm eff} = \Phi (R,z) + \frac{\ell^{2}}{2R^{2}}, \label{phieff}
\end{equation}
is the effective potential and $\ell = R v_c$ is the specific axial angular
momentum. Then, by using expression (\ref{vc2}) for the circular velocity,
we can write the above expressions as
\begin{align}
&\kappa^2 (R) = \frac{1}{R} \frac{dv_c^2}{dR} + \frac{2 v_c^2}{R^2},
\label{k2} \\
& \nonumber \\
&\nu^2 (R) = \left. \nabla^2 \Phi \right|_{z=0} - \frac{1}{R} \frac{dv_c^2}{dR},
\label{lap0}
\end{align}
where we also used the expression for the Laplace operator in cylindrical
coordinates.
Now, by using (\ref{velr2n}), the epicycle frequency can be cast as
\begin{equation}
{\widetilde \kappa}^2 ({\widetilde R}) = \sum_{l=1}^{n} 2 (l + 1)
A_{2l} {\widetilde R}^{2l - 2}, \label{kapr2n}
\end{equation}
where ${\widetilde \kappa} = a\kappa$. So, as the epicycle frequency is
completely determined by the set of constants $A_{2l}$, which are fixed by the
numerical fit of the rotation curve data, there are not free parameters that can
be adjusted by requiring radial stability. However, relation (\ref{kapr2n}) can
be used as a consistency criterion to the numerical fit of the circular velocity
with the observed data of the rotation curve. So, if the epicycle frequency it
is not positive everywhere at the interval $0 \leq {\widetilde R} \leq 1$ for a
given set of constants, it is possible to make a new numerical fit by considering
a different model, with another value of $n$, in order to ensure the positiveness
of the epicycle frequency. Accordingly, we seek for a balance between the best
numerical fit and the numerical fit that agrees with the positiveness of the
epicycle frequency.
Also, by using the Poisson equation (\ref{posec}), the expression
(\ref{denh}) for the halo density and the expression (\ref{velr2n}) for the
circular velocity, the vertical frequency can be written as
\begin{equation}
{\widetilde \nu}^2 ({\widetilde R}) = \frac{9 \pi G {\mathcal M}_h}{8 a} -
f_1 ({\widetilde R}), \label{nur2n}
\end{equation}
where ${\widetilde \nu} = a \nu$ and
\begin{equation}
f_1 ({\widetilde R}) = \sum_{l=1}^{n} 2 l A_{2l} {\widetilde R}^{2l - 2}.
\label{f1}
\end{equation}
So, as ${\widetilde \nu}^2$ must be positive everywhere at the interval
$0 \leq {\widetilde R} \leq 1$ in order to have vertically stable models,
expression (\ref{nur2n}) defines a lower bound for the halo mass,
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal M}_h \geq {\mathcal M}_h^- = \frac{8 a}{9 \pi G} \left\{ \max f_1 ({\widetilde R}) \right\}, \label{mhmin}
\end{equation}
that combined with (\ref{lineara2n}) gives also an upper bound for the disc
mass ${\mathcal M}_d$.
We also need to consider the behavior of the surface mass density, as given by
expression (\ref{density}), that can be written in terms of the constants
$A_{2l}$ as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma({\widetilde R}) = \frac{\sqrt{1 - {\widetilde R}^{2}}}{\pi^2 a G}
\left\{ f_2 ({\widetilde R}) - \frac{3 \pi G {\cal M}_h}{8 a} \right\}, \label{dena2n}
\end{equation}
where, for the model with $n = 4$,
\begin{eqnarray}
f_2 ({\widetilde R}) &=& \left[ 2 A_2 + \frac{8 A_4}{9} + \frac{16 A_6}{25} + \frac{128 A_8}{245} \right] \nonumber \\
&& + \left[ \frac{16 A_4}{9} + \frac{64 A_6}{75} + \frac{768 A_8}{1225} \right] {\widetilde R}^2 \nonumber \\
&& + \left[ \frac{128 A_6}{75} + \frac{1024 A_8}{1225} \right] {\widetilde R}^4 + \left[ \frac{2048 A_8}{1225} \right] {\widetilde R}^6, \label{f2a2n}
\end{eqnarray}
and for any other value of $n$ the explicit expression of $f_2 ({\widetilde R})$ can be easily obtained from (\ref{density}), (\ref{c2til}), (\ref{c2ltil}) and (\ref{relation}). Accordingly, in order that the surface mass density be positive everywhere on the disc, expression (\ref{dena2n}) defines an upper bound for the halo mass,
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal M}_h \leq {\mathcal M}_h^+ = \frac{8 a}{3 \pi G} \left\{ \min f_2 ({\widetilde R}) \right\}, \label{mhmax}
\end{equation}
that combined with (\ref{lineara2n}) gives also a lower bound for the disc
mass ${\mathcal M}_d$. However, in order that the models make sense, we must
have that
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal M}_h^+ \geq {\mathcal M}_h^-, \label{mascon}
\end{equation}
which should be checked for every set of constants corresponding to any
particular model.
\section{Fitting of data to the models}
In order to check the applicability of the previous model to describe real
galaxies, we analyse a set data taken from the recent paper by \cite{VS}, in
which are reported the results of an extensive 21 cm-line synthesis imaging
survey of 43 galaxies in the nearby Ursa Major cluster using the Westerbork
Synthesis Radio Telescope. For each rotation curve data, we take the value of
$a$, the radius of the galactic disc, as given by the last tabulated value of
the radius. Accordingly, we are assuming that the radius of the galaxies is
defined by the farthest observed data. Now, although this assumption about the
galactic radius do not agrees with the accepted standard about the edge of the
stellar disc (\citeauthor{BM} \citeyear{BM}), we will make it since we are
assuming that all the stars moving in circular orbits at the galactic plane are
inside the disc and that there are no stars moving outside the disc.
So, by taking the radius normalized in units of $a$, we make a non-linear least
square fit of the data with the general relation (\ref{velr2n}) for all the
galaxies reported by \cite{VS}, seeking for a balance between the best numerical
fit and the fit that agrees with the positiveness of the epicycle frequency by
using the consistency criterion (\ref{kapr2n}) over the constants $A_{2l}$. By
selecting between all the galaxies only those that fulfill with the consistency
criterion, then we proceed to determine the lower and upper bounds over the halo
mass by using expressions (\ref{mhmin}) and (\ref{mhmax}). Finally, we check
that this two values of the halo mass are in agreement with the condition
(\ref{mascon}) in order that the models make sense. However, when we check the
consistency of the adjust, we found that only the fit of the data for the
galaxies NGC4389 and UGC6969 it agrees with this conditions, whereas that for
all the other galaxies we found that ${\mathcal M}_n^+ < {\mathcal M}_n^-$.
\begin{table}
\caption{Galactic radius $a$ $({\rm kpc})$ and constants $A_{2l}$ $({\rm km}^2 {\rm s}^{-2})$.}\label{tab:a2l}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline
& $a$ & $A_2$ & $A_4$ & $A_6$ & $A_8$ \\ \hline
NGC4389 & 5.5 &$29495.4$ & $- 53607.4$ & $60170.1$ & $- 23962.6$ \\
UGC6969 & 4.6 &$15094.2$ & $- 38417.9$ & $56183.2$ & $- 26619.2$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular} \\
\caption{Halo mass ${\mathcal M}_h$, disc mass, ${\mathcal M}_d$ and total
mass ${\mathcal M}$ $({\rm kg})$.}\label{tab:maskg}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
& ${\mathcal M}_h$ $(10^{34} \ {\rm kg})$ & ${\mathcal M}_d$ $(10^{33} \ {\rm kg})$ &
${\mathcal M}$ $(10^{34} \ {\rm kg})$ \\ \hline
NGC4389 & $4.24 - 4.52$ & $3.01 - 3.70$ & $4.62 - 4.82$ \\
UGC6969 & $1.81 - 1.83$ & $1.42 - 1.47$ & $1.96 - 1.98$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular} \\
\caption{Halo mass ${\mathcal M}_h$, disc mass, ${\mathcal M}_d$ and total
mass ${\mathcal M}$ $(\mathcal{M_{\odot}})$.}\label{tab:masmo}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
& ${\mathcal M}_h$ $(\mathcal{M_{\odot}})$ & ${\mathcal M}_d$
$(\mathcal{M_{\odot}})$ & ${\mathcal M}$ $(\mathcal{M_{\odot}})$ \\ \hline
NGC4389 & $21345 - 22738$ & $1514 - 1862$ & $23207 - 24252$ \\
UGC6969 & $9116 - 9219$ & $712 - 738$ & $9854 - 9931$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular} \\
\end{table}
In Table \ref{tab:a2l} we present the values of the galactic radius $a$ and
the constants $A_{2l}$ obtained by the numerical adjust with the rotation curve
data for galaxies NGC4389 and UGC6969 by taking a model with $n = 4$. With this
values for the constants, we obtain for the galaxy NGC4389 the relationship
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal M}_h + 4 {\mathcal M}_d = 5.7255 \times 10^{34} \ {\rm kg}, \label{rel4389}
\end{equation}
and for the galaxy UGC6969 the relationship
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal M}_h + 4 {\mathcal M}_d = 2.3995 \times 10^{34} \ {\rm kg}. \label{rel6969}
\end{equation}
We also compute the minimum and maximum values of the halo mass ${\mathcal M}_h$,
the disc mass ${\mathcal M}_d$ and the total mass ${\mathcal M}$, defined as
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal M} = {\mathcal M}_h + {\mathcal M}_d.
\end{equation}
So, in Table \ref{tab:maskg}, we present the values for the halo mass, the disc
mass and the total mass in $\rm kg$, whereas that in Table \ref{tab:masmo} we
present the corresponding values in solar mass units $(\mathcal{M_{\odot}})$.
In Fig. \ref{veloc}, we show the adjusted rotation curve for these two galaxies.
The upper plot corresponds to the model for galaxy NGC4389, while the lower plot
to the model for galaxy UGC6969. The points with error bars are the observations
as reported in \citet{VS}, while the solid line are the rotation curves
determined from (\ref{velr2n}) with $n = 4$, and the $A_{2l}$ given by the
numerical fit. As we can see, with the two galaxies we get a fairly accurate
numerical adjustment to the rotation curve. We also plot, in Fig. \ref{epici},
the epicycle frequency for the two galaxies, and we can see that this quantity is
always positive in both of them.
\begin{figure}
$$\begin{array}{c}
\epsfig{width=3in,file=vel4389.eps} \\
\\
\epsfig{width=3in,file=vel6969.eps} \\
\end{array}$$
\caption{Plots of the circular velocity $v_{c}$ in $\rm km/s$, as functions of
the dimensionless radial coordinate ${\widetilde R} = R/a$, for the galaxies
NGC4389 and UGC6969.}\label{veloc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
$$\begin{array}{c}
\epsfig{width=3in,file=epi4389.eps} \\
\\
\epsfig{width=3in,file=epi6969.eps} \\
\end{array}$$
\caption{Plots of the epicycle frequency ${\widetilde \kappa}^2 \times 10^{-3}$
in $({\rm km/s})^{2}$, as functions of the dimensionless radial coordinate
${\widetilde R} = R/a$, for the galaxies NGC4389 and UGC6969.}\label{epici}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{verti} we present the vertical frequency for the two models, the
model for galaxy NGC4389 in the upper plot and the model for galaxy UGC6969 in
the lower plot. In both of the models we plot the vertical frequency for the
minimum value ${\cal M}_h^-$ of the halo mass (upper curve of each plot) and
the maximum value ${\cal M}_h^+$ of the halo mass (lower curve of each plot).
As we can see, for the two galaxies we obtain a positive vertical frequency for
all the disc extension, so the models are stable against vertical perturbations.
Now then, for galaxy UGC6969 the two curves are almost coincident given that the
interval between the two mass values is very narrow.
Finally, in Fig. \ref{densi}, we present the corresponding plots of the surface
mass density for the two galaxies, again with the model for galaxy NGC4389 in
the upper plot and the model for galaxy UGC6969 in the lower plot, plotting the
surface mass density for the same two values of the halo mass as in the plots of
the vertical frequency. For galaxy NGC4389, the density has a maximum at the
disc centre and then decreases as $\widetilde R$ increases, vanishing at the
disc edge. On the other hand, for galaxy UGC6969 the density behaves in a similar
way, having a maximum at the disc centre and then decreasing, presenting then a
small region where the density remains almost constant and then decreasing again
to vanish at the disc edge. Furthermore, as with the vertical frequency, for
galaxy UGC6969 the two curves are almost coincident again as a consequence of the
narrow interval between the two values of the halo mass.
\begin{figure}
$$\begin{array}{c}
\epsfig{width=3in,file=ver4389.eps} \\
\\
\epsfig{width=3in,file=ver6969.eps} \\
\end{array}$$
\caption{Plots of the vertical frequency ${\widetilde \nu}^2 \times 10^{-3}$
in $({\rm km/s})^{2}$, as functions of the dimensionless radial coordinate
${\widetilde R} =R/a$, for the galaxies NGC4389 and UGC6969.}\label{verti}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
$$\begin{array}{c}
\epsfig{width=3in,file=den4389.eps} \\
\\
\epsfig{width=3in,file=den6969.eps} \\
\end{array}$$
\caption{Plots of the surface mass density ${\Sigma} \times 10^{-2}$ in
$({\rm kg/m^{2}})$, as functions of the dimensionless radial coordinate
${\widetilde R} = R/a$, for the galaxies NGC4389 and UGC6969.}\label{densi}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
We presented a family of galactic models characterised by a linear relationship between the halo mass and the disc mass. The models are stable against radial and vertical perturbations and their circular velocities can be adjusted
very accurately to the observed rotation curves of some specific galaxies.
The here presented models are a generalisation of the models presented in
\citet{GPR}, where we only considered models with a thin galactic disc. The
generalisation was obtained by adding to the gravitational potential of the
thin disc the gravitational potential corresponding to a spheroidal halo, in
such a way that we solve the problem of vertical unstability presented by the
previous models.
Two particular models were obtained by a numerical fit of the general expression
(\ref{velr2n}) for the circular velocity with the observed data of the rotation
curve of galaxies NGC4389 and UGC6969. For these two galaxies we obtained a
fairly accurate numerical adjustment with the rotation curve and, from the
constants $A_{2l}$ obtained with the numerical fit, we compute the values of the
halo mass, the disc mass and the total mass for these two galaxies in such a way
that we obtain a very narrow interval of values for these quantities.
Furthermore, the values of masses here obtained are in perfect agreement with the
expected order of magnitude and with the relative order of magnitude between the
halo mass and the disc mass.
However, although we tested the applicability of the present model with all the
galaxies reported by \citet{VS}, consistent models were obtained only for the two
galaxies NGC4389 and UGC6969, whereas for all the other galaxies were obtained
models with values of the halo mass such that ${\mathcal M}_n^+ < {\mathcal
M}_n^-$. Now, this negative result can be considered as due to the simple halo
model that we have taken here. Indeed, as we can see from expressions
(\ref{rhokj}) and (\ref{potenh}), only one term of the gravitational potential
of the halo contributes to their density, what leaves only one free constant to
be determined in order to fit the model to the imposed consistency conditions.
This constant is precisely the mass of the halo, ${\cal M}_h$, which is
determined by requiring the positiveness of the vertical frequency and the
surface mass density. On the other hand, by considering additional terms in
expression (\ref{potenh}) for the halo potential, we will have new free
parameters that perhaps allow to adjust the model to properly describe the
behavior of other galaxies besides the two considered here.
In agreement with the above considerations, we can consider the simple set of
models here presented as a fairly good approximation to obtaining quite realistic
models of galaxies. In particular, we believe that the values of mass obtained
for the two galaxies here studied may be taken as a very accurate estimate of the
upper and lower bounds for the mass of the galactic disc and for the mass of the
spheroidal halo in these two galaxies. Accordingly, we are now working on a more
involved model, obtained by including additional terms in expression
(\ref{potenh}) for the halo potential, in order to get some particular models
that can be properly adjusted with the observed data of the rotation curve of
some other galaxies besides the two here considered.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
GAG and JIR want to thank Vicerrector\'ia de Investigaci\'on y Extensi\'on, Universidad
Industrial de Santander, by the financial support. JI thanks support from the Spanish
Ministry of Science and Innovation (grant FIS2010-15492). Also GAG is grateful for the
warm hospitality of Departamento de F\'isica Te\'orica, Universidad del Pa\'is Vasco,
where a main part of this work was made.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The discovery of new long lived particles at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) would be tremendously interesting and could shed light on the dark matter puzzle as well as on physics of very high scales. Particles that are long lived on collider time scales ($\gg$ ns) which are colored or electrically charged will be slowed down by electromagnetic interactions in the detectors at the LHC, causing a fraction of them to stop~\cite{Drees:1990yw, Arvanitaki:2005nq}. Observations of the eventual out-of-time decay of these stopped particles can, in many cases, unmask their gauge quantum numbers, spin, and the nature of the physics responsible for decay. In this paper, we present strategies to make measurements on the decays of stopped particles in the LHC detectors. Keeping in mind possible limitations of the detectors, we evaluate the prospects for identifying TeV and UV physics that couples these new particles to the Standard Model.
Massive metastable colored or electrically charged particles (MMCP, referred to in the draft as $X$) generically arise if the particle is protected from rapid decay due to accidental symmetries of the low energy Lagrangian that are nevertheless violated by physics in the ultraviolet. The possible decay of the proton caused by the presence of GUT scale interactions that violate the accidental baryon number symmetry of the standard model is a well known example of this phenomenon. Metastable particles that carry color (SIMPs) or electric charge (CHAMPs) emerge naturally in several scenarios of physics beyond the standard model (for general reviews see refs. \cite{Fairbairn:2006gg, Raklev:2009mg}). An example of this scenario is a charged next to lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP) such as a stau or stop decaying via higher dimension operators to a gravitino or axino. Other models with long lived charged particles include~\cite{Senjanovic:1984rw, Bagger:1984rk, Banks:1986cg, Dimopoulos:1996vz, Ambrosanio:1997rv, Hinchliffe:1998ys, Frampton:1997up, Polonsky:2000zt, Covi:2001nw, Goldberger:2002pc, Nomura:2003qb, Cheung:2003um, Feng:2003nr, Nomura:2004is, Nomura:2004it, ArkaniHamed:2004fb, Chacko:2008cb, Arvanitaki:2008hq, Walker:2009ei, Walker:2009en, Graham:2009gy, McDonald:2009ab, Craig:2011ev}. While metastability due to high scale physics is well motivated, the new particle may be long lived because of very small marginal couplings, such as in $R$-parity violating SUSY~\cite{Barbier:2004ez}, pure Dirac neutrinos~\cite{Gupta:2007ui}, or TeV scale See-Saw\footnote{A particle may also be long lived due to kinematics, namely $X$ is nearly degenerate with the final state it can decay to, but we will not consider this case because it is experimentally extremely difficult.}~\cite{Cheung:2011ph}.
If such a new particle is discovered at the LHC, it will be crucial to directly measure as many of its properties as possible in order to determine the underlying physics models. It has been shown that using production and propagation, it is possible to measure the MMCP's mass~\cite{Hinchliffe:1998ys,Allanach:2001sd,Kilian:2004uj}, spin~\cite{Rajaraman:2007ae,Kitano:2008sa,Ito:2010xj,Buckley:2010fj}, color representation~\cite{Buckley:2010fj}, flavor content~\cite{Kitano:2008en,Feng:2009bd}, polarization~\cite{Kitano:2010tt}, as well as its coupling to the Higgs and other standard model particles~\cite{Chang:2011jk, Luty:2011hi}. It has also been shown that MMCP's can be used to measure other properties of the new physics sector~\cite{Choudhury:2008gb, Biswas:2009zp, Biswas:2009rba, Feng:2009yq,Ito:2009xy, Biswas:2010cd,Ito:2010un}. There have been searches for slow-moving MMCP's at LEP~\cite{Heister:2002hp,Heister:2003hc,LEPWG}, the Tevatron~\cite{Abazov:2008qu,Aaltonen:2009kea,Abazov:2011pf}, and the LHC~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012,Khachatryan:2011ts,Aad:2011yf,Aad:2011hz,Khachatryan:2011cd} which place bounds on their production.
While much can be learned by studying the production and propagation of $X$ particles at the LHC, there is interesting physics that can only be learned by studying their decays. For example, the Lorentz structure of the decay and the branching fractions to different standard model particles can constrain the UV physics causing the decay. Previous proposals to study decays of $X$s include looking for decays from the surrounding rock~\cite{De Roeck:2005bw}, and building a new detector to capture $X$ particles~\cite{Hamaguchi:2004df,Feng:2004yi,Hamaguchi:2006vu}. While these proposals could be implemented in the far future, it is interesting to see what measurements can be made with the detectors that are already in place. It is often the case that many $X$ particles will be stopped in the detectors~\cite{Arvanitaki:2005nq}, and the present detectors can sometimes be better at capturing MMCPs than potential new detectors~\cite{Feng:2004yi}. Observing decays within the detector can be quite challenging because the LHC apparatus were designed to measure particles coming from a central interaction point, while in our case the event originates elsewhere. Despite these difficulties, both the D0~\cite{Abazov:2007ht} and CMS~\cite{Khachatryan:2010uf, Khachatryan:2011ab} have performed searches for decays of stopped particles, demonstrating that difficult experimental issues such as triggering can be solved.
Previous studies of decays have shown that it is in principle possible to measure the scale suppressing the operator which mediates decays as well as the spins of the $X$ in the context of certain models without taking into account experimental realities~\cite{Buchmuller:2004rq, Buchmuller:2004tm}. More realistic studies have demonstrated how to measure the lifetime~\cite{Asai:2009ka, Pinfold:2010aq}, and how to measure the origin of longevity in the specific case of a stau NLSP~\cite{Ito:2011xs}. In this paper we will show that topologies and kinematic distributions of out-of-time decays can realistically be measured at the LHC, and these measurements can reveal the properties of TeV-sector particles as well as test and motivate models of UV physics responsible for the decay.
In this context, the primary purpose of this paper is to provide theoretical guidance for the types of measurement and accuracy which could feasibly distinguish different scenarios of long-lived particles based on observations of their out-of-time decays in the LHC detectors. In Section \ref{sec:observation} we motivate and describe a simple model parameterizing the observables and uncertainties for experimental measurements of the details of out-of-time decays. We apply this in Section~\ref{sec:topologies} to determine the ability of the LHC to distinguish MMCP scenarios based on the decay products in several motivated scenarios and in general. In Section~\ref{sec:effectivetheory} we focus on MMCPs with three-body decays and determine to what degree the LHC can distinguish models with particles of different spin and interactions of different Lorentz structure. We then conclude.
\section{Observing Decay Properties at the LHC}
\label{sec:observation}
As will be discussed, the vast majority of stopped MMCPs will come to rest in the barrel calorimeters at ATLAS and CMS \cite{Arvanitaki:2005nq}. Therefore searches for late decays at ATLAS and CMS \cite{Khachatryan:2010uf} look for energy deposits in the calorimeters occurring out of time with beam crossings, which will be observable for MMCP lifetimes of $100{\rm~ns} \lesssim \tau \lesssim 1{\rm~year}$. In this section we describe a simplified model of the observables in out-of-time decays occuring in the LHC calorimeters, including the sources and treatment of systematic uncertainties, the expected event rates for a variety of MMCPs, and the reduction of cosmic ray backgrounds. For concreteness we work in the context of a specific search strategy focused on out-of-time decays originating in the electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL) of CMS or ATLAS, but we note that most of our results in the following sections can be applied more generally to evaluate a variety of possible search strategies for observing the details of out-of-time decays in the LHC detectors and beyond.
\subsection{Observables and systematic uncertainties}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{StrategyJJ.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:strategy}
A schematic view of the event geometry we are considering. This is a cross sectional $x-y$ view of a detector taken from~\cite{CMSDraw}. The inner circle is the tracking chamber, the next (green) section is the electromagnetic calorimeter, followed by the (orange) hadronic calorimeter. The outermost layers are the muon chambers. An MMCP $X$ that had stopped in the ECAL decays into two jets and an invisible $Y$ which escapes the detector without interacting. The ECAL cell where the decay took place shows energy deposition. One of the jets exits the ECAL and deposits its energy into the HCAL. The second jet exits the ECAL in another direction, leaving tracks which do not point back to the interaction region, and then depositing energy in a different region of both the ECAL and HCAL. This is a schematic representation; the $\phi$ resolution of the actual detector is much finer in both the ECAL and HCAL, so that the cells that lit up in the calorimeter should give enough information to approximately determine $\theta_{12}$, the angle between the jets.}
\end{figure}
For out-of-time decays originating in the barrel calorimeter as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:strategy}, the ability to identify and measure the kinematic properties of final-state particles is very diminished by the geometry and stopping power of the calorimeters and the absence of information from the inner detector. There are however a variety of ways in which these obstacles could be overcome by exploiting the spatial segmentation of the calorimeters. To illustrate this point, we propose to look for events originating in the ECAL with a large fraction of the radiation escaping the ECAL and interacting with other parts of the detector, especially the hadronic calorimeter (HCAL). The motivations and details of this strategy are discussed in more detail in Appendix~\ref{app:measurement}. We find that in these types of events, the location of the decay vertex and the multiplicity and direction (though not energy) of jets and hard muons can then be reconstructed from the pattern of energy deposition in the finely segmented $\eta\times\phi$ plane of the barrel ECAL and HCAL, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:strategy}.
To understand the detailed response of the detectors to out-of-time off-vertex decays would require an event-by-event detector-level simulation. This is however beyond the scope of our analysis and unnecessary to demonstrate the observable features which will distinguish MMCP models and to explore the rough capabilities of the LHC detectors. Instead, we will work with events at the parton level and parametrize the experimental uncertainty with a simple model.
After the initial hard decay of the MMCP and subsequent prompt decays of daughter particles, colored particles passing an energy cut $E_j$ are identified as hard ``jets", and muons passing an energy cut $E_\mu > 20{\rm~GeV}$ are identified as hard muons. To parametrize the uncertainty in detector response, we define an angular uncertainty $\Delta\theta$. The measurement of the direction of each jet and muon in each decay event is taken from a gaussian distribution of full width $\Delta\theta$ around the true angle. As described in Appendix~\ref{app:measurement}, the geometry of the calorimeters motivates optimistic, nominal, and conservative benchmark values of respectively $\Delta\theta = 10^\circ, 30^\circ,{\rm~and~} 60^\circ$. $\Delta\theta$ also sets the angular separation at which a jet will be considered distinct in the analysis. Any colored particles within this separation are grouped as a single ``jet", and we restrict our attention also to muons isolated by $\Delta\theta$ from any jet. For a typical jet we will consider, the values of $\Delta\theta$ are greater than or comparable to the angular spreading of the jet due to soft colored radiation, so we ignore this effect.
Clearly the actual uncertainty in angular measurement will be non-isotropic and a function of the location of the decay vertex and the direction and energy of each object. Our approximation is partially justified by the fact that the locations of decay vertices in the calorimeters are uniformly distributed in the azimuthal direction, and that the overall orientation of the decays are isotropically distributed. Moreover, our results can be viewed as approximate targets for the degree to which the uncertainties in direction measurements must be understood in a full search to meet certain physics goals.
It is also important to consider how the triggers, energy cuts, and true uncertainty in direction measurement can distort the statistical distributions of event observables. In our simplified model, we will estimate the magnitude of these effects by studying the changes in these distributions as we adjust the parameters $\Delta\theta$ and $E_j$.
In Appendix~\ref{app:measurement} we discuss further the details, motivation, and expected performance at CMS and ATLAS for this strategy. However, in the analysis of Sections \ref{sec:topologies} and \ref{sec:effectivetheory}, we rely only on the assumption that the direction and multiplicity of muons and jets are measurable in out-of-time decays. The specific details of the measurement strategy do enter our results when we estimate signal rates by considering the stopping rates in the barrel ECAL, but limited explorations suggest that other strategies would obtain similar or worse efficiencies.
\subsection{Signal rates}
\label{subsec:signal}
To interpret our results it will be useful to make an estimate of the minimal event rates for a variety of MMCPs, taking into account the production cross sections and stopping rates of the MMCP and the trigger and cut efficiencies for out-of-time decays originating in the ECAL.
Electrically charged MMCPs are slowed down due to electromagnetic interactions with the detector material, and colored MMCPs will slow in the same way if they hadronize to charged states. A fraction $\delta$ of produced X will lose enough energy to stop within the barrel ECAL. We focus on the barrel ECAL because heavy $X$ that are directly pair produced will tend to be produced centrally and stop in the barrel calorimeters, although for more general models it may not be the optimal strategy.
To determine the 14 TeV LHC reach quantitatively, we take as a benchmark a hypothetical dataset of $200{\rm~fb}^{-1}$. If a late decaying particle with lifetime $\gtrsim 100 \;{\rm ns}$ is discovered, the proton bunch structure could in principle be optimized to allow the decays of $\sim50\%$ of stopped MMCPs to be observed sufficiently out of time with any LHC collisions. Taking a further $50\%$ trigger/cut efficiency for late decay searches \cite{Khachatryan:2010uf}, in such a dataset the number of late decays observed in the ECAL for a particle with pair production cross section $\sigma$ will be
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eventrate}
N = 25 \times \left(\frac{\sigma}{100\,{\rm fb}}\right)\left(\frac{\delta}{0.25\%}\right).
\end{equation}
For an MMCP of given spin and gauge representations, there is a minimal production rate due to direct production. Table~\ref{tab:eventrate} shows the corresponding mass at which $10$ and $100$ out-of-time decays with vertex in the ECAL would be observed in the benchmark dataset. As can be seen, statistically significant distributions of the experimental observables can be obtained for a variety of MMCPs over interesting mass ranges, even with the conservative assumption that model-dependent effects do not increase the overall production rate. The calculation of stopping fraction $\delta$ is described in Appendix~\ref{app:stopping}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c|c}
& N & $M$ & $\sigma(M)$ & $\delta(M)$ \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{6cm}{Q=0 color octet fermion\\(gluino)} & 10 & $\sim1300$ GeV & 40 fb & 0.25\% \\
& 100 & $\sim1000$ GeV & 400 fb & 0.25\% \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{6cm}{Q=2/3 color triplet scalar\\(stop)} & 10 & $\sim600$ GeV & 50 fb & 0.2\% \\
& 100 & $\sim400$ GeV & 400 fb & 0.25\% \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{6cm}{Q=1 SU(2) doublet fermion\\(higgsino)} & 10 & $\sim500$ GeV & 33 fb & 0.3\% \\
& 100 & $\sim300$ GeV & 290 fb & 0.35\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:eventrate} The masses at which $N=10$ and $N=100$ observable late decay events are produced in the ATLAS or CMS ECAL with 200 fb$^{-1}$ at the 14 TeV LHC, assuming only direct production as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:eventrate}). The relevant direct production cross section $\sigma(M)$ and stopping fraction $\delta(M)$ calculated at each mass are shown. For colored particles, only colored production was included. Tree level cross sections and velocity distributions calculated with MadGraph 5 \cite{Alwall:2011uj}, NLO cross sections for gluino from \cite{Hewett:2004nw}.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
To get a feel for the numbers, consider a 1 TeV gluino. At the 14 TeV LHC with our benchmark set of 200 fb$^{-1}$, 120,000 gluinos will be produced, and we can use Eq.~(\ref{eq:eventrate}) and the calculation of $\delta$ in Appendix~\ref{app:stopping} to find that there will be about 75 observed decays in the ECAL. As we will see in Sections~\ref{sec:topologies}~and~\ref{sec:effectivetheory}, this is enough to distinguish Split SUSY\footnote{Our benchmark models, including Split SUSY, will be described in Section~\ref{sec:models}.} from many other possible scenarios. Most other MMCP candidates also have large enough direct production rates at the LHC for our methods to be applicable. However, for direct production of a right handed stau more than $\sim10$ decays in the ECAL will only be observed for a mass lighter than $90$ GeV. This is excluded by LEP searches for long lived charged particles \cite{Abbiendi:2003yd}, and therefore our methods are only applicable to a stau MMCP when the total LHC production cross section is enhanced by cascades to the NLSP.\footnote{Since this work originally appeared, stronger limits have been released \cite{Chatrchyan:2012}. We discuss these in the conclusions.}
\subsection{Background rates}
The primary advantages of studying decays occuring out-of-time from beam crossings are that there is no stastistical background from competing processes in collisions, and no event-by-event background from pile-up or the underlying event. However, for MMCPs produced at low rates, cosmic rays become an important source of statistical background.
Ref. \cite{ATLAS:conf2010} describes the cuts used to reduce the cosmic background in ATLAS out-of-time decay searches, which all together reduce the cosmic sample by factor of $\sim 5\times10^5$. For a triggering rate in the calorimeters of $2~{\rm Hz}$ \cite{Boonekamp:2004}, this corresponds to a reduced background rate of $\sim20$ cosmic ray events per year in our benchmark dataset (with the reasonable assumption $5\times10^6$s of empty bunch crossings during live beam per year). Focusing on events with mid-ranged electromagnetic energy fractions, $0.1 < {\rm Jet~EMF} < 0.9$ as would be expected for a decay orginating in the ECAL, would reduce the rate to $\sim 1-5$ events per year \cite{ATLAS:conf2010}. This study included a cut $E >{\rm 50~GeV}$ for the leading jet, and the background rate could be easily reduced to $\mathcal{O}(1/{\rm yr})$ by increasing the cut while remaining sensitive to higher mass MMCP decays.
However, the cuts described in Ref. \cite{ATLAS:conf2010} include a cut on events with muon segments present which reduces the background by a factor of $\sim 1000$. If we wish to measure muons in late decay events, the cosmic muon background needs to be reduced in another way. For example, because the cosmic spectrum falls off with energy, increasing the calorimeter energy selection to $E\gtrsim500$ GeV would reduce the background by 3 orders of magnitude based on the measured spectrum \cite{ATLAS:cosmics2011}. In most of the decays we consider the muons are relatively soft compared to the total energy of the event, and therefore a cut on muons with high energies relative to the calorimeter deposit could also be used to reduce the cosmic background while preserving the signal. Furthermore, because the cosmic muon background vanishes below the horizon, it is likely also possible to use track direction and timing measurements to veto the cosmic backgrounds while retaining a large fraction of signal events. This would lead to a reduction in the number of accepted signal events when muons are present, but because the overall decay orientation will be isotropically distributed, the total rate could in principle be inferred from the below-horizon rate. It seems plausible that the background can be reduced in these ways, but a more detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this paper and we do not include the effects of such cuts in our analysis.
We therefore expect that the cosmic ray contamination of our benchmark dataset can be reduced to O(1). For a dataset of 100 signal events, this is comparable to both the systematic errors we will estimate from signal acceptance and the statistical uncertainties.
We note that Ref. \cite{ATLAS:conf2010} also employs cuts on jet shape which could in principle distort the distributions of our observables. However, these cuts are conservative and consistent with the shapes of energy depositions we expect from out-of-time decays involving large hadronic energy components. We model these effects only through our energy cuts on the parton-level ``jets" and muons.
At the high luminosities we are considering, beam related backgrounds could become important. These are however more easily reduced from the characteristic tracks and patterns of energy deposition \cite{ATLAS:conf2010}.
\section{Distinguishing Decay Topologies}
\label{sec:topologies}
In general a heavy MMCP will decay dominantly to low multiplicity primary states including on-shell heavy standard model particles. In many models a conserved quantum number (e.g. $R$-parity) requires the MMCP primary decay to also include another new particle associated with dark matter, which may be the dark matter candidate itself (e.g. neutralino, gravitino, axino) or directly connected to the dark matter sector (e.g. chargino). We will refer to these as WIMPs/WIMP sector particles though our meaning is more generic than the normal usage. Measuring the properties and branching fractions for the primary products of an MMCP decay can in principle directly reveal properties of the MMCP, the WIMP sector, and the physics mediating the MMCP decay. However, in realistic scenarios this is obscured by the secondary decays of the heavy primary SM particles ($W$, $Z$, $h$, $t$), the possible secondary decay chain of the WIMP sector particle to the WIMP, and the overall resolution and capabilities of the detector. In this section we discuss how these difficulties can be overcome, and how the late decay observables described in \Sec{sec:observation} can be used to distinguish models with sufficiently different decay modes.
\subsection{Benchmark Models}
\label{sec:models}
To explore the possibility of identifying MMCP properties and distinguishing different models, we consider several motivated benchmark cases with parameters chosen to give similar LHC event rates and signatures, summarized in the caption of Table~\ref{tab:topologies}. Our objective is not to explore all possible models and their parameter spaces, but rather to demonstrate that the observables we have identified provide interesting information about and can distinguish between a variety of motivated models.
In Split Supersymmetry~\cite{ArkaniHamed:2004fb}, the gluino is long lived because the squarks that mediate its decay are much heavier than 1 TeV. In particular, a 1-2 TeV gluino can have out-of time decays for scalar masses $10^7{\rm~GeV}\lesssim m_0 \lesssim 10^{11}{\rm~GeV}$ \cite{Gambino:2005}. Depending on the gluino and scalar mass scales, either a three-body decay to quarks and neutralino, or a two-body decay to quarks and neutralino/chargino can dominate, or both can compete \cite{Gambino:2005} -- we therefore consider the two-body and three-body decays separately. These two decays are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:GluinoFeyn}. To obtain the correct relic density for a weak scale WIMP, the Split SUSY neutralino is constrained to have a significant higgsino component \cite{Giudice:2004tc}. To explore the remaining freedom in the Split SUSY low energy parameter space, we consider two representative benchmark points motivated by gaugino mass unification boundary conditions and dark matter relic density.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{GluinoFeyn.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:GluinoFeyn}
Feynman diagrams for the decays of a long lived gluino in Split SUSY. The blob represents the four point vertex generated after integrating out the heavy squark. The diagram on the left is a tree level three-body decay to two quarks and a neutralino, while the diagram on the right is the loop level two-body decay to a neutralino and a gluon. In certain regions of parameter space, the loop induced decay can become dominant over the three-body decay~\cite{Gambino:2005}. }
\end{figure}
A stop or stau NLSP can be meta-stable decaying to a gravitino or axino for sufficiently high scales of $\langle F \rangle$ and $f_a$ respectively, with the dominant two-body decays insensitive to the other parameters of the model. Finally, we also consider a simple $R$-parity violating (RPV) scenario with a chargino LSP. In order to explore signals without an invisible WIMP, as well as those with a lepton rich final state, we study a model with a single dominant $\lambda LLE^c$ RPV coupling, which for wino mass $M_2 \sim 500{\rm~GeV}$ and slepton masses $m_{\tilde\ell} \sim{\rm~TeV}$ yields observable out-of-time decays when $10^{-12} \lesssim \lambda \lesssim 10^{-8}$ \cite{Shirai:2009fq}. This decay is pictured in Figure~\ref{fig:RPVFeyn}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17cm]{RPVFeyn.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:RPVFeyn}
Feynman diagrams for decays of a chargino LSP in the $R$-parity violating scenario. The blob represents a tiny RPV coupling $\lambda$, which mediates the decay of the chargino to three charged leptons, or to one charged lepton and two neutrinos. We have suppressed lepton flavor indices, but in the text we only consider $\lambda_{323}$ to be non-zero.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Results}
As discussed in \Sec{sec:observation}, we can classify the topology of each observed event by $n_j$, the number of hard jets observed and $n_\mu$, the number of isolated hard muons observed. We require $n_j \geq 1$ to suppress calorimeter noise and cosmic ray backgrounds. The branching fractions to SM decay modes can be translated into branching fractions for the different observable decay topologies.
For an MMCP mass of order 1 TeV and a large splitting between the MMCP and invisible particle's mass, jets from primary ($u$, $d$, $s$, $c$, $b$) quarks will be collimated and reflect the kinematic properties of the primary particle.\footnote{Muons from bottom and charm decays could be associated with jets to identify the flavor structure of of the decay, but here we will simply treat these muons as part of the jet.} Heavy particles ($W$, $Z$, $h$, $t$) will be produced with small boosts ($\gamma\sim2-5$), and although some directional information will be preserved, their decay products will lead to separated jets and muons.
Cascade decays in the WIMP sector typically produce $Z$'s, $W$'s, and lighter SM particles. If the splittings are comparable to the WIMP mass, this can produce additional hard jets and muons in the event. Although such a cascade allows information to be determined about the WIMP sector particles, it also complicates the identification of the primary decay products. Fortunately, the cascade particles are typically softer than the primary decay particles and lead to higher multiplicity events, which can be exploited to explore the two sectors separately.
In \Tab{tab:topologies}, the branching fractions to different decay topologies are shown for our benchmark models. Because the overall event rate is a priori unknown, we consider only the branching ratios between observable states ($n_j \geq 1$).
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c||c|c|c|c||c|c}
Mode & $E_j$(GeV) & $\Delta\Theta$ & 1j & 2j & 3j & $\geq$4j & 1$\mu$ & 2$\mu$ \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{A1: $\tilde g \rightarrow qq'\chi_i^{0,\pm}$}
& 50 & $10^\circ$ & 1\% & 28\% & 26\% & 45\% & 13\% & 2\% \\
& 50 & $30^\circ$ & 2\% & 30\% & 31\% & 37\% & 12\% & 2\% \\
& 50 & $60^\circ$ & 5\% & 43\% & 41\% & 11\% & 9\% & 1\% \\
& 20 & $30^\circ$ & 1\% & 21\% & 18\% & 60\% & 12\% & 1\% \\
\hline
A2: $\tilde g \rightarrow qq'\chi_i^{0,\pm}$ & 50 & $30^\circ$ & 2\% & 33\% & 31\% & 33\% & 13\% & 1\% \\
\hline
B: $\tilde g \rightarrow g\chi_i^0$ & 50 & $30^\circ$ & 35\% & 31\% & 32\% & 2\% & 3\% & 3\% \\
\hline
C: $\tilde t_1 \rightarrow \tilde G t$ & 50 & $30^\circ$ & 35\% & 40\% & 25\% & 0\% & 8\% & 0\% \\
\hline
D: $\tilde\tau_1 \rightarrow \tilde G \tau$ & 50 & $30^\circ$ & 100\% & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% \\
\hline
E: $ \chi^+ \rightarrow \tau^-\tau^+\mu^+/\tau^+\nu_\tau\nu_\mu / \mu^+\nu_\tau\overline{\nu}_\tau $ & 50 & $30^\circ$ & 90\% & 10\% & 0\% & 0\% & 42\% & 8\% \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:topologies} The branching fractions to final state topologies for several MMCP benchmarks. \textbf{Model A}: Split SUSY three-body gluino decay $\tilde g \rightarrow qq'\chi_i^{0,\pm}$ summed over branching to all neutralinos, charginos, and SM states (see \Fig{fig:GluinoFeyn}). A1 corresponds to a LSP with large Bino fraction, with low-energy mass parameters $\mu=200{\rm~GeV}$, $M_1=130{\rm~GeV}$, $M_2=260{\rm~GeV}$, and $m_{\tilde g} = 1{\rm~TeV}$, and A2 is a mostly higgsino LSP with the same low-energy parameters except $\mu=-120$. \textbf{Model B:} Split SUSY two-body gluino decay $\tilde g \rightarrow g\chi_i^0$, same low energy parameters as for three-body decay A1. \textbf{Model C:} Stop NLSP two-body decay to gravitino LSP for $m_{\tilde t}=600$ GeV and $m_{\tilde G}=10$ GeV. \textbf{Model D:} Stau NLSP two-body decay to gravitino LSP for $m_{\tilde\tau}=150$ GeV and $m_{\tilde G}=10$ GeV. For (C) and (D) the small $\mathcal{O}(1\%)$ branching fractions to primary three-body decays \cite{Freitas:2011fx} are ignored. \textbf{Model E:} $R$-parity violating (RPV) decay of a $\sim400{~\rm GeV}$ higgsino-like chargino LSP through the superpotential operator $L_3L_2E^c_3$ (see \Fig{fig:RPVFeyn}) in the MSSM with weak-scale parameters $M_1 = -800{\rm~GeV}$, $M_2 = 1600{\rm~GeV}$, $\mu = 400{\rm~GeV}$ and a GMSB-like scalar sector with masses $\sim 3{~\rm TeV}$. Numerical calculations performed using MadGraph 5 \cite{Alwall:2011uj}, BRIDGE \cite{Meade:2007js}, and SUSYHIT \cite{Djouadi:2006bz}.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
We begin by estimating the order of magnitude of the systematic uncertainties in the measurement by varying the energy cuts and choice of angular resolution, as shown in the first rows of Table~\ref{tab:topologies} for the three-body decay of the gluino. Varying the angular resolution from $\Delta\theta=10^\circ$ to $\Delta\theta=30^\circ$ changes the muon and low jet multiplicity branching fractions by $\mathcal{O}(0.01)$. The high jet multiplicity branching fractions vary by $\mathcal{O}(0.1)$ because there is a greater probability of jets overlapping for higher multiplicity modes, leading to greater uncertainty in identifying branching fractions. Varying the jet energy cut from $E_j = 50{\rm~GeV}$ to $E_j = 20{\rm~GeV}$ changes the low jet multiplicity and isolated muon branching fractions by $\mathcal{O}(0.01)$ and the high jet multiplicity branching fractions by $\mathcal{O}(0.1)$. The effects of different angular and energy cuts on the other benchmark models were similar and are not shown. Varying $\Delta\theta=30^\circ$ to $\Delta\theta=60^\circ$ has a much greater effect and thus distinguishing models with an experimental performance of $\Delta\theta\sim 60^\circ$ would be considerably more difficult. We therefore focus on the case of $\Delta\theta=30^\circ$ and estimate that systematics uncertainties prevent signatures from being distinguished by muon and low multiplicity jet branching fractions that differ by less than $\mathcal{O}(0.01)$ and by high jet multiplicity branching fractions that differ by less than $\mathcal{O}(0.1)$.
We can now attempt to distinguish different models. The first observation is that decay modes with different numbers of primary colored particles can easily be distinguished. For a given decay, the number of colored particles sets the minimum number of jets that will be present, regardless of the details of decays of secondary particles and WIMP sector cascades. For example, in Split SUSY, a long-lived gluino can dominantly decay either to a three-body mode or two-body mode through a loop as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:GluinoFeyn}. Depending on the region of parameter space, either of the modes can dominate~\cite{Gambino:2005}, and these two modes correspond to (A1) and (B) in Table~\ref{tab:topologies}. In model (A1), the branching fraction to 1j is only $2\%$, with the small fraction coming from the second primary jet being too soft or collinear with the first jet. In (B) on the other hand, there is only one primary colored particle, and so the branching fraction to $1j$ is $36\%$. Therefore only $\mathcal{O}(10)$ observed decays are necessary to statistically distinguish (A) from (B) at the $95\%$ confidence level. Model (A1) can be distinguished from model (C) in the same way, and this method is fairly insensitive to the exact energy cuts and angular resolutions $\Delta \theta$ used.
There is also a region of the Split SUSY parameter space where the two and three-body decays (A1) and (B) have comparable branching fractions. In this case, a measurement can be made to determine the three-body branching fraction $\Gamma_{A1}$, which can be used to determine the UV scale of the theory \cite{Toharia:2006}. With $\mathcal{O}(100)$ events observed, $\Gamma_{A1}$ can be determined to an accuracy of about $\pm 10\%$. This possibility is not restricted to Split SUSY; two and three-body decays can naturally compete in any model where three-body decays are mediated at a high scale and induce two-body decay at loop levels, and a similar measurement will be possible in such scenarios. Of course not everything about Split SUSY can be revealed by these methods. For instance, models (A1) and (A2) differ only in the composition and spectrum of the neutralinos and charginos, (A1) having a mostly bino LSP and (A2) mostly higgsino. The primary observable of two hard jets due to the primary gluino decay is unchanged, and the changes in the cascade decays do not lead to a significant difference in branching fractions. Likewise, because the form of the primary decay vertex is identical in (A1) and (A2), these two scenario will also be degenerate in the kinematic distributions discussed in \Sec{sec:effectivetheory} .
The only observable decay for model (D) involves the hadronic tau decay to a single jet, thus (D) can be ruled out by the observation of a significant fraction of higher jet multiplicity events. In particular it can be distinguished from (A), (B), and (C) with $\mathcal{O}(10)$ observed events. This conclusion is insensitive to the mass of the stau, as long as it is sufficiently massive that the jets can pass the triggers and cuts.
Another observation is that considering both muons and jets in the final state topologies is necessary to distinguish the widest variety of models. For example, it might be expected that the two-body decays of a stop (C) and gluino (B) would have fairly different branching fractions to higher jet multiplicity states. However, the WIMP cascades in (B) and the secondary top quark decay in (C) lead to nearly degenerate branching fractions to different jet multiplicities for the two models. Fortunately, the two scenarios have different branching fractions to final states containing muons. With $\mathcal{O}(100)$ observed decays, models (B) and (C) can be distinguished by their branching fraction to decays containing a single isolated muon. Likewise, the $R$-parity violating decay through the lepton-number violating operator (E) is easily distinguished by its large branching fraction to events containing hard muons.
Based on these analyses, we conclude that observing the branching fractions to different jet and muon multiplicities of $\mathcal{O}(10-100)$ late decay events is sufficient to distinguish many MMCP scenarios, in particular those which differ in the color representation of the meta-stable particle or the number of leptons produced in the decay. This conclusion relies on the assumptions discussed earlier that an angular resolution of $\Delta\Theta\sim30^\circ$ can be obtained, and that background rate from cosmics can be reduced to $\mathcal{O}(1)$ events. Comparing to \Tab{tab:eventrate}, this corresponds for instance to direct pair production cross sections of $40-400{\rm~fb}$ and thus a mass reach of roughly $1.0-1.3$ TeV for a color octet fermion.
For some measurements and models, it can be competitive to identify the MMCP and its charges directly in production events. Looking for very high momentum tracks in the muon chamber could be one of the first signs of a discovery of a CHAMP~\cite{Gupta:2007ui}. Mass measurements can be performed with great accuracy from time-of-flight measurements, with for example better than $1\%$ accuracy for a gluino up to 1.5 TeV \cite{Kilian:2004uj}. If another new particle decays promptly to the MMCP, the couplings and mass of the MMCP can sometimes be revealed \cite{Choudhury:2008gb, Biswas:2009zp, Biswas:2009rba, Feng:2009yq,Ito:2009xy, Biswas:2010cd,Ito:2010un}. For instance, for certain motivated spectra a fraction of stop squark MMCP production will come from gluino decays, and the identity of the stop MMCP can be determined with similar reach to our proposed methods from the presence of top quarks in these events \cite{Choudhury:2008gb}. More generically, standard model particles radiated from the MMCP in direct production events probe the MMCP couplings \cite{Chang:2011jk, Luty:2011hi}. For example, $\mathcal{O}(1)$ yukawa couplings of a colored MMCP to the Higgs can be constrained with $\sim20,000$ direct production events \cite{Luty:2011hi}; this could for example distinguish a 1 TeV gluino from a 4th generation vector-like quark, giving this search comparable reach to our proposal for identifying gluinos. Another proposal studied in less detail in the literature is to exploit the differences in energy losses to distinguish color triplet MMCPs from color octets \cite{Buckley:2010fj}.
These and similar proposals for measuring the properties of other MMCPs in production events are complementary to our proposed measurements in several ways. For colored MMCPs, while we are sensitive to the interaction of R-hadrons in the detector in estimating the mass reach of our methods, no knowledge of these interactions is required to perform the actual measurement. In contrast, measurements of production events are sensitive to the in-flight detection and tracking of R-hadrons, and therefore to uncertainties in modeling the interactions and spectra of R-hadrons. In particular, most production searches rely on detecting the MMCP in the muon system, and their efficiency will be greatly reduced if charge suppressing inelastic interactions take place as the R-hadron propagates through the calorimeters \cite{Mackeprang:2010}. More generally, our measurements are not sensitive to the details of the production event, including any other new particles contributing to the MMCP production. Finally, for MMCPs that do not decay in-flight, the nature of the decay, including the Lorentz structure of the decay and any produced new particles which couple very weakly to the standard model, can only be probed by observing the details of the out-of-time decays.
\section{Determining Lorentz Structure}
\label{sec:effectivetheory}
As we saw in \Sec{sec:topologies}, many MMCP scenarios can be distinguished by the topology of the decay. However, some scenarios could still be difficult to distinguish, for instance color octet SIMPs of different spins could have similar standard model decay modes. If an MMCP is observed to have dominantly three-body decays, then observing the kinematic distribution of the primary decay particles provides a further test of UV and TeV physics by helping determine the Lorentz structure of the couplings and the spins of the MMCP and WIMP.\footnote{In the case of two-body decays, the kinematics are trivial and contain no information.} In this section, we study how this information can be obtained from the kinematic properties of the final state muons and jets in an MMCP decay.
\subsection{Decay Operators}
Most of the models discussed in Section~\ref{sec:topologies} yield metastable particles $X$ because the stability of $X$ is violated by physics at some high scale $\Lambda$. We can therefore integrate out the high scale physics and study the MMCP decay in each scenario through the resulting effective operator. In particular, we would like to answer the question: assuming the decay topology is compatible with a given MMCP scenario, can measurements of the late decay kinematics at the LHC provide a meaningful test of or rule out other possible decay operators? To answer this question, our strategy is to compare the kinematic distributions for a given scenario to a wide variety of other possible decay operators yielding similar decay topologies but different kinematic distributions.
The possible Lorentz structures and observable kinematics of the operators depend only on the spins, so we have listed the operators by the MMCP and WIMP spins. \Tab{tab:FFoperators} lists operators involving two SM fermions $(f=Q_L, u_R, d_R, \ell_L, e_R)$. Three-body decays to final states involving SM bosons are also possible, but have not been included because they typically can be distinguished from our reference scenarios using the methods of \Sec{sec:topologies}, and considering them would not significantly change our conclusions. In listing these operators, we adopt the following notation. The letter X will of course denote the metastable particle, with $X$ a fermion, $\tilde{X}$ a scalar and $\mathcal{X}$ a vector. Since many motivated cases involve a DM candidate, we will assume such an invisible particle Y is present in the decay, but our results are easily generalizable to the case where all primary particles produced are visible, e.g. an RPV decay. Of course, this list is not meant to be exhaustive -- the operators have however been chosen to give a wide representation of the class of dimension five and six operators which can emerge naturally from heavy physics. In particular the operator $O_{S2}^{ff}$ corresponds to the angular distribution between the quarks in the three-body decay of the long lived gluino in Split SUSY (see \Sec{sec:models}). The same operator also corresponds to the angular distribution between the tau-jets in the three-body RPV chargino decay in the limit $m_{\tilde \ell} \gg m_{\chi^+_1}$.\footnote{The kinematics of the muon from the RPV chargino decay could certainly be used to improve the measurement of the tau-jet angular distribution, but for our purposes here it is sufficient to simply treat it as the invisible particle $Y$.}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c}
$J_{\rm MMCP} \times J_{\rm WIMP}$ & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Decay operators ($ff$ modes)} \\
\hline\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$0\times 0$}
& $O_{S}^{ss}$ & $\Lambda^{-1}( \bar f_R^2 f_L^1 ) (\ensuremath{\tilde{X}} \, \ensuremath{\tilde{Y}})$ \\
& $O_{V}^{ss}$ & $\Lambda^{-2}( \bar f_L^2 \gamma^\mu f_L^1 ) (\ensuremath{\tilde{X}} \partial_\mu \ensuremath{\tilde{Y}} - \ensuremath{\tilde{Y}} \partial_\mu \ensuremath{\tilde{X}})$ \\
\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{$\frac{1}{2}\times\frac{1}{2}$}
& $O_{S1}^{ff}$ & $\Lambda^{-2}( \bar{f}^2_R f^1_L ) (\bar Y X )$ \\
& $O_{S2}^{ff}$ & $\Lambda^{-2}( \bar {f}^2_R X ) (\bar Y f^1_L )$ \\
& $O_{V1}^{ff}$ & $\Lambda^{-2}(\bar {f}^2_L \gamma^\mu f^1_L ) (\bar Y \gamma_\mu X )$ \\
& $O_{T1}^{ff}$ & $\Lambda^{-2}( \bar {f}^2_L \sigma^{\mu\nu} f^1_R ) (X \sigma_{\mu\nu} Y )$ \\
& $O_{T2}^{ff}$ & $\Lambda^{-2}( \bar {f}^2_L \sigma^{\mu\nu} X ) (\bar f^1_R \sigma_{\mu\nu} Y )$\\
\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{$1\times1$}
& $O_{S}^{vv}$ & $\Lambda^{-1}( \bar {f}^2_R f^1_L ) (\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}_\mu \, \ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}^\mu)$ \\
& $O_{T}^{vv}$ & $\Lambda^{-1}( \bar{f}^2_R\sigma^{\mu\nu}f^1_L ) (\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}_\mu \, \ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}_\nu)$ \\
& $O_{V1}^{vv}$ & $\Lambda^{-2}( \bar f^2_L \gamma^\mu f^1_L ) ( \ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}_\nu \partial^{\nu} \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}_\mu )$ \\
& $O_{V2}^{vv}$ & $\Lambda^{-2}( \bar f^2_L \gamma^\mu f^1_L ) ( \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}_\nu \partial^{\nu} \ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}_\mu )$ \\
& $O_{V3}^{vv}$ & $\Lambda^{-2}( \bar f^2_L \gamma^\mu f^1_L ) ( \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}_\nu \partial_{\mu} \ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}^\nu - \ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}_\nu \partial_{\mu} \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}^\nu)$ \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{$1\times 0$}
& $O_{S}^{vs}$ & $\Lambda^{-2}( \bar{f}^2_R f^1_L ) ({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^\mu \,\partial_{\mu} \ensuremath{\tilde{Y}})$ \\
& $O_{V}^{vs}$ & $\Lambda^{-1}( \bar f^2_L \gamma^\mu f^1_L ) (\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}_\mu \, \ensuremath{\tilde{Y}})$ \\
& $O_{T}^{vs}$ & $\Lambda^{-2}(\bar {f^2_R}\sigma^{\mu\nu}f^1_L ) (\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}_\mu \,\partial_{\nu} \ensuremath{\tilde{Y}} - \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}_\nu \,\partial_{\mu}\ensuremath{\tilde{Y}})$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:FFoperators} Three-body decay operators with a WIMP and two SM fermions in the final state, listed by MMCP and WIMP spin. Because of the chiral nature of the SM gauge group, only chiral couplings of the SM fermions are considered. The operators for $0\times 1$ are the same as $1\times 0$ with the WIMP and MMCP interchanged and are denoted $O_{(~)}^{sv}$. For all operators the addition of the Hermitian conjugate is implied.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Angular Distributions}
As described in \Sec{sec:observation}, we take the angle $\theta$ of each jet to be measured within a Gaussian distributed error of $\Delta\theta$. We wish to relate this measurement to the distribution $dN/d\theta$ of the opening angle between the two primary SM particles in a decay. Because the MMCP decays at rest, the initial center of mass frame is known and therefore this distribution will directly carry information about the decay operator. The ideal situation for making this measurement would be a decay to lighter quarks ($u$, $d$, $c$, $s$, $b$) or $\mu$, the observable signatures of which will reflect directly the primary particle kinematics up to the uncertainties due to detector resolution as discussed in \Sec{sec:observation}.
\begin{figure}
\center{
\includegraphics[width=19cm]{plot_X8split_rel_smear.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:X8split_rel_smear} Selected angular distributions $dN/d\theta$ for angular resolutions of $\Delta\theta = 10^\circ,~30^\circ,~{\rm and}~60^\circ$ from left to right for highly relativistic WIMP ($m_{X}/m_{Y}=10$). Solid (green): Reference Split SUSY three-body distribution $O_{S2}^{ff}$. Dashed (red): other representative allowed operators with same MMCP and WIMP spin and gauge representation ($O_{T1}^{ff}$, $O_{T2}^{ff}$, $O_{S1}^{ff}$ from top to bottom on LHS). Dot-dashed (blue): operators allowed for same gauge representation but different spins ($O_{T}^{vv}$, $O_{S}^{vv}$, $O_{S}^{ss}$ from top to bottom on LHS). All angular distributions shown were generated using the CompHEP and LanHEP software packages \cite{CompHEP,LanHEP}.}
\end{figure}
The kinematic distributions for some of the representative operators in Table~\ref{tab:FFoperators} are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:X8split_rel_smear} for the different benchmark values of the angular resolution $\Delta\theta$. The normalized angular distributions are plotted, since the overall event rate is a priori unknown. We do not apply any energy cuts to these distributions, but as we will see in a realistic scenario this does not significantly affect the distribution. As is evident from these plots, there are order one differences in the distributions and hence it should be possible to discriminate between operators by using simple counting statistics such as the fraction of decays occurring between two angular intervals. It is clear that we have discriminating power even with the rather coarse angular resolution assumed for the LHC detectors in Section~\ref{sec:observation}. When $\frac{M_X - M_Y}{M_Y}\gg 1$, the distribution will be insensitive to the exact values of the WIMP and MMCP masses. Otherwise, we assume that the MMCP mass can be measured in production events and that the splitting can be determined well enough from the statistical distribution of total energy deposits to allow the appropriate distributions to be compared.
In scenarios where the event has a higher multiplicity of jets or muons due to heavy decaying primary particles ($W$, $Z$, $h$, $t$) or cascade decays in the WIMP sector, it is more difficult to reconstruct the primary particle angular distribution. One possible strategy is to group jets to try to reconstruct the initial primary particle; for instance jets from $W$ decay will still have an angular correlation despite the low boost factor. Another strategy, if limited jet energy resolution is possible, would be to determine the angular distribution between the two highest energy jets in each event. Unless the secondary decays have splittings comparable to the primary decay, this distribution will tend to reflect the kinematic distribution of the primary quarks produced in the decay. To illustrate this, \Fig{fig:top-jets} compares the normalized angular distribution between the idealized case when only primary light quarks and a WIMP are produced in the gluino decay model A1 (corresponding to $O_{S2}^{ff}$) with no energy cuts, to the true distribution of the two leading energy jets after the heavy primary particle decays and WIMP cascade decays with an energy cut $E_j > 50$ GeV. As can be seen, the distribution still carries much of the original kinematic information. Therefore for the remainder of this analysis we will simply consider the distributions of the two primary SM particles produced in an event.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{plot_tops.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:top-jets} Angular distribution for the two leading energy jets produced in gluino decay of Model A from Table~\ref{tab:topologies} including all decay modes and secondary decays (solid) compared to the angular distribution of primary quarks in the channel where only two light quarks and the WIMP are produced (dashed). The secondary decays of top quarks and chargino/neutralinos are primarily responsible for the differences in the two distributions.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Results}
A simple way to quantify the difference between the angular distributions of two operators is to ask how many three-body decays would need to be observed to distinguish one from another. The average number of decays necessary to distinguish two distributions can be estimated using the Kullback-Leibler distance (see \cite{Csaki:2007} for a description in a similar context),
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:KLdist}
N(O_1, O_2) = \frac{\log R}{KL(O_1, O_2)}; \quad\quad\quad KL(O_1,O_2) = \int d\theta \log\left(\frac{dN_1/d\theta}{dN_2/d\theta}\right)\frac{dN_1}{d\theta},
\end{equation}
where $dN/d\theta$ are the normalized angular distributions, and $R$ is the required confidence that the distribution does not correspond to the operator $O_2$, given that the true distribution is from $O_1$.
Using this statistic, in Figure~\ref{fig:FFevents} we estimate the number of events needed to differentiate the operators in Tables~\ref{tab:FFoperators} from the reference Split SUSY gluino / RPV chargino distribution coming from $O_{S2}^{ff}$. Note that in most cases, we only need $\sim \mathcal{O}\left(100\right)$ observed three-body decays to distinguish various operators even when the angular resolution $\Delta \theta_{12}\approx 60^\circ$. With better angular resolution $\Delta \theta_{12}\approx 10^\circ$, we can distinguish most operators with $\sim \mathcal{O}\left(10\right)$ stopped particles. In \Tab{tab:testing} these numbers are converted to the necessary production cross section and corresponding mass thresholds at the 14 TeV LHC for the applicability of these tests to various UV MMCP scenarios, using the factors from \Sec{subsec:signal}. Assuming only direct production of MMCPs, with the most optimistic $\Delta\Theta$ resolution the 14 TeV LHC has a mass reach of $1.2$ TeV ($400$ GeV) for testing the identity of a gluino (chargino) MMCP through the angular distribution of decays.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c}
& $N$ & $\sigma$ & $M$ \\
\hline
$\Delta\theta_{12} = 10^\circ$ & 23 & 90 fb (60 fb)& $\sim1.2$ TeV ($\sim400$ GeV) \\
$\Delta\theta_{12} = 30^\circ$ & 41 & 160 fb (100 fb) & $\sim1.1$ TeV ($\sim350$ GeV) \\
$\Delta\theta_{12} = 60^\circ$ & 130 & 520 fb (370 fb) & $\sim0.9$ TeV ($\sim250$ GeV)\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:testing} $N$ is the median value of the set of all $N_i$, the number of three-body decay events necessary to distinguish the reference operator $O_{S2}^{ff}$ from an operator $O_i$ in Table~\ref{tab:FFoperators}. Also shown are the approximate necessary production cross section and direct production mass reach for this number of events for a color octet SIMP (SU(2) doublet CHAMP) respectively as discussed in \Sec{sec:topologies}.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{plot_X8N.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:FFevents} Average number of observed decays necessary to distinguish decay operators at 95\% confidence level from the reference operator $O_{S2}^{ff}$, from \Eq{eq:KLdist} using the distributions for $m_{X0}/m_{X8}=10$. For each operator, from left to right the angular resolution is $\Delta\theta=10^\circ,~30^\circ,~60^\circ$.}
\end{figure}
The spin of the MMCP could also be determined from production events. To compare to our methods, we note that $\mathcal{O}(100)$ observed out-of-time decays in the ECAL, corresponding to $\mathcal{O}(40,000)$ total pair production events, can distinguish a variety of different decay operators. For colored MMCPs, Ref. \cite{Buckley:2010fj} found that a similar magnitude of direct production events would need to be observed to distinguish a scalar, fermion, and vector MMCP from one another by observing the angular distribution of the production. For color singlet MMCPs, Ref. \cite{Rajaraman:2007ae} found that the angular distribution in pair production events for a $\mathcal{O}(100)$ GeV scalar can be distinguished from a fermion with only $\mathcal{O}(3000)$ total production events. A major advantage of direct production events over our methods is that the spin can be measured directly, rather than constrained through the observed decay operator. Furthermore, in the case that the decay is dominantly two-body, production events may be the only way to access the spin information. On the other hand, measuring spin with direct production angular distribution measurements becomes more difficult if other new particles contribute significantly to the production cross section. Furthermore, the angular distribution in decay events can provide information beyond the spin of the MMCP, for example it can distinguish different decay mechanisms involving particles of the same spin.
\section{Conclusions}
New metastable particles occur in many extensions of the Standard Model. The gravitino or axino in the MSSM, the gluino in Split SUSY, or small $R$-parity violation give well-motivated examples of such decays. Frequently the metastable particle is charged or colored so, if light enough to be produced at the LHC, some fraction will stop in the detectors. These MMCPs then decay out of time, giving an observable and striking signature. Searches for such events are currently underway. In this work, we considered how measurements of these late decays in the LHC detectors could go beyond a detection to explore the properties of both the MMCP and perhaps even a dark matter particle produced in the decay. With reasonable assumptions about the LHC performance, the observed couplings to standard model particles can give insight into the gauge properties of the new particles, and, when a dominant decay mode is three-body, the spin properties can also be constrained through observed angular distributions of decay products.
Additionally, the decay of such a long-lived particle is often due to an accidental symmetry being broken in the UV. In this case the structure of the decay operator is determined by the UV physics giving rise to the decay. Our suggested measurements would then provide significant hints of the UV physics, far above the scales the LHC can probe directly, by determining the dominant couplings to standard model particles, and in the case of three-body decays differentiating operators of different Lorentz structure. For example, although the squarks in Split SUSY are far above the TeV scale, they could be indirectly ``observed" in this way through the out of time decays of the gluino.
We found that $\mathcal{O}(10-100)$ observed late decays originating in the electronic barrel calorimeter of CMS or ATLAS is sufficient for discriminating many different MMCP candidates, see Figure~\ref{fig:FFevents} and Table~\ref{tab:testing}. Taking into account only direct production as in Table~\ref{tab:eventrate}, this corresponds for instance to a mass reach of 1.0-1.3 TeV for a gluino at the 14 TeV LHC, 400-600 GeV for a stop squark, and 300-500 GeV for a nearly-degenerate chargino. In particular, the measured decay topologies can distinguish a variety of motivated models, especially those differing in the color representation of the MMCP. For the case of Split SUSY, this result was found to be insensitive to the composition of the neutralino. We also found that the relative branching fractions of decay modes differing in final state colored particle multiplicity can be measured to $\sim 10\%$ accuracy using the example of the two and three-body decay modes of the gluino in Split SUSY. Furthermore, we showed that even in cases with degenerate decay topologies, if there is a significant branching fraction to three-body decay modes, then the kinematics of the decay can provide a nontrivial test of the MMCP and WIMP spins and the Lorentz structure of their couplings.
Discovery searches place lower limits for example at $\sim900-1100$ GeV for a color octet fermion (gluino) and $\sim600-700$ GeV for a color triplet scalar (stop) depending on the R-hadron model~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012}.\footnote{These new limits were released after this work first appeared.} Our proposed measurements are therefore relevant to any colored MMCP discovered in the remainder of the 7 or 8 TeV LHC run, or the beginning of the 14 TeV run, although for a scalar triplet MMCP further optimization or more luminosity than our benchmark may be required. Our proposed measurements are also relevant to non-colored MMCPs, although staus with sufficient direct production cross section to be measured by our techniques are excluded by Ref.~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012}.
The measurements we have discussed can be made independently of any measurement of the MMCP properties or cross section in production events. They can therefore provide a source of information independent from other proposed measurements of the MMCP gauge and spin representation. Moreover, because the scale of physics mediating the MMCP decays is generally far above the TeV scale, late decay measurements probe physics completely inaccessible in direct production events. To make the most of the capabilities of the LHC detectors in this out-of-time decay window would require a dedicated experimental effort to understand the angular measurement uncertainties for jets on a scale of $\Delta\theta\sim30^\circ$ and to control cosmic ray backgrounds to $\mathcal{O}(1/{\rm yr})$ in the ECAL. We hope that this work has demonstrated the plausibility and utility of this effort, and that it can serve as a useful resource providing motivated theoretical benchmarks and a point of reference for comparison to more exotic proposals for dedicated detectors and upgrades targeted at such metastable particles.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Cliff Cheung, Sarah Eno, Tom LeCompte, Ken Rossato, Neal Weiner, David E. Kaplan, and Andy Haas for helpful discussions. DS would like to thank the Berkeley Center for Theoretical Physics for their hospitality. DS is supported in part by the NSF under grant PHY-0910467 and gratefully acknowledges support from the Maryland Center for Fundamental Physics. KH is supported by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-0645962. This work was supported in part by ERC grant BSMOXFORD no. 228169.
|
\section{Introduction}
The recently discovered state of matter called
``topological insulator'' (TI) currently represents
one of the most active areas in condensed matter
physics.\cite{hasan,qizang} TIs are characterized
by an insulating gap in the bulk but at the same time have an odd
number of gapless surface modes protected against all time-reversal
invariant (and sufficiently weak) perturbations.\cite{fukane,qiz}
In a three-dimensional (3D) TI, these surface modes correspond to
massless two-dimensional (2D) Dirac fermions, where
the spin direction is in the surface plane and
perpendicular to momentum (``spin-momentum locking''). A typical reference
material is Bi$_2$Se$_3$ with a bulk gap $\Delta_b\approx 0.3$~eV.
The helical Dirac electron property of the TI surface state
has been experimentally confirmed by
spin- and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy
(ARPES).\cite{hasan,arpes}
Transport experiments are more difficult in that respect
since the surface contribution
is often masked by the residual conductivity due to impurities or
defects in the bulk.\cite{butch,ong,analytis}
In thin films made of TI materials,
however, the bulk contribution is largely suppressed relative to the
surface contribution, rendering the latter easier to observe.
In this paper, we provide a detailed theoretical analysis of
both the temperature-dependent resistivity $\rho(T)$ and the
quasiparticle lifetime $\Gamma(T)$
(observable in ARPES\cite{eiguren,echenique}) for
a thin TI film. The approach taken here generalizes previous
work for the semi-infinite geometry (with only one surface)
by two of us\cite{giraud} to the film geometry.
This brings about several important changes
compared to Ref.~\onlinecite{giraud} that are discussed below.
We model the electronic part by retaining
only the Dirac surface states obtained from the low-energy
bandstructure,\cite{zhang1} and our theory always assumes that the Fermi level
is located inside the bulk gap.
We note in passing that Ref.~\onlinecite{zhang1} provides
more accurate parameter estimates as the earlier paper by the same
authors,\cite{zhang0} and we here adopt their new parameters in
our calculations using Bi$_2$Se$_3$ as example.
A similar parameter set has been published in Ref.~\onlinecite{shan}.
In sufficiently thin films, the hybridization of the two surface states eventually causes insulating behavior, as has recently
been observed experimentally from ARPES for Bi$_2$Se$_3$ films.\cite{zhang00,expins}
For Bi$_2$Se$_3$, several calculations predicted\cite{shan,liu,linder1} a gap $\Delta(L)$ with (as a function of the width $L$) oscillations superimposed on an exponential decay. Similar calculations, however, found no oscillations, with a well-established TI phase already for
$L\ge 3$ quintuple layers (QLs).\cite{newdft,abinitio}
Using the parameter set of Ref.~\onlinecite{zhang1}, we also
find no evidence for oscillations in $\Delta(L)$, see Sec.~\ref{sec2a} below.
For large width, one then has (upper and lower) massless
Dirac fermion surfaces.\cite{franz}
Our working assumption below is that electron-phonon scattering
is the dominant source of quasiparticle decay and backscattering.
Electron-electron interactions are indeed expected to give only
subleading corrections to the resistivity as long as
$T\agt 1$~mK.\cite{eeint} Disorder effects are more likely to compete with
phonon-induced backscattering effects. However, for elevated temperatures,
$T\agt 100$~K, phonon effects dominate even for present-day samples,
and anticipating higher purity films in the future, this crossover
temperature may be lowered significantly. ARPES setups allowing to test
our predictions for the quasiparticle decay rate are basically
available.\cite{arpes,park,hofmann2,pan}
Other surface scattering techniques have also been applied to
extract the phonon dispersions.\cite{chamon}
We here follow Ref.~\onlinecite{giraud} and model the phonons
using elastic continuum theory.\cite{landau} Since even at room temperature,
one effectively probes low energy scales, we
keep only long-wavelength acoustic phonon modes. For these,
previous work on related materials has shown\cite{jenkins,huang}
that isotropic elastic continuum theory provides a reasonable approximation.
The phonon eigenmodes in the thin film geometry and their
coupling to electronic modes
have previously been determined in the context of
semiconductor quantum well structures.\cite{bannov} (Note that
the semi-infinite case has been treated in Ref.~\onlinecite{sirenko}.)
We basically reproduce the phonon eigenmodes of Ref.~\onlinecite{bannov},
but the coupling to the helical electronic eigenstates in a TI film is
different from the semiconductor case.
Note that piezoelectric couplings are suppressed by symmetry
here,\cite{huang} and spin-phonon type couplings\cite{thalmeier} are
also expected to be subdominant
to the deformation potential taken into account below.
Most TI experiments have so far addressed only optical phonons,\cite{shahil}
cf.~also the corresponding situation for Bi surfaces,\cite{hofmann}
but very recently ARPES studies reported phonon-induced broadening
of the lineshape in TIs.\cite{park,hofmann2,pan} The
observed Bi$_2$Se$_3$ electron-phonon coupling
strength,\cite{hofmann2} which has been
extracted from the prefactor in the high-temperature
quasiparticle decay rate $\Gamma\propto T$,
is in good agreement with our theoretical estimates.\cite{giraud}
This indicates that the low-energy
approach indeed provides a reasonable starting point.
To the best of our knowledge, no detailed measurements for
the temperature dependence of the TI film resistivity have
been reported so far. We mention in passing
that for the related case of a 2D graphene monolayer, a similar comparison
of theory\cite{dassarma,felix} to experiment\cite{kim} has turned
out to be successful.
Remarkably, the electron-phonon coupling observed in Ref.~\onlinecite{hofmann2} and independently estimated by us\cite{giraud} turns out to be quite large. Under room temperature conditions, the resulting lifetime of helical quasiparticles is therefore short, and the resistivity is rather large.
This behavior is substantially different from what is found in graphene. We suspect that this is (partially) due to the different Debye temperatures in both materials.
The structure of the remainder of this paper is as follows.
In Sec.~\ref{sec2} we discuss the model for the surface states
in the thin film and their coupling to the quantized phonon modes.
We then turn to the calculation of the electrical resistivity
in Sec.~\ref{sec3}, followed by the lifetime broadening
in Sec.~\ref{sec4}. The paper concludes with a brief discussion in
Sec.~\ref{sec5}. Technical details of our calculations can be found in various
appendices. Note that we use units with $\hbar=1$.
\section{Model}\label{sec2}
In this section we describe the model employed in our study of
electron-phonon scattering in a TI film. The model parameters
below are chosen for Bi$_2$Se$_3$ as a concrete example.
The film has infinite extension in the $xy$ plane and the
width $L$, where $|z|<L/2$.
We start by reviewing the construction of the effective
surface Hamiltonian describing the (upper and lower) electronic
surface states of a TI film.
\subsection{Electronic surface states}
\label{sec2a}
Keeping all terms up to second order in the momentum
around the $\Gamma$ point, $(k_x,k_y,k_z)$,
the low-energy physics of 3D TI materials
like Bi$_2$Se$_3$ or Bi$_2$Te$_3$ is well described by
an effective four-band model.\cite{hasan} Using the basis states
$\{ \mbox{$|P1^+_z,\uparrow\rangle$}, |P2^-_z,\uparrow\rangle,
|P1^+_z,\downarrow\rangle,|P2^-_z,\downarrow\rangle \}$,
the low-energy bulk Hamiltonian reads\cite{zhang1,zhang0,shan}
\begin{equation}\label{model}
H=\begin{pmatrix} \epsilon_0+ M & -i A_{1}k_{z} & 0 & A_{2}k_{-} \\
iA_{1}k_{z} &\epsilon_0 -M & A_{2}k_{-} & 0 \\
0 & A_{2}k_{+} & \epsilon_0+M & -iA_{1}k_{z} \\
A_{2}k_{+} & 0 & i A_{1}k_{z} & \epsilon_0-M
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
with $\epsilon_{0}=C+D_{1}k_{z}^2+D_{2} (k_x^2+k_y^2)$,
$M =M_{0}-B_{1}k_{z}^2-B_{2}(k_x^2+k_y^2)$ and $k_\pm=k_x\pm i k_y$.
The model parameters for Bi$_2$Se$_3$ have been determined from
first principles,\cite{zhang1}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{parameters}
M_0 &=& 0.28~\mbox{eV}, \quad C=-0.0083~ \mbox{eV},\\ \nonumber
A_1 &=& 2.26~\mbox{eV\AA}, \quad A_2 = 3.33~\mbox{eV\AA}, \\ \nonumber
B_1 &=& 6.86~\mbox{eV\AA}^2 , \quad B_2=44.5~\mbox{eV\AA}^2,\\ \nonumber
D_1 &=& 5.74~\mbox{eV\AA}, \quad D_2 = 30.4~\mbox{eV\AA}^2.
\end{eqnarray}
We may write the Hamiltonian \eqref{model} in the form $H=H_0+H'$, where
$H_0 = \begin{pmatrix} h_0(k_z) & 0 \\ 0 & h_0(k_z) \end{pmatrix}$
is the $2\times 2$ block matrix obtained for $k_x=k_y=0$, with
\begin{equation}
h_0(k_z)=\begin{pmatrix} \epsilon_0(k_z) + M_0-B_1 k_z^2 & -iA_1k_z\\
iA_1k_z & \epsilon_0(k_z)-M_0+B_1 k_z^2 \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Note that eigenstates of $H_0$ have conserved spin.
In order to find the surface states in the film geometry,
we follow the usual strategy\cite{zhang1,zhang0,shan}
and first look for general bispinor eigenstates of $h_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{h0eq}
h_0(k_z\to -i\partial_z) \Psi(z) = E_0 \Psi(z).
\end{equation}
The general solution to Eq.~\eqref{h0eq} reads ($j=\pm,s=\pm$)
\begin{equation}\label{psidef}
\Psi(z) =\sum_{js} c_{js} e^{-s\eta_j z} \begin{pmatrix}
E_0-C+M_0+(D_1+B_1)\eta_{j}^2\\ -sA_1\eta_{j}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
with arbitrary $c_{js}$ and the inverse lengthscales
\[
\eta_\pm = \left[ \left(-\tilde{B}\pm
\sqrt{\tilde{B}^2-4\tilde{A}\tilde{C}}\right)/(2\tilde{A})\right]^{1/2},
\]
where $\tilde{A}= D_1^2-B_1^2,
\tilde{B} = A_1^2-2[M_0B_1+D_1(C-E_0)],$ and
$\tilde{C} = (E_{0}-C)^2-M_{0}^2$.
The Dirichlet boundary conditions
defining the film geometry, $\Psi(z=\pm L/2)=0$, then
imply the transcendental equation
\[
\frac{[E_{0}-C+M_0+(D_1+B_1)\eta_+^2]\eta_-}
{[E_{0}-C+M_0+(D_1+B_1)\eta_-^2]\eta_+} =
\frac{\tanh(\eta_-L/2)}{\tanh(\eta_+ L/2)},
\]
or the same condition with $\eta_+\leftrightarrow\eta_-$ on the
right hand side. Numerical solution of these equations yields
the $\Gamma$ point energies $E_0^{(\pm)}$. The corresponding
eigenstates $\Psi_\pm(z)$ follow from Eq.~\eqref{psidef},
\begin{equation}\label{surface}
\Psi_\pm(z) = {\cal N}_\pm \begin{pmatrix} (D_1+B_1) \Lambda_\pm
F^\pm_\mp(z) \\ A_1 F^\pm_\pm (z) \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where the ${\cal N}_\pm$ are normalization constants and
\[
\Lambda_\pm= \left[ \frac{\eta_+^2-\eta_-^2}{\eta_+\coth^\pm(\eta_+L/2)-
\eta_-\coth^\pm(\eta_-L/2)} \right]_{E_0^{(\pm)}}
\]
with $\coth^+(y)=\coth(y)$ and $\coth^-(y)=\tanh(y)$.
Finally, the $F$ functions are
\[
F^\pm_+(z) = \left [ \frac{\cosh(\eta_+ z)}{\cosh(\eta_+L/2)}
-\frac{\cosh(\eta_-z)}{\cosh(\eta_-L/2)} \right]_{E_0^{(\pm)}},
\]
where $F^\pm_-$ follows with $\cosh\to \sinh$.
Note that the eigenstates $\Psi_{\pm}(z)$ describe both
spin directions ($\sigma=\uparrow$ and $\sigma=\downarrow$).
We now project the full Hamiltonian $H$ to the basis spanned by
the surface states (\ref{surface}).
We define Pauli matrices $\tau_{\alpha=x,y,z}$
switching between the two solutions $\Psi_{\tau=\pm}(z)$,
Pauli matrices $\sigma_\alpha$ in spin space, and use
$\tau_0$ and $\sigma_0$ as identities. With the energy scales
\begin{equation}\label{e0del}
E_0=\frac{E_0^{(+)}+E_0^{(-)}}{2},\quad \Delta= E_0^{(+)}-E_0^{(-)},
\end{equation}
the low-energy (``surface'')
Hamiltonian resulting from this projection reads
\begin{equation}\label{heff}
H_{\rm eff}= E_0\tau_0\sigma_0 +\frac{\Delta}{2}\tau_z\sigma_0
-A_2 W \tau_x (k_x\sigma_x+k_y\sigma_y) + {\cal O}(\mathbf{k}^2),
\end{equation}
where $W=\langle \Psi_+|\Psi_-\rangle$.
The parameter $\Delta(L)$ is precisely the surface state gap described in the
Introduction. For the parameters \eqref{parameters},
$\eta_-$ is always real. However, $\eta_+$ is real for large $L$ but
purely imaginary for small $L$. In any case, we find
that $W$ is always real and positive.
Noting that $H_{\rm eff}$ commutes with $\tau_z\sigma_z$,
it can readily be diagonalized
by the unitary transformation $U({\mathbf{k}})={\rm diag}(U_+,U_-)$, where
$\mathbf{k}=(k_x,k_y)$ and the $U_{\upsilon=\pm}(\mathbf{k})$ are $2\times 2$ matrices
in spin space, with $\upsilon$ denoting the eigenvalue of $\tau_z\sigma_z$.
With $\tan\alpha=2A_2 W |\mathbf{k}|/\Delta$ and $\tan\theta=k_y/k_x$, we find
\begin{eqnarray}\label{unitary}
U_{\upsilon=+} &=& \begin{pmatrix} e^{-i\theta/2}\cos(\alpha/2) & e^{-i\theta/2}
\sin(\alpha/2) \\ -e^{i\theta/2} \sin(\alpha/2) & e^{i\theta/2}
\cos(\alpha/2) \end{pmatrix},\\
\nonumber U_{\upsilon=-} &=& \begin{pmatrix} -e^{-i\theta/2}\sin(\alpha/2) &
e^{-i\theta/2} \cos(\alpha/2) \\ e^{i\theta/2} \cos(\alpha/2) & e^{i\theta/2}
\sin(\alpha/2) \end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
Switching to second-quantized notation, the eigenstates
of $H_{\rm eff}$ correspond to helical fermions with annihilation operator
\begin{equation}\label{helical}
c_{\mathbf{k} ,\upsilon s} = \sum_\sigma [U_\upsilon(\mathbf{k})]_{\sigma s}^* \
d_{\mathbf{k}, \tau=\upsilon\sigma, \sigma},
\end{equation}
where $d_{\mathbf{k},\tau\sigma}$ annihilates a spin-$\sigma$
electron with in-plane momentum $\mathbf{k}$ in the transversal
state $\Psi_{\tau}(z)$.
The low-energy electronic Hamiltonian (including the chemical
potential $\mu$) then takes the final form
\begin{equation}\label{helectr}
H_{\rm el} = \sum_{\mathbf{k};\upsilon,s=\pm}
\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}, s}^{} c^\dagger_{\mathbf{k},\upsilon s}
c^{}_{\mathbf{k},\upsilon s},
\end{equation}
where the dispersion relation is
\begin{equation}\label{disp}
\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},\pm}=E_0-E_0^\infty-\mu \pm \frac{\Delta}{2}\sqrt{
1+ (2A_2W/\Delta)^2 \mathbf{k}^2}.
\end{equation}
We here choose the zero of energy by setting $E_0^\infty=
C+D_1 M_0/B_1=\lim_{L\to \infty}E_0^{(\pm)}$.
For the parameters \eqref{parameters}, we find $E_0^\infty\simeq 0.22$~eV.
Moreover, for $L\to \infty$,
the lengthscales $\eta_\pm^{-1}$ are given by
$\eta_+^{-1}\simeq 12.3$~\AA~and $\eta_-^{-1}\simeq 1.9$~\AA.
For $k L\gg 1$, the dispersion relation (\ref{disp}) is linear, with
Fermi velocity $v_F\simeq 2.77\times 10^5$~m$/$s.
Note that the index $s=\pm$ in Eq.~\eqref{helectr} does not correspond to spin anymore.
Similarly,
the particle density operator $\hat n(\mathbf{r},z)$ with $\mathbf{r}=(x,y)$
is written in terms of the $d_{\mathbf{k},\tau\sigma}$ operators,
\begin{equation}\label{dens}
\hat n (\mathbf{r},z) = \sum_{\mathbf{k} ,\mathbf{q},\tau, \sigma} e^{-i\mathbf{q} \cdot \mathbf{r}}
\rho_{\tau}(z) d^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},\tau\sigma} d^{}_{\mathbf{k},\tau\sigma}.
\end{equation}
Using Eq.~\eqref{helical}, the density
operator (\ref{dens}) can be transformed to the helical basis.
We show the single-particle densities for the surface states [Eq.~\eqref{surface}],
\begin{equation}\label{rdef}
\rho_{\tau}(z)=\left[\Psi_{\tau}^\dagger \cdot \Psi_{\tau}\right](z),
\end{equation}
in Fig.~\ref{fig1} for a film thickness
of $L=4$~QL, where 1~QL~$\simeq 9.5$\AA~for Bi$_2$Se$_3$.\cite{apl}
This demonstrates that already for quite thin films,
Eq.~\eqref{surface} describes surface states.
Note that $\rho_\tau(z)$ is an even function of $z$.
The inset of Fig.~\ref{fig1} shows the numerically obtained gap $\Delta(L)$,
demonstrating the absence of oscillatory behavior for the parameters
\eqref{parameters} as well as the exponential decay
of $\Delta(L)$ due to the exponentially vanishing overlap of
both surface states. We note in passing that for the
parameters in Ref.~\onlinecite{zhang0}, Eq.~\eqref{e0del} instead
predicts an oscillatory decay of $\Delta(L)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f1}
\caption{\label{fig1} (Color online)
Electronic eigenstates for Bi$_2$Se$_3$ from
Eqs.~\eqref{model} and \eqref{parameters}.
Main panel: Densities $\rho_{\tau}(z)$ in Eq.~\eqref{rdef}
for $L=4$~QL. Inset: Gap $\Delta$ vs thickness $L$.
Note the semi-logarithmic scale. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Phonon model}
\label{sec2b}
We now discuss the long-wavelength acoustic phonon modes
in the TI film. We employ isotropic elastic continuum
theory, where the longitudinal ($c_l$) and transverse ($c_t$)
sound velocities correspond to the two Lam{\'e} constants.\cite{landau}
In Bi$_2$Se$_3$, they are given\cite{shoemaker,richter} by
$c_l\simeq 2900$~m$/$s and $c_t\simeq 1700$~m$/$s, respectively.
Moreover, the mass density is $\rho_M=7680$~kg$/$m$^3$.\cite{wiese}
In order to model the film geometry, we impose
stress-free boundary conditions\cite{landau} at $z=\pm L/2$.
The quantized phonon eigenmodes for this problem have been determined in
Ref.~\onlinecite{bannov}. For convenience, we briefly summarize
the results next.
Different phonon modes are labeled by a set of quantum numbers,
$\Lambda=(\mathbf{q},\lambda,n)$, where $\mathbf{q}=(q_x,q_y)$ is the surface momentum,
$\lambda\in (H,S,A)$ denotes the mode type, and $n\in \mathbb{N}$
is a branch index corresponding to the quantization of transverse momentum.
The horizontal shear mode ($\lambda=H$) decouples from all other modes
and does not generate a deformation potential,\cite{bannov} and we
do not discuss this mode further. We are left with
transversally symmetric (dilatational, $\lambda=S$) and antisymmetric
(flexural, $\lambda=A$) phonons.
Denoting the dispersion relation of a given phonon mode $\Lambda$ by
$\Omega_\Lambda$ (see below) and the surface area by ${\cal A}$,
the displacement field operator is
\begin{equation}\label{udef}
\mathbf{U}(\mathbf{r},z,t) = \sum_\Lambda
\frac{e^{i(\mathbf{q} \cdot \mathbf{r}-\Omega_\Lambda
t)}}{\sqrt{2\rho_M {\cal A} \Omega_\Lambda}} \ \mathbf{u}_\Lambda(z)
\ b_\Lambda + \mathrm{H.c.},
\end{equation}
where $b_\Lambda$ is a bosonic annihilation operator and
the noninteracting phonon Hamiltonian is
\begin{equation}\label{freephon}
H_{\rm ph}=\sum_\Lambda \Omega_\Lambda \left(b_\Lambda^\dagger b_\Lambda^{}
+ 1/2 \right).
\end{equation}
The orthonormal eigenmodes $\mathbf{u}_\Lambda(z)$ in Eq.~\eqref{udef} describe linear
combinations of $e^{\pm i k_{l,t} z}$ waves, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:klkt}
k_{l,t} = \sqrt{(\Omega_\Lambda/c_{l,t})^2-q^2};
\end{equation}
$k_{l,t}=i\kappa_{l,t}$ with
$\kappa_{l,t}=\sqrt{q^2-(\Omega_\Lambda/c_{l,t})^2}$ for
$\Omega_\Lambda<c_{l,t}q$. Writing $\mathbf{u}_\Lambda(z)$ in the form
\begin{equation}\label{nuz}
\mathbf{u}(z) = \left(iq\phi_l-\frac{d\phi_t}{dz} \right) \hat e_q +
\left( \frac{d\phi_l}{dz} +iq \phi_t \right)\hat e_z,
\end{equation}
where $\hat e_q=\mathbf{q}/q$ and
\begin{equation}\label{philt}
\phi_{l,t} = a_{l,t}\cos(k_{l,t}z) + b_{l,t} \sin(k_{l,t}z),
\end{equation}
the stress-free boundary conditions at $z=\pm L/2$ yield
\begin{eqnarray}\label{bcs}
2iq\frac{d\phi_l}{dz}-(q^2-k_t^2)\phi_t & = & 0, \\ \nonumber
2iq\frac{d\phi_t}{dz}+(q^2-k_t^2)\phi_l & = & 0.
\end{eqnarray}
Since both equations have to be fulfilled at $z=\pm L/2$, we have
four linear equations for the four
unknown parameters $(a_{l,t},b_{l,t})$. Setting the corresponding
determinant to zero, we obtain the following two possibilities.
First, for symmetric modes ($\lambda=S$), we have the condition
\begin{eqnarray}\label{condS}
(q^2-k_t^2)^2\cos(k_lL/2)\sin(k_tL/2) &+&
\\ \nonumber 4q^2k_lk_t\sin(k_lL/2)\cos(k_tL/2)& = & 0.
\end{eqnarray}
Numerical solution of this transcendental equation
obtains the quantized set of dilatational phonon
frequencies $\Omega_{\Lambda=(\mathbf{q},S,n)}$.
The corresponding eigenvector, $\mathbf{u}_\Lambda(z)$,
follows from Eqs.~(\ref{nuz}) and \eqref{philt} with $a_t=b_l=0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{abS}
a_l=\frac{2{\cal N}_S q}{\cos(k_l L/2)},\quad
b_t= \frac{i{\cal N}_S (q^2-k_t^2)}{k_t \cos(k_t L/2)}.
\end{equation}
Second, for antisymmetric modes ($\lambda=A$), we arrive again
at the condition in Eq.~\eqref{condS} but with the exchange
$\cos\leftrightarrow \sin$. Solving that equation yields the
set $\Omega_{\Lambda=(\mathbf{q},A,n)}$ of quantized flexural phonon modes.
The eigenvector $\mathbf{u}_\Lambda(z)$ follows again from
Eqs.~\eqref{nuz} and \eqref{philt}, where now $a_l=b_t=0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{abA}
b_l=\frac{2{\cal N}_A q}{\sin(k_l L/2)},\quad
a_t= \frac{-i {\cal N}_A (q^2-k_t^2)}{k_t \sin(k_t L/2)}.
\end{equation}
The normalization factors ${\cal N}_{\lambda=S,A}$ appearing in
Eqs.~\eqref{abS} and \eqref{abA} are given in Appendix \ref{appa}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f2}
\caption{\label{fig2} (Color online)
Phonon dispersion relation, $\Omega_\Lambda$ vs $q$,
for the symmetric ($\lambda=S$) mode (red solid curves).
Shown are the ten lowest branches corresponding to the index $n$.
Dashed lines separate regions I, II, and III (see main text).
The dash-dotted line gives the dispersion relation in Eq.~(\ref{rayleigh});
note that the $n=1$ mode coincides with the Rayleigh mode for $qL\gg 1$. }
\end{figure}
Numerical solution of Eq.~\eqref{condS} yields
the spectrum, $\Omega_\Lambda$, for the symmetric mode ($\lambda=S$).
The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. We
distinguish three different regions, namely a case
where both $k_l$ and $k_t$ are purely imaginary (region I),
when only $k_l$ is purely imaginary but $k_t$ is real (region II), and
finally a case where both $k_l$ and $k_t$ are real (region III).
We observe from Fig.~\ref{fig2} that the $n=1$
mode is the finite-width analogue
of the well-known Rayleigh surface mode.\cite{landau,sirenko}
For the semi-infinite geometry, the Rayleigh mode is
the lowest-lying phonon.\cite{footcorr} It has the dispersion relation
\begin{equation} \label{rayleigh}
\Omega=c_R q,\quad c_R\simeq 0.92 c_t.
\end{equation}
In fact, for $qL\gg 1$, both Eq.~\eqref{condS} and the
corresponding equation for $\lambda=A$ reduce to
\[
(q^2+\kappa_t^2)^2=4q^2\kappa_t\kappa_l.
\]
As discussed in Ref.~\onlinecite{landau}, this equation
readily yields the sound velocity $c_R$ of the Rayleigh mode.
\subsection{Electron-phonon coupling}\label{sec2c}
The dominant coupling of the above phonon modes to
the electronic surface states comes from
the deformation potential,\cite{giraud} which couples the local electronic
density $\hat n(\mathbf{r},z)$ [Eq.~\eqref{dens}] to the divergence
of the displacement vector, $\nabla\cdot \mathbf{U}(\mathbf{r},z)$, see
Eq.~\eqref{udef}. Since the surface state density
$\rho_\tau(z)$ in Eq.~\eqref{rdef} is even in $z$,
the antisymmetric phonon mode ($\lambda=A$) does not
couple to the surface states.
We therefore keep only the symmetric phonon mode
from now on (and omit the index $\lambda=S$).
Transforming Eq.~\eqref{dens} to the helical basis, see Eq.~\eqref{helical},
the second-quantized electron-phonon coupling Hamiltonian reads
\begin{equation}\label{heph}
H_{{\rm e-ph}}= \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{{\cal A}}} \sum_{\mathbf{q},\mathbf{k},n;\upsilon,s,s'}
M_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q},n}^{(\upsilon,s,s')} b_{\mathbf{q},n}
c^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}+ \mathbf{q},\upsilon s} c^{}_{\mathbf{k} ,\upsilon s'} + {\rm H.c.},
\end{equation}
where the $M$ matrix elements involve the unitary
matrices $[U_\upsilon(\mathbf{k})]_{s\sigma}$ in Eq.~\eqref{unitary},
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}\label{ephcoupl}
M_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q},n}^{(\upsilon,s,s')}= - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\rho_M\Omega_{q,n}}}
\left( \frac{\Omega_{q,n}}{c_l}\right)^2
\sum_{\sigma} [ U_{\upsilon} (\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q})]^*_{s\sigma}
[ U_{\upsilon}(\mathbf{k}) ]_{\sigma s'}
\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dz\ \rho_{\tau=\upsilon\sigma}(z) \phi_l(z),
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
with the phonon dispersion $\Omega_{q,n}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig2};
$\phi_l$ is given by Eqs.~\eqref{philt} and \eqref{abS}.
The deformation potential strength $\alpha$ in Eq.~\eqref{heph}
can be estimated as follows. The high-temperature behavior of the
on-shell imaginary part of the electronic self-energy is (see Sec.~\ref{sec4})
\begin{equation}\label{imsigma}
\Im\Sigma(k,T)= -\pi \lambda_k k_B T,
\end{equation}
which allows to experimentally extract the dimensionless
effective electron-phonon coupling constant
$\lambda_k$. The relation (\ref{imsigma}) has been observed
for Bi$_2$Se$_3$ in ARPES experiments,\cite{hofmann2} and $\lambda=
0.25\pm 0.05$ has been measured. In these experiments,
the Fermi level was near the bottom of the conduction band,
$\mu\simeq 0.28$~eV, and $k$ in Eq.~\eqref{imsigma}
corresponds to energies $\approx 50$ to 100 meV above the Dirac point.
Computing $\lambda_k$ within our model, see Sec.~\ref{sec4},
the observed value for $\lambda$ corresponds to
$\alpha=(30\pm 8)$~eV. We employ the value $\alpha=30$~eV below.
The total Hamiltonian employed in the following sections is then
given by $H=H_{\rm el}+H_{\rm ph}+H_{\rm e-ph}$, see Eqs.~\eqref{helectr},
\eqref{freephon} and \eqref{heph}. We first address the phonon-induced
resistivity $\rho$ in Sec.~\ref{sec3} and then turn to the quasiparticle
lifetime in Sec.~\ref{sec4}.
\section{Resistivity}\label{sec3}
Here we discuss the $T$-dependent phonon contribution
to the electrical resistivity, $\rho$, in the TI film, using the
Hamiltonian described in Sec.~\ref{sec2}.
As explained in Sec.~\ref{sec2c}, only symmetric (dilatational)
phonon modes can cause a finite resistivity for the low-energy surface
states within the bulk gap.
We compute $\rho$ within the framework of the linearized
Boltzmann equation,\cite{ashcroft}
which has also been employed previously for the related
graphene case.\cite{dassarma,felix}
The resulting quasiclassical estimate for $\rho$ is
valid\cite{dassarma} as long as $\rho$ is small
compared to the resistance quantum,
$\rho\ll h/e^2\simeq 25.8$~k$\Omega$.
We sketch the standard derivation\cite{bannov,dassarma,felix,dassarma2}
for $\rho$ in Appendix \ref{appb}. The result takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rho}
\frac{1}{\rho}=\frac{e^2}{2} \sum_{\upsilon,s=\pm}
\int \frac{d\mathbf{k}}{(2\pi)^2}\,
v_{\mathbf{k}, s}^2 \tau_\upsilon(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},s}) \left[ -\partial_\epsilon
n_F(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}, s}) \right],
\end{equation}
where the dispersion relation for helical fermions [Eq.~\eqref{disp}]
defines the group velocity,
$v_{\mathbf{k}, s}= \hat e_k\cdot \nabla_{\mathbf{k}} \epsilon_{\mathbf{k},s}$.
Moreover, $n_F(\epsilon)$ is the Fermi function, and the
energy-dependent electron-phonon transport scattering rate (inverse time) is
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}\label{momentum}
\frac{1}{\tau_\upsilon(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},s})}=
\sum_{\mathbf{q},s'} \left(1-\frac{v_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},s'}}{v_{\mathbf{k},s}}
\cos\theta_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}}\right)
\frac{1-n_F(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},s'})}{1-n_F(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},s})}
W_{(\mathbf{k},\upsilon s)\to(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}, \upsilon s')} ,
\end{equation}
where $\theta_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}}$
is the angle between $\mathbf{k}$ and $\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}$, and the transition
probabilities are obtained from Fermi's golden rule.
Using Eq.~\eqref{heph}, we find
\begin{equation}\label{transition}
W_{(\mathbf{k},\upsilon s)\to(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},\upsilon s')}=
\frac{2\pi \alpha^2}{\mathcal{A}}
\sum_{n;\nu=\pm} \nu n_B \left(\nu \Omega_{q,n}\right ) \
\left| M_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q},n}^{(s',s)}\right|^2 \
\delta\left(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},s}+\nu \Omega_{q,n}-
\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},s'} \right) ,
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
where $n_B(\epsilon)$ is the Bose function.
While the $M$ matrix elements (\ref{ephcoupl})
depend on the index $\upsilon=\pm$, we note that $|M|^2$ and therefore
the transition probabilities $W$ are $\upsilon$-independent.
This also implies that $\tau_\upsilon$ does actually not depend on $\upsilon$.
With the polar angle $\theta$ between $\mathbf{k}$ and $\mathbf{q}$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{thetadef}
\cos\theta_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}}= \frac{ k+q\cos\theta}
{\sqrt{k^2+q^2+2kq\cos\theta}},
\end{equation}
the angular integration in Eq.~\eqref{momentum} can be encapsulated in
the ``transport Eliashberg function'',
see also Ref.~\onlinecite{giraud},
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:F}
{\cal F}_{k,n,s}^{(\nu)}(q)=\sum_{s'}\int_{-\pi}^\pi
\frac{d\theta}{2\pi} \left[1-\frac{v_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},s'}}
{v_{\mathbf{k}, s}}\cos\theta_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}}\right]
\left|M_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q},n}^{(s',s)}\right|^2
\delta\left(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} ,s}+\nu \Omega_{q,n}-
\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},s'}\right).
\end{equation}
This allows us to write the momentum relaxation rate (\ref{momentum})
in the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tau-F}
\frac{1}{\tau(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} ,s})}=
\alpha^2\sum_{n,\nu}\int_0^{\infty} q dq \,
{\cal F}_{k,n,s}^{(\nu)}(q)\,\nu n_B(\nu \Omega_{q,n})
\frac{1-n_F(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} s}+\nu \Omega_{q,n})}
{1-n_F(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} s})}.
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
The $\theta$-integration in Eq.~\eqref{eq:F} can then be carried out
analytically. We quote the (lengthy) result in Appendix \ref{appc},
which is useful when computing ${\cal F}$ numerically.
For low temperatures, the quasi-elastic approximation,
$ \Omega_{q,n}\ll \sqrt{(\Delta/2)^2+(A_2 W k)^2},$
is applicable and allows to simplify the full result for
${\cal F}$ to the $\nu$-independent form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{quasielastic}
{\cal F}_{k,n,s}(q) &=& \Theta\left(2k-q\right)
\frac{1}{\pi \sqrt{(2k/q)^2-1}} \\ \nonumber &\times&
\frac{\sqrt{(\Delta/2)^2+(A_2 W k)^2}}{(A_2 W k)^2}
\left.\left| M_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q},n}^{(s,s)}\right|^2
\right|_{\theta_0} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta=\theta_0$ (see Appendix \ref{appc})
determines the polar angle between $\mathbf{k}$ and $\mathbf{q}$
appearing in the matrix element $M$,
and the Heaviside function is denoted by $\Theta(y)$.
Note that there is no contribution from interband transitions at low
temperatures.
The crossover temperature from the low- to the high-temperature
behavior in this system is set\cite{giraud,dassarma}
by the Bloch-Gr\"uneisen temperature,
\begin{equation}\label{tbg}
T_{\rm BG}= 2 k_F c_R/k_B,
\end{equation}
with the Rayleigh velocity $c_R$ in Eq.~\eqref{rayleigh}.
$k_F(L)$ is defined by $\epsilon_{k_F,s=+}=0$ with the dispersion
relation (\ref{disp}).
For $T\ll T_{\rm BG}$, the ${\cal F}$ function can be
approximated by the quasi-elastic
expression [Eq.~\eqref{quasielastic}]. It receives the dominant
contribution from the $n=1$ branch corresponding
to the Rayleigh surface phonon. For small $q$,
we find $\Omega_{q,n=1}=c_s q$ with $c_s= 2754$~m$/$s (which is
slightly below $c_l$), see also
Fig.~\ref{fig2}. In addition, we have $\phi_l(z) = 2(c_t/c_s)^2/(q\sqrt{L})$
and $c_s\ll {\rm min}(|v_{k_F}|,A_2 W)$, leading to
\[
{\cal F}_{k_F,1,\pm}(q)= \frac{(c_t/c_l)^4 }{\pi \rho_M
|v_{k_F}| c_s k_F^2 } \frac{q^2}{L}.
\]
This allows us to perform all remaining integrations and yields a $T^4$ law
for the resistivity at low temperatures,
\begin{equation}\label{rho:lowT}
\rho(T\ll T_{\rm BG}) = \frac{h}{e^2} A \left(\frac{T}{T_{\rm BG}}\right)^4,
\end{equation}
where the dimensionless prefactor $A$ is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Adef}
A &=& \frac{8 \gamma k_F \alpha^2}{\pi\rho_M v_{k_F}^2 c_s}
\left(\frac{c_t c_R}{c_l c_s}\right)^4 \frac{1}{L},\\ \nonumber
\gamma &=& \left[\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx \frac{2e^x}{[(\pi^2+x^2) (e^x+1)]^2}
\right]^{-1}\simeq 68.4295.
\end{eqnarray}
For $L\to \infty$, $A$ obviously vanishes. This suggests that
for elevated temperatures (but still $T < T_{\rm BG}$)
and finite $L$, the $T^4$ law is replaced by the $L$-independent
$\rho\propto T^5$ law found in Ref.~\onlinecite{giraud}.
We can estimate the crossover temperature $T_c$ as follows.
For $T< T_{\rm BG}$, we expect an expansion of the form
\[
(e^2/h)\rho=A(T/T_{\rm BG})^4+ \frac{B}{4}(T/T_{\rm BG})^5,
\]
with $A\propto 1/L$ in Eq.~\eqref{rho:lowT} and
the $L$-independent constant $B$ given in
Ref.~\onlinecite{giraud}.
The crossover from the $T^4$ law (for $T \alt T_c$) to
the $T^5$ law (for $T_c \alt T < T_{\rm BG}$) thus happens around
the temperature $T_c=(4A/B) T_{\rm BG}$.
This gives $T_c\simeq 0.14 T_{\rm BG}/(k_F L)$, which is
independent of the chemical potential
since $T_{\rm BG}\propto k_F$. For $L=4$~QL, we obtain $T_c\approx 0.9$~K.
The $T^4$ law can thus only be observed for very thin and clean TI films.
In the opposite high-temperature limit,
essentially all phonon branches indexed by $n$ contribute to
the transport Eliashberg function \eqref{eq:F}, see Appendix C.
Then the relaxation rate $\tau^{-1}(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},s})$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:tau-F})
is basically a linear function of the energy. Since the
linear term does not contribute to $\rho$
after integration in Eq.~\eqref{eq:rho}, we obtain the approximation $1/\rho
\simeq (e^2/h) v_{k_F} k_F \tau(\epsilon=0)$, where Eq.~\eqref{eq:tau-F}
yields the linear high-temperature law
\begin{equation}\label{rho:highT}
\rho(T\gg T_{\rm BG}) = \frac{h}{e^2} C \frac{T}{T_{\rm BG}}
\end{equation}
with the dimensionless prefactor
\begin{equation}\label{defC}
C= \frac{2\alpha^2 c_R}{v_{k_F}} \sum_{n,\nu=\pm}\int_0^\infty
qdq \frac{{\cal F}_{k_F,n,+}^{(\nu)}(q)}{\Omega_{q,n}} .
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f3}
\caption{\label{fig3} (Color online)
Phonon contribution to the resistivity $\rho$ vs temperature $T$
for a TI film of width $L=4$~QL and several values of the
chemical potential $\mu$. Dashed lines indicate the analytical
results for low [Eq.~\eqref{rho:lowT}] and high [Eq.~\eqref{rho:highT}]
temperatures. Note the double-logarithmic scale. }
\end{figure}
Next we show the full temperature dependence of $\rho$
obtained numerically for a fixed width $L=4$~QL and several
values of the chemical potential $\mu$, see Fig.~\ref{fig3}.
In that case, when measured relative
to $E_0^\infty$, we have $E_0^+\simeq 16$~meV and $\Delta/2
\simeq 13$~meV. For the lowest $\mu$ in Fig.~\ref{fig3},
the Fermi level is thus located inside the surface gap and
one has a very large resistivity, where the quasi-classical
approach is not reliable in any case.
For low temperatures, $T<T_{\rm BG}$, the analytical result
\eqref{rho:lowT} with $\rho\propto T^4$ is nicely reproduced
by numerics. In this temperature regime, only the Rayleigh
mode ($n=1$) is relevant, similar to what one
finds in the semi-infinite geometry.\cite{giraud}
In the high-temperature limit, both the $\rho\propto T$
scaling and the prefactor $C$ in Eq.~\eqref{defC}
are also consistent with our numerical findings.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f4}
\caption{\label{fig4} (Color online)
Width ($L$) dependence of the phonon contribution to the resistivity $\rho$
for $\mu=0.2$~eV and several temperatures. The dashed horizontal line
indicates one-quarter of the resistivity $\rho_\infty(T)$ in
the semi-infinite geometry with otherwise identical parameters.\cite{giraud}
}
\end{figure}
Finally, Fig.~\ref{fig4} shows the width ($L$) dependence of $\rho$ at fixed
chemical potential and for several $T$. Two noteworthy observations
can be drawn from Fig.~\ref{fig4}:
First, for low temperatures we observe a ``dip'' in Fig.~\ref{fig4},
where $\rho(L)<\rho(L\to \infty)$ for intermediate values of $L$.
Second, for $L\to \infty$, $\rho(L)$ approaches $1/4$ of the
single-surface value $\rho_\infty(T)$ obtained for the semi-infinite
geometry.\cite{giraud} Naively, we would expect $\rho(L\to\infty)
=\rho_\infty/2$ because of the presence of two surfaces in the film
geometry. This discrepancy indicates that the $L\to\infty$ limit
is singular, and it is not
possible to really decouple both surfaces in such an
interacting system; see also Ref.~\onlinecite{franz} for a related
discussion.
\section{Lifetime broadening} \label{sec4}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,angle=0]{f5}
\caption{\label{fig5} (Color online) Main panel: $T$-dependence of the
decay rate $\Gamma$ of a TI film of width $L=4$~QL for $k=k_F$ and
$k=0.5 k_F$. For $k=0.5 k_F$, only the
$\mu=0.2$~eV result is displayed. Dashed lines indicate the
low- and high-temperature laws ($\Gamma\propto T^2$ and $\propto T$),
respectively. Inset: $k$-dependence
of $\Gamma$ for $\mu=0.2$~eV and two different temperatures: $T=3$~K (solid line) and $T=300$~K (dashed line;
the shown result has to be multiplied by 10).
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f6}
\caption{\label{fig6} (Color online)
Width ($L$) dependence of the effective electron-phonon coupling constant at the Fermi level $\lambda_{k_F}$ for $\mu=0.2$~eV. The dashed horizontal line
indicates one-half of the effective coupling constant in
the semi-infinite geometry with otherwise identical parameters.\cite{giraud}
}
\end{figure}
Next we discuss the quasiparticle lifetime (inverse decay rate)
for the surface fermions in the TI film due to their coupling to phonons,
see $H_{\rm e-ph}$ in Eq.~\eqref{heph}, which
implies a finite linewidth of ARPES
spectral features. The decay rate, $\Gamma_{k}(T) =-2 \Im\Sigma$,
follows from the imaginary part
of the on-shell self-energy $\Sigma_{s=+}
(\mathbf{k},\omega=\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},s=+})$.\cite{foot}
Expanding up to second order in $H_{\rm e-ph}$, the ``rainbow'' diagram
yields the self-energy
\begin{eqnarray}\label{selfe}
\Sigma_{s}(\mathbf{k},\omega) &=& \alpha^2 \sum_{n,s'}\int \frac{d\mathbf{q}}{(2\pi)^{2}}
\left| M_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q},n}^{(s',s)}\right|^2 \\ \nonumber &\times&
\sum_{\nu=\pm}\nu \frac{n_B(\nu \Omega_{q,n})+n_F(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},s'})}
{\omega+i0^++\nu\Omega_{q,n}-\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},s'}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Introducing the Eliashberg function $F_{k,n,s}^{(\nu)}(q)$ exactly as
the transport Eliashberg function ${\cal F}$ in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:F} but without the factor $[1- (v_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},s'} /
v_{\mathbf{k},s} ) \cos\theta_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}}]$, the quasiparticle decay rate follows as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gammadef}
\Gamma_{k}(T) &=& \alpha^2\sum_{n,\nu}\int_0^\infty q dq \
F_{k,n,+}^{(\nu)}(q) \\ \nonumber &\times& \left[
n_B(\Omega_{q,n})+n_F(\Omega_{q,n}+\nu\epsilon_{k,+}) \right].
\end{eqnarray}
Expanding this result for high temperatures, $T\gg T_{\rm BG}$,
as in Sec.~\ref{sec3} yields, see also Eq.~\eqref{imsigma}, a linear
$T$-dependence,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{hight}
\Gamma_{k}(T\gg T_{\rm BG}) &=&2\pi\lambda_{k} k_B T, \\ \nonumber
\lambda_{k}&=&\frac{\alpha^2}{2\pi}\sum_{n,\nu}\int_0^\infty qdq\,
\frac{F^{(\nu)}_{k, n,+}(q)}{\Omega_{q,n}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The $L$-dependence of $\lambda_k$ is shown for $k=k_F$ in Fig.~\ref{fig6}.
We observe an oscillatory dependence, with a saturation at one-half
of the corresponding semi-infinite result.
For low temperatures and $k=k_F$, the decay rate is dominated by
the $n=1$ phonon mode with $q\to 0$. After some algebra, we
find that this implies a $T^2$ law,
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{k_F}(T\ll T_{\rm BG}) = \frac{4\pi(c_t/c_l)^4 (k_F c_R\alpha)^2}{
\rho_M|v_{k_F}| c_s^3 } \frac{1}{L}
\left(\frac{T}{T_{\rm BG}}\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Again, when $T\agt T_c$, the $T^2$ law (which scales $\propto 1/L$)
competes with the $L$-independent $T^3$ law
found in Ref.~\onlinecite{giraud}, see Sec.~\ref{sec3}.
Finally, when $k\ne k_F$ and $T\ll T_{\rm BG}$,
the quasiparticle decay rate saturates at the finite value
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{k\neq k_F}=\alpha^{2}\sum_{n}\int_0^\infty qdq\,
\Theta(|\epsilon_{k+}|-\Omega_{q,n}) \ F^{(\nu)}_{k, n,+}(q).
\end{equation}
with $\nu={\rm sgn}(k_F-k)$.
Figure \ref{fig6} shows that the $L\to \infty$ limit of the decay
rate always tends to $\Gamma_\infty(T)/2$, where $\Gamma_\infty$ is the
corresponding decay rate for the semi-infinite geometry.\cite{giraud}
This discrepancy with the naive expectation
$\Gamma(L\to \infty)=\Gamma_\infty$ has the same origin as
the anomalous factor $1/2$ appearing in the large-$L$ behavior
of the resistivity discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec3}.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec5}
In this paper we have studied the effects of long-wavelength acoustic phonons
on the topologically protected surface fermions in topological insulator films.
Our model employs the established low-energy electronic Hamiltonian and
an isotropic elastic continuum approach for the phonons, with the
deformation coupling providing the dominant interaction mechanism.
The electron-phonon coupling turns out to be surprisingly strong,
in accordance with recent ARPES results.\cite{hofmann2}
Using a quasiclassical approach, we have computed the temperature-dependent
resistivity of the film due to phonon backscattering, and found a
linear $T$ dependence above the Bloch-Gr\"uneisen temperature. In this
temperature regime, the phonon-induced resistivity can overcome the
disorder-induced ($T$-independent) contribution and should be observable
with present samples. Similarly, the linear $T$ dependence of the
quasiparticle decay rate found here is observable\cite{hofmann2} in
ARPES experiments. The low-temperature behaviors of the resistivity
and of the quasiparticle decay rate are probably more difficult to
observe.
An interesting extension of our work would be to include the effects
of a magnetic field.
Magnetotransport measurements in thin films were recently performed\cite{magn}
and found clear evidence for Landau level formation associated with the
massless Dirac fermions forming on both surfaces. The observed
broadening of the Landau levels was assigned to disorder and/or
interaction effects, but at elevated temperatures, our analysis indicates
that electron-phonon interactions may be relevant as well.
\acknowledgments
We thank Philip Hofmann for useful discussions.
This work was supported by the Humboldt foundation and by
the SFB TR 12 of the DFG.
|
\section{Introduction}
Mutually unbiased (MU) bases \cite{ivanovic81,wootters+89,Durt+10}
have attracted interest in recent years because their properties seem
to depend dramatically on the dimension $d$ of the quantum system
in hand. If the dimension is given by a prime number $p$, the
state space $\mathbb{C}^{p}$ is known to accommodate a \emph{complete}
set of $(p+1)$ MU bases. Each of these bases consists of $p$ orthonormal states
$\ket{j_a}\in\mathbb{C}^{p}$,
with constant overlap of $1/p$ across different bases, \begin{equation}
| \bk{j_a}{k_b}|^{2}=\frac{1}{p}(1-\delta_{ab})+\delta_{jk}\delta_{ab},\quad
j,k=0\ldots p-1,\,a,b=0\ldots p\,.\label{eq: overlaps}\end{equation}
Complete sets of MU bases also exist for quantum systems with dimension
$d=p^{n}$, where $n$ is a positive integer.
However, for ``composite'' dimensions such as $d\equiv
d_{1}d_{2}\in\{6,10,12,\ldots\}$ complete sets of MU bases seem to be absent. In spite of considerable numerical searches \cite{butterley+07,brierley+08}, computer-algebraic efforts \cite{grassl+04,brierley+09}, and numerical calculations with rigorous error bounds, only three MU bases have been found in dimension six, four less than the maximally allowed number \cite{Jaming+2009}. Thus, the six-dimensional state space of a qubit-qutrit system appears to differ structurally from the state space of a pair of qubits ($d=4)$ or a pair of qutrits $(d=9)$.
One of the few known results in dimension $d=6$ is the impossibility
to extend, by more that one further MU basis, the pair of MU bases consisting
of the standard basis and its dual, the Fourier basis \cite{grassl+04}.
Thus, triples of MU bases are the largest sets to be found in this way. Another, more recent result \cite{Jaming+2009} states that the Fourier family of Hadamard matrices together with the identity cannot be extended to a MU quadruple. These initial pairs, after non-local equivalence transformations, consist of \emph{product} states only, a fact which has received little attention.
Upon reflection, it seems worthwhile to systematically study MU bases in composite dimensions which contain only product states. In the present paper we carry out a comprehensive study of MU product bases in dimensions six, complementing studies devoted to the entanglement structure of \emph{complete} sets of MU bases \cite{romero+05,Wiesniak+11,Lawrence11}.
More specifically, we will derive an exhaustive list of MU product
bases in dimension six. The restriction to product states goes hand
in hand with local equivalence transformations, or LETs, consisting of
\emph{local} (anti-) unitary transformations. We will find that in the space $\mathbb{C}^2\otimes\mathbb{C}^3$, there is a considerable number of inequivalent product bases, a limited set of families of MU product \emph{pairs} and just two \emph{triples} of MU product bases. No larger MU product constellations exist. This result effectively limits the number of MU product bases contained in a hypothetical complete set of MU bases in dimension six.
The argument will unfold as follows. In Sec. 2 we introduce MU product
bases, specify all local (anti-) unitary transformations which map
a given set of MU product states to an equivalent one, and summarise
relevant properties of MU bases in dimensions two and three. Then,
in Sec. 3, we derive all inequivalent product bases in $\mathbb{C}^{4}$
and $\mathbb{C}^{6}$. Sec. 4 has two results on product vectors required
to be MU to certain given sets of MU product vectors. These results
will be important tools to enumerate all pairs and triples of MU bases in dimension four (Sec. 5) and dimension six (Sec. 6). This classification allows us to conclude, as shown in Sec. 7, that no MU product triple can be part of a complete set of seven MU bases in $d=6$. The final section summarises our findings.
Readers mainly interested in the results relevant to dimension six are advised to immediately proceed to Sec. 6 after having familiarized themselves with the concept of mutually unbiased product bases presented in Sec. 2.
\section{MU product bases}
From now on, we will consider quantum systems consisting of two subsystems
with prime dimensions $p$ and $q$, where $p\leq q$. The state space
of such a bipartite system is given by the Hilbert space
$\mathbb{C}^{p}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{q}$
of dimension $d\equiv pq$. Since $q$ is a prime number, there is
a complete set of MU bases of $\mathbb{C}^{q}$, and we will denote its
$q(q+1)$ states by\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cc}
\ket{J_b}\in\mathbb{C}^{q}\,, & J=0\ldots q-1,\,b=0\ldots
q\,.\end{array}\label{eq: defineMUStatesCq}\end{equation}
The $q$ states $\{\ket{J_{b}}\}$ form one orthonormal basis
labelled by $b$, and states taken from two distinct bases are MU,
in analogy to Eq. (\ref{eq: overlaps}). Given complete sets of MU bases in
$\mathbb{C}^{p}$ and $\mathbb{C}^{q}$, respectively, we now construct $(p+1)$
MU\emph{ product} bases of the space $\mathbb{C}^{p}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{q}$. To
do so, we pair each MU basis of the space $\mathbb{C}^{p}$ with a (different)
basis of $\mathbb{C}^{q}$ and, within each pair, we tensor each state
of the first basis with a (different) state of the second one. This
procedure results in $pq(p+1)$ \emph{product} states \begin{equation}
\ket{j_{a}}\otimes\ket{J_{a}}\equiv\ket{j_{a},J_{a}}\, ,
\label{eq:product bases}\end{equation}
forming $(p+1)$ MU bases $\{\ket{j_{a},J_{a}}, a=0\ldots p\}$
of the space $\mathbb{C}^{p}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{q}$. This is evident upon
calculating the overlaps
\begin{equation}
\left\vert \bk{j_{a},J_{a}}{k_{b},K_{b}}\right\vert ^{2}=\left\vert
\bk{j_{a}}{k_{b}}\right\vert ^{2}\left\vert \bk{J_{a}}{K_{b}}\right\vert
^{2}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\delta_{jk}\delta_{JK} & \quad\mbox{if \ensuremath{a=b}}\,,\\
\frac{1}{pq} & \quad\mbox{if \ensuremath{a\neq
b}}\,,\end{array}\right.\label{MUBconditionsforproducts}\end{equation}
which are the conditions for bases to be MU in a space of dimension
$pq$.
One can construct MU product bases of the type given in Eq. $(\ref{eq:product bases})$ using Heisenberg-Weyl (HW) operators. In dimension $p$, with $p$ prime, the HW cyclic shift (modulo $p$) and phase operators $X_p$ and $Z_p$, respectively, are defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{HWoperators}
X_p\ket{j}=\ket{j+1} \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad Z_p\ket{j}=\omega^j\ket{j},
\end{equation}
where $\omega=e^{2\pi i/p}$ is a $p^{\text{th}}$ root of unity and $\{\ket{j}\}$ is the standard basis with $j=0\ldots p-1$. Since $p$ is prime, one can construct a complete set of $(p+1)$ MU bases from the eigenbases of the operators $X_p(Z_p)^\ell$ for $0\leq\ell \leq p-1$ \cite{bandyo+02}.
For the composite dimension $d=pq$, we can build a set of $(p+1)$ MU product bases of the Hilbert space $\mathbb{C}^p\otimes\mathbb{C}^q$ with the operators $X_p$ and $Z_p$ acting on the space $\mathbb{C}^p$, and $X_q$ and $Z_q$ on the space $\mathbb{C}^q$. For example, the eigenbases of the operators $X_p\otimes X_q$ and $Z_p\otimes Z_q$ form two MU product bases, which we call a Heisenberg-Weyl pair. One can also construct HW bases with the operators $X_{pq}$ and $Z_{pq}$ on the space $\mathbb{C}^{pq}$, however, these do not necessarily form product bases. Since we are concerned with product bases in this paper, we define the HW operators on the space $\mathbb{C}^p\otimes \mathbb{C}^q$ such that their eigenstates are product states. Note that we do not limit the construction of MU bases to the eigenbases of HW operators, i.e. $\{\ket{j_a,J_a}\}$ in (\ref{eq:product bases}) can be \emph{any} product basis.
Each basis $\{\ket{j_{a},J_{a}}\}$ is a \emph{direct} product basis
of the space $\mathbb{C}^{p}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{q}$ since \emph{each} state
$\ket{j_{a}},j=0\ldots p-1$, of the $a^{\text{th}}$ basis in $\mathbb{C}^{p}$
is multiplied with \emph{every} state $\ket{J_{a}},J=0\ldots q-1$, of the
$a^{\text{th}}$ basis of $\mathbb{C}^{q}$. Direct product bases
are, however, only a subset among all product bases: \emph{indirect}
product bases \cite{Wiesniak+11} result if the states being tensored
stem from more than one basis of the space $\mathbb{C}^{p}$ (or
$\mathbb{C}^{q}$).
The four states\begin{equation}
\left\{
\ket{0_{z},0_{z}},\ket{0_{z},1_{z}},\ket{1_{z},0_{x}},\ket{1_{z},1_{x}}\right\}
\label{eq:indirectproductbasisexample}\end{equation}
provide a simple example of an \emph{indirect} product basis in dimension
four since two different bases of the second space, $\{\ket{j_{z}}\}$
and $\{\ket{j_{x}}\}$, occur in the construction. The matrix representation
of a \emph{direct} product basis in dimension $d=pq$ is given by
the tensor product of two matrices, each representing a basis of the
spaces $\mathbb{C}^{p}$ and $\mathbb{C}^{q}$, respectively. The
matrix representation of an \emph{indirect} product basis cannot be
written as a tensor product of two matrices.
Conceptually, the distinction between direct and indirect product
bases is not linked to MU bases: instead of using $\{\ket{j_{z}}\}$
and $\{\ket{j_{x}}\}$ in (\ref{eq:indirectproductbasisexample})
any other pair of bases of $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ would also define an
indirect product basis. Indirect product bases are important since
they have been found to exhibit a degree of non-locality in the absence
of entanglement \cite{bennet+1999}.
In this paper, we will be concerned exclusively with product bases
of the spaces $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{2}$ and
$\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{3}$.
To simplify the construction of all different MU product bases, we
will now introduce equivalence relations which respect the structure
of product states, followed by a brief reminder of the properties
of MU bases in $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ and $\mathbb{C}^{3}$ following conventions used in \cite{brierley+10}.
\subsection{Local equivalence transformations
\label{sub:Local-equivalence-transformations}}
Given a set of MU bases on the space $\mathbb{C}^{p}$, we obtain
another set by applying one single unitary transformation to all states
simultaneously. The scalar products between the states of the MU bases
do not change under this transformation so that we deal indeed with
a second set of MU bases, factually \emph{different} from the initial
set but \emph{equivalent} to it. By not distinguishing between equivalent
MU bases, their enumeration is greatly simplified. When representing MU
bases by Hadamard matrices, the concept of a standard (or dephased) form
emerges naturally (see \cite{bengtsson+07}, for example). To enumerate all MU
\emph{product} bases it will
be helpful not to distinguish those sets of MU product bases which
can be transformed into each other by \emph{local} equivalence transformations,
or LETs, for short. LETs are defined by the requirement that they
preserve the product structure of all states. If there is no LET transforming
two given sets of MU product states into each other they will be called
\emph{locally} \emph{inequivalent}, or just \emph{inequivalent}. It may still be
possible to transform them into each other by \emph{non-local} transformations.
We now list all LETs for a bipartite quantum system with Hilbert space
$\mathbb{C}^{p}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{q}$. Suppose we are given sets
of $(r+1)$ MU bases
$\{\mathcal{B}_{0},\mathcal{B}_{1},\ldots,\mathcal{B}_{r}\}$
that contain only product states. Explicitly, the $\rho^{\text{th}}$
basis, with $\rho=0\ldots r$, consists of $d=pq$ product states
$\ket{n_\rho,N_\rho}$, $n\equiv N \in \{ 1, 2, \ldots , d\}$,
where $\ket{n_{\rho}}\in\mathbb{C}^{p}$ and
$\ket{N_{\rho}}\in\mathbb{C}^{q}$.
Any combination of the following five operations maps the given set of MU bases into a locally\emph{ }equivalent set:
\begin{enumerate}
\item a \emph{local unitary} transformation $\hat{u}\otimes\hat{U}$ effecting
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{B}_{\rho}\rightarrow\mathcal{B}_{\rho}^{\prime}
= \hat{u}\otimes\hat{U} \mathcal{B}_{\rho}
\equiv
\Bigl\{\ldots,\ket{\hat{u}n_{\rho}}\otimes\ket{\hat{U}N_{\rho}},\ldots\Bigr\}\,,\label{local
unitary}\end{equation}
which leaves invariant the value of all scalar products;
\item the multiplication of all states within a basis by possibly different \emph{phase factors} such that \begin{equation}
\mathcal{B}_{\rho}\rightarrow\mathcal{B}_{\rho}^{\prime}=\Bigl\{\ldots,e^{i\phi_{n}^{\rho}}\ket{n_{\rho},N_{\rho}},\ldots\Bigr\}\,;\label{phasefactor}\end{equation}
these transformations exploit the fact that the overall phase of a
quantum state has no physical significance and automatically drops
out from the conditions defining MU bases. It is worth noting that a single
phase factor $e^{i\phi}$ can dephase \emph{both} states of a product: let
$\phi\equiv\phi^{\prime}+\phi^{\prime\prime}$ to find
$e^{i\phi}\ket{n_\rho,N_\rho}=(e^{i\phi^{\prime}}\ket{n_\rho})\otimes(e^{i\phi^{\prime\prime}}\ket{N_\rho})$;
\item \emph{permutations} of the product states within each basis; as an example, consider the permutation of states
$\ket{n_{\rho},N_{\rho}}$
and $\ket{n^{\prime}_{\rho},N^{\prime}_{\rho}}$ in
the $\rho^{\text{th}}$ basis \label{permutation} \begin{equation}
\Bigl\{\ldots,\ket{n_{\rho},N_{\rho}},\ldots,\ket{n^{\prime}_{\rho},N^{\prime}_{\rho}},\ldots\Bigr\}\longrightarrow\Bigl\{\ldots,\ket{n^{\prime}_{\rho},N^{\prime}_{\rho}},\ldots,\ket{n_{\rho},N_{\rho}},\ldots\Bigr\}\,,\end{equation}
which amounts to relabelling the elements within each basis;
\item the \emph{local complex conjugations} $\hat{k}\otimes\hat{I}$ and
$\hat{I}\otimes\hat{K}$ (anti-unitary operations defined with respect
to the standard bases in $\mathbb{C}^{p}$ and $\mathbb{C}^{q}$,
respectively), and thus their product $\hat{k}\otimes\hat{K}$; for
example, applying $\hat{k}\otimes\hat{I}$ \label{complex conjugation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{B}_{\rho}\rightarrow\mathcal{B}_{\rho}^{\prime}=\Bigl\{\ldots,\ket{n^*_{\rho},N_{\rho}},\ldots\Bigr\}\,,\label{complex
conjugation1}\end{equation}
swaps all scalar products resulting from the first factors without
changing their numerical values;
\item \emph{pairwise exchanges} of two bases, which amounts to relabelling
the bases.
\end{enumerate}
We now briefly discuss some important properties of LETs. First, they
represent a true subset of all equivalence transformations in a space of dimension $pq$: no LET maps an indirect product basis to a direct one while a general unitary equivalence transformation can send any orthonormal basis to any other. Second, we will find indirect product bases which cannot be transformed into each other
by LETs, i.e. \emph{locally inequivalent} product bases. As a result, the idea of a \emph{unique} standard or dephased
form of MU bases is less straightforward for MU product bases. We
define a standard form in the following way: the first basis $\mathcal{B}_{0}$,
be it direct or indirect, contains the states $\{\ket{j_{z}}\}$
of the space $\mathbb{C}^{p}$ and the states $\{\ket{J_{z}}\}$ of
the space $\mathbb{C}^{q}$; the second basis $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ contains
the state $\ket{0_{x},0_{x}}$, and all other states in the remaining
bases are dephased using the transformation defined in $(\ref{phasefactor})$.
Superficially, LETs remind one of local operations with classical
communication, or LOCCs \cite{nielsen99}. However, the presence of
anti-unitary operations
rather suggests a link with Wigner's theorem about symmetry transformations
leaving transition probabilities invariant \cite{wigner31}, for the special
case of a universe populated with product states only. Finally, it is
straightforward to generalise LETs to
$n$-partite systems residing in product states only.
It is often convenient to represent an MU product basis in $\mathbb{C}^{pq}$ as a complex Hadamard matrix of dimension $(pq\times pq)$, with each product state corresponding to one column. The bases $\{\mathcal{B}_{0},\mathcal{B}_{1},\ldots,\mathcal{B}_{r}\}$
then turn into a set of $(r+1)$ matrices, on which the five transformations
above act in the following way. The first LET is a \emph{local unitary},
given by the Kronecker product of two unitary matrices, applied to
all matrices from the left; the second LET corresponds to \emph{diagonal unitary} transformations acting from the right; \emph{unitary permutation matrices} acting from the right implement
the third type of LET, while the effect of the \emph{local complex
conjugations}
must be worked out by writing down each product state individually.
\subsection{MU bases in dimensions two and three
\label{sub:All-MU-basesdim2and3}}
Given a pair of MU bases in the vector space $\mathbb{C}^{2}$, we
can always map the first basis to the standard basis $\{\ket{j_{z}}\}$
by a suitable unitary transformation $\hat{u}\in SU(2).$ Being MU
to the first basis, the states of the second basis now must have the
form\begin{equation}
\ket
a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0_{z}}+e^{i\lambda}\ket{1_{z}})\equiv\hat{r}_{\lambda}\ket
+\:,\quad\ket{a^{\dagger}}=\hat{r}_{\lambda}\ket
-\:,\label{eq:C2MUvectors}\end{equation}
where $\{\ket{\pm}\}\equiv\{\ket{j_{x}}\}$ is the $x$-eigenbasis,
and the operator $\hat{r}_{\lambda},\lambda\in[0,\pi)$, represents
a rotation by an angle $\lambda$ about the $z$-axis. Since any such
rotation leaves the standard basis $\{\ket{j_{z}}\}$ unchanged, the
second MU basis can be transformed into $\{\ket{j_{x}}\}$. The matrix
representation of the resulting pair of MU bases reads\begin{equation}
\left\{ I;F_{2}\right\} \equiv\left\{ \left(\begin{array}{rr}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1\end{array}\right);\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{rr}
1 & 1\\
1 & -1\end{array}\right)\right\} \,.\end{equation}
All other pairs of MU bases of the space $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ are, in
fact, equivalent to this one. A third basis MU to these two bases
consists of the states given in Eq. (\ref{eq:C2MUvectors}) if
$\lambda=\pm\pi/2$,
producing $\{\ket{j_{y}}\}$. Thus, all pairs of MU bases in $\mathbb{C}^{2}$
are equivalent to $\{\ket{j_{z}};\ket{j_{x}}\}$, and all triples
are equivalent to $\{\ket{j_{z}};\ket{j_{x}};\ket{j_{y}}\}$, as is
well known.
In dimension three, one of two given MU bases can always be mapped
to the standard basis $\{\ket{J_{z}},J=0,1,2\}$, so that the second basis consists of states of the form\begin{equation}
\ket
A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\ket{0_{z}}+e^{i\xi}\ket{1_{z}}+e^{i\eta}\ket{2_{z}})\,,\quad\xi,\eta\in[0,2\pi)\,,\label{eq:C3MUvectorA}\end{equation}
exploiting the fact that the overall phase of a quantum state has
no physical meaning. One can construct three states of this form which
are pairwise orthogonal: writing \begin{equation}
\ket{A^{\perp}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\ket{0_{z}}+\gamma
e^{i\xi}\ket{1_{z}}+\delta
e^{i\eta}\ket{2_{z}})\,,\quad|\gamma|=|\delta|=1\,,\end{equation}
the condition $\bk A{A^{\perp}}=0$ implies $\gamma+\delta=-1$. A
geometric argument in the complex plane implies either $\gamma=\omega$
and $\delta=\omega^{2}$, or $\gamma=\omega^{2}$ and $\delta=\omega$,
where $\omega=e^{2\pi i/3}$ is a third root of unity. We denote the resulting
basis by \begin{equation}
\{\ket{A},\ket{A^{\perp}},\ket{A^{\perp\!\!\!\perp}}\}=\{\hat{R}_{\xi,\eta}\ket{J_{x}}\}\,,\label{eq:RJx}\end{equation}
where the triple $\{\ket{J_{x}}\}\equiv\{\ket{J_{x}},J=0,1,2\}$ consists
of the eigenstates of the shift operator $\hat{X}_3$, and the operator
$\hat{R}_{\xi,\eta}$ is diagonal in the $z$-basis such that $\ket
A\equiv\hat{R}_{\xi,\eta}\ket{0_{x}}$,
cf. Eq. (\ref{eq:C3MUvectorA}). The free parameters $\xi,\eta$ in
the pairs of MU bases $\{\ket{J_{z}};\hat{R}_{\xi,\eta}\ket{J_{x}}\}$
can be removed by a suitable redefinition of the phases of the states
in the standard basis $\{\ket{J_{z}}\}$. Thus, all pairs of MU bases
of $\mathbb{C}^{3}$ are equivalent to the pair $\{\ket{J_{z}};\ket{J_{x}}\}$
which may be represented by
\begin{equation}
\left\{ I;F_3\right\} =\left\{ \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right);\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 1\\
1 & \omega & \omega^{2}\\
1 & \omega^{2} & \omega\end{array}\right)\right\} \,,\label{zandxmatrix}\end{equation}
where $F_3\equiv H_x$ is the Fourier matrix in $\mathbb{C}^{3}$.
Note that two more orthonormal bases of states MU to the pair
$\{\ket{J_{z}};\ket{J_{x}}\}$
emerge if one sets either $e^{i\xi}=e^{i\eta}\equiv\omega$ or
$e^{i\xi}=e^{i\eta}\equiv\omega^{2}$
in Eq. (\ref{eq:RJx}). We will denote these bases by $\{\ket{J_{y}}\}$
and $\{\ket{J_{w}}\}$, respectively, and their matrix representations
are given by \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}
which are also MU with respect to each other. The matrices $H_x,H_y$ and $H_w$ are complex $(3\times3)$ Hadamard matrices, i.e. they are unitary and the moduli of all their entries are equal to $1/\sqrt{3}$.
Two \emph{triples} of MU bases now result from adding either $\{\ket{J_{y}}\}$
or $\{\ket{J_{w}}\}$ to the pair $\{\ket{J_{z}};\ket{J_{x}}\}$.
These triples are equivalent to each other as follows from taking the
complex conjugate (defined in the $z$-basis) of the triple
$\{\ket{J_{z}};\ket{J_{x}};\ket{J_{y}}\}$:
the complex conjugation only affects the ordering of states within $\{\ket{J_{x}}\}$
while $\{\ket{J_{y}}\}$ turns into $\{\ket{J_{w}}\}$. Thus we conclude that the triples are indeed equivalent which we express formally by writing \begin{equation}
\{\ket{J_{z}};\ket{J_{x}};\ket{J_{y}}\}\sim\{\ket{J_{z}};\ket{J_{x}};\ket{J_{w}}\}\,.\end{equation}
Consequently, all MU triples are equivalent to the triple
$\{\ket{J_{z}};\ket{J_{x}};\ket{J_{y}}\}$,
and the complete set of four MU bases in $\mathbb{C}^{3}$ is also
unique, as is well known.
\section{Constructing product bases in dimensions four and six}
The first step towards an exhaustive list of pairs and triples of
MU product bases in dimension six is to construct all locally inequivalent
product bases in $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{3}$. Once these
are known, the requirement of any two such bases to be MU will impose
further constraints. It will be helpful to initially carry out this construction in dimension four. Thus, we will first derive all inequivalent product bases of the space $\C^2\otimes\C^2$, followed by a similar construction for a six-dimensional space.
\subsection{All product bases in $d=4$ \label{sub:all-product-bases-d=00003D4}}
We now show that each product basis in $d=4$ is equivalent either
to the standard \emph{direct} product basis or to a member of two families of
\emph{indirect} product bases, each depending on two real parameters. Any
(orthonormal) product basis
in the space $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{2}$ must have the
form \begin{equation}
\Bigl\{\ket{\psi_{1},\phi_{1}},\,\ket{\psi_{2},\phi_{2}},\,\ket{\psi_{3},\phi_{3}},\,\ket{\psi_{4},\phi_{4}}\Bigr\}\,,\end{equation}
where $\ket{\psi_{n}},\ket{\phi_{n}}\in\mathbb{C}^{2}$ for $n=1\ldots4$.
The conditions \begin{equation}
\bk{\psi_{n},\phi_{n}}{\psi_{n^{\prime}},\phi_{n^{\prime}}}=\bk{\psi_{n}}{\psi_{n^{\prime}}}\bk{\phi_{n}}{\phi_{n^{\prime}}}=\delta_{nn^{\prime}}\,,\quad
n,n^{\prime}=1\ldots4\,,\end{equation}
imply that at least two states of the first factor must be orthogonal. However, no three
orthogonal states exist in $\mathbb{C}^{2}$, so that upon calling
$\ket{\psi_{1}}\equiv\ket a$ we must have \begin{equation}
\Bigl\{\ket{a,\phi_{1}},\,\ket{a^{\perp},\phi_{2}},\,\ket{\psi_{3},\phi_{3}},\,\ket{\psi_{4},\phi_{4}}\Bigr\}\,,\label{generalbasisd=4}\end{equation}
with $\ket{\psi_{2}}=\ket{a^{\perp}}$ being the unique state orthogonal
to $\ket a$. Now we need to consider two separate cases: we can have
either $\ket{\psi_{3}}=\ket a$ (or, equivalently,
$\ket{\psi_{3}}=\ket{a^{\perp}}$)
or $\ket{\psi_{3}}=\ket b$ such that $0<|\bk ab|<1$, meaning that
the state $\ket b$ is neither a multiple of the state $\ket a$ nor
orthogonal to it; we call such a vector $\ket b$ \emph{skew} to $\ket a$.
By a simple argument using the restrictions imposed by the orthogonality conditions, one finds that three different bases result:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{B}_{0}&=\Bigl\{\ket{a,A},\,\ket{a,A^{\perp}},\,\ket{a^{\perp},A},\,\ket{a^{\perp},A^{\perp}}\Bigr\},\label{B0ind=4}\\
\mathcal{B}_{1}&=\Bigl\{\ket{a,A},\,\ket{a,A^{\perp}},\,\ket{a^{\perp},B},\,\ket{a^{\perp},B^{\perp}}\Bigr\}\,,\label{B1ind=4}\\
\mathcal{B}_{2}&=\Bigl\{\ket{a,A},\,\ket{a^{\perp},A},\,\ket{b,A^{\perp}},\,\ket{b^{\perp},A^{\perp}}\Bigr\}\,.\label{B2ind=4}\end{align}
The basis $\mathcal{B}_{0}$ is a direct product basis while the bases $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ are not. After performing suitable LETs, we can thus summarise the complete list of product bases in dimension four as follows.
\begin{lem}
\label{thm:Any-orthonormal-productd=00003D4} Any orthonormal product
basis of the space $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{2}$ is equivalent
to a member of one of the families \begin{align}
\mathcal{I}_{0} & =\{\ket{j_{z},k_{z}}\}\,, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{I}_{1} & =\{\ket{0_{z},k_{z}},\ket{1_{z},\hat{u}k_{z}}\}\,,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{I}_{2} & =\{\ket{j_{z},0_{z}},\ket{\hat{v}j_{z},1_{z}}\}\,,\label{eq:
I2dim4}\end{align}
where the operators $\hat{u},\hat{v}\in SU(2)$ act on the space
$\mathbb{C}^{2}$
such that the states $\ket{0_{z}}$ and $\hat{u}\ket{0_{z}}$, as
well as the states $\ket{0_{z}}$ and $\hat{v}\ket{0_{z}}$, are skew.
\end{lem}
Note that the parameters on which the operators depend have been chosen in such a way that no product basis occurs more than once.
A number of LETs (cf Sec. \ref{sub:Local-equivalence-transformations})
have been used to bring the bases into the form given in the lemma.
The basis $\mathcal{B}_{0}$ in (\ref{B0ind=4}) has been
mapped to $\mathcal{I}_{0}$ by means of a transformation
$\hat{u}_{1}\otimes\hat{u}_{2}$
such that $\hat{u}_{1}$ maps the pair of states $\{\ket a,\ket{a^{\perp}}\}$
to the standard basis $\{\ket{j_{z}}\}$ of $\mathbb{C}^{2}$, and
$\hat{u}_{2}$ is defined analogously. Thus, the bases $\mathcal{B}_{0}$
and $\mathcal{I}_{0}$ are equivalent to each other. We apply a similar
transformation to the basis $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ in (\ref{B1ind=4})
mapping two of the bases to the standard basis. The freedom to choose
a third basis, associated with the pair $\{\ket B,\ket{B^{\perp}}\}$,
is represented in $\mathcal{I}_{1}$ by the undetermined unitary operator
$\hat{u}$ acting on the standard basis. The same reasoning brings
$\mathcal{B}_{2}$ into the form (\ref{eq: I2dim4}) except that the
roles of the two spaces are swapped. Since a complex conjugation reflects
points on the Bloch sphere about the $xz$-plane, only half of all
the unitaries $\hat{u}$ (and $\hat{v}$) need to be considered in
Lemma \ref{thm:Any-orthonormal-productd=00003D4}. In other words,
the bases associated with the unitaries $\hat{u}$ and $\hat{u}^{*}$,
given by the complex conjugate of the matrix representing $\hat{u}$
in the $z$-basis, coincide.
The symmetry of the space $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{2}$ is
reflected in the fact that we found two bases $\mathcal{I}_{1}$ and
$\mathcal{I}_{2}$ which are identical except for the order of the
factors. If we stick with the idea that LETs dictate whether two product
bases are equivalent to each other, we need to consider these bases as
inequivalent. Thus, the complete set of product bases
consists of two families each of which depends on two parameters due to the $SU(2)$-transformations $\hat{u}$ and $\hat{v}$. Not all three parameters of a
transformation in $SU(2)$ are relevant since the overall phase of quantum states is physically irrelevant: each pair of opposite points on the Bloch sphere defines an orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{C}^{2}$
so that the set of all bases depends on only two real parameters. Note that the sets $\mathcal{I}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{I}_{2}$ of Lemma \ref{thm:Any-orthonormal-productd=00003D4} are both connected to the product basis $\mathcal{I}_{0}$.
The symmetry becomes particularly obvious if we represent the bases
of Lemma \ref{thm:Any-orthonormal-productd=00003D4} by quantum circuits.
The idea is to visualise the operation needed to map the states of
the standard product basis $\mathcal{I}_{0}$ into the desired product
basis by means of a quantum gate. This is always possible since any
two orthonormal bases are connected by a unitary operation. Obviously,
the trivial gate, described by the identity $\hat{I},$ maps the four
vectors of the standard product basis to itself. Fig. (\ref{dim4circuits})
shows that
(non-local) controlled-$\hat{u}$ and controlled-$\hat{v}$ gates are required
to output the bases $\mathcal{I}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{I}_{2}$, respectively.
As expected, the two circuits are identical upon swapping the qubits.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\newcommand{\dlstick}[1]{*!U!<1.4em,.6em>=<0em>{#1}}
\newcommand{\drstick}[1]{*!U!<-.5em,.6em>=<0em>{#1}}
\centerline{
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=0.7em @!R
{\dlstick{\mathcal{I}_{0}} & \ctrl{1} & \qw &\drstick{\mathcal{I}_{1}} \\
& \gate{\hat{u}} & \qw } \qquad \qquad \qquad
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=0.7em @!R
{\dlstick{\mathcal{I}_{0}} & \gate{\hat{v}} & \qw & \drstick{\mathcal{I}_{2}} \\
& \ctrl{-1} & \qw }
}
\caption{Two quantum circuits to create the product bases $\mathcal{I}_1$ and
$\mathcal{I}_2$, respectively; the unitaries $\hat{u}$ and $\hat{v}$ only act
on the target qubit if the control qubit is in the state $\ket{1_z}$.}
\label{dim4circuits}
\end{figure}
\subsection{All product bases in $d=6$ \label{sub:All-product-basesdim6}}
To construct all product bases in dimension six we use the same method
as in dimension four. Any product basis in the space
$\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{3}$
takes the form \begin{equation}
\Bigl\{\ket{\psi_{1},\Psi_{1}},\,\ket{\psi_{2},\Psi_{2}},\,\ket{\psi_{3},\Psi_{3}},\,\ket{\psi_{4},\Psi_{4}},\,\ket{\psi_{5},\Psi_{5}},\,\ket{\psi_{6},\Psi_{6}}\Bigr\}\,,\label{eq:
candidatebasisindim6}\end{equation}
with states $\ket{\psi_{n}}\in\mathbb{C}^{2}$ and
$\ket{\Psi_{n}}\in\mathbb{C}^{3}$
for $n=1\ldots6\,$, satisfying the orthogonality conditions \begin{equation}
\bk{\psi_{n},\Psi_{n}}{\psi_{n^{\prime}},\Psi_{n^{\prime}}}=\bk{\psi_{n}}{\psi_{n^{\prime}}}\bk{\Psi_{n}}{\Psi_{n^{\prime}}}=\delta_{nn^{\prime}}\,,\quad
n,n^{\prime}=1\ldots6\,.\label{eq:orthoconddim6}\end{equation}
The states $\ket{\psi_{n}}\,,n=1\ldots6$, in (\ref{eq: candidatebasisindim6})
must contain at least \emph{two} (not necessarily different) pairs of orthogonal states.
If they do not, the orthogonality conditions require \emph{four}
orthogonal states in $\mathbb{C}^{3}$, which do not exist. In fact,
the remaining two states in $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ must also be orthogonal,
which implies that the product bases of $\mathbb{C}^{6}$ will come
in three flavours. The states $\ket{\psi_{n}}\,,n=1\ldots6$, fall
into three pairs of states consisting of either three, two, or only one
pair of orthonormal bases. The following lemma summarises the results
of the detailed arguments given in Appendix \ref{sec:Appendixproductbasesdim6}.
\begin{lem}
\label{thm:product-bases-d=00003D6} Any orthonormal product basis
of the space $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{3}$ is equivalent
to a member of one of the families \begin{align}
\mathcal{I}_{0} & =\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}}\}\,, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{I}_{1} & =\{\ket{0_{z},J_{z}},\ket{1_{z},\hat{U}J_{z}}\}\,,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{I}_{2} & =\{\ket{j_{z},0_{z}},\ket{\hat{u}0_{z},1_{z}},\ket{\hat{u}0_{z},2_{z}},\ket{\hat{u}1_{z},\hat{V}1_{z}},\ket{\hat{u}1_{z},\hat{V}2_{z}}\}\,, \nonumber
\\
\mathcal{I}_{3} & =\{\ket{j_{z},0_{z}},\ket{\hat{v}j_{z},1_{z}},\ket{\hat{w}j_{z},2_{z}}\}\,, \label{eq:I3}
\end{align}
with $j=0,1$ and $J=0,1,2$; the operators $\hat{u},\hat{v},\hat{w}\in
SU(2)$
and $\hat{U},\hat{V}\in SU(3)$ act on $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ and $\mathbb{C}^{3}$,
respectively, with $\hat{V}$ leaving the the state $\ket{0_{z}}$
invariant; the parameters of the operators $\hat{u},\ldots,\hat{V}$
are chosen in such a way that no product basis occurs more than once.
\end{lem}
Without any restrictions on the five unitary operators $\hat{u},\ldots,\hat{V}$
some product
bases would occur more than once in this list. For example, if
$\hat{U}\equiv\hat{I}$,
the basis $\mathcal{I}_{1}$ turns into $\mathcal{I}_{0}$; similarly,
the bases associated with $\hat{U}$ and $\hat{U}^{*}$ are identical.
We could remove such multiple occurrences by appropriately restricting
the unitary operators but it is rather cumbersome to do so and not
particularly informative.
Compared to dimension four, the number of families of indirect product
bases have increased, and they contain transformations
generated by elements of the group $SU(3)$. Clearly, there is no scope
for symmetry under exchanging the two spaces of the product
$\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{3}$.
The families $\mathcal{I}_{1}$ to $\mathcal{I}_{3}$ each depend on a number of free parameters: $\mathcal{I}_{1}$ has six free parameters due to the unitary $\hat{U}$; two free parameters are associated with each $SU(2)$-transformation present in $\mathcal{I}_{3}$, while $\mathcal{I}_{2}$ is a five-parameter family -- the transformations due to $\hat{V}$, which is effectively an $SU(2)$-transformation, brings not only two but \emph{three} parameters because the overall phase of the states in the two-dimensional subspace spanned by $\ket{1_{z}}$ and $\ket{2_{z}}$
does \emph{not} drop out. Figs. (\ref{dim6bases1and2circuits}) and
(\ref{dim6basis3circuit}) show quantum circuits to generate the inequivalent
product bases in dimension six.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\newcommand{\dlstick}[1]{*!U!<1.4em,.8em>=<0em>{#1}}
\newcommand{\drstick}[1]{*!U!<-.5em,.8em>=<0em>{#1}}
\centerline{
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=0.7em @!R { \dlstick{\mathcal{I}_{0}} & \ctrl{1} & \qw &
\drstick{\mathcal{I}_{1}}\\ & \gate{\hat{U}} & \qw }\qquad \qquad \qquad
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=0.7em @!R {
\dlstick{\mathcal{I}_{0}} & \ctrl{1} & \gate{\hat{u}^{\vphantom\dagger}} & \gate{\hat{u}^\dagger} & \qw & \qw & \drstick{\mathcal{I}_{2}} \\
& \gate{\hat{V}^{\vphantom{\dagger}}} & \gate{\hat{X}^{\vphantom{\dagger}}} & \ctrl{-1} & \gate{\hat{X}^\dagger} & *!U!<4.64em,.6em>=<0em>{\text{\scriptsize1}}\qw }}
\caption{Quantum circuits for a qubit (upper wire) and qutrit (lower wire) to create the bases $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$, respectively; the
controlled-$\hat{U}$ and controlled-$\hat{V}$ gate act on the qutrit only if the control qubit is in the state $\ket{1_z}$; the unitary $\hat{u}^\dagger$, the adjoint of $\hat{u}$, acts on the qubit only when the control qutrit is in the state $\ket{1_z}$; and the operator $\hat{X}$ acts as a shift on the standard basis of $\mathbb{C}^3$. }
\label{dim6bases1and2circuits}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\newcommand{\dlstick}[1]{*!U!<1.4em,.8em>=<0em>{#1}}
\newcommand{\drstick}[1]{*!U!<-.5em,.8em>=<0em>{#1}}
\centerline{
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=0.7em @!R {
\dlstick{\mathcal{I}_{0}} & \gate{\hat{w}} & \qw & \gate{\hat{v}} &
\qw & \drstick{\mathcal{I}_{3}} \\
& \ctrl{-1}*!U!<-1.69em,.6em>=<0em>{\text{\scriptsize1}}&\gate{\hat{X}} & \ctrl{-1} &
*!U!<1.55em,.6em>=<0em>{\text{\scriptsize1}} \qw
} }
\caption{A quantum circuit for a qubit (upper wire) and qutrit (lower wire) to create the basis $\mathcal{I}_3$; the unitaries $\hat{v}$ and $\hat{w}$ act on the qubit only if the control qutrit is in the state $\ket{1_z}$, and the operator $\hat{X}$ acts as a shift on the standard basis of $\mathbb{C}^3$.}
\label{dim6basis3circuit}\end{figure}
\section{Adding MU product states to sets of orthogonal product vectors}
In this section we derive a theorem which will play a crucial role
in the construction of \emph{all} pairs and triples of MU product
bases in dimension four and six. This theorem is inspired by a constraint
on two \emph{direct} product bases to be MU, obtained in
\cite{Wiesniak+11}:
\begin{lem*}
\label{thm:Zeilinger}Two [direct] product bases
$\{\ket{j_{a},J_{a}}\}$ and $\{\ket{k_{b},K_{b}}\}$ in dimension
$d=pq$ are MU if and only if $\ket{j_{a}}$ is MU to $\ket{k_{b}}$
in dimension $p$ and $\ket{J_{a}}$ is MU to $\ket{K_{b}}$ in dimension
$q$.
\end{lem*}
This result does not cover \emph{indirect} bases. To (partly) remedy
this shortcoming, we will present two different ways to generalise
this Lemma. Firstly, we find a constraint on each product vector if
it is to be MU to a specific set of product vectors; this result is
obtained for spaces of arbitrary composite dimension $d=pq$. Secondly,
we derive constraints on a product vector required to be MU to \emph{any}
(direct or indirect) given product basis of the spaces $\mathbb{C}^{4}$
or $\mathbb{C}^{6}$.
Consider $p$ product states $\{\ket{\psi_{i},\Psi},i=1\ldots p\}$
with an orthonormal basis $\{\ket{\psi_{i}},i=1\ldots p\}$ of the
space $\mathbb{C}^{p}$, and with $\ket{\Psi}\in\mathbb{C}^{q}$.
After swapping the two factors in Eq. (\ref{eq:indirectproductbasisexample}),
the product basis $\{\ket{j_{z},0_{z}},\ket{j_{x},1_{z}}\}$, for
example, is seen to consist of two sets of this form. We find that only
particular product states can be MU to such sets of product states.
\begin{lem}
\label{thm:-product-states-MU-to-sets}The product state $\ket{\phi,\Phi}$
in dimension $d=pq$ is MU to the set of orthogonal product states
$\{\ket{\psi_{i},\Psi},i=1\ldots p\}$ if and only if $\ket{\phi}$
is MU to $\ket{\psi_{i}}\in\mathbb{C}^{p}$ and $\ket{\Phi}$ is MU
to $\ket{\Psi}\in\mathbb{C}^{q}$.
\end{lem}
If $|\bk{\psi_{i}}{\phi}|^{2}=1/p$ and $|\bk{\Psi}{\Phi}|^{2}=1/q$,
then the product states are indeed MU in the space $\mathbb{C}^{pq}$
since it follows that
$|\bk{\psi_{i},\Psi}{\phi,\Phi}|^{2}=|\bk{\psi_{i}}{\phi}|^{2}|\bk{\Psi}{\Phi}|^{2}=1/pq$.
To prove the converse, we assume the product states are MU,
$|\bk{\psi_{i},\Psi}{\phi,\Phi}|^{2}=1/pq$.
Summing over $i=1\ldots p$, we obtain $|\bk{\Psi}{\Phi}|^{2}=1/q$ upon using
the completeness relation $\sum_{i}|\bk{\psi_{i}}{\phi}|^{2}=1$.
This result immediately implies that $|\bk{\psi_{i}}{\phi}|^{2}=1/p\,,i=1\ldots
p$,
also holds.
Note that one can swap the roles of the factors in the tensor product.
Then Lemma \ref{thm:-product-states-MU-to-sets} restricts the form of any product state which is MU
to a set of $q$ orthogonal states $\{\ket{\psi,\Psi_{i}},i=1\ldots q\}$
with an orthonormal basis $\{\ket{\Psi_{i}},i=1\ldots q\}$ of the
space $\mathbb{C}^{q}$, and with $\ket{\psi}\in\mathbb{C}^{p}$.
This result covers the Lemma given at the beginning of this section.
To see this, group the basis $\{\ket{j_{a},J_{a}}\}$ into $q$ sets
of $p$ orthonormal vectors
$\{\ket{j_{a},1_{a}}\}$, $\{\ket{j_{a},2_{a}}\}\ldots$ $\{\ket{j_{a},q_{a}}\}$;
then, by Lemma \ref{thm:-product-states-MU-to-sets}, any product
state $\ket{\phi,\Phi}$ is mutually unbiased to each set of vectors
if and only if the state $\ket{\phi}$ is MU to all states $\ket{j_{a}}$,
and the state $\ket{\Phi}$ is MU to all states $\ket{J_{a}}$. By
replacing the state $\ket{\phi,\Phi}$ with a vector from the basis
$\{\ket{k_{a},K_{a}}\}$ and repeating the argument for all states
in this basis, one arrives at the Lemma for \emph{direct} product
bases.
The following generalisation uses the fact that we know all direct
and indirect product bases in dimensions four and six.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:product-states-MU-to-bases-d=00003D4,6} The product state
$\ket{\phi,\Phi}\in\mathbb{C}^{d},d\equiv pq\leq6,$ is MU to the
product basis $\{\ket{\psi_{i},\Psi_{i}}\}$ with $i=1\ldots pq$,
if and only if $\ket{\phi}$ is MU to $\ket{\psi_{i}}\in\mathbb{C}^{p}$
and $\ket{\Phi}$ is MU to $\ket{\Psi_{i}}\in\mathbb{C}^{q}$.
\end{thm}
We prove this statement by considering the cases $d=4$ and $d=6$
separately:
$\bullet\, d=4$: All product bases in dimension four are given by
the bases $\mathcal{I}_{0},\mathcal{I}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{I}_{2}$,
collected in Lemma \ref{thm:Any-orthonormal-productd=00003D4}. Each
of these bases can be divided into groups of states of the form
$\{\ket{\psi_{j},\Psi},j=1,2\}$,
or $\{\ket{\psi,\Psi_{j}},j=1,2\}$. Thus, Theorem
\ref{thm:product-states-MU-to-bases-d=00003D4,6}
follows immediately from Lemma \ref{thm:-product-states-MU-to-sets}.
$\bullet\, d=6$: It is sufficient to consider the four families of
bases given in Lemma \ref{thm:product-bases-d=00003D6}. Each of the
bases $\mathcal{I}_{0}$, $\mathcal{I}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{I}_{3}$
can be split into sets of the form required to apply Lemma
\ref{thm:-product-states-MU-to-sets};
thus, Theorem \ref{thm:product-states-MU-to-bases-d=00003D4,6} holds
for these bases. To complete the proof, we need to consider the basis
$\mathcal{I}_{2}$ which has no such decomposition. To begin, suppose
that the basis $\mathcal{I}_{2}$ \emph{is} MU to the state $\ket{\phi,\Phi}$.
According to Lemma \ref{thm:-product-states-MU-to-sets} this state
is MU to the pair $\{\ket{j_{z},0_{z}}\}$ if both
$|\bk{\phi}{0_{z}}|^{2}=|\bk{\phi}{1_{z}}|^{2}=1/2$
and $|\bk{\Phi}{0_{z}}|^{2}=1/3$ hold. The state $\ket{\phi,\Phi}$
also needs to satisfy \begin{equation}
|\bk{\phi}{\hat{u}0_{z}}|^{2}|\bk{\Phi}{1_{z}}|^{2}=|\bk{\phi}{\hat{u}0_{z}}|^{2}|\bk{\Phi}{2_{z}}|^{2}=\frac{1}{6}\,;\label{eq:
|MUsubspace2}\end{equation}
adding these two constraints we find \begin{equation}
|\bk{\phi}{\hat{u}0_{z}}|^{2}\Bigl(|\bk{\Phi}{1_{z}}|^{2}+|\bk{\Phi}{2_{z}}|^{2}\Bigr)=\frac{1}{3}\,.\label{eq:MUsum}\end{equation}
Using $\sum_{J}|\bk{\Phi}{J_{z}}|^{2}=1$, i.e. the completeness relation
of the basis $\{\ket{J_{z}}\}$, and $|\bk{\Phi}{0_{z}}|^{2}=1/3$,
we find that $|\bk{\Phi}{1_{z}}|^{2}+|\bk{\Phi}{2_{z}}|^{2}=2/3$.
Substituting this identity into (\ref{eq:MUsum}) leaves us with
$|\bk{\phi}{\hat{u}0_{z}}|^{2}=1/2$,
so that $|\bk{\Phi}{1_{z}}|^{2}=|\bk{\Phi}{2_{z}}|^{2}=1/3$ as well.
A similar argument applied to the pair
$\{\ket{\hat{u}1_{z},\hat{V1_{z}}},\ket{\hat{u}1_{z},\hat{V}2_{z}}\}$
shows that indeed $|\bk{\phi}{\hat{u}1_{z}}|^{2}=1/2$ and
$|\bk{\Phi}{\hat{V}1_{z}}|^{2}=|\bk{\Phi}{\hat{V}2_{z}}|^{2}=1/3$,
which confirms that the state $\ket{\phi,\Phi}$ is of the desired
form. The \emph{converse} direction of the statement is straightforward.
We conjecture Theorem \ref{thm:product-states-MU-to-bases-d=00003D4,6}
to hold for \emph{all} product dimensions $d\equiv pq$, i.e.
$d=4,6,9,10,\ldots$
However, a proof similar to the one for $d=4,6,$ would rely on the
structure of all product bases in composite dimensions $d>6$ -- which
is not known to us.
\section{MU product bases in dimension four\label{sec:MU-product-bases-dim4}}
\subsection{All pairs of MU product
bases\label{sub:All-pairs-ofMUPB-d=00003D4}}
To construct \emph{pairs} of MU product bases in the space $\mathbb{C}^{4}$,
we check all possibilities to form MU pairs of the product bases displayed in Lemma \ref{thm:Any-orthonormal-productd=00003D4} of Sec.
\ref{sub:all-product-bases-d=00003D4}. We find two families of locally inequivalent MU product bases given in Proposition \ref{thm:five-pairs-d=00003D4} below. The derivation of Proposition \ref{thm:five-pairs-d=00003D4} relies on a technique also used for the six-dimensional case presented in Appendix \ref{sec: AppendixBMUpairs-dim6}.
\begin{prop}
\label{thm:five-pairs-d=00003D4} Any pair of MU product bases in
the space $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{2}$ is equivalent to
a member of the families \begin{align}
\mathcal{P}_{0}^{(4)} & \equiv\{\ket{j_{z},k_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},k_{x}}\}\,, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}_{1}^{(4)} &
\equiv\{\ket{0_{z},k_{z}},\ket{1_{z},\hat{s}_{\mu}k_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},0_{x}},\ket{\hat{r}_{\nu}j_{x},1_{x}}\}\,,\end{align}
where $j,k=0,1$, and the unitary operator
$\hat{r}_{\nu}$ rotates the basis $\{\ket{j_{x}}\}\equiv\{\ket{k_{x}}\}\equiv\{\ket{\pm}\}$
into the $xy$-plane according to $\hat{r}_{\nu}\ket{\pm}=(\ket{0_{z}}\pm
e^{i\nu}\ket{1_{z}})/\sqrt{2}$
for $\nu\in(0,\pi)$; the operator \textup{$\hat{s}_{\mu}$
}\textup{\emph{generates rotations about the $x$-axis, i.e. $\hat{s}_{\mu}\ket{k_z}=(\ket{0_{x}} +(-1)^{k_z} e^{i\mu}\ket{1_{x}})/\sqrt{2}$ for $\mu\in[0,\pi)$}}.
\end{prop}
The pair $\mathcal{P}_{0}^{(4)}$ is the Heisenberg-Weyl pair consisting
of two direct product bases. The pair of MU bases $\mathcal{P}_{1}^{(4)}$
is a \emph{two-parameter} family and may contain direct and indirect product bases. Notice that the operator $\hat{s}_\mu$ can act as the identity since the first basis of $\mathcal{P}_{1}^{(4)}$ may be the standard basis $\{\ket{j_z,k_z}\}$.
The pair $\mathcal{P}_{1}^{(4)}$ turns out to be \emph{equivalent} under \emph{non-local} transformations to the Fourier basis as follows from mapping the first basis to the standard basis $\{\ket{j_{z},k_{z}}\}$. Thus, we have obtained all known pairs of MU bases in dimension four (cf. Sec. 3 of \cite{brierley+10}) in spite of limiting ourselves initially to MU product bases only.
\subsection{All triples of MU product bases}
Now we are in a position to derive all triples of MU product bases
in dimension $d=4$: we need to determine which of the pairs of MU
product bases given in Proposition \ref{thm:five-pairs-d=00003D4} can
be extended by a third MU product basis.
It is easy to see that the MU pair
$\mathcal{P}_{0}^{(4)}\equiv\{\ket{j_{z},k_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},k_{x}}\}$
can be extended by adjoining a third direct product basis, namely
$\ket{j_{y},k_{y}}$, resulting in the standard Heisenberg-Weyl triple.
This is the \emph{only} possibility, as follows immediately from Theorem
\ref{thm:product-states-MU-to-bases-d=00003D4,6}: a product state
$\ket{\phi,\Phi}$ is MU to both $\{\ket{j_{z},k_{z}}\}$ and
\{$\ket{j_{x},k_{x}}\}$
only if $\ket{\phi}$ is MU both to $\{\ket{j_{z}}\}$ and \{$\ket{j_{x}}\}$,
and if $\ket{\Phi}$ is MU both to $\{\ket{k_{z}}\}$ and \{$\ket{k_{x}}\}$.
The pair $\mathcal{P}_{1}^{(4)}$ of MU bases cannot be extended,
not even by a single MU product state. To extend the
pair by an MU product state, one would need
to find a state in $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ which is MU to the three bases
$\{\ket{k_{z}}\}$, $\{\ket{k_{x}}\}$ and $\{\ket{\hat{r}_{\nu}k_{x}}\}$.
Since $\nu\in(0,\pi)$, no two of these three bases coincide and there is no state in the space $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ simultaneously
MU to three distinct bases. As a consequence, the number of MU product triples is rather limited in dimension four.
\begin{prop}
\label{thm:All-triples-d=00003D4} Any triple of MU product bases
in the space $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{2}$ is equivalent
to \begin{equation}
\mathcal{T}_{0}^{(4)}\equiv\left\{
\ket{j_{z},k_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},k_{x}};\,\ket{j_{y},k_{y}}\right\}
\,.\end{equation}
\end{prop}
Using Theorem \ref{thm:product-states-MU-to-bases-d=00003D4,6} again,
the non-existence of even a single product state MU to the triple
$\mathcal{T}_{0}^{(4)}$ follows immediately---all states MU to the
triple must be entangled.
This observation agrees with results reported earlier. For the two-qubit system considered here, a construction of the five MU bases based on the Galois field $GF(4)$ has been given in \cite{klimov+07}. The complete sets obtained turn out to be equivalent under local unitary transformations, and they necessarily consist of three MU bases made up from separable (i.e. product) bases while the remaining two contain maximally entangled states only. This structure also emerges from an approach which exploits the fact that any \emph{complete} set of MU bases of a bipartite system in $\mathbb{C}^d$ contains a \emph{fixed} $d$-dependent amount of entanglement \cite{Wiesniak+11}. When $d=4$, this result implies that for a complete set of MU bases containing the triple $\mathcal{T}_{0}^{(4)}$, the other two bases of the quintuple must consist of \emph{entangled} states -- in fact, only maximally entangled states are permitted. In \cite{Lawrence11}, the entanglement structure of complete sets of MU bases related to Heisenberg-Weyl operators in prime-power dimensions has been studied leading to a generalization of the result for dimension $d=4$: in bipartite systems of dimension $d=p^2$ a number of $(p+1)$ MU bases must consist of product states while the remaining ones contain only maximally entangled states.
\section{MU product bases in dimension six}
\subsection{All pairs of MU product bases}
\label{MUPBs in d=6}
We will now construct all pairs of MU product bases in dimension six
following the method used in dimension four (cf. Sec.
\ref{sub:all-product-bases-d=00003D4}).
To obtain a MU pair we take each basis listed in Lemma \ref{thm:product-bases-d=00003D6} and go through all possibilities of adding one of the product bases $\mathcal{B}_{0}$
to $\mathcal{B}_{3}$ (cf. Eqs. (\ref{eq:basis0dim6},\ref{eq:basis1dim6},\ref{eq:basis2dim6},\ref{eq:basis3dim6})
of Appendix \ref{sec:Appendixproductbasesdim6}).
When constructing pairs of MU product bases, it is not necessary
to include the basis $\mathcal{I}_{2}$ in Lemma
\ref{thm:product-bases-d=00003D6}.
We will show now that the operator $\hat{V}$ must either act as the
identity on the pair of states $\{\ket{1_{z}},\ket{2_{z}}\}$ or swap them,
i.e. only $\alpha=0$ or $\beta=0$ are allowed in the expression
$\hat{V}\ket{1_{z}}=\alpha\ket{1_{z}}+\beta\ket{2_{z}}$. However,
in both cases the simplified product basis $\mathbf{\mathcal{I}}_{2}$
turns into a special case of $\mathbf{\mathcal{I}}_{3},$ given in
(\ref{eq:I3}).
Here is the reason why the operator $\hat{V}$ must simplify in the
way just described. Apply Theorem
\ref{thm:product-states-MU-to-bases-d=00003D4,6}
to the product state $\ket{\phi,\Phi}$ required to be MU to
$\mathbf{\mathcal{I}}_{2}$:
the state $\ket{\Phi}$ must be MU to all six vectors
of $\mathbb{C}^{3}$ present in $\mathbf{\mathcal{I}}_{2}$. Consequently,
all states in $\mathbb{C}^{3}$ which occur in the bases $\mathcal{B}_{0}$
to $\mathcal{B}_{3}$, defined in Eqs.
(\ref{eq:basis0dim6},\ref{eq:basis1dim6},\ref{eq:basis2dim6},\ref{eq:basis3dim6}) -- these are all candidates for a second product basis MU to $\mathcal{I}_{2}$ -- must be MU to the standard basis $\{\ket{J_{z}}\}$ of $\mathbb{C}^{3}$.
Now, each of these four bases contains another orthonormal basis of
$\mathbb{C}^{3}$, namely $\{\ket
A,\ket{A^{\perp}},\ket{A^{\perp\!\!\!\perp}}\}$.
There is a two-parameter
family of such states, given in Eq. (\ref{eq:RJx}). However, these
states must also be MU to the state $\hat{V}\ket{1_{z}}$ of the basis
$\mathbf{\mathcal{I}}_{2}$. For the states $\ket A$ and $\ket{A^{\perp}}$,
this requirement reads \begin{equation}
| \bra{A}(\alpha\ket{1_{z}}+\beta\ket{2_{z}})|^{2}=|\bra{A^{\perp}}(\alpha\ket{1_{z}}+\beta\ket{2_{z}})|^{2}=\frac{1}{3}\,.\end{equation}
Now using the explicit expressions of the states $\ket A$ and $\ket{A^{\perp}}$
given in Eq. (\ref{zandxmatrix}) and the identity
$|\alpha|^{2}+|\beta|^{2}=1$,
the first equality leads to \begin{equation}
| 1+\omega|\,|\alpha|\,|\beta|=|\alpha|\,|\beta|\:,\end{equation}
which implies that either $\alpha\equiv0$ or $\beta\equiv0$. Thus,
for the construction of pairs it is sufficient to use the restricted
basis\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I}_{2}^{\prime}=\{\ket{j_{z},0_{z}},\ket{\hat{u}j_{z},1_{z}},\ket{\hat{u}j_{z},2_{z}}\}\,\label{eq:simplifiedI2}\end{equation}
instead of $\mathbf{\mathcal{I}}_{2}$ given in Lemma
\ref{thm:product-bases-d=00003D6}.
All bases of this form, however,
are contained in $\mathcal{I}_{3}$ if one chooses
$\hat{v}=\hat{w}\equiv\hat{u}$
in (\ref{eq:I3}). This simplification also holds for the basis
$\mathcal{B}_{2}$ when
occurring in a pair of product bases.
The actual derivation of all MU product bases in dimension six is lengthy but straightforward. The calculations have been relegated to Appendix \ref{sec: AppendixBMUpairs-dim6} except for the pairing of the basis $\mathcal{I}_{1}$ with $\mathcal{B}_{1}$, which gives rise to the pair $\mathcal{P}_{3}$. The proof that no other (non-trivial) pair of MU product bases results from $\{ \mathcal{I}_{1}; \mathcal{B}_{1} \} $ has been obtained by A. Sudbery, and it is given in Appendix \ref{sec:AppendixUniqueness}. We now summarise the results derived in these two appendices.
\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}}\}\,,\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}
As before, the ranges of the parameters are assumed to be such that
no MU product pair occurs more than once in the list. The pairs $\mathcal{P}_{0}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ have no parameter dependence, the pair $\mathcal{P}_{1}$ depends on two parameters, while $\mathcal{P}_{3}$ is a four-parameter family.
Theorem \ref{thm:All-pairs-d=00003D6} represents the first main result of this paper. It states that there are continuously many possibilities to select pairs of MU bases which, however, can be listed exhaustively. In the remainder of this paper we will proceed by \emph{analytically} constructing all \emph{triples} of MU bases which exist in $d=6$. This will lead to our most important result, namely Theorem 4 in Sec. \ref{sec:excluding-product-bases} which states the impossibility to extend any MU product triple by even a single MU vector. Thus, complete sets of MU bases in $d=6$ will contain at most \emph{pairs} of MU product bases.
An alternative method to exploit Theorem \ref{thm:All-pairs-d=00003D6} has been pursued in \cite{mcnulty+11}. Upon using suitable \emph{non-local} unitary transformations and known results obtained by computer-algebraic methods, the strongest possible statement about MU product bases is then derived: if a complete set of seven MU bases exists, it will contain at most \emph{one} product basis -- which may be chosen to be the standard basis.
\subsection{All triples of MU product bases}
It is straightforward to enlarge the existing pairs of MU product
bases in Theorem \ref{thm:All-pairs-d=00003D6} to triples: simply
add the MU product bases listed in Lemma \ref{thm:product-bases-d=00003D6},
one after the other, to each of the pairs $\mathcal{P}_{0}$ to
$\mathcal{P}_{3}$ and check whether a valid
MU product triple results.
Neither of the pairs $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{3}$ in Theorem \ref{thm:All-pairs-d=00003D6}
can be extended by a single MU product state. To do so, we would need
a vector MU to the three distinct bases $\{\ket{j_z}\}$, $\{\ket{j_x}\}$ and $\{\ket{\hat{r}_\sigma j_x}\}$ in the space $\mathbb{C}^{2}$, or a vector mutually unbiased to four MU bases in the space $\mathbb{C}^{3}$. No such states exist, implying that any state mutually unbiased to these pairs must be entangled.
The pairs $\mathcal{P}_{0}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{1}$ \emph{can}
be extended by a further MU product basis since there exist vectors of the spaces $\mathbb{C}^2$ and $\mathbb{C}^3$ that satisfy the necessary conditions. To obtain the complete list of all MU product triples in $\mathbb{C}^{6}$ we thus need to search for possible extensions of these two pairs by a third product basis. Starting with $\mathcal{P}_{0}$,
it is possible to extend this pair by either $\mathcal{B}_{0}$ or
$\mathcal{B}_{1}$.
$\bullet\,\{\mathcal{P}_{0};\mathcal{B}_{0}\}$: If we choose
the third basis to be of the form $\mathcal{B}_{0}$, there are only
two choices, $\{\ket{j_{y},J_{y}}\}$ or $\{\ket{j_{y},J_{w}}\}$.
Using the local complex conjugation $\hat{I}\otimes\hat{K}$, the
resulting triples are found to be equivalent, \begin{equation}
\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},J_{x}};\,\ket{j_{y},J_{y}}\}\sim\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},J_{x}};\,\ket{j_{y},J_{w}}\}\,;\end{equation}
consequently, all triples of this type are equivalent to the Heisenberg-Weyl
triple \begin{equation}
\mathcal{T}_{0}=\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},J_{x}};\,\ket{j_{y},J_{y}}\}\,.\end{equation}
$\bullet\,\{\mathcal{P}_{0};\mathcal{B}_{1}\}$: If we extend
$\mathcal{P}_{0}$ by an indirect product basis of the form
$\mathcal{B}_{1}$, there are only two choices,
$\{\ket{0_{y},J_{y}},\ket{1_{y},J_{w}}\}$
or $\{\ket{0_{y},J_{w}},\ket{1_{y},J_{y}}\}$. Again, a local complex
conjugation $\hat{k}\otimes\hat{I}$ maps one of the triples into the
other, \begin{equation}
\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\ket{j_{x},J_{x}};\,\ket{0_{y},J_{y}},\ket{1_{y},J_{w}}\}\sim\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},J_{x}};\,\ket{0_{y},J_{w}},\ket{1_{y},J_{y}}\}\,,\end{equation}
leaving us with the triple
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{T}_{1}=\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},J_{x}};\,\ket{0_{y},J_{y}},\ket{1_{y},J_{w}}\}\,.\end{equation}
Now turning to the pair $\mathcal{P}_{1}$, we again attempt
to obtain a triple by adding either $\mathcal{B}_{0}$ or $\mathcal{B}_{1}$.
$\bullet\,\{\mathcal{P}_{1};\mathcal{B}_{0}\}$ or
$\{\mathcal{P}_{1};\mathcal{B}_{1}\}$:
First, extend the pair $\mathcal{P}_{1}$ by a direct product
basis, resulting in either $\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\ket{0_{x},J_{x}},\ket{1_{x},J_{y}};\ket{j_{y},J_{w}}\}$
or $\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\ket{0_{x},J_{x}},\ket{1_{x},J_{w}};\ket{j_{y},J_{y}}\}$.
It is not difficult to apply suitable LETs to transform them into
the triple $\mathcal{T}_{1}$. Now extend the pair $\mathcal{P}_{1}$ by an indirect product basis $\mathcal{B}_1$. This leads to a contradiction since we would need the states $\{\ket{\hat{R}_{\xi,\eta}J_{x}}\}$ in $\mathcal{P}_1$ to coincide with $\{\ket{J_{x}}\}$, which is not allowed.
This completes the construction of all MU product triples in dimension
six, leading to the second main result of this paper.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:two-triples-d=00003D6} Any triple of MU product bases
in the space $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{3}$ is equivalent
to either
\begin{align}
\mathcal{T}_{0} &
=\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},J_{x}};\,\ket{j_{y},J_{y}}\}\,,
\nonumber \\
\mbox{or } \mathcal{T}_{1} &
=\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},J_{x}};\,\ket{0_{y},J_{y}},\ket{1_{y},J_{w}}\}\,.\end{align}
\end{thm}
According to Theorem \ref{thm:product-states-MU-to-bases-d=00003D4,6},
neither of these triples can be extended by a single MU product state.
Thus, any complete set of seven MU bases in dimension six will contain
at most three product bases, and if it does, the triple must be equivalent
to one of those in Theorem \ref{thm:two-triples-d=00003D6}. In the following section we will obtain an even stronger result.
\section{Excluding triples of MU product bases from complete sets}
\label{sec:excluding-product-bases}
In this section we derive the third main result of this paper.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:noproductbases}
No triple of MU product bases in dimension six can be extended by a single MU vector.
\end{thm}
In other words, no complete set of seven MU bases in $d=6$ contains a triple of MU product bases. This result relies on a computer-algebraic proof in \cite{grassl+04}, which finds a total of 48 vectors MU to the pair of eigenbases of the Heisenberg-Weyl operators $X_6$ and $Z_6$, giving rise to sixteen different orthonormal bases. However, none of these bases allows one to extend the given pair beyond a triple of MU bases.
The present construction of MU product triples effectively produces
twelve (and only twelve) product vectors that are MU to the pair $\mathcal{P}_{0}=\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},J_{x}}\}$, namely $\{\ket{j_{y},J_{y}}\}$ and
$\{\ket{j_{y},J_{w}}$\}, and they give rise to the only two inequivalent
triples of MU bases, $\mathcal{T}_{0}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{1}$.
Since $\mathcal{P}_0$ is equivalent to the eigenbases of $X_6$ and $Z_6$, clearly these twelve product vectors must figure among the 48 vectors given
in \cite{grassl+04}.
To show this, we must first deal with a difference in our definition of the HW operators. The HW pair used in \cite{grassl+04} does not have the same form as $\mathcal{P}_0$ since the $x$-basis in \cite{grassl+04} is the eigenbasis of the operator $X_6$, whereas we have used the eigenbasis of the operator $X_2\otimes X_3$ (cf. Eq. (\ref{HWoperators})). Nevertheless, both pairs of bases turn out to be equivalent using a \emph{non-local} unitary transformation. By writing the operators as matrices, we find that $X_2\otimes X_3=P_{25}X_6P_{25}$, where $P_{25}$ is a permutation matrix permuting rows two and five. This non-local transformation brings the eigenbasis of $X_6$ into product form, i.e. $\{\ket{j_x,J_x}\}$, by multiplying it with $P_{25}$ from the left.
The same transformation must also be applied to the list of $48$ vectors so that they are MU to the pair $\mathcal{P}_0$. After multiplying each of these vectors by the matrix $P_{25}$ from the left, one easily identifies the twelve product vectors, numbered by $1,2,5,6,9,10,13,14,17,18,21$ and $22$ in the Appendix of the updated version of \cite{grassl+04}. For example, the vector labelled (1) transforms as follows:
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}P_{25}(1,\alpha^5,1,-\alpha^3,-\alpha^2,-\alpha^3)^{\text{T}}=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(1,-\alpha^2,1,-\alpha^3,\alpha^5,-\alpha^3)^{\text{T}} \nonumber \\
\equiv&\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(1,\omega^2,1,-i,-i\omega^2,-i)^{\text{T}}\nonumber \\
\equiv&\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(1,-i)^\text{T}\otimes(1,\omega^2,1)^{\text{T}}
\end{align}
where $\alpha=e^{2\pi i/12}$ and $\omega=e^{2\pi i/3}$. This vector is the product state $\ket{1_y,1_y}$.
The twelve vectors give rise to four of the sixteen orthonormal bases which are MU to the original pair. These product bases are covered by the product bases we construct when extending the Heisenberg-Weyl pair $\mathcal{P}_{0}$ to a triple; however, only two of the four triples are locally inequivalent as follows from exploiting suitable local equivalence transformations.
Upon combining the computer-aided result just described with Theorem
\ref{thm:two-triples-d=00003D6} it is straightforward to arrive at a result that excludes product triples from being part of a complete set of seven MU bases. The triples of MU product bases $\mathcal{T}_0$ and $\mathcal{T}_1$ both contain the Heisenberg-Weyl pair $\mathcal{P}_{0}=\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},J_{x}}\}$,
and it is impossible to extend this pair by more than a single MU basis according to \cite{grassl+04}. Since Theorem \ref{thm:two-triples-d=00003D6} provides an \emph{exhaustive} list of MU triples in the space $\mathbb{C}^2\otimes\mathbb{C}^3$, it follows that \emph{no complete set of seven MU bases in $d=6$ contains a triple of MU product bases}.
\section{Summary and discussion}
By limiting ourselves to orthonormal product bases, we have been able
to obtain a number of analytic results regarding the existence of MU
bases of the space $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{3}$. After identifying
all orthonormal product bases of this space, presented in Lemma
\ref{thm:product-bases-d=00003D6},
we have constructed an exhaustive list of pairs of MU product bases. They come in four different flavours according to Theorem
\ref{thm:All-pairs-d=00003D6}. Next, Theorem \ref{thm:two-triples-d=00003D6} states that, in addition to the Heisenberg-Weyl triple, there is only one other locally inequivalent triple of MU product bases. The absence of quadruples of MU product bases agrees with Zauner's conjecture \cite{zauner+99} that there are no more than three MU bases in dimension six.
The derivation of the list of MU product pairs and triples has been
simplified considerably by the content of Theorem \ref{thm:product-states-MU-to-bases-d=00003D4,6}. It spells out severe restrictions on the form of product states required to be MU to certain sets of orthonormal states in the space
$\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{3}$.
We have established Theorem \ref{thm:product-states-MU-to-bases-d=00003D4,6}
for dimensions $d=4$ and $d=6$ only, since the proof relies on enumerating
all orthonormal product bases in these dimensions.
Theorem \ref{thm:two-triples-d=00003D6} allows us to partly
replicate results obtained by means of a computer-algebraic method. Out of the 48 vectors mutually unbiased to the Heisenberg-Weyl pair $\mathcal{P}_0$, found in \cite{grassl+04}, we successfully recover twelve, and they are shown to be equivalent to product vectors.
The most important consequence of exhaustively enumerating MU product bases in dimension six is a bound on their allowed number in complete sets of MU bases. Applying Theorem \ref{thm:product-states-MU-to-bases-d=00003D4,6} to the triples of MU product bases in $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{3}$, namely $\mathcal{T}_{0}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{1}$, directly implies that no single \emph{product} state can be MU to any of them. However, a stronger result is within reach, spelled out in Theorem \ref{thm:noproductbases}: it is impossible to complement either $\mathcal{T}_{0}$ or $\mathcal{T}_{1}$ by \emph{any} MU vector. This follows from combining
Theorem \ref{thm:two-triples-d=00003D6} with the results derived in \cite{grassl+04}. Thus, \emph{a complete set of MU bases in dimension six cannot contain a product triple}. This is in marked contrast to the prime-power dimension $p^2$ where a complete set of MU bases necessarily contains $(p+1)$ MU product bases constructed from the tensor products of Heisenberg-Weyl operators \cite{Lawrence11}. The exhaustive list of MU product pairs given in Theorem 2 has been used to derive a result even stronger than Theorem 4, reducing the number of allowed MU product bases to just a single one \cite{mcnulty+11}.
A similar situation has been described in \cite{aschbacher+07} where a different class of MU bases is studied. Given a ``nice unitary error basis'', consisting of $d^2$ suitable matrices, one can search for MU bases within these sets. In the case of dimension six, it is shown that any partition of a nice error basis gives rise to no more than three MU bases. This limitation and the non-existence of more that three MU \emph{product} bases are independent results: MU product bases and MU bases arising from nice unitary error bases are structurally different. For example, our construction reproduces the continuous family $\mathcal{P}_1^{(4)}$ of MU product pairs in $d=4$, and it is known that some of the pairs in this family are \emph{inequivalent} to MU bases stemming from nice unitary error bases \cite{Klappenecker+05}.
Our considerations are backed by deriving corresponding results in the Hilbert space of two qubits, i.e. $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{2}$.
In this case there exists a symmetry between the two factors and the enumeration of MU product pairs and triples is much simpler. Clearly, when a qubit is combined with a qutrit, no such symmetry exists. We believe that the symmetries between the subsystems present in only prime-power dimensions
are the ultimate reason that additional ``identities'' exist which
allow for the construction of \emph{complete} sets of MU bases.
Let us conclude by formulating a conjecture which emerges naturally from our
results: we expect Theorem \ref{thm:product-states-MU-to-bases-d=00003D4,6}
to hold for \emph{all} composite dimensions $d=pq\geq4$, not only for $d=4$ and $d=6$. Our pedestrian proof in these dimensions relies on enumerating
all orthonormal product bases. However, the set of product bases in
composite dimensions is likely to possess a certain structure which,
once spelled out, should allow for a more elegant proof applicable
to arbitrary composite dimensions.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}
The proof of Theorem \ref{tony}, presented in Appendix \ref{sec:AppendixUniqueness}, has been found by A. Sudbery; we gratefully acknowledge his permission to reproduce it here. We thank S. Brierley, M. Grassl, and A. Sudbery for comments and suggestions. This work has been supported by EPSRC.
|
\section{Introduction}
In this short paper we will see an example of how a noncontextual
model, that attempts to emulate quantum mechanics, is modified into a
contextual model. The larger and more fundamental question
\cite{Einstein1935777}: ``Can the quantum-mechanical description be
considered complete?'' concerns the possibility to augment quantum
mechanics (QM) with additional hidden variables (HVs) that provide a
more detailed, more complete description (see also \cite{VonNeumann31,
Bohr1935696}). Attempts to construct such HV models include ones
where, for a given experiment, the observed probability distributions
are used as a HV model \cite{WW01}. Moreover, there are explicit HV
theories, such as Bohmian mechanics \cite{BH93,Holland93}, which can
reproduce all experiments up to date. However, these models use
properties that make them less general (using a fundamentally
different model for each experimental setup) or undesirable in other
ways (superluminal influence). Therefore, we need to make additional
assumptions about the structure of the HV model, to avoid this. The
most famous result in this direction is Bell's theorem \cite{Bell64},
stating that \emph{local} HV models cannot reproduce the QM
correlations between local measurements on some entangled states. That
particular set of additional assumptions will not be studied further
in this paper but we note that this conflict can be tested in
experiment \cite{ADR82,WJSWZ98,RKMSIMW01}.
A second seminal result on HV models reproducing QM predictions is the
Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem \cite{Specker60,Bell66,KS67}. This result
concerns so-called \emph{noncontextual} HV models, in which
measurement outcomes do not depend on which other compatible
measurements are (have been) performed. There have been several
proposals to test the KS theorem in experiment
\cite{RS93,CG98,SZWZ00,SBZ01,Larsson02,CFRH08,KCBS08,Cabello08,BBCP09},
but there is also a discussion whether the KS theorem can be
experimentally tested at all \cite{Meyer99,Kent99,Mermin99,CK00,
HKSS01,Appleby02,Cabello02,Breuer02a,Breuer02b,BK04,LaCour09a,CL10}.
We will leave that discussion here, and concentrate on one specific
noncontextual model, Spekkens' toy model \cite{Spekkens07}, which is
known to possess certain QM features but lack others, in particular
contextuality. This paper is concerned with an attempt to add
contextuality to this model, to make it closer to QM, and analyses the
cost of this addition. We will see that the price is to be paid in the
form of a larger ontic state space and a more complicated set of rules
that govern state changes caused by measurement. The paper starts with
a brief description of the system used and the contextuality property
of this QM system, and proceeds with a description of Spekkens' toy
model and the addition needed to make it contextual.
\section{A quantum system and its contextuality}
In this paper, we are going to use a two-qubit system, and
measurements on it. When studying questions about local hidden
variable models, it is common to assume that the system is in a
specific (entangled) state, say the singlet state. Here, we are not
going to assume that the system is in such a state, in fact, what
follows will be valid even if the state is completely mixed.
We will be concerned with measurement outcomes, and what can be
expected to influence these measurement outcomes. Each subsystem can
be measured upon by checking whether the ``spin of the
particle\footnote{Classical intuition translates the systems'
particle-like behaviour into the belief that we are using particles
as our systems. This is not true here, but the present discussion
will side-step this important issue. Already spin-1/2 properties are
difficult enough, so we will not discuss the more complex issues of
position and momentum as properties.}'' is up or down in one of the
axis directions. In quantum-mechanical terms, our four possible
measurement choices (of observables) for each subsystem is
\mathbb I,\ \sigma_x,\ \sigma_y,\ \text{or }\sigma_z,
$
and these do not commute; for each subsystem we must make one of the
four choices. We denote the outcomes $+1$ for ``up'' and $-1$ for
``down''. We note that there is a difference between doing a separate
measurement of $\sigma_x$ on the two subsystems, and doing a joint
measurement of the product of $\sigma_x$ on both. The first
corresponds to using the operators
\sigma_x\otimes\mathbb I,\ \text{and}\ \mathbb I\otimes\sigma_x,
$
while the second corresponds to the single operator
\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x, $
which only outputs one bit of information. We usually assume that this
is the sign of the product of the previous outcomes, but one needs to
be aware that even this innocuous statement is one of
noncontextuality: we assume that the ``spin of the first particle
along the x-axis'' is the same whether we jointly measure the ``spin
of the second particle along the x-axis'' or not.
This is really based in our classical intuition, and the same
(noncontextual) reasoning implies that the outcome for one subsystem
is independent of measurement choice for the second subsystem. Using
classical intuition we expect that the result of measurement of
$\sigma_x\otimes\mathbb I$, should be independent of the choice
between $\mathbb I\otimes\sigma_x$, $\mathbb I\otimes\sigma_y$, or
$\mathbb I\otimes\sigma_z$, as a measurement on the second
subsystem. This classical intuition underlies the notion of
\emph{noncontextuality}: The outcome of the measurement of one
observable should not be influenced by which simultaneous measurement
is performed, which commuting observable that is measured. The two
outcomes may be dependent, but the outcome of the first measurement
not be influenced by the \emph{choice} of second measurement.
Perhaps it is in place to stress the connection to counterfactual
reasoning: we are saying that ``I have measured
$\sigma_x\otimes\mathbb I$ and $\mathbb I\otimes\sigma_x$, but a
noncontextual model would have given the same outcome for the first in
the pair if I instead would have measured $\sigma_x\otimes\mathbb I$
and $\mathbb I\otimes\sigma_z$''. A classical system could be expected
to obey this, but as we shall see, a quantum system does not.
In this system, one can form the following square of nine observables,
also known as the Peres-Mermin (PM) square \cite{Mermin90, Peres90}
\begin{equation*}
\left[\begin{matrix}
\sigma_z \otimes \mathbb I&
\mathbb I \otimes \sigma_z&
\sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z\\
\mathbb I \otimes \sigma_x&
\sigma_x \otimes \mathbb I&
\sigma_x \otimes \sigma_x\\
\sigma_z \otimes \sigma_x&
\sigma_x \otimes \sigma_z&
\sigma_y \otimes \sigma_y
\end{matrix}\right].
\end{equation*}
The square is constructed such that the observables within each row
and column commute, corresponding to compatible measurement, and the
product of the operators in any row or column yields $\mathbb I$,
except for the last column, where
\begin{equation*}
(\sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z)(\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x)
(\sigma_y\otimes\sigma_y)=-\mathbb I.
\end{equation*}
In a noncontextual model, the measurement outcomes for each individual
measurement would not depend on the choice of compatible measurement
from the same row or column. A noncontextual model of our system
(containing our two subsystems) would therefore assign $\pm1$ values
to the outcomes within the matrix, and the products of these values
should follow the same rules: the products of the values in any row or
column should be $+1$, except for the last column where the product
should be $-1$. But this is impossible. Under the QM rule, multiplying
the six row and column products would give the value $-1$, but in our
noncontextual model, each individual value appears exactly twice (once
in each row and once in each column) so that the total product must
equal $+1$ (being a product of squares). Therefore, a noncontextual
model must have an even number of $-1$s in the row and column
products, while QM predicts an odd number of $-1$s. A noncontextual
model cannot obey the QM predictions.
\section{Spekkens' toy model}
We will now briefly shift our focus to one explicit noncontextual
model that is specifically designed to mimic QM. It has some of the
properties of QM but lacks others. We will just look at the basic
construction here, for those interested I would recommend reading
\cite{Spekkens07} and references therein. The toy theory is built on
the following foundational principle (\emph{The knowledge balance
principle}):
\begin{quote}
If one has maximal knowledge, then for every system, at every time,
the amount of knowledge one possesses about the ontic state of the
system at that time must equal the amount of knowledge one
lacks \cite{Spekkens07}.
\end{quote}
The model is constructed to mimic QM, so in its simplest form, we want
to construct the equivalent of a qubit. A qubit measurement has two
outcomes, which by the knowledge balance principle means that the
ontic state space of a toy bit has four states. The ontic state space
can be graphically represented as
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (0,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][pattern=crosshatch,pattern color=blue] (1,0) -- (2,0) --
(2,1) -- (1,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,1);%
\end{tikzpicture}\ ,
\end{center}
where the ontic state is the second of the four possible. In general,
a state can be a statistical mix of these ontic states.
Our measurement can, at the most, identify two out of these four ontic
states and say: ``the system is in one of these two states'' (as
opposed to being in one of the other two states). Statements like this
identify the epistemic states (the experimentally available outcomes)
of the system. There are six combinations of two ontic states, six
epistemic states. These naturally form three pairs that can be
identified with the three spin-measurement axes\vspace*{-1.5ex}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
&\raisebox{1ex}{$X$}&\raisebox{1ex}{$Y$}&\raisebox{1ex}{$Z$\phantom{\ .}}\\
\raisebox{1ex}{$+1$}
&\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (0,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (0,0) -- (1,0) -- (1,1) -- (0,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (1,0) -- (2,0) -- (2,1) -- (1,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,1);%
\end{tikzpicture}
&\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (0,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (0,0) -- (1,0) -- (1,1) -- (0,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (2,0) -- (3,0) -- (3,1) -- (2,1) -- cycle;%
\end{tikzpicture}
&\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (0,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (0,0) -- (1,0) -- (1,1) -- (0,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (3,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (3,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,1);%
\end{tikzpicture}\phantom{\ .}
\\
\raisebox{1ex}{$-1$}
&\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (0,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (2,0) -- (3,0) -- (3,1) -- (2,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (3,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (3,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,1);%
\end{tikzpicture}
&\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (0,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (3,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (3,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (1,0) -- (2,0) -- (2,1) -- (1,1) -- cycle;%
\end{tikzpicture}
&\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (0,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (2,0) -- (3,0) -- (3,1) -- (2,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (1,0) -- (2,0) -- (2,1) -- (1,1) -- cycle;%
\end{tikzpicture}\ .
\end{tabular}\vspace*{-.5ex}
\end{center}
For a system in the ontic state depicted above, a measurement of ``the
spin along the x-axis'' would give the outcome $+1$, because the ontic
state is contained in the corresponding epistemic state. A subsequent
measurement of ``the spin along the y-axis'' would identify the ontic
state completely unless the measurement procedure is allowed to
influence the state. Therefore, the knowledge balance principle forces
the model to include a state change after measurement. The model is
such that the ontic state is randomised after measurement between the
two possibilities in the epistemic state. This removes the possibility
to extract more information about the ontic state than the knowledge
balance principle allows. In this manner, the knowledge balance
principle mimics the uncertainty principle from QM.
Having presented the single system construction, we will now quickly
review the combination of two such systems into a two-toy-bit
model. The ontic state space now has sixteen points, and a specific
ontic state can be graphically represented as
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][pattern=crosshatch,pattern color=blue] (1,3) -- (2,3) --
(2,4) -- (1,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\end{tikzpicture}{\ .}
\end{center}
We can maximally extract two bits of knowledge from this system, and
the knowledge balance principle gives us many epistemic states, for
example
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
\raisebox{1ex}{\footnotesize$X_1=X_2=+1$}
&\raisebox{1ex}{\footnotesize$Y_1=Y_2=+1$}
&\raisebox{1ex}{\footnotesize$X_1=X_2,Y_1=Y_2,Z_1=Z_2$}
&\raisebox{1ex}{\footnotesize$X_1=-Z_2,Y_1=X_2,Z_1=Y_2$}\\
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (0,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\end{tikzpicture}
&\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (0,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,2) -- (0,2) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (0,3) -- (1,3) -- (1,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (2,1) -- (3,1) -- (3,2) -- (2,2) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (2,3) -- (3,3) -- (3,4) -- (2,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\end{tikzpicture}
&\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (0,3) -- (1,3) -- (1,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (1,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,3) -- (1,3) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (2,1) -- (3,1) -- (3,2) -- (2,2) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (3,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (3,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\end{tikzpicture}
&\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (0,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,2) -- (0,2) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (1,3) -- (2,3) -- (2,4) -- (1,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (2,2) -- (3,2) -- (3,3) -- (2,3) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (3,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (3,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\end{tikzpicture}\ .
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
A measurement determining which epistemic state the system is in again
randomises between the four ontic states contained in the epistemic
state. Note that not all combinations of four ontic states are
allowed as epistemic states, again for details, see
\cite{Spekkens07}. This is sufficiently close to two-qubit systems in
QM to give several behaviours that can be used to mimic quantum-like
behaviour. A partial list would include Noncommutativity
(uncertainty), Interference, Remote steering, No cloning, No
broadcasting, Mutually Unbiased Partitions, Dense coding, Entanglement
monogamy, Teleportation, Positive Operator Valued Measures, \ldots .
A subsystem measurement on a two-toy-bit model would extract less than
maximal information, and the corresponding epistemic states contain
eight ontic states. The ontic state of the measured subsystem is
randomised, while the ontic state of the unmeasured subsystem is not.
In fact, whenever nonmaximal information is extracted, the ontic state
is not maximally randomised within the epistemic state, but it is
easiest to understand in the example of a subsystem measurement, as in
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
\raisebox{1ex}{\footnotesize$Z_1=+1$}\\
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,1) -- (0,1)
-- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (0,3) -- (4,3) -- (4,4) -- (0,4)
-- cycle;%
\path[draw][pattern=crosshatch,pattern color=blue] (1,3) -- (2,3) --
(2,4) -- (1,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\end{tikzpicture}
&\raisebox{2.7em}{$\rightarrow$}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][pattern=crosshatch,pattern color=blue] (1,3) -- (2,3) --
(2,4) -- (1,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\end{tikzpicture}
&\raisebox{2.7em}{or}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][pattern=crosshatch,pattern color=blue] (1,0) -- (2,0) -- (2,1) -- (1,1) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\end{tikzpicture}\ .
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
An example of a protocol that uses a two-qu/toy-bit system and
performs transformations on one subsystem by itself is dense coding;
we can observe that the ontic state space of a one-toy-bit subsystem
contains exactly four states, which is just enough to allow for dense
coding.
However, not all QM behaviour is captured. The most important missing
features are Contextuality, Nonlocality, Continuum of states, Two
levels of a three-level system is not a two-level system, ``Quantum''
computational speedup, \ldots; we will concentrate on the first
item. It is simple to see that the model is noncontextual, because the
measurement procedure is such that an outcome of a joint measurement
outcome is given by the product of the individual outcomes. Our
example ontic state would give the following results:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
\raisebox{1ex}{\footnotesize$X_1=+1$}
&\raisebox{1ex}{\footnotesize$Z_2=-1$}
&\raisebox{1ex}{\footnotesize$X_1=+1,Z_2=-1$}
&\raisebox{1ex}{\footnotesize$X_1Z_2=-1$\phantom{\ .}}\\
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (0,2) -- (4,2) -- (4,4) -- (0,4)
-- cycle;%
\path[draw][pattern=crosshatch,pattern color=blue] (1,3) -- (2,3) --
(2,4) -- (1,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\end{tikzpicture}
&\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (1,0) -- (3,0) -- (3,4) -- (1,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][pattern=crosshatch,pattern color=blue] (1,3) -- (2,3) -- (2,4) -- (1,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\end{tikzpicture}
&\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (1,2) -- (3,2) -- (3,4) -- (1,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][pattern=crosshatch,pattern color=blue] (1,3) -- (2,3) -- (2,4) -- (1,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\end{tikzpicture}
&\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (1,2) -- (3,2) -- (3,4) -- (1,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (0,0) -- (1,0) -- (1,2) -- (0,2) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][fill=black!50!green!50] (3,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,2) -- (3,2) -- cycle;%
\path[draw][pattern=crosshatch,pattern color=blue] (1,3) -- (2,3) -- (2,4) -- (1,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\end{tikzpicture}\ .
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The measurement outcome $X_1Z_2=-1$ is one of the outcomes of the PM
square, when used on the toy model. For this particular ontic state,
writing out all the combinations results in
\begin{equation*}
\left[\begin{matrix}
Z_1&Z_2&Z_1Z_2\\
X_2&X_1&X_1X_2\\
Z_1X_2&X_1Z_2&Y_1Y_2
\end{matrix}\right]
=
\left[\begin{matrix}
+1&-1&-1\\
+1&+1&+1\\
+1&-1&-1
\end{matrix}\right].
\end{equation*}
Writing out the signs contained in the PM square for each of the ontic
states results in
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1 ,align=center]
\scriptsize
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\path[draw] (0.5,3.5) node {$+++$\\$+++$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw] (0.5,2.5) node {$-+-$\\$+++$\\$-+-$};%
\path[draw] (0.5,1.5) node {$-+-$\\$+--$\\$--+$};%
\path[draw] (0.5,0.5) node {$+++$\\$+--$\\$+--$};%
\path[draw] (1.5,3.5) node {$+--$\\$+++$\\$+--$};%
\path[draw] (1.5,2.5) node {$--+$\\$+++$\\$--+$};%
\path[draw] (1.5,1.5) node {$--+$\\$+--$\\$-+-$};%
\path[draw] (1.5,0.5) node {$+--$\\$+--$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw] (2.5,3.5) node {$+--$\\$-+-$\\$--+$};%
\path[draw] (2.5,2.5) node {$--+$\\$-+-$\\$+--$};%
\path[draw] (2.5,1.5) node {$--+$\\$--+$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw] (2.5,0.5) node {$+--$\\$--+$\\$-+-$};%
\path[draw] (3.5,3.5) node {$+++$\\$-+-$\\$-+-$};%
\path[draw] (3.5,2.5) node {$-+-$\\$-+-$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw] (3.5,1.5) node {$-+-$\\$--+$\\$+--$};%
\path[draw] (3.5,0.5) node {$+++$\\$--+$\\$--+$};%
\end{tikzpicture}\ .
\end{center}
Here, all rows and columns have the product $+1$, so that the ontic
states can be indexed by the top left four signs of the PM-square
values. Also, the last column does not fulfil the QM prediction, a
product equal to $-1$.
This can be viewed as a ``finite state machine'' (specifically, a
``stochastic Mealy machine'') as follows: each ontic state is one of
the sixteen possible states of the machine. When a measurement is
performed, the machine outputs a $\pm1$ value that depends on its
ontic state and the chosen measurement (the ``input'' to the machine),
and then changes state. In the toy model this state change is to a
random ontic state within the epistemic state. Below you can see an
example, where the large discs are two (ontic) states of the finite
state machine and the arrows are state transitions. We start in the
left ontic state, perform a measurement of $Z_1$ which outputs $+1$
and changes state randomly to either the same state or a new state
with opposite values assigned to the non-commuting observables. The
contradiction to the QM prediction is indicated with a dotted ellipse,
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.8,align=center]
\path[draw][use as bounding box] (-1,-1.3) (7,1.8);%
\path[draw] (0,0) node(a)[draw,circle, fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$+++$\\$+++$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw][red,dotted,very thick] (a) +(.48,0) circle[x radius=.27,y
radius=.9];%
\path[draw] (6,0) node(b)[draw,circle,fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$+++$\\$+--$\\$+--$};%
\path[draw][red,dotted,very thick] (b) +(.48,0) circle[x radius=.27,y
radius=.9];%
\path[draw] (-.48,.58) node[draw,very thick,circle,minimum size=15](c)
{};%
\path[draw][->,very thick] (a) to[bend right=20] node[above]{$Z_1$ meas.}
node[below]{prob. 1/2} (b);%
\path[draw][->,very thick] (a) edge[in=50,out=20,loop]
node[right,align=left]{ $Z_1$ meas.\\prob.\ 1/2 } (a);%
\path[draw][->,dotted,very thick] (-4,1) node[below] {$Z_1$ outcome} to[bend
left] (c);%
\end{tikzpicture}\ .
\end{center}
This description is mathematically equivalent to the previous. Of
course, the above diagram is only a small part of the state space and
transitions, since there are sixteen different ontic states and nine
possible measurement choices, all corresponding to a different network
of state transitions. Using the language of finite state machines, we
can now add properties to the model that were previously difficult to
conceptualise. One less desirable effect is that the epistemic states
are more difficult to present within the description. But, since our
aim is to add properties, we will use the state machine formalism
below.
\section{Adding contextuality to the toy model}
We now want to extend the model so that it gives the QM predictions,
including the PM square results. For brevity, we will restrict
ourselves to sequential measurements \cite{Larsson2011401}, and a more
complete presentation of the procedure can be found in \cite{KGPLC}.
To extend the model properly, we will need to add (ontic) states to
the finite state machine. The basic questions are what states we add,
how many, and if there is a minimal extension. The leftmost state
below is already present, and the two others are example states that
are possible to add:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.8,align=center]
\path[draw] (0,0) node(a)[draw,circle, fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{\color{black} $+++$\\$+++$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw][red,dotted,very thick] (a) +(.48,0) circle[x radius=.27,y
radius=.9];%
\path[draw] (4,0) node(b)[draw,circle, fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{\color{black} $+++$\\$+++$\\$++-$};%
\path[draw][red,dotted,very thick] (b) +(0,-.57) circle[x radius=.9,y
radius=.27];%
\path[draw] (8,0) node(a)[draw,circle, fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{\color{black} $+++$\\$+++$\\$+--$};%
\path[draw][red,dotted,very thick] (a) +(0,0) circle[x radius=.27,y
radius=.9];%
\end{tikzpicture}\ .
\end{center}
Our starting point will be Spekkens' model, where state transitions
always keep the values assigned to commuting observables constant, and
randomise the values assigned to non-commuting observables. Our new
larger model cannot obey this strictly (although it will preserve the
value assigned to the measured observable). This is because of our
desire to reproduce the QM predictions for the last column. To do
this, some transitions induced by measurement in the last column
\emph{must} change one of the values in the column. Indeed, this
transition must go to a state for which the rightmost column product
is $-1$, as in the below example (we will suppress the randomisation
of values of non-commuting observables in what follows)
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.8,align=center]
\path[draw][use as bounding box] (-1,-1) (7,1.4);%
\path[draw] (0,0) node(a)[draw,circle, fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$+++$\\$+++$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw][red,dotted,very thick] (a) +(.48,0) circle[x radius=.27,y
radius=.9];%
\path[draw] (6,0) node(b)[draw,circle,fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$\phantom{++}+$\\$\phantom{++}+$\\$\phantom{++}-$};%
\path[draw] (.48,.58) node[draw,very thick,circle,minimum size=15](c)
{};%
\path[draw][->,very thick] (c) to[bend left=20]
node[above]{\footnotesize $Z_1Z_2$ meas.} (b);%
\end{tikzpicture}\ .
\end{center}
Thus, we will need to add ontic states of the type indicated above.
However, it turns out that \emph{one} transition of this type from the
rightmost column is not enough. If, in the above example, we were to
perform measurements of the right column observables in the order from
the bottom one to the top one, the state change is too late to stop us
from finding the column product $+1$. Therefore, at least \emph{two}
measurements in the column must give rise to state transitions, both
leading to a state with no contradiction in the last column (but a
contradiction elsewhere)
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.8,align=center]
\path[draw][use as bounding box] (-1,-1) (7,1.4);%
\path[draw] (0,0) node(a)[draw,circle, fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$+++$\\$+++$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw][red,dotted,very thick] (a) +(.48,0) circle[x radius=.27,y
radius=.9];%
\path[draw] (6,0) node(b)[draw,circle,fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$\phantom{++}+$\\$\phantom{++}+$\\$\phantom{++}-$};%
\path[draw] (.48,.58) node[draw,very thick,circle,minimum size=15](c)
{};%
\path[draw] (.48,0) node[draw,very thick,circle,minimum size=15](d)
{};%
\path[draw][->,very thick] (c) to[bend left=20]
node[above]{\footnotesize$Z_1Z_2=+1$} (b);%
\path[draw][->,very thick] (d) to[bend right=20]
node[below]{\footnotesize$X_1X_2=+1$} (b);%
\end{tikzpicture}\ .
\end{center}
Furthermore, the two transitions must go to \emph{different} states,
because otherwise we will find the column product $+1$ since the state
transition must preserve the value assigned to the measured observable
(again, this can be demonstrated by measuring in the order from bottom
to top above).
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.8,align=center]
\path[draw][use as bounding box] (-1,-2.5) (7,2.1);%
\path[draw] (0,0) node(a)[draw,circle, fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$+++$\\$+++$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw][red,dotted,very thick] (a) +(.48,0) circle[x radius=.27,y
radius=.9];%
\path[draw] (6,1.5) node(b)[draw,circle,fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$\phantom{++}+$\\$\phantom{++}-$\\$\phantom{++}+$};%
\path[draw] (6,-1.5) node(c)[draw,circle,fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$\phantom{++}-$\\$\phantom{++}+$\\$\phantom{++}+$};%
\path[draw][->,very thick] (.48,.58) node(b1)[draw,very
thick,circle,minimum size=15] {} (b1) to[bend left=20]
node[sloped,above]{\footnotesize$Z_1Z_2=+1$} (b);%
\path[draw][->,very thick] (.48,0) node(c1)[draw,very
thick,circle,minimum size=15] {} (c1) to[bend right=20]
node[sloped,below]{\footnotesize$X_1X_2=+1$} (c);%
\end{tikzpicture}\ .
\end{center}
There are now a few alternatives on how to continue to fill in values
in the new states. Note that each ontic state still needs to have an
even number of $-1$ row and column products (an assignment of outcomes
in a single ontic state must be noncontextual). Therefore, we also
need to decide where the $-1$ product should go among the five
alternatives. Some alternatives can be ruled out by using appropriate
sequences of measurement choices, but the somewhat tedious procedure
\cite{KGPLC} will not be repeated here. As it turns out, there is a
model with four states that reproduces the QM predictions for the PM
square (in the sense that the products are the expected ones)
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.8,align=center]
\path[draw][use as bounding box] (-1,-3.2) (13,3);%
\path[draw] (0,0) node(a)[draw,circle, fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$+++$\\$+++$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw][red,dotted,very thick] (a) +(.48,0) circle[x radius=.27,y
radius=.9];%
\path[draw] (6,2) node(b)[draw,circle,fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$+++$\\$-+-$\\$-++$};%
\path[draw][red,dotted,very thick] (b) +(0,-.61) circle[x radius=.9,y
radius=.27];%
\path[draw] (6,-2) node(c)[draw,circle,fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$+--$\\$+++$\\$+-+$};%
\path[draw][red,dotted,very thick] (c) +(0,-.61) circle[x radius=.9,y
radius=.27];%
\path[draw] (12,0) node(d)[draw,circle, fill=black!10,inner sep=0pt]
{$+--$\\$-+-$\\$--+$};%
\path[draw][red,dotted,very thick] (d) +(.48,0) circle[x radius=.27,y
radius=.9];%
\path[draw][->,very thick](a)+(.48,.61) node(a1)[draw,very
thick,circle,minimum size=15] {} (a1) to[bend left=20]
node[sloped,above]{\footnotesize$Z_1Z_2=+1$} (b);%
\path[draw][->,very thick](a)+(.48,0) node(a2)[draw,very
thick,circle,minimum size=15] {} (a2) to[bend right=20]
node[sloped,below]{\footnotesize$X_1X_2=+1$} (c);%
\path[draw][->,very thick](b)+(-.48,-.61) node(b1)[draw,very
thick,circle,minimum size=15] {} (b1) to[out=270,in=180]
node[sloped,above]{\footnotesize$Z_1X_2=-1$} (d);%
\path[draw][->,very thick](b)+(0,-.61) node(b2)[draw,very
thick,circle,minimum size=15] {} (b2) to[out=270,in=0]
node[sloped,above]{\footnotesize$X_1Z_2=-1$} (a);%
\path[draw][->,very thick](c)+(-.48,-.61) node(c1)[draw,very
thick,circle,minimum size=15] {} (c1) to[bend left=40]
node[sloped,below]{\footnotesize$Z_1X_2=+1$} (a);%
\path[draw][->,very thick](c)+(0,-.61) node(c2)[draw,very
thick,circle,minimum size=15] {} (c2) to[bend right=40]
node[sloped,below]{\footnotesize$X_1Z_2=-1$} (d);%
\path[draw][->,very thick](d)+(.48,.61) node(d1)[draw,very
thick,circle,minimum size=15] {} (d1) to[out=215,in=0]
node[sloped,below]{\footnotesize$Z_1Z_2=-1$} (c);%
\path[draw][->,very thick](d)+(.48,0) node(d2)[draw,very
thick,circle,minimum size=15] {} (d2) to[out=20,in=10]
node[sloped,above]{\footnotesize$X_1X_2=-1$} (b);%
\end{tikzpicture}\ .
\end{center}
We have added three ontic states to the one we started with, so it is
tempting to conclude that the model would need 64 ontic states instead
of 16. But a close inspection reveals that the rightmost state above
already is present in Spekkens' original model. Further, the two
middle states both have their contradiction in the last row, and form
a similar class of ontic states. Thus, we only need to add 16 states
to Spekkens' model. Our new ontic state space can be depicted by
repeating the original table beside another where the bottom right
sign has been inverted. The above four-state machine has also been
delineated below.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1,align=center]
\scriptsize
\path[draw][use as bounding box] (0,0) (10,4.7);%
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (0,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (1,0) -- (1,4);%
\path[draw] (2,0) -- (2,4);%
\path[draw] (3,0) -- (3,4);%
\path[draw] (0,1) -- (4,1);%
\path[draw] (0,2) -- (4,2);%
\path[draw] (0,3) -- (4,3);%
\path[draw] (0.5,3.5) node(a)[draw,circle] {$+++$\\$+++$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw] (0.5,2.5) node {$-+-$\\$+++$\\$-+-$};%
\path[draw] (0.5,1.5) node {$-+-$\\$+--$\\$--+$};%
\path[draw] (0.5,0.5) node {$+++$\\$+--$\\$+--$};%
\path[draw] (1.5,3.5) node {$+--$\\$+++$\\$+--$};%
\path[draw] (1.5,2.5) node {$--+$\\$+++$\\$--+$};%
\path[draw] (1.5,1.5) node {$--+$\\$+--$\\$-+-$};%
\path[draw] (1.5,0.5) node {$+--$\\$+--$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw] (2.5,3.5) node(d)[draw,circle] {$+--$\\$-+-$\\$--+$};%
\path[draw] (2.5,2.5) node {$--+$\\$-+-$\\$+--$};%
\path[draw] (2.5,1.5) node {$--+$\\$--+$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw] (2.5,0.5) node {$+--$\\$--+$\\$-+-$};%
\path[draw] (3.5,3.5) node {$+++$\\$-+-$\\$-+-$};%
\path[draw] (3.5,2.5) node {$-+-$\\$-+-$\\$+++$};%
\path[draw] (3.5,1.5) node {$-+-$\\$--+$\\$+--$};%
\path[draw] (3.5,0.5) node {$+++$\\$--+$\\$--+$};%
\path[draw][fill=black!10] (6,0) -- (10,0) -- (10,4) -- (6,4) -- cycle;%
\path[draw] (7,0) -- (7,4);%
\path[draw] (8,0) -- (8,4);%
\path[draw] (9,0) -- (9,4);%
\path[draw] (6,1) -- (10,1);%
\path[draw] (6,2) -- (10,2);%
\path[draw] (6,3) -- (10,3);%
\path[draw] (6.5,3.5) node {$+++$\\$+++$\\$++-$};%
\path[draw] (6.5,2.5) node {$-+-$\\$+++$\\$-++$};%
\path[draw] (6.5,1.5) node {$-+-$\\$+--$\\$---$};%
\path[draw] (6.5,0.5) node {$+++$\\$+--$\\$+-+$};%
\path[draw] (7.5,3.5) node(c)[draw,circle] {$+--$\\$+++$\\$+-+$};%
\path[draw] (7.5,2.5) node {$--+$\\$+++$\\$---$};%
\path[draw] (7.5,1.5) node {$--+$\\$+--$\\$-++$};%
\path[draw] (7.5,0.5) node {$+--$\\$+--$\\$++-$};%
\path[draw] (8.5,3.5) node {$+--$\\$-+-$\\$---$};%
\path[draw] (8.5,2.5) node {$--+$\\$-+-$\\$+-+$};%
\path[draw] (8.5,1.5) node {$--+$\\$--+$\\$++-$};%
\path[draw] (8.5,0.5) node {$+--$\\$--+$\\$-++$};%
\path[draw] (9.5,3.5) node(b)[draw,circle] {$+++$\\$-+-$\\$-++$};%
\path[draw] (9.5,2.5) node {$-+-$\\$-+-$\\$++-$};%
\path[draw] (9.5,1.5) node {$-+-$\\$--+$\\$+-+$};%
\path[draw] (9.5,0.5) node {$+++$\\$--+$\\$---$};%
\path[draw][thick,<->] (a) to[bend left=30] (c);%
\path[draw][thick,<->] (a) to[bend left=30] (b);%
\path[draw][thick,<->] (d) to[bend left=30] (c);%
\path[draw][thick,<->] (d) to[bend left=30] (b);%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (0.5,3.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (0.5,2.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (0.5,1.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (0.5,0.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (1.5,3.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (1.5,2.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (1.5,1.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (1.5,0.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (2.5,3.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (2.5,2.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (2.5,1.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (2.5,0.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (3.5,3.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (3.5,2.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (3.5,1.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (3.5,0.5) +(.22,0) circle[x radius=.15,y
radius=.5];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (6.5,3.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (6.5,2.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (6.5,1.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (6.5,0.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (7.5,3.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (7.5,2.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (7.5,1.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (7.5,0.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (8.5,3.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (8.5,2.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (8.5,1.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (8.5,0.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (9.5,3.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (9.5,2.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (9.5,1.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\path[draw][red,dotted,thick] (9.5,0.5) +(0,-.28) circle[x radius=.5,y
radius=.15];%
\end{tikzpicture}\ .
\end{center}
It is a simple matter to include the randomisation of the
non-compatible measurement outcomes, but we will skip the details in
this short note.
\section{Conclusions}
Quantum Contextuality is one of the more puzzling properties of QM, so
any tool that helps us understand contextuality, ultimately helps us
to understand QM. Spekkens' toy model is helpful in many ways because
it provides a middle ground where we can describe and discuss many of
the phenomena associated with QM and Quantum Information Theory,
without going to the full-blown QM formalism.
This paper attempts to extend this middle ground to include quantum
contextuality into the description and discussion. Using the language
of finite state machines, we have successfully included
quantum-contextual behaviour. The present note is limited to the case
of sequential measurements on pairs of ``toy'' bits (resembling
qubits), and restricts the measurement choices to (the equivalent of)
``spin measurements'' along two axes. Unfortunately, the lacking
third axis means that the model is incomplete, and it seems that the
state space needs to be extended even further to incorporate this
\cite{KGPLC}. Adding a third measurement also adds many relations
between the available measurement choices, and results in ten
different PM squares \cite{Cabello10}, instead of one.
Nevertheless, we have seen how to extend Spekkens' toy model to
include two more items in the list of quantum-like behaviours that it
mimics: Contextuality, and Nonlocality. The latter is included because
a two-toy-bit system with separated subsystems would need nonlocal
influence to show the needed behaviour: \emph{both} measurement
choices are needed to determine the state transition in the model. One
property that is certainly still missing is a continuum of states, but
we have yet to see whether two levels of a three-level system is a two
level system or not. We we have not yet seen the three-level version
of this new model, so we have nothing to compare with. The possibility
of a ``Quantum'' computational speedup is also still open.
There is a price to pay for this extension, however: the knowledge
balance principle fails. There are more than twice as many ontic
states as there are epistemic states. Measured in (ordinary) bits of
information, the model uses one additional bit of information that
keeps track of where the contradiction is in the PM square (last row
or last column), and this bit is not accessible to the
experimentalist. One way of interpreting this is that the system keeps
an internal memory of what the experimenter previously has done to the
system. This one bit of information can be proved to be a lower bound
for models that obey the QM predictions \cite{KGPLC}. Thus, a
contextual HV model that gives the QM predictions must obey a
knowledge \emph{imbalance} principle:
\begin{quote}
If one has maximal knowledge, then for every system, at every time,
the amount of knowledge one possesses about the ontic state of the
system at that time \emph{cannot exceed} the amount of knowledge one
lacks.
\end{quote}
It is the author's firm belief that quantum contextuality is the main
cause of the difficulty of understanding QM, and that it plays an
important role in Quantum Information Theory. This note (and
\cite{KGPLC}) provides a link between information theoretical concepts
on the one side and quantum contextuality and the Kochen-Specker
theorem on the other. There is a definite need to explore the
connection further.
\begin{theacknowledgments}
The author would like to thank Adan Cabello, Matthias Kleinmann,
Otfried G\"uhne, Jose Portillo, and Chris Fuchs for a number of
interesting discussions.
\end{theacknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{aipproc}
|
\section{$4D$ model of the Ricci-flow }
We study the system of equations
\begin{equation}\label{ricci}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}g_{ij}(\vec x,t)=-2 R_{ij}(g)
\end{equation}
describing the Ricci flows of the four dimensional manifolds which are endowed by the metrics
of the form
\begin{equation}\label{dr:eq2} {{\it
ds}}^{2}=A(x,y,t){{\it du}}^{2}+2\,B(x,y,t){\it du}\,{\it dv}+{
\it du}\,{\it dx}+C(x,y,t){{\it dv}}^{2}+{\it dv}\,{\it dy},
\end{equation}
where the components of metrics are dependent from two coordinates $(x,y)$ and from the parameter $t$.
In this case the Ricci-tensor of the metric
$(\ref{ricci})$
has a five components
$$ R_{uu},~ R_{uv},~ R_{vv},~
R_{ux}, ~R_{vx}.
$$
From the conditions of compatibility of the equations
(\ref{ricci}) we find that
they are reduced to the equation
\begin{equation}\label{dr:eq3}
4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}h(x,y,t)\right
){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}h(x,y,t)-4\,\left
({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}h(x,y,t)\right )^{2}-{\frac {
\partial }{\partial t}}h(x,y,t)=0
\end{equation}
and components of the metric (\ref{dr:eq2}) take the form
\begin{equation}\label{dr:eq4}
B(x,y,t)={\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}h(x,y,t),~ C(x,y,t)=-{\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}h(x,y,t),~ A(x,y,t)=-{\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}h(x,y,t).
\end{equation}
Thus the study of the properties of the Ricci flow on a 4-dimensional manifold
with the metric (\ref{dr:eq2}) with the coefficients (\ref{dr:eq4}) lead
to integration of the equation (\ref{dr:eq3}). Nyis equation is the first order relatively
the parameter $\tau$ and has form of the Monge-Ampere equation relatively of the variables $x,y$
\section{Particular solutions}
Let us consider some elementary solutions of equation (\ref{dr:eq3})
After the substitution of the form
$$
h(x,y,t)=H\left({\frac {x}{y}}-t\right){y}^{4}
$$
the equation (\ref{dr:eq3}) takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{dr:eq5}
48\,\left (D^{\left (2\right )}\right )(H)(\eta)H(\eta)-36\,\left
( \mbox {D}(H)(\eta)\right )^{2}+\mbox {D}(H)(\eta)=0,
\end{equation}
where
$$
\eta={\frac {x}{y}}-t.
$$
Solution of the equation (\ref{dr:eq4}) may be present in form
$$
\eta(H)={\it \_C2}-144\,{\frac {\sqrt [4]{H}}{{K}^{3}}}+$$$$\left(-48\,
\ln (1-\sqrt [4]{H}K)+24\,\ln (1+\sqrt [4]{H}K+\sqrt
{H}{K}^{2})+48\, \sqrt {3}\arctan({\frac {\sqrt {3}\sqrt
[4]{H}K}{2+\sqrt [4]{H}K}}) \right){K}^{-4},
$$
where $K$ and ${\it \_C2}$ are constants.
Remark that if the value $K=-1$ the function $ \eta(H)$ has a
break.
The simplest singular solution of (\ref{dr:eq4}) is
$$ h(x,y,t)= $$ $$=\frac{\left(6\,{\frac {{B}^{2}{x}^{4}}{k}}+{\it
\_C1}\,\sqrt {x} \cos(1/2\,\sqrt {23}\ln (x))+{\it \_C2}\,\sqrt
{x}\sin(1/2\,\sqrt {23} \ln
(x))+yB{x}^{3}+1/24\,{y}^{2}k{x}^{2}\right)}{\left (2\,kt+{\it
\_C4} \right )^{-1}}.
$$
More complicated solution has the form
$$
h(x,y,t)=-1/2\,{\frac {{{\it \_C1}}^{2}\mu\,\sqrt {{\it
\_C1}\,{\it \_c}_{{1}}}\sqrt {2}\tan(1/2\,\sqrt {{\it \_C1}\,{\it
\_c}_{{1}}} \left (x-t\right )\sqrt {2})}{{{\it
\_c}_{{1}}}^{2}}}+{\frac {\mu\,{ \it \_C1}\,y}{{\it
\_c}_{{1}}}}-$$$$-1/4\,{\frac {\mu\,\sqrt {{\it \_C1}\,{ \it
\_c}_{{1}}}\sqrt {2}{y}^{2}}{{\it \_c}_{{1}}\tan(1/2\,\sqrt {{\it
\_C1}\,{\it \_c}_{{1}}}\left (x-t\right )\sqrt {2}){\it \_C1}}}.
$$
A more general solutions of the equation (\ref{dr:eq4}) are derived by
the method of parametric representations of functions and their
derivatives [1-2].
Let us apply its to the equation (\ref{dr:eq4}).
After the change of the variables, the function and its derivative
\begin{equation} \label{Dr11}
h(x,y,t) \rightarrow u(x,\tau,t),~ y \rightarrow v(x,\tau,t),~ h_x
\rightarrow u_x-\frac{u_{\tau}}{v_{\tau}}v_x=p,~ h_t \rightarrow
u_t-\frac{u_{\tau}}{v_{\tau}}v_t=q,$$$$ h_y \rightarrow
\frac{u_{\tau}}{v_{\tau}}=r, ~ h_{xx} \rightarrow
p_x-\frac{p_{\tau}}{v_{\tau}}v_x,~h_{xy}\rightarrow
\frac{p_{\tau}}{v_{\tau}}=q_x-\frac{q_{\tau}}{v_{\tau}}v_x,~h_{yy}\rightarrow
\frac{r_{\tau}}{v_{\tau}}
\end{equation}
we derive from the equation
\begin{equation} \label{Dr12}
\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}h(x,y,t)\right ){
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}h(x,y,t)-\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}h(x,y,t)\right )^{2}-{\frac {
\partial }{\partial t}}h(x,y,t)=0
\end{equation}
the relation between the functions $u(x,\tau,t)$ and
$v(x,\tau,t)$, where variable $\tau$ is considered as parameter
\begin{equation} \label{Dr13}
-\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}u(x,\tau,t)\right )\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial \tau}}v(x,\tau,t)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial }
{\partial \tau}}u(x,\tau,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{ \tau}^{2}}}v(x,\tau,t)-$$$$-\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
\tau}}u(x, \tau,t)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}v(x, \tau,t)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
\tau}}v(x,\tau,t) \right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{\tau}^{2}}}u(x,\tau,t)+$$$$+\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
\tau}}u(x,\tau,t)\right )^{2}\left ({ \frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v(x,\tau,t)\right ){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {\tau}^{2}}}v(x,\tau,t)-$$$$-\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial \tau\partial x}}u(x,\tau,t)\right )^{2}\left (
{\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}v(x,\tau,t)\right )^{2}+\left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}u(x,\tau,t)\right )
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}v(x,\tau,t)\right )^{2}{
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{\tau}^{2}}}u(x,\tau,t)+$$$$+2\,\left ({ \frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial \tau\partial x}}u(x,\tau,t)\right ) \left ({\frac
{\partial }{\partial \tau}}v(x,\tau,t)\right )\left ({ \frac
{\partial }{\partial \tau}}u(x,\tau,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^
{2}}{\partial \tau\partial x}}v(x,\tau,t)-$$$$-\left ({\frac
{\partial }{
\partial \tau}}u(x,\tau,t)\right )^{2}\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial \tau\partial x}}v(x,\tau,t)\right )^{2}-\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial t}}u(x,\tau,t)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial \tau}}v(x,\tau,t)\right )^{4}+$$$$+\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial \tau}}u(x,\tau,t)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial t
}}v(x,\tau,t)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
\tau}}v(x,\tau ,t)\right )^{3} =0.
\end{equation}
Note that the relation (\ref{Dr13}) under the condition $v(x,\tau,t)=\tau$
is equivalent to the equation
$$
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}u(x,t,\tau){ \frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}u(x,t,\tau)-\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}u(x,t,\tau)\right )^{2}-{\frac {
\partial }{\partial \tau}}u(x,t,\tau)=0
$$
similar to equation (\ref{Dr12}) and transformed into an equation
of more general form if the functions $u(x,\tau,t)$,
$(v(x,\tau,t)$ are dependent.
For example under the condition
$$ u(x,\tau,t)=\tau\,{\frac {\partial }{\partial
\tau}}\omega(x,\tau,t)- \omega(x,\tau,t),~ v(x,\tau,t)={\frac
{\partial }{\partial \tau}}\omega(x,\tau,t)
$$
from the (\ref{Dr13}) we obtain the p.d.e. for the function
$\omega(x,\tau,t)$
\begin{equation} \label{Dr14} -{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}\omega(x,\tau,t)+\left ({ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{\tau}^{2}}}\omega(x,\tau,t)\right ){ \frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,\tau,t)=0.
\end{equation}
The other condition
$$ v(x,\tau,t)=\tau\,{\frac {\partial
}{\partial \tau}}\omega(x,\tau,t)- \omega(x,\tau,t),~
u(x,\tau,t)={\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}\omega(x,\tau,t) $$
lead to the equation
\begin{equation} \label{Dr15}
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega(x,\tau,t)+\left ({
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {\tau}^{2}}}\omega(x,\tau,t)\right
){ \tau}^{3}{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,\tau,t)=0.
\end{equation}
Let us consider some solutions of the equation (\ref{Dr14}).
Under the substitution
$$
\omega(x,\tau,t)=A(x-kt,\tau)
$$
it is reduced at the equation
\begin{equation} \label{Dr16}
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {\eta}^{2}}}A(\eta,\tau)+k\left ({
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {\tau}^{2}}}A(\eta,\tau)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial \eta}}A(\eta,\tau) =0
\end{equation}
where $\eta=x-k t$.
This equation is reduced after the Legendre transformation to the Euler-Trikomi equation
and therefore its solutions depend radically on the sign of the parameter $k$.
Each solution (\ref{Dr16}) corresponds to the solution of the
original equation (\ref{Dr13}) which is obtained by eliminating the parameter $\tau$
from the correlations
\begin{equation} \label{Dr17} y-\tau\,{\frac {\partial
}{\partial \tau}}\omega(x,\tau,t)+ \omega(x,\tau,t)=0,~
h(x,y,t)-{\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}\omega(x,\tau,t)=0.
\end{equation}
Here is an example of.
\section{Finite-dimensional reduction}
After the substitutions
$$ A(x,y,t)={\it A_0}(t)+{\it A_1}(t)x+{\it A_2}(t)y+{\it
A_3}(t){x}^{2}+{ \it A_4}(t)yx+{\it A_5}(t){y}^{2},$$$$
B(x,y,t)={\it B_0}(t)+{\it B_1}(t)x+{\it B_2}(t)y+{\it
B_3}(t){x}^{2}+{ \it B_4}(t)xy+{\it B_5}(t){y}^{2},$$$$
C(x,y,t)={\it C_0}(t)+{\it C_1}(t)x+{\it C_2}(t)y+{\it
C_3}(t){x}^{2}+{ \it C_4}(t)xy+{\it C_5}(t){y}^{2},$$$$ {\it
B_4}(t)=-2\,{\it A_3}(t),~ {\it A_4}(t)=-2\,{\it B_5}(t),~ {\it
C_4}(t)=-2\,{\it B_3}(t),~ {\it C_5}(t)={\it A_3}(t)
$$
the metric (\ref{dr:eq2}) takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{metr2}
{{\it ds}}^{2}=\left ({\it A_0}(t )+{\it
A_1}(t)x+{\it A_2}(t)y+{\it A_3}(t){x}^{2}-2\,{\it B_5}(t)yx+{\it
A_5}(t){y}^{2}\right ){{\it du}}^{2}+$$$$+2\,\left ({\it
B_0}(t)+{\it B_1}(t)x +{\it B_2}(t)y+{\it B_3}(t){x}^{2}-2\,{\it
A_3}(t)xy+{\it B_5}(t){y}^{2} \right ){\it du}\,{\it
dv}+$$$$+\left ({\it C_0}(t)+{\it C_1}(t)x+{\it C_2}(t) y+{\it
C_3}(t){x}^{2}-2\,{\it B_3}(t)xy+{\it A_3}(t){y}^{2}\right ){{\it
dv}}^{2}+{\it dx}\,{\it du}+{\it dy}\,{\it dv}
\end{equation}
and from the system of equations (\ref{ricci}) is obtained system of ODE's
\begin{equation}\label{sys}
{\frac {d}{dt}}{\it B_3}(t)=24\,{\it B_3}(t){\it
A_3}(t)-24\,{\it C_3}(t){ \it B_5}(t),$$$$ {\frac {d}{dt}}{\it
C_3}(t)=-48\,{\it C_3}(t){\it A_3}(t)+48\,\left ({ \it
B_3}(t)\right )^{2},$$$$ {\frac {d}{dt}}{\it A_3}(t)=-8\,{\it
C_3}(t){\it A_5}(t)+24\,\left ({\it A_3}(t)\right )^{2}-16\,{\it
B_3}(t){\it B_5}(t),$$$$ {\frac {d}{dt}}{\it B_5}(t)=24\,{\it
A_3}(t){\it B_5}(t)-24\,{\it B_3}(t){ \it A_5}(t),$$$$ {\frac
{d}{dt}}{\it A_5}(t)=-48\,{\it A_5}(t){\it A_3}(t)+48\,\left ({
\it B_5}(t)\right )^{2}
\end{equation}
on the functions $A_3(t),~B_3(t),~C_3(t),~A_5(t),~B_5(t)$ from
which expressed the rest coefficients of the metric (\ref{metr2}).
The system of equations (\ref{sys}) has a first integral $M$ of the
type
$$
{\it C_3}(t){\it B_5}(t)^{2}+M{\it C_3}(t)^ {2}{\it B_5}(t)-{\it
A_5}(t){\it B_3}(t)^{2}+2\,M{ \it B_3}(t)^{3}-3\,M{\it C_3}(t){\it
A_3}(t){\it B_3}(t) =0
$$
with the help of which the order can be reduced.
In result we get the system with parameter
$$
{\frac {d}{dt}}{\it B_3}(t)=24\,{\it B_3}(t){\it A_3}(t)-24\,{\it
C_3}(t){ \it B_5}(t),\quad {\frac {d}{dt}}{\it C_3}(t)=-48\,{\it
C_3}(t){\it A_3}(t)+48\,\left ({ \it B_3}(t)\right )^{2},$$$${\it
B_3}(t)^{2}{\frac {d}{dt}}{\it A_3}(t)=-8\,{ \it C_3}(t)^{2}{\it
B_5}(t)^{2}-8\,M {\it C_3}(t)^{3}{\it B_5}(t)-16\,{\it C_3}(t)M
{\it B_3}(t)^{3}+$$$$+24\,M{\it C_3}(t)^{2}{\it A_3}(t){\it
B_3}(t) +24{\it A_3}(t)^{2}{\it B_3}(t)^{2}-16\, {\it B_5}(t){\it
B_3}(t)^{3} , $$~ $${\it B_3}(t){\frac {d}{dt}}{\it
B_5}(t)=24\,{\it A_3}(t){\it B_5}(t){\it B_3}(t)-24\,{\it
C_3}(t){\it B_5}(t)^{2}-24\,M{\it C_3}(t)^{2}{\it
B_5}(t)-$$$$-48\,M{\it B_3}(t)^{3}+72\, M{\it C_3}(t){\it
A_3}(t){\it B_3}(t).
$$
\section{Monge-Ampere flows}
\begin{theorem} The flows of Ricci of the $4D$- manifolds which are endowed by the metric
with local coordinates $(x,y,z,t)$ the components of which are dependent from two coordinates $(x,t)$ and from the parameter $\tau$
$$
{{\it ds}}^{2}=\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f(x,t,
\tau)\right ){{\it dx}}^{2}+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}f(x,t,\tau)\right ){\it dx}\,{\it
dt}+\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}f(x,t,\tau)\right ){{\it dy}}^{2}+$$$$+2\,
\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial
x}}f(x,t,\tau)\right ){\it dy}\,{\it dz}+\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f( x,t,\tau)\right ){{\it dz}}^{2}+\left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {t}^{2}}}f(x,t,\tau)\right ){{\it dt}}^{2}
$$
is defined by the equation
\begin{equation} \label{Dr18}{\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}f(x,t,\tau)=\ln \left({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}f(x,t,\tau){\frac {\partial ^
{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f(x,t,\tau)-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial t\partial x}}f(x,t,\tau)\right )^{2}\right)
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Let us consider some solutions of the equation (\ref{Dr18}).
With aim of convenience we rewrite if in the form
\begin{equation} \label{Dr19}
\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f(x,y,\tau)\right ){
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f(x,y,\tau)-\left ({\frac
{
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f(x,y,\tau)\right )^{2}-{e^{{
\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}f(x,y,\tau)}}=0,
\end{equation}
where the variable $t$ is changed on $y$.
After the $(u,v)$-transformation with condition
$u(x,t,\tau)=t$ the equation (\ref{Dr19}) takes the form
$$
\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v(x,t,\tau)\right ){
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}v(x,t,\tau)-\left ({\frac
{
\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}v(x,t,\tau)\right )^{2}-{e^{-{
\frac {{\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}v(x,t,\tau)}{{\frac {
\partial }{\partial t}}v(x,t,\tau)}}}}\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial t}}v(x,t,\tau)\right )^{4}=0.
$$
Particular solutions of this equation are obtained with the help of
additional conditions.
For example in the case
$$
{\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}v(x,t,\tau)={\frac {\partial }{
\partial t}}v(x,t,\tau)
$$ we find that the function $v(x,t,\tau)$ has the form $$
v(x,t,\tau)={\it \_F1}(x,\tau+t)=h(x,\eta),
$$
where the function $h(x,\eta)$
satisfies the equation
\begin{equation} \label{Dr20}\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {\eta}^{2}}}h(x,\eta)\right
){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}h(x,\eta)-\left ({\frac
{
\partial ^{2}}{\partial \eta\partial x}}h(x,\eta)\right )^{2}-{e^{-1}}
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial \eta}}h(x,\eta)\right )^{4} =0.
\end{equation}
After the $(u,v)$-transformation with the conditions
$$
v(x,t)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t)-\omega(x,t),~ u(x,t)={\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t)
$$
the equation (\ref{Dr20}) is reduced to the linear equation
$$
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega(x,t)+\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega(x,t)\right ){e^{-1}}=0$$
with general solution
$$
\omega(x,t)={\it \_F1}(t-i\sqrt
{{e^{-1}}}x)+{\it \_F2}(t+i\sqrt {{e^ {-1}}}x)
$$
containing two arbitrary functions.
With the help of the function $\omega(x,t)$ we can obtain
large class of solutions of the equation (\ref{Dr19})
in parametric form.
For example, in the case
$$
{\it \_F1}(t-i\sqrt {{e^{-1}}}x)=\cosh(+-i\sqrt {{e^{-1}}}x)
{\it \_F2}(t+i\sqrt {{e^{-1}}}x)=\sinh(t+i\sqrt {{e^{-1}}}x) $$ we
get
$$
\omega(x,t)=\cosh(t)\cos(\sqrt
{{e^{-1}}}x)+\sinh(t)\cos(\sqrt {{e^{-1 }}}x) $$ and elimination
of the parameter $t$ from the relations $$
\eta-t\cos({e^{-1/2}}x)\cosh(t)-t\sinh(t)\cos({e^{-1/2}}x)+\cosh(t)
\cos({e^{-1/2}}x)+\sinh(t)\cos({e^{-1/2}}x)=0,$$$$
h(x,\eta)-\cosh(t)\cos({e^{-1/2}}x)-\sinh(t)\cos({e^{-1/2}}x)
$$
lead to the function
$$
h(x,\eta)={e^{{\it LambertW}({\frac
{\eta\,{e^{-1}}}{\cos({e^{-1/2}}x) }})+1}}\cos({e^{-1/2}}x)
$$
which is solution of the equation (\ref{Dr20}).
With the help of solutions of the equation (\ref{Dr20}) can be
constructed solutions of the equation (\ref{Dr19}).
\section{More general solution}
The equation (\ref{Dr19}) after the $(u,v)$-transformation
with conditions
$$
-{\frac {-\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}u(x,t,\tau)\right )
{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}v(x,t,\tau)+\left ({\frac {\partial
}{
\partial t}}u(x,t,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}v(x,t
,\tau)}{{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}v(x,t,\tau)}}=Ax,$$$$
v(x,t,\tau)={\it \_F1}(x,u(x,t,\tau)-A x \tau $$
takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{Dr21} \left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{\eta}^{2}}}h(x,\eta)\right ){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}h(x,\eta)-\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial \eta\partial x}}h(x,\eta)\right )^{2}-{e^{Ax}}
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial \eta}}h(x,\eta)\right )^{4} =0,
\end{equation}
where
$$ \eta=u(x,t,\tau)-Ax\tau,
$$
$$ h(x,\eta)={\it
\_F1}(x,u(x,t,\tau)-A x \tau).
$$
It is reduced to the equation
\begin{equation} \label{Dr22}
{e^{Ax}}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega(x,t)+{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega(x,t)=0
\end{equation}
after the $(u,v)$-transformation with conditions $$
v(x,t)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,t)-\omega(x,t),~
u(x,t)={\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t).
$$
Simplest solution of the equation (\ref{Dr22}) has the form
$$
\omega(x,t)=\left ({\it \_C1}\,\cos(\sqrt {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}t)+{\it
\_C2}\,\sin(\sqrt {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}t)\right )\cdot$$$$\cdot\left
({\it \_C3}\,{\it BesselJ}(0,2\,\sqrt {-{\frac {{\it
\_c}_{{1}}}{{A}^{2}}}}\sqrt {{e^{Ax }}})+{\it \_C4}\,{\it
BesselY}(0,2\,\sqrt {-{\frac {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}{{ A}^{2}}}}\sqrt
{{e^{Ax}}})\right )
$$
and elimination of the parameter $t$ from the relations
$$
\eta+t\sin(\sqrt {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}t)\sqrt {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}{\it
BesselJ}(0,2\,\sqrt {-{\it \_c}_{{1}}}\sqrt {{e^{x}}})+\cos(\sqrt
{{ \it \_c}_{{1}}}t){\it BesselJ}(0,2\,\sqrt {-{\it
\_c}_{{1}}}\sqrt {{e^ {x}}})=0,$$$$ h(x,\eta)+\sin(\sqrt {{\it
\_c}_{{1}}}t)\sqrt {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}{\it BesselJ}(0,2\,\sqrt
{-{\it \_c}_{{1}}}\sqrt {{e^{x}}})=0
$$
gives solution of the equation (\ref{Dr21}) defined from the
relation $$
\eta\,\sqrt {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}+\arcsin\left({\frac
{h(x,\eta)}{\sqrt {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}{\it BesselJ}(0,2\,\sqrt {-{\it
\_c}_{{1}}}\sqrt {{e^{x}}}) }}\right)h(x,\eta)+$$$$+\sqrt {{\it
\_c}_{{1}}\left ({\it BesselJ}(0,2\,\sqrt {-{ \it \_c}_{{1}}}\sqrt
{{e^{x}}})\right )^{2}-\left (h(x,\eta)\right )^{ 2}} =0, $$
(at the conditions $A=1$ and $\it \_C2=0,\it \_C4=0,\it \_C1=1$).
The solution of the equation (\ref{Dr19}) which corresponds the function $h(x,\eta)$
is determined from the relation
$$
y-h\left(x,f(x,y,\tau)-x \tau\right)=0
$$
and can be very complicated.
{\small
\centerline{\bf References:}
\smallskip
\noindent 1. V. Dryuma, {\it On nonlinear equations associated with developable, ruled and minimal surfaces}.\\ ArXiv:1002.0952 v1 [physycs.gen-ph] 4 Feb.2010 p. 1-13.
\smallskip
\noindent 2. V. Dryuma, {\it The Riemann and Einsten-Weyl
geometries in theory of differential equations, their applications
and all that}. A.B.Shabat et all.(eds.), New Trends in
Integrability and Partial Solvability, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Printed in the Netherlands , 2004, p.115--156.}
\end{document}
\end{document}
\section{$6D$-models of the Ricci-flow }
As generalization of the $4D$-case we consider an example of the Ricci flow on
$6D$ manifold in local coordinates $(x,y,z u,v,w)$ which endowed
with the metric
\begin{equation} \label{red3}
{{\it ds}}^{\left \{2\right \}}=A(x,y,z,t){d{{u}}}^{2}+2\,B(x,y,z,t)d{{u}}d{{v}}+C(x,y,z,t){d{{v}}
}^{2}+2\,E(x,y,z,t)d{{u}}d{{w}}+F(x,y,z,t){d{{w}}}^{2}+$$$$+2\,H(x,y,z,t
)d{{w}}d{{v}}+d{{u}}d{{x}}+d{{v}}d{{y}}+d{{w}}d{{z}}
\end{equation}
dependent on parameter $t$.
Writing the equations (\ref{ricci}) we obtain the conditions
$$ R_{xu}=0,~R_{yu}=0,~R_{zu}=0,~
R_{xv}=0,~R_{yv}=0,~R_{yw}=0 R_{xw}=0,~R_{yw}=0,~R_{zw}=0
$$
on the Ricci-tensor of the metric (\ref{red3}).
They looks as the system of equations
$$
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}A(x,y,z,t)+{\frac
{\partial ^ {2}}{\partial x\partial y}}B(x,y,z,t)+{\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}E(x,y,z,t)=0,$$$${\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}B(x,y,z,t)+{\frac {\partial ^
{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}C(x,y,z,t)+{\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}H(x,y,z,t)=0,$$$${\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}E(x,y,z,t)+{\frac {\partial ^
{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}H(x,y,z,t)+{\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}F(x,y,z,t)=0
$$
on the components of the metric and may be presented as example in the form
$$
B(x,y,z,t)={\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
y}}\delta(x,y,z,t ),~ E(x,y,z,t)={\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial z}}\epsilon(x,y,z ,t),~ H(x,y,z,t)={\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}\rho(x,y,z,t),$$$$ C(x,y,z,t)=-{\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\delta(x,y,z,t)-{ \frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}\rho(x,y,z,t),~
F(x,y,z,t)=-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{y}^{2}}}\rho(x,y,z,t)-{ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}\epsilon(x,y,z,t),$$$$ A(x,y,z,t)=-{\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}\delta(x,y,z,t)-{ \frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}\epsilon(x,y,z,t)
$$
In result the metric (\ref{red3}) takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{metr6}
{{\it ds}}^{2}=\left (-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}\delta(x,y,z,t)-{
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}\epsilon(x,y,z,t)\right ){{
\it du}}^{2}+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}
\delta(x,y,z,t)\right ){\it du}\,{\it dv}+$$$$+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^
{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}\epsilon(x,y,z,t)\right ){\it du}\,{\it dw}
+\left (-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\delta(x,y,z,t)-{
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}\rho(x,y,z,t)\right ){{\it dv}
}^{2}+$$$$+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}\rho(x,y,
z,t)\right ){\it dv}\,{\it dw}+\left (-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {y}^{2}}}\rho(x,y,z,t)-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2
}}}\epsilon(x,y,z,t)\right ){{\it dw}}^{2}+$$
$$+{\it dx}\,{\it du}+{\it dy}\,{\it dv}+{\it dz}\,{\it dw}
\end{equation}
and we can formulate the
\begin{pr}
The Ricci flow on the manifold with the metrics (\ref{metr6}) is described by
the over determined system of equations with respect of the functions
$\delta(x,y,z,t),~\epsilon(x,y,z,t),~\rho(x,y,z,t)$.
\end{pr}
The examples
\section{Paricular solutions}
Let us consider some examples of its solutions.
$$
{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial x\partial t\partial y}}\delta(\vec x,t)
=4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial {x}^{3}\partial y}}\delta(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}\epsilon(\vec x,t)-8\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}\rho(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial {y}^{2}\partial x\partial z}
}\delta(\vec x,t)+$$$$+4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial {y}^{2}
\partial x\partial y}}\delta(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {z}^{2}}}\rho(\vec x,t)+4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{4}}{
\partial {x}^{3}\partial y}}\delta(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{
2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}\delta(\vec x,t)-8\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}
{\partial x\partial y}}\delta(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{4}}{
\partial y\partial {x}^{2}\partial y}}\delta(\vec x,t)-$$$$-8\,\left ({
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}\epsilon(\vec x,t)\right ){
\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial y\partial {x}^{2}\partial z}}\delta(\vec x,t)-4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{2}\partial y}}
\delta(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x
\partial y}}\delta(\vec x,t)+$$$$+4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial
{x}^{2}\partial z}}\epsilon(x,y,z,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{3}}{
\partial y\partial x\partial z}}\delta(\vec x,t)+4\,\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^{2}\partial z}}\rho(x,y,z,t)\right ){
\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x\partial z}}\delta(\vec x,t)+$$$$+
4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial {y}^{2}\partial x\partial y}
}\delta(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}
\delta(\vec x,t)+4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^{3}}}
\delta(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{3}}}\delta
(\vec x,t)+$$$$+
4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^{3}}}\delta(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial z\partial x\partial z}}
\rho(\vec x,t)+4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial z\partial y
\partial z}}\epsilon(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {
x}^{3}}}\delta(\vec x,t)+4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial z
\partial y\partial z}}\epsilon(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{3}}{
\partial z\partial x\partial z}}\rho(\vec x,t)-$$$$-4\,\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x\partial y}}\delta(\vec x,t)\right )
{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial z\partial y\partial z}}\rho(\vec x,t)-4
\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x\partial z}}
\epsilon(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {z}^{3}}}\rho
(\vec x,t)-4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x
\partial z}}\epsilon(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {
x}^{2}\partial z}}\delta(\vec x,t)-$$$$-4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{
\partial {x}^{2}\partial y}}\delta(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{
3}}{\partial z\partial x\partial z}}\epsilon(\vec x,t)+4\,\left ({
\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial z\partial x\partial z}}\epsilon(\vec x,t
)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial z\partial y\partial z}}\rho(\vec x,t)+$$$$+4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial z\partial y\partial
x\partial z}}\delta(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y
}^{2}}}\rho(\vec x,t)+4\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial z
\partial y\partial x\partial z}}\delta(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\epsilon(\vec x,t)-$$$$-4\,\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x\partial z}}\rho(\vec x,t)\right ){
\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^{2}\partial z}}\delta(\vec x,t)-4\,
\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x\partial z}}\rho(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {z}^{3}}}\epsilon(\vec x,t).
$$
\end{document}
functions $A(r), B(r), C(r)$
\begin{equation} \label{red4}
B(r)\left ({\frac {d}{dr}}B(r)\right )^{3}+B(r)\left ({\frac
{d}{dr}}B (r)\right )\left ({\frac {d}{dr}}A(r)\right
)^{2}+B(r)\left ({\frac {d }{dr}}B(r)\right )\left ({\frac
{d}{dr}}C(r)\right )^{2}+$$$$+C(r)\left ({ \frac
{d}{dr}}C(r)\right )\left ({\frac {d}{dr}}A(r)\right )^{2}+C(r)
\left ({\frac {d}{dr}}C(r)\right )^{3}+C(r)\left ({\frac
{d}{dr}}B(r) \right )^{2}{\frac {d}{dr}}C(r)+$$$$+A(r)\left
({\frac {d}{dr}}A(r)\right ) ^{3}+A(r)\left ({\frac
{d}{dr}}A(r)\right )\left ({\frac {d}{dr}}C(r) \right
)^{2}+A(r)\left ({\frac {d}{dr}}B(r)\right )^{2}{\frac {d}{dr}}
A(r) =0
\end{equation}
and the system of equations on the function $r(\vec x,t)$
\begin{equation} \label{red5}
{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}r(\vec x,t)={\frac {\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}r(\vec x,t)\right )B(r)\left (\left ({\frac {d}{
dr}}B(r)\right )^{2}+\left ({\frac {d}{dr}}A(r)\right )^{2}+\left
({ \frac {d}{dr}}C(r)\right )^{2}\right )}{\left ({\frac
{d}{dr}}B(r) \right ){\frac {d}{dr}}C(r)}},$$$$ {\frac {\partial
}{\partial z}}r(\vec x,t)={\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}r(\vec
x,t),~~{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}r(\vec x,t)={\frac {\left
({\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}r(\vec x,t)\right ){\frac {d}{dr}}A(r)}{{\frac {
d}{dr}}C(r)}},$$$$ {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}r(\vec
x,t)=-{\frac {\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}r(\vec x,t)\right )\left (\left ({\frac {d}{dr}}
A(r)\right )^{2}+\left ({\frac {d}{dr}}C(r)\right )^{2}\right )}{
\left ({\frac {d}{dr}}B(r)\right ){\frac {d}{dr}}C(r)}}
\end{equation}
which are compatible at the every set of the functions $A(r),
B(r), C(r)$ satisfying the equation (\ref{red4}).
Solutions of the system (\ref{red4}) are $(1+3D)$ generalization of the
simple $(1+1D)$ wave of Riemann and they may be used to construction solutions of the Euler
system of equations (\ref{dr:eq2}).
Let us consider some examples.
1. With help of solution of the equation (\ref{red4})
$$
A(r)=1/2\,\sqrt {-2\,{r}^{2}+4\,{\it \_C1}},~
B(r)=r,~ C(r)=A(r)
$$
we derive the system of equations on the function $r(x,y,z,\tau)$
\begin{equation} \label{red6}
{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}r(\vec x,\tau)+1/2\,{\frac {-\left
({ \frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}r(\vec x,\tau)\right
)\sqrt {-2\, \left (r(\vec x,\tau)\right )^{2}+4\,{\it
\_C1}}+2\,\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}r(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\it \_C1}}{{\it
\_C1}}}=0,$$$$ {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}r(\vec
x,\tau)+1/2\,{\frac {r(\vec x,\tau ){\frac {\partial }{\partial
\tau}}r(\vec x,\tau)}{{\it \_C1}}}=0,
\end{equation}
where we use the variable $\tau$ instead $t$.
2. Solution of the equation (\ref{red4})
$$
C \left( r \right) =a+\sin \left( r \right),~
A \left( r \right) =-a+\sin \left( r \right),~
B \left( r \right) =\sqrt {2}\cos \left( r \right)
$$
corresponds the system of equations
\begin{equation} \label{red60}
{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}r \left(\vec x,\tau \right) ={\frac {
\sqrt {2}\sin \left( r \left(\vec x,\tau \right) \right) {\frac {
\partial }{\partial y}}r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) -\cos \left( r \left(
\vec x,\tau \right) \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}r \left(\vec x,\tau \right) }{\cos \left( r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) }},$$$$
{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}r \left(\vec x,\tau \right) ={\frac {-
\sqrt {2}{\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}r \left(\vec x,\tau \right) -2\,
\cos \left( r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) a{\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}r \left(\vec x,\tau \right) +a\sqrt {2}\sin \left( r \left(\vec x,\tau \right) \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}r \left(\vec x,\tau \right) }{\cos \left( r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) }},
\end{equation}
where we use the variable $\tau$ instead $t$
\section{Method of solution}
To solving the first order p.d.e.
\begin{equation} \label{Dr10}
F(x,y,z,\tau,f_x,f_y,f_z,f_{\tau})=0
\end{equation}
we use the following parametric presentation of the functions and variables
\begin{equation} \label{Dr11}
f(x,y,z,\tau)\rightarrow u(x,t,z,\tau),\quad y \rightarrow
v(x,t,z,\tau),\quad f_x\rightarrow u_x-\frac{u_t}{v_t}v_x, \quad
f_z\rightarrow u_z-\frac{u_t}{v_t}v_z,$$$$ f_y \rightarrow
\frac{u_t}{v_t}, \quad f_{\tau} \rightarrow
u_{\tau}-\frac{u_t}{v_t}v_{\tau},
\end{equation}
where variable $t$ is considered as parameter.
Remark that conditions of the type
\[
f_{xy}=f_{yx},\quad f_{xz}=f_{zx}, \quad f_{x \tau}=f_{\tau x}...
\]
are fulfilled at the such type of presentation.
In result instead of equation (\ref{Dr10}) one get the
relation between the new variables $u(x,t,z,\tau)$ and $v(x,t,z,\tau)$ and
their partial derivatives
\begin{equation}\label{Dr12}
\Psi(u,v,u_x,u_z,u_t,u_{\tau},v_x,v_z,v_t,v_{\tau},...)=0.
\end{equation}
This relation coincides with studying p.d.e at the condition $v(x,t,z,\tau)=t$
and takes more general form at the choice $u(x,t,z,\tau)=F(\omega(x,t,z,\tau),\omega_t...)$
and $v(x,t,z,\tau)=\Phi(\omega(x,t,z \tau),\omega_t...)$.
In some cases solving the equation (\ref{Dr12}) is a more simple
problem than equation (\ref{Dr10}).
We apply such type transformation to the solving of the system of equations
(\ref{red6}).
After the change of the function and their derivatives with accordance of the rules (\ref{Dr11})
we get the system of equations on the functions $u(\vec x, \tau)$, $v(\vec x,\tau)$
\begin{equation}\label{red7}
2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}u(\vec x,\tau)\right
)\left ({ \frac {\partial }{\partial t}}v(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\it
\_C1}-2\, \left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}v(\vec
x,\tau)\right )\left ({ \frac {\partial }{\partial t}}u(\vec
x,\tau)\right ){\it \_C1}-$$$$-\sqrt {- 2\,\left (u(\vec
x,\tau)\right )^{2}+4\,{\it \_C1}}\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial \tau}}u(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial }{
\partial t}}v(\vec x,\tau)+\sqrt {-2\,\left (u(\vec x,\tau)\right )^{2}+
4\,{\it \_C1}}\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}v(\vec
x,\tau) \right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}u(\vec
x,\tau)+$$$$2\,{\it \_C1}\, \left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
z}}u(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\frac {
\partial }{\partial t}}v(\vec x,\tau)-2\,{\it \_C1}\,\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}v(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial }{
\partial t}}u(\vec x,\tau)=0,$$$$
2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}u(\vec x,\tau)\right
){\it \_C1}+u(\vec x,\tau)\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
\tau}}u(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}v(\vec
x,\tau)-u(\vec x,\tau )\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
\tau}}v(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}u(\vec
x,\tau) =0.
\end{equation}
In the case $u(x,t,z,\tau)=t$ the system (\ref{red7}) takes the form
$$
2\,{\it \_C1}-t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
\tau}}v(x,t,z,\tau)=0,$$$$ -2\,{\it \_C1}\,\left (\left ({\frac
{\partial }{\partial x}}v(x,t,z, \tau)\right )t-\sqrt
{-2\,{t}^{2}+4\,{\it \_C1}}+\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}v(x,t,z,\tau)\right )t\right )=0
$$
and its solution is
\begin{equation}\label{red8}
v(x,t,z,\tau)={\frac {\sqrt {-2\,{t}^{2}+4\,{\it \_C1}}x}{t}}+2\,{
\frac {{\it \_C1}\,\tau}{t}}+{\it \_F2}(t,z-x)
\end{equation}
where ${\it \_F2}(t,z-x)$ is arbitrary function.
To obtain the function $r(x,y,z,\tau)$ it is necessary to
choice the function ${\it \_F2}(t,z-x)$ and
eliminate parameter $t$ from the relations
$$
y-v(x,t,z,\tau)=y-{\frac {\sqrt {-2\,{t}^{2}+4\,{\it \_C1}}x}{t}}-2\,{
\frac {{\it \_C1}\,\tau}{t}}-{\it \_F2}(t,z-x)=0,
$$
$$
t-r(x,y,z,\tau)=0.
$$
As example in the case
$$
{\it \_F2}(t,z-x)={t}^{2}\left (z-x\right )
$$
we find that solution of the system (\ref{red6}) is defined by solution of
the algebraic equation
$$
\left (-{x}^{2}-{z}^{2}+2\,zx\right )\left (r(x,y,z,\tau)\right
)^{6}+ \left (2\,zy-2\,xy\right )\left (r(x,y,z,\tau)\right
)^{4}+$$$$+\left (-4\, {\it \_C1}\,\tau\,z+4\,{\it
\_C1}\,\tau\,x\right )\left (r(x,y,z,\tau) \right )^{3}+\left
(-2\,{x}^{2}-{y}^{2}\right )\left (r(x,y,z,\tau) \right
)^{2}+$$$$+4\,r(x,y,z,\tau)y{\it \_C1}\,\tau+4\,{\it
\_C1}\,{x}^{2}- 4\,{{\it \_C1}}^{2}{\tau}^{2} =0.
$$
In the case
$$
{\it \_F2}(t,z-x)=t+z-x
$$
solution of the system (\ref{red6}) is defined by solution of
the algebraic equation
$$
-\left (r(x,y,z,\tau)\right )^{4}+\left (2\,x-2\,z+2\,y\right
)\left ( r(x,y,z,\tau)\right )^{3}+$$$$+\left
(-3\,{x}^{2}+2\,zx-4\,{\it \_C1}\,\tau
-2\,xy+2\,zy-{z}^{2}-{y}^{2}\right )\left (r(x,y,z,\tau)\right
)^{2}+ $$$$+\left (4\,{\it \_C1}\,\tau\,x-4\,{\it
\_C1}\,\tau\,z+4\,y{\it \_C1}\, \tau\right )r(x,y,z,\tau)+4\,{\it
\_C1}\,{x}^{2}-4\,{{\it \_C1}}^{2}{ \tau}^{2}=0.
$$
After application of the $(u,v$-transformation with condition $u(x,t,z,tau)=t$
the system (\ref{red60}) is transformed to the following form
$$
- \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}v \left(\vec x,\tau \right)
\right) \cos \left( t \right) -\sqrt {2}\sin \left( t \right) -\cos
\left( t \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}v \left(\vec x,\tau
\right) =0,
$$
$$
2- \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}v \left( \vec x,\tau
\right) \right) ^{2}+ \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}v
\left(\vec x,\tau \right) \right) ^{2}+2\, \left( {\frac {\partial }
{\partial x}}v \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) {\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}v \left(\vec x,\tau \right) -{a}^{2} \left( {\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}v \left(\vec x,\tau \right) \right) ^{2}-$$$$-{a}^{
2} \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}v \left( \vec x,\tau \right)
\right) ^{2}-
2\,a \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}v \left(\vec x,\tau \right) \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}v \left( \vec x,\tau \right) +
2\,{a}^{2} \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}v
\left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}v
\left(\vec x,\tau \right) +$$$$+2\,a \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}
}v \left(\vec x,\tau \right) \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau
}}v \left(\vec x,\tau \right) + \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}
v \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) ^{2}=0.
$$
Solution of the first equation has the form
$$
v \left(\vec x,\tau,\tau \right) =-{\frac {\sqrt {2}\sin \left( t \right) x
}{\cos \left( t \right) }}+{\it \_F1} \left( t,z-x,\tau \right)
$$
and after substitution it into the second equation we find the equation on
the function ${\it \_F1} \left( t,z-x,\tau \right)$
$$
- \left( D_{{3}} \left( {\it \_F1} \right) \left( t,\eta,\tau
\right) \right) ^{2} \left( \cos \left( t \right) \right) ^{2}-4\,{
a}^{2} \left( D_{{2}} \left( {\it \_F1} \right) \left( t,\eta,\tau
\right) \right) ^{2} \left( \cos \left( t \right) \right) ^{2}-2\,{
a}^{2}+2\,{a}^{2} \left( \cos \left( t \right) \right) ^{2}-$$$$-4\,{a}^{2
}D_{{2}} \left( {\it \_F1} \right) \left( t,\eta,\tau \right) \cos
\left( t \right) \sqrt {2}\sin \left( t \right) -4\,aD_{{2}} \left( {
\it \_F1} \right) \left( t,\eta,\tau \right) D_{{3}} \left( {\it \_F1
} \right) \left( t,\eta,\tau \right) \left( \cos \left( t \right)
\right) ^{2}-$$$$-2\,aD_{{3}} \left( {\it \_F1} \right) \left( t,\eta,
\tau \right) \cos \left( t \right) \sqrt {2}\sin \left( t \right) +2=0,
$$
or
$$
-1/2\, \left( D_{{3}} \left( {\it \_F1} \right) \left( t,\eta,\tau
\right) \right) ^{2}\cos \left( 2\,t \right) -1/2\, \left( D_{{3}}
\left( {\it \_F1} \right) \left( t,\eta,\tau \right) \right) ^{2}-2
\,{a}^{2} \left( D_{{2}} \left( {\it \_F1} \right) \left( t,\eta,\tau
\right) \right) ^{2}\cos \left( 2\,t \right) -$$$$-2\,{a}^{2} \left( D_{{
2}} \left( {\it \_F1} \right) \left( t,\eta,\tau \right) \right) ^{2
}-{a}^{2}+{a}^{2}\cos \left( 2\,t \right) -2\,{a}^{2}D_{{2}} \left( {
\it \_F1} \right) \left( t,\eta,\tau \right) \sqrt {2}\sin \left( 2\,
t \right) -$$$$-2\,aD_{{2}} \left( {\it \_F1} \right) \left( t,\eta,\tau
\right) D_{{3}} \left( {\it \_F1} \right) \left( t,\eta,\tau
\right) \cos \left( 2\,t \right) -2\,aD_{{2}} \left( {\it \_F1}
\right) \left( t,\eta,\tau \right) D_{{3}} \left( {\it \_F1}
\right) \left( t,\eta,\tau \right) -$$$$-aD_{{3}} \left( {\it \_F1}
\right) \left( t,\eta,\tau \right) \sqrt {2}\sin \left( 2\,t
\right) +2=0.
$$
Particular solution of this equation looks as
$$
{\it \_F1} \left( t,\eta,\tau \right) = \left( 1+{\it \_c}_{{2}}\eta+{
\it \_c}_{{3}}\tau \right) H \left( t \right)
$$
where
$$
H(t)={\frac {a\sqrt {2}\cos \left( 2\,t \right) -a\sqrt {2}+\sqrt {2\,{a}^{
2} \left( \cos \left( 2\,t \right) \right) ^{2}-2\,{a}^{2}+2\,{a}^{2}
\left( \sin \left( 2\,t \right) \right) ^{2}-4\,\cos \left( 2\,t
\right) +4}}{ \left( {\it \_c}_{{3}}+2\,a{\it \_c}_{{2}} \right) \sin
\left( 2\,t \right) }}.
$$
In result we find expression on the function $v(x,t,z,\tau)$
and which allow us to get solution of the system (\ref{red60}) in form
$$
1/2\,{\it \_c}_{{3}}y\sin \left( 3\,r \left(\vec x,\tau \right)
\right) +1/2\,y\sin \left( r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) {\it
\_c}_{{3}}+ya{\it \_c}_{{2}}\sin \left( 3\,r \left(\vec x,\tau
\right) \right) +y\sin \left( r \left( \vec x,\tau\right) \right) a
{\it \_c}_{{2}}+$$$$+1/2\,\sqrt {2}\cos \left( r \left(\vec x,\tau \right)
\right) x{\it \_c}_{{3}}-1/2\,\sqrt {2}x{\it \_c}_{{3}}\cos \left( 3
\,r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) +1/2\,\cos \left( r \left(\vec x,\tau \right) \right) {\it \_c}_{{2}}xa\sqrt {2}-$$$$-1/2\,\sqrt {2}xa{
\it \_c}_{{2}}\cos \left( 3\,r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) +1/2
\,\cos \left( r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) a\sqrt {2}-1/2\,a
\sqrt {2}\cos \left( 3\,r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) -\sqrt {2
}\sin \left( 2\,r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) +$$$$+1/2\,\cos
\left( r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) {\it \_c}_{{2}}za\sqrt {2
}-1/2\,{\it \_c}_{{2}}za\sqrt {2}\cos \left( 3\,r \left( \vec x,\tau
\right) \right) -{\it \_c}_{{2}}z\sqrt {2}\sin \left( 2\,r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) +$$$$+{\it \_c}_{{2}}x\sqrt {2}\sin \left( 2\,r
\left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right) +1/2\,\cos \left( r \left(\vec x,\tau \right) \right) {\it \_c}_{{3}}\tau\,a\sqrt {2}-1/2\,{\it \_c}_{
{3}}\tau\,a\sqrt {2}\cos \left( 3\,r \left(\vec x,\tau \right)
\right) -$$$$-{\it \_c}_{{3}}\tau\,\sqrt {2}\sin \left( 2\,r \left( \vec x,\tau \right) \right).
$$
The properties of such type solutions of the system (\ref{red5}) and corresponding solutions
of the Euler equations (\ref{dr:eq2}) will be discussed in a future publications .
\section{Two component reduction of the system (\ref{reduc1})}
\begin{pr}
At the condition
\begin{equation} \label{cont}
W(\vec x,\tau)=\sqrt {-\left (V(\vec x,\tau)\right )^{2}-\left
(U(\vec x, \tau)\right )^{2}+{\it \_C1}},
\end{equation}
the system of equations (\ref{reduc1}) is reduced to the system
\begin{equation} \label{red9}
{\frac {\partial
}{\partial \tau}}U(\vec x,\tau)+V(\vec x,\tau){\frac {
\partial }{\partial y}}U(\vec x,\tau)+\sqrt {-\left (V(\vec x,\tau)
\right )^{2}-\left (U(\vec x,\tau)\right )^{2}+{\it \_C1}}{\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}U(\vec x,\tau)+$$$$+U(\vec x,\tau){\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}U(\vec x,\tau)=0,
$$
$$
{\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}V(\vec x,\tau)+\sqrt {-\left
(V(\vec x,\tau)\right )^{2}-\left (U(\vec x,\tau)\right )^{2}+{\it
\_C1}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}V(\vec x,\tau)+U(\vec
x,\tau){\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}V(\vec x,\tau)+$$$$+V(\vec x,\tau){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}
V(\vec x,\tau) =0,
\end{equation}
and the continuity equation
$$
{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}U(\vec x,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}V(\vec x,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial
z}}W(\vec x,\tau)=0
$$
takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{red10}
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}U(\vec x,\tau)\right )\sqrt
{- \left (V(\vec x,\tau)\right )^{2}-\left (U(\vec x,\tau)\right
)^{2}+{ \it \_C1}}+\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}V(\vec
x,\tau)\right ) \sqrt {-\left (V(\vec x,\tau)\right )^{2}-\left
(U(\vec x,\tau)\right )^ {2}+{\it \_C1}}-$$$$-V(\vec x,\tau){\frac
{\partial }{\partial z}}V(\vec x,\tau)-U(\vec x,\tau){\frac
{\partial }{\partial z}}U(\vec x,\tau)=0.
\end{equation}
\end{pr}
From the equation (\ref{red10}) we get the expression
$$
\sqrt {-\left (V(\vec x,\tau)\right )^{2}-\left (U(\vec
x,\tau)\right )^ {2}+{\it \_C1}}={\frac {V(\vec x,\tau){\frac
{\partial }{\partial z}}V(\vec x,\tau)+U(\vec x,\tau){\frac
{\partial }{\partial z}}U(\vec x,\tau)} {{\frac {\partial
}{\partial x}}U(\vec x,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}V(\vec x,\tau)}}
$$
and after substitution it into the equations (\ref{red9}) we find
the system
\begin{equation} \label{red11}
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}V(\vec x,\tau)\right
){\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}U(\vec x,\tau)+\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial \tau}}V(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}V(\vec x,\tau)+
V(\vec x,\tau)\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}V(\vec x,
\tau)\right )^{2}+$$$$+\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
z}}V(\vec x,\tau) \right )U(\vec x,\tau){\frac {\partial
}{\partial z}}U(\vec x,\tau)+U(\vec x,\tau)\left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial x}}V(\vec x,\tau)\right ){ \frac {\partial }{\partial
x}}U(\vec x,\tau)+$$$$+U(\vec x,\tau)\left ({ \frac {\partial
}{\partial x}}V(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}V(\vec x,\tau)+V(\vec x,\tau)\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}V(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}U(\vec x,\tau)+
$$
$$+V(\vec x,\tau)\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}V(\vec x, \tau)\right )^{2}=0 ,$$
$$
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}U(\vec x,\tau)\right
){\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}U(\vec x,\tau)+\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial \tau}}U(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}V(\vec x,\tau)+$$
$$+V(\vec x,\tau)\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}U(\vec x, \tau)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}U(\vec
x,\tau)+V(\vec x,\tau )\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}U(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\frac {
\partial }{\partial y}}V(\vec x,\tau)+$$$$+\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}U(\vec x,\tau)\right )V(\vec x,\tau){\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}V(\vec x,\tau)+U(\vec x,\tau)\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}U(\vec x,\tau)\right )^{2}+$$$$+U(\vec x,\tau)\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}U(\vec x,\tau)\right )^{2}+U(\vec x,\tau)\left ({
\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}U(\vec x,\tau)\right ){\frac
{\partial }{\partial y}}V(\vec x,\tau)=0.
\end{equation}
\subsection{2+1-solutions}
Here are some examples of solutions for the system of equations (\ref{red9}) and
(\ref{red10}).
In the case
$$
U(x,y,z,\tau)={\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}S(x,y,\tau),~
V(x,y,z,\tau)=-{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}S(x,y,\tau)
$$
we get
$$
W(\vec x,\tau)=\sqrt {-\left (U(x,y,\tau)\right )^{2}-\left (V(x,y,
\tau)\right )^{2}+{\it \_C1}}
$$
and from the the system (\ref{red11}) is followed the system of
equations on the function $S(x,y,\tau)$
\begin{equation} \label{red12}
-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial \tau\partial x}}S(x,y,\tau)-\left
({ \frac {\partial }{\partial y}}S(x,y,\tau)\right ){\frac
{\partial ^{2} }{\partial {x}^{2}}}S(x,y,\tau)+\left ({\frac
{\partial }{\partial x}} S(x,y,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}S(x,y, \tau)=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{red13} {\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial \tau\partial y}}S(x,y,\tau)-\left ({ \frac
{\partial }{\partial x}}S(x,y,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}
}{\partial {y}^{2}}}S(x,y,\tau)+\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}} S(x,y,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
y}}S(x,y, \tau)-0,$$$$ -2\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}S(x,y,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{y}^{2}}}S(x,y,\tau)+2\,\left ({ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial y}}S(x,y,\tau)\right )^{2}=0
\end{equation}
which is compatible at the condition
\begin{equation} \label{red14}
-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}S(x,y,\tau)\right
){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}S(x,y,\tau)+\left
({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}S(x,y,\tau)\right )^{2}=0.
\end{equation}
Solutions of the system (\ref{red12}-\ref{red14}) may be derived by the method of the $(u,v)$-transformation.
To take simplest example.
From equation (\ref{red14}) followed that function
$S(x,y,\tau)$ satisfies the equation
$$
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}S(x,y,\tau)\right ){\frac {
\partial }{\partial y}}S(x,y,\tau)-1=0
$$
After the $(u,v)$-transformation one get the relation
$$
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}u(x,t,\tau)\right )\left ({
\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}u(x,t,\tau)\right ){\frac {\partial
}{
\partial t}}v(x,t,\tau)-\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}v(x,t,
\tau)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}u(x,t,\tau)\right ) ^{2}-\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}v(x,t,\tau)\right )^{2}=0
$$
which after substitutions
\begin{equation} \label{red15}
u(x,t,\tau)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t,\tau)-\omega(x, t,\tau),~ v(x,t,\tau)={\frac
{\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,\tau)
\end{equation}
takes form of the first order p.d.e.
$$
t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
x}}\omega(x,t,\tau)+1=0
$$
having general solution
$$
\omega(x,t,\tau)=-{\frac {x}{t}}+{\it \_F1}(t,\tau).
$$
After the $(u,v)$-transformation with conditions (\ref{red15}) from equations
(\ref{red12}-\ref{red13})) we derive
$$
{\it \_F1}(t,\tau)={\it \_F3}(t)+{\it \_F2}(\tau)-2\,\ln (t)\tau,
$$
and so with help of the function
$$
\omega(x,t,\tau)=-{\frac
{x}{t}}+{\it \_F3}(t)+{\it \_F2}(\tau)-2\, \ln (t)\tau.
$$
where ${\it \_F3}(t)$ and ${\it \_F2}(\tau)$ are arbitrary may be
constructed solutions of the full system
(\ref{red12}-\ref{red14}).
As example in the case
$$
{\it \_F3}(t)=0,~ {\it \_F2}(\tau)=0
$$
elimination of parameter $t$ from the system
$$
S(x,y,\tau)t+2\,t\tau-2\,x-2\,\ln (t)\tau\,t=0,~
y{t}^{2}+2\,t\tau-x=0
$$
gives the function
$$
S(x,y,\tau)=$$$$2\,\left({\tau}^{2}-\tau\,\sqrt
{{\tau}^{2}+yx}+yx-\ln ({ \frac {-\tau+\sqrt
{{\tau}^{2}+yx}}{y}}){\tau}^{2}+\ln ({\frac {-\tau+ \sqrt
{{\tau}^{2}+yx}}{y}})\tau\,\sqrt {{\tau}^{2}+yx}\right)$$
$$\times\left (- \tau+\sqrt {{\tau}^{2}+yx}\right )^{-1}
$$
which is solution of the system (\ref{red12}-\ref{red14}).
Choice of the functions ${\it \_F3}(t)$ and ${\it
\_F2}(\tau)$ in more general form lead to more complicated
expressions to the function $S(x,y,\tau)$.
With help of the function $S(x,y,\tau)$ may be derived solutions of the equation (\ref{reduc0}) and
the Euler equations (\ref{dr:eq2}).
\subsection{3+1-solutions}
\section{Tne Navier-Stokes equations}
\begin{pr}
Conditions of compatibility of the NS-equations
\begin{equation}\label{nav0}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \vec V+\left(\vec V\cdot
\nabla\right)\vec V -\mu \Delta \vec V-\nabla \vec P=0,
$$
$$
\left(\vec \nabla \cdot \vec V\right)=0,
\end{equation}
where $\vec V=[U(\vec x,\tau), V(\vec x,\tau),W(\vec x,\tau)]$ are
the components of velocity of liquid,
are valid if the system of equations
\begin{equation}\label{nav1}
{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}U \left(\vec x,t \right) +V
\left(\vec x,t \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}U \left(
\vec x,t \right) +W
\left( \vec x,t \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}U \left(\vec x,t \right) -V \left( \vec x,t \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}V
\left( \vec x,t \right) -W \left( \vec x,t \right) {\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}W \left(\vec x,t \right)-$$$$-\mu \Delta U \left(
\vec x,t \right)=0,
$$
$${\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}V \left( \vec x,t \right) +W \left(\vec x,t \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}V \left( \vec x,t \right) +U
\left( \vec x,t \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}V \left(\vec x,t \right) -W \left(\vec x,t \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}W
\left(\vec x,t \right) -U \left( \vec x,t \right) {\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}U \left(\vec x,t \right)-$$$$-\mu \Delta V \left(
\vec x,t \right)=0,
$$
$$
{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}W \left(\vec x,t \right) +U \left(
\vec x,t \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}W \left( \vec x,t
\right) +V
\left( \vec x,t \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}W \left(\vec x,t \right) -U \left( \vec x,t \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}U
\left(\vec x,t \right) -V \left(\vec x,t \right) {\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}V \left(\vec x,t \right)-$$$$-\mu \Delta W \left(
\vec x,t \right)=0
\end{equation}
holds.
It can be presented in the form
$$
{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}A(x,y,z,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}B(x,y,z,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial
z}}C(x,y,z,\tau)=0,$$$$ {\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}E(x,y,z,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}F(x,y,z,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial
x}}B(x,y,z,\tau)=0 ,$$$$ {\frac {\partial }{\partial
z}}H(x,y,z,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}C(x,y,z,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}F(x,y,z,\tau)
=0,
$$
where
$$
A(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau}L(\vec
x,\tau)-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial M(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial
y}\right)^2-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial N(\vec
x,\tau)}{\partial z}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial
L(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial x}\right)^2-\mu \Delta L(\vec x,\tau),
$$
$$
E(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau}M(\vec
x,\tau)-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial N(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial
z}\right)^2-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial L(\vec
x,\tau)}{\partial x}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial
M(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial y}\right)^2-\mu \Delta M(\vec x,\tau),
$$
$$
H(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau}N(\vec
x,\tau)-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial L(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial
x}\right)^2-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial M(\vec
x,\tau)}{\partial y}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial
N(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial z}\right)^2-\mu \Delta N(\vec x,\tau),
$$
$$
B(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial M(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial y}
\frac{\partial L(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial x},~C(\vec
x,\tau)=\frac{\partial N(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial z} \frac{\partial
L(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial x},~F(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial N(\vec
x,\tau)} {\partial z} \frac{\partial M(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial y},
$$
where
$$
U(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial L(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial x},
~V(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial M(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial y},~W(\vec
x,\tau)=\frac{\partial N(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial z}.
$$
\end{pr}
To cite some examples of solutions of the system (\ref{nav1}).
In the case $V(x,y,z,\tau)=V(\vec
x,\tau)=0$ the system takes the form
\begin{equation}
{\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}U(\vec x,\tau)+W(\vec
x,\tau){\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}U(\vec
x,\tau)-W(\vec x,\tau){\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}W(\vec
x,\tau)-$$$$-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2} }}U(\vec
x,\tau)-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}U(\vec
x,\tau)-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}U(\vec
x,\tau)=0,$$$$ -W(\vec x,\tau){\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}W(\vec x,\tau)-U(\vec x, \tau){\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}U(\vec x,\tau)=0,$$$$ {\frac {\partial }{\partial \tau}}W(\vec
x,\tau)+U(\vec x,\tau){\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}W(\vec
x,\tau)-U(\vec x,\tau){\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}U(\vec
x,\tau)-$$$$-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2} }}W(\vec
x,\tau)-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}W(\vec x,
\tau)-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}W(\vec
x,\tau)=0.
\end{equation}
From the second equation we find the function
$$
U(x,y,z,\tau)=\sqrt {-\left (W(x,y,z,\tau)\right )^{2}+{\it \_F1}(x,z,
\tau)}
$$
and in the case ${\it \_F1}(x,z,\tau)={e^{-2\,\mu\,\tau}},~
W(x,y,z,\tau)={e^{-\mu\,\tau}}\rho(x,y,z) $
from the first and the
third equations is follows that function $\rho(x,y,z)$ satisfies
the equation
$$
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\rho(x,y,z)\right
)^{2}+\left ( \rho(x,y,z)\right )^{2}+\left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial y}}\rho(x,y ,z)\right )^{2}+\left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial z}}\rho(x,y,z) \right )^{2}-1=0.
$$
This equation after the substitution
$$
\rho(x,y,z)=\sin(\theta(x,y,z))
$$
is reduced to the eikonal equation with respect the function
$\theta(x,y,z)$ \begin{equation}\label{nav3}
\left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial x}}\theta(x,y,z)\right )^{2}-1+ \left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial y}}\theta(x,y,z)\right )^{2}+\left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial z}}\theta(x,y,z)\right )^{2}=0.
\end{equation}
With help of solutions of the equation (\ref{nav3}) may be constructed
solutions of the system (\ref{nav1}) and then solutions of full system of NS-equations (\ref{nav0}).
Let us consider an examples of solutions of the equation
(\ref{nav3}).
Using the $(u,v)$-transformation we get from (\ref{nav3}) the relation
$$
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}u(x,t,z)\right )^{2}\left ({
\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}v(x,t,z)\right )^{2}-2\,\left
({\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}u(x,t,z)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial t}}v(x,t,z)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}v(x,
t,z)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}u(x,t,z)+$$$$+\left
({\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}v(x,t,z)\right )^{2}\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial t}}u(x,t,z)\right )^{2}+\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial t}
}u(x,t,z)\right )^{2}+\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
z}}u(x,t,z) \right )^{2}\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}v(x,t,z)\right )^{2} -$$$$-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial z}}u(x,t,z)\right )\left ({ \frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}v(x,t,z)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
z}}v(x,t,z)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}u(x,t,z)+ \left
({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}v(x,t,z)\right )^{2}\left ({ \frac
{\partial }{\partial t}}u(x,t,z)\right )^{2}-$$$$-\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial t}}v(x,t,z)\right )^{2}=0.
$$
Then after the substitution
$$
u(x,t,z)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t,z)-\omega(x,t,z),~ v(x,t,z)={\frac {\partial
}{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z)
$$
this relation is reduced to the equation
$$
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\omega(x,t,z)\right
)^{2}+{t}^{2 }+\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
z}}\omega(x,t,z)\right )^{2}-1=0
$$
or
\begin{equation}\label{nav4}
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\theta(x,t,z)\right )^{2}-1+
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}\theta(x,t,z)\right )^{2}=0
\end{equation}
where
$$
\omega(x,t,z)=\theta(x,t,z)\sqrt {1-{t}^{2}}.
$$
To solving the equation (\ref{nav4}) we rewrite it in the form
\begin{equation}\label{nav5}
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
x}}h(x,\tau,y)\right )^{2}-1+\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}h(x,\tau,y)\right )^{2}=0
\end{equation}
where we use the notation
$$
\theta(x,t,z)=h(x,\tau,y).
$$
After applying the $(w,v)$-transformation to the equation
(\ref{nav5}) one get the relation between the function $w(x,\tau,t)$ and
$v(x,\tau,t)$ from which after substitution
$$
w(x,\tau,t)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\rho(x,\tau,t)-\rho(x,\tau ,t),~ v(x,\tau,t)={\frac {\partial
}{\partial t}}\rho(x,\tau,t)
$$
the first order p.d.e.
$$
\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\rho(x,\tau,t)\right
)^{2}-1+{t} ^{2}=0,$$$$
$$
with solution
\begin{equation}\label{nav7}
\rho(x,\tau,t)=\sqrt {-\left (t-1\right )\left (t+1\right
)}x+{\it \_F1}(\tau,t)
\end{equation}
depending from arbitrary function ${\it \_F1}( \tau,t)$ is
followed.
So all solutions of the equation (\ref{nav3})
are determined by the choice of the function ${\it \_F1}( \tau,t)$ from (\ref{nav7}).
To cite the example.
In the case ${\it \_F1}(\tau,t)=t\tau$
we find the function $h(x,\tau,y)$ is obtained by the way of elimination of parameter $t$ from the
relations
$$
h(x,\tau,y)\sqrt {-\left (t-1\right )\left (t+1\right )}+x
y\sqrt {-\left (t-1\right )=0,~\left (t+1\right )}+xt-\tau\,\sqrt
{-\left (t-1\right )\left (t+1\right )}=0.
$$
In result we get the function
$$
h(x,\tau,y)=-\sqrt {{y}^{2}-2\,y\tau+{\tau}^{2}+{x}^{2}}
$$
and
$$
\theta(x,t,z)=-\sqrt {{z}^{2}-2\,zt+{t}^{2}+{x}^{2}}.
$$
Now elimination of the parameter $t$ from the relations
$$
\theta(x,y,z)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t,z)-\omega(x,t,z),~ y-{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t,z)=0
$$
where
$$
\omega(x,t,z)=\theta(x,t,z)\sqrt {1-{t}^{2}}
$$
lead to nontrivial solution $\theta(x,y,z)$ of the eikonal
equation (\ref{nav3}) which is defined from condition
\begin{equation}\label{nav8}
B_6\theta^{6}+ B_5\theta^{5}+B_4\theta^{4}+B_3\theta^{3}+
B_2\theta^{2}+B_1\theta+ B_0 =0,
\end{equation}
where
$$
B_6=-16,~B_5= 48\,yz,~B_4=
-{z}^{4}-50\,{z}^{2}{y}^{2}+32\,{x}^{2}-{y}^{4}-20\,{x}^{2}{y}^{2}+8-
20\,{x}^{2}{z}^{2}+20\,{y}^{2}+8\,{x}^{4}+20\,{z}^{2},$$$$
B_3=2\,yz\left
(10\,{z}^{2}{y}^{2}+10\,{x}^{4}-29\,{z}^{2}+11\,{x}^{2}{z}^
{2}+{z}^{4}+11\,{x}^{2}{y}^{2}+{y}^{4}-29\,{y}^{2}-26-32\,{x}^{2}
\right ),$$
$$
B_2=-1-{z}^{6}{x}^{2}-13\,{x}^{2}{z}^{2}-{x}^{8}+59\,{z}^{4}{y}^{2}+26\,{z
}^{4}{x}^{2}-3\,{z}^{4}-5\,{z}^{4}{y}^{2}{x}^{2}+13\,{x}^{4}{z}^{2}+13
\,{x}^{4}{y}^{2}+102\,{z}^{2}{y}^{2}{x}^{2}-$$$$-3\,{x}^{4}{y}^{4}-{y}^{2}{
z}^{6}-22\,{x}^{4}+{z}^{6}-3\,{x}^{6}{y}^{2}-12\,{x}^{6}-3\,{x}^{4}{z}
^{4}-7\,{x}^{4}{y}^{2}{z}^{2}+3\,{y}^{2}-3\,{x}^{6}{z}^{2}-12\,{x}^{2}
+$$$$+101\,{z}^{2}{y}^{2}-13\,{x}^{2}{y}^{2}+59\,{z}^{2}{y}^{4}-3\,{y}^{4}-
2\,{z}^{4}{y}^{4}+26\,{x}^{2}{y}^{4}-{z}^{2}{y}^{6}-{x}^{2}{y}^{6}-5\,
{z}^{2}{y}^{4}{x}^{2}+{y}^{6}+3\,{z}^{2}$$
$$
\frac{B_1}{-2\,yz}=
(-3\,{z}^{4}+13\,{x}^{2}{y}^{4}+35\,{z}^{2}{y}^{2}{x}^{2}-
1+12\,{z}^{2}{y}^{4}+39\,{z}^{2}{y}^{2}+{z}^{6}+3\,{z}^{2}+13\,{z}^{4}
{x}^{2}+3\,{y}^{2}+$$$$+23\,{x}^{4}{y}^{2}+23\,{x}^{4}{z}^{2}+10\,{x}^{2}{y
}^{2}-23\,{x}^{2}-3\,{y}^{4}+10\,{x}^{2}{z}^{2}+{y}^{6}+11\,{x}^{6}+12
\,{z}^{4}{y}^{2}-11\,{x}^{4},
$$
$$
B_0=
{x}^{10}+6\,{x}^{6}{z}^{4}-4\,{z}^{6}{x}^{2}-4\,{x}^{2}{z}^{2}+{y}^{8}
{z}^{2}+4\,{x}^{8}{y}^{2}+13\,{x}^{6}{y}^{2}{z}^{2}+4\,{x}^{8}+3\,{z}^
{4}{y}^{2}+$$$$+6\,{z}^{4}{x}^{2}+4\,{x}^{4}{y}^{6}+18\,{z}^{4}{y}^{2}{x}^{
2}+{z}^{8}{y}^{2}-4\,{x}^{4}{z}^{2}-4\,{x}^{4}{y}^{2}-21\,{z}^{2}{y}^{
2}{x}^{2}-4\,{x}^{4}{y}^{4}-3\,{y}^{2}{z}^{6}+$$$$+6\,{x}^{6}{y}^{4}+4\,{x}
^{4}+4\,{x}^{6}{y}^{2}+6\,{x}^{6}+{z}^{8}{x}^{2}+7\,{z}^{6}{y}^{2}{x}^
{2}+4\,{x}^{8}{z}^{2}-4\,{x}^{4}{z}^{4}+7\,{x}^{2}{y}^{6}{z}^{2}+$$$$+25\,{
x}^{4}{y}^{2}{z}^{2}+15\,{x}^{4}{y}^{2}{z}^{4}+4\,{x}^{4}{z}^{6}+15\,{
x}^{4}{y}^{4}{z}^{2}+12\,{z}^{4}{y}^{4}{x}^{2}+4\,{x}^{6}{z}^{2}+{x}^{
2}-{z}^{2}{y}^{2}-$$$$-4\,{x}^{2}{y}^{2}+3\,{z}^{2}{y}^{4}+21\,{z}^{4}{y}^{
4}+6\,{x}^{2}{y}^{4}-3\,{z}^{2}{y}^{6}+3\,{z}^{6}{y}^{4}+3\,{z}^{4}{y}
^{6}-4\,{x}^{2}{y}^{6}+18\,{z}^{2}{y}^{4}{x}^{2}+{x}^{2}{y}^{8}.
$$
In result the components of velocity is found to be expressed
trough the solutions of algebraic equation (\ref{nav8})
By analogy may be derived the components of velocity correspondent to a more complicated
functions ${\it \_F1}( \tau,t)$ from (\ref{nav7}).
\section{Geometrical properties}
N-S-Equations may be presented in the form
\begin{equation} \label{metr1}
{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}A(t,x,y,z,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}B(t,x,y,z,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial
z}}E(t,x,y,z,\tau)=0,$$$$ {\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}C(t,x,y,z,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}H(t,x,y,z,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial
x}}B(t,x,y,z,\tau)=0 ,$$$$ {\frac {\partial }{\partial
z}}S(t,x,y,z,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}E(x,y,z,\tau)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}H(x,y,z,\tau) =0,
\end{equation}
where
$$
A(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau}L(\vec
x,\tau)-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial M(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial
y}\right)^2-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial N(\vec
x,\tau)}{\partial z}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial
L(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial x}\right)^2-\mu \Delta L(\vec x,\tau),
$$
$$
C(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau}M(\vec
x,\tau)-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial N(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial
z}\right)^2-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial L(\vec
x,\tau)}{\partial x}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial
M(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial y}\right)^2-\mu \Delta M(\vec x,\tau),
$$
$$
S(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau}N(\vec
x,\tau)-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial L(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial
x}\right)^2-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial M(\vec
x,\tau)}{\partial y}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial
N(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial z}\right)^2-\mu \Delta N(\vec x,\tau),
$$
$$
B(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial M(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial y}
\frac{\partial L(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial x},~E(\vec
x,\tau)=\frac{\partial N(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial z} \frac{\partial
L(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial x},~H(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial N(\vec
x,\tau)} {\partial z} \frac{\partial M(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial y},
$$
where
$$
U(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial L(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial x},
~V(\vec x,\tau)=\frac{\partial M(\vec x,\tau)}{\partial y},~W(\vec
x,\tau)=\frac{\partial N(\vec x,\tau)} {\partial z}
$$
and
$$ \Delta=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}+
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}
$$.
\begin{pr}
The Ricci-tensor $R_{ij}$ of $6D$-space $^6M$ in local coordinates $(t,v,w,x,y,z)$
equipped with Riemann metrics
$${{\it ds}}^{2}=A(t,x,y,z){{\it dt}}^{2}+2\,B(t,x,y,z){\it dt}\,{\it dv
}+2\,E(t,x,y,z){\it dt}\,{\it dw}+{\it dt}\,{\it
dx}+C(t,x,y,z){{\it dv}}^{2}+$$$$+2\,H(t,x,y,z){\it dv}\,{\it
dw}+{\it dv}\,{\it dy}+S(t,x,y,z) {{\it dw}}^{2}+{\it dw}\,{\it
dz}
$$
has the components
$$
R_{tt}=-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}A(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}B(t,\vec x)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}A(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}E(t,\vec x
)+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}A(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {
\partial }{\partial y}}B(t,\vec x)+$$$$+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}A(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}C(t,\vec x
)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}B(t,\vec x)\right
)^{2}+2\, \left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}A(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {
\partial }{\partial y}}H(t,\vec x)-$$$$-4\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}B(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}E(t,\vec x
)+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}A(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}E(t,\vec x)+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}A(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}H(t,\vec x
)+$$$$+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}A(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}S(t,\vec x)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}E(t,\vec x)\right )^{2}+2\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
t\partial z}}E(t,\vec x)+2\,C(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial { y}^{2}}}A(t,\vec x)+$$$$+4\,H(t,\vec x){\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial y
\partial z}}A(t,\vec x)+2\,S(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z
}^{2}}}A(t,\vec x)+2\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial
y}}B(t,\vec x)+2\,A(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}A(t,\vec x )+$$$$+4\,B(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}A(t,\vec x) +4\,E(t,\vec x){\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}A(t,\vec x).
$$
$$
R_{tv}=-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}B(t,\vec
x)+2\,\left ({ \frac {\partial }{\partial y}}B(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}B(t,\vec
x)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}A(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}C(t,\vec x)-$$$$-2\,\left ({ \frac
{\partial }{\partial z}}A(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}H(t,\vec
x)+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}B(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}E(t,\vec x)+2\,\left ({ \frac
{\partial }{\partial y}}B(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}H(t,\vec
x)-$$$$-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}E(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}C(t,\vec x)+2\,\left ({ \frac
{\partial }{\partial z}}B(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}S(t,\vec
x)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}E(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}H(t,\vec x)+$$$$+2\,A(t,\vec x){
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}B(t,\vec x)+4\,B(t,\vec
x){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}B(t,\vec
x)+4\,E(t,\vec x){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
z}}B(t,\vec x)+{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial y}}C(t,\vec
x)+$$$$+2\,C(t,\vec x){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}B(t,\vec
x)+4\,H(t,\vec x){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}B(t,\vec
x)+{\frac {\partial ^{2}} {\partial t\partial z}}H(t,\vec
x)+2\,S(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {z}^{2}}}B(t,\vec
x)
$$
$$
R_{tw}=-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}E(t,\vec
x)-2\,\left ({ \frac {\partial }{\partial y}}A(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}H(t,\vec
x)+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}E(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}E(t,\vec x)-$$$$-2\,\left ({ \frac
{\partial }{\partial z}}A(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}S(t,\vec
x)+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}E(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}B(t,\vec x)+2\,\left ({ \frac
{\partial }{\partial y}}E(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}C(t,\vec
x)-$$$$-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}B(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}H(t,\vec x)+2\,\left ({ \frac
{\partial }{\partial z}}E(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}H(t,\vec
x)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}B(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}S(t,\vec x)+$$$$+2\,A(t,\vec x){
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}E(t,\vec x)+4\,B(t,\vec
x){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}E(t,\vec
x)+4\,E(t,\vec x){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
z}}E(t,\vec x)+{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial y}}H(t,\vec
x)+$$$$+2\,C(t,\vec x){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}E(t,\vec
x)+4\,H(t,\vec x){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}E(t,\vec
x)+{\frac {\partial ^{2}} {\partial t\partial z}}S(t,\vec
x)+2\,S(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {z}^{2}}}E(t,\vec
x).
$$
$$
R_{vv}=-2\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}C(t,\vec
x)+2\,\left ( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}C(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}A(t,\vec
x)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}B(t,\vec x)\right
)^{2}+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}C(t,\vec x) \right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}B(t,\vec x)+$$$$+2\,\left ({\frac
{
\partial }{\partial z}}C(t,\vec
x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial x }}E(t,\vec x)-4\,\left
({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}B(t,\vec x) \right ){\frac
{\partial }{\partial x}}H(t,\vec x)+2\,\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}C(t,\vec
x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial z }}E(t,\vec
x)+$$$$+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}C(t,\vec x)
\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}H(t,\vec x)+2\,\left
({\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}C(t,\vec
x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial z }}S(t,\vec x)-2\,\left
({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}H(t,\vec x) \right
)^{2}+$$$$+2\,A(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}C(t,\vec x)+4\,B(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial y}}C(t,\vec x)+4\,E(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}C(t,\vec x)+2\,C(t,\vec x){\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}C(t,\vec x) +$$$$+4\,H(t,\vec
x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}C(t,\vec x)-
2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}B(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac
{
\partial }{\partial x}}C(t,\vec
x)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}C(t,\vec
x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}H(t,\vec
x)+$$$$+2\,S(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{z}^{2}}}C(t,\vec x).
$$
$$
R_{vw}=-2\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}H(t,\vec
x)+2\,\left ( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}H(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}A(t,\vec
x)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}B(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}E(t,\vec x)+$$$$+2\,\left ({ \frac
{\partial }{\partial y}}H(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}B(t,\vec
x)+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}H(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}E(t,\vec x)-2\,\left ({ \frac
{\partial }{\partial z}}B(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}S(t,\vec
x)-$$$$-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}C(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}E(t,\vec x)+2\,\left ({ \frac
{\partial }{\partial z}}H(t,\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}H(t,\vec
x)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}C(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}S(t,\vec x)+$$$$+2\,A(t,\vec x){
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}H(t,\vec x)+4\,B(t,\vec
x){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}H(t,\vec
x)+4\,E(t,\vec x){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
z}}H(t,\vec x)+2\,C(t,\vec x){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{y}^{2}}}H(t,\vec x)+$$$$+4\,H(t,\vec x){ \frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}H(t,\vec x)+2\,S(t,\vec x){ \frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}H(t,\vec x)
$$
$$
R_{ww}=-2\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}S(t,\vec
x)+2\,\left ( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}S(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}A(t,\vec
x)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}E(t,\vec x)\right
)^{2}+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}S(t,\vec x) \right
){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}B(t,\vec x)-$$$$-4\,\left ({\frac
{
\partial }{\partial y}}E(t,\vec
x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial x }}H(t,\vec x)+2\,\left
({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}S(t,\vec x) \right ){\frac
{\partial }{\partial x}}E(t,\vec x)+2\,\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}S(t,\vec
x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial y }}B(t,\vec
x)+$$$$+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}S(t,\vec x)
\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}C(t,x,y,z)-2\,\left ({\frac
{
\partial }{\partial y}}H(t,\vec
x)\right )^{2}+2\,\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}S(t,\vec
x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial y }}H(t,\vec x)+2\,A(t,\vec
x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}S(t,\vec
x)+$$$$+4\,B(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
y}}S(t,\vec x)+4\,E(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial z}}S(t,\vec x)+2\,C(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}S(t,\vec x) +4\,H(t,\vec x){\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}S(t,\vec x)+$$$$+
2\,S(t,\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}S(t,\vec
x)-2\, \left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}E(t,\vec x)\right
){\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}S(t,\vec
x)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial z}}H(t,\vec
x)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}S(t,\vec x ).
$$
$$
R_{tx}=R_{ty}=R_{tz}={\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}A(t,\vec x)+{\frac {\partial ^ {2}}{\partial x\partial
y}}B(t,\vec x)+{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
z}}E(t,\vec x),
$$
$$
R_{vx}=R_{vy}=R_{vz}={\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}B(t,\vec x)+{\frac {\partial ^ {2}}{\partial x\partial
y}}C(t,\vec x)+{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
z}}H(t,\vec x),
$$
$$
R_{wx}:=R_{wy}=R_{wz}={\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}E(t,\vec x)+{\frac {\partial ^ {2}}{\partial x\partial
y}}H(t,\vec x)+{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
z}}S(t,\vec x).
$$
\end{pr}
Remark that last nine components of the Ricci-tensor of the metrics (\ref{metr1}) equal to zero on solutions
of the NS-equations together with condition of incompressibility.
\section{Stationary solutions}
In stationary case
$$
U(x,y,z,\tau)=Q(\vec x),~ W(x,y,z,\tau)=S(\vec x),~
V(x,y,z,\tau)=R(\vec x)
$$
the reduction of $NS$ -system of equations (\ref{reduc1}) with
condition of incompressibility takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{stat1}
R(\vec x){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}Q(\vec x)+S(\vec x){\frac
{
\partial }{\partial z}}Q(\vec x)-R(\vec x){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}
}R(\vec x)-S(\vec x){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}S(\vec
x)-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}Q(\vec x)-\mu
\Delta Q(\vec x) =0,
$$
$$
S(\vec x){\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}R(\vec x)+Q(\vec x){\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}R(\vec x)-S(\vec x){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}
}S(\vec x)-Q(\vec x){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}Q(\vec x)-\mu
\Delta R(\vec x)=0,
$$
$$
Q(\vec x){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}S(\vec x)+R(\vec x){\frac
{
\partial }{\partial y}}S(\vec x)-Q(\vec x){\frac {\partial }{\partial z}
}Q(\vec x)-R(\vec x){\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}R(\vec x)-\mu
\Delta S(\vec x)=0,
$$
$$
{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}Q(\vec x)+{\frac {\partial
}{\partial y} }R(\vec x)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}S(\vec
x)=0.
\end{equation}
After the substitution
$$
{\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}W(x,y,z,\tau)=-{\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}U(x,y,z,\tau)-{\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}V(x,y,z,\tau),$$$$ R(x,y,z)={\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}f(x,y,z)+{\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}A(x,y,z),~$$$$
Q(x,y,z)={\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}f(x,y,z),~ S(x,y,z)={\frac
{\partial }{\partial z}}f(x,y,z)
$$
we find the system of equations
$$
-\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}f(x,y,z)\right ){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}A(x,y,z)-\left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial y}}A(x,y,z)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x
\partial y}}A(x,y,z)-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{3}}}f(x
,y,z)-$$$$-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial
x\partial y}}f(x, y,z)-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial
z\partial x\partial z}}f(x,y ,z) =0,$$$$\left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial z}}f(x,y,z)\right ){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}A(x,y,z)+\left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial x}}f(x,y,z)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x
\partial y}}A(x,y,z)-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{2}
\partial y}}f(x,y,z)-$$$$-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{2}
\partial y}}A(x,y,z)-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^{3}}}f(x
,y,z)-\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial
{y}^{3}}}A(x,y,z)-\mu\,{ \frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial z\partial
y\partial z}}f(x,y,z)-\mu\,{ \frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial
z\partial y\partial z}}A(x,y,z)=0,$$$$ -\left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial y}}f(x,y,z)\right ){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}A(x,y,z)-\left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial y}}A(x,y,z)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y
\partial z}}A(x,y,z)+\mu\,{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^{2}
\partial z}}A(x,y,z)=0
$$
\end{document}
As example using the relations (\ref{reduc3}), (\ref{reduc4}) and (\ref{reduc5}) we find components
of the velocity
$$
W \left(x,y,z\right ) =\arctan \left( 1/2\,{\frac { \left( -y+x
\right) \sqrt {2}}{z}} \right) +xz,$$$$
U \left( x,y,z \right) =-1/4\,{y}^{2}+1/2\,yx-1/4\,{x}^{2}+1/2\,{z}^{2
}-1/2\,\sqrt {2}\ln \left( 2\,{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\,{\frac { \left( -y
+x \right) ^{2}}{{z}^{2}}}+4}}} \right) -$$$$-1/4\,\sqrt {2}{\it \_C1}\,y+1
/4\,\sqrt {2}{\it \_C1}\,x+1/2\,\sqrt {2}\ln \left( z \right) +{\it
\_C2}+x,
$$
$$
V \left( x,y,z \right) =-1/4\,{y}^{2}-1/2\,yx+1/4\,{x}^{2}-1/2\,\sqrt
{2}\ln \left( z \right) -y-1/4\,\sqrt {2}{\it \_C1}\,y-1/4\,\sqrt {2}
{\it \_C1}\,x+$$$$+1/4\,\sqrt {2}\ln \left( 2 \right) -1/4\,\sqrt {2}\ln
\left( {\frac {{y}^{2}-2\,yx+{x}^{2}+2\,{z}^{2}}{{z}^{2}}} \right) +{
\it \_C2}
$$
which are singular $3D$ solutions of the system of equations (\ref{reduc2}).
A more general examples can be constructed with the help of solutions of
the Laplace equation (\ref{reduc6}).
The
This is
Using the substitution
\begin{equation}\label{dr:eq3}
\omega(x,t)=\int \!A(t){dt}-kx
\end{equation} one get from here
the equation on $A(t)$
\[
\left (-\mu\,\left ({\frac {d}{dt}}A(t)\right )^{2}A(t)+\left
({\frac {d}{dt}}A(t)\right )^{2}A(t)\right ){\frac
{d^{4}}{d{t}^{4}}}A(t)+ \left ({\frac {d}{dt}}A(t)\right
)^{3}\left ({\frac {d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}} A(t)\right
)kA(t)-\]\[-3\,\left ({\frac {d}{dt}}A(t)\right )^{2}\left ({
\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}A(t)\right )^{2}kA(t)-2\,\left ({\frac
{d}{dt} }A(t)\right )^{4}\left ({\frac
{d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}A(t)\right )\mu\,k+3 \,\left ({\frac
{d}{dt}}A(t)\right )^{4}\left ({\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}
}}A(t)\right )k+\]\[+10\,\mu\,\left ({\frac
{d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}A(t)\right ) \left ({\frac
{d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}A(t)\right )\left ({\frac {d}{dt}}A(t) \right
)A(t)-10\,\left ({\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}A(t)\right )\left ({
\frac {d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}A(t)\right )\left ({\frac
{d}{dt}}A(t)\right ) A(t)+\]\[+9\,\mu\,\left ({\frac
{d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}A(t)\right )^{2}\left ({ \frac
{d}{dt}}A(t)\right )^{2}+15\,\left ({\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}A(t
)\right )^{3}A(t)-12\,\left ({\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}A(t)\right
)^{2} \left ({\frac {d}{dt}}A(t)\right )^{2}-\]\[-15\,\mu\,\left
({\frac {d^{2}}{ d{t}^{2}}}A(t)\right )^{3}A(t)+4\,\left ({\frac
{d}{dt}}A(t)\right )^{ 3}{\frac
{d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}A(t)-3\,\mu\,\left ({\frac {d}{dt}}A(t) \right
)^{3}{\frac {d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}A(t)-\]\[-\left ({\frac {d}{dt}}A(t)
\right )^{3}\left ({\frac {d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}A(t)\right
)\mu\,kA(t)+3\, \left ({\frac {d}{dt}}A(t)\right )^{2}\left
({\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}} A(t)\right )^{2}\mu\,kA(t) =0.
\]
Its solution can be presented trough the function $\_h(\_g)$
satisfying the Rikkati equation
\[
{\frac {d}{d{\it \_g}}}{\it \_h}({\it \_g})=-\left ({\it \_h}({\it \_g
})\right )^{2}-{\frac {\left (-4+3\,\mu+\mu\,k{\it \_g}-k{\it \_g}
\right ){\it \_h}({\it \_g})}{{\it \_g}\,\left (\mu-1\right )}}-{
\frac {k\left (-3+2\,\mu\right )}{{\it \_g}\,\left (\mu-1\right
)}}
\]
In explicit form we have
\[
A(t)=\_g,\quad t=\int \!\int \!{e^{\int \!{\it \_h}({\it
\_g}){d{\it \_g}}+{\it \_C1} }}{d{\it \_g}}+{\it \_C2}{d{\it
\_g}}+{\it \_C3}.
\]
In result from parametric presentation
\[
f(x,y)-t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t)+\mu\,\omega(x,t)=0
\]
and
\[
y-{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,t)=0
\]
with the
$$
\omega(x,t)=\int \!A(t){dt}-kx
$$ we find the solution
$f(x,y)$ of the equation (\ref{dr:eq2})
Examples.
\section{ 2-dim Navier-Stoks equation}
The Navier-Stoks equation is
\[
{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{2}\partial z}}f(x,y,z)+{\frac {
\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^{2}\partial z}}f(x,y,z)-\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}f(x,y,z)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{
\partial {x}^{2}\partial y}}f(x,y,z)+{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {
y}^{3}}}f(x,y,z)\right )+\]\[+\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}f(x,y,z )\right )\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial
{x}^{3}}}f(x,y,z)+{ \frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial
x\partial y}}f(x,y,z)\right ) -\]\[-\mu\,\left ({\frac {\partial
^{4}}{\partial {x}^{4}}}f(x,y,z)+2\,{ \frac {\partial
^{4}}{\partial y\partial {x}^{2}\partial y}}f(x,y,z)+{ \frac
{\partial ^{4}}{\partial {y}^{4}}}f(x,y,z)\right )=0.
\]
After applying such transformation the equation (\ref{dr:eq2})
with
\[
u(x,t,z)={t}^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega(x,t,z)
-2\,t{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z)+2\,\omega(x,t,z)
\]
and \[v(x,t,z)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t,z)-\omega(x,t,z)
\]
takes the form
\[
\Phi(\omega,\omega_x,\omega_t,\omega_z,\omega_{xx}...)=0
\]
containing 621 items.
The substitution of the form
\[\omega(x,t,z)=x+\int \!C(t){dt}+zt
\]
lead to the equation on the function $C(t)$
\[
\left (-4\,{t}^{4}\left ({\frac {d}{dt}}C(t)\right
)^{4}+28\,\mu\,{t}^ {3}\left ({\frac {d}{dt}}C(t)\right
)^{2}{\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}C(t) \right ){\frac
{d^{4}}{d{t}^{4}}}C(t)+12\,\mu\,t\left ({\frac {d}{dt}} C(t)\right
)^{3}{\frac {d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}C(t)-\]\[-28\,\mu\,t\left ({\frac
{d}{dt}}C(t)\right )^{2}\left ({\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}C(t)\right
)^{ 2}+8\,{t}^{3}\left ({\frac {d}{dt}}C(t)\right )^{3}\left
({\frac {d^{2 }}{d{t}^{2}}}C(t)\right )^{2}+4\,{t}^{2}\left
({\frac {d}{dt}}C(t) \right )^{4}{\frac
{d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}C(t)+\]\[+12\,\mu\,{t}^{2}\left ({ \frac
{d}{dt}}C(t)\right )^{2}\left ({\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}C(t)
\right ){\frac {d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}C(t)-100\,\mu\,{t}^{3}\left
({\frac { d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}C(t)\right )^{2}\left ({\frac
{d}{dt}}C(t)\right ){ \frac
{d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}C(t)-\]\[-4\,{t}^{3}\left ({\frac {d}{dt}}C(t)
\right )^{4}{\frac {d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}C(t)-12\,{t}^{4}\left ({\frac
{d} {dt}}C(t)\right )^{2}\left ({\frac
{d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}C(t)\right )^{3}- 12\,\mu\,\left ({\frac
{d}{dt}}C(t)\right )^{3}{\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}
}}C(t)+\]\[+60\,\mu\,{t}^{3}\left ({\frac
{d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}C(t)\right )^{4 }+16\,{t}^{4}\left ({\frac
{d}{dt}}C(t)\right )^{3}\left ({\frac {d^{2
}}{d{t}^{2}}}C(t)\right ){\frac
{d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}C(t)-\]\[-4\,\mu\,{t}^{3} \left ({\frac
{d}{dt}}C(t)\right )^{3}{\frac {d^{5}}{d{t}^{5}}}C(t)+16
\,\mu\,{t}^{3}\left ({\frac {d}{dt}}C(t)\right )^{2}\left ({\frac
{d^{ 3}}{d{t}^{3}}}C(t)\right )^{2}-20\,\mu\,{t}^{2}\left ({\frac
{d^{2}}{d {t}^{2}}}C(t)\right )^{3}{\frac {d}{dt}}C(t)=0
\]
with solution which is expressed by means the function ${\it
\_h(\_g)}$ satisfying the equation
\[-1/8\,{\frac {{\it \_g}\,\left (\mu+{\it \_g}\right )\left ({\it \_h}(
{\it \_g})\right )^{4}}{\mu}}-3/4\,{\frac {\left ({\it \_g}+2\,\mu
\right )\left ({\it \_h}({\it \_g})\right )^{3}}{\mu}}-3/2\,{\frac
{ \left (5\,\mu+{\it \_g}\right )\left ({\it \_h}({\it \_g})\right
)^{2} }{{\it \_g}\,\mu}}-\]\[-1/2\,{\frac {\left ({{\it
\_g}}^{3}{\frac {d}{d{ \it \_g}}}{\it \_h}({\it
\_g})+4\,\mu\,{{\it \_g}}^{2}{\frac {d}{d{ \it \_g}}}{\it
\_h}({\it \_g})+30\,\mu\right ){\it \_h}({\it \_g})}{ \mu\,{{\it
\_g}}^{2}}}+\]\[+{\frac {\left ({\frac {d^{2}}{d{{\it \_g}}^{2}}
}{\it \_h}({\it \_g})\right ){\it \_g}-10\,{\frac {d}{d{\it
\_g}}}{ \it \_h}({\it \_g})}{{\it \_g}}}-3\,{\frac {\left ({\frac
{d}{d{\it \_g}}}{\it \_h}({\it \_g})\right )^{2}}{{\it \_h}({\it
\_g})}}=0
\]
This equation is in form
\[
{\frac {d^{2}}{d{{\it \_g}}^{2}}}{\it \_h}({\it \_g})-3\,{\frac {
\left ({\frac {d}{d{\it \_g}}}{\it \_h}({\it \_g})\right
)^{2}}{{\it \_h}({\it \_g})}}-\left (1/2\,{\frac {{\it \_h}({\it
\_g}){\it \_g}}{ \mu}}+2\,{\it \_h}({\it \_g})+10\,{{\it
\_g}}^{-1}\right ){\frac {d}{d {\it \_g}}}{\it \_h}({\it
\_g})-\]\[-\left (1/8\,{\frac {{{\it \_g}}^{2}}{ \mu}}+1/8\,{\it
\_g}\right )\left ({\it \_h}({\it \_g})\right )^{4}- \left
(3/4\,{\frac {{\it \_g}}{\mu}}+3/2\right )\left ({\it \_h}({\it
\_g})\right )^{3}-\left (3/2\,{\mu}^{-1}+15/2\,{{\it
\_g}}^{-1}\right )\left ({\it \_h}({\it \_g})\right
)^{2}-\]\[-15\,{\frac {{\it \_h}({\it \_g})}{{{\it \_g}}^{2}}}=0
\]
In this connection let us consider the Lorenz system of equation
\[
\dot x=\sigma(y-x),\quad \dot y=r x-y-x z,\quad \dot z=x y-b z,
\]
Elimination of the variable $z$ from this system of equation
lead to the second order ODE
\[
{\frac {d^{2}}{d{x}^{2}}}y(x)-3\,{\frac {\left ({\frac {d}{dx}}y(x)
\right )^{2}}{y}}+\left (\alpha\,y-{x}^{-1}\right ){\frac
{d}{dx}}y(x) +\left (\epsilon\,x-\beta\,{x}^{3}\right
){y}^{4}-\left (\beta\,{x}^{2 }+\gamma\right ){y}^{3}+{\frac
{\delta\,{y}^{2}}{x}}=0
\]
where
\[\alpha=\frac{b+\sigma+1}{\sigma},\quad \beta=\frac{1}{\sigma},\quad \gamma=\frac{b(\sigma+1)}{\sigma^2},
\]
\[
\delta=\frac{\sigma+1}{\sigma},\quad
\epsilon=\frac{b(r-1)}{\sigma^2}.\]
or
\[ {\frac {d^{2}}{d{x}^{2}}}y(x)-3\,{\frac {\left ({\frac {d}{dx}}y(x)
\right )^{2}}{y}}-\left (\alpha\,y+{x}^{-1}\right ){\frac
{d}{dx}}y(x) -\left (\epsilon\,x+\beta\,{x}^{3}\right
){y}^{4}+\left (\beta\,{x}^{2 }+\gamma\right ){y}^{3}-{\frac
{\delta\,{y}^{2}}{x}}=0
\]
after change
\[
y\rightarrow -y
\]
Comparison both equations lead to conclusion that the
phenomenon of a turbulent motion may be described on such a way
\end{document}
The Riemann tensor of the metric (\ref{dr:1}) has the components
\[R_{xyyt}=1/4\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\phi(x,y)-1/4
\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}\phi(x,y),\quad
R_{xyxz}=1/4\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}\phi(x,y)-1/4 \,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{y}^{2}}}\phi(x,y),
\]
\[
R_{xyxy}=z/4\left(\frac{\partial M}{\partial y}+1/2\frac{\partial
\phi(x,y)}{\partial x} M \right)-t/4\left(\frac{\partial
M}{\partial x}+1/2\frac{\partial \phi(x,y)}{\partial y} M \right),
\]
where
\[
M=\frac{\partial^2 \phi(x,y)}{\partial
x^2}-\frac{\partial^2 \phi(x,y)}{\partial y^2},
\]
so corresponding space is a curved space.
The geodesic of the metric are decomposed into two independent
group of equations.
The first one is
\[
{\frac {d^{2}x}{d{s}^{2}}}\!-\!1/4{\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}\phi(x,y)\left ({\frac {d x}{ds}}\right )^{2}\!-\!1/2{\frac
{\partial }{\partial x}}\phi(x,y)\left ({\frac {d x}{ds} }\right
){\frac {d y}{ds}}\!-\!1/4{\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}\phi(x,y)\left ({\frac {dy}{ds}}\right )^{2}\!=\!0,
\]
\[
{\frac {d^{2}y}{d{s}^{2}}}\!-\!1/4{\frac {\partial }{\partial
x}}\phi(x,y)\left ({\frac {dx}{ds}}\right )^{2}\!-\!1/2\,{\frac
{\partial }{\partial y}}\phi(x,y)\left ({\frac {dx}{ds} }\right
){\frac {dy}{ds}}\!-\!1/4{\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}\phi(x,y)\left ({\frac {dy}{ds}}\right )^{2}
\!=\!0.
\]
They do not contain the coordinates $(z,t)$ and
are equivalent the second order ODE
\[
{\frac {d^{2}y}{d{x}^{2}}}\!+\!1/4\,\left(\frac {\partial
}{\partial y}\phi(x,y)\frac {dy}{dx}\!+\!\frac {\partial
}{\partial x}\phi(x,y)\right)\left( \left(\frac {dy}{dx}\right
)^{2}-1\right)=\!0
\]
with arbitrary function $\phi(x,y)$.
The equation for coordinates $(z,t)$ are the linear system of
equations with variable coefficients dependent from the coordinates
$x(s)$ and $y(s)$ and their derivatives on the parameter $s$.
\section{A Ricci flat spaces defined by Wilczynski-Tzitzeika equation}
Wilczynski-Tzitzeika equation
\begin{equation} \label{dr:eq3}
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
y}}\phi(x,y)=4\,{e^{2\,\phi( x,y)}}-{e^{-\phi(x,y)}}
\end{equation}
is appeared in context of geometry of a Riemann
extensions of the space defined by the system of equations
\[
\ddot x-a_3(x,y)(\dot x)^2-2a_2(x,y)\dot x \dot y-a_1(x,y)(\dot
y)^2=0,
\]
\[
\ddot y+a_4(x,y)(\dot x)^2+2a_3(x,y)\dot x \dot y+a_2(x,y)(\dot
y)^2=0
\]
with arbitrary coefficients $a_i(x,y)$.
Corresponding metric of four-dimensional Walker space is given by the expression
\begin{equation} \label{dr:eq4}
ds^2=2(za_3(x,y)-ta_4(x,y))dx^2+4(za_2(x,y)-ta_3(x,y))dxdy+2(za_1(x,y)-ta_2(x,y))dy^2+\]\[+2dxdz+2dydt
\end{equation}
where the coefficients $a_i(x,y)$ are
\begin{equation} \label{dr:eq5}
a_1(x,y)=2\exp(\phi(x,y)),\quad a_4(x,y)=-2\exp(\phi(x,y)),\]\[
3a_2(x,y)=-\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\phi(x,y),\quad
3a_3(x,y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\phi(x,y).
\end{equation}
A Ricci-tensor of the metric
(\ref{dr:eq4}) has the components
\[
R_{11}=2(a_{2y}-a_{1x}+2(a_1a_3-a_2^2)),\quad
R_{12}=2(a_{3y}-a_{2x}+a_1a_4-a_2a_3)
\]
\[R_{22}=2(a_{4y}-a_{3x}+2(a_2a_4-a_3^2)).
\]
\begin{pr}
At the conditions (\ref{dr:eq5}) and (\ref{dr:eq3}) a Ricci-tensor
and a Riemann-tensor of the metric (\ref{dr:eq4}) are vanish, and
so the metric is a flat.
\end{pr}
For the construction of a Ricci-flat but non a flat $R_{i j k l}\neq 0$
metric defined by the solutions of the equation (\ref{dr:eq3})
the metric conform (\ref{dr:eq3}) containing an additional term $V(x,y)$
is considered
\begin{equation}\label{dr:eq6}
{{\it ds}}^{2}={\frac {\left (2\,z{\it a_3}(x,y)-2\,t{\it a_4}(x,y)
\right ){{\it dx}}^{2}+2\,\left (2\,z{\it a_2}(x,y)-2\,t{\it
a_3}(x,y)+2 \,V(x,y)\right ){\it dx}\,{\it dy}}{\left
(U(x,y)\right )^{2}}}+\]\[+{ \frac {2\,{\it dx}\,{\it dz}+\left
(2\,z{\it a_1}(x,y)-2\,t{\it a_2}(x,y )\right ){{\it
dy}}^{2}+2\,{\it dy}\,{\it dt}}{\left (U(x,y)\right )^{ 2}}}.
\end{equation}
{\bf Theorem 2.} {\it {At the conditions (\ref{dr:eq5}) and
(\ref{dr:eq3}) the metric (\ref{dr:eq6}) is a Ricci-flat (but non
a flat $R_{i j k l}\neq 0$)
\[
R_{i j}=0
\]}
if the function $U(x,y)$ is solution of compatible system of
equations
\[{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}U(x,y)=\left (1/3\,{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}\phi(x,y)+2/9\,\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial y}}\phi(x,y)\right )^{2}+2/3\,\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}\phi(x,y)\right ){e^{\phi(x,y)}}\right
)U(x,y)-\]\[- 1/3\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}\phi(x,y)\right ){\frac {
\partial }{\partial y}}U(x,y)-2\,{e^{\phi(x,y)}}{\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}U(x,y),
\]
\[
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}U(x,y)=\left
(2/3\,{e^{- \phi(x,y)}}-1/9\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
x}}\phi(x,y) \right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}\phi(x,y)+4/3\,{e^{2\,\phi(x,y) }}\right
)U(x,y)+\]\[+1/3\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}\phi(x,y)
\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}U(x,y)+1/3\,\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}\phi(x,y)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}
}U(x,y),
\]
\[
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}U(x,y)=\left (1/3\,{\frac
{
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\phi(x,y)+2/9\,\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}\phi(x,y)\right )^{2}+2/3\,\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial y}}\phi(x,y)\right ){e^{\phi(x,y)}}\right
)U(x,y)-\]\[- 1/3\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
x}}\phi(x,y)\right ){\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}U(x,y)-2\,{e^{\phi(x,y)}}{\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}U(x,y).
\]
The function $V(x,y)$ in so doing is arbitrary.
\medskip
The proof of theorem is checked by direct calculations.
{\small
\centerline{\bf References:}
\smallskip
\noindent 1. A.G. Walker, {\it Canonical form of a Riemannian
spaces with a parallel field of nul planes}. Q.J.Math.Oxford(2)
{\bf 1} (1950), p. 69--79.
\smallskip
\noindent 2. V. Dryuma, {\it The Riemann and Einsten-Weyl
geometries in theory of differential equations, their applications
and all that}. A.B.Shabat et all.(eds.), New Trends in
Integrability and Partial Solvability, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Printed in the Netherlands , 2004, p.115--156.}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction}
Extensive experimental work is currently being done with heavy ion collisions to study the QCD transition, most
recently at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, RHIC and at the Large Hadron Collider, LHC. Both for the
cosmological transition and for RHIC/LHC, the net baryon densities are quite small, thus the baryonic chemical
potentials ($\mu$) are much less than the typical hadron masses, $\mu$ is below 50~MeV at RHIC, even smaller at LHC
and negligible in the early universe. Thus in this study we stay at $\mu=0$; for a review on thermodynamics see
\cite{Fodor:2009ax}.
When one analyzes the absolute scale or any other question related to the $T>0$ QCD transition for the physically
relevant case two ingredients are quite important.
First of all, one should use physical quark masses. The nature of the transition strongly depends on the quark mass.
Lattice studies and effective models showed that in the three flavor theory for small or large quark masses the
transition is a first order phase transition, whereas for intermediate quark masses it is an analytic crossover.
Secondly, the nature and other characteristics of the $T>0$ QCD transition is known to suffer from discretization
errors \cite{deForcrand:2007rq,Endrodi:2007gc}. Let us mention one example which underlines the importance of
removing these discretization effects by performing a controlled continuum extrapolation. The three flavor theory
with a large, $a\approx 0.3$~fm lattice spacing and standard staggered action predicts a critical pseudoscalar mass
of about 300~MeV \cite{Karsch:2001nf}. This point separates the first order and cross-over regions. If we took another
discretization, with another discretization error, the critical pseudoscalar mass turns out to be much smaller, well
below the physical pion mass of 135~MeV. The only way to determine the physical features of the transition is to
carry out a careful continuum limit analysis. It can be safely done only in the so-called scaling regime.
To carry out a controlled continuum extrapolation at least three lattice spacings in the scaling regime
are needed, because two points will always lie on a 2-parameter curve describing the corrections to the continuum
results.
Numerically it is very demanding to fulfill both conditions. There are only a few cases for which this has been
achieved.
However it is important to note that fulfilling the second condition (at least 3 lattice spacings)
without fulfilling the first one (physical quark masses) still leads to
universal results. In other words continuum extrapolated results with non-physical quark masses are universal.
These results are not the same as they are for physical
quark masses, but they are well defined and unique. Contrary to this universality, fulfilling the first condition
(physical quark mass) but not the second one (at least 3 lattice spacings) leads to non-universal, non-physical results.
These results still have unknown discretization errors.
For this reason in this first study of QCD thermodynamics with Wilson fermions we have chosen to work at heavier than physical
quark masses but simulate at four lattice spacings in order to approach the continuum limit.
In this paper we determine the temperature dependence of the chiral condensate, strange quark number
susceptibility and Polyakov-loop in 2+1 flavor QCD. We use Wilson fermions with six stout smearing and tree-level
clover improvement in the quark sector and tree-level improved fields in the gauge sector; for the details of the
action see \cite{Durr:2008rw}.
The structure of the paper is as follows. After this brief introduction
the main features of the action and run parameters are listed in Section \ref{simulationpoints}.
Our choice of renormalization procedures for the various measured
quantities are summarized in Section \ref{renormalization}. The results are given in Section \ref{results}. In Section
\ref{summary} we summarize and provide a short outlook.
\section{Simulation points and techniques}
\label{simulationpoints}
The gauge action is the tree level improved Symanzik action \cite{Symanzik:1983dc}, the fermionic action is a 2+1 flavor stout
\cite{Morningstar:2003gk} and clover \cite{Sheikholeslami:1985ij} improved Wilson action.
The number of smearing steps is six and the smearing parameter is set at $0.11$; for the first large scale simulation
employing stout smearing see \cite{Aoki:2005vt}. The clover improvement is tree level, i.e. $c_{sw} = 1$.
In order to speed up the
molecular dynamics multiple time scales \cite{Sexton:1992nu}, Omelyan integrator \cite{Takaishi:2005tz} and even-odd preconditioning was used. For further
details on the algorithm see \cite{Durr:2008rw}
.
The finite temperature simulations were performed in the fixed scale approach \cite{Umeda:2008bd}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\beta$ & $a m_{ud}$ & $a m_s$ & $N_s$ & $N_t$ \\
\hline
\hline
3.30 & -0.0985 & -0.0710 & 32 & 4 - 12, 32 \\
\hline
3.57 & -0.0260 & -0.0115 & 32 & 4 - 16, 64 \\
\hline
3.70 & -0.0111 & 0.0 & 48 & 8 - 28, 48 \\
\hline
3.85 & -0.00336 & 0.0050 & 64 & 12 - 28, 64 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Simulation parameters. The $N_t$ values used for the finite temperature runs and the values used
for the zero temperature runs are separated by a comma. For finite temperature only even $N_t$ values were used.}
\label{tab:parameters}
\end{table}
The simulation parameters are summarized in Table \ref{tab:parameters}. The simulations were performed at four lattice spacings
and dimensionless ratios of hadron masses were used to define the line of constant physics. The mass of the $\Omega$ baryon,
$m_{\Omega} = 1672\,MeV$, was used to set the scale. The ratio of the pion and omega mass was kept at heavier than physical value,
while the mostly light quark mass independent combination $(2m_K^2-m_\pi^2)/m_\Omega^2$ was kept close to its physical value.
More precisely the
combination which was tuned the most precisely is $(2m_K^2-m_\pi^2)/m_\pi^2$ which can also be used to define a physical
ratio $m_s/m_{ud}$ while $m_s$ itself was fixed by the requirement that as $m_{ud}$ is lowered to the physical point the kaon mass
becomes physical too. The large lattice volumes make sure finite volume effects are negligible, in all cases $m_\pi L > 7.9$. Table
\ref{tab:masses} summarizes the zero temperature hadron spectroscopy results. For more details see \cite{Durr:2008zz,Durr:2010vn,
Durr:2010aw}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\beta$ & $m_\pi/m_\Omega$ & $m_K/m_\Omega$ & $(2m_K^2-m_\pi^2)/m_\pi^2 \approx m_s/m_{ud}$ & $a\; [fm]$ \\
\hline
\hline
3.30 & 0.336(5) & 0.378(6) & 1.53(4) & 0.137(2) \\
\hline
3.57 & 0.314(3) & 0.351(4) & 1.50(2) & 0.095(2) \\
\hline
3.70 & 0.317(2) & 0.356(3) & 1.53(3) & 0.0727(5) \\
\hline
3.85 & 0.322(6) & 0.362(6) & 1.52(6) & 0.0567(9) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Mass ratios from spectroscopy. The lattice spacings are given by $m_\Omega = 1672$ MeV.}
\label{tab:masses}
\end{table}
\section{Renormalization}
\label{renormalization}
Three quantities were measured, the chiral condensate ($\langle\bar{\psi}\psi\rangle$), the strange quark number susceptibility ($\chi_s$) and the
Polyakov loop ($P$). $\chi_s$ does not require renormalization but the others do.
\subsection{Chiral condensate}
In this section the additive and multiplicative renormalization of the chiral condensate is summarized briefly, for more
details see \cite{Giusti:1998wy} which is based on \cite{Bochicchio:1985xa}.
The additive divergence in the bare condensate is $O(a^{-3})$ which at finite temperature can be removed by subtracting the zero
temperature value. The multiplicative divergence also needs to be removed by multiplying an appropriate expression of the quark
masses. This step is complicated by the fact that Wilson fermions break chiral symmetry explicitly but nevertheless the axial Ward
identity ensures that the following two combinations are finite and agree in the continuum limit \cite{Giusti:1998wy},
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{final}
m_R \langle\bar{\psi}\psi\rangle_R(T) &=& m_{PCAC} Z_A \Delta_{\bar{\psi}\psi}(T) + O(a) \\
m_R \langle\bar{\psi}\psi\rangle_R(T) &=& 2 N_f m_{PCAC}^2 Z_A^2 \Delta_{PP}(T) + O(a)\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $Z_A$ is a finite renormalization constant,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{diff1}
\Delta_{\bar{\psi}\psi}(T) &=& \langle\bar{\psi_0}\psi_0\rangle(T) - \langle\bar{\psi_0}\psi_0\rangle(T=0) \\
\Delta_{PP}(T) &=& \int d^4 x \langle P_0(x) P_0(0) \rangle(T) - \int d^4 x \langle P_0(x) P_0(0) \rangle(T=0) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
are the subtractions needed to cancel the additive divergences and $\langle\bar{\psi_0}\psi_0\rangle$ and $P_0(x)$ are the bare condensate and bare pseudo scalar
density, respectively \cite{Giusti:1998wy}. In this first study we did not measure $Z_A$ but rather used the two expressions
(\ref{final}) to eliminate $Z_A$ (and also $m_{PCAC}$) and end up with the finite expression
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{final2}
m_R \langle\bar{\psi}\psi\rangle_R(T) = \frac{ \Delta_{\bar{\psi} \psi}^2(T) }{ 2 N_f \Delta_{PP}(T) } + O(a)\;.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Polyakov loop}
The divergence of the bare free energy means that the Polyakov loop also needs to be renormalized. A convenient choice of
renormalization prescription is demanding a fixed
value $P_*$ for the renormalized Polyakov loop at a fixed but arbitrary temperature $T_* > T_c$.
Then the renormalized Polyakov loop $P_R$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{pr2}
P_R(T) = \left( \frac{P_*}{P_0(T_*)} \right)^{\frac{T_*}{T}} P_0(T)
\end{eqnarray}
in terms of the bare Polyakov loop $P_0(T)$. We choose $T_* = 0.143 m_{\Omega}$ and $P_* = 1.2$. Other choices would simply
correspond to other renormalization schemes \cite{Aoki:2006br}.
\section{Results}
\label{results}
We have measured three quantities at four lattice spacing. The renormalized chiral condensate is
sensitive to the chiral transition whereas the renormalized Polyakov loop and the
strange quark number susceptibility are sensitive to the remnant of the confinement-deconfinement transition.
Finite continuum results should agree between different discretizations provided the same renormalization conditions are used.
We have imposed the same conditions on staggered simulations hence these can be compared with the Wilson results; for a recent
review on staggered thermodynamics see \cite{Bazavov:2011nk}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{pbp}
\caption{Renormalized chiral condensate. The four lattice spacings with Wilson fermions (in the fixed scale approach) are compared with three lattice spacings
with staggered fermions in the fixed $N_t$ approach.\label{figpbp}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{figpbp} shows the renormalized chiral condensate at the four different lattice spacings together with staggered results
at three fixed $N_t$ values, 8, 10 and 12 (the staggered results were obtained using the fixed $N_t$ approach, for more details
see \cite{Aoki:2006we, Aoki:2006br,Aoki:2009sc,Borsanyi:2010bp}). As is apparent from the figure
the two finer lattice spacing values are small enough to observe only a small change in the chiral condensate at any temperature.
The rougest lattice spacing on the other hand is seen to include large discretization effects and is probably not in the scaling
region. What is also clear is that results at $N_t < 8$ are not trustworthy at any of the lattice spacings due to a too rough
resolution of the imaginary time direction (temperature).
At only moderately high and small temperatures, particularly around $T_c$, the three finest lattice spacings are probably
in the scaling region and continuum extrapolation is possible.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{susc}
\caption{Strange quark number susceptibility. The four lattice spacings with Wilson fermions (in the fixed scale approach) are compared with three lattice spacings
with staggered fermions in the fixed $N_t$ approach.\label{figqsusc}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The strange quark number susceptibility is a sum of two contributions, the connected and disconnected terms. The disconnected part
is a very noisy quantity (as usual) and a large number of random vectors are needed in order to evaluate it precisely
\cite{Ejiri:2009hq}.
The results for the four lattice spacings are shown on Figure \ref{figqsusc} together with the staggered results.
We plot $\chi_s/T^2$ normalized by its Stefan-Boltzman limit value.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{ploop}
\caption{Renormalized Polyakov loop. The four lattice spacings with Wilson fermions (in the fixed scale approach) are compared with three lattice spacings
with staggered fermions in the fixed $N_t$ approach.\label{figpolyakov}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The third quantity we measured is the renormalized Polyakov loop which is sensitive to the confinement-deconfinement transition
similarly to the quark number susceptibility. The results are shown on Figure \ref{figpolyakov}.
\section{Summary}
\label{summary}
In this work we have started our study of 2+1 flavor QCD thermodynamics with Wilson fermions. Special emphasis is placed on
obtaining results in the continuum limit, i.e. the simulations are performed at four lattice spacings. In this first study the
light quark masses were kept above the physical value but since continuum results are universal even at non-physical quark masses
a comparison is possible with continuum staggered results. We found nice agreement between the finest lattice spacings of the
Wilson and staggered formulations. In the future we plan to extend our results to lower pion masses and
also plan to use (\ref{final}) for $\langle\bar{\psi}\psi\rangle$ after measuring $Z_A$ and $m_{PCAC}$ because a priori it is not clear which
formula has the better scaling property.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work was supported by the DFG grants FO 502/1 and SFB-TR/55, and the EU Framework
Programme 7 grant (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC No 208740. For our calculations we used computer
time awarded by PRACE on Jugene in Juelich as well as GPU clusters in Budapest and
Wuppertal.
|
\section{Introduction}
The emerging field of \emph{attoscience} \cite{HenKieSpi2001, DreHenKie2001, ItaQueYud2002, KieGouUib2004, YakBamScr2005, QueMaiIta2005, SanBenCal2006} enables the investigation of electron dynamics as well as timing information of photoionization processes.
Attosecond streaking has developed into a powerful tool to achieve temporal-resolution on the sub-100 attosecond time scale~\cite{DreHenKie2002, GouUibKie2004, CavMueUph2007,SchFieKar2010}. It is based on a pump-probe setting with an extreme ultraviolet (XUV) pulse of a few hundred attoseconds duration serving as pump and a phase-controlled few-cycle infrared (IR) pulse as probe.
Temporal information about the photoionization process can thus be mapped onto the energy axis in analogy to conventional streaking.
First proof-of-principle implementations enabled the direct measurement of the life time of the Kr($3d^{-1}$) hole by Auger decay \cite{DreHenKie2002}, the first measurement of the time-dependent electric field of an IR light wave \cite{GouUibKie2004}; as well as measurements of delayed photoemission from core levels relative to conduction band states of a tungsten surface \cite{CavMueUph2007} and from different shells of atomic neon \cite{SchFieKar2010}. In the latter case, the measured streaking time shift is one order of magnitude shorter than the XUV ``pump'' pulse and two orders shorter than the oscillation period $T$ of the IR probe pulse.
The challenge in interpreting the obtained time shifts lies in disentangling the modifications of the observed streaking time shifts by the IR probe field from the intrinsic time shifts one is interested in. These intrinsic time delays are connected to the spectral variation of the scattering phases by the Eisenbud-Wigner-Smith (EWS) time delay operator~\cite{Wig1955,Smi1960}.
In this contribution we will apply the EWS time delay formalism to photoionization (half-scattering) and show with the help of numerical simulations that the EWS time delay and thus scattering phases become accessible by attosecond streaking as long as the potential is short-ranged.
In particular, we study attosecond streaking of the release time of electrons in atomic photoemission~\cite{SchFieKar2010, NagPazFei2011} by solving the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation for effective one-electron systems.
While the EWS time shift only contains the scattering phase from the single-photon dipole transition, in streaking setups an additional (non-perturbative, in contrast to RABITT, cf.~ \cite{KluDahGis2011}) IR field is present.
To disentangle effects that stem from distortions of the initial state by the IR field we employ a ``restricted ionization model'' \cite{Schafer2009, MauJohMan2008}.
In addition, we perform classical-trajectory Monte Carlo simulations to account for trajectory effects on the time shift resulting from the interaction between the outgoing electron and the combined Coulomb and IR laser fields.
When both distortion effects are accounted for, the EWS time shift agrees well with the associated streaking time shift for short-ranged potentials which we will show for the example of the centrifugal potential.
Unless otherwise stated, atomic units are used.
\section{Computational Methods}
The Schr\"odinger equation for a one-electron system in the presence of an external IR and XUV field is given by
\begin{equation}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vert\psi\rangle=\hat{H}\vert\psi\rangle \, , \quad
\hat{H} = \hat{H}_\mathrm{a}+\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}}+\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}} \, ,
\label{eq:schrodinger}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{H}_a$ is the atomic Hamiltonian with an effective one-electron potential, $\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}=\vec r\cdot\vec{F}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}(t)$ describes the interaction with the the electric field $\vec{F}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}$ of the attosecond pump pulse and $\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}=\vec r\cdot\vec{F}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}(t)$ the interaction with the IR probe pulse. Typical energies and intensities of the electric fields are $\hbar\omega_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}\approx 100\,\mathrm{eV}$ and $I_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}\leq 10^{13}\,\mathrm{W}/\mathrm{cm}^2$ for the attosecond pump pulse, and $\hbar\omega_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}\approx 1.5\,\mathrm{eV}$ and $I_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}\approx 10^{10}-10^{12}\,\mathrm{W}/\mathrm{cm}^2$ for the probe field.
Our computational method for solving \autoref{eq:schrodinger} is based on the well-established pseudo-spectral split-operator method as described in \cite{TonChu1997}.
We also employ a constrained Schr\"odinger equation, in which the interaction of the bound state with the probe field is suppressed. This so-called ``restricted ionization model'' (RIM) \cite{Schafer2009,MauJohMan2008} is based on the decomposition of the wave function $\psi(\vec{r}, t)$ into an initial state part $\Phi_0(\vec{r})$ and a continuum part $\tilde{\Phi}(\vec{r}, t)$
\begin{equation}
\vert\psi(t)\rangle=e^{-iE_0t}\vert\Phi_0\rangle+e^{i\tilde{E}t}\vert \tilde{\Phi}(t) \rangle,
\label{eq:rimAnsatz}
\end{equation}
where $E_0 \Phi_0(\vec{r})=\hat{H}_\mathrm{a}(\vec{r})\Phi_0(\vec{r})$ and $\tilde{E}=E_0+\omega_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}$. Inserting this ansatz into the Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{eq:schrodinger}, leads to the following (exact) expression describing the time evolution of the continuum wave function $\tilde{\Phi}(\vec{r}, t)$,
\begin{equation}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vert \tilde{\Phi}(t) \rangle= \left(\hat{H}_\mathrm{a}+\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}+\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}-\tilde{E}\right)\vert \tilde{\Phi}(t) \rangle+ \left(e^{i\omega_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}t}\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}+\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}^{+}+e^{2i\omega_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}t}\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}^{-}\right)\vert\Phi_0\rangle,
\label{eq:rimSchrodingerFull}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}=e^{i\omega_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}t}\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}^{-}+e^{-i\omega_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}t}\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}^{+}$. Following Schafer \emph {et al.}~\cite{Schafer2009}, we apply the following simplifications:
We neglect the interaction of the XUV pulse with the continuum wave packet and drop the highly oscillatory terms $e^{2i\omega_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}t}\hat{H}_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}^{-}$ and $e^{i\omega_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}t}\hat{H_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}}$ acting on the initial state (slowly varying envelope approximation).
The latter simplification suppresses the interaction of the IR pulse with the initial state, thereby inhibiting ground-state polarization and excitation. Their influence on the streaking time shifts can thus be investigated by comparing RIM and full TDSE results.
The equation governing the time evolution of the continuum wave function then has the structure of a Schr\"odinger equation with an additional source term and can hence be solved in the same way as \autoref{eq:schrodinger}.
\section{Results}
We will start our discussion on the accessibility of scattering phases by attosecond streaking with an investigation of streaking time shifts for atomic photoionization in hydrogenic systems.
The attosecond streaking technique is based on the assumption that the asymptotic momentum of an electron ionized by an ultrashort (few hundred attoseconds) XUV pulse is shifted by the instantaneous value of the vector potential $\vec A_{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}}(\tau)$ of the IR streaking field at the moment of ionization,
\begin {equation}
\label{eq:streaking_simple}
\vec p_f(\tau)=\vec p_0 - \vec A_{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}}(\tau) \,.
\end{equation}
Here, $p_0 = [2(\omega_{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}}-\mathcal{E}_i)]^\frac{1}{2}$ is the unperturbed asymptotic photoelectron momentum, where $\omega_{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}}$ is the XUV photon energy and $\mathcal{E}_i$ the initial binding energy (all in a.u.).
For temporally well-defined IR electric streaking fields $\vec F_{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}}(t)$ and vector potentials
$\vec A_{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}}(\tau) = - \int_\tau^\infty \vec F_{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}}(t) dt$
the momentum shift (energy shift) of the photoelectron allows thus, in principle, a mapping of emission time $\tau$ onto energy (`streaking').
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\subfloat[][]{
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{h_hep_800nm_80ev_spectrogram6fs_0}\label{fig:spectrogram}}
\subfloat[][]{
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{h_hep_800nm_timeshifts_rim} \label{fig:timeshifts}}
\caption{(a) Streaking spectrograms for an 800 nm IR laser field with a duration of 3\,fs and an intensity of $10^{12}$\,W/cm$^2$. The graphs show the final momentum distribution along the laser polarization axis for a H($1s$) and $\He^+$($1s$) initial state and XUV photon energies of $80\,\mathrm{eV}$ together with the vector potential $A_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}(\tau)$. The solid white lines are the first moments of the electron spectra. The dashed white vertical lines indicate the shift of the central minimum relative to the vector potential (red solid line).
(b) Temporal shifts $t_S$ extracted from quantum mechanical streaking simulations with the full TDSE (full circles) and RIM (open diamonds), classical (CTMC) streaking simulations (open squares), and for comparison, the EWS time shift $t_\mathrm{EWS} = d\varphi /dE$ applied to the Coulomb phase (H$^+$: red solid line, He$^{2+}$: blue dashed line).}
\end{figure}
\autoref{fig:spectrogram} shows photoionization spectrograms for ionization from the hydrogen and $\He^+$ ground state by an $80\,\mathrm{eV}$ XUV pulse with a duration of 200\,as (FWHM of the Gaussian intensity envelope), streaked by an 800\,nm IR laser field with a duration of 3\,fs (FWHM of the $\cos^2$ envelope) and an intensity of $10^{12}$\,W/cm$^2$.
By fitting the streaking curves (first moment of the final electron momentum distribution, white lines in \autoref{fig:spectrogram}) to the analytic form of the IR vector potential $\vec A_{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}}}(t+t_S)$, we obtain the absolute delays shown in \autoref{fig:timeshifts}.
All results are obtained by a nonlinear least-squares fit (error bars are present in all figures) of the first moment of the spectrogram taken along the laser polarization axis with an opening angle of 10$^\circ$.
The spectrograms are obtained with a full numerical solution of the 3D TDSE without any approximations.
The sign convention for $t_S$ ensures that \emph{positive} values correspond to \emph{delayed} emission, i.e.\ the electron `feels' the vector potential at a \emph{later} time.
A negative time shift, or time advance, $t_S < 0$, relative to the vector potential can be observed over a wide range of final electron energies (\autoref{fig:timeshifts}) corresponding to varying the XUV pulse frequency $\omega_{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{XUV}}}$.
The question arises whether these time advances are related to the intrinsic quantum mechanical time shift corresponding to the scattering phases of the system.
For this intrinsic time shift we use the single channel form of the Eisenbud-Wigner-Smith time shift $t_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{EWS}}$ \cite{Wig1955, Smi1960} given by the energy derivative of the spectral phase $\varphi=\arg(\bra{\vec p_0}z\ket{\psi_i})$, i.e.\ the group delay \cite{deCNus2002} of the electronic wave packet
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:group_delay}
t_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{EWS}} = \frac{d\varphi}{dE}.
\end{equation}
For photoionization in pure Coulomb potentials the phase $\varphi$ is given by the Coulomb phase
$\sigma_\ell = \arg[\Gamma(\ell+1-iZ/k)]$,
where $\ell$ is the angular momentum of the free electron, $k$ its wavenumber, and $Z$ is the charge of the remaining ion. However, the EWS time shift is only correctly defined for short-ranged potentials, so it comes as no great surprise that $d\sigma_\ell/dE$ does not agree with the time shift extracted from streaking (cf.~\autoref{fig:timeshifts}).
The physical interpretation of the extracted streaking time shifts requires a detailed inquiry into the assumptions underlying \autoref{eq:streaking_simple}.
The fundamental assumption of the streaking field as a probe is that the IR field does not distort the system under scrutiny.
In the following we investigate the influence of the IR field on the entrance and exit channels.
The original attosecond streaking model \cite{ItaQueYud2002} is based on the strong-field approximation which assumes a `sudden' transition to the undisturbed momentum $\vec p_0$ caused by photoabsorption (\autoref{eq:streaking_simple}) followed by a momentum shift by the IR field of the remaining streaking pulse.
However, as the wave packet recedes from the ionic core, it propagates in the atomic (ionic) potential with a local momentum $\vec p(\vec r)$ rather than the asymptotic momentum $\vec p_0$.
Thus, neglect of the deviation of the local from the asymptotic momentum is no longer valid for streaking in the Coulomb field (cf.~ \cite{SmiSpaIva2006a}).
Our classical trajectory Monte Carlo (CTMC) simulation (see \cite{NagPazFei2011} for details) gives streaking time shifts in almost perfect agreement with the full TDSE over a wide range of final-state energies for both H$(1s)$ and He$^+(1s)$ initial states (\autoref{fig:timeshifts}) and over two orders of magnitude in intensity ($I_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}} \approx 10^{10} - 10^{12}\,\mathrm{W}/\mathrm{cm}^2$) of the streaking field (not shown). We therefore conclude that the energy dependence of the streaking time shifts results from classical Coulomb-laser coupling \cite{NagPazFei2011} (see also \cite{SmiSpaIva2006a}). This has also been identified in one-dimensional studies using the eikonal approximation \cite{ZhaThu2010} and by an alternative interferometric method for extraction of time shifts and atomic phases (`RABITT') \cite{KluDahGis2011}.
Initial state distortions by the IR field can be investigated by the constrained TDSE calculations (RIM) where the IR field explicitly only acts on the ionized part of the wave function.
For energetically isolated initial states with small polarizability (H(1s), $\He^+$(1s),...) the RIM results agree perfectly with the full TDSE results (see \autoref{fig:timeshifts}), therefore excluding initial-state polarization effects.
However, if the initial state is not isolated, initial-state polarization can strongly affect the extracted delays.
In \autoref{fig:timeshifts_l} we show TDSE and RIM streaking results for low-lying states of He$^+(n\ell m)$ which are stable against tunnel ionization by the IR field ($I_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{IR}} \lesssim 10^{12}\,\mathrm{W}/\mathrm{cm}^2$).
Within the full TDSE calculation we find remarkably strong initial-state dependent streaking field distortions with relative time shifts of up to $20\,\mathrm{as}$ between states with $n=2$ and different quantum numbers\footnote{The strong variation of $t_S$ with angular momentum $\ell$ is not specific to the degeneracy of the hydrogenic He$^+(n=2)$ manifold. By choosing an atomic model potential that breaks the $SO(4)$ symmetry we have verified that the streaking time shift persists for non-hydrogenic $\ell$ manifolds, thereby excluding degeneracy effects as the origin. Moreover, transient inter-shell coupling was found to dominate dynamical polarization over intra-shell mixing.} $\ell$ and $m$.
This pronounced streaking phase shift as a function of angular momentum differs from recent calculations \cite{BagMad2010Err,ZhaThu2010} which did not find a shift for states with (initially) vanishing dipole moment.
However, for the simulations using the RIM the relative time shifts between 1s and 2s disappear completely, and the time shifts for $2p_0$ and $2p_1$ almost agree (note that for initial $p$ states the angular distributions are more complex and $t_S$ becomes also more sensitive to the opening angle.)
We therefore can rule out a \emph{state-dependent} exit channel distortion of the IR field.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\subfloat[][TDSE]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{hep2_endep_tdse}\label{fig:timeshifts_l_tdse}}
\subfloat[][RIM]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{hep2_endep_rim}\label{fig:timeshift_l_rim}}
\caption{Streaking time shifts $t_S$ extracted from quantum mechanical streaking simulations with full TDSE (a) and RIM (b) for different initial states. The remaining difference between initial s and p states in the RIM results (b) can be attributed to the short-ranged scattering phase shift induced by the centrifugal potential (see \autoref{fig:timeshift_l_cent}).
}
\label{fig:timeshifts_l}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{hep2_endep_rim_cent}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\caption {Streaking time shifts $t_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{RIM}}$ (lines) for excited initial states ($2s$ and $2p_0$) in $\He^+$ (see \autoref{fig:timeshift_l_rim}). The difference between $t_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{RIM}}(2p_0)$ and $t_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{RIM}}(2s)$ is given by $\Delta t_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{EWS}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial E} \arg(\bra{\vec p_0}z\ket{\phi_{2p_0}}-\frac{\partial}{\partial E} \arg(\bra{\vec p_0}z\ket{\phi_{2s}})$, which is given by the different centrifugal potential seen by the outgoing electron ($V_l=l(l+1)/(2r^2)$ with $l$ being the angular momentum of the free electron, $l=p$ for initial $s$ states and $l=s$ or $l=d$ for initial $p$ states).
}\label{fig:timeshift_l_cent}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
The remaining difference between $s$ and $p$ states, after we have removed initial state distortion effects, can be finally attributed to the EWS time shift $\Delta t_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{EWS}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial E} \arg(\bra{\vec p_0}z\ket{\phi_{2p_0}}-\frac{\partial}{\partial E} \arg(\bra{\vec p_0}z\ket{\phi_{2s}})$ as is shown in \autoref{fig:timeshift_l_cent}.
Here $\frac{\partial}{\partial E} \arg(\bra{\vec p_0}z\ket{\phi_{2p_0}}$ still includes the Coulomb phase shift $\sigma_l$, however, for different angular momenta $l$ of the final state.
The effective potential includes the long range Coulomb potential $-Z/r$, which is the same for both initial states, and the different centrifugal potential $V_l=l(l+1)/(2r^2)$.
Thus we find
that $1/r^2$ potentials are sufficiently short-ranged so that the corresponding scattering phases are accessible by streaking.
We have shown in \cite{NagPazFei2011} that for pure short-ranged Yukawa potentials as well as for a short-ranged admixture to the Coulomb potentia
, the EWS-delay associated with the short-range part of the scattering phase agrees remarkably well with the observed streaking time shift.
Along the same lines it is possible to describe streaking time shifts in static atomic model potentials by the Coulomb-laser coupling time shift of the asymptotic Coulomb field and the EWS time delay of the remaining short-ranged parts of the model potential as long as initial-state polarization can be neglected.
\section{Summary}
We have shown that Eisenbud-Wigner-Smith (EWS) time shifts (or energy variation of the scattering phase) for short-ranged potentials become accessible by attosecond streaking provided both initial-state dependent entrance channel and final-state exit channel distortions are properly accounted for.
For Coulomb potentials the coupling between the IR streaking field and the Coulomb field which depends on the final energy of the free electron dominates the extracted streaking time shift but can be accounted for classically.
In addition we identified considerable state-dependent time shifts for easily polarizable initial states which are of quantum mechanical origin.
Accounting for polarization of the initial state, the remaining difference of time delays between ionization from states with different angular momentum can be related to the EWS delay of the centrifugal potential. \\
This work was supported by the FWF-Austria, Grants No.\ SFB016 and P21141-N16, the TeT under Grant No.\ AT-2/2009, and in part by the National Science Foundation through TeraGrid resources provided by NICS and TACC under Grant TG-PHY090031. The computational results presented have also been achieved in part using the Vienna Scientific Cluster (VSC). JF acknowledges support by the NSF through a grant to ITAMP.
\bibliographystyle{jpbjo}
|
\section{Introduction}
Ordinary matter around us consists of neutral atoms, in which
electrically charged nuclei are bound with electrons.
Few years ago we proposed that in the similar way the dark matter
consists of dark atoms, in which new stable charged particles are bound by ordinary Coulomb interaction (See \cite{Levels,Levels1,mpla} for review and references).
In order to avoid anomalous
isotopes overproduction, stable particles with charge -1 (and
corresponding antiparticles), as tera-particles \cite{Glashow}, should be absent \cite{Fargion:2005xz}, so that stable
negatively charged particles should have charge -2 only.
Elementary particle frames for heavy stable -2 charged species are
provided by: (a) stable "antibaryons" $\bar U \bar U \bar U$ formed
by anti-$U$ quark of fourth generation \cite{Q,I,lom,Khlopov:2006dk}
(b) AC-leptons \cite{Khlopov:2006dk,5,FKS}, predicted in the
extension \cite{5} of standard model, based on the approach of
almost-commutative geometry \cite{bookAC}. (c) Technileptons and
anti-technibaryons \cite{KK} in the framework of walking technicolor
models (WTC) \cite{Sannino:2004qp}. (d) Finally, stable charged
clusters $\bar u_5 \bar u_5 \bar u_5$ of (anti)quarks $\bar u_5$ of
5th family can follow from the approach, unifying spins and charges
\cite{Norma}. Since all these models also predict corresponding +2
charge antiparticles, cosmological scenario should provide mechanism
of their suppression, what can naturally take place in the
asymmetric case, corresponding to excess of -2 charge species,
$O^{--}$. Then their positively charged antiparticles can
effectively annihilate in the early Universe.
If new stable species belong to non-trivial representations of
electroweak SU(2) group, sphaleron transitions at high temperatures
can provide the relationship between baryon asymmetry and excess of
-2 charge stable species, as it was demonstrated in the case of WTC
\cite{KK,KK2,unesco,iwara}.
After it is formed
in the Standard Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (SBBN), $^4He$ screens the
$O^{--}$ charged particles in composite $(^4He^{++}O^{--})$ {\it
O-helium} ``atoms''
\cite{I}.
In all the proposed forms of O-helium, $O^{--}$ behaves either as lepton or
as specific "heavy quark cluster" with strongly suppressed hadronic
interaction. Therefore interaction with matter of O-helium is
determined by nuclear interaction of its helium shell. These neutral primordial
nuclear interacting objects contribute to the modern dark matter
density and play the role of a nontrivial form of strongly
interacting dark matter \cite{McGuire:2001qj,Starkman}.
The qualitative picture of OHe
cosmological evolution \cite{Levels,Levels1,I,FKS,KK,unesco,Khlopov:2008rp} was recently reviewed in \cite{mpla}.
Here we
concentrate on some open questions in the properties of O-helium dark
atoms and their interaction with matter, which are crucial for our explanation of the puzzles of dark matter
searches.
\section{O-helium interaction with nuclei}
\subsection{Structure of $O^{--}$ atoms with nuclei}
The properties of OHe interaction with matter are determined first
of all by the structure of OHe atom that follows from the general
analysis of the bound states of non-hadronic negatively charged particles $X$ with nuclei in a simple model \cite{Pospelov}, in which the nucleus is regarded as a sphere with uniform charge density. Spin dependence is not taken into account so that both the particle and nucleus are considered as scalars.
Variational
treatment of the problem \cite{Pospelov} gives for
$$0 < a= Z Z_x \alpha A m_p R < 1$$
the Coulomb binding energy like in hydrogen atom, while at $$2 < a < \infty$$ for large nuclei $X$ is inside nuclear radius and the harmonic oscillator approximation is valid. Here $\alpha$ is the fine structure
constant, $R = d_o A^{1/3} \sim 1.2 A^{1/3} /(200 MeV)$ is the
nuclear radius, $Z$ is the electric charge of nucleus and $Z_x$ is
the electric charge of negatively charged particle $X$ with the mass $m_o=S_3 \TeV$. The reduced mass is $1/m= 1/(A m_p) + 1/m_o$ and for $A m_p \ll m_o$ is $m\approx A m_p$.
In the case of OHe ($Z_x=2$, $Z=2$,$A=4$) $$a = Z Z_x \alpha A m_p R \le 1,$$ what proves its
Bohr-atom-like structure, assumed in our earlier papers
\cite{I,lom,Khlopov:2006dk,KK,unesco,iwara,I2}. However, the size of
He, rotating around $O^{--}$ in this Bohr atom, turns out to be of
the order and even a bit larger than the radius $r_o$ of its Bohr
orbit, and the corresponding correction to the binding energy due to
non-point-like charge distribution in He is significant. The variational
approach \cite{Pospelov} gives in the limit of small $a$ the expression
for binding energy
\begin{equation}
E_b(a) = (\frac{1}{2}a^2 - \frac{2}{5} a^4)/(A m_p R^2).
\end{equation}
Therefore the hydrogen-like Bohr atom binding energy of OHe
$$E_b=\frac{1}{2} Z^2 Z_x^2 \alpha^2 A m_p = 1.6 \MeV$$ is corrected for helium final size effect as follows:
\begin{equation}
E_b=\frac{1}{2} Z^2 Z_x^2 \alpha^2 A m_p - \frac{2}{5} Z^4 Z_x^4 \alpha^4 A^3 m_p^3 R^2 \approx 1.3 \MeV.
\end{equation}
Bohr atom like structure of OHe seems to provide a possibility to
use the results of atomic physics for description of OHe interaction
with matter. However, the situation is much more complicated. OHe
atom is similar to the hydrogen, in which electron is hundreds times
heavier, than proton, so that it is proton shell that surrounds
"electron nucleus". Nuclei that interact with such "hydrogen" would
interact first with strongly interacting "protonic" shell and such
interaction can hardly be treated in the framework of perturbation
theory. Moreover in the description of OHe interaction the account
for the finite size of He, which is even larger than the radius of
Bohr orbit, is important. One should consider, therefore, the
analysis, presented below, as only a first step approaching true
nuclear physics of OHe.
\subsection{Potential of O-helium interaction with nuclei}
The approach of \cite{Levels,Levels1,mpla} assumes the following
picture of OHe interaction with nuclei: OHe is a neutral atom in the ground state,
perturbed by Coulomb and nuclear forces of the approaching nucleus.
The sign of OHe polarization changes with the distance: at larger distances Stark-like effect takes place - the Coulomb force of nucleus polarizes OHe so that He is put behind $O^{--}$ and nucleus is attracted by the induced dipole moment of OHe, while as soon as the perturbation by nuclear force starts to dominate the nucleus polarizes OHe in the opposite way so that He is virtually situated more close to the nucleus, resulting in a dipole Coulomb barrier for helium shell in its merging with the approaching nucleus. Correct mathematical description of this change of OHe polarization, induced by the simultaneous action of Coulomb force and strongly nonhomogeneous nuclear force needs special treatment. For the moment we use the analogy with Stark effect in the ground state of hydrogen atom and approximate the form of dipole Coulomb barrier by the Coulomb barrier in the theory of $\alpha$ decay, corrected for the Coulomb attraction of nucleus by $O^{--}$.
When helium is completely merged with the nucleus the interaction is
reduced to the oscillatory potential of $O^{--}$ with
homogeneously charged merged nucleus with the charge $Z+2$.
Therefore OHe-nucleus potential has qualitative feature, presented on Fig.~\ref{pic1} by solid line. To simplify the solution of Schrodinger equation the
potential was approximated in \cite{Levels,Levels1} by a rectangular wells and wall, shown by dashed lines on Fig.~\ref{pic1}.
The existence of potential barrier $U_2$ in region II causes suppression of reactions with transition of OHe-nucleus system to levels in the potential well $U_1$ of the region I. It results in the dominance of elastic scattering while transitions to levels in the shallow well $U_3$ (regions III-IV) should dominate in reactions of OHe-nucleus capture.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4in]{pic1}\\
\caption{The potential of OHe-nucleus system and its rectangular well and wall approximation.}\label{pic1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Schrodinger equation for OHe-nucleus system is reduced to the problem of relative
motion for the reduced mass $m=\frac{Am_p m_o}{Am_p+m_o}$
in the spherically symmetric potential, presented on Fig.~\ref{pic1}.
If the mass of OHe $m_o \gg A m_p$, center of mass of
OHe-nucleus system approximately coincides with the position of
$O^{--}$ and the reduced mass is approximately equal to the mass of nucleus $Am_p$, where $A$ is its atomic weight.
Solutions of Schrodinger equation for each of the four regions,
indicated on Fig. \ref{pic1}, are given in textbooks (see
e.g.\cite{LL3}) and their sewing determines the condition, under
which a low-energy OHe-nucleus bound state appears in the region
III.
Strictly speaking, we should deal with a
three-body problem for the system of He, nucleus and $O^{--}$ and
the correct quantum mechanical description should be based on the
cylindrical and not spherical symmetry. In the lack of the exact solution of the problem we
present here qualitative arguments for the existence and properties of OHe-nucleus bound states.
\section{OHe in the direct searches for dark matter}
\subsection{O-helium in the terrestrial matter} The evident
consequence of the O-helium dark matter is its inevitable presence
in the terrestrial matter, which appears opaque to O-helium and
stores all its in-falling flux.
After they fall down terrestrial surface, the in-falling OHe
particles are effectively slowed down due to collisions with
matter, which are dominantly elastic as follows from our description of OHe-nucleus interaction.
Then they drift, sinking down towards the center of the
Earth with velocity \cite{I}\beq V = \frac{g}{n \sigma v} \approx 80 S_3
A_{med}^{1/2} \cm/\s. \label{dif}\eeq Here $A_{med} \sim 30$ is the average
atomic weight in terrestrial surface matter, $n=2.4 \cdot 10^{24}/A$
is the number density of terrestrial atomic nuclei, $\sigma v$ is the rate
of nuclear collisions and $g=980~ \cm/\s^2$.
In underground
detectors, OHe ``atoms'' are slowed down to thermal energies and
give rise to energy transfer $\sim 2.5 \cdot 10^{-4} \eV A/S_3$, far
below the threshold for direct dark matter detection. It makes this
form of dark matter insensitive to the severe CDMS \cite{Akerib:2005kh} and XENON100 \cite{xenon} constraints. However, OHe induced processes in the matter
of underground detectors can result in observable effects. These
effects strongly
depend on the details of the OHe interaction with nuclei.
It should be noted that the nuclear cross section of the O-helium
interaction with matter escapes the severe constraints \cite{McGuire:2001qj}
on strongly interacting dark matter particles
(SIMPs) \cite{McGuire:2001qj,Starkman} imposed by the XQC experiment \cite{XQC}. Therefore, a special strategy of direct O-helium search
is needed, as it was proposed in \cite{Belotsky:2006fa}.
Near the Earth's surface, the O-helium abundance is determined by
the equilibrium between the in-falling and down-drifting fluxes.
At a depth $L$ below the Earth's surface, the drift timescale is
$t_{dr} \sim L/V$, where $V \sim 400 S_3 \cm/\s$ is the drift velocity (\ref{dif}) and $m_o=S_3 \TeV$ is the mass of O-helium. It means that the change of the incoming flux,
caused by the motion of the Earth along its orbit, should lead at
the depth $L \sim 10^5 \cm$ to the corresponding change in the
equilibrium underground concentration of $OHe$ on the timescale
$t_{dr} \approx 2.5 \cdot 10^2 S_3^{-1}\s$.
The equilibrium concentration, which is established in the matter of
underground detectors at this timescale, is given by \cite{DMDA}
\begin{equation}
n_{oE}=n_{oE}^{(1)}+n_{oE}^{(2)}\cdot sin(\omega (t-t_0)),
\label{noE}
\end{equation}
where $\omega = 2\pi/T$, $T$ is the period of Earth's orbital motion around Sun and
$t_0$ is the phase.
So, there is a averaged concentration given by
\begin{equation}
n_{oE}^{(1)}=\frac{n_o}{320S_3 A_{med}^{1/2}} V_{h}
\end{equation}
and the annual modulation of concentration characterized by the amplitude
\begin{equation}
n_{oE}^{(2)}= \frac{n_o}{640S_3 A_{med}^{1/2}} V_E.
\end{equation}
Here $V_{h}$ is velocity (220 km/s) of Solar System in the Galaxy, $V_{E}$ is velocity (29.5 km/s) of
Earth's orbital motion around Sun and $n_{0}=3 \cdot 10^{-4} S_3^{-1} \cm^{-3}$ is the
local density of O-helium dark matter.
\subsection{OHe in the underground detectors}
The explanation \cite{Levels,DMDA} of the results of
DAMA/NaI \cite{Bernabei:2003za} and DAMA/LIBRA \cite{Bernabei:2008yi}
experiments is based on the idea that OHe,
slowed down in the matter of detector, can form a few keV bound
state with nucleus, in which OHe is situated \textbf{beyond} the
nucleus. Therefore the positive result of these experiments is
explained by annual modulation in reaction rate of radiative capture of OHe
\begin{equation}
A+(^4He^{++}O^{--}) \rightarrow [A(^4He^{++}O^{--})]+\gamma
\label{HeEAZ}
\end{equation}
by nuclei in DAMA detector.
Solution of Schrodinger equation determines the condition, under
which a low-energy OHe-nucleus bound state appears in the shallow well of the region
III and the range of nuclear parameters was found \cite{Levels,Levels1,mpla}, at which OHe-sodium binding energy is in the interval 2-4 keV.
The rate of radiative capture of OHe by nuclei can be calculated \cite{Levels,DMDA}
with the use of the analogy with the radiative
capture of neutron by proton with the account for: i) absence of M1
transition that follows from conservation of orbital momentum and
ii) suppression of E1 transition in the case of OHe. Since OHe is
isoscalar, isovector E1 transition can take place in OHe-nucleus
system only due to effect of isospin nonconservation, which can be
measured by the factor $f = (m_n-m_p)/m_N \approx 1.4 \cdot
10^{-3}$, corresponding to the difference of mass of neutron, $m_n$,
and proton, $m_p$, relative to the mass of nucleon, $m_N$. In the
result the rate of OHe radiative capture by nucleus with atomic
number $A$ and charge $Z$ to the energy level $E$ in the medium with
temperature $T$ is given by \cite{Levels,DMDA}
\begin{equation}
\sigma v=\frac{f \pi \alpha}{m_p^2} \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}} (\frac{Z}{A})^2 \frac{T}{\sqrt{Am_pE}}.
\label{radcap}
\end{equation}
Formation of OHe-nucleus bound system leads to energy release of its
binding energy, detected as ionization signal. In the context of
our approach the existence of annual modulations of this signal in
the range 2-6 keV and absence of such effect at energies above 6 keV
means that binding energy $E_{Na}$ of Na-OHe system in DAMA experiment should
not exceed 6 keV, being in the range 2-4 keV. The amplitude of
annual modulation of ionization signal can reproduce the result of DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA
experiments for $E_{Na} = 3 \keV$. The
account for energy resolution in DAMA experiments \cite{DAMAlibra}
can explain the observed energy distribution of the signal from
monochromatic photon (with $E_{Na} = 3 \keV$) emitted in OHe
radiative capture.
At the corresponding nuclear parameters there is no binding
of OHe with iodine and thallium \cite{Levels}.
It should be noted that the results of DAMA experiment exhibit also
absence of annual modulations at the energy of MeV-tens MeV. Energy
release in this range should take place, if OHe-nucleus system comes
to the deep level inside the nucleus. This transition implies
tunneling through dipole Coulomb barrier and is suppressed below the
experimental limits.
For the chosen range of nuclear parameters, reproducing the results
of DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA, the results \cite{Levels} indicate that
there are no levels in the OHe-nucleus systems for heavy nuclei. In
particular, there are no such levels in Xe, what
seem to prevent direct comparison with DAMA results in
XENON100 experiment \cite{xenon}. The existence of such level in Ge and the comparison with the results of
CDMS \cite{Akerib:2005kh} and CoGeNT \cite{cogent} experiments need special study. According to \cite{Levels} OHe should bind with O and Ca, what is of interest for interpretation of the signal, observed in CRESST-II experiment \cite{cresst}.
In the thermal equilibrium OHe capture rate is proportional to the temperature. Therefore it looks
like it is suppressed in cryogenic detectors by a factor of order
$10^{-4}$. However, for the size of cryogenic devices less, than
few tens meters, OHe gas in them has the thermal velocity of the
surrounding terrestrial matter and this velocity dominates in the relative velocity of OHe-nucleus system.
It gives the suppression relative to room temperature
only $\sim m_A/m_o$. Then the rate of OHe radiative capture in
cryogenic detectors is given by Eq.(\ref{radcap}), in which room
temperature $T$ is multiplied by factor $m_A/m_o$. Note that in the case of $T=70\K$ in CoGeNT experiment
relative velocity is determined by the thermal velocity of germanium nuclei, what leads to enhancement relative to cryogenic germanium detectors.
\section{Discussion}
The cosmological dark matter can be formed by
stable heavy charged particles bound in neutral dark atoms by ordinary Coulomb attraction.
Analysis of the cosmological data and atomic composition of the Universe gives the constrains
on the particle charge showing that only $-2$
charged constituents, being trapped by primordial helium
in neutral O-helium states, can avoid the problem of overproduction of the anomalous isotopes of chemical elements, which are severely constrained by observations.
This scenario can be realized in different
frameworks, in particular in Minimal Walking Technicolor model or in
the approach unifying spin and charges and contains distinct
features, by which the present explanation can be distinguished from
other recent approaches to this problem \cite{Edward} (see also
review and more references in \cite{Gelmini}).
It should be noted that O-helium, being an $\alpha$-particle with screened electric charge,
can catalyze nuclear transformations, which can influence primordial
light element abundance and cause primordial heavy element
formation. It is especially important for quantitative estimation of
role of OHe in Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and in stellar evolution.
These effects need a special detailed and complicated
study and
this work is under way. Our first steps
in the approach to OHe nuclear physics seem to support the qualitative
picture of OHe cosmological evolution described in \cite{Levels,Levels1,mpla,I,FKS,KK,unesco,Khlopov:2008rp}
and based on the dominant role of elastic
collisions in OHe interaction with baryonic matter.
Cosmological model of O-helium dark matter
can even explain puzzles of direct dark matter searches.
The explanation is based on the mechanism of low energy binding of
OHe with nuclei. We have found \cite{Levels,Levels1} that within the uncertainty of
nuclear physics parameters there exists their range at which OHe
binding energy with sodium is equal to 4 keV and there is no such
binding with iodine and thallium. Annual modulation of the energy release in the radiative capture of OHe to this level explains the results of DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA experiments.
With the account for high sensitivity of our results to the values
of uncertain nuclear parameters and for the approximations, made in
our calculations, the presented results can be considered only as an
illustration of the possibility to explain effects in underground
detectors by OHe binding with intermediate nuclei. However, even at
the present level of our studies we can make a conclusion that
effects of such binding should strongly differ in detectors with the
content, different from NaI, and can be absent in detectors with
very light (e.g. $^3He$) and heavy nuclei (like xenon). Therefore test of results of DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA
experiments by other experimental groups can become a very
nontrivial task. Recent indications to positive result in the matter of CRESST detector \cite{cresst},
in which OHe binding is expected together with absence of signal in xenon detector \cite{xenon}, may qualitatively favor the presented approach. For the same chemical content
an order of magnitude suppression in cryogenic detectors can explain why indications to positive effect in
CoGeNT experiment \cite{cogent} can be compatible with the constraints of CDMS experiment.
An inevitable consequence of the proposed explanation is appearance
in the matter of underground detectors anomalous
superheavy isotopes, having the mass roughly by $m_o$
larger, than ordinary isotopes of the corresponding elements.
It is interesting to note that in the framework of the presented approach
positive result of experimental search for WIMPs by effect of their
nuclear recoil would be a signature for a multicomponent nature of
dark matter. Such OHe+WIMPs multicomponent dark matter scenarios
naturally follow from AC model \cite{FKS} and can be realized in
models of Walking technicolor \cite{KK2}.
The presented approach sheds new light on the physical nature of
dark matter. Specific properties of dark atoms and their
constituents are challenging for the experimental search. The
development of quantitative description of OHe interaction with
matter confronted with the experimental data will provide the
complete test of the composite dark matter model. It challenges search for stable double charged particles at accelerators and cosmic rays as direct experimental probe for charged constituents of dark atoms of dark matter.
\section {Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Norma Mankoc-Borstnik, all the
participants of Bled Workshop and to A.S. Romaniouk for stimulating discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
In \cite{Adams1}, Adams introduced a new definition of topological
charge for lattice gauge fields based on the spectral flow of a
hermitian operator related to the staggered Dirac operator. Some
numerical results were obtained there for synthetic configurations in
the $2D$ U(1) model.
Here we present preliminary\footnote{More complete results will be
presented in \cite{futuro}.} numerical results in realistic, $4D$
pure gauge $SU(3)$ configurations, confirming the good properties of
Adams' definition, and the agreement of the index calculated with the
new definition and by counting the number of low-lying modes of high
chirality.
\section{Definition of the topological charge}
The hermitian operator introduced in \cite{Adams1} is defined by
\begin{equation}
H_{st}(m) = iD_{st} - m \Gamma_5
\end{equation}
where $D$ is the massless staggered Dirac operator and $\Gamma_5$ is
the taste-singlet staggered $\gamma_5$ \cite{Golterman}. This operator
is hermitian, and we can study its spectral flow, $\lambda(m)$. The
would-be zero modes of $D_{st}$ are now identified with the eigenmodes
for which the corresponding eigenvalue flow $\lambda(m)$ crosses zero
at low values of $m$, and the chirality of any such mode equals (with
our conventions) the sign of the slope of the crossing \cite{Adams1}.
For the most part we work with the highly improved Dirac operator
(HISQ) \cite{hisq}, although for comparison we will also show some
results corresponding to the unimproved (1-link) Dirac operator.
To compare with previous work, we also calculate the low-lying modes
of the HISQ Dirac operator at $m = 0$, and identify the would-be zero
modes with the high taste-singlet chirality ones \cite{top1, top2}.
\section{Results}
For our numerical calculations we use configurations from an ensemble
of tree-level Symanzik and tadpole improved quenched QCD with a
lattice spacing of approximately $0.077$ fm \cite{top1}.
The operator $H_{st}(m)$ is hermitian, and its low-lying eigenmodes
are easily calculated numerically with standard methods. Its spectrum
has the exact symmetry $\lambda(m) \leftrightarrow - \lambda(-m)$,
therefore we only show results for $m < 0$. An equal number of
crossings, with identical slope, will be present for $m > 0$.
We show in figures \ref{fig1}, \ref{fig2} and \ref{fig3} the results
obtained for three configurations corresponding (a posteriori), to
topological charge 0, -1, and 2. We can clearly see the agreement
between both definitions of the topological charge, with the expected
$4Q$ high-chirality modes, and $4Q$ crossings at low $m$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\[
\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig0_gamma5.eps} &
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig0.1.eps} \\
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig0.2.eps} &
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig0.3.eps}
\end{array}
\]
\end{center}
\caption {Top left figure: taste-singlet chirality for the low-lying
modes of the HISQ Dirac operator (only half of the modes are shown,
as the other half is exactly degenerate, due to an exact symmetry of
the Dirac action.) Top right and bottom figures: spectral flow for
the low-lying modes of the corresponding hermitian operator
$H_{st}(m)$, for various ranges of $m$ (we only show the range
$m<0$, due to the exact symmetry $\lambda(m) \leftrightarrow
-\lambda(-m)$). This is for a gauge configuration with $Q = 0$.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\[
\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig1_gamma5.eps} &
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig1.1.eps} \\
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig1.2.eps} &
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig1.3.eps}
\end{array}
\]
\end{center}
\caption {Top left figure: taste-singlet chirality for the low-lying
modes of the HISQ Dirac operator. Top right and bottom figures:
spectral flow for the low-lying modes of the corresponding hermitian
operator $H_{st}(m)$, for various ranges of $m$. This is for a gauge
configuration with $Q = -1$.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig2_gamma5.eps} &&
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig2.1.eps} \\
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig2.2.eps} &&
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig2.3.eps}
\end{array}
\]
\end{center}
\caption {Top left figure: taste-singlet chirality for the low-lying
modes of the HISQ Dirac operator. Top right and bottom figures:
spectral flow for the low-lying modes of the corresponding hermitian
operator $H_{st}(m)$, for various ranges of $m$. This is for a gauge
configuration with $Q = +2$.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
In order for the topological charge to be well defined by the spectral
flow, it is necessary that the crossings at low values of the mass and
other possible crossings at larger values of the mass are well
separated. We show in figure \ref{fig_long} the spectral flow for the
same gauge configuration corresponding to $Q = -1$, but with a much
larger mass range. We see that there is no sign of any other crossing
until a very large value of $m$, of order ${\cal O}(200)$. We conclude
that, at least at this lattice spacing and for the HISQ Dirac
operator, there is a very good separation between low and high mass
crossings.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\[
\includegraphics[scale = .9]{fig_long.eps}
\]
\end{center}
\caption{Spectral flow corresponding to the HISQ Dirac operator on a
large mass range, for a gauge configuration with $Q = -1$.}
\label{fig_long}
\end{figure}
In figure \ref{fig1link} we compare the spectral flow coming from the
HISQ and the 1-link Dirac operators, on the same gauge field
configuration, of topological charge -1. Both flows agree on the value
of the topological charge of the configuration, but the crossings
corresponding to HISQ take place at a much smaller value of $m$. This
is according to expectations, because in the continuum limit the only
possible crossing is at $m = 0$, and we expect the HISQ operator to be
much closer to the continuum than the 1-link operator. Another
manifestation of this is the fact that the four-fold degeneracy of the
continuum theory is also much more closely approximated by the HISQ
action, due to its much reduced taste-symmetry breaking.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\[
\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale = .65]{fig10.1.eps} &
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig10.2.eps}
\end{array}
\]
\end{center}
\caption{The spectral flow corresponding to the HISQ and the 1-link
Dirac operators, on the same gauge field configuration.}
\label{fig1link}
\end{figure}
The definition of topological charge through the identification of the
high-chirality, low-lying modes of the Dirac operator works well in
practice, and any ambiguities are expected to vanish in the continuum
limit as $a^2$, where $a$ denotes the lattice spacing. Nevertheless,
at finite lattice spacing there are a few configurations for which the
classification in a topological sector is not clear-cut \cite{top1}.
In figure \ref{figpato} we show the chiralities and spectral flow for one
of those configurations. The high-chirality criterion would indeed be
ambiguous applied to this configuration. The spectral flow criterion
is always well-defined\footnote{At least as long as there is a
clear-cut separation between low-modes and high-modes.}, and would
assign a topological charge 0 to this configuration. We can see,
however, that this is the result of having pairs of crossings with
opposite slopes, instead of not having any crossing (as is the case in
figure \ref{fig1} for the configuration with $Q = 0$).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\[
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig7_gamma5.eps}
\]
\[
\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig7.1.eps} &
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{fig7.4.eps}
\end{array}
\]
\end{center}
\caption{Chiralities and HISQ spectral flow for a configuration with
an ambiguous topological charge, as determined by the chiralities.}
\label{figpato}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions and Outlook}
We have presented preliminary numerical evidence that Adams'
definition of the topological charge using the staggered Dirac
operator works as expected for realistic (quenched) $SU(3)$ gauge
fields. The crossings corresponding to low and high-lying modes are
well separated, and therefore the topological charge of a
configuration is unambiguously defined, even in cases which are
ambiguous using other definitions.
It would be interesting to compare the staggered Dirac spectral flow
with the usual Wilson Dirac spectral flow on the same gauge
configurations, as well as studying the dependence on the lattice
spacing \cite{futuro}.
Inspired by this definition of the spectral flow, one can define an
overlap operator starting with a staggered kernel, instead of the
usual Wilson one \cite{Adams2}, producing a chiral operator
representing two tastes of fermions. A similar construction can be
carried out to further reduce the degeneracy and produce a one-flavour
overlap operator \cite{Hoelbling}. The question now is whether this
construction is numerically advantageous as compared with the usual
overlap construction. Preliminary results are presented in
\cite{deForcrand}.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thanks Alistair Hart for generating the configurations. This work
was funded by an INFN-MICINN collaboration, MICINN (under grants
FPA2009-09638 and FPA2008-10732), DGIID-DGA (grant 2007-E24/2), and by
the EU under ITN-STRONGnet (PITN-GA-2009-238353). E. Follana is
supported on the MICINN Ram\'on y Cajal program. and A. Vaquero was
supported by MICINN through the FPU program.
|
\section{Introduction}
The direct detection technique has played a major role in the quest for the identification of the
dark matter (DM) component of the Universe. The goal is measure the recoil energy due to the scatterings
on a target material of the particles forming the Milky Way DM halo. The prime focus is on weakly
interacting massive particles (WIMPs), non-relativistic thermal relics from the Universe with mass in the
range, say, between few GeV and few TeV, which would scatter elastically on a nucleus, depositing
energies of the order of few (tens of) keV (for a recent review on the DM problem and direct detection
see, e.g.,~\cite{Bertone:2010zz}). In recent years several experiments have reached the sensitivity
to start probing the level of scattering cross sections expected for WIMPs. In particular, three collaborations have
published results compatible with a positive signal: DAMA and DAMA/LIBRA~\cite{Bernabei:2008yi} detected
an annual modulation in the total event rate consistent with the effect expected from WIMPs
scatterings because of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun;
CoGeNT has recently confirmed~\cite{Aalseth:2011wp} the detection of a low-energy exponential tail
in their count rate consistent with the shape predicted for the signal from a WIMP slightly lighter than
10~GeV, as already found previously~\cite{Aalseth:2010vx}, showing in addition a 2.8~$\sigma$ indication
in favor of an annual modulation effect; finally, CRESST-II~\cite{crestt} has just reported the detection
of a number events in the acceptance region of low energy nuclear recoils, rejecting the hypothesis
that they are due to background only, and showing the indication for a component of mass either around
25 or 11~GeV. On the other hand, other experiments such as CDMS~\cite{Ahmed:2009zw}
and Xenon100~\cite{Aprile:2011hi} have not found any evidence for a DM signal and produced exclusion
plots in the plane WIMP mass versus scattering cross section which seem to disfavor the region of the
parameter space preferred by DAMA, CoGeNT or CRESST-II (in this respect, see also the recent reanalysis of the data
taken at an early stage by CDMS at a shallow site~\cite{Akerib:2010pv}, and the result of
Xenon10~\cite{Angle:2009xb}).
The interpretation of a count rate or an annual modulation effect in a given experiment in terms of
properties of DM particles (and hence obviously the comparison of results obtained by different collaborations,
possibly, with different techniques and/or different target materials) depend on a number of assumptions implemented
in the analysis of the data. Besides issues regarding understanding the target material, such as nuclear form
factors or whether channeling occurs, and the performance of the detector, such as determining
the energy threshold, the quenching factors and background rejection/contamination, there are
uncertainties related to the DM signal itself. First of all there is an uncertainty in the normalization
of the incident DM particle flux, which scales with the local halo density, often quoted to be unknown
within a factor of 2 or so. Large uncertainties also affect the energy spectrum of the DM particles
in the detector frame, in turn connected to their velocity distribution in the
Galactic frame and to the proper motion of the Sun/Earth system. Concerning these, the vast
majority of the analyses adopt a standard paradigm in which the velocity distribution is assumed
to be Maxwell-Boltzmann with velocity dispersion scaled up of a factor of $\sqrt{3/2}$ with respect to
the Sun circular velocity (usually taken as the IAU standard value of 220~km~s$^{-1}$) and
truncated to the value assumed for the escape velocity.
The Maxwellian distribution is the configuration maximizing the entropy for a
self-gravitating collisionless system (complete wash out of the initial conditions after gravitational
collapse) and is associated to the spherical isothermal sphere density profile, which declines as $r^{-2}$
at large radii and hence supports a flat rotation curve. It is a well-motivated form but
unlikely a fair description of the Milky Way DM halo. In particular cosmological N-body simulations
find that DM halos have density profiles falling more rapidly at large radii, as $r^{-3}$, and velocity
distributions showing significant departures from the Maxwell-Boltzmann shape, see, e.g., the results from
the high-resolution simulations Via Lactea~\cite{Diemand:2008in} and Aquarius~\cite{Springel:2008cc}.
A few analyses have discussed the impact on direct detection results when using
DM phase-space distribution function as directly read out from the numerical simulations or from
other specialized approaches devised to describe in detail the fine-grained structure
of the DM velocity distribution, see, e.g., \cite{Moore:2001vq,Helmi:2002ss,Stiff:2003tx,Hansen:2005yj,
Vogelsberger:2008qb,Kuhlen:2009vh,Fantin:2008ur,Vogelsberger:2010gd,Fantin:2011nt,Lisanti:2010qx}.
The main shortcoming of these approaches is that, since it is highly non-trivial to include baryons
and baryonic feedback in the simulations, these analyses treat the Galaxy as if made of DM
only (in some cases, normalizing the circular velocity obtained in the model for the DM particles
to the locally measured circular velocity). In reality, the stellar and gas components dominate the potential
well in the inner Galaxy and out to, at least, our Galactocentric distance, with, e.g., the DM contribution to
local surface mass density standing essentially within the error bar from star population counts~\cite{KG91}.
Taking an observationally driven point of view, in Ref.~\cite{PR1} (hereafter Paper~I) we reconsidered
the problem of constructing mass models for the Milky Way, and showed that, when considering
an updated set of dynamical tracers and an efficient way of scanning a multidimensional
parameter space, a high precision determination of the local DM halo density can be obtained,
namely around 0.39~GeV~cm$^{-3}$ with a 1-$\sigma$ error bar of about 7\%. This result
relies partially on the assumption of spherical symmetry we imposed on the DM component
(and on the same prescription to compute the gravitational potential described in section \ref{df} of the present paper),
and would be revised if one argues, for instance, for some level of flattening of the DM halo, see, e.g.,
\cite{Salucci:2010qr,Pato:2010yq,Garbari:2011dh,Iocco:2011jz}.
At the same time, it is a rather solid result since there is no tension
between the simplified picture we proposed and any of the very variegated sets of complementary
observables implemented in the analysis (this, together with the effectiveness of Bayesian inference applied to our
mass model for the Galaxy, is reflected in the tiny error we found).
In case one assumes that the DM distribution is also isotropic, there is a
one-to-one correspondence between the spherically symmetric density profile and the underlying
distribution function, with the latter that can be computed from the former through Eddington's formula~\cite{BT}.
Although this requires some heavy numerical integrals, it is nowadays possible to perform this inversion
on very large samples of trial cases. Relying on the same mass models introduced in Paper~I and
an analogous Bayesian approach with a Markov Chain Monte Carlo scan of the underlying parameter space,
we study here the family of isotropic distribution functions one can associate to the spherical DM
density profiles. Following this approach, we can address here for the first time the theoretical uncertainty
on the direct detection signal within a framework in which the value of the local halo density, the shape of
the distribution function and its truncation at the escape velocity, and the circular velocity of the Sun
are taken self-consistently and in agreement with the available dynamical constraints.
Such method is way more powerful than deriving an overall theoretical error assuming that the local halo density,
the velocity dispersion, the escape velocity and the Sun circular velocity have given uncertainties to be propagated as
uncorrelated errors, as actually done in most analyses in the literature.
Results presented in this paper are valid in the limit
of spherical symmetry\footnote{For the DM profile and for the gravitational potential,
which has been ``symmetrized'' according to the prescription presented in section \ref{df}.} and isotropy,
indeed rather strong assumptions, and should be regarded
as a first step towards a study allowing for, at least, axisymmetric configurations (the case with axisymmetric
models can be in principle treated in a specular way, but it is computationally much more demanding; such
case is subject of ongoing work). On the other hand, the inner regions of a galaxy, such as at own position
within the Milky Way DM halo, are those for which the simulations find weaker evidence for departure from
spherical symmetry, and, favored also by the presence of large amount of baryonic matter, those with the
largest chance for gravitational relaxation of the collisionless DM system, and hence where the distribution
function is expected to be close to isotropic.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section~\ref{df} we introduce the Galactic model and the procedure adopted to compute the local distribution function. In Section~\ref{ddrate} we review the computation of direct detection rates, emphasizing the connection to the distribution function, and detail the method implemented to compute the exclusion limit in one sample case, the one from the recent data release from the Xenon Collaboration. Section~\ref{mcmc} illustrates the statistical method implemented, while Section~\ref{results} contains our results. Section~\ref{concl} concludes.
\section{Galactic model and DM phase-space distribution function}
\label{df}
Assuming that the distribution of DM particles in the Galaxy is spherically symmetric and isotropic, and in the limit of spherical symmetry for
the underlying gravitational potential for the Galaxy $\Phi(r)$, Eddington's formula~\cite{BT} gives an one-to-one correspondence between the
DM halo density profile $\rho_h(r)$ and its phase-space distribution function $F_h$:
\begin{equation}
F_h({\cal E}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{8} \pi^2} \left[ \int_0^{{\cal E}} \frac{d^2\rho_h}{d\Psi^2} \frac{d\Psi}{\sqrt{{\cal E}-\Psi}} +
\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\cal E}}} \left(\frac{d\rho_h}{d\Psi}\right)_{\Psi=0} \right]\,,
\label{eq:edd}
\end{equation}
where we defined the relative potential $\Psi(r) = - \Phi(r) + \Phi (r=R_{vir})$, with the virial radius $R_{vir}$ being the radius at which the
DM halo as a virialized object is truncated. $F_h$ depends on particle velocity and position in the Galaxy only
through the value of the relative energy ${\cal E} = - E + \Phi (r=R_{vir}) = - E_{\rm{kin}} + \Psi(r)$, with $E$ and $E_{\rm{kin}}$, respectively, the total
and kinetic energy. From the numerical point of view, it is actually simpler to implement Eq.~(\ref{eq:edd}) by changing the integration variable from $\Psi$ to the radius of the spherical system $r$; to compute $F_h$ at the local Galactocentric distance, it is sufficient to specify the radial dependence of $\rho_h$ and $\Phi$ from the local position in the Galaxy out to $R_{vir}$. We will then make an ansatz for a mass model for the Galaxy,
including a parameterization for the contributions of the stellar bulge/bar and stellar disc, compare it against available dynamical constraints
and implement a prescription to extrapolate $\Phi(r)$.
The Galactic mass model we adopt is the same introduced in Paper~I; we summarize it briefly here. The DM halo component takes the generic
form:
\begin{equation}
\rho_h(r)=\rho^{\prime} f\left(r/a_h\right)\,,
\label{nbody}
\end{equation}
where $f(x)$ is the function defining the shape of the DM density profile. We will consider three separate choices, namely: the profile
originally proposed by Navarro, Frenk and White~\cite{NFW} as the universal profile describing DM halos in numerical N-body simulations,
and extensively used in the literature:
\begin{equation}
f_{NFW}(x)=\frac{1}{x(1+x)^2} \,,
\end{equation}
the Einasto profile~\cite{n04,graham}, favored by the latest simulations:
\begin{equation}
f_{E}(x) = \exp\left[-\frac{2}{\alpha_E} \left(x^{\alpha_E}-1\right)\right]\,,
\label{eq:einasto}
\end{equation}
and, finally, the Burkert profile~\cite{Burkert:1995yz}:
\begin{equation}
f_{B}(x)=\frac{1}{(1+x)(1+x^2)} \,,
\end{equation}
which has core, possibly reflecting the wash out of the central DM enhancement induced by the baryon infall.
In Eq.~(\ref{nbody}), $\rho^{\prime}$ and $a_h$ fix, respectively, a reference normalization and length scale; most often these are given
in terms of the virial mass $M_{vir}$ and the concentration parameter $c_{vir}$, inverting the relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{vir} & \equiv & \frac{4\pi}{3} \Delta_{vir} \bar{\rho}_0\,R_{vir}^3
= \frac{\Omega_{\rm DM}+\Omega_{\rm b}}{\Omega_{\rm DM}} \,4\pi \int_0^{R_{vir}} dr \, r^2 \rho_h(r) \\
c_{vir} & \equiv & R_{vir}/r_{-2}
\end{eqnarray}
where, in the first equation, which defines also the virial radius $R_{vir}$, the virial overdensity
$\Delta_{vir}$ is computed according to Ref.~\cite{BN}, while $\bar{\rho}_0$ is the mean background density today.
$\Omega_{\rm DM}$ and $\Omega_{\rm b}$, the dark matter and baryon energy densities in units of the critical density,
enter in this expression since we are assuming that only a fraction equal to ${\Omega_{\rm DM}}/({\Omega_{\rm DM}+\Omega_{\rm b}})$
of the total virial mass consists of dark matter; their values are fixed according to the mean values from the fit of the 7-year WMAP data~\cite{WMAP7}.
Finally, in the equation for $c_{vir}$, $r_{-2}$ is the radius at which the effective logarithmic slope of the profile is $-2$.
For what regards the luminous mass components, the stellar disk mass density profile is assumed to take the form:
\begin{equation}
\rho_d(R,z) = \frac{\Sigma_{d}}{2 z_{d}} \, e^{-\frac{R}{R_d}} \, \textrm{sech}^2\left( \frac{z}{z_d}\right)
\;\;\;\; {\rm{with}} \;\;\;\; R<R_{dm}\;,
\label{disk}
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma_{d}$ is the central disk surface density, $R_d$ and $z_d$ are the length scales in the cylindrical coordinates R and z, while $R_{dm}$ is the truncation radius. Among these, only $\Sigma_{d}$ and $R_d$ will be treated as free parameters. $R_{dm}$ will be assumed to scale with the local Galactocentric distance $R_0$ according to the prescription $R_{dm}= 12 [1+0.07(R_0-8~{\rm kpc})]~{\rm kpc}$~\cite{Freud}; we will also fix the vertical height scale to the best fit value suggested in Ref.~\cite{Freud}, $z_{d}$~=~0.340~kpc, since the dynamical constraints we consider in our analysis are insensitive to a slight variation around this value. The bulge/bar region is modeled through the mass density profile:
\begin{equation}
\rho_{bb}(x,y,z)= \bar{\rho}_{bb}\left[ s_a^{-1.85} \,\exp(-s_a) + \exp\left(-\frac{s_b^2}{2}\right) \right] \,
\label{bb}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
s_a^2 = \frac{q_b^2 (x^2+y^2)+z^2}{z_b^2}
\qquad \quad {\rm and} \quad \quad
s_b^4 = \left[ \left(\frac{x}{x_b} \right)^2 +
\left(\frac{y}{y_b} \right)^2\right]^2 + \left(\frac{z}{z_b} \right)^4 \,.
\end{equation}
The first term in Eq.~(\ref{bb}) represents an axisymmetric nucleus~\cite{Klypin}, while the second term describes a triaxial bar. When comparing against dynamical constraints, we will implement an axisymmetrized version of Eq.~(\ref{bb}), and assume $x_b \simeq y_b = 0.9~{\rm kpc} \cdot (8~{\rm kpc}/R_0)$, $z_b=0.4~{\rm kpc} \cdot (8~{\rm kpc}/R_0)$ and $q_b= 0.6$. As for the stellar disk, we fixed these parameters because of the lack of observables to discriminate among these values and small deviations around them. Such values are in agreement with the best fit obtained in Ref.~\cite{Zhao:1995qh} assuming $R_0=8~{\rm kpc}$, and then scaled to an arbitrary $R_0$. Rather than using the two mass normalization
scales $\Sigma_{d}$ and $ \bar{\rho}_{bb}$, in Paper~I the parameter space of our reference Galactic model was scanned varying the disc mass $M_d$ and the balge/bar mass $M_{bb}$; here we re-parameterize these in terms of two dimensionless quantities, namely, the fraction of collapsed baryons $f_{\rm b}$ and the ratio between the bulge/bar and disk masses $\Gamma$, i.e., respectively:
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\rm b} & \equiv & \frac{\Omega_{\rm DM}+\Omega_{\rm b}}{\Omega_{\rm b}} \frac{M_{bb}+M_d+M_{\textrm{H}_\textrm{I}}+M_{\textrm{H}_2}}{M_{vir}} \label{eq:barpar1} \\
\Gamma & \equiv & \frac{M_{bb}}{M_d}\,.
\label{eq:barpar2}
\end{eqnarray}
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:barpar1}) we also included the sub-leading contributions to the total virial mass associated with the atomic ($\textrm{H}_\textrm{I}$) and the molecular ($\textrm{H}_2$) Galactic gas layers, with profiles as given in \cite{dame}, see also Paper~I. Finally, in our mass model, the baryons which do not collapse in the disc are distributed with the same profile of the DM component.
The mass density profiles can be used as source terms in a Poisson equation to compute the Galactic gravitational potential. A rigorous procedure would require the solution of partial differential equations in cylindrical coordinates, a method which would be numerically challenging to apply to an extensive scan of our parameter space; moreover, it would actually give more information that those required in Eq.~(\ref{eq:edd}) which assumes a spherically symmetric $\Phi$.
In this respect, since the goal is to use Eddington's formula at our position in the Galaxy, i.e. in the outskirts
of the stellar Galactic plane, it is a fairly good approximation to infer the local deepness of the gravitational potential well, and profile of $\Phi$ at larger radii, by
applying the following prescription\footnote{A non trivial check of the reliability of the method used in this work consists in comparing the velocity distribution in the direction perpendicular to the disk, $f_z$, obtained: 1) Within the approximation used in the paper. 2) {\it Exactly}, computing numerically the axisymmetric gravitational potential associated with our mass model for the Galaxy and then performing an Abel inversion to determine $f_z$. We made this comparison for a few representative points in our parameter scan and found only a very mild increase in the velocity dispersion, and hence a mild impact on the dark matter detection rate.
}: First, varying the Galactocentric distance $\bar{R}$, we calculate the total mass profile $M(\bar{R})$ obtained integrating
the sum of all density components we introduced within a sphere of radius $\bar{R}$ centered in the Galactic center. This quantity is then used in a Poisson equation in the spherically symmetric limit, whose solution $\Phi(r)$ reads:
\begin{equation}
\Phi(r) = \textrm{G}_N\,\left[ \int_r^{R_{vir}}d\bar{R}\,\frac{M(\bar{R})}{\bar{R}^2} - \frac{M(R_{vir})}{R_{vir}} \right] \,.
\end{equation}
With this last step, one has all the ingredients to estimate the DM phase-space distribution function according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:edd}). In particular, since
we wish to discuss DM direct detection, we will focus on the local DM velocity distribution:
\begin{equation}
f_0(\bv) = \frac{1}{\rho_0}\,F_h({\cal E}_0(\bv))\,,
\end{equation}
having factorized out the local DM density $\rho_0 = \rho_h(R_0) = \int d^3v F_h({\cal E}_0(\bv))$, and defined
${\cal E}_0(\bv)=-\frac{1}{2}|\bv|^2 + \Psi(R_0)$. One quantity which will be useful to compute to compare with previous analyses is the local velocity
dispersion:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_v^2(R_0) = \int d^3v \,|\bv|^2 f_0(\bv)\,,
\label{sigmav}
\end{equation}
while one of the advantages of Eddington's approach is that the local escape velocity $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}$ is not a free parameter, being instead directly related to the
gravitation potential through the relation:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}(R_0) = \sqrt{2\Psi(R_0)} \,.
\label{vesc}
\end{equation}
As already mentioned, the DM velocity profile most often used in DM direct detection studies is the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. This is obtained from the distribution function of the isothermal sphere, taking a form in which radial and velocity dependence can be factorized:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:Maxwellian}
F_{is}({\cal E}) \propto \exp \left( \frac{3\,{\cal E}}{\sigma_v^2}\right) \propto \rho_{is}(r) \, \exp \left( -\frac{3\,|\bv|^2}{2\,\sigma_v^2}\right)
\quad \quad \textrm{for} \quad \quad |\bv| < \ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}} (r)
\end{equation}
and 0 otherwise. Neglecting the small correction due to the truncation at the escape velocity (which is assumed here as an external input), this distribution has a constant velocity dispersion, which, after properly normalizing, is found
to be equal to $\sigma_v$. The isothermal sphere profile has an asymptotically flat rotation curve, with the circular velocity at large radii tending to the value $\Theta_{\infty}=\sqrt{2/3} \, \sigma_v$. Assuming a flat rotation curve for the Milky Way down to our position in the Galaxy, that is $\Theta_{0}= \Theta_{\infty}$, one usually constrains the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution imposing:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_v = \sqrt{3/2}\,\Theta_0 \,.
\label{nc}
\end{equation}
Taking into account the escape velocity in the normalization factor, the local DM velocity distribution in the isothermal sphere case reads:
\begin{equation}
f_{0, is}(\bv) = \frac{1}{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{esc}}} \left( \frac{3}{2 \pi \sigma_v^2} \right)^{3/2}
\, e^{-3\bv^2\!/2\sigma_v^2} \quad \quad \textrm{for} \quad \quad |\bv| < \ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}(R_0)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{esc}}$ is given by:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:Nesc}
\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{esc}} = \mathop{\mathrm{erf}}(\bar{z}) - 2 \bar{z} \exp(-\bar{z}^2) / \pi^{1/2}\,,
\quad \quad \textrm{with} \quad \quad
\bar{z} \equiv \sqrt{3/2} \, \ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}} / \sigma_v\,.
\end{equation}
\section{Direct-detection rates and phase-space densities}
\label{ddrate}
The differential direct detection rate for a DM particle $\chi$ in
a given material (per unit detector mass) is given by the convolution
of the incident flux of the $\chi$ particles and the differential cross section for their
scattering off the target nucleus $d\sigma/dQ$~\cite{jkg,dirdet}:
\begin{equation}
\frac{dR}{dQ} = \frac{\rho_\chi}{M_N\,M_{\chi}}
\int_{|\bu| > \ensuremath{v_\mathrm{min}}} d^3u\; |\bu|\,f_\chi(\bu,t) \, \frac{d\sigma}{dQ} \,,
\label{eq:ddrate}
\end{equation}
where $Q$ is the energy deposited in the detector, $M_N$ the nucleus mass and
$\rho_\chi \cdot f_\chi$ the $\chi$ phase-space density at the detector and in its reference frame.
The lower limit in the integral is the minimum velocity required for a $\chi$ particle to deposit the energy $Q$. Its expression depends from the kinematics of the scattering: In the case of an elastic scattering, such as
for WIMP-nucleus interactions, the minimum velocity is given by
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{min}} = \sqrt{\frac{Q M_N}{2 M_r^2}}\,,
\label{vmin-el}
\end{equation}
with $M_r = M_\chi M_N/(M_\chi + M_N)$ the $\chi$-nucleus reduced mass, being $M_{\chi}$ the mass of the particle $\chi$. If the scattering is instead inelastic, such as for inelastic DM, the minimum velocity also depends from the mass split $\delta$ between the DM particle and the final state; in this case one finds
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{min}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 Q M_N }}\,\left(\frac{Q M_N}{M_r} + \delta \right) \,.
\label{vmin-in}
\end{equation}
In this paper we will mainly focus on spin-independent WIMP interactions. Rewriting accordingly the differential scattering cross section in terms of the WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section at zero momentum
transfer $\sigma_{\chi n}$ and the nucleus form factor ${\mathcal F}_N^2$
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma}{dQ} = \sigma_{\chi n} \frac{M_N}{2\,M_n^2\,|\bu|^2} A^2 {\mathcal F}_N^2(Q)\,,
\end{equation}
where $M_n = M_\chi m_p/(M_\chi + m_p)$ is the WIMP-nucleon reduced mass and $m_p$ the proton mass, the differential rate takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\frac{dR}{dQ} = \frac{\sigma_{\chi n}}{2\,M_{\chi}M_n^2} A^2 {\mathcal F}_N^2(Q)
\int_{|\bu| > \ensuremath{v_\mathrm{min}}} d^3u\; \frac{\rho_\chi \cdot f_\chi(\bu,t)}{|\bu|} \,,
\label{eq:ddrate2}
\end{equation}
where A is the mass number of the target nucleus. In the prefactor there are quantities depending on the particle physics model, while the integrand depends on astrophysical quantities only, though the limit of integration contains again a dependence on $M_N$ and $M_\chi$.
The local $\chi$ phase-space density is computed assuming that the $\chi$ particles
account for the entire DM component and is directly associated to $F_h({\cal E})$:
\begin{equation}
\rho_\chi \cdot f_\chi(\bu,t) = F_h\left[{\cal E}_0(\bv)\right] \,,
\label{eq:rho-f}
\end{equation}
with $\bv(t)=\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}_\mathrm{obs}}(t) + \bu$. In the last equation $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}_\mathrm{obs}}$
takes into account the motion of the detector frame compared to the Galactic frame in which $F_h$
is computed. One needs to take into account the motion of the Local Standard of Rest (LSR),
namely the rotation of the sun around the Galactic center $\bv_{\mathrm{LSR}}$, the motion of the
Earth around the Sun $\bV_\oplus$ and the Sun's peculiar velocity $\bv_{\odot,\mathrm{pec}}$:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}_\mathrm{obs}}(t)= \bv_{\mathrm{LSR}} + \bv_{\odot,\mathrm{pec}} + \bV_\oplus(t)
\label{eq:coo1}
\end{equation}
with, in Galactic coordinates (where $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ is the direction to
the Galactic Center, $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ the direction of disk rotation,
and $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ the North Galactic Pole) and using (partially) the notation of
Ref.~\cite{Savage:2009mk}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\bv_{\mathrm{LSR}} = (0,\Theta_0,0) \,,\nonumber\\
&&\bv_{\odot,\mathrm{pec}} = (U_\odot,V_\odot,W_\odot) \simeq (10,5.2,7.2)\; {\rm km/s} \,.
\label{eq:coo2}
\end{eqnarray}
In the computations the motion of the Earth around the Sun has been modeled as in the {\sffamily DarkSUSY}\ package~\cite{ds}. Neglecting here for simplicity the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, one finds \cite{Savage:2006qr}
\begin{equation}
\bV_\oplus(t) = V_\oplus \left[\eone \cos{\omega(t-t_1)} + \etwo \sin{\omega(t-t_1)}\right] \, ,
\label{eq:vearth}
\end{equation}
where $V_\oplus=29.8$ km/s and $t_1=0.218$ is the fraction of the year before the Spring equinox, while $\eone$ and $\etwo$ are the directions of the Earth's velocity at times $t_1$ and $t_1+0.25$ years.
From the previous equations, one can see that astrophysical uncertainties on the event rate computation are all encoded in one function, which we will denote by $g_{\chi}(\bu,t)$ and it is defined as follows
\begin{equation}
g_{\chi}(\bu,t) \equiv |\bu| \int d\Omega F_h\left[{\cal E}_0(\bv)\right] \,.
\label{gfun}
\end{equation}
This function is the key object in our analysis. For convenience, we will refer to it as to the DM phase-space density function, though it is actually an angular integral of the true phase-space density boosted in the detector rest frame and multiplied by $|\bu|$.
\subsection{Differential rate and exclusion limit for the Xenon100 experiment}
In a real experiment Eq.~(\ref{eq:ddrate2}) has to be modified in order to account for experimental limitations related to the efficiency of the detector and its finite energy resolution. In discussing the impact of astrophysical uncertainties on the differential event rate, we will consider a sample toy-model case, focussing on specifications which would apply, as a first approximation, to the case of the Xenon detector, taking a constant efficiency $\epsilon=0.3$ and including finite energy resolution effects by assuming a Gaussian probability density $\xi(E,Q)$ that an event depositing an amount of energy $Q$ in the detector is detected with an associated energy in the interval $[E,\,E+dE]$ (the same assumptions are implemented for the Xenon experiment, e.g. see \cite{edsjo} and references therein). When plotting below observed differential event rates in an actual experiment, we will refer hence to the quantity:\footnote{Since we will not be discussing annual or daily modulation effects, we focus on time averaged differential event rates.}
\begin{equation}
\frac{dR}{dE} = \epsilon \int_0^\infty dQ \,\xi(E,Q)\,\frac{dR}{dQ}\left(Q\right) \,,
\label{eq:ddrate3}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\xi(E,Q) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma_{\textrm{Xe}}^2(Q)}} e^{-(E-Q)^2/2\sigma_{\textrm{Xe}}^2(Q)}\,,
\end{equation}
with the energy dependent dispersion estimated for the Xenon detector:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\textrm{Xe}}(Q) = \sqrt{Q/\textrm{KeV}} (0.579 \,\textrm{KeV}) + 0.021 Q \,.
\end{equation}
We will also discuss how astrophysical uncertainties affect the estimation of the exclusion limits in the scattering cross section -- particle mass plane for a direct detection experiment, focusing, as for the differential event rate, on the sample case applicable to the Xenon detector. To do that, however, we need to treat finite energy resolution effects in a more refined way than what just sketched above. We will follow the approach discussed in \cite{proflike}, and take into account that the quantity measured by the Xenon experiment is the number of photoelectrons associated with an event, and not the corresponding recoil energy. To translate such a signal in to a recoil energy, one has to use the conversion formula~\cite{Leff}
\begin{equation}
\nu(Q) = 3.6 \times Q\,\mathcal{L}_{eff}\,,
\end{equation}
which gives the number of expected photoelectrons (PE) as a function of the recoil energy. There has been some discussion in the literature on which is the correct form to assume for the relative scintillation efficiency of the detector $\mathcal{L}_{eff}$. In our analysis we will refer to its most recent determination~\cite{Leff} providing an estimate for such a quantity at energies as low as 3 KeV, while at lower energies we follow \cite{Aprile:2011hi} assuming that $\mathcal{L}_{eff}$ goes logarithmically to zero. The differential event rate is then given by the following expression
\begin{equation}
\frac{dR}{dS_1} = \epsilon\,\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty} dQ\,\left[\frac{dR}{dQ}\left(Q\right)\times\frac{\nu(Q)^n}{n!}e^{-\nu(Q)}\right]\times \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2_{\textrm{PMT}}}} e^{-\frac{(n-S_1)^2}{2 n \sigma^2_{\textrm{PMT}}}}\,,
\label{eq:ddrate4}
\end{equation}
where the convolution with the Poisson distribution of mean $\nu(Q)$ accounts for the fact that a given recoil energy has a probability $\nu(Q)^n/n!\,e^{-\nu(Q)}$ of generating $n$ observable PE. The Gaussian weighted sum, instead, describes the finite resolution in the observed number of PE: the probability of observing $S_1$ PE when the actual number is $n$ is assumed to be Gaussian, with dispersion equal to $\sqrt{n}\,\sigma_{\textrm{PMT}}$ and $\sigma_{\textrm{PMT}}=0.5$ PE. Following \cite{Aprile:2011hi}, we define as signal region the interval in the observed number of photoelectrons between $4$ PE and $30$ PE. In this region the Xenon collaboration has reported three candidate DM events associated with recoil energies of $12.1$ KeV, $30.2$ KeV and $34.6$ KeV. To extract an upper bound on the cross section $\sigma_{\chi n}$ from the three Xenon100 events, one can calculate, as a function of $\sigma_{\chi n}$, the probability - denoted by $C(\sigma_{\chi n})$ - that a random experiment produces a number of events in the signal region equal or larger than four. Then, one can exclude cross sections such that, for instance, $C(\sigma_{\chi n}) \ge 0.9$. The probability $C(\sigma_{\chi n})$ can be written as the sum of different Poisson distributions of mean $\mu$:
\begin{equation}
C(\sigma_{\chi n}) = \sum_{k=4}^{\infty} \,\frac{\mu(\sigma_{\chi n})^k}{k!}\,e^{-\mu(\sigma_{\chi n})}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\mu(\sigma_{\chi n})=\mu_S(\sigma_{\chi n})+\mu_B$ is the total number of events in the signal region, including any known background term $\mu_B$. In the case of the Xenon100 experiment, we include a constant background contribution $\mu_B$ equal to 1.8 events. The signal contribution, instead, is given by:
\begin{equation}
\mu_S(\sigma_{\chi n})=\eta\,\int_{4}^{30} dS_1\,\frac{dR}{dS_1}\left(S_1\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\eta=48\times 100.9$ [kg days] is the exposure of the Xenon100 experiment.
Introducing the function:
\begin{equation}
W(\sigma_{\chi n})=C(\sigma_{\chi n})-0.9\,,
\end{equation}
we can define the Xenon100 upper limit $\bar{\sigma}(M_{\chi})$ as:\footnote{This condition defines the frequentist 90$\%$ confidence level exclusion limit. In the context of the present Bayesian analysis, this relation has to be regarded simply as our definition of the exclusion limit as a function of the DM particle mass and Galactic model parameters.}
\begin{equation}
W(\bar{\sigma}(M_{\chi})) = 0\,,
\label{limit}
\end{equation}
where in the last line we emphasized the dependence of the exclusion limit $\bar{\sigma}$ from the DM particle mass.
\section{Bayesian analysis of the parameter space}
\label{mcmc}
Eddington's inversion formula Eq.~(\ref{eq:edd}) establishes - under the assumptions discussed - a direct relation between the local DM phase-space density and the parameter space of the underlying Galactic model.
In turn, the local DM phase-space density, along with the coordinate transformation in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:coo1}) and~(\ref{eq:coo2}), defines the factor in the DM scattering rate depending on astrophysical assumptions.
To address the astrophysical uncertainties on DM direct detection we need therefore to study the variability range of the Galactic parameters. The model we summarized in Section~\ref{df} has 7 or 8 free parameters:
the local Galactocentric distance $R_0$; the DM halo parameters $c_{vir}$ and $M_{vir}$, plus the exponent $\alpha_E$ in case of the Einasto profile; the parameters defining mass profiles for the baryonic components $R_d$, $f_b$ and $\Gamma$ (recall Eqs.~(\ref{eq:barpar1}) and (\ref{eq:barpar2})); the halo star anisotropy parameter $\beta$ (introduced to make predictions for the velocity dispersion of halo stars and then compare it to the data of \cite{SDSS6}, see Paper~I for further details). To set constraints on this parameter space, we consider a broad and variegated sample of dynamical constraints for the Milky Way, including several recent results, the same set of observables implemented in the analysis on the local halo density of Paper~I (to which we refer for a comprehensive description): the proper motion of stars in the outer Galaxy, the radial velocity dispersion of halo stars, terminal velocities for the rotation curve in the inner part of the Galaxy, the monitoring of stellar orbits around the Galactic Center, the peculiar motion of Sgr$A^*$, the Oort's constants, the total mean surface density within $|z| < 1.1 \rm kpc$, the local disk surface mass density and, finally, the total mass inside 50 kpc and 100 kpc.
The scan of the parameter space to address variability regions of the parameters is performed implementing a Bayesian analysis, again specular to the one carried out in Paper~I. We sample the Galactic model posterior probability density function (pdf) implementing a Markov Chain Monte Carlo scan of the underlying parameter space. By construction, the pdf reflects the change of our prejudice about the most probable values for the model parameters ${\bf g}$ after seeing the data $d$. It is related to the Likelihood $\mathcal{L}(d|{\bf g})$ and the prior distribution $\pi({\bf g})$ through Bayes' theorem, which states
\begin{equation}
p({\bf g}|d) = \frac{\mathcal{L}(d|{\bf g}) \pi({\bf g})}{p(d)} \,,
\label{Bayes}
\end{equation}
where p(d) is the Bayesian evidence and in the present discussion simply plays the r\'ole of a normalization constant. For a detailed description of our choice of the Likelihood and of the prior distribution we refer the reader to Paper~I. In the present work, we generated 16 chains for each DM profile, accumulating (after burn in) approximately $1.5\times10^5$ accepted points in the parameter space for every considered profile.
Rather than to the posterior pdf of the Galactic model parameters, in this work we are interested in the marginal one or two-dimensional pdf of specific functions of the Galactic model parameters. We therefore used in our analysis the fact that the marginal posterior pdf for any quantity $f$ depending on the model parameters - denoted by $p(f,{\bf g}|d)$ - is related to the posterior pdf $p({\bf g}|d)$ by the relation
\begin{equation}
p(f,{\bf g}|d) = \delta(f({\bf g})-f)\,p({\bf g}|d) \,,
\label{fg}
\end{equation}
which follows from the definition of conditional pdf. Expectation values and variances of any function $f$ of the model parameters with respect to $p({\bf g}|d)$ can be then calculated as follows
\begin{equation}
\langle f \rangle = \int d{\bf g} \,f({\bf g})\,p({\bf g}|d)\,; \qquad\quad
\sigma_{f}^2 = \langle f^2 \rangle-\langle f \rangle^2 \,.
\label{ev}
\end{equation}
Eqs.~(\ref{fg}) and (\ref{ev}) apply to functions of the Galactic model parameters only. The phase-space density, the direct detection differential event rate and the Xenon100 exclusion limit are instead all functions of both the Galactic model parameters {\it and} a further continuous variable. Respectively: the detector rest frame velocity $u$ \footnote{Indeed, the phase-space density is also a function of time (see Eq.~(\ref{gfun})). In all figures shown in this section we consider a time average of the the function $g_{\chi}$.}, the observed recoil energy $E$ and the DM particle mass $M_{\chi}$. To keep the present discussion as general as possible, we will denote during this section such an additional continuous variable by $x$.
The problem is now that of determining the marginal posterior pdf of objects $\zeta$ - functions of the Galactic model parameters - with an explicit dependence from $x$, {\it i.e.} $\zeta : x \longrightarrow \zeta(x)$. In our analysis we compute such pdf's discretizing the variable $x$ (see also \cite{Arina:2011si} for a different approach to this problem). We therefore use Eq.~(\ref{fg}) to calculate the marginal posterior pdf for a set of $N$ quantities $\zeta_{i} = \zeta(x_i)$, with $i=1,\cdots N$, where now each $\zeta_{i}$ is a function of the Galactic model parameters only. If the steps of such discretization $\{ x_1 \cdots x_N \}$ are small enough, this procedure leads to a good determination of the function $\zeta(x)$. As a result, to any given point $x_{k}$ in the range of variability of x, we can associate instead of a single number, a marginal posterior pdf, namely the pdf related to $\zeta_{k}$ through Eq.~(\ref{fg}).
Finally, given a marginal posterior pdf for the quantities $\zeta_i$, one can calculate from Eq.~(\ref{ev}) the means $\langle \zeta_i \rangle$ and construct the required $\gamma\%$ credibility intervals, namely the shortest intervals including the $\gamma\%$ of the total probability. In our analysis we considered $\gamma\%$ equal to either 68$\%$ or 95$\%$.
\section{Results}
\label{results}
The main result of the present analysis is a Bayesian determination of the local DM phase-space density based on the Eddington's inversion formula and a broad sample of dynamical constraints for the Milky Way. As already mentioned, this quantity incorporates all the astrophysical uncertainties which affect the expected event rate at a DM direct detection experiment. We therefore first focus on this quantity; then, in a few illustrative examples, we also show how astrophysical uncertainties translates in to error bars for the predicted differential event rate and exclusion limit in the scattering cross section - WIMP mass plane. Concerning the exclusion limit, we will concentrate on the last Xenon100 data release, however, our results for the phase-space density can be readily applied to any other case.
\subsection{Phase-space density}
To better understand our results for the DM phase-space density, it is instructive to analyze first a few related local quantities, namely the circular velocity $\Theta_{0}$, the escape velocity $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}$ and, finally, the DM velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$.
\begin{table}[t]
\footnotesize
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.}
\begin{center}
{\bf NFW}
\end{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Parameters & mean & $\sigma$ & lower 68\% & upper 68\% & lower 95\% & upper 95\% \\
\hline \hline
$f_b$ & 0.25 & 0.039 & 0.21 & 0.29 & 0.17 & 0.33 \\
$\Theta_{0}$ [km/s]& 246.3 & 8.7 & 237.6 & 254.8 & 228.9 & 263.6 \\
$\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}$ [km/s] & 550.7 & 11.2 & 539.7 & 561.7 & 528.5 & 573.3 \\
$\sigma_v$ [km/s] & 287.0 & 5.2 & 281.7 & 292.2 & 276.7 & 297.2 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\footnotesize
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.}
\begin{center}
{\bf Burkert}
\end{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Parameters & mean & $\sigma$ & lower 68\% & upper 68\% & lower 95\% & upper 95\% \\
\hline \hline
$f_b$ & 0.36 & 0.049 & 0.31 & 0.41 & 0.27 & 0.46 \\
$\Theta_{0}$ [km/s]& 244.8 & 9.1 & 235.7 & 253.5 & 226.0 & 261.5 \\
$\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}$ [km/s] & 555.4 & 10.5 & 545.0 & 566.0 & 534.9 & 575.8 \\
$\sigma_v$ [km/s] & 293.6 & 5.77 & 287.8 & 299.3 & 282.4 & 304.9 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\footnotesize
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.}
\begin{center}
{\bf Einasto}
\end{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Parameters & mean & $\sigma$ & lower 68\% & upper 68\% & lower 95\% & upper 95\% \\
\hline \hline
$f_b$ & 0.23 & 0.10 & 0.13 & 0.34 & 0.11 & 0.46 \\
$\Theta_{0}$ [km/s]& 245.8 & 7.7 & 238.4 & 253.1 & 229.4 & 260.6 \\
$\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}$ [km/s] & 555.0 & 17.6 & 536.7 & 574.0 & 523.5 & 589.2 \\
$\sigma_v$ [km/s] & 285.1 & 570.3 & 279.5 & 290.8 & 274.0 & 296.4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Means, standard deviations and confidence intervals for the circular velocity $\Theta_{0}$, the escape velocity $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}$ and the dark matter velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$. We also show our results for the parameter $f_b$, which affects the shape of the local gravitational potential and therefore the local dark matter phase-space density. Other Galactic model parameters have been already discussed in Paper~I. \label{tab_all}}
\end{table}
In Table \ref{tab_all} we show means and credibility intervals for these quantities, while their marginal posterior pdf are shown in Fig.~\ref{vel123}, where each quantity has been plotted in three cases, corresponding to the three DM profiles considered in this work. As we explained in detail in the previous section, such pdf's have been determined applying Eq.~(\ref{fg}) to the case of the posterior pdf of the Galactic model parameters sampled through our MCMC scan.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{theta0_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{vesc_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{sigmav_1D.ps}
\caption{Left panel: marginal posterior pdf for the local circular velocity. Central panel: marginal posterior pdf for the local escape velocity. Right panel: marginal posterior pdf for the local velocity dispersion.}
\label{vel123}
\end{figure}
The local circular velocity (Fig.~\ref{vel123}, left panel) has been very well reconstructed in all the three cases. Indeed the three means of $\Theta_{0}$ are all close to the corresponding experimental value which has been implemented in the Likelihood function, {\it i.e.} $\Theta_0 = (245 \pm 10.4)$ km/s \cite{Reid}. The minor differences between the three cases are related to the fact that different profiles have slightly different mean values for $R_0$ and also different total mass within $R_0$.
For what concern the escape velocity (Fig.~\ref{vel123}, central panel), we find a mean value close to 555 km/s for the Einasto and the Burkert profiles, and to 550~km/s in the NFW case. Interestingly enough, although we did not consider any direct constraint on the escape velocity, our determination of this quantity is in a very good agreement with the central value quoted by the RAVE collaboration \cite{RAVE} (median likelihood of 544~km/s
and 90$\%$ confidence interval in the range 498--608~km/s). We also notice that in the Einasto case the $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}$ pdf has a broader shape. This result is related to the larger uncertainties - compared to the other cases - in the fraction of collapsed baryons that we find in a scan based on an Einasto profile (see Table \ref{tab_all}).
The DM velocity dispersion is connected to the width of the phase-space density as a function of the velocity. From Fig.~\ref{vel123} (right panel), we can see that in the case of a Burkert profile the mean value of $\sigma_v$ is significantly larger that in the Einasto and NFW cases. This result can be understood as follows. A spherically symmetric gravitational potential generates a velocity dispersion for the local population of DM particles which can be estimated through the Jeans equation. One finds
\begin{equation}
\sigma_v^2(r) = \frac{1}{\rho_{h}(r)} \int_r^{\infty}d\tilde{r}\; \rho_{h}(\tilde{r}) \frac{d\Phi}{d\tilde{r}}\,.
\label{jeans2}
\end{equation}
By numerical inspection we find that the first derivative of the gravitational potential is larger - in the relevant integration region - for a Burkert profile than in the other cases. This is related to the fact that, according to our posterior pdf, this profile is in a better agreement with observations when a large fraction of collapsed baryons is considered, as one can see in Table \ref{tab_all}. A larger value of $f_b$ - with respect to the other profiles - is in turn responsible for the larger velocity dispersion which emerges from our marginal posterior pdf\footnote{ In this work $\sigma_v$ has been calculated through Eq.~(\ref{sigmav}). The Jeans equation is however useful to qualitatively understand the results}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{onebin_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{uDFall_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{MBratio_1D.ps}
\caption{Left panel: marginal posterior pdf for the dark matter phase-space density $g_{\chi}$ at $u=240$ km/s. Central panel: mean dark matter phase-space density. Three profiles and Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation with $\Theta_0=220$ km/s, $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}=544$ km/s, $\rho_{\chi}=0.3$ GeV/cm$^3$ and $\sigma_v = \sqrt{3/2}\,\Theta_0$. Right panel: ratio between the same Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of the central panel and the tails of our MCMC distributions.}
\label{udf-mean}
\end{figure}
We can now focus on the DM phase-space density. In Fig.~\ref{udf-mean} (left panel) we show the marginal posterior pdf for the DM phase-space density evaluated at a reference velocity in the detector rest frame (240 km/s). In the notation of the previous section, we are therefore considering the case in which $x=u$ and $\zeta(x)=g_{\chi}(u)$. The $u$ variable has been discretized and the reference velocity corresponds to one of the points of such a N-point discretization, {\it i.e.} $u_k=240$ km/s with $k\in\{1\cdots,N\}$. Let us note that the Burkert pdf is systematically shifted towards larger velocities. This is a feature which is present at each point of the discretization. From this marginal posterior pdf (Fig.~\ref{udf-mean}, left panel) we can determine the mean value of $g_{\chi}(u_k)$ and the corresponding 68$\%$ and 95$\%$ credibility intervals. By proceeding in this way for all the N points in the discretization we can plot a phase-space density ``band'', instead of the usual phase-space density curve. This has been done in Fig.~\ref{udf-all} for the three profiles under analysis. The red band is associated with the 68$\%$ credibility interval, while the yellow one corresponds to the 95$\%$ credibility interval. This figure makes quantitative what we already mentioned in the previous section: given a value of the velocity, say $u$, we can now associate to $u$ a pdf - and not just a number - which accounts for astrophysical uncertainties in the determination of the phase-space density at that point.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{uDFnfw_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{uDFburkert_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{uDFn03_1D.ps}
\caption{Phase-space density ``bands'' corresponding to 68$\%$ and 95$\%$ credibility intervals. Left panel: NFW profile. Central panel: Burkert profile. Right panel: Einasto profile.}
\label{udf-all}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{udf-mean} (central panel) we show the "mean" phase-space densities corresponding to the three profiles considered in this paper. In this figure to each point of the velocity discretization we associated the mean of the corresponding pdf. It should be now clear that, because of a larger velocity dispersion, the Burkert case is characterized by a broader phase-space density.
We now compare our MCMC predictions with the usual Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation. As already mentioned, a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is identified by two parameters: the escape velocity $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}$ and the velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$. Then, as explained in section \ref{df}, the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is normalized imposing $\sigma_v = \sqrt{3/2}\,\Theta_0$, and this parameter, together with the sharp cutoff imposed at the assumed value for the escape velocity, sets the shape of the high velocity tail of the distribution. In Fig.~\ref{udf-mean} (right-panel) we show the ratio between the distribution function found for an isothermal sphere profile (Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution times the local density, see Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho-f})) with $\Theta_0=220$ km/s, $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}=544$ km/s, $\rho_{\chi}=0.3$ GeV/cm$^3$ and $\sigma_v = \sqrt{3/2}\,\Theta_0$, and the tails of our MCMC phase-space densities. From this figure one can see that different profiles lead to distributions behaving differently at high velocities, crossing each other in a non trivial way. Interestingly enough, we also notice that, in the high velocity tail, our MCMC mean distributions are systematically above the ones obtained in the Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation considered in this example (and often adopted in the literature as a benchmark distribution), with a mismatch which is significantly larger than the mismatch in the numerical value for the local halo density (which is about 0.4~GeV/cm$^3$ for the three profiles considered).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{MBnfwcut_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{MBburkertcut_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{MBn03cut_1D.ps}
\caption{Mean MCMC dark matter phase-space density vs. Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation (see the text for more details). Left panel: NFW profile. Central panel: Burkert profile. Right panel: Einasto profile.}
\label{MB}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{MB} we compare our mean MCMC phase-space densities with the distribution functions of different isothermal spheres, one for each profile, constructed setting the required Galactic parameters at their mean values according to our MCMC scan (see Table \ref{tab_all}). From this figure we can appreciate the fact that the phase-space density associated with a Burkert profile has a shape which - compared to the other cases - is more difficult to approximate with the distribution function of an isothermal sphere. As already pointed out, this result is related to the higher velocity dispersion found in the Burkert case.
Finally, in Fig.~\ref{2D} we show the two-dimensional marginal posterior pdf in the $(\Theta_0,\sigma_v)$ plane and compare the shape of this 2D-distribution with the straight line defined by $\sigma_v = \sqrt{3/2} \,\Theta_0$. As one can see, the correlation pattern between these parameters suggested by the data is different from the one described by this linear relation. Indeed, the eigenvalues of the covariance matrix for the parameters $(\Theta_0,\sigma_v)$ point towards directions which are different from the one identified by the relation $\sigma_v = \sqrt{3/2} \,\Theta_0$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{thetasig_nfw.eps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{thetasig_burkert.eps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{thetasig_n03.eps}
\caption{2D marginal posterior pdf in the $(\Theta_0,\sigma_v)$ plane. Left panel: NFW profile. Central panel: Burkert profile. Right panel: Einasto profile. The blue (dashed) line represents the curve $\sigma_v=\sqrt{3/2}\,\Theta_0$}
\label{2D}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Differential rate}
As a first application of our results on the DM phase-space density, we now discuss how uncertainties on this quantity affect the expectations for the differential event rate at a direct detection experiment. The differential event rate can be calculated using Eq.~(\ref{eq:ddrate3}) and depends on the Galactic model parameters through the phase-space density. It is however also a function of the observed recoil energy $E$ which enters in a convolution integral which involves the form factor and in the expression for $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{min}}$. Similarly to what we did for the phase-space density, we now discretize the variable $E$ and study a set of quantities defined by $\zeta_k=\frac{dR}{dE}\left(E_k\right)$, where $E_k$ is a generic point in the observed energy discretization. Thus, to each energy $E_k$ we can now associate a marginal posterior pdf. The associated credibility intervals define the ``signal bands'' which incorporate the astrophysical uncertainties.
In this section we present the results that we obtained following this approach for three illustrative cases: a 100 GeV WIMP (elastic scattering), a 10 GeV WIMP (elastic scattering) and, finally, a 45 GeV WIMP (inelastic scattering). The corresponding results are shown for the case of an Einasto profile in Fig.~\ref{signals}. In these plots a given credibility interval is the region between two curves of the same type.
From these plots one can appreciate that for light candidates (Fig.~\ref{signals}, central panel), and in general in the case of an inelastic scattering (Fig.~\ref{signals}, right panel), astrophysical uncertainties can be extremely important and completely spoil the accuracy of the predicted event rate. This phenomenon is related to the fact that such candidates - light or inelastic - probe only the high velocity tail of the phase-space density. Therefore, a few per cent change in $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}$, for instance, can modify the integral over the phase-space density in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ddrate2}) by a factor $\gtrsim \mathcal{O}(1)$. Instead, heavier candidates scattering off the target nuclei elastically are less sensitive to astrophysical uncertainties because these are sensitive to a much larger portion of the phase-space density. Thus, in this case, the uncertainties on the differential rate - which are due to the uncertainties on the total area subtended by the phase-space density - are much less pronounced and are of the order of $\sim 20\%$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{Xe-rate-n03100_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{Xe-rate-n0310_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{Xe-ratein-n03_1D.ps}
\caption{MCMC differential event rate for the Einasto profile. Left panel: means and credibility intervals for a 100 GeV WIMP elastically scattering. Central panel: means and credibility intervals for a 10 GeV WIMP elastically scattering. Right panel: means and credibility intervals for a 45 GeV WIMP inelastically scattering with $\delta=100$ KeV.}
\label{signals}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{RatioSignals} we compare the differential rates obtained assuming different DM profiles both for the elastic and for the inelastic scenario. In these plots all the curves have been normalized to the differential rate computed assuming a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution with $\Theta_0=220$ km/s, $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}=544$ km/s and $\rho_{\chi}=$ 0.3 GeV/cm$^3$. In the case of a 100 GeV WIMP the curves shown in the plot differ mostly because the three corresponding profiles have different local DM densities. In the light and inelastic WIMP scenario, instead, the distance between the three curves also depend on the different high velocity behavior of the phase-space densities corresponding to the considered profiles. In all cases the Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation leads to lower differential rates.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{RateRatio100_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{RateRatio10_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm,height=50mm]{RateRatioin_1D.ps}
\caption{Ratios between the MCMC differential event rates and the ones obtained in the Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation with $\Theta_0=220$ km/s, $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}=544$ km/s and $\rho_{\chi}=$ 0.3 GeV/cm$^3$. Left panel: 100 GeV WIMP elastically scattering. Central panel: 10 GeV WIMP elastically scattering. Right panel: 45 GeV WIMP inelastically scattering with $\delta=100$ KeV.}
\label{RatioSignals}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Xenon100 exclusion limit}
Finally, we study how astrophysical uncertainties affect the estimation of the exclusion limit in the scattering cross section - mass plane. In this section we focus on the recent Xenon100 data, implementing a method based on the Poisson statistics, as explained in section \ref{ddrate}. We expect, however, similar conclusions, {\it i.e} similar credibility intervals, for different experiments analyzed with more refined statistical tools.
In the case of the exclusion limit, we discretize the mass $M_{\chi}$ of the DM candidate and study the quantities $\zeta_k=\bar{\sigma}(M_{\chi}^k)$, where $M_{\chi}^k$ is a point in the discretization of the WIMP mass, and $\bar{\sigma}$ is the upper bound defined in Eq.~(\ref{limit}). From the marginal posterior pdf's of the quantities $\bar{\sigma}(M_{\chi}^k)$ we derived a mean exclusion limit and the corresponding ``exclusion bands'' calculated from the credibility intervals associated with the different $\bar{\sigma}(M_{\chi}^k)$. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{limits} (left panel), where we focus on the case of an Einasto profile. Together with the 95$\%$ MCMC credibility intervals we also plot for comparison the exclusion limits which one finds in the Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation with Galactic parameters set at their upper and lower 95$\%$ C.I. values (see Table \ref{tab_all}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,height=75mm]{LimitWIMP_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,height=75mm]{LimitRatio_1D.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{Left panel: The blue (dark) band is the MCMC exclusion limit associated with the Einasto profile (95 \% C.I.). The green (light) band, instead, is the region between the exclusion limits obtained in the Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation with respectively $\Theta_0=229$ km/s, $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}=523$ km/s and $\rho_{\chi}=0.33$ GeV/cm$^3$ , and $\Theta_0=261$ km/s, $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}=589$ km/s and $\rho_{\chi}=0.45$ GeV/cm$^3$. Right panel: Ratios between the MCMC exclusion limits (three profiles) and the one obtained in the Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation with $\Theta_0=220$ km/s, $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}=544$ km/s and $\rho_{\chi}=$ 0.3 GeV/cm$^3$.}
\label{limits}
\end{figure}
In agreement with our results for the differential events rates, uncertainties at small masses are rather important while at larger masses they are less strong (in this respect the logarithmic scale in the plot might be misleading).
In the right panel of Fig.\ref{limits} we show the ratios between the MCMC exclusion limits computed for the Einasto, NFW and Burkert profiles, and the one obtained in the Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation with $\Theta_0=220$ km/s, $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}=544$ km/s and $\rho_{\chi}=$ 0.3 GeV/cm$^3$. As for the differential rate, the curves differ because the three profiles are charcterized by different local densities and velocity distributions, being the tails of such distributions particularly relevant for low mass WIMPs.
Fig.\ref{limits} also shows that in all cases the Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation leads to upper bounds for the scattering cross section less strong than in the MCMC computation, in particular at low masses where the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is artificially truncated at an escape velocity $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}=544$ km/s.
We also studied how astrophysical uncertainties affect the exclusion limit in the scattering cross section - mass plane for the inelastic DM scenario. The results obtained assuming an Einasto profile are shown in Fig.\ref{limits-iDM} (left panel). As for the case of DM elastically scattering off the detector nuclei, together with the 95$\%$ MCMC credibility intervals we also plot the results derived in the Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation with Galactic parameters set at their upper and lower 95$\%$ C.I. values (see Table \ref{tab_all}). As expected from our results on the differential rates, in the inelastic DM scenario uncertainties on the exclusion limit are considerably larger than in the case in which the DM - nucleus interaction occurs elastically. Finally, in the right panel of Fig.\ref{limits-iDM}, we show the ratios between the MCMC inelastic exclusion limits obtained for the Einasto, NFW and Burkert profiles, and the one computed in the Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation with $\Theta_0=220$ km/s, $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}=544$ km/s and $\rho_{\chi}=$ 0.3 GeV/cm$^3$. As already mentioned presenting the analogous results for the elastic DM scenario, the curves differ bacause of the different local densities and velocity distributions characterizing the three considerd DM profiles.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,height=75mm]{LimitiDM_1D.ps}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,height=75mm]{LimitRatioiDM_1D.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{As in Fig. \ref{limits} but with $\delta$=120 KeV.}
\label{limits-iDM}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
\label{concl}
We have presented a new determination of the local DM phase-space density based on the Eddington's inversion formula. In this approach, assuming an isotropic velocity distribution, and in the limit of spherically symmetric DM density profile $\rho_h(r)$ and gravitational potential for the Galaxy $\Phi(r)$, there is an one-to-one correspondence between $\rho_h$ and the DM phase-space density.
Implementing, within a Bayesian framework, a broad and variegated sample of dynamical constraints for the Milky Way, and sampling through a MCMC algorithm the posterior pdf of the Galactic models parameters, we computed the local DM phase-space density. We have then applied this result to study a few illustrative cases of direct detection rates, and have discussed the impact on the exclusion limit one can infer from the latest data release from the Xenon experiment; the extension of our analysis to other DM models or to other experimental configurations is straightforward, and similar pattern are expected. The advantage of our approach is that it allows to keep a close inspection on the correlation among the astrophysical quantities setting the phase-space density of DM particles (and hence in turn the direct detection signals) and propagate uncertainties in a consistent way.
We studied separately three cases corresponding to three possible choices for the DM density profile, namely the NFW, Burkert and Einasto profiles. We have found that, on average, the velocity dispersion, which
characterize the width in the velocity distribution, tends to be larger for the Burkert profile than for the NFW or the Einasto. Studying two-dimensional marginal posterior probability in the plane velocity dispersion versus circular velocity, we have verified that for any of the three distributions these two quantities do not follow the linear correlation pattern suggested in the isothermal sphere model, and adopted in most analyses of direct detection rates. We have computed the distributions of the escape velocities in our samples and found mean values which are consistent with the mean value obtained from observations of high velocity stars by the RAVE Survey; on the other hand, we have found that the shape of the high velocity tails in our distributions is sensibly different with respect to what you find assuming a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution truncated at a given value of the escape velocity.
Concerning the DM direct detection signals, astrophysical uncertainties have the largest impact on models for which the scattering rate depends mainly on the tails of the phase-space density, namely for light WIMPs or DM candidates inelastically scattering, given that in such cases the integral of the phase-space density
can be considerably different for different Galactic models. We have also compared our result with those obtained with a Maxwell-Boltzmann
defined by setting circular velocity, escape velocity and local halo density to the "standard" reference values
adopted in most direct detection studies, respectively, $\Theta_0=220$ km/s, $\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{esc}}=544$ km/s and $\rho_{\chi}=$ 0.3 GeV/cm$^3$. Regardless of the assumed DM profile, when adopting a self-consistent MCMC DM phase-space density, we have found that the differential rates are higher and the exclusion limits stronger than in the standard Maxwell-Boltzmann approximation.
Results in this paper are derived under the hypotheses of spherical symmetry and isotropy of the velocity distribution, two rather strong assumptions which may be (slightly) inaccurate for describing the DM distribution in the local neighborhood (see the note referring to this aspect in section \ref{df}). Having demonstrated here the power of the Bayesian approach in this analysis, we remark that such approach is general enough to be implemented within more general Galactic geometries, where extensions of the Eddington's inversion are required in order to relate the phase-space density to the parameter space of the underlying Galactic model; a closer inspection on this point will be carried out in future work.
\acknowledgments
These results have been obtained making use of the bwGRiD Cluster (http://www.bw-grid.de), member of the German D-Grid initiative, funded by the Ministry for Education and Research (Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung) and the Ministry for Science, Research and Arts Baden-W\"urttemberg (Ministerium f\"ur Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-W\"urttemberg).
|
\section{Introduction.}
Light transport in engineered optical waveguides has
provided a fascinating and experimentally accessible framework to
visualize in a classical setting many universal coherent quantum
phenomena generally encountered in condensed-matter or matter-wave
systems \cite{Christodoulides03,Longhi09}. This has lead to the
prediction and observation of a wide variety of classic optics
analogues of {\em single-particle} nonrelativistic and even
relativistic phenomena, such as Bloch oscillations and Zener
tunneling \cite{Christodoulides03,BO}, dynamic localization
\cite{Longhi06}, Anderson localization \cite{and}, coherent
destruction of tunneling \cite{Longhi09}, Zeno dynamics \cite{Zeno},
adiabatic stabilization \cite{Longhi05}, and Zitterbewegung
\cite{Dreisow10}. Since photons do not interact, it is a common
belief that, as opposed to other quantum systems such as cold atoms
or trapped ions (see, e.g., \cite{JPBreview}), the use of photonics
as a model system for quantum physics carries the intrinsic drawback
of being limited to visualize {\em single-particle} phenomena,
missing the possibility to simulate the richer physics of
interacting many-particle quantum systems. A paradigmatic example of
many-body physics is found in quantum tunneling of bosons in a
double well potential, the so-called bosonic junction
\cite{C0,C1,C2,C3,C4,C5,C6}. For a relatively large number and
weakly interacting bosons, this has led to the observation of
Josephson oscillations and nonlinear self-trapping of bosons above a
critical interaction strength, as described by a standard
Bose-Hubbard model or by coupled mean-field equations in the
Gross-Pitaevskii limit \cite{C0}. A simple optical realization of
the bosonic junction in such a limiting case is based on light
tunneling between two coupled nonlinear waveguides \cite{Ruffo}.
However, a richer dynamical scenario has been recently predicted to
occur for tunneling of {\em few} and {\em strongly} correlated
bosons \cite{C4,vari}, covering the full crossover from weak
interactions to the fermionization limit of the Tonks-Girardeau gas
\cite{fermionization}. In particular, the tunneling dynamics of two
bosons in a one-dimensional double well shows a transition from Rabi
oscillations, in the absence of interaction, to correlated pair
tunneling and further to fragmented-pair tunneling as the
interaction strength is increased \cite{C4}. As few-body
counterparts of the self-trapping transition and correlated pair
tunneling in a bosonic junction have been reported in recent
experiments \cite{C3,C7}, an observation of the rich two-boson
tunneling dynamics up to the fermionization limit \cite{C4} is still
missing. In this article it is shown that such a two-boson tunneling
dynamics can be realized in a classical optical setting based on
four-core guiding dielectric structure, in which the electric field
propagation along the guide mimics the quantum mechanical evolution
of the two-particle wave function. The paper is organized as
follows. In Sec.II, the quantum-optical analogy between light
propagation in a four-core microstructured fiber and the dynamics of
two interacting bosons in a double well is outlined. In Sec.III, a
detailed analysis of the tunneling dynamics is presented, and the
entire crossover from Rabi oscillations to correlated pair tunneling
and to tunneling of a fragmented pair in the fermionization limit is
explained on the basis of the coupling among the various modes
sustained by the fiber cores. Finally, in Sec.IV the main
conclusions are outlined.
\section{Quantum-optical analogy}
Let us consider a weakly-guiding dielectric structure with a
refractive index $n(x_1,x_2)$, which varies in the transverse
$(x_1,x_2)$ plane but remains invariant along the axial direction
$z$. In the paraxial approximation, propagation of monochromatic
light waves is described by a Sch\"{o}dinger-type wave equation for
the electric field envelope $\psi$ \cite{Longhi09}
\begin{equation}
i \lambdabar \partial_z \psi=-\frac{\lambdabar^2}{2 n_s} \left(
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2}+ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}
\right) \psi+V(x_1,x_2) \psi,
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{Fig1}
\caption{ (color online) (a) Profiles of the double well potential
$V_w(x)$ (solid curve) and of the repulsive potential $V_{int}(x)$
(dashed curve) for parameter values $a=4.5 \; \mu$m, $w=3 \; \mu$m,
$D_x=1 \; \mu$m, $w_i=0.5 \; \mu$m, $D_{xi}=0.2 \; \mu$m, $\Delta
n_1=0.003$, and $\Delta n_2=0.002$. The corresponding
two-dimensional optical potential $V(x_1,x_2)$ is shown in (b). (c)
Schematic of the guided modes supported by the four core regions
involved in the tunneling dynamics and their couplings.}
\end{figure}
where $\lambdabar=\lambda / (2 \pi)$ is the reduced wavelength of
photons, $V(x_1,x_2) \simeq n_s-n(x_1,x_2)$ is the optical
potential, and $n_s$ is the substrate refractive index. The
normalization condition $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx_1 dx_2
|\psi|^2=1$ will be assumed in the following. Previous
quantum-optical analogies have generally viewed the paraxial wave
equation (1) as formally equivalent to the Schr\"{o}dinger equation
for a {\em single} particle of mass $n_s$ in a two-dimensional
potential $V(x_1,x_2)$, in which the temporal evolution of the
quantum particle is mapped into the spatial light evolution along
the axial direction $z$ and the Planck's constant is replaced by the
reduced wavelength of photons (see, for instance, \cite{Longhi05}).
However, whenever the potential $V$ has the form
\begin{equation}
V(x_1,x_2)=V_w(x_1)+V_w(x_2)+V_{int}(|x_1-x_2|),
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{Fig2}
\caption{ (color online) Numerically-computed behavior of (a) the
percentage of bosons in the right well $p_R$, and (b) of the pair
probability $p_2$ versus propagation distance, for increasing values
of the particle interaction strength, measured by the index change
$\Delta n_2$. Curve 1: $\Delta n_2=0$ (non-interacting bosons);
curve 2: $\Delta n_2=0.5 \times 10^{-3}$; curve 3: $\Delta n_2=1.5
\times 10^{-3}$; curve 4: $\Delta n_2=15 \times 10^{-3}$. Curves 2
and 3 correspond to the correlated pair tunneling regime, whereas
curve 4 corresponds to tunneling of a fragmented pair.}
\end{figure}
where $V_w(x)$ is an arbitrary one-dimensional potential and $V_{int}(x)$ is a short-range
potential, Eq.(1) can be regarded as the optical analogue of the
Schr\"{o}dinger equation for {\em two} particles with the same mass
$n_s$ in a one-dimensional potential $V_w$, which interacts via the
potential $V_{int}$. If the optical structure is excited at the
$z=0$ input plane by a beam satisfying the symmetry constraint
$\psi(x_1,x_2,0)=\psi(x_2,x_1,0)$, the wave function $\psi$ remains
symmetric along the propagation, and Eq.(1) thus describes the
evolution of two interacting identical bosons. Therefore, if we
assume for $V_w$ a double well shape and for $V_{int}$ a short-range
repulsive potential, our optical system realizes a classic wave
optics analogue of the two-boson junction recently studied in
Ref.\cite{C4}. In our optical system, we assume for $V_w(x)$ a
double well of the form \cite{DellaValle07} $V_{w}=-\Delta n_1
[g(x-a)+g(x+a)]$, where $g(x)=[{\rm erf}((x+w)/D_x)-{\rm
erf}((x-w)/D_x)]/[2 {\rm erf}(w/D_x)]$ is the well shape, $2a$ is
the distance between the two wells, $\Delta n_1>0$ is the peak index
change that defines the well depth, and $2w$ is the well width. For
the repulsive potential, we assume a similar functional form
$V_{int}=\Delta n_2 [{\rm erf}((x+w_i)/D_{xi})-{\rm
erf}((x-w_i)/D_{xi})]/[2 {\rm erf}(w_i/D_{xi})]$, with $w_i$ and
$D_{xi}$ much smaller than $w$ and $D_x$, respectively. The
refractive index change $\Delta n_2>0$ measures the strength of the
interaction, $\Delta n_2=0$ corresponding to non-interacting bosons.
Typical shapes of $V_w(x)$, $V_{int}(x)$ and of the resulting
two-dimensional potential $V(x_1,x_2)$ [Eq.(2)] are shown in
Figs.1(a) and (b). Note that the resulting potential $V$ in the
$(x_1,x_2)$ plane defines four higher-index guiding regions, i.e.
four waveguides, denoted by I-IV in Fig.1(b), which are evanescently
coupled. Such a four-core guide could be realized, for example, with
the technology of microstructured fibers \cite{fibers}, in which a
preform with the desired geometrical and refractive index features
is first manufactured. For example, using a cladding region made of
fused silica, the structure of Fig.1(b) could be realized by
assembling different regions of fused silica with different GeO$_2$
doping concentrations.
\section{Tunneling dynamics}
The main features of the tunneling dynamics of two bosons in a double-well potential
are captured by analyzing the evolution of the percentage of bosons in the right
well $p_R(z)$ and the the pair (or same-site) boson probability
$p_2(z)$, which are defined by \cite{C4}
\begin{eqnarray}
p_R(z) & = & \int_{0}^{\infty} dx_1
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx_2 |\psi|^2 \\
p_2(z) & = & \int_{x_1,x_2>0} dx_1 dx_2
|\psi|^2+\int_{x_1,x_2<0} dx_1 dx_2 |\psi|^2 \;\;\;\;\;\;\;.
\end{eqnarray}
In our optical setting, $p_R(z)$ and $p_2(z)$ simply correspond to
the fractional light power trapped in waveguides I and IV, and in
waveguides I and III, respectively. A typical evolution of $p_R(z)$
and $p_2(z)$, as obtained by numerical integration of Eq.(1) for
increasing values of the interaction strength $\Delta n_2$, is shown
in Fig.2. Parameter values used in simulations are $\lambda=633$ nm
and $n_s=1.45$. In each simulation, the structure is excited at
$z=0$ in the fundamental mode of the guide I, which corresponds to
have initially the two bosons in the right-side well in the lowest
energy state. The scenario shown in Fig.2 reproduces the transition
from uncorrelated tunneling to pair tunneling and fragmented
tunneling in the fermionization limit, predicted in Ref.\cite{C4}.
For non-interacting bosons (curve 1), the atoms simply Rabi
oscillate back and forth between both wells, and they tunnel
independently. As a small correlation is introduced (curve 2), both
atoms tend to remain in the same well in the course of tunneling,
i.e they tunnel {\em as pairs}. Such a dynamical behavior, which was
observed in \cite{C5} and referred to as second-order tunneling, can
be simply explained in the framework of a standard two-site
Bose-Hubbard model, the optical simulation of which was recently
proposed in the Fock space using waveguide arrays \cite{Longhiun}.
However, the standard Bose-Hubbard model fails to predict the
tunneling regimes at strong interaction and the transition to the
fermionization limit. Indeed, at a larger interaction (curve 3),
tunneling tends to be inhibited, which is the few-body signature of
the self-trapping phenomenon of many bosons in the mean-field limit.
Remarkably, at stronger interaction and near the fermionization
limit (curve 4), tunneling is again allowed, and a fast oscillation
of $p_R(z)$ is superimposed to the slower tunneling cycle. This
basically corresponds to fragmented-pair tunneling at the Rabi
frequency predicted in Ref.\cite{C4}. Correspondingly, $p_2(z)$
passes through just about any value from 1 (fragmented pair) to
small values (near complete isolation). A detailed explanation of
such a rich tunneling scenario requires an inspection of the
low-lying energy spectrum of the exact two-boson Hamiltonian (1)
beyond the standard two-mode Bose-Hubbard approximation \cite{C4}.
In the optical context, the scenario can be explained in a different
view as the result of evanescent photonic tunneling among {\em a
few} guided modes of the {\em four} two-dimensional guides in the
geometrical setting of Fig.1(b). In fact, let us indicate by
$\phi_{1,2}$ the fundamental modes of the isolated waveguides I and
III, by $\phi_{3,4,5}$ the fundamental and the two lowest
higher-order degenerate transverse modes of the isolated waveguide
II, and by $\phi_{6,7,8}$ the fundamental and the two lowest
higher-order degenerate transverse modes of the isolated waveguide
IV. A typical profile of such modes is shown in Fig.1(c). Let then
expand the envelope $\psi$ as a superposition of such modes with
$z$-varying coefficients, i.e. $\psi=\sum_{l=1}^{8}c_l(z)
\phi_l(x_1,x_2) \exp(i \beta z)$, where $\beta$ is a reference
propagation constant. Note that, for symmetry reasons, one has
$c_6=c_3$, $c_7=c_4$ and $c_8=c_5$. In the tight-binding and
nearest-neighboring approximation, neglecting cross-coupling terms,
the following coupled-mode equations for the amplitudes $c_l$ can be
derived (see, for instance, \cite{Christodoulides03,Ruffo}):
\begin{eqnarray}
i (d c_1/dz) & = & -2 \kappa_1 c_3-2 \kappa_2 c_4-2 \kappa_3
c_5+\delta_1 c_1 \nonumber
\\
i (d c_2/dz) & = & -2 \kappa_1 c_3-2 \kappa_3 c_4-2 \kappa_2 c_5+
\delta_1 c_2 \nonumber
\\
i (d c_3/dz) & = & -\kappa_1 (c_1+c_2)
\\
i (d c_4/dz) & = & -\kappa_2 c_1- \kappa_3 c_2+ \delta_2 c_4
\nonumber
\\
i (d c_5/dz) & = & -\kappa_3 c_1- \kappa_2 c_2+ \delta_2 c_5
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{Fig3}
\caption{ (color online) (a) Behavior of $p_R$, and (b) of $p_2$
versus propagation distance, for increasing values of particle
interaction strength measured by the detuning $\delta_1$, as
predicted by the coupled-mode equations (3), for $\kappa_2=0.16$,
$\kappa_3=0.80$, and $\delta_2=20$ (in units of ${\rm mm}^{-1}$).
Curve 1: $\delta_1=0$, $\kappa_1=0.212$; curve 2: $\delta_1=1.22$,
$\kappa_1=0.26$; curve 3: $\delta_1=3.2$, $\kappa_1=0.32$; curve 4:
$\delta_1=18.9$, $\kappa_1=0.38$.}
\end{figure}
where $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_2$ and $\kappa_3$ are the coupling
constants between the couples of modes $\{\phi_1, \phi_3\}$,
$\{\phi_1,\phi_4\}$ and $\{\phi_1,\phi_5\}$, respectively [see
Fig.1(c)], $\delta_1=\beta_3-\beta_1$ is the mismatch between the
propagation constants $\beta_3$ and $\beta_1$ of modes $\phi_3$ and
$\phi_1$, and $\delta_2=\beta_3-\beta_4$ is the mismatch between the
propagation constants $\beta_3$ and $\beta_4$ of modes $\phi_3$ and
$\phi_4$ (or $\phi_5$). Initial condition for Eqs.(5) is
$c_l(0)=\delta_{l,1}$. In terms of the amplitudes $c_l$, the
percentage of bosons in the right well and the same-site boson
probability, as defined by Eqs.(3) and (4), take take the simple
form
\begin{eqnarray}
p_R(z) & = & |c_1|^2+|c_3|^2+|c_4|^2+|c_5|^2 \\
p_2(z) & = & |c_1|^2+|c_2|^2,
\end{eqnarray}
respectively. In the absence of interaction, i.e. for $\Delta
n_2=0$, one has $\delta_1=0$ whereas $\delta_2$ is much larger than
the coupling constants. Hence, the higher-order transverse modes of
waveguides II and IV are not excited, i.e. one has $c_4 \sim c_5
\sim 0$, and the evolution of $c_1$, $c_2$ and $c_3$ can be
calculated exactly, yielding $p_R(z)= \cos^2(\kappa_1z)$ and
$p_2(z)=(1/2)[1+\cos^2(2 \kappa_1 z)]$: this is precisely the
dynamical behavior of uncorrelated bosons (curve 1 of Fig.2). As the
interaction $\Delta n_2$ is increased, the detuning $\delta_1$
increases, whereas $\delta_2$ does not change. The coupling
constants $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_2$ and $\kappa_3$ are given by
overlapping integrals involving the coupled
guided modes, and are expected to slightly increase
as $\Delta n_2$ is increased because of the less confinement of
modes $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$. If $(\delta_2-\delta_1)$ is still large
enough that the higher-order transverse modes of waveguides II and
IV are still out of resonance, the amplitudes $c_4$ and $c_5$ remain
small, and the tunneling dynamics is mainly governed by the first
three equations of the system (3), but with $\delta_1 \neq 0$. A
nonvanishing value of the detuning $\delta_1$ is responsible for the
doubly-periodicity of $p_R(z)$, the increase of the tunneling
period, and the appearance of correlated pair tunneling (i.e.
$p_2(z) \simeq 1$) as observed in curves 2 and 3 of Fig.2. As the
interaction $\Delta n_2$ is further increased, excitation of the
higher-order transverse modes of waveguides II and IV can not be
anymore neglected, and the tunneling dynamics requires to account
for the full five amplitudes entering in Eq.(5). For very strong
interactions, corresponding to the fermionization limit, the
fundamental modes $\phi_{1,2}$ of waveguides I and III get close to
resonance with the (degenerate) transverse modes $\phi_{4,5}$ and
$\phi_{7,8}$ of waveguides II and IV, whereas their fundamental
modes $\phi_{3,6}$ are now out of resonance. Hence, in the
fermionization limit one can set $c_3 \simeq 0$ in Eqs.(5). Such
equations well describe the restoration of tunneling of a fragmented
pair. \par
A typical dynamical evolution of $p_{R}(z)$ and $p_{2}(z)$
in the various parameter regions, as obtained by numerically solving
the coupled-mode equations (5) by varying $\delta_1$ and taking into
account for the correction of $\kappa_1$ solely, is shown in Fig.3.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.44]{Fig4}
\caption{ (color online) Light tunneling dynamics in a four-core
fiber. (a) Profile of the optical potential $n_s-n(x_1,x_2)$ (core
diameter $2w= 5 \; \mu$m, core spacing $2a=7 \; \mu$m, index change
$\Delta n=0.005$). (b) and (c) show the evolution of $p_R$ and
$p_2$, respectively, for increasing values of the width $w_c$ of the
cut in guides I and III. Curve 1: $w_c=0$ (non-interacting bosons);
curve 2: $w_c= 0.6 \; \mu$m (correlated pair tunneling); curve 3:
$w_c= 2 \; \mu$m (tunneling of a fragmented pair).}
\end{figure}
Note that the behavior of both the percentage of bosons in the right
well and the same-site boson probability reproduces very well the
different tunneling regimes previously found in Fig.2. \par The good
description of the tunneling dynamics offered by the coupled-mode
equations (5) indicates that the tunneling dynamics of two bosons,
shown in Fig.2, is rather insensitive to the specific shapes of the
guides, and could be thus observed in simpler optical structures.
For example, in Fig.4 it is shown that a similar dynamical behavior
can be realized using a microstructured optical fiber with four
circular cores of radius $w$ and step-index $\Delta n$, in which a
cut with variable width $w_c$ is applied to the cores I and III to
mimic boson repulsion [Fig.4(a)]. As the cut width $w_c$ (i.e. the
interaction strength) is increased, a transition from independent
Rabi oscillations (curve 1) to correlated pair tunneling (curve 2)
and to tunneling of a fragmented pair (curve 3) ic clearly observed.
\section{Conclusions}
In conclusion, an optical realization of the tunneling
dynamics of two interacting bosons in a double-well potential, based
on light transport in a four-core microstructured fiber, has been
proposed. The present results indicate that photonic systems could
provide an experimentally accessible test bench to investigate in a
purely classical setting the dynamical aspects embodied in the
physics of strongly-correlated few-particle quantum systems. As
compared to quantum simulators based on the coherent dynamics of
cold atoms or ions trapped in optical lattices \cite{JPBreview}, the
use of a classical optics simulator enables a direct access to the
evolution of the multiparticle probability density and could provide
a new route to realize other many-body physical models
\cite{Longhiun,Korsch}. For example, the introduction of gain and
loss regions in the optical structure could offer the possibility to
test in the lab the physics of many-body particles within
non-Hermitian $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric models \cite{Korsch}.
\acknowledgments
The author acknowledges financial support by the
Italian MIUR (Grant No. PRIN-2008-YCAAK project "Analogie
ottico-quantistiche in strutture fotoniche a guida d'onda").
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ be a Noetherian local ring, $I \subseteq R$ an ${\gothic{m}}$-primary ideal and $M$ a finitely generated $R$-module. We let $\lambda_{R}(-)$ denote the length of an $R$-module. The \emph{Hilbert function} for $I$ with respect to $M$ is the function $H_{I,M}: \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ given by $H_{I,M}(n)=\lambda_{R}(M/I^{n}M)$. Samuel showed that these functions agree with a polynomial $P_{I,M}(n)$ (called the \emph{Hilbert-Samuel polynomial}) of degree $d=\dim M$ for $n$ sufficiently large. We can always write $P_{I,M}(n)$ in the form
\[P_{I,M}(n)=\sum_{i=0}^{d}(-1)^{i}e_{i}(I, M)\binom{n+d-i-1}{d-i}\]
for unique numbers $e_{i}(I,M)$, known as the \emph{Hilbert coefficients} for $I$ with respect to $M$. The largest number for which $H_{I,M}(n)$ and $P_{I,M}(n)$ disagree is called the \emph{postulation number} for $I$, denoted $n(I,M):=\min\{j \ | \ H_{I,M}(n) = P_{I,M}(n) \ \forall n>j\}$. Whenever $M=R$ we often suppress the $M$.
In this note, we focus our attention on non-positivity of the Hilbert coefficients for a parameter ideal. Recall that a ring $R$ is \emph{unmixed} if $\dim \hat{R}/p=\dim R$ for all $p\in \operatorname{Ass}_{\hat{R}}\hat{R}$ where $\hat{R}$ denotes the ${\gothic{m}}$-adic completion of $R$. Our work was inspired by the following result of Ghezzi, et al \cite{GGHOPV} which characterizes the Cohen-Macaulayness of a ring in terms of the first Hilbert coefficient of a parameter ideal. By a parameter ideal, we mean an ideal generated by a full system of parameters.
\begin{thm} \cite{GGHOPV}
Suppose $(R,{\gothic{m}})$ is an unmixed local ring and $q$ a parameter ideal. Then $e_{1} (q)\leq 0$
with equality if and only if R is Cohen-Macaulay.
\end{thm}
With the assumption that $\operatorname{depth} R \geq d-1$, we are able to prove the following:
\begin{thm}
Let $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ be a local Noetherian ring of dimension $d\geq 2$. Suppose that $\operatorname{depth} R \geq d-1$. If $q$ is a parameter ideal of $R$, then the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $e_{2}(q) \leq 0$
\item$ e_{2}(q)=0$ if and only if $n(q) < 2-d$ and $\operatorname{grade} gr_{q}(R)_{+} \geq d-1$
\item $e_{2}(q)=0$ implies $e_{3}(q)=e_{4}(q)= \cdots =e_{d}(q)=0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
Here, $gr_{q}(R)$ denotes the associated graded ring of $R$ with respect to $q$.
We also discuss some results with respect to the first difference function, $\Delta$, defined in Section \ref{sec: other coeffs} and use this to examine the other Hilbert coefficients of a parameter ideal under the additional assumption that $\operatorname{depth} gr_{q}(R) \geq d-1$.
\section{The Hilbert Coefficients in Dimension One}
In this section we will discuss some results on the Hilbert coefficients of a parameter ideal in a one dimensional ring.
\begin{defn}
\textrm{Let $f:\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$. The first difference function, $\Delta(f)$, is defined by $\Delta(f(n))=f(n+1)-f(n)$. We define the $i^{th}$ difference function inductively by $\Delta^{i}(f)=\Delta(\Delta^{i-1}(f))$.} By convention, we define $\Delta^{0}(f)=f$.
\end{defn}
We first give a formula for the Hilbert coefficients in a one-dimensional ring.
\begin{prop} \label{lem: dim 1 hilbert fnct}
Suppose $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ is a one-dimensional local Noetherian ring and $q=(x)\subseteq R$ is a parameter ideal. Then $((x^{i+1}):x^{i})=((x^{i+2}):x^{i+1})$ for all $i \gg 0$. We set $l=\min\{i \ | \ ((x^{n+1}):x^{n})=((x^{i+1}):x^{i}) \textrm{ for all }n \geq i\}$ and $\tilde{x}=((x^{l+1}):x^{l})$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item \begin{enumerate} \item $e_{0}(q)=\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})$, and
\item $e_{1}(q)=\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}\left(\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})-\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i}))\right)$ for a fixed integer $l$.
\end{enumerate}
\item \begin{enumerate} \item $P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n)=\sum_{i=n}^{\infty}\left(\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i}))-\lambda(R/\tilde{x})\right)$, and
\item $P_{q}(n) \geq H_{q}(n)$ for all $n\geq 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
Write $q=(x)$. Note that $\lambda_{R}((x^{i})/(x^{i+1}))=\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i}))$ for all $i$ as \newline $((x^{i+1}):x^{i})$ is the kernel of the surjective map $R \rightarrow (x^{i})/(x^{i+1})$ defined by $1 \mapsto \bar{x^{i}}$. Then $\lambda(R/q^{n})=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\lambda_{R}((x^{i})/(x^{i+1}))=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i}))$. Note the ascending chain $$((x):x^{0}) \subseteq ((x^{2}):x) \subseteq ((x^{3}):x^{2}) \subseteq \cdots$$ must stabilize. Let $$l=\min\{i \ | \ ((x^{n+1}):x^{n})=((x^{i+1}):x^{i}) \textrm{ for all }n \geq i\}$$ and set $\tilde{x}=((x^{l+1}):x^{l})$.
For $n \geq l$, we have $\lambda_{R}(R/(x^{n}))=\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i}))+(n-l)\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})$. This gives that \[P_{q}(n)=\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i}))+(n-l)\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x}).\]
From this, we see that $e_{0}(q)=\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})$ and $e_{1}(q)=\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}\left[\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})-\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}:x^{i}))\right]$. This proves (1).
Now if $n\leq l-1$, then $H_{q}(n)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i}))$, and
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n)&=&\sum_{i=n}^{l-1}\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i}))+(n-l)\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})\\
&=&\sum_{i=n}^{l-1}\left(\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i}))-\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})\right) \\
&=& \sum_{i=n}^{\infty}\left(\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i}))-\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last equality holds since $((x^{i+1}):x^{i})=\tilde{x}$ for all $i \geq l$. This gives 2($a$).
Note that for all $i$, we have $((x^{i+1}):x^{i}) \subset \tilde{x}$, so $\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i})) \geq \lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})$ and we have $P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n) \geq 0$. In fact, if $n\geq l$, we have $P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n)=0$. This gives part 2($b$) of the proposition.
\end{proof}
\end{prop}
This proposition gives us a formula for the postulation number, $n(q)$, of a parameter ideal $q$ in a one-dimensional ring.
\begin{cor}
Let $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ be a one-dimensional local Noetherian ring and $q=(x)$ a parameter ideal. Then $$n(q)=\min\{i \ | \ ((x^{i+1}):x^{i})=((x^{j+1}):x^{j}) \text{ for all } j\geq i \}-1.$$
\begin{proof}
Let $l=\min\{i \ | \ ((x^{i+1}):x^{i})=((x^{j+1}):x^{j}) \text{ for all } j \geq i \}$ and $\tilde{x}=((x^{l+1}):x^{l})$. Then, using part 2($a$) of Proposition \ref{lem: dim 1 hilbert fnct}, clearly $n(q) \leq l-1$. If $n(q) < l-1$, then we have $P_{q}(l)=H_{q}(l)$ and using 2($a$) again, this gives $\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{l}):x^{l-1}))=\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})$. But this contradicts the minimality of $l$. Thus, we must have $n(q)=l-1$.
\end{proof}
\end{cor}
\begin{cor} \label{cor: dim 1, e_{1}}
Let $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ be a one-dimensional local Noetherian ring and $q=(x)$ a parameter ideal. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $k \in \mathbb{Z}$, if $P_{q}(k)-H_{q}(k)=0$, then $P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n)=0$ for all $n \geq k$, i.e., $k>n(q)$.
\item $\Delta^{2}(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n))=\lambda_{R}(((x^{n+2}):x^{n+1})/((x^{n+1}):x^{n}))$ for all $n$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
For the first statement, suppose $P_{q}(k)-H_{q}(k)=0$. Let $\tilde{x}$ be defined as in Proposition \ref{lem: dim 1 hilbert fnct}. Then $P_{q}(k)-H_{q}(k)=\sum_{i=k}^{\infty}\left(\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i})-\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})\right)=0$. Since \newline $\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{i+1}):x^{i}))-\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})\geq 0$ for all $i\geq 0$, we must have equality for each $i\geq k$. It follows that $P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n)=0$ for all $n \geq k$, i.e., $k > n(q)$.
For (2), note by Proposition \ref{lem: dim 1 hilbert fnct}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n))&=&\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})-\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{n+1}):x^{n})).
\end{eqnarray*}
So,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta^{2}(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n))&=&\Delta(\Delta(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n))) \\
&=&\Delta(\lambda_{R}(R/\tilde{x})-\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{n+1}):x^{n}))) \\
&=&-\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{n+2}):x^{n+1}))+\lambda_{R}(R/((x^{n+1}):x^{n}))\\
&=& \lambda_{R}(((x^{n+2}):x^{n+1})/((x^{n+1}):x^{n})).
\end{eqnarray*}
In particular, this shows $\Delta(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n)) \leq 0$ and $\Delta^{2}(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n))\geq 0$ for all $n$.
\end{proof}
\end{cor}
\section{ The Second Hilbert Coefficient}
When working with Hilbert functions, a common technique is to reduce by a superficial sequence to obtain a ring of smaller dimension. The following Proposition due to Nagata guarantees that when we do this, the Hilbert coefficients behave nicely.
\begin{prop} [cf. \cite{NA}, 22.6] \label{NA}
Let $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ be a Noetherian local ring, $I$ an ${\gothic{m}}$-primary ideal, and $M$ a nonzero finitely generated $R$-module of dimension $d$. Suppose $y\in $I is superficial with respect to $M$. Then $\lambda_{R}(0:_{M}y)$ is finite and
\[P_{\bar{I}, \bar{M}}(n)=P_{I,M}(n)-P_{I,M}(n-1)+\lambda_{R}(0:_{M}y).\]
In particular, we have
\[ e_{i}(\bar{I}, \bar{M})= \begin{cases}
e_{i}(I, M) & \textrm{for } i=0, \dots, d-2 \\
e_{d-1}(I, M)+(-1)^{d-1}\lambda_{R}(0:_{M}y) & \textrm{for } i=d-1. \\
\end{cases} \]
\end{prop}
If $x \in I \backslash I^{2}$ is a non-zero-divisor and $x^{*}$ is a regular element of $gr_{I}(R)$, it can be easily shown that $n(I/(x))=n(I)+1$, so the postulation number also behaves nicely when we reduce via a superficial non-zero-divisor.
We begin with a formula for the last Hilbert coefficient.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem: e_{d} formula}
Suppose $(R,{\gothic{m}})$ has dimension $d$. Let $I$ be an ${\gothic{m}}$-primary ideal and $y\in I$ a superficial element. Let $\bar{I}=I/(y)$, $H_{\bar{I}}(k)=\lambda_{R}(R/(I^{k}, y))$ and $P_{\bar{I}}(k)$ denote the Hilbert Samuel polynomial for $\bar{I}$. Then for $l\gg0$,
\[(-1)^{d}e_{d}(I)=\sum_{k=1}^{l}\left(H_{\bar{I}}(k)-P_{\bar{I}}(k)\right) -
\sum_{k=1}^{l} \lambda_{R}((I^{k}:y)/I^{k-1})+l\lambda_{R}(0:y).\]
Furthermore, if $y$ is also a non-zero-divisor on $R$, we have
\[(-1)^{d}e_{d}(I)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(H_{\bar{I}}(k)-P_{\bar{I}}(k)\right) -
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \lambda_{R}((I^{k}:y)/I^{k-1}).\]
\begin{proof}
For $k \in \mathbb{Z}$, consider the exact sequence:
\[0 \rightarrow \frac{I^{k}:y}{I^{k-1}} \rightarrow R/I^{k-1} \xrightarrow{y} R/I^{k}
\rightarrow R/(I^{k},y) \rightarrow 0. \]
From this we see that
$\lambda_{R}(R/(y,I^{k}))=\lambda_{R}(R/I^{k})-\lambda_{R}(R/I^{k-1})+\lambda_{R}\left(\frac{I^{k}:y}{I^{k-1}}\right)$.
Subtracting $P_{\bar{I}}(k)$ and summing both sides, we get, for
$l\gg0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{l}\left(\lambda(R/(y,
I^{k})-P_{\bar{I}}(k)\right)&=&\sum_{k=1}^{l}
\left(\lambda(R/I^{k})-\lambda(R/I^{k-1})+\lambda\left(\frac{I^{k}:y}{I^{k-1}}\right)-
P_{\bar{I}}(k)\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, \begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{l}(H_{\bar{I}}(k)-P_{\bar{I}}(k))&=&
\lambda(R/I^{l})-\sum_{k=1}^{l}\sum_{i=0}^{d-1}(-1)^{i}
\binom{k+d-2-i}{d-1-i}e_{i}(\bar{I})+\sum_{k=1}^{l}\lambda \left(\frac{I^{k}:y}{I^{k-1}}\right)\\
&=& \sum_{i=0}^{d}(-1)^{i}\binom{l+d-1-i}{d-i}
e_{i}(I)-\sum_{i=0}^{d-1}(-1)^{i}
\binom{l+d-1-i}{d-i}e_{i}(\bar{I})\\
&& \hspace{.5cm}+\sum_{k=1}^{l}\lambda\left(\frac{I^{k}:y}{I^{k-1}}\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\lambda(-)=\lambda_{R}(-)$.
By
Proposition \ref{NA}, we have $e_{i}(I)=e_{i}(\bar{I})$
for $i=0, \dots , d-2$ and
$e_{d-1}(I)=e_{d-1}(\bar{I})-(-1)^{d-1}\lambda_{R}(0:y)$. Hence,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{l}(H_{\bar{I}}(k)-P_{\bar{I}}(k))&=&-l\lambda_{R}(0:y)+(-1)^{d}e_{d}(I)+\sum_{k=1}^{l}\lambda_{R}((I^{k}:y)/I^{k-1}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Rearranging, we get
\[(-1)^{d}e_{d}(I)=\sum_{k=1}^{l}\left(H_{\bar{I}}(k)-P_{\bar{I}}(k)\right) - \sum_{k=1}^{l} \lambda_{R}((I^{k}:y)/I^{k-1})+l\lambda_{R}(0:y)\]
and if $y$ is also a non-zero-divisor on $R$, we have
\[(-1)^{d}e_{d}(I)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(H_{\bar{I}}(k)-P_{\bar{I}}(k)\right) - \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \lambda_{R}((I^{k}:y)/I^{k-1})\]
since for $k\gg0$, $H_{\bar{I}}(k)-P_{\bar{I}}(k)=0$ and $\lambda_{R}((I^{k}:y)/I^{k-1})=0$.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
We define $\operatorname{grade} gr_{I}(R)_{+}$ to be the maximal length of a regular sequence for $gr_{I}(R)$ contained in $gr_{I}(R)_{+}$. Then $\operatorname{grade} gr_{I}(R)_{+}=\operatorname{depth} gr_{I}(R)$. For $x\in I^{n}\backslash I^{n+1}$ let $x^{*}$ denote its image in $I^{n}/I^{n+1} \subseteq gr_{I}(R)$. The grade of the associated graded ring also behaves nicely with
respect to superficial sequences as evidenced by the following
lemmas. Lemma \ref{lem: HM 2.2} is also known as ``Sally's Machine".
\begin{lemma} \cite[Lemma 2.1]{HM} \label{lem: HM 2.1} Let $x_{1}, \dots, x_{k}$ be a superficial
sequence for $I$. If $\operatorname{grade} gr_{I}(R)_{+} \geq k$, then $x_{1}^{*}, \dots , x_{k}^{*}$ is a regular
sequence.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\cite[Lemma 2.2]{HM} \label{lem: HM 2.2}
Suppose $y_{1}, \dots, y_{k}$ is a superficial sequence for an ideal $I$. Let $\bar{R}$ and
$\bar{I}$ denote $R/(y_{1}, \dots, y_{k})$ and $I/(y_{1}, \dots, y_{k})$, respectively. If
$\operatorname{grade} gr_{\bar{I}}(\bar{R})_{+} \geq 1$, then $\operatorname{grade} gr_{I}(R)_{+} \geq k+1$.
\end{lemma}
We now consider the second Hilbert coefficient, $e_{2}(q)$ for a parameter ideal $q$.
\begin{thm} \label{2nd coeff}
Suppose $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ is a Noetherian local ring of dimension $d \geq 2$ and $\operatorname{depth} R \geq d-1$. Let $q \subseteq R$ be a parameter ideal. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $e_{2}(q) \leq 0.$
\item $e_{2}(q)=0$ if and only if $n(q)<2-d$ and $\operatorname{depth} gr_{q}(R) \geq d-1.$
\item $e_{2}(q)=0$ implies $e_{3}(q)=\cdots = e_{d}(q)=0$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $R$ has infinite residue field by passing to $R[x]_{{\gothic{m}} R[x]}$ if necessary. We will proceed by induction on $d=\dim R$. First suppose $d=2$. Let $q=(y,x)$ where $y \in q\backslash {\gothic{m}} q$ is a superficial non-zero-divisor for $R$. Let $(\overline{\cdot })$ denote working modulo $(y)$. Now, $\bar{q}$ is a parameter ideal in the one-dimensional ring $\bar{R}$, so by Proposition \ref{lem: dim 1 hilbert fnct}, $H_{\bar{q}}(k)-P_{\bar{q}}(k) \leq 0$ for all $k \geq 0$. In particular, Lemma \ref{lem: e_{d} formula} gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
e_{2}(q) & = & \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}(H_{\bar{q}}(k)-P_{\bar{q}}(k)) - \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \lambda_{R}((q^{k}:y)/q^{k-1})\\
& \leq & 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that if the left-hand side of the equation above is zero, we must have that $\lambda_{R}((q^{k}:y)/q^{k-1})=0$ and $P_{\bar{q}}(k)=H_{\bar{q}}(k)$ for all $k\geq 1$. In particular, the condition $\lambda_{R}((q^{k}:y)/q^{k-1})=0$ for all $k \geq 1$ implies that $y^{*}$ is a non-zero-divisor in $gr_{q}(R)$, so $\operatorname{depth} gr_{q}(R) \geq 1$. Now, since $y^{*}$ is a non-zero-divisor, $n(\bar{q})=n(q)+1$; i.e., $n(q)<0$. This proves the Corollary when $d=2$.
Now if $\dim R >2$, then let $y_{1}, \dots, y_{d-2} \in q\backslash {\gothic{m}} q$ be a superficial sequence of non-zero-divisors for $R$. Then $\bar{q}=q/(y_{1}, \dots, y_{d-2})$ is a parameter ideal in the two-dimensional ring $\bar{R}=R/(y_{1}, \dots, y_{d-2})$ which has $\operatorname{depth} \bar{R} \geq 1$. Hence, by induction, we have $e_{2}(q)=e_{2}(\bar{q}) \leq 0$.
For (2), first suppose $e_{2}(q)=0$. Then by induction $\operatorname{grade} gr_{\bar{q}}(\bar{R})_{+} \geq 1$. By Lemma \ref{lem: HM
2.2}, this implies $\operatorname{grade} gr_{q}(R)_{+} \geq d-2+1=d-1.$ Finally,
this gives $y_{1}^{*}, \dots, y_{d-2}^{*}$ is a regular sequence by Lemma \ref{lem: HM 2.1}. Hence,
$n(\bar{q})< 0$ if and only if $n(q) < 2-d$. This
gives the forward implications for (2).
For the backward implication of (2), suppose $n(q)<2-d$ (i.e., $H_{q}(n)=P_{q}(n)$ for all $n \geq 2-d$) and $\operatorname{grade} gr_{q}(R)_{+} \geq d-1$. Then $P_{q}(n)=0$ for all $2-d \leq n \leq 0$. Plugging the values $0, -1, -2, \dots, 2-d$ successively
into $P_{q}(n)$, one can see that we get $e_{d}(q)=e_{d-1}(q)=\cdots=e_{2}(q)=0$.
Finally, (3) follows from the proof of (2).
\end{proof}
\end{thm}
\begin{cor}
Suppose $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ is a local Noetherian ring of dimension $d\geq 2$ and $\operatorname{depth} R \geq d-1$. Then for any parameter ideal $q \subseteq R$, we have $$\lambda_{R}(R/q) \leq e_{0}(q)-e_{1}(q).$$
\begin{proof} As before, we may assume that $R/{\gothic{m}}$ is infinite.
From Proposition \ref{lem: dim 1 hilbert fnct}, we have that $H_{\bar{q}}(n) \leq P_{\bar{q}}(n)$ for all $n \geq 1$, where $\bar{q}=q/(y_{1}, \dots, y_{d-1})$ for $y_{1}, \dots, y_{d-1} \in q$ a superficial sequence which is part of a minimal generating set for $q$. Note that we may also choose $y_{1}, \dots, y_{d-1}$ to be a regular sequence as $\operatorname{depth} R \geq d-1$. Now, letting $n=1$ and using the fact that $e_{i}(q)=e_{i}(\bar{q})$ for $i=0,1$ since $y_{1}, \dots, y_{d-1}$ is a superficial and regular sequence, the result follows.
\end{proof}
\end{cor}
The assumption that $\operatorname{depth} R \geq d-1$ is necessary in Theorem \ref{2nd coeff}, as evidenced by the following example. We use Macaulay2 \cite{M2} to compute the example.
\begin{example}
Let $R=k[x,y,z,u,v,w]/I$ where $I$ is the intersection of ideals $I=(x+y, z-u, w)\cap (z, u-v, y) \cap (x,u,w)$ and $q=(u-y, z+w, x-v)$. Then $R$ is an unmixed ring of dimension three and depth one and $q$ is a parameter ideal with \[P_{q}(n)=3\binom{n+2}{3}+2\binom{n+1}{2}+n.\] In particular, $e_{2}(q)=1> 0.$
\end{example}
Note that in the example above, one could mod out the ring $R$ by a superficial non-zero-divisor in $q \backslash {\gothic{m}} q$ to obtain an example of a two-dimensional ring $\bar{R}$ of depth zero with parameter ideal $\bar{q}$ satisfying $e_{2}(\bar{q})=1>0$.
The upper bound for $e_{2}(q)$ in Theorem \ref{2nd coeff} can be achieved even if $R$ is not Cohen-Macaulay. We also provide an example below with negative second Hilbert coefficient. In both examples, we use the software system Macaulay2 \cite{M2} to compute the Hilbert-Samuel functions.
\begin{example}
Let $R=k[[x^{5}, xy^{4}, x^{4}y, y^{5}]] \cong k[[t_{1}, t_{2}, t_{3}, t_{4}]]/J$ where $J$ is the ideal $J=(t_{2}t_{3}-t_{1}t_{4}, t_{2}^{4}-t_{3}t_{4}^{3}, t_{1}t_{2}^{3}-t_{3}^{2}t_{4}^{2}, t_{1}^{2}t_{2}^{2}-t_{3}^{3}t_{4}, t_{1}^{3}t_{2}-t_{3}^{4}, t_{3}^{5}-t_{1}^{4}t_{4})$. Then $R$ is a two-dimensional complete domain with depth one. The parameter ideal $q=(x^{5}, y^{5})$ has Hilbert-Samuel polynomial $$P_{q}(n)=5\binom{n+1}{2}+2n,$$ so $e_{2}(q)=0$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let $R=k[x,y,z,t]/((x^{2}, z^{4}) \cap (x-y, z+t))$. Then $R$ is a two-dimensional unmixed ring with depth one. The ideal $q=(x+t+y, z-y)$ is a parameter ideal with Hilbert-Samuel polynomial $$P_{q}(n)=9 \binom{n+1}{2} +2 \binom{n}{1}-1.$$ Hence, $e_{2}(q)=-1<0$.
In this example, we have that $n(q)=0$; that is, $P_{q}(0)\neq H_{q}(0)$ and $P_{q}(n)=H_{q}(n)$ for all $n \geq 1$. However, we do have that $\operatorname{depth} gr_{q}(R)\geq 1$. \end{example}
\section{The Higher Hilbert Coefficients} \label{sec: other coeffs}
In our first theorem of this section we use techniques similar to those of Marley to obtain a result reminiscent of Theorem 1 in \cite{MA}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm: delta fnct}
Let $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ be a local Noetherian ring of dimension $d$ and suppose $q$ is a parameter ideal for $R$ satisfying $\operatorname{depth} gr_{q}(R)\geq d-1$. Then for $0\leq i \leq d+1$ and $n \in \mathbb{Z}$, \[(-1)^{i}\Delta^{d+1-i}(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n)) \geq 0.\]
\begin{proof}
We first note that it is enough to prove the result when $i=0$. Indeed, suppose $g:\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}$ satisfies $g(n)=0$ for all $n$ sufficiently large and $\Delta(g(n))\geq 0$ for all $n.$
Then we claim $g(n)\leq 0$ for all $n$. Let $N$ be such that $g(n)=0$ for all $n \geq N$. Then $\Delta(g(N-1))=g(N)-g(N-1)\geq 0$ implies $g(N-1) \leq 0$. Inductively, one can show that $g(j) \leq 0$ for all $j$. In particular, if we set $g(n)=P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n)$, and assume $(-1)^{i}\Delta^{d+1-i}(g(n)) \geq 0$ for all
$n$, then $(-1)^{i}\Delta^{d+1-i-1}(g(n)) \leq 0$ gives the theorem for $i+1$. Hence, it is enough to prove \[\Delta^{d+1}(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n)) \geq 0 \ \ \ \text{for all }n.\]
We will use induction on the dimension $d$. Note the case $d=1$ is proved in Corollary \ref{cor: dim 1, e_{1}}. Suppose $d>1$. Let $a\in q\backslash {\gothic{m}} q$ such that $a^{*}$ is a $gr_{q}(R)$-regular element. Let $\bar{q}=q/(a)$ and $\bar{R}=R/(a)$. Then note that $\operatorname{depth} _{\bar{q}}(\bar{R}) \geq d-2$ and $\bar{q}$ is a parameter ideal for the $(d-1)$-dimensional ring $\bar{R}$. So, by induction, \[\Delta^{d}(P_{\bar{q}}(n)-H_{\bar{q}}(n))\geq 0 \ \ \ \text{for all } n.\]
Now, as $a^{*}$ is a non-zero-divisor in $gr_{q}(R)$, we have $H_{\bar{q}}(n)=H_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n-1)$ for all $n$. Similarly, $P_{\bar{q}}(n)=P_{q}(n)-P_{q}(n-1)$. Hence,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta^{d+1}(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n))&=&\Delta^{d}(\Delta(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n)) \\
&=&\Delta^{d}(P_{\bar{q}}(n+1)-H_{\bar{q}}(n+1)) \\
&\geq&0 \ \ \ \ \text{for all } n.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, \[\Delta^{d+1}(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n))\geq0 \ \ \ \ \text{for all } n. \qedhere\]
\end{proof}
\end{thm}
\begin{cor} \label{cor: difference stabilizes}
Let $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ be a local Noetherian ring of dimension $d$ and suppose $q$ is a parameter ideal for $R$ satisfying $\operatorname{depth} gr_{q}(R)\geq d-1$. Suppose $P_{q}(k)-H_{q}(k)=0$ for some $k$. Then $P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n)=0$ for all $n\geq k$, i.e., $k>n(q)$.
\begin{proof}
Letting $i=d$ in Theorem \ref{thm: delta fnct}, we have $(-1)^{d}\Delta(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n)) \geq 0$ for all $n$. This gives $(-1)^{d}(P_{q}(n+1)-H_{q}(n+1)) \geq (-1)^{d}( P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n))$ for all $n$. In particular, we have \[0=(-1)^{d}( P_{q}(k)-H_{q}(k))\leq(-1)^{d}(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n))\leq 0 \ \ \ \forall \ n \geq k \]
where the last inequality holds because $P_{q}(N)-H_{q}(N)=0$ for $N\gg0$. Thus, $P_{q}(n)=H_{q}(n)$ for all $n \geq k$.
\end{proof}
\end{cor}
\begin{remark} \label{rmk: post and zero}
Let $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ be a local Noetherian ring of dimension $d$ and suppose $q$ is a parameter ideal for $R$. For $0\leq i \leq d-1$, we have the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $n(q)<i-d$, then $e_{j}(q)=0$ for $j \geq i$.
\item If $\operatorname{depth} gr_{q}(R) \geq d-1$, the converse to (1) holds.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
Note (1) follows by using the fact that $P_{q}(j)=0$ for $i-d<j<0$. For (2), suppose $\operatorname{depth} gr_{q}(R) \geq d-1$ and $e_{i}(q)=0$ for $j \geq i$. Then $P_{q}(i-d)=0=H_{q}(i-d)$ and by Corollary \ref{cor: difference stabilizes}, $n(q)<i-d$.
\end{proof}
\end{remark}
\begin{ques}
Does the converse to part (1) of Remark \ref{rmk: post and zero} above hold in general?
\end{ques}
\begin{cor} \label{cor: e_{i} nonpositive}
Let $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ be a local Noetherian ring of dimension $d$ and suppose $q$ is a parameter ideal for $R$ satisfying $\operatorname{depth} gr_{q}(R)\geq d-1$. Then for $1\leq i \leq d$
\begin{enumerate}
\item $e_{i}(q) \leq 0.$
\item $(-1)^{j+1}(e_{0}(q)-e_{1}(q)+\cdots+(-1)^{j}e_{j}(q)-\lambda_{R}(R/q))\geq 0$ for $j=1, \dots, d.$
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
Note that it is enough to prove (1) in the case $i=d$, as we can then use reduction by a superficial sequence to obtain $e_{i}(q)\leq0$ for $i=1, \dots, d-1$. Letting $i=d+1$ in Theorem \ref{thm: delta fnct}, we have
\begin{equation}
(-1)^{d+1}(P_{q}(n)-H_{q}(n))\geq 0\ \ \ \text{for all } n. \label{delta i=d+1}
\end{equation}
If $n=0$, $(-1)^{d+1}((-1)^{d}e_{d}(q)-H_{q}(0))\geq 0$ implies $-e_{d}(q)\geq 0$; that is, $e_{d}(q)\leq 0$.
For (2), we will first prove the case $j=\dim R=d$. Indeed, letting $n=1$ in equation $\text{(\ref{delta i=d+1})}$, we see \[(-1)^{d+1}(e_{0}(q)-e_{1}(q)+\cdots +(-1)^{d}e_{d}-\lambda_{R}(R/q))\geq 0.\]
Now, let $a_{1}, \dots a_{d-j} \in q\backslash q^{2}$ be part of a minimal generating set for $q$ such that $a_{1}^{*}, \dots, a_{d-j}^{*}$ is a $gr_{q}(R)$-regular sequence. Then, setting $\bar{R}=R/(a_{1}, \dots a_{d-j} )$ and $\bar{q}=q/(a_{1}, \dots a_{d-j} )$ we have $\bar{q}$ is a parameter ideal in the $j$-dimensional ring $\bar{R}$, and $\operatorname{depth} gr_{\bar{q}}(\bar{R})\geq j-1$. Finally, $\lambda_{R}(R/q)=\lambda_{\bar{R}}(\bar{R}/\bar{q})$ and since $a_{1}, \dots a_{d-j} $ defines a superficial regular sequence in $R$, we have $e_{i}(\bar{q})=e_{i}(q)$ for all $i=0, \dots, j$. It follows that \[(-1)^{j+1}(e_{0}(q)-e_{1}(q)+\cdots+(-1)^{j}e_{j}(q)-\lambda_{R}(R/q))\geq 0. \qedhere \]
\end{proof}
\end{cor}
\begin{cor} \label{cor: e_{j}=0}
Let $(R, {\gothic{m}})$ be a local Noetherian ring of dimension $d$ and suppose $q$ is a parameter ideal for $R$ satisfying $\operatorname{depth} gr_{q}(R)\geq d-1$. Suppose $e_{i}(q)=0$ for some $1\leq i\leq d-1$. Then $e_{j}(q)=0$ for $i\leq j\leq d$.
\begin{proof}
Note that it is enough to prove that $e_{i+1}(q)=0$. Reducing by a superficial sequence if necessary, we may assume that $i=d-1$. Since $e_{0}(q)>0$, we must have that $d>1$, so by assumption, $\operatorname{depth} gr_{q}(R) >0$. Let $a\in q$ be such that $a^{*}\in gr_{q}(R)$ is a non-zero-divisor. Then $e_{d-1}(\bar{q})=e_{d-1}(q)=0$ implies that $P_{\bar{q}}(0)=0=H_{\bar{q}}(0)$. Now, by Corollary \ref{cor: difference stabilizes}, $n(\bar{q})\leq -1$. As $n(\bar{q})=n(q)+1$, this gives $n(q)\leq -2$, and in particular, $(-1)^{d}e_{d}(q)=P_{q}(0)=H_{q}(0)=0$.
\end{proof}
\end{cor}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The work in this paper was done in preparation for the author's dissertation and would not have been possible without the guidance, encouragement, and input from my advisor Tom Marley. The author is also grateful to Brian Harbourne and Luchezar Avramov for their feedback on this research.
|
\section{Introduction}
The discovery of superconductivity in the
heavy-fermion compound without inversion symmetry, CePt$_3$Si,
\cite{PhysRevLett.92.027003} triggered
extensive studies of non-centrosymmetric superconductivity~\cite{Springer}.
Subsequently, several new non-centrosymmetric superconductors
with unique properties have been identified among heavy-fermion materials and in other
classes of materials~\cite{
LowTempPhys.31.748,JPSJ.76.051009,PhysRevLett.95.247004,JPSJ.76.051010,
JPSJ.75.043703,JPSJ.76.051003,rf:CeCoGe,JPSJ.73.3129,rf:togano,
rf:akimitsu,rf:shibayama,rf:mu,rf:klimczuk,rf:zuev,rf:kreiner}.
The research field has even been effectively extended to
non-centrosymmetric superfluids in cold Fermi gases
~\cite{Sato-Fujimoto,Iskin} in which
antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling is artificially induced.
Many interesting properties, such as the parity mixing of order
parameters~\cite{Sov.Phys.68.1244},
the magnetoelectric effect \cite{PhysRevB.72.172501,
PhysRevB.65.144508,PhysRevB.72.024515,JPSJ.76.034712},
anisotropic spin susceptibility \cite{Sov.Phys.68.1244,
Sov.Phys.44.1243,PhysRevLett.87.037004,
PhysRevLett.92.097001,NewJPhys.6.115,PhysRevLett.94.027004,
PhysRevB.72.212504,JPSJ.76.043712,JPSJ.77.124711}
accompanied by an anomalous paramagnetic depairing
effect\cite{JPSJ.76.124709},
helical superconducting phases in a magnetic field
\cite{JPSJ.76.124709,JETP.Lett.78.637,
PhysRevB.76.014522,PhysRevB.70.104521,PhysRevLett.94.137002,
PhysRevB.75.064511,Matsunaga-Ikeda},
and topological superfluid phases~\cite{Sato-Fujimoto},
have been proposed and studied in various contexts.
The term non-centrosymmetric superconductivity is commonly used for
systems that have no inversion center. It is, however, interesting
to note that features familiar in non-centrosymmetric superconductors
can also be relevant for systems with an inversion center, but specific forms
of a local violation of inversion symmetry.
A clear example is a multilayer system in which the
local mirror symmetry is broken, as shown in Fig.~\ref{schematic}.
Naturally, the question arises whether superconductivity displays
any exotic property in such a {\it locally} non-centrosymmetric system.
One of the authors has earlier investigated this issue by studying the
spin triplet superconducting state with random Rashba spin-orbit
coupling arising from stacking faults~\cite{Yanase_randomtriplet}.
In this study, we focus on regular multilayer systems and elucidate
the basic properties of such {\it locally} non-centrosymmetric
superconductors. We show that, indeed, some properties of the superconducting phase
can be strongly affected by a broken local inversion symmetry in multilayer
systems that exhibit small interlayer coupling.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{65170Fig1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Schematic view of trilayer system with focus
on local inversion symmetry.
The inversion center is present in the inner layer; it is absent
in the outer layers. This crystal structure is regarded as a
locally non-centrosymmetric system.
}
\label{schematic}
\end{figure}
Our study is motivated by the observation of superconductivity in
artificial superlattices consisting of the heavy-fermion superconductor CeCoIn$_5$
and the conventional metal YbCoIn$_5$ \cite{Science.327.980,private.superlattices}.
Although it is expected that the superconductivity occurs in sufficiently thick multilayer
structures of CeCoIn$_5$, it is surprising that it even prevails down to superlattice incorporating
stacks of only three well-separated CeCoIn$_5$ layers.
The superconductivity in bulk CeCoIn$_5$ has attracted considerable
interest for its unique magnetic features, such as the paramagnetic depairing
effect,~\cite{Tayama} the possible realization of the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov phase
at high magnetic fields,~\cite{radovan2003,PhysRevLett.91.187004}
an unconventional magnetic order,~\cite{young2007,kenzelmann2008}
and field-induced quantum criticality.~\cite{paglione2003,bianchi2003,ronning2005,izawa2007,panarin2009}
These features make it even more attractive to investigate the superconductivity in
superlattices of CeCoIn$_5$. As such, it represents an ideal
system for studying the effects of {\it local} inversion
symmetry breaking, and more so because many of the striking properties of non-centrosymmetric
superconductors may result from the additional presence of strong magnetic correlations.
A better class of systems of similar character is that of multilayer high-$T_{\rm c}$
cuprates\cite{Mukuda,Shimizu-Mukuda,PhysRevLett.94.137003}.
Although cuprate superconductors have been intensively investigated
since their discovery in 1986, the role of spatially modulated Rashba
spin-orbit coupling has not received much attention thus far.
Since the magnetic properties of multilayer cuprates are
investigated by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurement,
it is also possible to study multilayer cuprates focusing on
local non-centrosymmetricity.
For instance, the spin susceptibility in the
superconducting state can be measured with a layer resolution
using the Knight shift of NMR.
Following a brief report on the spin susceptibility in locally
non-centrosymmetric systems~\cite{Maruyama_LT},
we study here the electronic structure,
superconducting gap, and spin susceptibility of multilayer
superconductors in detail.
The paper is organized as follows. In \S2, we introduce the model
Hamiltonian for multilayer systems including spatially modulated
Rashba spin-orbit coupling and parity-mixed superconducting order parameters.
In \S3, we show the numerical results of the spin susceptibility
in the bi- and tri-layer systems to demonstrate
the crossover from a conventional superconductor to a
non-centrosymmetric superconductor.
The numerical results are discussed on the basis of analytic
expressions for the electronic structure (\S4) and
superconducting gap (\S5) by decomposing the spin susceptibility
into the Pauli and Van-Vlecks parts (\S6).
The relationship between the symmetry of order parameters and
the spin susceptibility is clarified in \S7, where a nontrivial role of
the interlayer phase difference of order parameters is discussed.
The numerical results of the spin susceptibility in more than three layers
are shown in \S8.
A brief summary and discussion of the superconductivity in CeCoIn$_5$
are given in \S9.
\section{Model}
First, we introduce a model Hamiltonian for two-dimensional
multilayer superconductors with spatially modulated Rashba
spin-orbit coupling as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{model}
H&=&H_{\rm b}+H_{\rm SOC}+H_{\rm pair}+H_{\perp},
\\
H_{\rm b}&=&
\sum_{\mib{k},s,m} \varepsilon(\mib{k}) \, c^{\dag}_{\mib{k}sm}c_{\mib{k}sm},
\\
H_{\rm SOC}&=&
\sum_{\mib{k},s,s',m} \alpha_{m} \,
\mib{g}(\mib{k})\cdot\mib{\sigma}_{ss'}c^{\dag}_{\mib{k}sm}c_{\mib{k}s'm},
\\
H_{\rm pair}&=&
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\mib{k},s,s',m}[\Delta_{ss'm}(\mib{k}) \,
c^{\dag}_{\mib{k}sm}c^{\dag}_{-\mib{k}s'm}+\rm{h.c.}], \\
H_{\perp}&=&t_{\perp}\sum_{\mib{k},s,\langle m,m'\rangle}
c^{\dag}_{\mib{k}sm}c_{\mib{k}sm'},
\end{eqnarray}}
where $c_{\mib{k}sm}$ ($c^{\dag}_{\mib{k}sm}$) is the annihilation
(creation) operator for an electron with spin $s$ on layer $m$, and
$\mib{\sigma}_{ss'}$ is the vector representation of the Pauli matrix.
The first term, $H_{\rm b}$, describes the dispersion relation without
spin-orbit coupling or interlayer coupling.
We consider a square lattice and assume a tight-binding model,
i.e., $\varepsilon(\mib{k})=-2t(\cos{k_{x}}+\cos{k_{y}})-\mu$.
The $(x,y,z)$-axes correspond to the $(a,b,c)$-axes of the tetragonal
crystal structure. We choose the unit of energy as $t=1$ and fix the chemical potential
$\mu=-1$, which leads to the electron density per site being approximately 0.63. The
following results are nearly independent of the dispersion relation
and electron density.
The second term, $H_{\rm SOC}$, describes the Rashba spin-orbit coupling
arising from the lack of local inversion symmetry.
This term preserves time reversal symmetry, if the g-vector is odd
in $\mib{k}$, i.e., $\mib{g}(-\mib{k})=-\mib{g}(\mib{k})$.
The coupling constants $\alpha_{m}$ should have opposite signs
between layers above and below the inversion center so as to
conserve global inversion symmetry.
For instance, $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3) = (\alpha, 0, -\alpha)$
for trilayers.
For $\mib{g}(\mib{k})$, the multilayer systems should have a
Rashba-type g-vector
because the mirror symmetry is broken for outer layers
(see Fig.~\ref{schematic}).
Although the detailed momentum dependence of $\mib{g}(\mib{k})$
is determined by electronic structures \cite{JPSJ.77.124711},
we assume here the simple form
$\mib{g}(\mib{k})=(-\sin{k_{y}},\sin{k_{x}},0)$.
The third term, $H_{\rm pair}$, introduces intralayer Cooper pairing
via an off-diagonal mean field. We ignore interlayer
pairing as we consider the layers to be weakly coupled. Since we take into account the spatially
modulated Rashba spin-orbit coupling arising from a broken local
inversion symmetry, the order parameter $\Delta_{ss'm}({\bf k})$ involves
both spin singlet and triplet components,
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{ss'm}(\mib{k})
=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-d_{{\rm x}m}(\mib{k})+{\rm{i}}d_{{\rm y}m}(\mib{k}) &
\psi_{m}(\mib{k})+d_{{\rm z}m}(\mib{k}) \\
-\psi_{m}(\mib{k})+d_{{\rm z}m}(\mib{k}) &
d_{{\rm x}m}(\mib{k})+{\rm{i}}d_{{\rm y}m}(\mib{k})
\label{op}
\end{array}
\right), \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}}
where $\psi_{m}(\mib{k})$ and $\mib{d}_{m}(\mib{k})$ are the corresponding scalar and
vector order parameters for the spin singlet and triplet pairings on the
layer $m$, respectively. For our discussion, we avoid the use of a
microscopic model based on a pairing mechanism. Rather, we introduce
an order parameter on phenomenological grounds, which we assume to have
$s$-wave symmetry for the
singlet pairing and a $p$-wave symmetry for the triplet pairing. On
symmetry grounds, we choose
$\psi_{m}(\mib{k})=\psi_{m}$ and
$\mib{d}_{m}(\mib{k})=d_{m}\mib{g}(\mib{k})=d_{m}(-\sin{k_{y}},\sin{k_{x}},0)$. We
take $|\psi_{m}|$, $|d_{m}| \leq 0.01$ to be sufficiently small to satisfy the
condition $|\Delta_{ss'm}(\mib{k})|\ll|\alpha_{m}|\ll\varepsilon_{\rm
F}$ ($\varepsilon_{\rm F}$ is the Fermi energy), as realized in most
non-centrosymmetric superconductors. To minimize the interlayer coupling energy,
the dominant order parameter component maintains the same sign over all layers,
whereas the other (subdominant) component adjusts the sign to that of spin-orbit
coupling ($\alpha_{m}$).
The fourth term, $H_{\perp}$, describes the interlayer hopping of electrons between nearest-neighbor layers. Since we consider a quasi-two-dimensional system, we assume that the interlayer hopping $t_{\perp}$ is smaller than the intralayer hopping $t$.
\section{Numerical Results of Spin Susceptibility}
\subsection{Spin susceptibility for fields along $c$-axis}
We now determine the spin susceptibility of multilayer
superconductors for spatially modulated Rashba spin-orbit coupling,
with a magnetic field applied along the $c$-axis.
The spin susceptibility
$\chi={\rm lim}_{H \rightarrow 0} \langle M_s \rangle/ {H}$
is obtained by calculating the magnetization $\langle M_s \rangle$
in the field $\mib{H}$.
The Zeeman coupling term
is introduced as
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{\rm Z}=- \frac{g \mu_{\rm B}}{2} \sum_{\mib{k},s,s',m}\mib{H}\cdot\mib{\sigma}_{ss'}c^{\dag}_{\mib{k}sm}c_{\mib{k}s'm},
\end{eqnarray}
where we assume $g=2$ and $\mu_{\rm B}$ is the Bohr magneton.
First, the Hamiltonian is diagonalized by introducing
the unitary transformation $ \hat{C}^{\dag}_{\mib{k}} = \hat{\Gamma}^{\dag}_{\mib{k}} \hat{U}^{\dag}(\mib{k})$
in the Nambu space of $ M $ layers, where quasi-particle operators form a $4M$-dimensional vector,
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{C}^{\dag}_{\mib{k}}=(c^{\dag}_{\mib{k} \uparrow 1},&& c^{\dag}_{\mib{k} \downarrow 1}, c_{-\mib{k} \uparrow 1}, c_{-\mib{k} \downarrow 1}, \dots, \nonumber \\ &&,\dots, c^{\dag}_{\mib{k} \uparrow M}, c^{\dag}_{\mib{k} \downarrow M}, c_{-\mib{k} \uparrow M}, c_{-\mib{k} \downarrow M}),
\end{eqnarray}}
and are analogous to the Bogoliubov quasi-particle operators $
\hat{\Gamma}^{\dag}_{\mib{k}} = (\gamma^{\dag}_{\mib{k} 1},
\gamma^{\dag}_{\mib{k} 2 }, \dots ,\gamma^{\dag} _{\mib{k} 4M})
$. The diagonalized Hamiltonian is written as
\begin{eqnarray}
H + H_{\rm Z} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\mib{k}}\sum_{i=1}^{4M} E_i(\mib{k}) \gamma^{\dag}_{\mib{k} i} \gamma_{\mib{k} i} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $ E_i(\mib{k}) $ is the quasi-particle energy.
The magnetization is given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle
M_s \rangle= \frac{g\mu_{\rm B}}{2}\sum_{\mib{k}}\sum^{4M}_{i=1}[\hat{S}^z (\mib{k})]_{ii}f(E_{i}(\mib{k})),
\end{eqnarray}
where $ f(E) $ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function.
The matrix representation of a spin operator is defined on the
$\hat{\Gamma}^{\dag}_{\mib{k}}$ basis as
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{S}^{\mu}(\mib{k})=\hat{U}^{\dag}(\mib{k}) \hat{\Sigma}^{\mu} \hat{U}(\mib{k}),
\end{eqnarray}
with $\hat{\Sigma}^{\mu}$ as the $\mu$-component of the spin operator
in the $4M$-dimensional space.
We now focus on the spin susceptibility of bilayer ($M=2$) and
trilayer ($M=3$) systems at zero temperature. More than three layers
will be discussed in \S8.
The corresponding coupling constants of Rashba spin-orbit coupling
are described as $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2) = (\alpha, -\alpha)$ for bilayers and $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3) = (\alpha, 0, -\alpha)$ for trilayers.
We compare two cases: (A) the spin triplet channel is dominant
$|d|>|\psi|$ and (B) the spin singlet channel is dominant
$|\psi|>|d|$. The order parameters are assumed as follows:
\begin{description}
\item[({\rm A})]
$(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}) = (\psi, -\psi)$ and $(d_{1}, d_{2}) = (d, d)$
for bilayers. $(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \psi_{3}) = (\psi, 0, -\psi)$ and
$(d_{1}, d_{2}, d_{3}) = (d, d, d)$ for trilayers.
\item[({\rm B})]
$(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}) = (\psi, \psi)$ and $(d_{1}, d_{2}) = (d, -d)$
for bilayers. $(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \psi_{3}) = (\psi, \psi, \psi)$ and
$(d_{1}, d_{2}, d_{3}) = (d, 0, -d)$ for trilayers.
\end{description}
In case (A), the spin susceptibility remains
unaffected by the superconductivity $\chi_{\rm s} = \chi_{\rm n}$
because the spin triplet component of the type $
\mib{d}_m(\mib{k})\propto\mib{g}(\mib{k})\perp\hat{z}$ is an equal-spin
pairing state with Cooper pair spins along the $c$-axis. Thus, spin
polarization in the superconducting phase is possible without pair
breaking. This feature is essentially independent of spin-orbit
coupling, interlayer hopping, and the number of layers, as can be seen in Figs.~\ref{2lay} and \ref{3lay} for both bi- and tri-layer systems, respectively.
We will provide more rigorous arguments for this kind of behavior in \S7.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{65170Fig2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online)
Spin susceptibility along $c$-axis for bilayer system.
The interlayer coupling $t_\perp$ is shown in the figure for the
dominantly spin singlet pairing state
(dashed, dotted, and dash-dotted lines). The spin susceptibility is
independent of interlayer coupling when the spin triplet channel
is dominant (solid line).
We assume that $\psi=0.01$ and $d=0$ in the former, and $\psi=0$ and $d=0.01$
in the latter.
The spin susceptibility is nearly independent of the subdominant
order parameter, as will be shown in Fig.~\ref{st2}.
}
\label{2lay}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{65170Fig3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online)
Spin susceptibility along $c$-axis for trilayer system.
The interlayer coupling $t_\perp$ is shown in the figure for the
dominantly spin singlet pairing state
(dashed, dotted, and dash-dotted lines). The spin susceptibility is
independent of interlayer coupling when the spin triplet channel
is dominant (solid line).
The spin susceptibility is nearly independent of the subdominant
order parameter as in the bilayer system (Fig.~\ref{st2}).
}
\label{3lay}
\end{figure}
More interesting is case (B), as spin singlet pairing leads to
a complete suppression of the spin susceptibility at $T=0$ in a
conventional superconductor. Indeed for a vanishing
spin-orbit coupling ($\alpha=0$), we
find $\chi_{\rm s}=0$ irrespective of $t_{\perp}$. As soon as
spin-orbit coupling is turned on, however, the spin susceptibility
gradually recovers and
approaches a constant value for large $\alpha$: $\chi_{\rm
s}\to\chi_{\rm n}$ for the bilayer and $\chi_{\rm s}\to 2\chi_{\rm
n}/3$ for the trilayer. The mechanism of this behavior lies in the
band structure affected by Rashba-type spin-orbit coupling (see \S4).
Note that the layers behave as being nearly decoupled for large $\alpha$,
and then the spin susceptibility along $c$-axis is recovered
for layers with non-vanishing $\alpha_m$.
Consequently, in the bilayer system, all layers are involved,
giving rise to a full recovery of $\chi_{\rm s}$ for large $\alpha$
(analogous to the uniformly non-centrosymmetric superconductor
\cite{NewJPhys.6.115}), whereas in the trilayer system, only two of the three
layers can contribute to what yielding a correspondingly reduced limiting value of
$\chi_{\rm s} = 2\chi_{\rm n}/3$.
Figure~\ref{3bunlay} corroborates this picture by
considering the contributions of the different layers. Indeed, in a
large-$\alpha$ regime, the outer layers $m=1,3$ carrying spin-orbit coupling saturate at
$\chi_{\rm s}\to \chi_{\rm n}/3$, while the center layer $m=2$ completely
suppresses the spin susceptibility.
Remarkably, at small $\alpha$ ($<t_{\perp}$), $\chi_{\rm s}$ behaves in
the same way for all layers and surprisingly leads
to a nonmonotonic $\alpha$-dependence for the center layer.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{65170Fig4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online)
Contribution of each layer to spin susceptibility
along $c$-axis in trilayer system.
We assume the spin singlet state ($\psi=0.01$ and $d=0$)
with $t_{\perp}=0.1$ (solid line) and $t_{\perp}=0.2$ (dashed line).}
\label{3bunlay}
\end{figure}
The numerical data in Figs.~\ref{2lay} and \ref{3lay} show that
interlayer hopping is in competition with spatially modulated Rashba
spin-orbit coupling, such that a larger
$t_{\perp}$ yields a higher effective $\alpha_{\rm eff}\sim t_{\perp}$
for the crossover from the behavior of a conventional superconductor to
that of a non-centrosymmetric superconductor. For $\alpha_{\rm eff}\gg
t_{\perp}$, layers are almost decoupled from each other (see \S4),
and then the multilayer superconductor is regarded as a set of
(non-)centrosymmetric superconductors.
This crossover is best observed in the peak of
$\chi_{\rm s}$ at approximately $\alpha_{\rm eff}\sim t_{\perp}$ for the center
layer of the trilayer system (Fig.~\ref{3bunlay}).
Thus, modifying $t_{\perp}$, e.g., by applying
uniaxial stress along the $c$-axis, can affect the magnetic response
for $c$-axis fields in case (B). No such effect is expected in case (A).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{65170Fig5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online)
Zero-temperature spin susceptibility along $c$-axis for various $|\psi|$ values in
bilayer system.
We assume the amplitude of the spin triplet
component to be $|d|=0.01 - |\psi|$. We show the results for interlayer
coupling $t_{\perp}=0.1$ and spin-orbit coupling $\alpha=0$ (crosses),
$\alpha=0.05$ (triangles), and $\alpha=0.2$ (diamonds).}
\label{st2}
\end{figure}
Surprisingly, these results are almost independent of the subdominant
order parameter. Figure~\ref{st2} shows the spin susceptibility of
bilayers for various $|\psi|$ values while keeping the summation
$|\psi| + |d| = 0.01$. We see a nearly constant spin susceptibility
except for the jump at $|\psi| = |d| = 0.005$.
This jump arises from a discontinuous change of the order parameter,
since we assume case (A) for $|\psi| < |d|$ and case (B)
for $|\psi| > |d|$.
We will show that the spin susceptibility at $T=0$
is determined by the interlayer phase differences of order parameters
(\S7).
Since we assume the zero-phase difference for the dominant
order parameter and the $\pi$-phase difference for the subdominant one,
the spin susceptibility is determined by the dominant order parameter
and is negligibly affected by the subdominant component.
The details will be given in \S7.
\subsection{Spin susceptibility along $ab$-axis}
Within our model, we find that the spin susceptibility along the
$ab$-axis is always half of that along the $c$-axis, independent of
the strength of $\alpha$ and $ t_{\perp} $ as well as of the number of
layers. For numerical evidence, Fig.~\ref{3xlay} shows
the spin susceptibility along the $ab$-axis in the trilayer system;
it is one-half of the results in Fig.~\ref{3lay}.
We confirmed these behaviors for another number of layers.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{65170Fig6.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online)
Spin susceptibility along $a$-axis for trilayer system.
Parameters are the same as those in Fig.~\ref{3lay}.
}
\label{3xlay}
\end{figure}
\section{Electronic Structure in Normal State}
To elucidate the crossover from the behavior of a
centrosymmetric superconductor to that of a non-centrosymmetric
superconductor shown in the numerical calculation
(Figs.~\ref{2lay} and \ref{3lay}),
we give an analytic expression of the single-particle wave function
and superconducting gap in \S4 and \S5, respectively.
An intuitive understanding is given in \S6 by decomposing
the spin susceptibility into the Pauli and Van-Vleck parts.
\subsection{Bilayer system}
First, we study the single-particle wave function in the normal state
of bilayer systems.
The schematic figure for the role of Rashba spin-orbit coupling
and interlayer coupling is shown in Fig.~\ref{band}.
When the two layers are decoupled at $t_\perp = 0$,
each layer has Fermi surfaces, as shown in Fig.~\ref{band}.
The structures of Fermi surfaces are the same for layers
1 and 2, but the spin orientations are opposite, because the
Rashba spin-orbit coupling $\alpha_m$ has the opposite sign
$\alpha_1 = -\alpha_2$.
When the interlayer coupling $t_\perp$ is switched on, the Fermi
surfaces are coupled, as shown by dashed arrows in Fig.~\ref{band}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{65170Fig7.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic figure of Fermi surfaces in bilayer system
without interlayer coupling $t_\perp = 0$.
In this case, layers are decoupled, and then the Fermi surfaces
of layers 1 and 2 are independent of each other.
The Fermi surfaces are split by Rashba spin-orbit coupling in
both layers 1 and 2, but the spin orientations are opposite
because Rashba spin-orbit coupling $\alpha_m$ has the opposite sign
($\alpha_1 = - \alpha_2$).
When interlayer coupling $t_\perp$ is tuned on, the electronic
states are coupled, as shown by dashed arrows.
}
\label{band}
\end{figure}
We show the wave function of quasi-particles with the momentum
$\k = (0,k_{\rm y})$ as an example. According to the Fermi surfaces shown
in Fig.~\ref{band}, a simple expression is obtained
by choosing the spin quantization axis along the $x$-direction.
In the following presentation, the wave functions
$|\rightarrow\rangle_{m}$ and $|\leftarrow\rangle_{m}$ describe
the electron states on the layer $m$ with right- and
left-pointing spins, respectively.
In the normal state with $\Delta_{ss'm}(\mib{k})=0$,
the Hamiltonian [eq.~(\ref{model})] is block-diagonalized
in this representation.
The block of the Hamiltonian is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\varepsilon(\k)+\alpha'(\k) & t_{\perp} \\
t_{\perp }& \varepsilon(\k)-\alpha'(\k) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\hspace*{1mm}
{\rm for }
\hspace*{1mm}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
|\rightarrow\rangle_{1}\\
|\rightarrow\rangle_{2}\\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\varepsilon(\k)-\alpha'(\k) & t_{\perp} \\
t_{\perp }& \varepsilon(\k)+\alpha'(\k) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\hspace*{1mm}
{\rm for }
\hspace*{1mm}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
|\leftarrow\rangle_{1}\\
|\leftarrow\rangle_{2}\\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{eqnarray}
respectively.
We denote the magnitude of spin-orbit coupling as
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha'(\mib{k})\equiv\alpha|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|=\alpha\sqrt{\sin^{2}{k_{x}}+\sin^{2}{k_{y}}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Diagonalizing the $2 \times 2$ matrix, we obtain eigenvalues with
twofold degeneracy:
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e21}
E^{(2)}_{1}(\mib{k})&=&\varepsilon(\mib{k})+\sqrt{\alpha'(\mib{k})^{2}+t_{\perp}^{2}}, \\
\label{e22}
E^{(2)}_{2}(\mib{k})&=&\varepsilon(\mib{k})-\sqrt{\alpha'(\mib{k})^{2}+t_{\perp}^{2}}.
\end{eqnarray}}
The wave function is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{\ \begin{array}{l}
\sqrt{1-A(\k)^{2}}|\rightarrow\rangle_{1}+A(\k)|\rightarrow\rangle_{2} \\
A(\k)|\leftarrow\rangle_{1}+\sqrt{1-A(\k)^{2}}|\leftarrow\rangle_{2}
\end{array} \right.,
\label{WF21}
\end{eqnarray}
for $E=E^{(2)}_{1}(\k)$ and as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{\ \begin{array}{l}
-A(\k)|\rightarrow\rangle_{1}+\sqrt{1-A(\k)^{2}}|\rightarrow\rangle_{2} \\
\sqrt{1-A(\k)^{2}}|\leftarrow\rangle_{1}-A(\k)|\leftarrow\rangle_{2}
\end{array} \right.,
\label{WF22}
\end{eqnarray}
for $E=E^{(2)}_{2}(\k)$.
We here defined
\begin{eqnarray}
A(\mib{k}) \equiv \frac{t_{\perp}}{\sqrt{t_{\perp}^{2}
+\left(\alpha'(\k)+\sqrt{\alpha'(\k)^{2}+t_{\perp}^{2}}\right)^{2}}}.
\label{A-factor}
\end{eqnarray}
We obtain a similar single-particle wave function for the other
momentum $k_{\rm x} \ne 0$ by choosing a spin quantization axis
parallel to $\mib{g}(\k)$.
The twofold degeneracy in the above two energy bands originates from
the time-reversal and global inversion symmetry.
Thus, the structure of the energy bands seems to be the same as that in
conventional metals.
However, Rashba spin-orbit coupling affects the single-particle
wave function in a unique way.
Note that $A(\k)$ in eq.~(\ref{A-factor}) is
determined by the competition between interlayer coupling
$t_\perp$ and spin-orbit coupling $\alpha$.
When spin-orbit coupling is absent, i.e., $\alpha=0$,
eq.~(\ref{A-factor}) is reduced to $A(\k)=1/\sqrt{2}$.
Then, two energy bands are regarded as bonding and antibonding bands
with spin degeneracy, namely,
$(1/\sqrt{2})(|\rightarrow\rangle_{1} + |\rightarrow\rangle_{2})$
and
$(1/\sqrt{2})(|\leftarrow\rangle_{1} +
|\leftarrow\rangle_{2})$ for $E=E^{(2)}_{1}(\k)$,
and
$(1/\sqrt{2})(|\rightarrow\rangle_{1} - |\rightarrow\rangle_{2})$
and
$(1/\sqrt{2})(|\leftarrow\rangle_{1} - |\leftarrow\rangle_{2})$
for $E=E^{(2)}_{2}(\k)$, respectively.
This is the conventional band structure of bilayer systems.
On the other hand, we obtain $A(\k) = 0$ in the limit of large
spin-orbit coupling $\alpha \gg t_\perp$, and then
the twofold degeneracy is given by
$|\rightarrow\rangle_{1}$ and $|\leftarrow\rangle_{2}$,
and by $|\leftarrow\rangle_{1}$ and $|\rightarrow\rangle_{2}$.
Thus, the quasi-particle is localized on each layer and degenerates
with a quasi-particle of opposite spin on the other layer.
In this case, the splitting of the two energy bands is induced by
the spin splitting in each layer, although the twofold degeneracy
is protected by the global inversion symmetry.
With increasing spin-orbit coupling, the two energy bands change their
character from the bonding and antibonding states to the spin split
states on each layer. This crossover leads to the $\alpha$ dependence
of spin susceptibility in Fig.~\ref{2lay}.
\subsection{Trilayer system}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{65170Fig8.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic figure of Fermi surfaces in trilayer system
without interlayer coupling $t_\perp = 0$.
Fermi surfaces in layers 1 and 3 are split by Rashba
spin-orbit coupling; however, they degenerate in layer 2 because
of $\alpha_2 =0$.
When interlayer coupling $t_\perp$ is turned on, the electronic
states are coupled, as shown by dashed arrows.
}
\label{band3}
\end{figure}
Next, we study the trilayer systems.
The single-particle wave function is obtained
in the same way as that in the bilayer system.
Figure~\ref{band3} shows the schematic figure of Fermi surfaces in
the decoupling limit $t_\perp =0$.
For the quasi-particles with $\k = (0,k_{\rm y})$, the Hamiltonian without
pairing field $\Delta_{ss'm}(\mib{k})=0$ is block-diagonalized as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\varepsilon(\k)+\alpha'(\k) & t_{\perp} & 0 \\
t_{\perp} & \varepsilon(\k) & t_{\perp} \\
0 & t_{\perp } & \varepsilon(\k)-\alpha'(\k) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\hspace*{0.5mm}
{\rm for }
\hspace*{0.5mm}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
|\rightarrow\rangle_{1}\\
|\rightarrow\rangle_{2}\\
|\rightarrow\rangle_{3}\\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{eqnarray}}
and as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\varepsilon(\k)-\alpha'(\k) & t_{\perp} & 0 \\
t_{\perp} & \varepsilon(\k) & t_{\perp} \\
0 & t_{\perp } & \varepsilon(\k) +\alpha'(\k) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\hspace*{0.5mm}
{\rm for }
\hspace*{0.5mm}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
|\leftarrow\rangle_{1}\\
|\leftarrow\rangle_{2}\\
|\leftarrow\rangle_{3}\\
\end{array}
\right).
\end{eqnarray}}
Diagonalizing the $3 \times 3$ matrix, we obtain three eigenvalues:
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
E^{(3)}_{1}(\mib{k})&=&\varepsilon(\mib{k})+\sqrt{\alpha'(\mib{k})^{2}+2t_{\perp}^{2}}, \\
E^{(3)}_{2}(\mib{k})&=&\varepsilon(\mib{k}), \\
E^{(3)}_{3}(\mib{k})&=&\varepsilon(\mib{k})-\sqrt{\alpha'(\mib{k})^{2}+2t_{\perp}^{2}},
\end{eqnarray}}
with twofold degeneracy.
The wave function is described as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{\ \begin{array}{l}
\sqrt{1-B^{2}-C^{2}}|\rightarrow\rangle_{1}+C|\rightarrow\rangle_{2}+B|\rightarrow\rangle_{3} \\
B|\leftarrow\rangle_{1}+C|\leftarrow\rangle_{2}+\sqrt{1-B^{2}-C^{2}}|\leftarrow\rangle_{3}
\end{array} \right.,
\label{WF31}
\end{eqnarray}
for $E=E^{(3)}_{1}(\k)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{\ \begin{array}{l}
-C|\rightarrow\rangle_{1}+\sqrt{1-2C^{2}}|\rightarrow\rangle_{2}+C|\rightarrow\rangle_{3} \\
C|\leftarrow\rangle_{1}+\sqrt{1-2C^{2}}|\leftarrow\rangle_{2}-C|\leftarrow\rangle_{3}
\end{array} \right.,
\label{WF32}
\end{eqnarray}
for $E=E^{(3)}_{2}(\k)$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{\ \begin{array}{l}
B|\rightarrow\rangle_{1}-C|\rightarrow\rangle_{2}+\sqrt{1-B^{2}-C^{2}}|\rightarrow\rangle_{3} \\
\sqrt{1-B^{2}-C^{2}}|\leftarrow\rangle_{1}-C|\leftarrow\rangle_{2}+B|\leftarrow\rangle_{3}
\end{array} \right.,
\label{WF33}
\end{eqnarray}
for $E=E^{(3)}_{3}(\k)$.
We omitted the index $\k$ in eqs.~(\ref{WF31})-(\ref{WF33}), and defined
$B(\k)$ and $C(\k)$ as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace*{-5mm}
B(\mib{k})&\equiv&\frac{t_{\perp}^{2}}{(\alpha'(\k)+\sqrt{\alpha'(\k)^{2}+2t_{\perp}^{2}})\sqrt{\alpha'(\k)^{2}+2t_{\perp}^{2}}},
\\
\hspace*{-5mm}
C(\mib{k})&\equiv&\frac{t_{\perp}}{\sqrt{\alpha'(\k)^{2}+2t_{\perp}^{2}}},
\end{eqnarray}}
respectively.
In the absence of spin-orbit coupling ($\alpha =0$), we obtain
$B(\k) = 1/2$ and $C(\k) = 1/\sqrt{2}$; then
the energy bands with $E=E^{(3)}_{1}(\k)$ and $E=E^{(3)}_{3}(\k)$
have an even parity with respect to the center layer,
while the band $E=E^{(3)}_{2}(\k)$ has the odd parity.
When the spin-orbit coupling is turned on, the parity is mixed.
In the limit of large spin-orbit coupling $\alpha \gg t_\perp$,
the quasi-particle is localized on each layer, as shown in
Fig.~\ref{band3}.
The doubly degenerate wave functions are
$|\rightarrow\rangle_{1}$ and $|\leftarrow\rangle_{3}$
for $E=E^{(3)}_{1}(\k)$,
$|\rightarrow\rangle_{2}$ and $|\leftarrow\rangle_{2}$
for $E=E^{(3)}_{2}(\k)$, and
$|\rightarrow\rangle_{3}$ and $|\leftarrow\rangle_{1}$
for $E=E^{(3)}_{3}(\k)$.
\section{Order Parameter in Band Basis}
We turn to a superconducting order parameter in the band basis.
For this purpose, the Hamiltonian is transformed by the unitary matrix
$T(\k)$, which diagonalizes the Hamiltonian without a pairing field
($\Delta_{ss'm}(\mib{k})=0$),
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
H = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\k} \hat{C}_{\k}^{\dag} \hat{H}(\k) \hat{C}_{\k}
= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\k} \hat{Z}_{\k}^{\dag} \hat{H}'(\k) \hat{Z}_{\k}.
\end{eqnarray}}
The basis of $\hat{Z}_{\k}^{\dag}$ is chosen to be the eigenstates in
eqs.~(\ref{WF21}) and (\ref{WF22}) for bilayers.
Then, we obtain the following matrix representation of the Hamiltonian;
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace*{-5mm}
\hat{H}'(\k) =
\hat{T}^{\dag}(\mib{k})\hat{H}(\mib{k})\hat{T}(\mib{k}) \nonumber \\
&=&\left(
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
E^{(2)}_{1} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \Delta_{1} & 0 & \Delta_{13} & 0 \\
0 & E^{(2)}_{1} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \Delta_{2} & 0 & \Delta_{24} \\
0 & 0 & E^{(2)}_{2} & 0 & \Delta_{31} & 0 & \Delta_{3} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & E^{(2)}_{2} & 0 & \Delta_{42} & 0 & \Delta_{4} \\
\Delta_{1}^{\ast} & 0 & \Delta_{31}^{\ast} & 0 & -E^{(2)}_{1} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \Delta_{2}^{\ast} & 0 & \Delta_{42}^{\ast} & 0 & -E^{(2)}_{1} & 0 & 0 \\
\Delta_{13}^{\ast} & 0 & \Delta_{3}^{\ast} & 0 & 0 & 0 & -E^{(2)}_{2} & 0 \\
0 & \Delta_{24}^{\ast} & 0 & \Delta_{4}^{\ast} & 0 & 0 & 0 & -E^{(2)}_{2}
\end{array}\right), \nonumber \\
\label{Delta_band}
\end{eqnarray}}
where the index $\k$ is omitted for simplicity.
Since we consider a small superconducting gap $|\Delta| \ll |\alpha|$,
as realized in most (locally) non-centrosymmetric
superconductors, the role of interband Cooper pairing is ignored.
Then, the superconducting order parameter of each band is described by
$\Delta_{i}(\k)$ because the $2 \times 2$ matrix for
intraband Cooper pairing is diagonalized in this representation.
Thus, the superconductivity in bilayers is regarded as
an equal pseudo-spin pairing state on the basis of
eqs.~(\ref{WF21}) and (\ref{WF22}).
The superconducting order parameter in each band is obtained as
follows. There are two cases with respect to the interlayer phase
difference, as discussed in \S2.
In case (A), the spin triplet order parameter (d-vector)
has the same sign in both layers 1 and 2, while the spin singlet
order parameter has opposite signs in the two layers, namely,
$(\psi_1, \psi_2) = (\psi, -\psi)$ and $(d_1, d_2) = (d, d)$.
In case (B), the spin singlet order parameter has the same
sign in layers 1 and 2, but the d-vector has opposite signs in the two layers,
namely, $(\psi_1, \psi_2) = (\psi, \psi)$ and $(d_1, d_2) = (d, -d)$.
Case (A) leads to the order parameter in the band basis
for $\k =(0,k_{\rm y})$:
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{1}(\mib{k})&=&-k_{-}\left[\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|^{2}+t_{\perp}^{2}}}\psi+d\right],
\label{p1}
\\
\Delta_{2}(\mib{k})&=&\Delta_{1}(\mib{k}),
\label{p2}
\\
\Delta_{3}(\mib{k})&=&-k_{-}\left[\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|^{2}+t_{\perp}^{2}}}\psi-d\right],
\label{p3}
\\
\Delta_{4}(\mib{k})&=&\Delta_{3}(\mib{k}),
\label{p4}
\end{eqnarray}}
where $k_{\pm}\equiv\sin{k_{y}}\pm{\rm{i}}\sin{k_{x}}$.
On the other hand, we obtain the following results in case (B):
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{1}(\mib{k})&=&\frac{k_{-}}{|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|}\left[\psi+\frac{\alpha|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|^{2}}{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|^{2}+t_{\perp}^{2}}}d\right],
\label{d1}
\\
\Delta_{2}(\mib{k})&=&-\Delta_{1}(\mib{k}), \label{d2}\\
\Delta_{3}(\mib{k})&=&-\frac{k_{-}}{|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|}\left[\psi-\frac{\alpha|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|^{2}}{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}|\mib{g}(\mib{k})|^{2}+t_{\perp}^{2}}}d\right],
\label{d3}
\\
\Delta_{4}(\mib{k})&=&-\Delta_{3}(\mib{k}).
\label{d4}
\end{eqnarray}}
Thus, the relative sign of $\Delta_1 (\k)$ and $\Delta_2 (\k)$
and that of $\Delta_3 (\k)$ and $\Delta_4 (\k)$ are different
in cases (A) and (B) and thus also yield different spin susceptibilities, as shown
in Fig.~\ref{2lay} and discussed in \S7.
We do not show the superconducting order parameter in the trilayer
systems, but it is straightforward to extend our analytical calculation to trilayers.
\section{Spin Susceptibility}
\subsection{Pauli and Van-Vleck contributions}
We provide here the theoretical basis
of our numerical results of
spin susceptibility in \S3. For this purpose, we decompose
the spin susceptibility in the normal state
into the Pauli and Van-Vleck parts.
With the use of the linear response theory, the transverse component of
uniform spin susceptibility is obtained in the normal state as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^{+-}_{\rm n}&=&\lim_{\mib{q} \to
0}\sum_{\eta,\nu}\sum_{\mib{k}}\langle\eta |
S^{+} |\nu\rangle\langle\nu |
S^{-}|\eta\rangle \nonumber
\\
&&\times\frac{f(E_{\eta}(\mib{k}))-f(E_{\nu}(\mib{k}+\mib{q}))}{E_{\nu}(\mib{k}+\mib{q})-E_{\eta}(\mib{k})},
\label{tz}
\end{eqnarray}}
which is decomposed into
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^{+-}_{\rm n}=\chi^{\rm{P}}+\chi^{\rm{V}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The Pauli spin susceptibility $\chi^{\rm{P}}$ arises from
the intraband contributions, while the interband polarization gives rise
to the Van-Vleck spin susceptibility $\chi^{\rm{V}}$. They can be expressed as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^{\rm{P}}&=&\sum_{E_{\eta}=E_{\nu}}\sum_{\mib{k}}\langle\eta |
S^{+} |\nu\rangle\langle\nu |
S^{-}|\eta\rangle\delta(E_{\eta}(\mib{k})),
\label{pa}
\\
\chi^{\rm{V}}&=&\sum_{E_{\eta}\neq E_{\nu}}\sum_{\mib{k}}\langle\eta |
S^{+} |\nu\rangle\langle\nu |
S^{-}|\eta\rangle
\frac{f(E_{\eta}(\mib{k}))-f(E_{\nu}(\mib{k}))}{E_{\nu}(\mib{k})-E_{\eta}(\mib{k})}, \nonumber \\
\label{va}
\end{eqnarray}}
respectively.
In multilayer systems, the Fermi surfaces are split by both
spin-orbit coupling and interlayer coupling, whereby the former
gives rise to the Van-Vleck susceptibility.
For the discussion of the spin susceptibility on the basis of
the single-particle wave functions given in \S4, it should be noted that the
spin quantization axis is directed along the $ab$-plane
in the entire Brillouin zone.
Since the spin quantization axis is perpendicular to the $c$-axis,
the spin susceptibility along the $c$-axis is given by the transverse
spin component that can be calculated using eq.~(\ref{tz}).
The Van-Vleck spin susceptibility is negligibly affected by the
superconducting gap when the band splitting due to the spin-orbit
coupling and interlayer coupling is much larger than the
superconducting gap.
Thus, the Van-Vleck contribution provides a lower limit of spin
susceptibility in the superconducting state.
On the other hand, the Pauli spin susceptibility may be suppressed by
the superconductivity and depends strongly on the symmetry of the order parameter.
We will show that the Pauli spin susceptibility of multilayer
superconductors is determined by the phase difference of the order parameter,
which has been discussed for bilayers in \S5, irrespective of the
ratio of the spin singlet and the triplet order parameters.
The Pauli spin susceptibility is completely suppressed in case (B),
whereas it remains unaffected in case (A),
as will be shown in \S7.
We assumed case (A) [case (B)] in the dominant spin triplet
(singlet) pairing state for the numerical calculation in \S3.
Thus, the spin susceptibility in the
dominantly spin singlet superconducting state studied in \S3 coincides
with the Van-Vleck part in the normal state, and therefore
$\chi_{\rm s}/\chi_{\rm n} =
\chi^{\rm{V}}/(\chi^{\rm{P}}+\chi^{\rm{V}})$, but
$\chi_{\rm s}/\chi_{\rm n} =1$ in the dominantly spin triplet
superconducting state.
We discuss the Pauli and Van-Vleck spin susceptibilities
of bi- and tri-layers below.
\subsection{Bilayer system}
With the use of the single-particle wave functions eqs.~(\ref{WF21})
and (\ref{WF22}) in the bilayer system, we obtain
the normal state Pauli and Van-Vleck spin susceptibilities at $T=0$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{chi-P-bi}
&& \hspace*{-10mm}
\chi^{\rm P}
=\sum_{\mib{k}}4A(\k)^{2}\bigr(1-A(\k)^{2}\bigr) \,
[\delta(E^{(2)}_{1}(\k))+\delta(E^{(2)}_{2}(\k))] \nonumber \\
\\ && \hspace*{-5mm}
\sim \rho(0) \langle \, 4A(\k)^{2}\bigr(1-A(\k)^{2}\bigr) \, \rangle_{\rm FS},
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{chi-V-bi}
&& \hspace*{-14mm}
\chi^{\rm V}
=\sum_{\mib{k}} 2\bigr(1-2A(\k)^{2}\bigr)^{2} \,\,
\frac{\Theta(E^{(2)}_{1}(\k))-\Theta(E^{(2)}_{2}(\k))}
{E^{(2)}_{2}(\k)-E^{(2)}_{1}(\k)}
\\ && \hspace*{-9mm}
\sim \rho(0) \langle \, \bigr(1-2A(\k)^{2}\bigr)^{2} \, \rangle_{\rm FS},
\end{eqnarray}
respectively.
Note that the Fermi-Dirac distribution function $f(E)$ is reduced to
the step function $\Theta(E)$ at $T=0$.
The average on the Fermi surface is denoted as
$\langle\cdots\rangle_{\rm FS}$ and $\rho(0)$ is
the density of state at the Fermi level.
In the absence of spin-orbit coupling, the Van-Vleck part vanishes
and the Pauli part is obtained as $\chi^{\rm P} = \chi^{+-}_{\rm n}$
because of $A(\k) = 1/\sqrt{2}$.
On the other hand, the Pauli part vanishes for $t_\perp =0$
such that $\chi^{\rm V} = \chi^{+-}_{\rm n}$ because of $A(\k) = 0$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{65170Fig9.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online)
Van-Vleck part of spin susceptibility along $c$-axis in
normal state of bilayer system,
$\chi^{\rm V}/(\chi^{\rm P}+\chi^{\rm V})$ (solid lines).
The dashed lines show the spin susceptibility in the superconducting
state, $\chi_{\rm s}/\chi_{\rm n}$, for $\psi = 0.01$ and $d = 0$,
which is shown in Fig.~\ref{2lay}.
We see that these quantities coincide with each other.
The parameter is chosen as $t_{\perp} = 0.1$ or $0.2$.
}
\label{pv2n}
\end{figure}
We show the numerical results of
$\chi^{\rm{V}}/(\chi^{\rm{P}}+\chi^{\rm{V}})$ obtained using
eqs.~(\ref{chi-P-bi}) and (\ref{chi-V-bi})
for various spin-orbit couplings $\alpha$ in Fig.~\ref{pv2n}.
We see that the Van-Vleck part of the spin susceptibility in the normal state,
$\chi^{\rm V}/(\chi^{\rm P}+\chi^{\rm V})$,
increases with $\alpha$ and coincides with the spin susceptibility,
$\chi_{\rm s}/\chi_{\rm n}$, in the superconducting state with a dominant
spin singlet order parameter.
Thus, we obtain an estimate of the spin susceptibility in the superconducting
state through the Van-Vleck spin susceptibility in the normal state.
\subsection{Trilayer system}
With the use of the single-particle wave functions
eqs.~(\ref{WF31})-(\ref{WF33}) in the trilayers,
the normal state Pauli spin susceptibility at $T=0$
is obtained as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace*{-2mm}
\chi^{\rm P}=
\sum_{\mib{k}} \biggr\{
(2B\sqrt{1-B^{2}-C^{2}}+C^{2})^{2}
[\delta(E^{(3)}_{1})+\delta(E^{(3)}_{3})]
\nonumber \\ && \hspace*{8mm}
+\bigr(1-4C^{2}\bigr)^{2} \delta(E^{(3)}_{2}) \biggr\}
\label{chi-P-tri}
\\ && \hspace*{2mm}
\sim \frac{2\rho(0)}{3}
\langle
(2B\sqrt{1-B^{2}-C^{2}}+C^{2})^{2}
\rangle_{\rm FS}
\nonumber
\\ && \hspace*{6mm}
+ \frac{\rho(0)}{3}
\langle
\bigr(1-4C^{2}\bigr)^{2}
\rangle_{\rm FS},
\end{eqnarray}}
while the Van-Vleck spin susceptibility is obtained as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^{\rm V}&=&\sum_{\mib{k}}\Bigr\{2C^{2}
\bigr(\sqrt{1-B^{2}-C^{2}}
+\sqrt{1-2C^{2}}-B \bigr)^{2}
\nonumber
\\ && \hspace*{3mm}
\times\left[\frac{\Theta(E^{(3)}_{1})-\Theta(E^{(3)}_{2})}
{E^{(3)}_{2}-E^{(3)}_{1}}
+\frac{\Theta(E^{(3)}_{2})-\Theta(E^{(3)}_{3})}
{E^{(3)}_{3}-E^{(3)}_{2}}\right]
\nonumber
\\ && \hspace*{3mm}
+2 \bigr(1-2C^{2} \bigr)^{2}
\frac{\Theta(E^{(3)}_{1})-\Theta(E^{(3)}_{3})}
{E^{(3)}_{3}-E^{(3)}_{1}}\Bigr\}
\label{chi-V-tri}
\\ && \hspace*{-2mm}
\sim
\frac{2\rho(0)}{3}
\langle
2C^{2}
\bigr(\sqrt{1-B^{2}-C^{2}}
+\sqrt{1-2C^{2}}-B \bigr)^{2}
\rangle_{\rm FS}
\nonumber
\\ && \hspace*{3mm}
+ \frac{\rho(0)}{3}
\langle
2 \bigr(1-2C^{2} \bigr)^{2}
\rangle_{\rm FS},
\end{eqnarray}}
where we omitted the index $\k$ in $E^{(3)}_i(\k)$, $B(\k)$, and $C(\k)$
for simplicity.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{65170Fig10.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online)
Van-Vleck part of spin susceptibility along $c$-axis in
normal state of trilayer system,
$\chi^{\rm V}/(\chi^{\rm P}+\chi^{\rm V})$ (solid lines).
The dashed lines show the spin susceptibility in the superconducting
state, $\chi_{\rm s}/\chi_{\rm n}$, for $\psi = 0.01$ and $d = 0$,
which is shown in Fig.~\ref{3lay}.
We see that these quantities coincide with each other, as in the
bilayer systems.
The parameter is chosen as $t_{\perp} = 0.1$ or $0.2$.
}
\label{pv3n}
\end{figure}
The Van-Vleck spin susceptibility vanishes in the absence of the spin-orbit
coupling $\alpha=0$, and
$\chi^{\rm V} \sim 2\rho(0)/3 = 2\chi_{\rm n}/3$
in the limit of large spin-orbit coupling $\alpha \gg t_\perp$,
as expected from the discussions in \S3 and \S6.1.
Figure~\ref{pv3n} shows that the Van-Vleck part of the spin susceptibility
in the normal state $\chi^{\rm{V}}/(\chi^{\rm{P}}+\chi^{\rm{V}})$ given
by eqs.~(\ref{chi-P-tri}) and (\ref{chi-V-tri})
coincides with the spin susceptibility in the
superconducting state $\chi_{\rm s}/\chi_{\rm n}$, which is shown
in Fig.~\ref{3lay}.
Figure~\ref{pv3n} shows that the Pauli spin susceptibility is
completely suppressed in the dominant spin singlet pairing state;
therefore, the spin susceptibility of trilayers at $T=0$
is given by the Van-Vleck part, as in the bilayer system.
\section{Relation to Symmetry of Superconductivity}
In this section, we examine the relation between the order parameter
and spin susceptibility in our multilayer superconductors.
As we discussed in \S6, the Van-Vleck part of the spin susceptibility
is not affected by superconductivity. On the other hand,
the Pauli spin susceptibility has a clear dependence on the superconducting
order parameter. Indeed, as we will show later,
the Pauli spin susceptibility is determined by the
phase difference of the order parameter between layers,
and is essentially independent of the ratio of parity mixing, $|\psi|/|d|$.
For the bilayer system, we consider cases (A) and (B), discussed in \S5,
to optimize the interlayer Josephson coupling energy.
To understand the above-described aspect of the order parameter structure, it is
important to view the situation in the band basis, as in eqs.~(\ref{p1})-(\ref{d4}).
For $\k = (0,k_{\rm y})$, in the band basis, the ''d-vector'' of the pseudo-spin
points along the $y$-axis in case (A) because
$\Delta_{1}(\k) = \Delta_{2}(\k)$ and $\Delta_{3}(\k) = \Delta_{4}(\k)$.
On the other hand, in case (B) the ''d-vector'' is oriented along the $x$-axis,
whereby we find
$\Delta_{1}(\k) = -\Delta_{2}(\k)$ and $\Delta_{3}(\k) = -\Delta_{4}(\k)$.
Since the spin quantization axis is along the $a$-axis of tetragonal
crystals for $\k = (0,k_{\rm y})$, the crystal $c$-axis corresponds to the
$y$-axis with the $z$-axis being the spin quantization axis.
Thus, the ''d-vector'' of a pseudo-spin is parallel to the $c$-axis
in case (A) and perpendicular to the $c$-axis in case (B).
This is true not only for $\k = (0,k_{\rm y})$ but also for all momenta in the
Brillouin zone.
One may mistakenly conclude that the Pauli spin susceptibility
for fields along the $c$-axis is suppressed (unchanged) in case (A)
[case (B)] similarly to a spin triplet
superconductor with a d-vector parallel (perpendicular) to the field.
However, the opposite relation is actually obtained for the
''d-vector'' in the band basis, because the spin of each band is
inversely polarized for $\k$ and $-\k$.
Therefore, taking into account the opposite sign of the spin quantization axis,
it is shown that the Pauli spin susceptibility along the $c$-axis
remains unchanged by the superconductivity in case (A), while
it is completely suppressed in case (B).
We conclude here that the spin susceptibility is
determined by the interlayer phase difference of
the order parameters and independent
of their amplitude. This surprising result has already been anticipated from
Fig.~\ref{st2}. The spin susceptibility is nearly constant for $\psi$,
although it shows a jump at $|\psi| = |d|$, following the discontinuity
of the phase difference.
Note that we assumed case (A) for $|\psi| < |d|$ and
case (B) for $|\psi| > |d|$.
The above finding is confirmed by calculating the spin susceptibility
while assuming case (A) or (B) regardless of the amplitude
of singlet and triplet order parameters.
Figure~\ref{gpd}(a) shows the result in case (A), while Fig.~\ref{gpd}(b) shows
that in case (B).
It is shown that the spin susceptibility at $T=0$ is nearly
independent of the ratio of parity mixing from $|\psi|/|d| =0$
to $|\psi|/|d| = \infty$.
Thus, the spin susceptibility remains unchanged when the dominant
order parameter is a spin singlet component with a $\pi$-phase
difference. On the other hand, the Pauli spin susceptibility is completely
suppressed by the spin triplet order parameter with a $\pi$-phase
difference between layers.
In other words, the spin singlet order parameter with a $\pi$-phase
difference plays the role of a spin triplet order parameter with a zero-phase difference,
and {\it vice versa}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{65170Fig11a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{65170Fig11b.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online)
$C$-axis spin susceptibility in bilayer system
for various $|\psi|$ values while keeping summation $|\psi| + |d| = 0.01$.
The ratio $|\psi|/|d|$ changes from $0$ to $\infty$.
We fix the phase difference of the order parameters for the two layers,
irrespective of the ratio $|\psi|/|d|$,
although interlayer Josephson coupling favors the zero
phase difference of the dominant order parameter, as in \S3.
(a) Case (A) in which spin singlet
order parameter has a $\pi$-phase difference between layers.
(b) Case (B) in which spin singlet
order parameter has a zero-phase difference.
We show the results for the interlayer coupling $t_{\perp}=0.1$ and the
spin-orbit coupling $\alpha=0$ (crosses), $\alpha=0.1$ (triangles),
and $\alpha=0.2$ (diamonds).
}
\label{gpd}
\end{figure}
We obtain the same conclusion for the trilayer systems.
The spin susceptibility at $T=0$ is determined by the phase difference
and is independent of the amplitude of the order parameters.
We confirmed that the spin susceptibility of trilayer superconductors
is nearly constant for $|\psi|/|d|$, as in Fig.~\ref{gpd}.
\section{More than Three Layers}
Finally, we show the numerical results of the spin susceptibility
for systems with 4 , 5 , 6, and 7 layers.
Superconductivity has been observed on the artificial superlattice of
CeCoIn$_5$ with 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 layers~\cite{private.superlattices}.
We consider the dominantly spin singlet pairing state
with $\psi_{m}=0.01$ and ignore the spin triplet component.
The subdominant component negligibly changes the spin susceptibility,
as in the bi- and tri-layer systems.
In this situation, it is necessary to extend the layer dependence of
the Rashba spin-orbit coupling, which is assumed to be weaker but still existent
in inner layers. For illustration, we choose two distinct layer dependences
of spin-orbit coupling, as we have no {\it ab initio} basis for our model.
First, we consider a slow reduction (screening) of spin-orbit coupling, assuming
a decay proportional to the inverse square of layer distance. Such a model yields
$(\alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2}, \alpha_{3}, \alpha_{4}) = \alpha (1,9/49,-9/49,-1)$
for the 4-layer system, and
$(\alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2}, \alpha_{3}, \alpha_{4}, \alpha_{5})
= \alpha (1,9/41,0,-9/41,-1)$ for the 5-layer system.
On the basis of this kind of model, we obtain the susceptibilities for different multilayer
systems, as shown in Fig.~\ref{c37}. We observe a nonmonotonic $\alpha$-dependence
of the spin susceptibility because, in our model, spin-orbit coupling has
several crossover scales (marked by several maxima) at $\alpha_1 \sim t_\perp$,
$\alpha_2 \sim t_\perp$, and so on.
For large $\alpha \gg t_\perp$, $\chi_{\rm s}$ recovers the normal
state value $\chi_{\rm n}$ for even numbers of layers,
such as 4 and 6, whereas $\chi_{\rm s}/\chi_{\rm n} \rightarrow (M-1)/M$
for odd numbers of layers, because the center layer has no
Rashba spin-orbit coupling.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{65170Fig12.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online)
Spin susceptibilities along $c$-axis for $M=3,4,5,6,$ and $7$.
We assume a weak screening effect of Rashba spin-orbit coupling,
as explained in the text.
We assume the uniform spin singlet superconducting order parameter
$\psi_{m}=0.01$ and the interlayer coupling $t_{\perp}=0.1$.
}
\label{c37}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{65170Fig13.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online)
Spin susceptibility along $c$-axis in more than three layer systems
with strong screening
effect of Rashba spin-orbit coupling. Details are explained in the text.
The other parameters are the same as those in Fig.~\ref{c37}.
}
\label{c37a0}
\end{figure}
Next, we consider an extreme situation in which Rashba spin-orbit coupling
only exists for the outermost layers, i.e., $\alpha_{m}=0$
except the outer layers $\alpha_1=\alpha$ and $\alpha_{M}=-\alpha$.
In this case, the spin susceptibility shows a single peak at approximately
$\alpha \sim t_\perp$ (Fig.~\ref{c37a0}), as in the trilayer systems.
For large spin-orbit coupling $\alpha \gg t_\perp$, the spin
susceptibility approaches $\chi_{\rm s}/\chi_{\rm n} = 2/M$.
Figures~\ref{c37} and \ref{c37a0} show nontrivial behaviors of the
spin susceptibility for multilayer systems, which is affected qualitatively
by the layer dependence of Rashba spin-orbit coupling.
Recently, the magnetic properties of superconducting
multilayer cuprates have been investigated by NMR
measurements.~\cite{Mukuda,Shimizu-Mukuda}
In view of our discussion above, it would be interesting to perform
similar NMR measurements to
study the local spin polarization and to identify the effect of
symmetry-induced spin-orbit coupling in multilayer superconductors.
\section{Summary and Discussion}
Motivated by the recent investigation of artificially fabricated
superstructures of CeCoIn$_5$/YbCoIn$_5$, we have
theoretically analyzed the basic properties of
{\it locally} non-centrosymmetric superconductors in which
spatially modulated Rashba spin-orbit coupling plays an
important role.
The single-particle wave function, superconducting gap,
and spin susceptibility in the superconducting state have been determined.
Although these layered systems possess a center of inversion symmetry,
they display local non-centrosymmetricity that affects the
spin polarizability of the superconducting phase in an interesting
way. We clearly observe distinct regimes for the response of
such a layered superconductor with strong or weak interlayer
coupling. Although the former case exhibits a rather conventional response
in the spin polarization to an external field, the latter reflects properties
close to those expected for non-centrosymmetric superconductors.
An intuitive understanding of the crossover between the two regimes
is obtained if we decompose the spin susceptibility into the conventional Pauli
and an additional Van-Vleck contributions. The latter results from a spin-orbit
coupling-induced interband contribution, which is only weakly modified
by superconductivity, while the Pauli part, as an intraband contribution,
depends on details of the superconducting order parameter.
In the discussion of our model, we demonstrated that the response is
determined by the interlayer phase structure
of the order parameters, but is independent of the ratio of the magnitudes of the
singlet and triplet components.
A special situation appears for dominant spin triplet pairing, which
has the same phase for all layers. In this case,
the spin susceptibility along the $c$-axis is the same as that in
the normal state and is basically independent of spin-orbit coupling.
On the other hand, for the dominant spin singlet pairing, the Pauli
contribution to the spin susceptibility is completely suppressed at $T=0$.
Here, only the Van-Vleck susceptibility induced by layer-modulated
Rashba spin-orbit coupling yields a finite contribution, depending on
the interlayer coupling.
The detailed orbital symmetry of order parameters, such as the $s$-, $p$-,
and $d$-wave, affects these findings only weakly.
Our study gives the first account of the spin polarizability of superconductivity in
superconductors with local non-centrosymmetricity in clean artificially layered
superconductors. Previous studies based on similar concepts have addressed
dirty $s$-wave superconductors~\cite{Adams}
and random spin triplet superconductors~\cite{Yanase_randomtriplet}.
Thus, it is also interesting to review superconductors with intrinsic multilayer
structures, such as some high-$T_{\rm c}$ cuprates, focusing on the
role of broken local inversion symmetry. An additional feature that has been
discussed recently is the effect of staggered antisymmetric spin-orbit coupling
on superconductivity in some classes of centrosymmetric crystals that also
belong to a similar class \cite{Fischer-2011}.
Finally, we return to the system that initially triggered our study, the superlattice
of CeCoIn$_5$~\cite{private.superlattices}.
In view of the fact that bulk CeCoIn$_5$ is known to realize
spin singlet superconductivity, we believe that the dominantly
spin singlet pairing state is relevant for the multilayer CeCoIn$_5$
in the superlattice.
Unfortunately, experimental data of spin susceptibility in the
superconducting state are not yet available. However, the effect of
superconductivity on the spin susceptibility may be roughly estimated
using the upper critical field $H_{\rm c2}$, because the $H_{\rm c2}$
of CeCoIn$_5$ is determined by the paramagnetic depairing effect.
From a rough estimation,
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{\rm c2}=\frac{H^{\rm P}}{\sqrt{1-\chi_{\rm s}/\chi_{\rm n}}},
\label{ucf}
\end{eqnarray}
where $H^{\rm P}$ is the Pauli-limited upper critical field
in conventional spin singlet superconductors,
the large enhancement of the upper critical fields observed in the superlattice of
CeCoIn$_5$ might be caused by
spatially modulated Rashba spin-orbit coupling and may not necessary be a signature of
strong-coupling effects \cite{private.superlattices}.
Moreover, we believe that the variability of the superlattices and also the possibility
of the local measurements of magnetic properties by NMR measurement would give new insights
into spin-orbit coupling in these artificial systems.
Moreover, in this context, the fate of the magnetic quantum critical point of CeCoIn$_5$ is
an issue that arouses experimental and theoretical interest.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors are grateful to H. Shishido, T. Shibauchi, Y. Matsuda,
M. Fischer, and D. F. Agterberg
for fruitful discussions.
D. M. thanks Y. Yamakawa for help with the numerical calculation.
This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
on Innovative Areas ``Heavy Electrons'' (No. 21102506) from MEXT,
Japan. It was also supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists
(B) (No. 20740187) from JSPS.
We are also grateful for the financial support from the Swiss Nationalfonds, the NCCR MaNEP,
and the Pauli Center of ETH Zurich.
|
\section{Introduction}
The stability of hydromagnetic configurations is still a topic of debate.
Even simple magnetic configurations consisting in a pure azimuthal (toroidal)
or vertical (poloidal) field are generally unstable (see, e.g., \cite{frei}),
yet the magnetic fields
observed in several astrophysical contexts are stable on a secular time scale.
{
In this context, the energy principle of Bernstein et al. \cite{bernstein}
has extensively been used in the past to study the stability of simple
poloidal or toroidal fields \cite{wr73,tay73a,tay73b} and also of mixed
combinations of the two \cite{tay80}. In cylindrical geometry, it can be
proved that the plasma is stable for all azimuthal and vertical wave numbers
$m$ and $k$, if it is stable for $m=0$ in the $k\rightarrow 0$ limit,
and for $m=1$ for all $k$ \cite{gopo}.
On the other hand, to show that a generic configuration with a
combination of vertical field and non-homogenous azimuthal field
is stable against the $m=1$ mode (for all $k$) is not an easy task in general and
one has to resort either to a variational approach or to a numerical investigation
of the full eigenvalue problem in the complex plane \cite{deblank}.
In this respect, the ``normal mode" approach can be more useful in astrophysics, as
it is often important to know the growth rate of the instability and the properties of the
spectrum of the unstable modes \cite{bo08a,bo08b}.
}
In recent years, the use of 3D numerical simulations has opened up the possibility
of studying the stability of various field configurations following the evolution
from the linear phase to the non-linear regime. A strategy often used is to evolve a generic initial state which
eventually relaxes to a final configuration assumed to be stable \cite{bs04,bn06,br08,br09,duez}.
The drawback with this approach is that it is difficult to characterize the
topology of the final configuration from the analysis of the numerical data and to determine
a class of sufficient conditions for instability which could be of astrophysical interest.
In particular, the conclusions of some recent works in this direction seem to
point out that it is the strength of the poloidal field which stabilizes the basic
state \cite{br08,br09}.
The aim of this paper is to clarify that field configurations containing generic combinations
of axial and azimuthal fields are subject to a class of resonant MHD
waves which can never be stabilized for any value of the
ratio of poloidal and toroidal fields. The instability of these waves has a mixed
character, being both current- and pressure-driven \cite{bo11}. We argue that in
this case the most dangerous unstable modes are resonant, i.e. the wave vector
$\vec{k} = (m/s) \vec{e}_\theta + k_z \vec{e}_z$ is perpendicular to the magnetic
field, $\vec{B} \cdot \vec{k} = 0$ where $k_z$ is the wavevector in the axial
direction, $m$ is the azimuthal wavenumber, and $s$ is the cylindrical radius.
The length scale of this instability depends on the ratio of poloidal and
azimuthal field components and it can be very short, while the width of the
resonance turns out to be extremely narrow. For this reason its excitation in
simulations can be problematic.
{
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.2, the main equations governing
the behaviour of linear perturbations in cylindrical plasma configurations are
presented. In Sec.3, we consider a linear stability analysis of such configurations,
using an analytical approach complemented by a numerical investigations.
Direct numerical simulations of the non-linear evolution of a
cylindrical configuration are presented in Sec.4. In Sec.5, we compare our
results with those obtained by other authors and discuss possible astrophysical
applications of this instability.}
\section{Basic equations}
Let us consider an axially symmetric basic state with azimuthal and axial magnetic
fields. The azimuthal field is assumed to be dependent on $s$ alone, $B_{\varphi}=
B_{\varphi}(s)$, but the axial magnetic field $B_z$ is constant. We assume that
the sound speed is significantly greater than the Alfv\'en velocity in order to justify the use of
incompressible MHD equations
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial \vec{v}}{\partial t} + (\vec{v} \cdot \nabla) \vec{v} =
- \frac{\nabla P}{\rho}
+ \frac{(\nabla \times \vec{B}) \times \vec{B}}{4 \pi \rho},
\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t} - \nabla \times (\vec{v} \times \vec{B})
= 0 \;,
\;\;\; \nabla \cdot \vec{B} = 0 \:,\;\;\; \nabla \cdot \vec{v} = 0 .
\end{eqnarray}
In the basic state, hydrostatic equilibrium in the radial direction is assumed.
We study a linear stability with respect to small disturbances. Since the basic
state is stationary and axisymmetric, the dependence of disturbances on $t$,
$\varphi$, and $z$ can be taken in the form $\exp{(\sigma t - i k_z z -
i m \varphi)}$. Linearizing Eq.(1) and eliminating all variables in favor of the
radial velocity disturbance, $v_{1s}$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{ds} \left[ \frac{1}{\lambda} (\sigma^2 + \omega_A^2) \left(
\frac{d v_{1s}}{ds} + \frac{v_{1s}}{s} \right) \right]
- k_z^2 (\sigma^2 + \omega_A^2) v_{1s} +
\nonumber \\
2 \omega_{B} \left[ \frac{m (1 + \lambda)}{s^2
\lambda^2} \left( 1 - \frac{\alpha \lambda}{1 + \lambda} \right) (\omega_{Az} +
2 m \omega_{B} )
+ \frac{m \omega_{Az}}{s^2 \lambda^2}
\right.
\nonumber \\
\left.
- k_z^2 \omega_{B} (1 - \alpha) \right] v_{1s} +
\frac{4 k_z^2 \omega_{A}^2 \omega_{B}^2}{\lambda (\sigma^2 + \omega_{A}^2)} v_{1s}
=0, \;\;\;\;\;\;
\label{due}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\omega_{A}=( \vec{B} \cdot \vec{k} )/
\sqrt{4 \pi \rho}$, $\omega_{Az} = k_z B_z/ \sqrt{4 \pi \rho}$,
$\omega_{B} = B_{\varphi}/s \sqrt{4 \pi \rho}$,
$\alpha = \partial \ln B / \partial \ln s$, and $\lambda = 1 + m^2/s^2 k_z^2$.
{
Eq.(\ref{due}) describes the stability problem as a nonlinear eigenvalue problem.
This equation has been first derived by Freidberg \cite{frei70} in his study of
MHD stability of a diffuse screw pinch (see also \cite{bo08b}). The author found
that, for a given value of $k_z$, it is possible to obtain multiple values of the
eigenvalue $\sigma$, each one corresponding to a different eigenfunction, and
calculated $\sigma$ for the fastest growing fundamental mode. The most general
form of Eq.(2), taking into account compressibility of plasma, was derived by
Goedbloed \cite{goed71}. Since we study the stability assuming that the magnetic energy
is smaller than the thermal one, the incompressible form of Eq.(\ref{due}) can be a sufficiently
accurate approximation.
}
In fact, Eq.(\ref{due}) was studied by Bonanno \& Urpin \cite{bo08b} in their analysis
of the non-axisymmetric stability of stellar magnetic fields.
We can represent the azimuthal magnetic field as $B_{\varphi} = B_{\varphi 0}
\psi(s)$, where $B_{\varphi 0}$ is its characteristic strength and $\psi (s)
\sim 1$. It is convenient to introduce dimensionless coordinate $x= s/s_2$
and dimensionless quantities $q = k_z s_2$, $\Gamma = \sigma/\omega_{B0}$,
$\omega_{B0} = B_{\varphi 0}/s_2 \sqrt{4 \pi \rho}$, and $\varepsilon = B_z/
B_{\varphi 0}$.
Then, Eq.~(2) transforms into
\begin{eqnarray} \label{pert}
\frac{d}{dx} \! \left( \! \frac{d v_{1s}}{dx} \! + \! \frac{v_{1s}}{x} \! \right) \! + \!
\left( \! \frac{d v_{1s}}{dx} \! + \! \frac{v_{1s}}{x} \! \right) \! \frac{d \ln \Delta}{d x} -
\frac{2 q^2 \psi(x)}{x (\Gamma^2 + f^2)} \! \times \!
\nonumber \\
\left\{ \left[ \left( 1 \! - \!
\frac{m^2}{q^2 x^2} \right) \frac{\psi(x)}{x} \!-\!\frac{m \varepsilon}{q x^2}
\right]
(1 - \alpha) \! - \! \frac{2 m f}{m^2 + q^2 x^2} \right\} v_{1s}
\nonumber \\
- \! q^2 \left(1 + \frac{m^2}{q^2 x^2} \right) v_{1s}
+ \frac{4 q^2 f^2 \psi^2(x)}{x^2 (\Gamma^2 + f^2)^2} v_{1s} = 0, \;\;\;\;\;
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
f = q \varepsilon + m \frac{\psi(x)}{x}, \;\; \Delta =
\frac{q^2 x^2 (\Gamma^2 +
f^2)}{m^2 + q^2 x^2}.
\end{equation}
{
With appropriate boundary conditions, Eq.~(3) allows to determine the eigenvalue $\Gamma$.
If the inner boundary is extended to include the cylinder axis
it is not difficult to show that the eigenfunction for $m=1$ must be non-vanishing there to ensure regularity.
This result follows from the series solution of Eq.(3) near $x=0$, so that
$v_{1s} \propto x^{b}$ with $b= -1 \pm m$, and regularity at $x=0$ implies $b=0$ for $m=1$,
and $b>0$ for $m>1$. In the setup discussed in this paper the inner boundary is not located at the axis, and
we can safely assume that $v_{1s}=0$ at $x=x_1$ and $x=x_2$.}
We will demonstrate the occurrence of a resonance instability in magnetic
configurations by an analytical and numerical solution of
Eq.~(3), and by 3D direct numerical simulations.
\section{Linear analysis of instability}
\subsection{Analytical considerations}
{
It is interesting to have a qualitative understanding of the MHD spectrum, thus
solving Eq.~(3) in the small gap approximation.} In this case one assumes that the distance between
the boundaries, $\Delta x=x_2-x_1$, is small compared to
$x_2=1$ and neglect in Eq.~(3) terms of the order $v_{1s}/x$ compared
to $d v_{1s}/ dx$. In this approximation, all coefficients of Eq.~(3) can be
considered as constant and Eq.~(3) yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d^2 v_{1s}}{dx^2} - \frac{2 q^2}{(\Gamma^2 + f^2)} \left[ \left( 1 \! - \!
\frac{m f}{q^2} \right) (1 - \alpha) \! -
\! \frac{2 m f}{m^2 + q^2} \right] v_{1s}
\nonumber \\
- \! (q^2 + m^2) v_{1s} + \frac{4 q^2 f^2}{(\Gamma^2 + f^2)^2} v_{1s} = 0, \;\;\;\;\;
\end{eqnarray}
The solution, satisfying the boundary conditions, is $v_{1s} \propto \sin
[\pi(x-x_1)/ \Delta x]$. The corresponding dispersion relation is biquadratic and can
be easily solved. The solution is
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma^2 = - f^2 - \mu \left[ \left(1 - \frac{mf}{q^2} \right) (1 - \alpha) -
\frac{2mf}{m^2+q^2} \right] \pm
\nonumber \\
\left\{ \mu^2 \left[ \left(1 - \frac{mf}{q^2} \right) (1 - \alpha) -
\frac{2mf}{m^2+q^2} \right]^2 + 4 \mu f^2 \right\}^{1/2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu = q^2 / [q^2 + m^2 + (\pi/\Delta x)^2]$. The parameter $f$
characterizes departures from the magnetic resonance, $\omega_A =0$.
To show the occurrence of
instability, we consider solution (6) at small departures from the magnetic
resonance, $f \approx 0$. If $\alpha > 1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^2=\frac{2 m^2 (\alpha-1)}{m^2+(p^2+m^2) \varepsilon^2}
\label{sette}
\end{equation}
where $p^2=(\pi/\Delta x)^2$ and the instability is never suppressed for any finite value of $\varepsilon$.
The growth rate is a rapidly increasing function of $m$
and $\Gamma^2 \approx
(1+\varepsilon^2)^{-1}$ in the limit $m \gg p^2$.
If $\alpha < 1$, then Eq.~(6) yields
\begin{equation}\label{ggr}
\Gamma^2 \approx f^2 \frac{1 + \alpha}{1 - \alpha},
\end{equation}
that implies instability if $\alpha > -1$.
The profile with
$\alpha < -1$ is stable in the small gap limit. Note that modes with $q$
satisfying the resonance condition $\omega_A = 0$ (or $f=0$) are marginally stable
because $\Gamma=0$ for them, but $\Gamma^2 > 0$ in a neighborhood of the
resonance. Therefore, the dependence of $\Gamma$ on $q$ should have a two-peak
structure for any $m$. As in the case $\alpha > 1$, the instability occurs for any value of
$\varepsilon$. If $\alpha =1$, then we have
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^2 \approx \mu f \left[ \frac{2m}{m^2 + q^2} \pm \sqrt{ \frac{4 m^2}{(m^2 + q^2)^2}
+ 4 \mu} \right].
\end{equation}
In this case, the dependence $\Gamma^2(q)$ also has a two-peak structure because
$\Gamma = 0$ at the resonance but $\Gamma^2 > 0$ in its neighborhood. The
instability is always present for any finite value of $\varepsilon$.
Our explicit solution shows that, if $\alpha > -1$, the instability always occur for
disturbances with $q$ and $m$ close to the condition of magnetic resonance,
$\omega_A =0$. The axial field cannot suppress the instability which occurs
even if $B_z$ is significantly greater than $B_{\varphi 0}$.
\subsection{Numerical results}
{
In spite of the various approximations which have been done, the picture emerging
in the previous session gives a qualitatively correct
account of the MHD spectrum}. In order to show this we
solved numerically Eq.~(5), assuming $\alpha=1$ so that $B_{\varphi} \propto r$.
The results for other profiles of $B_{\varphi}$ are qualitatively similar.
Eq.~(5) together with the boundary conditions is a two-point boundary value
problem which can be solved by using the ``shooting'' method \cite{pr92}. In order
to solve Eq.~(5), we used a fifth-order Runge-Kutta integrator embedded in a
globally convergent Newton-Rawson iterator. We have checked that the eigenvalue was
always the fundamental one, as the corresponding eigenfunction had no zero except
that at the boundaries.
Fig.~1 exhibits the growth rate of instability as a function of $q$ in the case
when the toroidal field is stronger than the axial one ($\varepsilon=0.1$).
We plot $\Gamma$ for two values of the azimuthal wavenumber, $m=1$ and $m=100$.
Calculations confirm that only the modes are unstable with the axial wavevectors
$q$ close to the condition of the magnetic resonance. The resonance values
of $q= -m/ \varepsilon$ are 10 and 1000 for $m=1$ and $m=100$, respectively. Also,
in complete agreement with the analytic results (see Eq.~(9)), the growth rate goes
to 0 at the resonance but $\Gamma^2$ can be positive in its neighborhood. The
dependence in Fig,~1 is very sharp: the ratio $\delta$ of the half-thickness of
the peak to $q= -m/ \varepsilon$, corresponding to the resonance, is $\sim 2$ for
$m=1$ but rapidly decreases and reaches $\approx 0.02$ for $m=100$. The maximum
growth rate slowly increases with $m$ and becomes $\sim 1$ for large $m$ that
corresponds to the growth time of the order of the Alfv\'en crossing time.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig1.eps}
\caption{The growth rate as a function of $q$ for $\varepsilon=0.1$ and $\alpha=1$.
The panels correspond to $m=1$ and $m=100$. The horizontal axis has different scales
in the panels.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~2, we plot the dependence of $\Gamma^2$ on $q$ for the same $\alpha$ and
$\varepsilon=10$. Qualitatively, the behavior of $\Gamma^2$ is similar to that
shown in Fig.~1: only modes with $q$ close to the magnetic resonance can be unstable,
the corresponding range of $q$ is narrow and the instability has a resonance character,
a two-peak structure of $\Gamma^2$ near the resonance, the maximum growth rate increases
with $m$, etc. Numerically, however, the results differ substantially. The resonance
peaks are much sharper for $\varepsilon=10$. For example, $\delta$ is $\sim 0.2$\% and
$\sim 0.1$\% for $m=200$. The maximum growth rate is approximately
10 times lower than in the previous figure but still is sufficiently high. Note that,
generally, disturbances with such small wavelengths in the $\varphi$-and $z$-directions
can be influenced by dissipation (viscosity,
resistivity). In astrophysical bodies, however, the ordinary and magnetic Reynolds
numbers are huge and even disturbances with $m \sim 10^2 - 10^4$ can be treated,
neglecting dissipation.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Same as in Fig.~1, but for $\varepsilon=10$. The panels correspond to
$m=10$ and $m=200$.}
\label{due}
\end{figure}
\section{Direct numerical simulations}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9.cm]{fig3.eps}
\caption{Evolution of the mean kinetic density as a function of the Alfv\'en travel time in the azimuthal directions for all
the three models, $\varepsilon=0$ (solid line), 1 (dashed), and 2 (dot-dashed)}
\label{kene}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig4.eps}
\caption{Radial profile of the eigenfunctions for the fastest growing modes excited in the simulations from the linear analysis.
Solid line represent the $\varepsilon=0$ model with $m=1$ and $q\approx 20$. Dashed line and dot-dashed line
represent the $\varepsilon=1$ case for $m=4$ and $m=6$ respectively at the resonance.}
\label{eigen}
\end{figure}
It is not difficult to realize this type of instability in numerical simulations, at
least for moderate values of $m$.
{
In particular, we solved the ideal MHD simulation
by means of the ZEUSMP code \cite{hayes} in the limit of subthermal field.}
Our setup consists in an isothermal cylinder with a radial extent
from $s_{\rm in}$ to $s_{\rm out}$ and vertical size $h$ and solve the time dependent
ideal MHD equations with periodic boundary conditions in $z$, reflection in $s$ and
periodic in $\varphi$ and a resolution ranging
from $120^3$ to $240^3$ all the directions.
The azimuthal field in the basic state is taken in the form
\begin{equation}\label{bs}
B_\varphi= b_0 \; (s/s_0) \exp [-(s-s_0)^2/d^2]
\end{equation}
with $b_0$ being a normalization constant; the axial field $B_z$ is a constant
whose value can be varied.
{
In the basic state, the Lorentz force is balanced
with a gradient of pressure, and we have checked that our
setup was numerically stable if no perturbation was introduced in the system.}
For actual calculation we have chosen $h=10$, $s_{\rm in}=1.5$, $s_{\rm out}=3$,
$s_0=2$ and $d^2=0.15$;
{
the sound speed is assumed to be much larger than the Alf\'en speed
($\approx$ ten times), in order to compare our results with the linear
analysis of the previous session obtained for an incompressible plasma.
After few time steps we perturbed the density with random perturbations in order
to excite the unstable modes and study their evolution.
In the case of $\epsilon=0$ the spectrum is dominated by the $m=1$ mode during the linear phase
and we obtain $\Gamma\approx 11.7$ for the growth rate in units of the Alfv\'en travel time
in the azimuthal direction. In order to compare this value with the the linear spectrum we explicitly solved Eq.(\ref{pert})
for our basic state (\ref{bs}) for various values of $m$ and $q$ obtaining
$\Gamma\approx 13.5$ for the fastest growing modes for the vertical wave
numbers excited in the numerical simulations according to the spectral analysis.
We found about $\sim 15\%$ difference with the linear result, we think this discrepancy is acceptable as 3D simulations are usual
rather diffusive and one expects that the actual growth rate should be smaller than the one obtained from
linear analysis. Similar considerations apply for the $\epsilon>1$ cases. For instance for $\epsilon=1$
we find the the fastest growing mode has $\Gamma\approx 1.54$ with $m=4$ and $m=6$
both excited, while the growth rate obtained from the linear analysis predicts $\Gamma\approx 1.45$.
The model with $\varepsilon=2$ has instead $m=9$ as the fastest growing modes and also in this case
the difference with the linear analysis is about $10-15 \%$. The eigenfunctions corresponding
to the fastest growing modes for $\varepsilon=0$ and $\varepsilon=1$ are depicted in Fig.(\ref{eigen}).
}
In Fig.(\ref{kene})
the evolution of the mean kinetic energy
are plotted as a function of the Alfv\'en travel time.
The solid line is for $\varepsilon=0$,
while the dashed is for $\varepsilon=1$ and the dot-dashed for
$\varepsilon=2$.
Note that $E_{\rm ax}/E_{\rm tor}\sim 13$ for model $\varepsilon=1$
and $E_{\rm ax}/E_{\rm tor}\sim 42$ for model $\varepsilon=2$ in our setup. The
growth time for model $\varepsilon=0$ is of the order of the Alfv\'en crossing
time, while it is significantly longer for models $\varepsilon=1$ and $\varepsilon=2$.
Nevertheless, the key point that should be
stressed here is that the strength of the (turbulent) magnetic energy and turbulent
kinetic energy at the beginning of the non-linear phase is essentially the same for
all the three models.
Moreover, in the presence of
a nonzero axial field the corresponding spectrum along the vertical direction
shows a specific excited mode, so that the resonance condition $q\sim -m/\varepsilon$
is satisfied. For model $\varepsilon=2$ for instance, $q\approx 4-5$, for the radial component of
the magnetic field during the linear evolution.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace{-1cm}\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The density for model $\varepsilon=2$ during the unstable evolution, around
$t_A=7.3$, along the plane $z=0$ as a function of radial and azimuthal coordinate.
The presence of a higher $m$ mode around $m\sim 9$ is clearly visible. The
domain along $\varphi$ is $2\pi$ and the resolution of the simulation along the $(z,r,\varphi)$ box is $240 \times 120^2$.}
\label{density}
\end{figure}
Fig.(\ref{density}) shows the occurrence of high $m$ modes for the density in the
$(s,\varphi)$ plane for $\varepsilon=2$ for a $240\times 120^2$ simulation.
It is difficult to reproduce the instability for much higher values of
$\varepsilon$. As it is clear from Fig.(\ref{due}) the width of the resonance is
quite narrow in this case, the growth rate is significantly different from zero
only for very large values of $m$ and the resolution in all three directions
needed to reproduce the instability can be extremely large.
\section{Astrophysical implications and conclusions}
{
In this paper, we revisited the stability properties of the
screw pinch, a problem which has received considerable attention
in the past in the context of MHD plasma stability for thermonuclear fusion.
As it was pointed out by Freidberg \cite{frei70}, Eq.(2) describes various
types of modes which can become unstable under certain conditions.
The basic properties of the unstable modes are similar
to those of quasi-kinks and quasi-interchanges obtained by
\cite{goed71b,goed72} for compressible plasma.
However, astrophysical condition like those of stellar interior imply a
high $\beta$ plasma parameter, a regime which is very far from the
typical laboratory conditions. To the best of our knowledge,
an instability of this type has not yet been extensively studied for a
pressure balanced mixed poloidal/toroidal field configuration in the incompressible limit,
an approximation which can be applied to various astrophysical situations.
The following properties characterize the instability in this case:
i) the instability does not occur for a current-free magnetic configuration;
ii) it can arise on a time scale comparable to the
Alfv\'en time scale whereas the growth rate calculated by \cite{goed72}
is an order of magnitude lower, at least;
iii) the eigenfunctions for high values of $m$ have a resonant character
being very localized as shown in Fig.(\ref{eigen}) for $m=6$;
iv) the dependence of the growth rate on $m$ seems also to be rather peculiar.
In the case of the instability described in \cite{goed72}, unfortunately, the growth rate is
calculated only in the so called tokamak approximation $B_{\varphi}/xB_z
\ll 1$ (see Eqs.(30)-(31) by \cite{goed72}) and increases approximately
proportional to $m$ or even faster. In our case, the dependence on $m$
is qualitatively different because the growth rate saturates
with $m$ very rapidly, as noticed in the numerical investigation
and in the approximate expression (\ref{sette}).
In spite of these differences, quasi-kink and quasi-interchange instabilities
obtained by \cite{goed71b,goed72} also have the typical double-peak structure
depicted in Fig.(1) and Fig.(2) as a function of the the axial wavevector.
}
Note that the basic state in our model is characterized by the negative
pressure gradient in some fraction of the volume, at least. Indeed, hydrostatic
equilibrium with the toroidal field (10) implies that
\begin{equation}
\frac{d P}{d s} = - \frac{B_{\varphi}^2}{2 \pi s} \left(1 -
\frac{s(s-s_0)}{d^2} \right)
\end{equation}
Then, $d P/d s < 0$ if $d^2 > s(s-s_0)$. The condition $d P/d s < 0$ is
required for the development of instability (see, e.g., \cite{long}).
The sign of the pressure gradient is important because it determines the
destabilizing effect in the so called Suydam's criterion \cite{suy}. This criterion
represents a necessary but local condition for stability and it reads in our notations
\begin{equation}
\frac{s B_z^2}{4 \pi} \left( \frac{1}{h} \frac{d h}{d s} \right)^2
+ 8 \frac{d P}{d s} > 0 ,
\label{12}
\end{equation}
where $h = s B_z / B_{\varphi}$ is the magnetic shear. In the case of the
basic state with toroidal field (10), the necessary condition for stability
is not satisfied in some fraction of the volume (for example, in a neighborhood
of $s_0$). This violation of the stability condition (\ref{12}) is actually indicating
the presence of at least some unstable mode in the system.
{
Stability properties of magnetic configurations are of great importance for
various astrophysical applications. For instance, it is widely believed that
magnetic fields play an important role in the formation and propagation of
astrophysical jets providing an efficient mechanism of collimation through
magnetic tension forces (e.g., \cite{blan}). Polarization observations provide
information on the orientation and degree of order of the magnetic field in jets.
It appears that many jets can develop relatively highly organized magnetic
structures. To explain the observational data, various simplified models of
three-dimensional magnetic structures have been proposed. Typically, the magnetic
field can have both longitudinal component and substantial toroidal component in
the core region (see, e.g., \cite{gab}). The mechanisms responsible for
generation of the magnetic field in jets are still unclear. Since the origin
of jets is probably relevant to MHD-processes in magnetized plasma, their
magnetic fields could be generated during the process of jet formation (see,
e.g., \cite{rom}) or, alternatively, it can be generated by the dynamo
mechanism \cite{urp} when the jet propagates in the interstellar medium.
In both cases, the stability is a crucial issue for the properties of the jet.
For instance, the origin of relatively small scale structures within the jet
can be attributed to different instabilities arising in jets, including the one
considered in our study. Magnetic structures that appears as a result of the
development of instabilities can manifest themselves in polarization observations
of the jets.
The considered instability can play an important role in magnetic stars where
it can affect the magnetic field in stably stratified regions. Spruit \cite{spr}
reviewed various types of instabilities that are likely to intervene in a
magnetized radiative regions of stars, and he concluded that the strongest
among them are those which are related to the instability of magnetic
configurations. According to \cite{spr}, turbulence generated by such
instability can drive a genuine dynamo in stellar radiative zones (see,
however, \cite{zahn}). Understanding the conditions required for the instability
is, therefore, crucial for dynamo models in stably stratified zones of
stars.
This type of magnetic instabilities can be of interest also for neutron stars where
the magnetic field reaches an extremely high value $\sim 10^{13}-10^{14}$ G.
Such a strong field can be generated by the turbulent dynamo action during
the very early stage of evolution (see \cite{bon}) when the neutron star is
convectively unstable. This unstable stage lasts less than $\sim 1$ min.
The further evolution of the magnetic field is determined mainly by ohmic
dissipation but can be affected by current-driven instabilities as well
\cite{land} because dynamo in the convective zone generates a magnetic
configuration that is not equilibrium.
}
\noindent
{\it Acknowledgments.}
VU thanks INAF-Ossevatorio Astrofisico di Catania for hospitality and
financial support. All the computations were performed on the sanssouci-cluster
of AIP whose support is gratefully acknowledged.
\vspace{-0.5cm}
|
\section{Introduction}
The term dibaryon is used somewhat ambiguously in the literature.
It is applied for single hadrons viewed as genuine compact
six-quarks states that are tied together
by (rather short-ranged) gluon-exchange forces between the quarks, on
one hand side, but also for loosely bound two-baryons systems
such as the deuteron,
that are formed by long-ranged forces between their constituents.
Possibly the most famous one of the former kind
is the $H$-dibaryon which was predicted by Jaffe in
1977 as a deeply bound state with quantum numbers of the
$\Lambda\Lambda$ system, i.e. strangeness ${S}=-2$ and isospin $I=0$,
and with $J^P=0^+$ \cite{Jaffe:1976yi}.
In any case, the aforementioned deuteron (the neutron-proton bound state in
the $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ channel) is so far the only known and unambiguously
established dibaryon. The interaction in the $^1S_0$ partial wave
of the neutron-proton ($np$) system is just not strong enough to
produce a bound state and only a virtual state is created.
Certainly, there is no shortage of new proposals of
dibaryon candidates in nucleon-nucleon scattering \cite{Adlarson}
as well as in the strangeness sector \cite{Gal10}.
In particular, the (approximate) SU(3) flavor symmetry of the strong
interaction suggests that bound states could exist also in other systems
formed by two octet baryons \cite{Miller}.
Indeed meson-exchange models like the Nijmegen baryon-baryon ($BB$)
interaction \cite{Stoks:1999bz}, derived under the assumption of (broken) SU(3)
symmetry, predict bound states for the $\Xi\Xi$ but also for the
$\Xi\Sigma$ and $\Xi\Lambda$ systems.
A $BB$ interaction derived in a rather different way, namely within the
framework of chiral effective field theory (EFT) \cite{Polinder06,Polinder07}
generates likewise bound states in the strangeness $S=-3$ and $S=-4$
sectors \cite{Hai10a}.
With regard to the $H$-dibaryon, many experimental searches were carried out
over the years, but so far no convincing signal was found \cite{Yoon}.
Recently, however, the $H$-dibaryon was put back on the agenda by lattice
QCD calculations performed by the NPLQCD \cite{Beane,Beane11a} and HAL QCD
\cite{Inoue,Inoue11a} Collaborations, where evidence for a bound state in
the pertinent $BB$ channel was found.
The NLPQCD Collaboration reported also evidence for a $\Xi^-\Xi^-$ bound
state \cite{Beane11a}.
Nevertheless, one has to keep in mind that most present-day lattice QCD calculations
are not performed at the physical masses of the involved particles. Thus, it
is an open question how the binding energies of the calculated states evolve when
those masses approach their physical values. Standard chiral extrapolations
\cite{Beane11,Shanahan11} might reach their
limits in case of dynamically generated bound states where there is a
delicate interplay between the interaction potential (that depends on the pion mass)
and the kinetic energy (that is affected by the baryon masses). Specifically
in situations where two or more $BB$ channels can couple, as it is the case for
the $H$-dibaryon, the effects due to the baryon masses could be sizeable.
In this paper, we analyze various issues related to lattice QCD calculations
in the framework of chiral effective field theory for the $BB$
interaction at leading order (LO) in the Weinberg counting.
Indeed, the framework of chiral effective field theory in which our
$BB$ interactions are derived is very well suited to shed light
on the general characteristics of possible dibaryon bound states
and, in particular, to study the
quark mass\footnote{Because of the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation, the pion mass
squared is proportional to the average light quark mass. Therefore, the notions
``quark mass dependence'' and ``pion mass dependence'' can be used synonymously.}
dependence of the binding energies of those states,
in complete analogy to calculations of the quark mass dependence of the deuteron
binding energy performed in Refs.~\cite{Beane:2002vs,Beane03,Epe02,Epe02a}.
Another important issue that can be addressed here is how this quark mass
dependence is affected when the SU(3) breaking manifested in the masses
of the octet baryons is accounted for.
The imposed (approximate) SU(3) flavor symmetry fixes the interactions
in the $S=-3$ and $S=-4$ sectors uniquely, once the (five) low-energy
constant (LECs) that occur at LO in chiral EFT are determined
by a fit to the available hyperon-nucleon data.
In particular, our LO interaction published in \cite{Polinder06}
implies the existence of several bound states in those systems.
It will be interesting to see how the corresponding binding energies
evolve when we increase the pion mass in order to match with the
conditions of present lattice QCD calculations
\cite{Beane,Beane11a,Inoue,Inoue11a}.
In the $S=-2$ sector with isospin zero where the $H$-dibaryon is expected
there is one additional LEC, corresponding to the SU(3) flavor-singlet channel,
that can not be fixed by hyperon-nucleon data.
Since the scarce experimental information available for this sector
($\Xi^-p \to \Xi^-p$ and $\Xi^-p \to \Lambda\Lambda$
cross sections \cite{Ahn:2005jz}) is afflicted with large uncertainties and
does not allow to constrain its value \cite{Polinder07},
one can exploit this freedom and fine-tune the remaining LEC to produce a
bound $H$ with a given binding energy, and then study its properties
\cite{Haidenbauer11}.
The case of the $H$-dibaryon is also very well suited to examine
the effects from the SU(3) breaking in the baryon masses
because, as said before, for the quantum numbers in question there are three
baryon-baryon channels that can couple,
namely $\Lambda\Lambda$, $\Xi N$, and $\Sigma\Sigma$.
Their physical thresholds are well separated, whereas in a completely SU(3)
symmetric world all $BB$ thresholds are degenerate.
We will see that this has very definite dynamical consequences.
Our manuscript is organized as follows: In Sec.~\ref{sec:2}, we recall the
basic formalism of the $BB$ interaction in the framework of chiral EFT.
Sec.~\ref{sec:3} contains a detailed discussion of the quark
mass dependence of binding energies in the strangeness $S=-3$ and $S=-4$
sectors, where our chiral EFT interaction but also the meson-exchange potential
of the Nijmegen group predict bound states in several $BB$ channels.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:4} we discuss in detail the situation for
the $H$ dibaryon. Specifically, we examine the influence of the SU(3)
breaking through the various two-baryon thresholds and we try to
make direct contact to the results published by the NPLQCD and
HAL QCD Collaborations.
The paper ends with some concluding remarks.
\section{The baryon-baryon interaction to leading order}
\label{sec:2}
For details on the derivation of the chiral $BB$ potentials for the strangeness sector
at LO using the Weinberg power counting, we refer the reader to
Refs.~\cite{Polinder06,Polinder07,Haidenbauer07},
see also Refs.~\cite{Savage1,Korpa,Savage2}.
Here, we just briefly summarize the basic ingredients of the chiral EFT for $BB$ interactions.
\begin{table*}[t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|l|c|l|}
\hline
&Channel &Isospin &$C_{1S0}$ &Isospin &$C_{3S1}$\\
\hline
$S=0$&$NN\rightarrow NN$ &$1$ & $C^{27}$ &$0$ &$C^{10^*}$\\
\hline
$S=-1$&$\Lambda N \rightarrow \Lambda N$ &$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{1}{10}\left(9C^{27}+C^{8_s}\right)$
&$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{1}{2}\left(C^{8_a}+C^{10^*}\right)$\\
&$\Lambda N \rightarrow \Sigma N$ &$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{3}{10}\left(-C^{27}+C^{8_s}\right)$
&$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{1}{2}\left(-C^{8_a}+C^{10^*}\right)$\\
&$\Sigma N \rightarrow \Sigma N$ &$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{1}{10}\left(C^{27}+9C^{8_s}\right)$
&$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{1}{2}\left(C^{8_a}+C^{10^*}\right)$\\
&$\Sigma N \rightarrow \Sigma N$ &$\frac{3}{2}$ &$C^{27}$
&$\frac{3}{2}$ &$C^{10}$\\
\hline
$S=-2$&$\Lambda\Lambda \rightarrow \Lambda\Lambda$ &$0$ & $\frac{1}{40}\left(27C^{27}+8C^{8_s}+5C^{1}\right)$
& & \\
&$\Lambda\Lambda \rightarrow \Xi N$ &$0$ &$\frac{-1}{40}\left(18C^{27}-8C^{8_s}-10\,C^{1}\right)$
& & \\
&$\Lambda\Lambda \rightarrow \Sigma\Sigma$ &$0$ &$\frac{\sqrt{3}}{40}\left(-3C^{27}+8C^{8_s}-5C^{1}\right)$
& & \\
&$\Xi N \rightarrow \Xi N$ &$0$ &$\frac{1}{40}\left(12C^{27}+8C^{8_s}+20\,C^{1}\right)$
&$0$ &$C^{8_a}$\\
&$\Xi N \rightarrow \Sigma\Sigma$ &$0$ &$\frac{\sqrt{3}}{40}\left(2C^{27}+8C^{8_s}-10\,C^{1}\right)$
&$1$ &$\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}\left(C^{10}+C^{10^*}-2C^{8_a}\right)$\\
&$\Sigma\Sigma \rightarrow \Sigma\Sigma$ &$0$ &$\frac{1}{40}\left(C^{27}+24C^{8_s}+15C^{1}\right)$
&$1$ &$\frac{1}{6}\left(C^{10}+C^{10^*}+4C^{8_a}\right)$\\
&$\Xi N \rightarrow \Xi N$ &$1$ &$\frac{1}{5}\left(2C^{27}+3C^{8_s}\right)$
&$1$ &$\frac{1}{3}\left(C^{10}+C^{10^*}+C^{8_a}\right)$\\
&$\Xi N \rightarrow \Sigma\Lambda$ &$1$ &$\frac{\sqrt{6}}{5}\left(C^{27}-C^{8_s}\right)$
&$1$ &$\frac{\sqrt{6}}{6}\left(C^{10}-C^{10^*}\right)$\\
&$\Sigma\Lambda \rightarrow \Sigma\Lambda$ &$1$ &$\frac{1}{5}\left(3C^{27}+2C^{8_s}\right)$
&$1$ &$\frac{1}{2}\left(C^{10}+C^{10^*}\right)$\\
&$\Sigma\Lambda \rightarrow \Sigma\Sigma$ & & &$1$ &$\frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}\left(C^{10}-C^{10^*}\right)$\\
&$\Sigma\Sigma \rightarrow \Sigma\Sigma$ &$2$ &$C^{27}$
& & \\
\hline
$S=-3$&$\Xi\Lambda \rightarrow \Xi\Lambda $ &$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{1}{10}\left(9C^{27}+C^{8_s}\right)$
&$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{1}{2}\left(C^{8_a}+C^{10}\right)$\\
&$\Xi \Lambda \rightarrow \Xi \Sigma $ &$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{3}{10}\left(-C^{27}+C^{8_s}\right)$
&$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{1}{2}\left(-C^{8_a}+C^{10}\right)$\\
&$\Xi \Sigma \rightarrow \Xi \Sigma $ &$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{1}{10}\left(C^{27}+9C^{8_s}\right)$
&$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{1}{2}\left(C^{8_a}+C^{10}\right)$\\
&$\Xi \Sigma \rightarrow \Xi \Sigma $ &$\frac{3}{2}$ &$C^{27}$
&$\frac{3}{2}$ &$C^{10^*}$\\
\hline
$S=-4$&$\Xi\Xi\rightarrow \Xi\Xi$ &$1$ & $C^{27}$ &$0$ &$C^{10}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Various LO baryon-baryon contact potentials for the ${}^1S_0$ and ${}^3S_1$ partial
waves in the isospin basis. $C^{27}$ etc. refers to the corresponding ${\rm SU(3)_f}$
irreducible representation.}
\label{tab:1}
\end{table*}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
The LO potential consists of four-baryon contact terms without derivatives and of
one-pseudoscalar-meson exchanges.
The LO ${\rm SU(3)}_{\rm f}$ invariant contact terms for the octet $BB$
interactions that are Hermitian
and invariant under Lorentz transformations follow from the Lagrangians
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal L}^1 &=& C^1_i \left<\bar{B}_a\bar{B}_b\left(\Gamma_i B\right)_b\left(\Gamma_i B\right)_a\right>\ , \quad
{\mathcal L}^2 = C^2_i \left<\bar{B}_a\left(\Gamma_i B\right)_a\bar{B}_b\left(\Gamma_i B\right)_b\right>\ , \nonumber \\
{\mathcal L}^3 &=& C^3_i \left<\bar{B}_a\left(\Gamma_i B\right)_a\right>\left<\bar{B}_b\left(\Gamma_i B\right)_b\right>\ .
\label{eq:2.1}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $a, b$ denote the Dirac indices of the particles, $B$ is the irreducible octet (matrix)
representation of ${\rm SU(3)}_{\rm f}$, and the $\Gamma_i$ are the usual elements of the
Clifford algebra \cite{Polinder06}. As described in Ref.~\cite{Polinder06},
to LO the Lagrangians in Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.1}) give rise to only six independent
low-energy constants (LECs), the $C_i^j$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.1}), due to
${\rm SU(3)}_{\rm f}$ constraints. They need to be determined by a fit to experimental data.
It is convenient to re-express the $BB$ potentials in terms of the ${\rm SU(3)_f}$
irreducible representations, see e.g. Refs.~\cite{Swart,Dover}.
Then the contact interaction is given by
\begin{equation}
V=
\frac{1}{4}(1-\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1\cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2) \, C_{1S0}
+ \frac{1}{4}(3+\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1 \cdot\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2) \, C_{3S1} \ ,
\label{contact}
\end{equation}
and the constraints imposed by the assumed ${\rm SU(3)}_{\rm f}$ symmetry on the interactions
in the various $BB$ channels for the $^1S_0$ and $^3S_1$ partial waves can be
readily read off from Table~\ref{tab:1}.
The lowest order ${\rm SU(3)}_{\rm f}$ invariant pseudoscalar-meson--baryon
interaction Lagrangian embodying the appropriate symmetries was also discussed in \cite{Polinder06}.
The invariance under ${\rm SU(3)}_{\rm f}$
transformations implies specific relations between the various coupling constants, namely
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rlrlrl}
f_{NN\pi} = & f, & f_{NN\eta_8} = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(4\alpha -1)f, & f_{\Lambda NK} = & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1+2\alpha)f, \\
f_{\Xi\Xi\pi} = & -(1-2\alpha)f, & f_{\Xi\Xi\eta_8} = & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1+2\alpha )f, & f_{\Xi\Lambda K} = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(4\alpha-1)f, \\
f_{\Lambda\Sigma\pi} = & \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}(1-\alpha)f, & f_{\Sigma\Sigma\eta_8} = & \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}(1-\alpha )f, & f_{\Sigma NK} = & (1-2\alpha)f, \\
f_{\Sigma\Sigma\pi} = & 2\alpha f, & f_{\Lambda\Lambda\eta_8} = & -\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}(1-\alpha )f, & f_{\Xi\Sigma K} = & -f.
\end{array}
\label{su3}
\end{equation}
Here $f\equiv g_A/2F_\pi$, where $g_A$ is the nucleon axial-vector strength
and $F_\pi$ is the weak pion
decay constant. We use the values $g_A= 1.26$ and $F_\pi = 92.4$~MeV.
For $\alpha$, the $F/(F+D)$-ratio \cite{Polinder06}, we adopt
the SU(6) value: $\alpha=0.4$, which is consistent with recent determinations
of the axial-vector coupling constants \cite{Ratcliffe,Yamanishi}.
The spin-space part of the LO one-pseudoscalar-meson-exchange potential is similar to the
static one-pion-exchange potential in chiral EFT for nucleon-nucleon
interactions, see e.g. \cite{Epe98} (recoil and relativistic corrections give
higher order contributions),
\begin{eqnarray}
V^{B_1B_2\to B_1'B_2'}&=&-f_{B_1B_1'P}f_{B_2B_2'P}\frac{\left(\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1\cdot{\bf q}\right)\left(\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2\cdot{\bf q}\right)}{{\bf q}^2+M^2_P}\ ,
\label{eq:14}
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_P$ is the mass of the exchanged pseudoscalar meson. The transferred
momentum ${\bf q}$ is defined in terms of the final and initial
center-of-mass (c.m.) momenta of the baryons, ${\bf p}'$ and ${\bf p}$, as
${\bf q}={\bf p}'-{\bf p}$.
In the calculation we use the (isospin averaged) physical masses of the exchanged
pseudoscalar mesons, i.e.
$M_\pi = 138.04\,$MeV, $M_K = 495.66\,$MeV, and $M_\eta = 548.8\,$MeV.
The explicit ${\rm SU(3)}$ breaking reflected in the mass splitting between the
pseudoscalar mesons and, in particular, the small mass of the pion relative to
the other members of the octet leads to sizeable differences in the range of
the interactions in the different channels and, thus, induces an essential dynamical
breaking of ${\rm SU(3)}$ symmetry in the $BB$ interactions.
The $\eta$ meson was identified with the octet $\eta$ ($\eta_8$) and its physical
mass was used. Note that for getting the actual potential for a specific channel
one still has to multiply the expression in Eq.~(\ref{eq:14}) with the pertinent
isospin coefficient (as given, e.g., in Ref.~\cite{Polinder06}).
The reaction amplitudes are obtained from the solution of a coupled-channel
Lippmann-Schwinger (LS) equation for the interaction potentials:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&T_{\rho''\rho'}^{\nu''\nu',J}(p'',p';\sqrt{s})=V_{\rho''\rho'}^{\nu''\nu',J}(p'',p')+
\sum_{\rho,\nu}\int_0^\infty \frac{dpp^2}{(2\pi)^3} \, V_{\rho''\rho}^{\nu''\nu,J}(p'',p)
\frac{2\mu_{\nu}}{q_{\nu}^2-p^2+i\eta}T_{\rho\rho'}^{\nu\nu',J}(p,p';\sqrt{s})\ .
\label{LS}
\end{eqnarray}
The label $\nu$ indicates the particle channels and the label $\rho$ the partial wave.
$\mu_\nu$ is the pertinent reduced mass. The on-shell momentum in the intermediate state,
$q_{\nu}$, is defined by $\sqrt{s}=\sqrt{m^2_{B_{1,\nu}}+q_{\nu}^2}+\sqrt{m^2_{B_{2,\nu}}+q_{\nu}^2}$.
Relativistic kinematics is used for relating the laboratory energy $T_{{\rm lab}}$ of the hyperons
to the c.m. momentum.
In \cite{Polinder06,Polinder07}
the LS equation was solved in the particle basis, in order to incorporate the correct physical
thresholds. Since here we are primarily interested in bound states we work in the isospin
basis. Furthermore, we ignore the Coulomb interaction (as it is also done in
the pertinent lattice QCD calculations).
We use the following (isospin averaged) baryon masses: $m_N=939.6$ MeV,
$m_{\Lambda}=1115.6$ MeV, $m_{\Sigma}=1192.5$ MeV, and $m_\Xi=1318.1$ MeV.
In the $S=-4$ and $S=-3$ sectors either single channel ($\Xi\Xi$) or
coupled-channel ($\Xi\Lambda - \Xi\Sigma$) equations have to be solved. For $S=-2$ and,
in particular, for the $H$-dibaryon there are three coupled channels, namely ${\Lambda}\La$, $\Xi N$
and ${\Sigma}\Si$. The potentials in the LS
equation are cut off with a regulator function, $\exp\left[-\left(p'^4+p^4\right)/\Lambda^4\right]$,
in order to remove high-energy components of the baryon and pseudoscalar meson fields \cite{Epe05}.
We consider cut-off values in the range from 550 to 700 MeV, similar to what was used for
chiral $NN$ potentials \cite{Epe05}.
The imposed ${\rm SU(3)}$ flavor symmetry implies that only five of the six LECs
contribute to the $YN$ interaction, namely $C^{27}$, $C^{10}$, $C^{10^*}$, $C^{8_s}$,
and $C^{8_a}$, cf. Table~\ref{tab:1}.
These five contact terms were determined in
\cite{Polinder06} by a fit to the $YN$ scattering data. Since the $NN$ data
cannot be described with a LO EFT (except very close to the threshold),
${\rm SU(3)}$ constraints from the $NN$ interaction
were not implemented explicitly. As shown in Ref.~\cite{Polinder06}, a good
description of the 35 low-energy $YN$ scattering can be
obtained for cutoff values $\Lambda=550,...,700$ MeV and for natural values of the LECs.
The sixth LEC ($C^{1}$) is only present in the $S=-2$ channels with isospin zero,
cf. Table~\ref{tab:1}. There is scarce experimental information on these
channels that could be used to fix this LEC, but it turned out that the quality
of the existing data does not really allow to constrain its value reliably
\cite{Polinder07}. Even with the value of the sixth LEC chosen so that
$C^{{\Lambda}\La\to {\Lambda}\La}_{1S0} = 0$, agreement with those data can be achieved. In this case
a scattering length of $a_{^1S_0}^{\Lambda\Lambda} = -1.52$~fm \cite{Polinder07}
is obtained.
Analyses of the measured binding energy of the double-strange hypernucleus
${}^{\;\;\;6}_{\Lambda\Lambda}{\rm He}$ \cite{Takahashi:2001nm} suggest that
the ${\Lambda}\La$ scattering length could be in the range of
$-1.3$ to $-0.7$ fm \cite{Gal,Rijken,Fujiwara}.
A first determination of the scattering length utilizing data on the
$\Lambda\Lambda$ invariant mass from the reaction
$^{12}C(K^-,K^+\Lambda\Lambda X)$ led to the result
$a^{\Lambda\Lambda}=-1.2\pm 0.6$ fm \cite{Ashot}.
\section{Quark mass dependence of baryon-baryon binding energies}
\label{sec:3}
As discussed in Ref.~\cite{Hai10a}, our LO chiral EFT interaction
predicts several bound states for the strangeness $S=-3$ and $S=-4$
sectors.
Let us start with the ${}^1S_0$ partial wave in the $\Xi^0\Lambda$
channel. For the smallest cut-off ($\Lambda = 550$ MeV) only a virtual
state is found in this partial wave which, however,
eventually transforms into a real bound state when the cut-off is increased
within the considered range. For the largest cut-off (700 MeV) a binding
energy of $-0.43\,$MeV is predicted.
The results for the $\Xi^0\Lambda$ channel of other potentials that provide
detailed results for the $S=-3$ and $S=-4$ sectors \cite{Stoks:1999bz,Fujiwara}
suggest also an overall attractive interaction in the ${}^1S_0$ partial
wave though only a very moderate one which does not support a bound state.
The $S$-waves in the $\Xi\Sigma$ $I=3/2$ channel belong to the same
($10^*$ and $27$, respectively, cf. Table~\ref{tab:1})
irreducible representations where in the $NN$ case bound states
(${}^3S_1$-$^3D_1$) or virtual states (${}^1S_0$) exist.
Therefore, one expects that such states can also occur for $\Xi\Sigma$.
Indeed, here bound states are present for both partial waves in the Nijmegen
model, cf. the discussion in Sect.~III.B in Ref.~\cite{Stoks:1999bz}.
The chiral EFT interaction has a bound state too for ${}^1S_0$,
for all cut-off values \cite{Hai10a}. The binding energies lie in
the range of $-2.23\,$MeV ($\Lambda = 550\,$MeV) to $-6.15\,$MeV (700 MeV).
But in the ${}^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ partial wave the attraction is obviously not
strong enough to form a bound state.
The ${}^1S_0$ state of the $\Xi\Xi$ channel belongs also to the $27$plet
irreducible representation and also here the Nijmegen as well as the
chiral EFT interactions produce bound states. In our case the binding energy
lies in the range of $-2.56\,$MeV ($\Lambda = 550\,$MeV) to $-7.28\,$MeV
(700 MeV).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{mxx.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{mxl.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{mxs.ps}
\caption{Dependence of the binding energies in different $S=-3$ and $S=-4$ $^1S_0$ partial waves
on the pion mass.
}
\label{fig:BE1}
\end{figure}
Since the ${}^1S_0$ partial waves in the $\Sigma N$ ($I=3/2$) and
$\Sigma\Sigma$ ($I=2$) channels belong likewise to the $27$plet, cf.
Table~\ref{tab:1}, one could expect bound states in those states, too.
However, our chiral EFT interaction is only moderately attractive in the
former case, as reflected in the corresponding scattering lengths
which range from $-2.24$ to $-2.36\,$fm, cf. \cite{Polinder06}. There
is also no bound state for $\Sigma^+\Sigma^+$, though the predicted
scattering lengths are here between $-6.23$ to $-9.42\,$fm, which is an
indication that there is a virtual state not too far from the physical
region.
Note that in our calculation
$\Sigma \Sigma \,(I=2) \equiv \Sigma^+\Sigma^+ \equiv \Sigma^-\Sigma^-$
and, therefore, we use those designations synonymously here.
The Nijmegen NSC97 potential, on the other hand, clearly produces
a bound state in the $\Sigma^+\Sigma^+$ state, as signalled by the
large and positive scattering lengths \cite{Stoks:1999bz}.
Interestingly, a $BB$ interaction derived within the constituent quark-model
(fss2) \cite{Fujiwara}, yields also a scattering length that is very large
and negative so that there should be a virtual state practically at the
$\Sigma^+\Sigma^+$ threshold. On the other hand, for all $S=-3$ and $S=-4$
partial waves no bound states are predicted by this interaction model
based on quark-gluon dynamics \cite{Fujiwara}.
Let us now consider variations of the masses of the involved particles.
First we study the dependence of the binding energies on the pion
mass $M_\pi$ and keep the baryon masses at their physical values.
We will examine the specific situation for the concrete (meson and
baryon) masses that correspond to the calculation reported by the NPLQCD
Collaboration below.
Our results are displayed in Figs.~\ref{fig:BE1} and \ref{fig:BE2}.
Obviously for the $S=-3$ and $S=-4$ systems (Fig.~\ref{fig:BE1})
there is a fairly weak dependence of the predicted binding energies
on the pion mass. In particular, the variation from the physical point
to masses around 400 MeV, corresponding to the present status of
the NPLQCD computations, are relatively small compared to the differences
due to the cut-off variations.
Note that for $\Xi\Sigma$
the binding energy decreases with increasing pion mass, in contrast to
what happens in the other channels.
Results for the $S=-1$ and $S=-2$ systems are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:BE2}.
Contrary to the $\Lambda\Lambda$ system, which we discuss in the
next section, the $\Sigma\Sigma$ interaction in the $I=2$ channel is
completely fixed by the five LECs that could be determined by
a fit to the $YN$ data, cf. Table~\ref{tab:1}. Thus predictions can be
made for this system too. Interestingly, while being unbound at the
physical point, a bound $\Sigma^+\Sigma^+$ state is created when the
pion mass is increased. For $M_\pi\approx$ 400 MeV the predicted
binding energy is around 2-3 MeV. Note that corresponding investigations
within lattice QCD remained inconclusive in this case \cite{Beane11a}.
A bound state appears too in the $\Sigma^+ p$ system, however, only for
pion masses above 400 MeV.
Note that $\Sigma N \, (I=3/2) \equiv \Sigma^+ p \equiv \Sigma^- n$.
For both systems we observe a somewhat stronger
dependence of the binding energies on the pion mass as compared to
$S=-3$ and $S=-4$.
The dependence on the pion mass can be easily understood, on a
qualitative level, by considering the contributions from
pseudoscalar-meson exchange to the interaction in the various
baryon-baryon systems.
Though in a fully SU(3) symmetric world
\begin{equation}
V^{NN\to NN}_{(I=1)} = V^{\Sigma N\to \Sigma N}_{(I=3/2)} =
V^{\Sigma\Sigma \to \Sigma\Sigma}_{(I=2)} =
V^{\Xi\Sigma\to \Xi\Sigma}_{(I=3/2)} = V^{\Xi\Xi\to \Xi\Xi}_{(I=1)} = V^{27}
\end{equation}
in the $^1S_0$ partial wave,
one has to keep in mind that the indivudal contributions of the pseudoscalar
mesons differ for different channels. Their relative strengths in the various
channels follows from the product of the relevant coupling constants, fixed
by the assumed SU(3) symmetry, which are tabulated in Eq.~(\ref{su3}), and
a corresponding isospin factor:
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{llll}
NN \to NN: \ \ & V_\pi \propto \phantom{(20/25) \times} f^2, & V_\eta \propto {(3/25)} \times f^2 & \\
\Sigma N \to \Sigma N: & V_\pi \propto {(20/25)} \times f^2, & V_\eta \propto {(6/25)} \times f^2,
& V_K \propto {(2/25)} \times f^2 \\
\Sigma\Sigma \to \Sigma\Sigma: & V_\pi \propto {(16/25)} \times f^2,
& V_\eta \propto {(12/25)} \times f^2 & \\
\Xi\Sigma \to \Xi\Sigma: & V_\pi \propto {(-4/25)} \times f^2, \ \ &
V_\eta \propto {(-18/25)} \times f^2, \ \ & V_K \propto 2 \times f^2 \\
\Xi\Xi \to \Xi\Xi: & V_\pi \propto {(1/25)} \times f^2, & V_\eta \propto {(27/25)} \times f^2 & \\
\end{array}
\label{coupling}
\end{equation}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
Let us compare, for example, $NN$ and $\Xi\Xi$. Obviously in the $NN$ case
the pion-exchange contribution dominates while
for $\Xi\Xi$ practically the whole contribution from pseudoscalar-meson
exchange is due to the $\eta$ meson. Consequently, variations of the
pion mass (or the SU(3) breaking manifested by the small pion mass)
are much less important for the $\Xi\Xi$ system than for
the $NN$ interaction, cf. Refs.~\cite{Beane:2002vs,Beane03,Epe02,Epe02a}
for a discussion of the effects in the latter system.
Since the small value $f_{\Xi\Xi\pi} = -0.2 \times f$ enters also into the
$\Xi\Sigma$ interaction a similarly weak dependence is seen there. Note that
$V^{\Xi\Sigma\to \Xi\Sigma }_\pi = - 4 \times V^{\Xi\Xi \to \Xi\Xi}_\pi$ for
the isospin channels shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:BE1}, which explains the opposite
trend in the dependence of the binding energy on the pion mass.
In case of $\Xi\Lambda$, pion-exchange contributes only via coupled-channel
effects so that one expects a weak pion-mass dependence anyway.
In the channels $\Sigma N$ and $\Sigma\Sigma$ where the strength of
pion exchange is less reduces as compared to $NN$
($V^{\Sigma N \to \Sigma N}_\pi = 4/5 \times V^{NN\to NN}_\pi$,
$V^{\Sigma \Sigma \to \Sigma \Sigma}_\pi = 16/25 \times V^{NN\to NN}_\pi$)
we observe a sizeable pion mass dependence of the binding energies, cf.
Fig.~\ref{fig:BE2}.
Similar comments also apply for the pion mass dependence of the
baryon octet states with increasing strangeness \cite{Frink:2005ru}.
Note that the relations in Eq.~(\ref{coupling}) follow for the SU(6)
value $\alpha = 0.4$, but they change only marginally for values of
$\alpha \approx 0.36 - 0.37$, as determined recently in analyses of
hyperon semi-leptonic decay data \cite{Ratcliffe,Yamanishi}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{msn.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{mss.ps}
\caption{Dependence of the binding energies in the
$\Sigma^+ p$ (left) and $\Sigma^+ \Sigma^+$ (right) $^1S_0$ partial waves
on the pion mass.
}
\label{fig:BE2}
\end{figure}
In order to connect as closely as possible to the results published by the
NPLQCD Collaboration \cite{Beane11b} we performed also calculations with
meson and baryon masses corresponding precisely to those in the lattice
QCD simulation. Specifically, we use $M_\pi = 389\,$MeV,
$M_K = 544\,$MeV, and $M_\eta = 587\,$MeV, and the
baryon masses $m_N=1151.3\,$MeV, $m_{\Lambda}=1241.9\,$MeV, $m_{\Sigma}=1280.3\,$MeV,
and $m_\Xi=1349.6\,$MeV, all taken from Ref.~\cite{Beane11b}.
Corresponding results are summarized in Table \ref{BELQCD} where we also
include the binding energies at the physical point and those where only the
pion mass was set to $M_\pi = 389\,$MeV. All values are given with two digits
behind the comma in order to facilitate an easy comparison of the relative
size of the various effects. The absolute uncertainty of our leading-order
calculation is, of course, best reflected in the cut-off dependence of the
results represented by the shaded bands in Figs.~\ref{fig:BE1} and
\ref{fig:BE2} and by the pertinent values in Table \ref{BELQCD}.
The results in Table \ref{BELQCD} make clear that there are sizeable effects
from the baryon masses (and of the heavy pseudoscalar mesons $K$ and $\eta$,
too) on the binding energies. Specifically in the $S=-3$ and $S=-4$ sectors
those are more significant than the variations in the pion mass that we
considered, which is not surprising if one recalls the discussion above.
Clearly, one has to acknowledge that the systematic uncertainty in
the current lattice QCD calculations is still significantly larger
than those mass effects \cite{Beane11a}.
Despite of this, it is remarkable that the $\Xi^-\Xi^-$ binding
energy published in \cite{Beane11a}, $E_B = (-14.0 \pm 1.4 \pm 6.7)\,$MeV,
is rather well in line with the corresponding predictions based on LO chiral
EFT. Considering the (rather modest) mass dependence found in our calculation
we would expect that this state is still bound at the physical point,
namely by roughly 10 MeV if one takes the central value from \cite{Beane11a}
as guideline.
Future lattice QCD calculations with improved statistics will certainly resolve
this exciting issue, once the systematic uncertainties can be reduced.
With regard to the other states listed in Table~\ref{BELQCD} only the one
in the $\Xi^-\Sigma^-$ $^1S_0$ partial wave is likely to survive for
physical masses. All other states are fairly loosely bound already for masses
corresponding to the NPLQCD calculation and disappear when we go to the
physical point.
\begin{table}[h]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{|c|} {$\chi$EFT} & NPLQCD \cite{Beane11a} \\
\hline
& physical masses & $M_\pi = 389$ MeV & NPLQCD masses & \\
${\Lambda}$ [MeV] & 550 {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} 700 & 550 {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} 700 & 550 {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} 700 & \\
\hline
\ $\Xi^-\Xi^- $ \ & \ $-2.56$ {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-7.27$ \ & \ $-2.87$ {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-7.93$ \ & \ $-3.92$ {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-10.41$ \ &
\ -14.0 $\pm$ 1.4 $\pm$ 6.7 \ \\
\ $\Xi^-\Lambda $ \ & \ $ \phantom{00}0 $ {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-0.40$ \ & \ $ \phantom{00}0 $ {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-1.26$ \
& \ $-1.05$ {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-4.86$ \ & \\
\ $\Xi^-\Sigma^- $ \ & \ $-2.23$ {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-6.18$ \ & \ $-1.25$ {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-4.02$ \ & \ $-2.89$ {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-7.93$ \
& \\
\ $\Sigma^-\Sigma^- $ \ & \ $ - $ \ & \ $-0.42$ {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-1.99$ \ & \ $-1.23$ {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-3.93$ \
& inconclusive \\
\ $\Sigma^- n $ \ & \ $ - $ \ & \ $ \phantom{00}0 \ ${$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-0.11$ \ & \ $-0.30$ {$\cdot\cdot\cdot$} $-1.56$ \
& \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Binding energies in MeV of various $BB$ bound states in the $^1S_0$ partial wave
as obtained from the EFT potential for physical masses
(second column), for a pion mass of $M_\pi = 389$ MeV (third column),
and using meson and baryon masses that correspond to the lattice QCD calculation
of \cite{Beane11a} (fourth column). The last column are results of the lattice
QCD calculation taken from Ref.~\cite{Beane11a}.
}
\label{BELQCD}
\end{table}
In this context let us emphasize that, of course, it would be also interesting to
confirm or exclude the existence of those bound states experimentally.
The possibility to find signals for strange di-baryon states in heavy-ion collisions
was discussed in Refs.~\cite{Schaffner1999,Steinheimer}.
Also the new facilities J-PARC (Tokai, Japan) and FAIR (Darmstadt, Germany)
could allow one to obtain empirical constraints on the baryon-baryon interaction
in the $S=-3$ and $-4$ sector. Information could come from formation experiments
of corresponding hypernuclei or from proton-proton and antiproton-proton collisions
at such high energies that pairs of baryons with strangeness $S=-3$ or $S=-4$ can
be produced.
\section{The $H$-dibaryon}
\label{sec:4}
\subsection{General considerations}
As already said, in the $S=-2$ sector with isospin zero where the $H$-dibaryon
is expected there is one additional contact term (${C^1}$, cf. Table~\ref{tab:1}),
corresponding to the SU(3) flavor-singlet channel, that is not fixed by
hyperon-nucleon data and, therefore, no immediate predictions can be made.
In principle, this LEC could be determined from experimental information available
for this sector, but the scarce data
($\Xi^-p \to \Xi^-p$ and $\Xi^-p \to \Lambda\Lambda$
cross sections \cite{Ahn:2005jz}) are afflicted with large uncertainties
and do not allow to constrain its value \cite{Polinder07}.
Thus, in practice one can exploit this freedom and fine-tune the remaining
LEC to produce a bound $H$ with a given binding energy, and then study its
properties \cite{Haidenbauer11}. Indeed, it turned out that a near-threshold
bound state can be easily produced for ${C^1}$ values that are of natural size.
In the following we assume that the $H$-dibaryon is a (loosely) bound $BB$ state
\cite{Haidenbauer11}, just like the bound states discussed in the previous section.
We do not
consider the case where the $H$-dibaryon is a genuine 6-quark state as originally
suggested by Jaffe \cite{Jaffe:1976yi}. In fact, we cannot say anything about
the latter situation within our framework.
We also assume that the binding energy, $E_H$, is similar to
that of the deuteron ($D$) because this allows us to compare the properties
of the generated $H$-dibaryon directly with the familiar deuteron case.
Specifically, we fix the value of the flavor-singlet LEC ${C^1}$ in such a way that
the binding momentum is $\gamma_{H} = \gamma_{D} = 0.23161\,$fm
($E = - \gamma^2 / m_{B}$, where $m_{B}$ is either $m_N$ or $m_\Lambda$),
in view of the well-known relation between the binding energy and the effective
range parameters \cite{Schwinger47,Bethe}
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{a} \simeq {\gamma} - \frac{1}{2}{r} {\gamma}^2 .
\nonumber
\end{equation}
This relation is very well fulfilled for the deuteron and the corresponding
neutron-proton $^3S_1$ scattering length ($a=5.43\,$fm) and effective range
($r=1.76\,$fm). One would naively expect that the same should happen for the
$H$-dibaryon. However, it turns out that the corresponding results for
${\Lambda}\La$ in the $^1S_0$ partial wave are quite different, namely
$a=3.00\,$fm and $r=-4.95\,$fm. Specifically, the effective range
is much larger and, moreover, negative. Clearly, the
properties of the $H$-dibaryon are not comparable to those of the
deuteron, despite the fact that both bound states are close to the
elastic threshold.
Indeed, if one recalls the expressions for the relevant potentials
as given in Table \ref{tab:1},
\begin{equation}
V^{{\Lambda}\La \rightarrow {\Lambda}\La} = \frac{1}{40}\left(27C^{27}+8C^{8_s}+{ 5}{
C^{1}}\right) \, , \ \ \
V^{\Xi N \rightarrow \Xi N} = \frac{1}{40}\left(12C^{27}+8C^{8_s}+{ 20}{
C^{1}}\right) \, ,
\nonumber
\end{equation}
one can see that the attraction provided by the SU(3) flavor-singlet state (i.e. $C^{1}$)
contributes with a much larger weight to the $\Xi N$ channel than to ${\Lambda}\La$.
This indicates that the presumed $H$-dibaryon could be predominantly a
$\Xi N$ bound state. We have confirmed this conjecture by evaluating explicitly
the phase shifts in the ${\Lambda}\La$ and $\Xi N$ channels, cf. the discussion in the
next section. Indeed, one finds that the phase shift for the $\Xi N$ channel
is rather similar to the $NN$ $^3S_1$ case. Specifically, the $\Xi N$ ($^1S_0$) phase shift
$\delta(q_{\Xi N})$ fulfills $\delta(0)-\delta(\infty) = 180^\circ$ in
agreement with the Levinson theorem.
The ${\Lambda}\La$ ($^1S_0$) phase behaves rather differently and
satisfies $\delta(q_{{\Lambda}\La}=0) - \delta(\infty) = 0$.
Note that there have been earlier discussions on this issue in
the context of $S=-2$ baryon-baryon interactions derived within the
quark model \cite{Oka,Nakamoto}.
The results above were obtained with the LECs $C^{27}$ and $C^{8_s}$
fixed from the $YN$ data for the cutoff value $\Lambda = 550$~MeV \cite{Polinder06}.
We considered also the other variants corresponding to cutoff masses
of 600, 650, and 700 MeV in the LS equation~(\ref{LS}), as in
Ref.~\cite{Polinder07}. But since the contact term $C^{1}$ has to be
determined anew in each case it turned out that the results are rather
similar for all cutoffs once $C^{1}$ is fixed in such a way that
the same binding energy for the $H$ dibaryon is produced. Thus,
we will present only results for the $\Lambda = 550$~MeV case.
We denote the $YY$ interaction with a loosely bound $H$ dibaryon by
YY-D in the following, and use the notation YY(550) for the
original interaction from Ref.~\cite{Polinder07}.
Let us now consider variations of the masses of the involved particles.
The dependence of the $H$ binding energy on the pion mass $M_\pi$ is
displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:mpi} (left). For the YY-D potential considered
above, enlarging the pion mass to around 400 MeV
(i.e. to values in an order that corresponds to the NPLQCD calculation \cite{Beane})
increases the
binding energy to around 8 MeV and a further change of $M_\pi$ to 700 MeV
(corresponding roughly to the HAL QCD calculation \cite{Inoue}) yields then 13 MeV,
cf. the solid line.
Readjusting $C^1$ so that we predict a $H$ binding energy of 13.2 MeV for
$M_\pi=389$ MeV, corresponding to the latest result published by
NPLQCD~\cite{Beane11a}, yields the dashed curve.
It is obvious that the dependence on $M_\pi$ we obtain agrees -- at least
on a qualitative level -- with that presented in Ref.~\cite{Beane11}.
Specifically, our calculation exhibits the same trend (a decrease of the binding
energy with decreasing pion mass) and our binding energy of 9 MeV at the physical
pion mass is within the error bars of the results given in~\cite{Beane11}.
On the other hand, we clearly observe a non-linear dependence of the binding
energy on the pion mass. As a consequence, scaling our results to the binding
energy reported by the HAL QCD Collaboration \cite{Inoue} (30-40 MeV for
$M_\pi \approx 700-1000$~MeV) yields binding energies of more than 20 MeV
at the physical point, which is certainly outside of the range suggested in
Ref.~\cite{Beane11}. However, we note that for such large pion masses the LO
chiral EFT can not be trusted quantitatively.
We remark that in our simulations the curves corresponding to different binding
energies remained roughly parallel even up to such large values as suggested
by the HAL QCD Collaboration.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{mpi.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{msi.ps}
\caption{Dependence of the binding energy of the $H$-dibaryon on the pion mass
$M_\pi$ (left) and on the $\Sigma$ mass $m_\Sigma$ (right).
The solid curve correspond to the case where $C^1$ is fixed such that $E_H = -1.87\,$MeV
for physical masses while for the dashed curve $C^1$ is fixed to yield $E_H = -13.2\,$MeV for
$M_\pi = 389$ MeV.
The asterisks and crosses represent results where, besides the
variation of $m_\Sigma$, $m_\Xi+m_N = 2 m_{\Lambda}$ is assumed so that the $\Xi N$ threshold
coincides with that of the ${\Lambda}\La$ channel.
The vertical (dotted) lines indicate the physical ${\Lambda}\La$ and ${\Sigma}\Si$ thresholds.
}
\label{fig:mpi}
\end{figure}
Our finding that any $H$-dibaryon is very likely a bound $\Xi N$ state rather than a ${\Lambda}\La$
state, which follows from the assumed (approximate) SU(3) symmetry of the interaction,
suggests that not only the pion mass but also the masses of the baryons play a significant
role for the concrete value of binding energy.
In the specific case of $J=0$, $I=0$, $S=-2$ we are dealing with three coupled channels,
namely ${\Lambda}\La$, $\Xi N$, and ${\Sigma}\Si$. For the isospin-averaged masses that we use
their thresholds are at 2231.2, 2257.7, and 2385.0~MeV, respectively.
Thus, the physical difference between the ${\Lambda}\La$ and $\Xi N$ thresholds of around
26~MeV implies that the $H$-dibaryon considered above is, in reality, bound by roughly
28~MeV with respect to its ``proper'' threshold. Accordingly, one intuitively expects that
in a fully SU(3) symmetric case, where the masses of all octet baryons coincide, the
bound state would remain more or less fixed to the $\Xi N$ threshold and then would lie also
about 28 MeV below the ${\Lambda}\La$ threshold.
Since we know from our experience with coupled-channel problems
\cite{Polinder06,Hai10a,Hai05,Hai11} that coupling effects are sizeable and
the actual separation of the various thresholds plays a crucial role we investigated also
the dependence of the $H$ binding energy on the thresholds (i.e. on the $\Sigma$, and on
the $\Xi$ and $N$ masses). Corresponding results are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:mpi} in
the right panel.
We start with considering the effect of the $\Sigma \Sigma$ channel because its threshold
is separated by roughly 154 MeV from the one of ${\Lambda}\La$ so that there is a rather
drastic breaking of the SU(3) symmetry. Indeed,
when we decrease the $\Sigma$ mass so that the nominal $\Sigma \Sigma$ threshold
(at 2385~MeV) moves downwards and finally coincides with the one of the
${\Lambda}\La$ channel (2231.2~MeV), we observe a concurrent fairly drastic
increase in the $H$ binding energy, cf. the solid curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:mpi} for
results based on the interaction YY-D with a binding energy of -1.87~MeV for
physical masses of the mesons and baryons.
In this context we want to point out that the direct
interaction in the $\Sigma\Sigma$ channel is actually repulsive for the low-energy
coefficients $C^{27}$ and $C^{8_s}$ fixed from the $YN$ data plus the pseudoscalar
meson exchange contributions with coupling constants determined from the SU(3)
relations Eq.~(\ref{su3}), and it remains repulsive even for $C^{1}$ values that produce
a bound $H$-dibaryon. But the coupling between the channels generates a sizeable
effective attraction which increases when the channel thresholds come closer.
The dashed curve is a calculation with the contact term $C^{1}$ fixed to simulate
the binding energy ($-13.2$~MeV) of the NPLQCD Collaboration at $M_\pi=389\,$MeV.
As one can see, the dependence of the binding energy on the $\Sigma$ mass is rather
similar. The curve is simply shifted downwards by around 4.5~MeV, i.e. by the difference
in the binding energy observed already at the physical masses.
The asterisks and crosses represent results where, besides the variation of the
$\Sigma\Sigma$ threshold, the $\Xi N$ threshold is shifted to coincide with that
of the ${\Lambda}\La$ channel. This produces an additional increase of the $H$ binding
energy by 20~MeV at the physical $\Sigma\Sigma$ threshold and by 9~MeV
for that case where all three $BB$ threshold coincide.
Altogether there is an increase in the binding energy of roughly 60~MeV
when going from the physical point to the case of baryons with identical
masses. This is significantly larger than the variations due to the pion mass
considered before. Note that we have kept the pion mass at its physical value
while varying the $BB$ thresholds.
\subsection{Comparison with lattice QCD results}
After these exemplary studies let us now try to connect with the published
$H$ binding energies from the lattice QCD calculations \cite{Beane11a,Inoue}.
The results obtained by the HAL QCD Collaboration are obviously for the SU(3)
symmetric case and the corresponding masses are given in Table I of
Ref.~\cite{Inoue}. Thus, we can take those masses and then fix the LEC
$C^1$ so that we reproduce their $H$ binding energy with those masses.
To be concrete: we use $M_{ps} = 673\,$MeV and $m_{B} = 1485\,$MeV, and fix
$C^1$ so that $E_H = -35\,$MeV. We denote this interaction by YY-HAL.
When we now let the masses of the baryons and
mesons go to their physical values the bound state moves up to the
${\Lambda}\La$ threshold, crosses the threshold, crosses also the $\Xi N$ threshold and
then disappears. In fact, qualitatively this outcome
can be already read off from the curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:mpi} by combining the
effects from the variations in the pion and the baryon masses. Based on those
results one expects a shift of the $H$ binding energy in the order of
60 to 70~MeV for the mass parameters of the HAL QCD calculation.
In case of the NPLQCD calculation we take the values provided in
Ref.~\cite{Beane11b}, as before. Those yield
then 17~MeV for the $\Xi N$-${\Lambda}\La$ threshold separation
(to be compared with the physical value of roughly 26~MeV) and
77~MeV for the ${\Sigma}\Si$-${\Lambda}\La$ separation (physical value around 154~MeV).
We also use the meson masses of Ref.~\cite{Beane11b}, specifically
$M_\pi = 389$ MeV.
With those baryon and meson masses we fix again the LEC $C^1$ so that we
reproduce the $H$ binding energy given by the NPLQCD Collaboration, namely
$E_H =-13.2$~MeV \cite{Beane11a} (called YY-NPL in the following).
Again we let the masses of the baryons and mesons approach their
physical values. Also here the bound state moves up to and crosses
the ${\Lambda}\La$ threshold. However, in the NPLQCD case the state survives
and remains below the $\Xi N$ threshold at the physical point. Specifically,
we observe a resonance at a kinetic energy of 21~MeV in the ${\Lambda}\La$
system or, more precisely, a quasi-bound state in the $\Xi N$ system around
5~MeV below its threshold.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{phla.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{phxi.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{phsi.ps}
\caption{Phase shifts in the $^1S_0$ partial wave in the $I=0$ channel of ${\Lambda}\La$ (a),
$\Xi N$ (b) and ${\Sigma}\Si$ (c) as a function of the pertinent laboratory energies.
The solid line is the result for our illustrative $BB$ interaction that produces a bound $H$ at
$E_H=-1.87\,$MeV.
The dotted line corresponds to the EFT potential of Ref.~\cite{Polinder07}
(Table 4) with cutoff mass $\Lambda = 550$ MeV.
The other curves are results for interactions that are fine-tuned to the
$H$ binding energies found in the lattice QCD calculations of the HAL QCD (dashed) and
NPLQCD (dash-dotted) Collaborations, respectively, for the pertinent meson (pion) and
baryon masses as described in the text.
}
\label{fig:phases}
\end{figure}
It is interesting to observe that the chiral extrapolation of the lattice
QCD results performed by Shanahan et al. \cite{Shanahan11} yields results
that are qualitatively similar to ours. In that reference the authors conclude
that the $H$-dibaryon is likely to be unbound by 13$\pm$14 MeV at the physical point.
Let us emphasize, however, that our values are not really comparable
with theirs. As said above, in our analysis we assume that the $H$-dibaryon is actually
a bound $BB$ state -- which seems to be the case also in the lattice QCD
studies \cite{Beane11a,Inoue}. On the other hand, in Ref.~\cite{Shanahan11} it is
assumed that the $H$ is a compact, multi-quark state rather than a loosely bound
molecular state, i.e. an object as originally suggested by Jaffe.
How such a genuine multi-quark state would be influenced
by variations of the $BB$ thresholds is completely unclear. It depends,
among other things, on whether and how strongly this state couples to the
${\Lambda}\La$, $\Xi N$, and ${\Sigma}\Si$ channels. So far there is no information
on this issue from lattice QCD calculations. Clearly, in case of a strong and
predominant coupling to the ${\Lambda}\La$ alone, variations of the ${\Sigma}\Si$ and
$\Xi N$ would not influence the $H$ binding energy significantly. However,
should it couple primarily to the $\Xi N$ and/or ${\Sigma}\Si$ channels
then we expect a sensitivity of the binding energy to their thresholds values
comparable to what we found in our study for the case of a bound state.
Phase shifts for the $^1S_0$ partial wave of the ${\Lambda}\La$, $\Xi N$ and
$\Sigma\Sigma$ channels are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:phases}.
The solid line is the result for the $BB$
interaction YY-D that produces a loosely bound $H$ dibaryon with $E_H=-1.87$~MeV.
The phase shift for the $\Xi N$ channel, Fig.~\ref{fig:phases} (b), is rather similar to the
one for the $^3S_1$ $NN$ partial wave where the deuteron resides,
see e.g. \cite{Epe05}.
Specifically, it starts at $180^o$, decreases smoothly and eventually
approaches zero for large energies, fulfilling the Levinson theorem.
The result for ${\Lambda}\La$ ($^1S_0$), Fig.~\ref{fig:phases} (a), behaves rather differently.
This phase commences at zero degrees, is first negative but becomes positive within
20 MeV and finally turns to zero again for large energies.
The dashed curve corresponds to the interaction YY-HAL that was fitted to the
result of the HAL QCD Collaboration and reproduces their bound $H$ dibaryon with
their meson and baryon masses.
The phase shift of the $\Xi N$ channel, calculated with physical masses,
shows no trace of a bound state anymore. Still the phase shift
rises up to around $60^o$ near threshold, a behavior quite similar to that of
the $^1S_0$ $NN$ partial wave where there is a virtual state (also called
antibound state \cite{Kok,Pearce}). Indeed, such a virtual state also seems to
be present in the $\Xi N$ channel as a remnant of the original bound state.
The effect of this virtual state can be seen in the ${\Lambda}\La$ phase shift where it
leads to an impressive cusp at the opening of the $\Xi N$ channel,
cf. the dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:phases} (a).
In the $\Xi N$ phase shifts for the NPLQCD case (dash-dotted curve)
the presence of a bound state is clearly visible. The corresponding ${\Lambda}\La$
phase shift exhibits a resonance-like behavior at the energy where the
(quasi-bound) $H$ dibaryon is located.
The dotted curves are the results for the original chiral EFT potential
with cut-off $\Lambda = 550$ MeV as published in \cite{Polinder07}. The
${\Lambda}\La$ as well as the $\Xi N$ phase shifts are qualitatively similar
to the ones for the HAL QCD case. But the smaller $\Xi N$ phase shift
together with the reduced cusp effect indicate that there is no
near-by virtual state produced by this interaction.
The $\Sigma\Sigma$ phase shifts predicted by the various interactions are
almost the same, cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:phases} (c). This may be not too surprising.
After all, the
$\Sigma\Sigma$ threshold is rather far away from the one of the
$\Lambda\Lambda$ channel and the region, where we have introduced the $H$
dibaryon. Thus, it remains practically unaffected by those changes.
Finally, for illustrative purposes, we present cross sections for the
${\Lambda}\La$ and $\Xi^- p$ channels. Results of corresponding calculations,
now performed in particle basis (but neglecting the Coulomb interaction),
are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:cross}. There are some experimental constraints
for these two channels. In particular, there is an upper limit of $24$ mb at $90\%$
confidence level for elastic $\Xi^-p$ scattering,
while for the $\Xi^-p\rightarrow \Lambda\Lambda$ cross section at $p_{\rm lab}=500$ MeV/c
a value of $4.3^{+6.3}_{-2.7}$ mb was reported \cite{Ahn:2005jz}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{crll.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{crxmp.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.305\textwidth,keepaspectratio,angle=-90]{crxmpll.ps}
\caption{Total cross sections for some $S=-2$ channels as a function of $p_{lab}$.
The solid line is the result for our illustrative $BB$ interaction that produces a bound $H$ at
$E_H=-1.87$ MeV. The dotted line corresponds to the EFT potential of Ref.~\cite{Polinder07}
(Table 4) with cutoff mass $\Lambda = 550$ MeV.
The other curves are results for interactions that are fine-tuned to the
$H$ binding energies found in the lattice QCD calculations of the HAL QCD (dashed) and
NPLQCD (dash-dotted) Collaborations, respectively, for the pertinent meson (pion) and
baryon masses as described in the text.
The experimental cross sections in (b) and (c) are taken from Ref. \cite{Ahn:2005jz}.
}
\label{fig:cross}
\end{figure}
As obvious from Fig.~\ref{fig:cross}, there are significant differences in the
cross sections predicted by the $YY$ interactions generated in the context of
the $H$-dibaryon discussion -- however, only at low momenta where no
experimental information is at hand so far. Anyhow, those results suggest that
a determination of the $\Xi^- p$ cross section at $p_{\rm lab} \approx 200$ MeV/c,
say, with reasonable errors would already put strong constraints on the
$H$-dibaryon. In particular, situations where it is located close to the $\Xi N$
threshold -- as at is the case in our simulations of the NPLQCD and HAL QCD results
(dash-dotted and dashed curves, respectively) -- could be ruled out.
Distinguishing an actually (though loosely) bound $H$-dibaryon (solid curve) from
the situation without any $H$-dibaryon (dotted curve) certainly requires better
statistics. Here one has to keep in mind that the $\Xi^-p$ cross section would
be even closer to the latter result, should the $H$-dibaryon be somewhat
stronger bound than assumed in our calculation. Note that the peak in the
$\Xi^- p$ cross section around 575 MeV/c is a cusp due to the opening of the
$\Sigma^0\Lambda$ channel.
There are also characteristic differences in the predictions for
$\Xi^- p\rightarrow \Lambda\Lambda$, cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:cross} (c).
However, since this cross section rises to infinity with decreasing $p_{\rm lab}$,
due to the phase-space factor, it might be more difficult to draw conclusions
in this case.
The assumed $H$ dibaryon below the ${\Lambda}\La$ threshold introduces a rather
strong and peculiar energy variation in the near-threshold ${\Lambda}\La$ cross
section, cf. the solid curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:cross} (a).
The effects due to the other considered interactions
is less spectacular, specifically, because the structure produced by the NPLQCD
case is so narrow that it would be presumably completely washed out once one
takes into account the finite momentum resolution of an actual experiment.
In any case, measuring the ${\Lambda}\La$ cross section directly seems to be
practically impossible. However, one could measure the ${\Lambda}\La$ invariant mass
spectrum in reactions like $K^- A \to {\Lambda}\La + X$ where $A$ can be the deuteron
or a heavier nucleus. As a matter of facts, corresponding results from a measurement
of $K^-\phantom{}^{12}\rm C$ have been already published \cite{Yoon}.
Still, it is unclear whether such an invariant mass distribution would
be dominated by the ${\Lambda}\La \to {\Lambda}\La$ transition amplitude or rather by
$\Xi N \to {\Lambda}\La$. Since our investigation suggests that any near-threshold
$H$-dibaryon will have a large if not dominant $\Xi N$ component
one expects that then the $\Xi N \to {\Lambda}\La$ amplitude should play
likewise an important if not decisive role for the ${\Lambda}\La$
invariant mass distribution.
\section{Summary}
In this paper we have presented an analysis of the quark mass dependence of
binding energies for baryon-baryon systems in the strangeness $S=-2$,
$S=-3$, and $S=-4$ sectors in the framework of chiral effective field
theory at leading order in the Weinberg counting.
In particular, we have explored the dependence of those binding energies
on the pion mass in order to connect with current lattice QCD calculations.
We remark that at higher orders, other effects like the quark mass dependence of
the meson-baryon couplings or of the contact interactions will have to be
considered (see e.g.~\cite{Epe02}).
With regard to the $\Xi\Xi$, $\Xi\Sigma$ and $\Xi\Lambda$ systems, where
meson-exchange potentials as well as leading-order EFT interactions,
derived under the assumption of (broken) SU(3) symmetry, predict
the existence of bound states in the various $^1S_0$ partial waves, we
find a rather weak dependence of the binding energies on the pion mass.
For the $\Xi^-\Xi^-$ system a calculation performed with meson and
baryon masses that match the status of a recent lattice QCD exploration
by the NPLQCD Collaboration yields binding energies that are
compatible with the reported lattice QCD result \cite{Beane11a}
within the given error bars.
We have also investigated the situation concerning the so-called $H$-dibaryon.
Here we found rather drastic effects caused by the SU(3) breaking related
to the values of the three thresholds $\Lambda\Lambda$, $\Sigma\Sigma$ and $\Xi N$.
For physical values the binding energy of the $H$ is reduced by as much as 60~MeV
as compared to a calculation based on degenerate (i.e. SU(3) symmetric) $BB$
thresholds.
Translating this observation to the situation in the HAL QCD \cite{Inoue}
calculation, we see that the bound state has disappeared at the physical point.
For the case of the NPLQCD calculation \cite{Beane11a},
a resonance in the $\Lambda\Lambda$ system might survive.
\ack
J.H. acknowledges stimulating discussions with N.N. Nikolaev.
This work is supported by the EU-Research
Infrastructure Integrating Activity ``Study of Strongly Interacting Matter''
(HadronPhysics2, grant n. 227431) under the Seventh Framework Program of the EU,
and by the DFG (SFB/TR 16 ``Subnuclear Structure of Matter'').
\bigskip
|
\section{Conclusions}
We have searched for heavy resonances decaying into \z\
boson pairs using the final states consisting of four leptons,
two leptons and \met, and two leptons plus jets.
In the channel with the smallest background, the four-lepton channel,
we have observed eight candidate events.
Four events with high values of \zz\ mass are close in mass,
and two of those have unusually high $p_T(\zz)$.
However, more sensitive searches in the \llmet\ and \lljj\
final states show no indication
of a new heavy particle
decaying to two \z\ bosons, suggesting that the events
observed around $325$\gevcsq\ in the four-lepton channel
result from standard model processes.
Combining all three channels
we set upper limits on the cross section
times branching ratio $\sigma(\ppbar\to G^* \to\zz)$
that vary between 0.26\,pb and 0.045\,pb
in the mass range $300<M_{G^*}<1000\gevcsq$,
and the limits do not depend strongly on the production model.
We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the
participating institutions for their vital contributions.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation; the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung, Germany; the Korean World Class University Program, the National Research Foundation of Korea; the Science and Technology Facilities Council and the Royal Society, UK; the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci\'{o}n, and Programa Consolider-Ingenio 2010, Spain; the Slovak R\&D Agency; the Academy of Finland; and the Australian Research Council (ARC).
\section{Detector}
\label{det}
The CDF II detector is a general-purpose particle detector, described
in detail elsewhere~\cite{cdftdr}.
The results reported in this paper use
information from several detector subsystems for charged lepton and jet
reconstruction and identification.
Tracks of charged particles are reconstructed in the silicon system~\cite{silicon}
and in the
central tracker~\cite{cot}, which is a drift chamber
that consists of 96 layers of sense wires grouped into eight `superlayers'.
Superlayers alternate between an axial configuration, with sense wires
parallel to the colliding beams, and a small-angle stereo configuration.
For high momentum tracks the resolution is
$\sigma_{p_T}/p_T^2\simeq 1.7\times 10^{-3}(\gevc)^{-1}$,
where $\pt = p \sin\theta$, $p$ being the track momentum and
$\theta$ the polar angle with respect to the proton beam direction.
The calorimeter is segmented radially into electromagnetic and
hadronic compartments \cite{cdf_cem_ces,cdf_cha}.
The central calorimeter is split at the center
into two separate barrels and covers the pseudorapidity range $|\eta|<1.1$
(where $\eta = -\ln \tan \frac{\theta}{2}$).
Each barrel consists of 24 azimuthal wedges segmented in
projective towers of 0.1 in $\eta$.
The forward calorimeter segmentation increases from
0.1 in $\eta$ and $7.5^\circ$ in the azimuthal angle $\phi$ at $\eta=1.1$,
to
0.5 in $\eta$ and $15^\circ$ in $\phi$ at $\eta=3.6$.
Electron energy resolutions are $13.5\%/\sqrt{E_T}\oplus 2\%$ in the
central calorimeter and $16\%/\sqrt{E}\oplus 1\%$ in the
forward calorimeters, where $\et = E \sin\theta$.
The electromagnetic calorimeters incorporate shower maximum
detectors that are used to measure shower profiles
with spatial resolution of around 2\,mm.
Dedicated muon detectors~\cite{cdf_muon_system} are mounted around
the calorimeters, providing coverage for $|\eta|\lesssim 1.5$.
Luminosity is measured by a hodoscopic system of
Cherenkov counters~\cite{clc}.
CDF has a three-level online trigger system.
The data used in this measurement were collected using
inclusive high-\pt\ electron and muon triggers,
and a two-electron trigger.
The single-lepton triggers select events that have
electron or muon candidates with $\pt\geq 18$\gevc\
and ${\rm |\eta|} \lesssim 1.0$ \cite{drell-yan}, and the two-electron trigger
uses only calorimeter information and
allows electron candidates above the same \pt\ threshold
anywhere in the detector.
The data correspond
to an integrated luminosity of \luminosity\ collected between
February 2002 and February 2010.
\section{Introduction}
We report the results of a search for high-mass resonances
decaying to \zz\ in \ppbar\ collisions
at $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$\,TeV at the Tevatron.
Although
the decay of the standard model Higgs boson to \zz\ is expected to be beyond
the sensitivity of the Tevatron experiments \cite{higgsxs},
new physics could affect \zz\ production in different ways.
In models containing large extra dimensions
the \zz\ production cross section is increased through loop corrections
\cite{ZZ_EXTRA_DIMENSIONS}.
Resonances appearing at high mass such as a
Randall-Sundrum (RS) graviton \cite{rsgraviton}
could decay manifestly to two \z\ bosons.
The original RS model predicts Kaluza-Klein excitations
of the graviton ($G^*$) that decay predominantly
to a pair of charged leptons or a pair of photons. Experimental
searches for such high-mass resonance decays have excluded
RS graviton states up to a mass of around 1\tevcsq\ at 95\% confidence level
for a natural choice of coupling parameter \cite{k_over_mPl},
both at the Tevatron
and at the LHC \cite{previousresults}.
However, in RS models that have standard model fields propagating in the
bulk, the $G^*$ couplings to light fermions and photons
may be heavily suppressed
so that the dominant decay modes are to \ttbar, Higgs pairs,
or pairs of heavy bosons \cite{bulk}.
Furthermore, in some models
the decay to heavy bosons is dominant \cite{lisafitzpatrick}.
Suppression of the couplings to light fermions also results in
gluon fusion becoming the primary production process.
The CDF experiment has previously searched for resonances decaying
to \z\ pairs and excluded RS gravitons with mass up to around 0.5\tevcsq\
at 95\% confidence level \cite{antonio}.
The search described in this paper
gives improved sensitivity over the previous analysis
through modified event selection,
the inclusion of extra final states, and the
addition of more data.
Three final states are examined, corresponding to the different
\z\ boson decay modes \zzllll, \zzllnn, and \zzlljj, where $\ell$
is an electron or muon and $j$ is a hadronic jet.
These three channels have different signal-to-background
ratios and allow an overconstrained search.
The four-lepton final state has
the smallest background; however, depending on the resonance mass,
the best single-channel sensitivity is provided by either the
\zzlljj\ or \zzllnn\ channels.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section~\ref{det} we introduce
the CDF detector and trigger system; in Section~\ref{leptonid} we describe
the reconstruction and identification procedures; then in
Sections~\ref{zz4l}--\ref{zzlljj} we report the search results from
each of the channels \zzllll, \zzllnn\ and \zzlljj.
Section~\ref{section:limits} gives limits resulting from all three channels
and their combination.
\section{Reconstruction and Identification}
\label{leptonid}
In this section we discuss lepton reconstruction and identification,
and reconstruction of jets and missing transverse energy.
\subsection{Leptons}
Decays of a heavy resonance to \zz, where at least one of the \z\
bosons decays leptonically, result in a wide lepton energy spectrum.
Any inefficiency in lepton reconstruction and identification is raised
to the fourth power in the \zzllll\ channel. Thus, keeping
efficiency high while maintaining stringent background rejection is equally important
for $\pt\sim 20$\gevc\ and for $\pt>100$\gevc.
To this end, this analysis incorporates several refinements in the
offline reconstruction and identification of electron and muon candidates.
Studies were performed on inclusive \zll\ candidates and on events
containing one lepton plus two additional tracks having $\pt > 10\gevc$,
and this latter data set
was fully reprocessed for the \zzllll\ analysis.
First we describe the elements of the lepton selection that are standard to CDF.
Electron candidates consist of a calorimeter cluster matched to a well-reconstructed
track. Candidates are required to be within the fiducial region of
the shower maximum
detectors and have a shower that is mostly contained in the electromagnetic
compartment of the calorimeter, with a shower shape that is consistent with
test beam expectation \cite{run1wz}.
For candidates reconstructed in the central part of the detector
($|\eta|<1.1$), the matched track must have
\pt$>$10\gevc, pass through all layers of the central tracker,
and have a fit $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}<3$.
Candidates reconstructed in the forward part of the detector,
$1.13<|\eta|<2.8$, must either have a track in the central tracker,
or a track in the silicon system with $\geq5$ hits.
A muon candidate is reconstructed from a track in the central tracker
pointing to track segments in the muon chambers.
Muon track trajectories must be such that at least 30 central tracker
hits would be expected geometrically, and at least 60\% of those must be found.
Tracks pointing forward that have fewer
than three central tracker segments must also have at least five
$r-\phi$ hits in the silicon tracking system.
Muon energy deposition must be consistent with that of a
minimally-ionizing particle.
We also consider minimally-ionizing tracks
that have no track segments in the muon systems
as muon candidates.
Electron and muon candidates are required to have
$\et>15$\gev\ and $\pt>15$\gevc\ respectively.
In addition, one of the lepton candidates in each event is required to
have $\et>20$\gev\ (electrons) or $\pt>20$\gevc\ (muons), and to
pass more restrictive quality requirements.
These extra requirements are that the lepton track must have
at least three segments reconstructed in the axial
superlayers and three in the stereo superlayers; and the track
of a muon candidate must also be well-matched to a track segment
reconstructed in the muon system.
The first refinement in lepton selection is in the isolation
requirement made on all lepton candidates.
The `isolation energy' is the amount of energy reconstructed in a cone
of $\DeltaR < 0.4$ around a lepton candidate, where
$\DeltaR = \sqrt{(\Delta\eta)^2+(\Delta\phi)^2}$.
In computing the isolation energy, we refine the treatment of
energy leakage across calorimeter cell boundaries.
In the central calorimeter, electron clusters include energy
depositions from only a single wedge in $\phi$.
As each calorimeter tower is read out from different $\phi$ sides
by two photomultiplier tubes, the relative
heights of the pulses locate the energy deposition in $\phi$.
Locating the
center of the energy depositions
in towers neighboring the electron cluster allows us
to estimate the leakage, and correct the isolation
energy variable
event-by-event, rather than by applying an average correction.
The correction method is validated by examining the isolation
energy as a function of shower position in the calorimeter cell,
which is found to be more uniform than under application of
the standard average correction,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ces_dist}(a). Muons are not expected
to result in energy leakage; their isolation energy is also shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:ces_dist}(a) as validation of the method.
The average isolation energy should depend on the
instantaneous luminosity but not on the lepton \et,
and its uniformity in lepton \et\ is confirmed by Fig.~\ref{fig:ces_dist}(b).
All electron and muon candidates are therefore required to be isolated
in the calorimeter by limiting the isolation energy to be below 4\gev.
Cutting on isolation energy, rather than requiring the standard ratio of
isolation energy to lepton momentum to be $<0.1$ \cite{run1wz}, increases
the acceptance for \zzllll\ events by 4\%.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\vspace{0.0in}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=.1in .0in 7.7in 3.3in]
{\plots/zee_id_fig_6005}
\caption[]{
(a) Corrected isolation energy across the calorimeter
wedge coordinate $X$ in \zee\ (new correction: solid circles; standard
correction: open squares) and \zmumu\ (new correction: open
stars) events;
(b) average calorimeter isolation energy as a function of
electron \et\ in \zee\ events.}
\label{fig:ces_dist}
\end{figure}
For the \zzllll\ analysis,
events have been reconstructed with an updated version of the
CDF tracking code
that gives improved pattern recognition at high luminosities.
The updated version includes an extra algorithm to associate
hits in the central tracker with silicon-only
tracks from electron candidates in the forward
region of the detector. Adding extra hits on to these tracks
improves the robustness of forward electron charge identification.
Use of an improved reconstruction algorithm in the central shower maximum
detector gives better separation between showers generated by electron tracks
and showers produced by bremsstrahlung photons.
Matching tracks to the showers they initiate in both
coordinate and energy improves hadron rejection and allows the inclusion of
electron candidates that lose a significant amount of energy through
bremsstrahlung.
The improved background rejection allows the relaxation of other
standard electron identification requirements and, overall,
the selection efficiency is increased by around 9\% per electron.
Electrons reconstructed in the edge $\phi$-rings of the calorimeter on either
side of the gap between the central and forward detectors
are generally excluded from analysis.
They are included here, after
verification that they have energy resolution
comparable with electrons reconstructed in the bulk of the detectors,
and are well-modeled in the simulation.
This increases electron acceptance by around 10\% per electron.
The combined effect of the refinements described above is to increase
lepton acceptance without increasing fake lepton backgrounds,
as measured by jet-to-lepton fake rates in inclusive jet datasets.
The lepton selection used for this analysis
is validated by measuring inclusive \zll\
cross-sections and separating events by calorimeter region and
muon system.
We verify that for each subset of events the measurement
is stable in time,
and combining all channels we measure
$\sigma(\ppbar \to Z)\times Br(\zll)= 247\pm 6\,\statsys \pm 15\,\lumi$\pb,
consistent with CDF's measurement \cite{drell-yan}.
\subsection{Jets and \met}
Jets are reconstructed as clustered energy depositions in the calorimeter
using a fixed cone clustering algorithm with cone size $\Delta R=0.4$ \cite{jetclustering}.
Jet energies are corrected for $\eta$-dependent calorimeter
response and for multiple
interactions \cite{jetcorr}. We consider jets having $\et>20$\gev.
The missing transverse energy (\met) is defined as the sum over
calorimeter tower energies $\vec{\met} = -\sum_i E_T^i{\bf n_i}$,
where ${\bf n_i}$ is the unit vector in the transverse plane
that points to calorimeter tower $i$. The \met\ is
adjusted to account for the energy corrections made to
reconstructed jets, and for muons identified in the event.
As neutrinos pass through the detector without depositing energy,
large \met\ in an event can imply the presence of high-energy neutrinos.
\section{Limits}
\label{section:limits}
To quantify results of the search we compute expected
and observed limits on the production cross section times
branching ratio $\sigma(\ppbar \to G^* \to ZZ)$.
The expected sensitivity is determined with a
Bayesian technique \cite{joel}, using CL$_S$ likelihood test statistics \cite{junk}
to perform a binned maximum-likelihood fit over the
\mzz, \mvis, and \mlljj\ distributions in the four-lepton, \llmet, and
\lljj\ channels respectively.
The background hypothesis is provided by the standard model expectation
as described in Sections \ref{zz4l}-\ref{zzlljj}.
Background-only pseudo-experiments are drawn from Monte Carlo
simulation.
In the fit, the background templates can fluctuate within their uncertainties.
A test statistic is formed from the difference in the likelihoods
between the background-only model and the signal-plus-background
model at the best fit values for the pseudoexperiment.
From this, expected 95\% credibility level (CL) upper limits
on cross section times branching ratio are extracted.
Fig.~\ref{fig:bands_zz4l_expected_and_observed} shows
expected and observed limits in the four-lepton channel
for $G^*$ masses between 250 and 1000\gevcsq.
At \mgstar\ the expected sensitivity
is around 0.7\pb, and the four events with masses clustered
around that value
result in an observed limit of 1.9\pb.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.7in 0.4in 7.8in 5.9in]
{\plots/bands_blessing_1}
\caption[]{Expected and observed 95\% CL limits on $\sigma(\ppbar \to G^* \to ZZ)$ from the four-lepton channel; the four events with \mzz=327\gevcsq\ result in a deviation from the expected limit.}
\label{fig:bands_zz4l_expected_and_observed}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Although the backgrounds in the
\llmet\ channel are higher than in the four-lepton channel,
this channel provides better sensitivity.
Fig.~\ref{fig:otherlimits}(a) shows the expected
and observed cross section limits for \llmet, and
there are no large differences from standard model expectations.
For \mgstar\ the expected 95\% CL upper cross section
limit on the $s$-channel signal model
is 0.29\pb, and the observed limit is 0.25\pb.
For the boosted $G^*$ signal model
the 95\% CL expected and observed limits are both 0.30\pb.
This is a change of less than 10\% from the $s$-channel model,
demonstrating that the analysis
sensitivity is not strongly dependent on the
detail of the production model.
Fig.~\ref{fig:otherlimits}(b) shows the expected
and observed cross section limits for the \lljj\ channel.
Here the expected 95\% CL
upper cross section limit is 0.38\pb\ for \mgstar,
and the observed limit is 0.23\pb.
With the selection tuned
for a boosted signal model, $\pt(\lljj)>40$\gevc,
the sensitivity is improved slightly compared
to the $s$-channel signal model.
The expected limit is 0.27\pb\ and the
observed limit is 0.26\pb, showing that also
in this channel the analysis sensitivity is not strongly
dependent on the detail of the signal model.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.68in 0.4in 6.85in 6.0in]
{\plots/bands_blessing_2}
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.68in 0.4in 6.85in 6.0in]
{\plots/bands_blessing_3}
\caption[]{Expected and observed 95\% CL limits on $\sigma(\ppbar \to G^* \to ZZ)$ from (a) the \zzllnn\ channel, and (b) the \zzlljj\ channel. }
\label{fig:otherlimits}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Combining all three channels results in the most sensitivity.
Expected and observed
limits are consistent with each other, as shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:bands_comb_expected_and_observed}. For \mgstar\
the sensitivity is dominated by the \llmet\ channel.
For an $s$-channel resonance, the 95\% CL upper cross section
limit is expected to be 0.19\pb\ and is observed to be 0.26\pb.
For a boosted resonance of \mgstar\ the expected limit is
0.17\pb\ and the observed limit is 0.28\pb.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.7in 0.4in 7.8in 5.9in]
{\plots/bands_blessing_4}
\caption[]{Expected and observed 95\% CL limits on $\sigma(\ppbar \to G^* \to ZZ)$ from all channels combined. }
\label{fig:bands_comb_expected_and_observed}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{ \zzlljj\ channel}
\label{zzlljj}
The decay of a heavy particle into two \z\ bosons
where one of the \z\ bosons decays into charged leptons and
the other to jets has the
advantage of being fully reconstructible, and the event yield in
the \lljj\ channel is expected to be around twenty times
higher than in the four-lepton channel.
\zee\ and \zmumu\ candidates are selected according
to the requirements described for the \zzllll\ channel,
and a further requirement is made of at least two
reconstructed jets having corrected \et \gt 25\gev.
To reconstruct the second \z\ boson candidate, all pairs of jets
are considered and if there is a pair with invariant
mass between 70 and 110\gevcsq\ it is accepted.
This inclusive selection, with the additional requirement
of the invariant mass of the two \z\ candidates
being less than $300$\gevcsq, defines a control region.
This channel is dominated by \z+jets events.
Other standard model sources, small compared with \z+jets, are
\wz\ and \zz\ production, and \ttbar\ production.
The contributions from \ww\ and $W$+jets events are negligible.
Diboson and \ttbar\ event yields are estimated using
{\sc pythia} Monte Carlo normalized to NLO cross sections.
\z+jets events are modeled using the generator
{\sc alpgen} \cite{alpgen} interfaced with {\sc pythia} for parton
showering and hadronization, and the normalization of the \z+jets contribution
is obtained by fitting to the total data yield
in the control region.
The detector acceptance is different for \zee\ and \zmumu and
so the \z+jets normalization factors for the two channels are not
expected to be identical. The difference between them is
indicative of the systematic uncertainty, leading to a
total background uncertainty of 10\%.
The jet multiplicity distributions in the control region,
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:njets}, demonstrate the good background modeling.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.in .96in 7.8in 4.5in]
{\plots/lljj_fig_10}
\caption[]{Number of jets in (a) $\zee+\geq 2$\,jets and (b) $\zmumu\geq 2$\,jets events in the control region $\mlljj <300\gevcsq$.}
\label{fig:njets}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the \lljj\ final state we improve the resolution in
the reconstructed \mzz\ by varying jet four-momenta
within their uncertainties and constraining the reconstructed
invariant masses \mjj\ to
the mass of the \z\ boson, $M_{Z}$.
The resolution in $M_{Z}$ for \zjj\ is $15\gevcsq$, which
is much larger than the intrinsic width of the \z\ boson.
In the \lljj\ channel the constraining procedure therefore improves the mass
resolution of the \zz\ candidates, to $12\gevcsq$ for \mgstar.
As the detector resolution for $M_{Z}$ in \zll\ is comparable with the
intrinsic width of the \z\ boson, applying the mass-constraining procedure
to the leptons
has very little effect on the \mzz\ resolution
and is used only as a cross-check.
Throughout this paper
\mlljj\ refers to the constrained four-object invariant mass.
To search for a high-mass resonance we examine the complete
\mlljj\ spectrum.
\z\ bosons coming from the decay of a heavy particle would
be boosted, and optimization studies result in
requiring the most energetic
jet in the \zjj\ candidate to have $\Et>50$\gev\ and the
\pt\ of either the \zjj\ or \zll\ candidate to
be greater than 75\gevc.
Observed event yields are given in Table~\ref{table:lljj} and are consistent
with standard model expectations.
A resonance of \mgstar\ and cross section times branching
ratio to \zz\ of 1\pb\ would be expected
to yield around 30 events in the muon channel and 40 events in the
electron channel, and
as the \zzlljj\ final state is fully reconstructed, they would
appear as a narrow peak in \mlljj.
Fig.~\ref{fig:lljj_sig_summary} shows the \mlljj\ distribution
for the \eejj\ and \mmjj\ channels, with the standard model and
additional \zz\ resonance model predictions.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{ Expected and observed event yields in the \lljj\ channel.
\label{table:lljj}
}
\centering{
\resizebox{ .48\textwidth}{!} {
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
\hline
Source & electron channel & muon channel \\
\hline
\zz & 6 & 5 \\
\wz & 17 & 12 \\
\ttbar & 7 & 5 \\
$Z$+jets & 395 & 244 \\
\hline
\hline
Total standard model & 424$\pm$40 & 266$\pm$24 \\
\hline
Data & 392 & 253 \\
\hline
\hline
Expected signal, & \\
$M_G=325$\gevcsq\ and $\sigma$=1\,pb &41$\pm$1 & 32$\pm$1 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
}}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.in .96in 3.9in 4.8in]
{\plots/summary_1_sig}
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=3.9in .96in 7.8in 4.8in]
{\plots/summary_1_sig}
\caption[]{\mlljj\ for the (a) electron and (b) muon channels, showing the expected contribution from a graviton of \mgstar\ and cross section times branching ratio to \zz\ of 1\,pb.}
\label{fig:lljj_sig_summary}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Studies of systematic effects resulting from the generator
$Q^2$ scale choice and from the jet energy scale uncertainty show that
they do not affect the expected shapes of the \mlljj\ distributions.
We investigate potential effects of the production mechanism
using the alternative boosted $G^*$ signal model.
Motivated by the anomalous \pt(\zz) distribution shown by the
events in the four-lepton channel,
the signal selection is modified to require $\pt(\lljj)>40$\gevc,
which further suppresses standard model background,
The resulting
\mlljj\ distribution and boosted $G^*$ prediction
is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lljj_dd_summary}.
As with the \llmet\
channel there are no statistically significant
differences from the standard model expectation.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.in 0.96in 7.8in 4.8in]
{\plots/summary_2_dd}
\caption[]{\mlljj\ for the (a) electron and (b) muon channels for $\pt(\zz)>40$\gevc, showing the expected contribution from a boosted graviton of \mgstar\ and cross section times branching ratio to \zz\ of 1\,pb.}
\label{fig:lljj_dd_summary}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{ \zzllnn\ channel}
\label{zzllnn}
The four-lepton events observed above 300\gevcsq\ appear somewhat anomalous.
If these events were to be due to a new \zz\ resonance, it would also
be detectable in the other \zz\ decay modes, $\ell\ell\nu\nu$ and \lljj.
\z\ bosons coming from the decay of such a heavy particle would
be boosted, so
events with one of the \z\ bosons decaying into neutrinos would have large \met.
For each lepton flavor, the branching ratio to neutrinos is about twice
that of charged leptons. With all three neutrino flavors included,
and only one \z\ boson to be reconstructed, the expected event yield
is around ten times higher than in the four-lepton channel, and the
sensitivity to new physics at $\mzz=325$\gevcsq\ is several
times better than in the four-lepton channel.
Optimising sensitivity for a resonance of mass $\mzz\sim 325\gevcsq$,
we define the search region to be $\met>100$\gev.
The standard model expectation for events with a \zll\ candidate
and such high \met\ is around 25 events, as given in
Table~\ref{table:llvv}.
\zee\ and \zmumu\ candidates are selected
according to the requirements described for the \zzllll\ channel.
Owing to the extra acceptance, we did not reprocess the \llmet\ data.
We validate the background model using events with a
reconstructed \z\ boson and $\met<100$\gev.
Irreducible background contributions to a search for new physics
in this channel come
from standard model diboson production processes \ww, \wz, and \zz, as
well as from \ttbar\ production.
Other non-negligible background contributions come from \z+jets events that
have large \met\ due to jet mismeasurement;
from $W$+jets events where one of the jets is misreconstructed as
a lepton and forms a \z\ boson candidate with the charged
lepton from the decay of the $W$ boson;
and, in the $ee+\met$ channel, from
$W\gamma$ production with the photon misreconstructed as an electron.
Irreducible backgrounds are estimated using the {\sc pythia}
generator and the full CDF detector simulation,
normalized to NLO cross sections \cite{NLO_CROSS_SECTIONS}.
The \z+jets contribution is also estimated using {\sc pythia}
simulation and is normalized using a subset of the $\met<100\gev$ data.
As \z+jets events have high \met\ only through misreconstruction,
the normalization is carried out on events having $50<\met<100$\gev\
that also have a small angle $\Delta\phi_{\rm min}$ between the \met\
and the closest jet, or lepton, reconstructed
in the event: $|\Delta\phi_{\rm min}|<0.5$.
The $|\Delta\phi_{\rm min}|$ distribution is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:llvv_dphi}(a).
It is verified that this procedure is not sensitive to the \met\ range used.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.1in 0.in 7.7in 3.4in]
{\plots/cdfllvv_fig_5111}
\caption[]{
(a) $\Delta\phi_{\rm min}$ as used for \z+jets normalization,
and (b) \mll\ for same-sign dielectron pairs with large \met\
used to validate the $W$+jets background estimation.}
\label{fig:llvv_dphi}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The background contribution from the $W$+jets process is estimated
from a data sample where events contain an identified lepton
and an additional jet.
These events are weighted by jet-to-lepton
misidentification rates as described in Section \ref{section:fakerates}
to estimate the total yield.
Owing to differences in jet-to-lepton fake rates between electrons and muons,
the $W$+jets contribution is found to be negligible in the
$\mu\mu+\met$ channel, but non-negligible in the $ee+\met$ channel.
Photon conversions are the primary source of jets being misidentified
as electrons, and so $W$+jets events
result in approximately equal numbers of same-charged and oppositely-charged
candidate events.
The estimate is therefore validated against the sample of events
that have two lepton candidates of the same charge and
$50<\met<100$\gev.
Fig.~\ref{fig:llvv_dphi}(b) shows that this selection is dominated by $W$+jets.
The estimate is also cross-checked by applying the same misidentification
rates to \wenu\ simulation normalized to the NLO production cross section.
The two methods give results consistent within 10\%.
The overall modeling of the sample composition is demonstrated by the
\met\ spectrum shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:llvv_met}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.in 0.in 7.7in 6.9in]
{\plots/cdfllvv_fig_100061_log}
\caption[]{
\met\ distribution for events with opposite sign lepton pairs ($ee+\mu\mu)$.
The contribution of $Z$+jets events is normalized in the region 50 \lt\ \met\
\lt 100\gev\ using events with low $|\Delta\phi_{\rm min}|$.
}.
\label{fig:llvv_met}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The largest relative uncertainty in this channel comes from the
\z+jets normalization, and is 10\% and 13\% in the electron and
muon channels respectively.
Other uncertainties come from lepton identification (2\%), acceptance (\lt 1\%),
cross sections of diboson and top-quark production (5\% and 10\%),
and the fake lepton background (20\%).
The total background uncertainty is 13\%.
To search for a high-mass resonance we examine events with
$\met>100$\gev.
Event yields are given in Table~\ref{table:llvv}.
In electron and muon channels combined we expect
26 events from standard model processes, and observe 27.
Four four-lepton events around $\mzz=325$\gevcsq\ coming from
the decay
of a new state would imply a production cross section times
branching ratio to \zz\ close to 1\pb, and for that cross section,
the $s$-channel $G^*$ signal model predicts around 35 additional events.
As the second \z\ boson in this channel decays into neutrinos,
the invariant mass of the \z\ pair cannot be fully reconstructed.
The closest approximation is the `visible mass' \mvis,
defined as the invariant mass of the sum of the two charged lepton
four-momenta
and the four-vector representing the \met, $(\metx, \mety, 0, |\met|)$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:llvv_sig_summary} shows the \mvis\ distribution
in the signal region, $\met>100$\gev, with the expected distribution
for an RS graviton of mass $M_{G*}=325$\gevcsq\ and cross
section times branching ratio of 1\pb\ overlaid.
In this channel we find little difference in expected
distributions or yields between the two signal models,
confirming that the analysis is not strongly dependent on the
detail of the models.
Neither the event counts of Table~\ref{table:llvv}, nor the distributions
of Figure~\ref{fig:llvv_sig_summary}, show any evidence for a resonance
decaying into \zz.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.1in 0.in 7.7in 3.4in]
{\plots/cdfllvv_fig_100042}
\caption[]{
\mvis\ for (a) the electron and (b) muon channels.
The expected contribution from a graviton of \mgstar\ and
cross section times branching ratio to \zz\ of 1\pb\
is shown together with the expected contribution of boosted $G^*$,
produced in association with a jet.
The high values of \mvis\ of three events in the electron channel are
understood as originating from fluctuations of the jet energy losses
in events with high jet activity.
}
\label{fig:llvv_sig_summary}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{ Expected and observed event yields in the \llmet\ channel.
\label{table:llvv}
}
\centering{
\resizebox{ .48\textwidth}{!} {
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
\hline
Source & electron channel & muon channel \\
\hline
\zz & 1.8 & 1.3 \\
\wz & 3.6 & 2.8 \\
\ww & 0.9 & 0.5 \\
\ttbar & 3.2 & 2.4 \\
$W$+jets & 0.1 & 0.3 \\
$Z$+jets & 4.0 & 5.1 \\
\hline
\hline
Total standard model & $13.6\pm 1.8$ & $12.4\pm 1.6$ \\
\hline
Data & 18 & 9 \\
\hline
\hline
Expected $s$-channel signal, & \\
$M_G=325$\gevcsq\ and $\sigma$=1\,pb & $17\pm 1$ & $18\pm 1$ \\
\hline
Expected boosted signal, & \\
$M_G=325$\gevcsq\ and $\sigma$=1\,pb & $20\pm 1$ & $17\pm 1$ \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
}}
\end{table}
\section{\zzllll\ channel}
\label{zz4l}
The first search channel is \zzllll.
We select events with four candidate charged leptons, which may be
electrons or muons.
At least two of the four must have $\et>20\gev$ for electron candidates
($\pt>20\gevc$ for muon candidates) and
pass the more restrictive lepton selection; and in order
to have the trigger efficiency well-defined,
at least one must satisfy the trigger requirements.
Leptons of the same flavor are paired to form \z\ candidates,
seeded by a lepton that passes the tighter selection.
In the case of four-electron or four-muon candidates, the pairings
that minimize the $\chi^2$ of the \zz\ hypothesis are chosen:
$$
\chi^2 ~=~ (M_{12} - M_Z)^2/\sigma_M^2 + (M_{34} - M_Z)^2/\sigma_M^2,
$$
where $M_{12}$ and $M_{34}$ are the masses of the lepton pairs,
$\sigma_M = 3$ \gevcsq\ approximates experimental resolution in \mll\
for both electron and muon decays,
and $M_Z$ is the mass of the \z\ boson.
We find ten events that pass the four-lepton selection.
In all of these events the number of leptons of the same flavor
is even.
The best pairings of the ten candidate events are all oppositely-charged.
To minimize the effect of \zgamma\ interference, both \z\ boson candidates
are required to be within 15\,\gevcsq\ of the \z\ pole,
$76<M_{\ell\ell}<106$\,\gevcsq. Following this requirement, eight event candidates remain:
two events have four reconstructed electrons (\eeee), three have two electrons
and two muons (\eemm), and the remaining three have four reconstructed muons (\mmmm).
The two events that fail the \z\ mass requirement both have one
\z\ candidate with invariant mass below 60\gevcsq.
We use the selected events to measure the
$\ppbar\to\zz$ production cross section.
On- and off-shell \zz\ production, as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:feyn},
followed by \z\ boson decays to charged
leptons, is the only lowest-order standard model process that results
in a final
state with four high-$p_T$ leptons produced in the primary interaction.
The background in this channel thus comes only from misidentification.
The main contributions are:
$\ppbar\to\wz\ +$~jet with a jet misidentified as a lepton;
$\ppbar\to\z + 2$~jets with both jets misidentified as leptons;
and $\ppbar\to\z + \gamma\ +$~jet with both the photon and the jet
misidentified as electrons.
The contribution from $\ttbar$ production is an order of magnitude
smaller than that of \wz\ production.
As a result of the \mll \gt 76 \gevcsq\ requirement,
the contribution of $Z \to \tau\tau$ decays is negligible.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=1.2in 9.5in 8.in 10.9in]
{\plots/zz_feynman_diag}
\caption[]{
Lowest-order standard model \zz\ production.
}
\label{fig:feyn}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\label{section:fakerates}
The {\sc pythia} event generator \cite{pythia} and the full CDF
detector simulation \cite{cdfsim}
are used to simulate kinematics of these processes
and photon-to-lepton misidentification.
Jet-to-lepton misidentification rates are
measured in inclusive jet data and found to be of the order
of $10^{-4}-10^{-3}$ per jet
for $15 < \et < 100$\gev.
These misidentification rates are used to weight the
simulated events of the background processes, resulting in a total
background yield estimated to be less than 0.01 event.
The acceptance for standard model
$\ppbar \to Z/\gamma^*\,Z/\gamma^*\to\ell^+ \ell^- \ell^+ \ell^-$
is determined using the leading-order {\sc pythia} generator
and found to be $0.17\pm 0.02$.
The uncertainty has contributions from higher-order generator effects,
lepton identification, and trigger efficiency uncertainty.
In order to estimate the
uncertainty arising from higher-order generator effects, the {\sc mc@nlo} generator \cite{mcnlo}
is used, interfaced to {\sc herwig} \cite{herwig}
to provide parton showering and hadronization.
The corresponding relative uncertainty on the acceptance is
estimated to be 2.7\%.
Lepton identification efficiencies are measured in the data using
candidate \zll\ events with uncertainties at the level of 1\%.
We also account for a small drop in lepton identification efficiency with
time and assign a 2\% relative uncertainty per lepton for residual
run-dependent effects.
We assume no correlation between the uncertainties on electron and muon
reconstruction, and full correlation between the uncertainties for
leptons of the same flavor.
The trigger efficiency
per four-lepton event is close to unity, with a systematic uncertainty
of less than 0.5\%.
Given the branching fraction for $\zll=(3.366\pm 0.002)\%$ \cite{pdg},
the branching fraction for two \z\ bosons to decay to electrons or muons
is $4.52\times 10^{-3}$. The scale factor to take into account differences
in triggering, reconstruction and identification efficiencies between
data and simulation is $0.80\pm 0.08$, and the integrated luminosity is
$5.91\pm 0.35$\,fb$^{-1}$.
Experimentally, we observe $\ppbar \to Z/\gamma^*\,Z/\gamma^*\to\ell^+ \ell^- \ell^+ \ell^-$, and
to compare our measurement with the theoretical prediction of
$\ppbar \to ZZ$, calculated in a narrow pole approximation \cite{NLO_CROSS_SECTIONS},
we account for $Z/\gamma^*$ interference. The interference in the region
$76 < \mll < 106\gevcsq$ increases the acceptance by a factor of 1.03.
From simulation, the fraction
of \zz\ events that falls outside the region $76 < \mll < 106\gevcsq$ is 0.07
and is also corrected for.
The eight observed events therefore result in a cross section:
$$
\sigma(\ppbar \to ZZ) ~=~
2.3 ~ ^{+0.9}_{-0.8} ~\stat ~\pm~ 0.2 ~\syst\pb
$$
where the statistical uncertainty is the 68\% confidence interval
given by the method of Feldman and Cousins \cite{feldmancousins}.
The value is consistent with the theoretical
prediction $1.4\pm 0.1$\pb\ \cite{NLO_CROSS_SECTIONS}.
A more precise measurement of the \zz\ cross section,
which combines four-lepton and leptons plus \met\ channels,
is reported elsewhere \cite{matteo}.
Examining the properties of the eight \zz\ candidate events we find
an excess of events over standard model expectations at high
invariant mass, \mzz.
The invariant masses of four events are clustered
with mean 327\gevcsq,
as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:mzz}.
All four candidates,
one \eeee, one \eemm, and two \mmmm, have values
of \mzz\ within 7\gevcsq\ of the mean. In the four-lepton channel
the detector resolution in \mzz,
$\sigma(\mzz)$, is 5 to 6\gevcsq, so within detector resolution
the masses of all four events are consistent
with a potential new resonance.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.1in 0.2in 7.8in 6.5in]
{\plots/fig_10014}
\caption[]{
\mzz\ for eight \zzllll\ candidates ({\sc pythia} normalized
to the standard model prediction of 5.5 events).
}
\label{fig:mzz}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To study the possibility that these events are due to a decay of a heavy
resonance, we split the eight candidate events into low- and high-mass
samples and compare the properties of the events in the two samples.
The high-mass region is defined by an
a posteriori choice $\mzz>300\gevcsq$, which is
$\sim 5 \sigma(M_{ZZ})$ below the observed clustering of events;
less than 25\% of the expected standard model \mzz\ distribution
lies above this cutoff.
The masses of the \z\ boson candidates for all events are
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mz}, which demonstrates that the
resolution in $M_{\ell\ell}$ is consistent in the high-mass and
low-mass events.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.1in 0.in 7.7in 3.3in]
{\plots/fig_610}
\caption[]{
Invariant masses of dilepton pairs for eight \zz\ candidate events:
(a) \mll(1) versus \mll(2), with selected mass region outlined; and (b) \mll\ for all \z\ boson candidates.
}
\label{fig:mz}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Lepton identification variables are consistent with expectation
for all the observed events.
Most kinematic distributions for the \zzllll\ candidates are
in agreement with standard model
expectations; as one example, the $p_T$ distributions of the 16 \z\ boson candidates
are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptz}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.1in 0.in 7.7in 3.3in]
{\plots/fig_10015}
\caption[]{
$p_T(\z)$ for \z\ boson candidates in (a) low-mass four-lepton candidate
events and (b) high-mass events ({\sc pythia} prediction
normalized to four events in each plot).
}
\label{fig:ptz}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
However, for the high-mass events, the $p_T$ distribution of the
four-lepton system is rather different from the standard model
expectation, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptzz}.
The \zz\ system in the high-mass events is seen to be boosted and,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptjetmet}, is recoiling against
one or more jets.
None of the four low-mass events has a reconstructed jet with \et\ above 20\,GeV.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.1in 0.in 7.7in 3.3in]
{\plots/fig_10016}
\caption[]{
$p_T(\zz)$ for (a) low-mass four-lepton candidate events
and (b) high-mass events ({\sc pythia} prediction normalized
to four events in each plot).
}
\label{fig:ptzz}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We check whether there is any indication of misreconstruction in
these events. In \zzllll\ events, where there is no real \met,
large measured \met\ could indicate misreconstruction.
However the presence of jets broadens the detector \met\ resolution
and needs to be taken into account.
To this end we exploit two physics models.
The first model is RS graviton production through
gluon-gluon fusion (the `$s$-channel signal model') \cite{lisafitzpatrick}.
In order to investigate effects of the production mechanism and
in the absence of a
particular model that would predict the production of a boosted \zz\ resonance,
we take as an alternative signal model the production of a Kaluza-Klein
excitation of a graviton, $G^*$, of \mgstar\
recoiling against a
parton of $\et\geq 100$\gev (referred to as the `boosted signal model').
In both cases the {\sc herwig} event generator is used with the full CDF
detector simulation.
In the four-lepton decay channel, neither of these models generates real \met.
Fig.~\ref{fig:ptjetmet}(b) thus
demonstrates that the observed \met\ in the
high-mass events is consistent
with resolution effects arising from the jets.
Overall, we conclude that the observed events are well-measured and that,
within the detector resolution, the kinematic parameters of the \z\ candidates
are reconstructed correctly. The event properties are given in
Table~\ref{table:4l_candidate_events_01}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth, clip=true, viewport=0.1in 0.in 7.7in 3.3in]
{\plots/fig_10017}
\caption[]{
(a) Number of jets and (inset) \et\ of the most energetic jet;
and (b) \met\ for four-lepton candidate events. \met\ distribution for G*(+jet)
process is normalized to 4 events.
}
\label{fig:ptjetmet}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[tb]
\caption{ Properties of the four-lepton candidate events, in the order in which they were recorded.
\label{table:4l_candidate_events_01}
}
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
\hline
leptons&$M_{Z_1}, p_T(Z_1)$&$M_{Z_2}, p_T(Z_2)$ & \mzz &$p_T(\zz)$& \met &$N_{jets}$& Jet \et \\
& (\gevcsq), (\gevc) & (\gevcsq), (\gevc) & (\gevcsq) & (\gevc) & (\gev) & & (\gev) \\
\hline
\eeee & 93.3, 18.2 & 92.9, 17.4 & 196.6 & 35 & 14 & 0 & \\
\mmmm & 85.9, 101.9 & 92.1, 54.8 & 321.1 & 47.4 & 8.4& 1 & 36.7 \\
\eemm & 92.0, 156.0 & 89.9, 139.7 & 324.7 & 126.8 & 31 & 2 & 97.4, 40.0 \\
\eeee & 101.3, 57.8 & 91.6, 13.2 & 334.4 & 44.7 & 9.9 & 1 & 22.7 \\
\eemm & 87.9, 17.7 & 91.8, 29.8 & 191.8 & 31 & 10.5& 0 & \\
\mmmm & 95.9, 197.9 & 92.0, 87.2 & 329.0 & 110.9 & 23.3& 2 & 97.2, 24.7 \\
\eemm & 95.2, 36.7 & 89.7, 38.8 & 237.5 & 10.2 & 1.2& 0 & \\
\mmmm & 88.4, 51.0 & 89.8, 26.6 & 194.1 & 25.9 & 3.3& 0 & \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
To quantify consistency between the data and the standard model,
we compute the probability for the observed \mllll\ distribution
to be due to a statistical fluctuation of the standard model expectation.
Eight-event pseudoexperiments are drawn from the standard model \mzz\
distribution, and a test statistic is computed for each pseudoexperiment.
Two tests are performed.
First, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) distance is taken as the test statistic,
with the intention of testing for goodness-of-fit in a general way.
The fraction of pseudoexperiments that has KS distance
greater than that of the observed data distribution determines the
computed $p$-value, which is found to be 0.14.
Second, a more powerful test statistic for a resonance
search is used: the ratio of likelihoods of two hypotheses.
The background hypothesis is provided by the standard model distribution
in \mzz, $M^{SM}_{ZZ}$, and the signal hypothesis adds to it a resonance
represented by a Gaussian peak: $f\cdot M^{SM}_{ZZ} + (1-f)\cdot G(M,w)$.
For a given mass $M$, the resonance width $w$ is defined by the detector resolution
at this mass.
The resonance parameters are defined from fitting the pseudoexperiment
distribution in \mzz.
The likelihood ratio for the data is computed using the same procedure.
The fraction of pseudoexperiments that has likelihood ratio
L$_{\rm SM}$/L$_{\rm SM+G}$
lower than that of the observed data distribution determines the
computed $p$-value and is found to be $(1-2)\times 10^{-3}$,
where the range comes from shape differences of the
{\sc pythia} and {\sc mc@nlo+herwig} event generators.
In the absence of a physics model that would predict the observed
\pt(\zz) distribution, we quantify consistency between
the data and the standard model by computing the probability for
eight events sampled from the
standard model \pt(\zz) distribution to have KS distance greater than that
observed in the data.
The probability
for the data to represent the standard model distribution is
$(1-2)\times 10^{-4}$.%
|
\section{Introduction}
Silicon Photomultipliers (SiPMs) are extremely versatile photo-sensors and can be used in many fields ranging from astrophysics, particle and
nuclear physics to medical imaging.
Recently, we have built a position sensitive photo-detector based on an array of SiPMs which could be used for photon detection in the PANDA
experiment at the FAIR facility in Darmstadt, Germany. For charged particle identification in the momentum range of 0.5 GeV/c to 4.5 GeV/c, two
DIRC detectors are foreseen. The barrel DIRC detector \cite{barrelDIRC} has a total detection area of a few m$^2$ which will be covered by about
10 000 photo-sensors. The DIRC detector must be able to detect Cherenkov light at very low intensities with an angular resolution of 2 - 2.5 mrad.
Microchannel plate PMTs (MCP-PMTs) are considered as an option for photon detection in the PANDA DIRCs. However, the lifetime is still not
sufficient for the expected photon rates \cite{MCPstudy} and therefore we are studying SiPMs as an alternative to MCP-PMTs.
\section{Position sensitive Cherenkov detector}
\subsection{Light concentrator}
In order to increase the number of incident photons on the active area of the sensor, the idea of using an array of suitable light guides on
top of the photo-sensor has been studied. Such a light concentrator leads to increased geometric acceptance and increased signal to noise ratio,
since the dark count rate is not affected by the light guides. The light concentrator consists of 64 regularly arranged pyramid-shaped funnels
with quadratic (round edges) entrance windows of 7 $\times$ 7 mm$^2$ and exit apertures of 3 $\times$ 3 mm$^2$, respectively, and thus increases
the geometric detection area by a factor of (7/3)$^2 \times \epsilon_{geo} \approx$ 5.1, where $\epsilon_{geo} = 0.93$ is the geometric fill
factor of the light concentrator. The funnel height is 4.5 mm. The light guide array is made out of brass and the funnels were produced by
electro-erosion. Two modules of the light concentrator with different coatings (Aluminum and Chromium) were produced and tested.
Figure \ref{fig:prototype} shows a picture of the light concentrator mounted on top of the SiPM matrix.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{prototype14pt.jpg}
\caption{Pictures of the position sensitive SiPM array. The figure on the left shows a view inside the detector. The SiPMs are read out from
the back by four preamplifier boards. The temperature is stabilized by water- and Peltier-cooling. The light guide matrix on top of the
SiPMs enlarges the detection area of the module. On the right hand side the detector is closed.}
\label{fig:prototype}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Prototype detector}
The prototype of a position sensitive photo-detector consists of 64 SiPMs (Hamamatsu MPPC S10931-100P) with 3 $\times$ 3 mm$^2$ active area
and 100 $\times$ 100 $\mu$m$^2$ pixel size, arranged in a 8 $\times$ 8 array. The SiPM array is combined with a light concentrator on top.
Each photo-sensor is read out separately. An individual bias supplier for each SiPM ensures that the gains of the sensors can be adjusted to be the
same. The four preamplifier boards, developed at SMI, consist of 16 preamplifiers each and provide sufficient signal amplification with a gain
of around 5 and reasonably fast shaping time ($\sim$ 2 ns). A picture of the prototype detector is shown in Figure \ref{fig:prototype}.
\section{Efficiency measurements and simulations}
\subsection{Measurements of the light concentrator efficiency}
In order to estimate the collection efficiency of the light concentrator, the SiPM array, with the light concentrator on top, is
scanned in two dimensions with a blue laser (407 nm). The beam spot of about 1 mm diameter is moved in steps of 500 $\mu$m and the
average output pulse height is recorded with an oscilloscope. The expected incident angle is $\theta = 0 \pm 4^\circ$. The measurements
are done inside a dark box. Since it is known that the key parameters of SiPMs show a strong temperature dependence \cite{SiPMstudy, timingstudy},
the whole setup is kept stable at 15 $^\circ$C, using water- and Peltier-cooling.
The detection efficiency of a single funnel can be written as $\epsilon_{detect} = \epsilon_{col} \times \epsilon_{PDE}$, where
$\epsilon_{col} = n_{d}/N_{phot}$ is the collection efficiency of the light concentrator, with $n_{d}$ being the number of photons reaching
the exit aperture and $N_{phot}$ being the total number of photons hitting the entrance aperture, and $\epsilon_{PDE}$ is the photon detection
efficiency of the photo-sensor.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{ScanXYsingle3D.pdf}
}
\subfigure{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{ScanXYsingleTop35pt.jpg}
}
\caption{The plots show the results from a scan of one cell of the SiPM array with a laser spot of about 1 mm diameter in steps of 500 $\mu$m
in 3D- (left) and top-view (right). The chromium-plated light concentrator is used. The dimensions of the entrance- and exit aperture are
indicated in the right plot.}
\label{fig:ScanXY}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:ScanXY} shows a measurement done for one cell (one funnel plus SiPM) of the array, using the Chromium-plated light
concentrator. One can identify the edges of the entrance and exit aperture at $x = y = \pm$ 3.5 mm and $x = y = \pm$ 1.5 mm, respectively,
and the SiPM centered at $x = y = 0$. The use of the light concentrator clearly helps to increase the detection area of the module. The partly
inhomogeneous surface and xy-asymmetry of the light concentrator is supposed to originate from a non-uniform coating quality. The fact that
the profiles of other cells reveal very similar features strengthens this suspicion. Besides, there are less efficient areas at $\pm$ 1.5 mm.
This becomes more obvious when looking at Figure \ref{fig:ScanE5comp}. The plots show the profiles of a scan for the same cell in
x- and y-direction in steps of 250 $\mu$m, comparing the Chromium- and Aluminum-plated light concentrator. The less efficient bands at a
position of $\pm$ 1.5 mm are likely due to defects, oxidation or bad coating at the edges of the funnel or due to none perfect matching
between light guide and SiPM, but could also be a feature of the photo-sensor. This needs further investigation. Nevertheless, the fact that
the Aluminum coated light concentrator shows a symmetric behavior in x- and y-direction confirms the previous assumption of a non-uniform
coating quality in case of the Chromium-plated light guides. Other cells have been tested and provided comparable results.
From the measurements we find an average light collection efficiency of $\epsilon_{col} = 57\%$ for the Chromium-plated light concentrator,
which shows that it is working quite efficiently. In order to compare with simulation, the data from the above measurments are normalized to
the maximum signal height, so that the photon detection efficieny $\epsilon_{PDE}$, which is not considered in the simulation, is canceled out.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure{
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{ScanE5Xcomp.pdf}
}
\subfigure{
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{ScanE5Ycomp.pdf}
}
\caption{The plots show a comparison between the Aluminum- and Chromium-plated light guide. One cell is scanned in x-direction (left) at
fixed y-position ($y = 0$) and in y-direction (right) at fixed x-position ($x = 0$). On average, the Aluminum-plated light concentrator
performs better than the Chromium-plated one.}
\label{fig:ScanE5comp}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Simulations of the light concentrator efficiency}
A series of Monte Carlo simulations using a self-developed code was carried out in order to evaluate the collection efficiency $\epsilon_{col}$
of the light concentrator \cite{simulations}. Assuming a reflection coefficient of 0.55 (Chromium at 400 nm \cite{refrindex}) and a reasonable
surface smoothness, the simulations show an average light collection efficiency of around $52\%$ at $\theta = 0^\circ$,
where $\theta$ is the angle relative to the aperture normal, which is in very good agreement with the measured value of $57\%$.
\section{Conclusions and outlook}
A prototype of a position sensitive photo-detector with SiPM readout has been built and tested. Measurements were done in our laser laboratory
and recently also at the T9 test beam at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. The data recorded in ten days beam time are currently under investigation.
It was shown that the light concentrator clearly increases the acceptance of the module and that the efficiency measurements are in good
agreement with the simulations. The Aluminum-plated light guide is the preferred solution for future measurements. Further laser tests with
different incident angles and smaller laser spots in the range of the MPPC pixel size and below are planned. In a next step it's also foreseen
to use existing ASIC chips for the SiPM readout.
\acknowledgments
This work is partly supported by the EU Project HadronPhysics 2 (project 227431).
|
\section*{Introduction}
String topology studies algebraic operations on the loop space of a manifold.
Let $M$ be a closed oriented smooth manifold of dimension $d$, and let $H_*(LM)$ denote the singular homology of the free loop space $LM=Maps(S^1,M)$.
Chas and Sullivan constructed a {\em loop product}
\[ \bullet: H_i(LM) \otimes H_j(LM) \to H_{i+j-d}(LM)\]
and BV operator
\[ \Delta: H_i(LM) \to H_{i+1}(LM)\]
giving $H_*(LM)$ the structure of a Batalin-Vilkovisky algebra~\cite{CS}.
Let $H_*^{S^1}(LM)$ denote the $S^1$-equivariant homology of $LM$.
Chas and Sullivan also constructed a {\em string bracket}
\[ \{\, , \,\}: H_i^{S^1}(LM) \otimes H_j^{S^1}(LM) \to H_{i+j-d+2}^{S^1}(LM)\]
giving $H_*^{S^1}(LM)$ the structure of a graded Lie algebra.
They later extended structure this to an involutive Lie bialgbra structure on $H^{S^1}(LM,M)$ where $M$ denotes the subspace of constant loops in $LM$ \cite{CS2}.
These algebraic structures have since been explained and generalized in many ways.
The modern view is that string topology operations should be parameterized by moduli spaces of Riemann surfaces.
Spaces of fatgraphs have long been used to give combinatorial descriptions of the open moduli space of Riemann surfaces \cite{Strebel, Penner, Harer, Igusa, costello2}.
Cohen and Jones \cite{cohenjones} gave a homotopy-theoretic reformulation of the Chas-Sullivan product which Cohen and Godin generalized using a class of fatgraphs called {\em Sullivan chord diagrams} \cite{CG}.
The Cohen-Godin operations induce an action of $h_0(Sull(g, k, \ell))$ on $h_*(LM)$, where $Sull(g, k, \ell)$ is the space of Sullivan chord diagrams and $h_*$ is any homology theory for which $M$ has an orientation.
This action gives $H_*(LM)$ the structure of a Frobenius algebra with no counit, which Cohen and Godin called a positive boundary Topological Quantum Field Theory.
Chataur's extended this action to one of $H_*(Sull(g, k, \ell))$ on $H_*(LM)$ \cite{ChataurBordism}.
The space $Sull(g, k, \ell)$ of Sullivan chord diagrams is a subspace of the moduli space $\mathcal{M}(g, k, \ell)$ of Riemann surfaces of genus $g$ with $k$ incoming and $\ell$ outgoing boundary components. Cohen and Godin conjectured that $Sull(g, k, \ell)$ and $\mathcal{M}(g, k, \ell)$ have the same homotopy type. Godin discovered that this conjecture is false \cite{godin}, and generalized string topology operations further to give an action of $H_*(\mathcal{M}(g, k, \ell))$ on $H_*(LM)$. She calls this structure a Homological Conformal Field Theory.
In the case where $M$ is simply connected, string topology operations can be studied from the perspective of Hochschild homology
\cite{CV, CTZ, FTVP, Kaufmann,TZ}. Westerland and Wahl recently described an action on the Hochschild homology recovering the Chas-Sullivan BV structure as part of a Homological Conformal Field Theory \cite{ww}. It is not known if this HCFT agrees with the one Constructed by Godin.
It is expected that the string topology operations described above are the shadow of a deeper structure, for
all of these results can potentially be generalized in two directions.
First, the Cohen-Godin-Chataur action of $H_*(Sull(g, k, \ell))$ in $H_*(LM)$ should be induced by an chain-level action of $C_*(Sull(g, k, \ell))$ on $C_*(LM)$.
Different flavors of this idea can be described using the language of Open-Closed Topological Conformal Field Theories in the sense of Getzler~\cite{getzler} and Costello~\cite{costello}, and the language of Topological Quantum Field Theories in the sense of Moore-Segal~\cite{segal} and Lurie~\cite{lurie}.
Blumberg, Cohen, and Teleman have recently made progress in describing string topology in this way~\cite{bct}.
Second, the space $Sull(g, k, \ell)$ is a subspace of an open moduli space of Riemann surfaces.
Sullivan has conjectured that a compactification of the open moduli space of Riemann surfaces should act on $H_*(LM)$ and $C_*(LM)$~\cite{STBAPS}.
Our goal is to give an action of the cellular chains of a compactified moduli space of Riemann surfaces on the singular chains of the free loop space.
This paper constitutes a first step towards this goal.
Instead of the space $Sull(g, k, \ell)$ of Sulllivan chord diagrams, we study a related space $\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)$ of {\em string diagrams}.
The main result is the following.
\begin{thm}
Let $M$ be a closed, oriented, Riemannian manifold of dimension $d$, and let $\overline{SD}(g,k,\ell)$ be the cellular moduli space of string diagrams of type $(g,k,\ell)$.
There exists a chain map
\[ \mathcal{ST}: \mathcal{C}_i(\overline{SD}(g,k,\ell)) \otimes C_j(LM) \to C_{i+j + (2-2g-k-\ell)d}(LM).\]
This chain map induces a map on homology:
\[ \mathcal{ST}: \mathcal{H}_i(\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)/\sim) \otimes H_j(LM) \to H_{i+j+(2-2g-k-\ell)d}(LM).\]
When $i=0$, the resulting maps
\[ \mathcal{ST}: \mathcal{H}_0(\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)/\sim) \otimes H_j(LM) \to H_{j+(2-2g-k-\ell)d}(LM).\]
recover Cohen and Godin's positive boundary TQFT structure on $H_*(LM)$.
\end{thm}
We now summarize the contents of the paper.
A {\em string diagram of type $(g,k,\ell)$} is a certain type of fatgraph which determines a Riemann surface of genus $g$ with $k+\ell$ boundary components.
In Section 1, we define for each $g \ge 0$, $k>1$,and $\ell >1$ a compact moduli space $\overline{SD}(g,k,\ell)$ of string diagrams, and describe a CW complex structure on this moduli space. $\overline{SD}(g,k,\ell)$.
We also define an open subspace $SD(g, k, \ell)$ of $\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)$ which is a union of open cells.
Let $M$ be a closed, oriented Riemannian manifold of dimension $d$, let $C_*(LM)$ denote the singular chain complex of $LM$, and let $\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}(g,k,\ell))$ denote the cellular chain complex of $\overline{SD}(g,k,\ell)$.
In Section 2, we define a map we call the string topology construction:
\[ \mathcal{ST}: \mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}(g,k,\ell)) \otimes C_*(LM) \to C_{* + (2-2g-k-\ell)d}(LM).\]
In Section 3, we prove that $\mathcal{ST}$ is a chain map.
In Section 4, we put an equivalence relation $\sim$, called {\em slide equivalence}, on the cells of $\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)$, and prove that $SD(g, k, \ell)/\sim$ is homotopy equivalent to $Sull(g, k, \ell)$.
Thus, $\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)/\sim$ is a compactification of a space homotopy equivalent to $Sull(g, k, \ell)$.
It is in this sense that we are compactifying string topology.
The cell complex $\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)/\sim$ was shown in the first author's thesis to be homotopy equivalent to B\"odigheimer's harmonic compactification of the open moduli space of Riemann surfaces of type $(g, k, \ell)$.~\cite{bodigheimer,katethesis}.
The string topology construction is not well-defined on slide equivalence classes of string diagrams.
However, we show that if two cells $c$ and $c'$ of $\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)$ are slide equivalent, then the maps $\mathcal{ST}(c,-)$ and $\mathcal{ST}(c',-)$ differ by a chain homotopy.
Thus $\mathcal{ST}$ gives a well-defined map
\[ \mathcal{ST}: \mathcal{H}_*(\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)/\sim) \otimes H_*(LM) \to H_{*+(2-2g-k-\ell)d}(LM).\]
We show that this map recovers Cohen-Godin's action of $H_0(Sull(g, k, \ell))$.
We do not know if the operations coming from the higher homology of $\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)/\sim$ agree with those of Chataur or with those of Godin.
In Section 5, we prove a gluing result to show that our action of $H_0(\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)/\sim~)$ gives a Frobenius algebra without counit in the sense of Cohen-Godin. Furthermore, the homotopy equivalence of Corollary 4.9 induces an isomorphism between this Frobenius algebra structure and that of Cohen-Godin.
One might wish to say that $C_*(\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)/\sim)$ is a PROP or a properad, and that we have an action of this properad on $C_*(LM)$.
However, this more ambitious claim is false for two reasons.
This first, alluded to above, is that our string topology construction differs by a chain homotopy on slide equivalent cells, so after we quotient by slide equivalence our operations are well-defined only on homology.
The second problem, discussed in Section 5,
is that gluing of string diagrams induces composition maps on $C_*(\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)/\sim)$, but these maps are associative only up to homotopy.
In a future paper, we plan to construct a larger space, $\overline{\mathscr{LD}}(g, k, \ell)$ which is homotopy equivalent both to $\overline{SD}(g, k, \ell)/\sim$ and to B\"odigheimer's harmonic compactification of the moduli space of Riemann surfaces. The cellular chains of $\overline{\mathscr{LD}}(g, k, \ell)$
will form a properad under gluing of surfaces,
and we plan to show that this properad acts on $C_*(LM)$.
The original homology-level operations of Chas-Sullivan relied on transversality assumptions. The idea of using short geodesic arcs to give a chain level string topology construction, as carried out in Section 2 of this paper, was first suggested by Dennis Sullivan \cite{STBAPS}. This geodesic construction allows us to define chain-level string topology operations without making transversality assumptions.
A construction similar to the string topology construction of Definition~\ref{def stc} appeared in the first author's thesis \cite{katethesis}.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements.}
The authors would like to thank Dennis Sullivan and Janko Latschev for many helpful conversations.
The first author is partially supported by NSF RTG grant DMS-0838703.
\section{The space of string diagrams}\label{sdbarUSD}
In this section we define a class of graphs with extra structure, called string diagrams, and show that the moduli space $\overline{SD}$ of string diagrams is a CW complex.
We then describe a second CW complex, called $U\overline{SD}$, and a projection map from $U\overline{SD}$ to $\overline{SD}$ that the fiber in $U\overline{SD}$ over every point in the moduli space $\overline{SD}$ is the string diagram corresponding to that point.
Though the projection map is not a bundle map, we think of $U\overline{SD}$ as a ``universal bundle'' over the moduli space $\overline{SD}$.
In the sequel, $S^1$ denotes the standard oriented metric graph with one vertex and one edge of length 1:
\[S^1 = [0,1] / 0 \sim 1.\]
\subsection{Fatgraphs and string diagrams}
\begin{definition}
A {\em fatgraph} is the follwowing data:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A finite connected graph $\Gamma$.
\item For each vertex $v$ of $\Gamma$, a cyclic order of the set of edges adjacent to $v$.
\end{enumerate}
By a cyclic order of a set, we mean a permutation of that set which is a single cycle.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[h] \label{fatgraph1}
\centering
\includegraphics{fatgraph1.pdf}
\caption{A fatgraph with two vertices and three edges. The cyclic orders are indicated.}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}
Let $\Gamma$ be a fatgraph, and let $E_\Gamma$ denote the set of edges of $\Gamma$.
Let $\overline{E}_\Gamma$ denote the set
\[ \{ (e,o) \,\, | \,\, e \in E_\Gamma, o \text{ is an orientation of } e\}. \]
Then the cyclic order of the set of edges adjacent to each vertex of $\Gamma$ induces a permuation $\sigma_\Gamma$ of the set $\overline{E}_\Gamma$ defined as follows.
Let $(e,o)$ be an oriented edge with final vertex $v$.
Let $e'$ be the next edge after $e$ in the cyclic order of the edges adjacent to $v$.
Let $o'$ be the orientation of $e'$ for which $v$ is the intitial vertex of $e'$.
Then we set $\sigma_\Gamma(e,o) = (e',o')$.
A {\em boundary cycle} $\beta$ of $\Gamma$ is a cycle of oriented edges in the permutation $\sigma_\Gamma$.
The {\em realization} of a boundary cycle, denoted $\abs{\beta}$, is the oriented graph homeomorphic to a cicle whose cyclically ordered set of edges is precisely the set $\beta$.
\end{definition}
A fatgraph determines an orientable topological surface with boundary $\Sigma_\Gamma$ which contains the underlying graph as a deformation retract \cite{godin}.
This topological surface, sometimes called a ribbon surface, may be constructed as follows.
Starting with the underlying graph $\Gamma$, thicken the vertices $v$ into disks $D_v$ and the edges $e$ into strips $e \times I$.
If $e$ is adjacent to $v$ in $\Gamma$, then the corresponding boundary component of $e \times I$ is identified with an arc on $\partial D_v$ in $\Sigma_\Gamma$.
Boundaries of strips are identified along $\partial D_v$ according to the cyclic order of the corresponding edges adjacent to $v$.
The boundary cycles of $\Gamma$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the boundary components of $\Sigma_\Gamma$.
\begin{definition}
A fatgraph $\Gamma$ is of {\em type} $(g,n)$ if $\Sigma_\Gamma$ is of genus $g$ with $n$ boundary components.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[h] \label{fatgraph2}
\centering
\includegraphics{fatgraph2.pdf}
\caption{The ribbon surface associated to a fatgraph.}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}
A {\em metric fatgraph} is a fatgraph whose underlying graph $\Gamma$ is a metric space.
A {\em marked metric fatgraph} is a metric fatgraph together with a marked basepoint $0_\beta \in \abs{\beta}$ on the realization of each boundary cycle.
\end{definition}
Let $\Gamma$ be a marked metric fatgraph and let $\beta$ be a boundary cycle of $\Gamma$.
Let $\ell_\beta$ denote the sum of the lengths of edges which appear in the cycle $\beta$.
Let
\[ S^1 \xrightarrow{\text{rescale}} [0,\ell_\beta]/(0 \sim \ell_\beta)\]
denote unique linear map which rescales the interval $[0,1]$ onto the interval $[0,\ell_\beta]$.
Let
\[\phi_\beta: [0,\ell_\beta]/(0\sim \ell_\beta) \to \abs{\beta}\]
be the unique orientation preserving isometry of metric circles which sends 0 to the marked point $0_\beta$ of $\abs{\beta}$.
Let
\[ \psi_\beta: \abs{\beta} \to \Gamma\]
be the unique map which sends sends the oriented edge $(e,o)$ of $\abs{\beta}$ bijectively onto the edge $e$ of $\Gamma$ in a manner which respects the orientation.
Let $\partial_\beta$ denote the composition
\[ \partial_\beta: S^1 \xrightarrow{\text{rescale}} [0,\ell_\beta]/(0\sim \ell_\beta) \xrightarrow{\phi_\beta} \abs{\beta} \xrightarrow{\psi_\beta} \Gamma.\]
Let $\Gamma$ be a marked metric fatgraph of type $(g,n)$ and let $\beta_1, \beta_2, \dots, \beta_n$ be its boundary cycles.
Let
\[ \partial_\Gamma: \sqcup_n S^1 \to \Gamma\]
denote the map which restricts to $\partial_{\beta_i}$ on the $i$-th copy of $S^1$.
\begin{definition}
An {\em unordered string diagram of type $(g, k, \ell)$} is a marked metric fatgraph $\Gamma$ of type $(g, k + \ell)$ that is constructed from $k$ disjoint circles, called input circles, each of length $1$, and $2g-2+k + \ell$ intervals, called chords, each of length $1$.
The endpoints of a chord $e$ are identified with points on input circles via an attaching map $\varphi_e: \partial(I) = \{0,1\} \to \sqcup_k S^1$.
The cyclic order of edges at each vertex of $\Gamma$ is such that $k$ of the boundary cycles correspond to the input circles.
The remaining $\ell$ boundary cycles are called output circles.
A {\em string diagram of type $(g, k, \ell)$} is an unordered string diagram of type $(g, k, \ell)$ together with an ordering of the set of input circles and an ordering of the set of output circles.
\end{definition}
In Figures 3 and 4, vertices are denoted by $\bullet$ and marked points on boundary cycles are denoted by $\times$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics{prestringa1.pdf}\label{stringdiagram}
\caption{A string diagram of type $(1,3,3)$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics{prestringaa1.pdf}\label{stringdiagramfat}
\caption{The ribbon surface associated to the string diagram above.}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}
A graph which is a disjoint union of $k$ circles has Euler characteristic $0$. Attaching the endpoints of a chord to a graph decreases the Euler characteristic by $1$ so a string diagram $\Gamma$ of type $(g, k, \ell)$ has Euler characteristic $-(2g-2+k + \ell)$. As Euler characteristic is a homotopy invariant, the ribbon surface $\Sigma_\Gamma$ associated to $\Gamma$ also has Euler characteristic $-(2g-2+k + \ell)$. In particular, the Euler characteristic of $\Sigma_\Gamma$ is the Euler characteristic of a surface of genus $g$ with $k+\ell$ boundary components.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
A morphism of string diagrams is a map of the underlying metric graph that preserves cyclic orders of edges and markings of boundary cycles.
\end{definition}
In what follows, by {\em string diagram} we mean {\em isomorphism class of string diagrams}.
\begin{remark}\label{emailedtokate}
Each input circle of $\Gamma$ is an oriented metric circle of length 1.
When $\beta$ is an input boundary cycle, $\ell_\beta = 1$. The identification of $|\beta|$ with $S^1$ is therefore an isometry and it is uniquely determined by the orientation and marked point of $|\beta|$. Additionally, the image of the map $\partial_\beta: S^1 \to \Gamma$ is an input circle of $\Gamma$ and $\partial_\beta$ is an
isometry.
In what follows, we will suppress the distinctions between
the realization $|\beta|$ of
an input boundary cycle $\beta$ and the corresponding input circle which occurs as the image of $\partial_\beta$.
\end{remark}
Let $\alpha: S^1 \to S^1$
be the unique orientation {\em reversing} isometry taking the $0$-cell of $S^1$ to itself.
While the realization $|\beta|$ of the input circle $\beta$ is parametrized by $S^1$ using $\phi_\beta$,
we parametrize the realization $|\beta|$ of the output circle $\beta$ by $S^1$ using the composition
$$\phi_\beta \circ {\rm rescale} \circ \alpha: S^1 \to |\beta|.$$
\begin{remark}
The combinatorial data associated to a string diagram $\Gamma$ determines an ordering of the set of chords of $\Gamma$, which we describe in three stages.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The set of half-chords adjacent to each vertex $v$ of $\Gamma$ are ordered as follows.
Part of the data of a string diagram is a cyclic order of the half-edges adjacent to $v$.
Since $v$ lies on some input circle and each input circle is a boundary cycle, the two half-edges adjacent to $v$ which lie on the input circle must be adajecent in the cyclic order.
We order the half-chords adjacent to $v$ by starting with the first half-chord which follows the two half-edges which lie on the input circle in the cyclic order, and then proceeding with the cyclic order.
\item Each input circle is an oriented circle with a marked point.
We order the set of vertices on each circle by starting with the vertex closest to the marked point in the direction of the orientation and then proceeding in the direction of the orientation.
\item Part of the data of a string diagram is an ordering of the input circles.
Combining (1), (2), and (3) gives an ordering of the set of half-chords of $\Gamma$.
We order the set of chords by remembering only the first time that a half-chord of a given chord appears in this order.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\subsection{The space of string diagrams}
The set of isomorphism classes of string diagrams is a subset of the set of isomorphism classes of marked metric fatgraphs.
The set of marked metric fatgraphs is given a topology \cite{Harer, Penner, Igusa}.
The set of string diagrams inherits the subspace topology.
In what follows, we fix $(g, k, \ell)$ where $g \geq 0$ and $k, \ell > 0$.
\begin{definition}
Let $\overline{SD}$ be the space of string diagrams of type $(g, k, \ell)$. Let $SD$ be the subspace of $\overline{SD}$ consisting of string diagrams each of whose subgraph of chords is a disjoint union of trees.
Let $x_\Gamma$ denote the point in $\overline{SD}$ corresponding to the string diagram $\Gamma$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
We are emphasizing the distinction between a string diagram $\Gamma$ as a topological space and its corresponding point $x_\Gamma \in \overline{SD}$.
Below we construct a space $U\overline{SD}$ and a surjective map $\pi: U\overline{SD} \to \overline{SD}$ so that $\pi^{-1}(x_\Gamma) = \Gamma$.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
$\overline{SD}(0,2,1)$ is homeomorphic to $T^3$ the $3$-dimensional torus. Every string diagram of type $(0,2,1)$ consists of two input circles and one chord. The three circle parameters correspond to placements of marked points on the two input circles and one output circle.
\end{example}
\begin{prop}\label{sdbarCW}
The space $\overline{SD}$ is a CW complex of dimension $4g-4 + 2k + 3 \ell$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
A string diagram $\Gamma$ has an underlying fatgraph $G$ obtained by forgetting the metric structure. The collection of edges of $G$ are partitioned into input circle edges and chords as they are in $\Gamma$.
We say that two string diagram have the same {\em combinatorial type} if their underlying marked fatgraphs are isomorphic.
An isomorphism $G \to G'$ of marked fatgraphs preserves the cyclic order at each vertex, and thus induces isomorphisms $\abs{\beta} \to \abs{\beta'}$ for each boundary cycle $\beta$ of $G$.
In particular, the location of the marked point on each boundary cycle --- either coinciding with a vertex of $\abs{\beta}$ or lying in the interior of a directed edge of $\abs{\beta}$ --- is preserved by this isomorphism.
Henceforth, $G$ denotes an isomorphism class of marked metric fatgraphs giving a combinatorial typle of string diagrams of type $(g, k, \ell)$.
We show first that for a fixed $G$, the subspace $$\stackrel{\; \circ}{c}_G = \{x_\Gamma \in \overline{SD} \; |\textrm{ the fatgraph underlying }\Gamma \textrm{ is } G\}$$ of $\overline{SD}$ forms an open cell.
For a fixed $G$, a string diagram $\Gamma$ of combinatorial type $G$ is completely determined by the following parameters:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The positions of the vertices on input circles of $G$.
\item
The positions of the marked points on the boundary cyles of $G$.
\end{enumerate}
We will see that $\stackrel{\; \circ}{c}_G$ is a product of $k$ open simplices and $N_\ell \leq \ell$ open intervals.
Consider $\Gamma$ with underlying fatgraph $G$.
Let $n_i$ denote the number of vertices on the $i$-th inputs circle of $G$ which do not coincide with the marked point on that input circle.
If $n_i > 0$ for some $i$, let
$v_1, v_2, \dots v_{n_i}$ denote these vertices on the $i$-th input circle.
Let $t^i_0$ be the distance from the marked point to $v_1$, $t^i_j$ be the distance from $v_j$ to $v_{j+1}$ for $j = 1, 2, \dots, n_{i-1}$ and let $t^i_{n_i}$ be the distance from $v_{n_i}$ to the input marked point. Then $\sum_{j = 0}^{n_i} t^i_j = 1$. In particular, the positions of vertices on the $i$-th input circle of $\Gamma$ are determined by the point $t^i=(t^i_1, t^i_2, \dots, t^i_{n_i})$ in the interior of the standard $n_i$-simplex $\Delta^{n_i}$.
If $n_i=0$ for some $i$, then there are no vertices and the previous sentence is still true, provided we define the interior of 0-simplex to be the 0-simplex itself.
Therefore, the positions of vertices on all $k$ input circles of $\Gamma$ are determined by a point $t = (t^1, t^2, \dots, t^k)$ in the interior of $\Delta^{n_1} \times \Delta^{n_2} \times \cdots \times \Delta^{n_k}$.
Suppose that the marked point on the $i$-th output boundary cycle of $\Gamma$ lies in the interior of a directed edge $\vec{e_i}$. Let $[0,1]$ parametrize $\vec{e_i}$ such that $0$ maps to the source of $\vec{e_i}$ and $1$ maps to its target. Then the point marking $\vec{e_i}$ is determined by a point $p_i \in (0,1)$.
Let $N_\ell$ be the number of output marked points on $\Gamma$ that lie in the interiors of directed edges.
Then the positions of such marked points are determined by a point $p \in (0,1)^{N_\ell}$.
As the parameters $(t,p)$ vary in $int(\Delta^{n_1} \times \Delta^{n_2} \times \cdots \times \Delta^{n_k}) \times (0,1)^{N_\ell}$, all string diagrams with underlying fatgraph $G$ are obtained. Therefore,
$$\stackrel{\; \circ}{c}_G = int(\Delta^{n_1} \times \Delta^{n_2} \times \cdots \times \Delta^{n_k}) \times (0,1)^{N_\ell}$$
which is homeomorphic to the interior of
$$c_G = \Delta^{n_1} \times \Delta^{n_2} \times \cdots \times \Delta^{n_k} \times [0,1]^{N_\ell}$$
This space is homeomorphic to a closed ball, i.e., a cell.
We have $$\overline{SD} = \bigsqcup_G \stackrel{\; \circ}{c}_G,$$
where $G$ varies over combinatorial types of string diagrams of type $(g, k, \ell)$.
Next we describe how the closed cells $c_G$ are assembled to give a CW-complex.
The $0$-cells of $\overline{SD}$ correspond to combinatorial types $G$ where all vertices and all output marked points coincide with input marked points.
Let $\overline{SD}^{\;m}$ be the $m$-skeleton of $\overline{SD}$. For $m$-dimensional cells, the attaching maps $\phi_G: \partial(c_G) \rightarrow \overline{SD}^{\; m-1}$ are determined by identifications of faces of the cell $c_G$ with cells $c_{G'}$ of lower dimension. If $(t,p)$ is a point on the boundary of $c_G$ then either some $t^i_j = 0$, or some $p_i = 0$ or $1$.
Let $(t,p)$ be a point in $c_G$ such that $t^i_j = 0$ for one $j \in \{1, 2, \dots, n_i - 1\}$. Then $(t,p)$ determines some string diagram $\Gamma'$ the vertices $v_j$ and $v_{j+1}$ coincide. In $\Gamma'$ this vertex is labeled $v_j$ and the vertices $v_{j+2}, \dots, v_{n_i}$ are renumbered accordingly.
The combinatorial type $G'$ of $\Gamma'$ is obtained from $G$ by contracting an input circle edge between vertices. Similarly, if $t_0 = 0$ (respectively $t_{n_i} = 0$) then $G'$ is obtained from $G$ by bringing the first (respectively last) vertex and the marked point on the $i$-th input circle together. Finally, if $p_i = 0$ (respectively $p_i=1$) for some $i$, then $G'$ is obtained from $G$ by bringing the output marked point in the interior of $\vec{e_i}$ to its source (respectively its target). In each of these cases, $c_{G'}$ is identified with the appropriate face of the cell $c_G$. These identifications determine the attaching map $$\phi_G: \partial(c_G) \to \overline{SD}^{\; m-1}$$
where $\phi_G(t,p) = x_{\Gamma'}$.
Top-dimensional cells $c_G$ correspond to combinatorial types $G$ such that no chord endpoints coincide with one another or with marked points on the boundary cycles.
Each chord gives 2 parameters: the positions of its endpoints on input circles relative to the input marked point.
Each output marked point contributes 1 parameter: its position on its output boundary cycle.
As there are $2g -2 +k + \ell$ chords and $\ell$ output boundary cycles,
\begin{align*}
dim(c_G) &= 2(2g-2 +k + \ell) + \ell\\ &= 4g-4 + 2k + 3 \ell.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Every cell in $\overline{SD}$ is the face of some top-dimensional cell.
\end{remark}
\begin{cor}
The subspace $SD$ of $\overline{SD}$ is a union of open cells and is dense in $\overline{SD}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Given a string diagram $\Gamma$, the {\em chord subgraph} is the subgraph of the underlying fatgraph of $\Gamma$ which consists only of the chords.
Recall that $SD$ is the subsapce of $\overline{SD}$ consisting of those string diagrams whose chord subgraphs are disjoint unions of trees.
Let $\Gamma$ be a string diagram in $SD$.
Then $x_\Gamma \in \stackrel{\; \circ}{c}_G$, where $G$ denotes the combinatorial type of $\Gamma$.
Furthermore, for all $x_{\Gamma'} \in \stackrel{\; \circ}{c}_G$, the chord subgraph of $\Gamma'$ is a disjoint union of trees.
Let
$ \mathcal{G}$ denote the set of all combinatorial types of string diagrams in $\overline{SD}$ such that the chord subgraph of $G$ is a disjoint union of trees.
Then
$$SD = \bigsqcup_{G \in \mathcal{G}} \stackrel{\; \circ}{c}_G.$$
Let $c_G$ be a top-dimensional cell of $\overline{SD}$.
If $x_\Gamma \in \stackrel{\; \circ}{c}_G$ then all chords of $\Gamma$ have distinct endpoints and its chord subgraph is a disjoint union of trees. Therefore, all top-dimensional cells are in $SD$. Since every cell of is the face of some top-dimensional, $SD$ is dense in $\overline{SD}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Recall that $\overline{SD}(0,2,1)$ is homeomorphic to $T^3$. The first two $S^1$ factors correspond to the placements of chord endpoints on the two input circles relative to the marked points. These factors are decomposed according to the standard CW decomposition of $S^1$ with one $0$-cell and one $1$-cell. The third $S^1$ parameter corresponds to the placement of the point marking the output. The marked point may lie in one of four possible regions: one one or the other input circle or on one or the other directed edge coming from the chord. Therefore, the third $S^1$ parameter is decomposed into four $0$-cells and four $1$-cells.
\end{example}
This CW structure on $\overline{SD}$ is not a regular cell complex structure. Let $c_G$ be an $m$-cell and let $\Phi_G: c_G \to \overline{SD}$ be the characteristic map induced by the attaching map $\phi_G: \partial(c_G) \to \overline{SD}^{\; m-1}$. Then the closure of $\Phi(\stackrel{\; \circ}{c}_G)$ in $\overline{SD}$ is not homeomorphic to a closed ball. Let $(t,p) \in \partial(c_G)$ be such that $t^i_j = 0$ for all $j = 0, 1, \dots, n_i - 1$ and $t^i_{n_i} = 1$ for some $i$. Then $(t, p)$ determines a string diagram $\Gamma'$ where all chord endpoints on the $i$-th input circle coincide with the input marked point. Consider $(t', p) \in \partial(c_G)$ such that $t'^x_j = t^x_j$ for all $x \neq i$, $t^i_0 = 1$ and $t^i_j = 0$ for all $j = 1, \dots, n_i $. Then $(t', p)$ also determines a string diagram $\Gamma''$ where all chord endpoints on the $i$-th input circle coincide with the input marked point. In fact, cyclic orders of chords at this vertex agree and $\Gamma' = \Gamma''$ so $\phi_G(t,p) = \phi_G(t',p)$. Similarly, consider $G$ where the $i$-th output boundary cycle consists of a single directed edge $\vec{e}_i$. This is possible only if the two chord endpoints of the chord $e_i$ coincide on some input circle. Let $\Gamma' \in \partial(c_G)$ be determined by $(t,p)$ where $p_i=0$ and let $\Gamma'' \in \partial(c_G)$ be determined by $(t,p')$ where $p'_x = p_x$ for $x \neq i$ and $p'_i = 1$. Again, $\Gamma'=\Gamma''$ and $\phi_G(t,p) = \phi_G(t,p')$.
We conclude that $\Phi(\stackrel{\; \circ}{c}_G)$ is homeomorphic to a product of $k$ quotients of simplices where the first and last vertices have been identified and $\ell$ quotients of intervals where the endpoints of $i$-th interval are identified if the $i$-th output boundary cycle is made up of one directed edge.
The definition of the string topology construction in section \ref{STC} uses a regular cell structure of $\overline{SD}$ which is a decomposition of the one above.
By replacing each simplex and interval factor in a cell $$c_G = \Delta^{n_1} \times \Delta^{n_2} \times \cdots \times \Delta^{n_k} \times [0,1]^{N_\ell}$$ of the CW structure of $\overline{SD}$ by its barycentric subdivision, we obtain a new decomposition of $c_G$ and hence one of $\overline{SD}$.
\begin{lemma}
The CW structure on $\overline{SD}$ obtained by sudividing each cell $c_G$ as above is a regular cell complex structure.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $c_G = \Delta^{n_1} \times \Delta^{n_2} \times \cdots \times \Delta^{n_k} \times [0,1]^{N_\ell}$. We saw in the proof of proposition \ref{sdbarCW} that the characteristic map $\Phi_G: c_G \to \overline{SD}$ identifies faces of $c_G$ corresponding with the first and last 0-cell of each simplex factor and it identifies the endpoints of any interval factor corresponding to an output marked point lying in the interior of a directed edge where the output consists of a single chord. When each factor is replaced by its barycentric subdivision, the new cells are again products of simplices and intervals but in this decomposition, no two faces of a single cell are identified in $\overline{SD}$.
\end{proof}
In either decomposition, a cell $c$ is a product of simplices and intervals. By identifying the unit interval $[0,1]$ with the standard $1$-simplex $\Delta^1$, we see that $c$ is a product of simplices.
\subsection{The space $U\overline{SD}$}
In this section we construct a space $U\overline{SD}$ and a map $$\pi: U\overline{SD} \to \overline{SD}$$ such that for $x_\Gamma \in \overline{SD}$, $\pi^{-1}(x_\Gamma)$ is the string diagram $\Gamma$.
We construct $U\overline{SD}$ and $\pi$ cell by cell.
We use the first cell decomposition of $\overline{SD}$ described in the previous section, in which cells are indexed by combinatorial types of string diagrams.
\begin{definition}
Consider the cell $c_G$ of $\overline{SD}$ labeled by the fatgraph $G$, and let $\{e\}$ denote the set of chords of $G$.
Let $(t,p) \in c_G$ determine a string diagram $\Gamma$ with a corresponding collection of chords $\{e_\Gamma\}$ and attaching maps $$\{\varphi_{e_\Gamma}: \{0, 1\} \to \sqcup_k S^1\}.$$ The cell complex
$U\overline{SD}(c_G)$ is given by
$$ \left( \left(c_G \times \bigsqcup_{\{e\}} I_e \right) \sqcup \left( c_G \times \bigsqcup_k S^1\right) \right) / \sim$$
where for all $(t,p, 0)$ and $(t,p, 1) \in c_G \times \partial (I_e)$,
$$(t,p, 0) \sim (t,p, \varphi_{e_\Gamma}(0)) \in c_G \times \sqcup_k S^1$$
and
$$(t,p, 1) \sim (t,p, \varphi_{e_\Gamma}(1)) \in c_G \times \sqcup_k S^1.$$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Let $\pi_{c_G}: U\overline{SD}(c_G) \to c_G$ be the map induced by the projection:
$$\tilde{\pi}_{c_G}: \left(c _G \times\bigsqcup_{\{e\}} I_e \right) \sqcup \left( c_G \times \bigsqcup_k S^1\right) \to c_G.$$
\end{definition}
Let $(t,p)$ be a point in $c_G$.
Then $(t,p)$ determines a string diagram $\Gamma$, and $\pi_{c_G}^{-1}(t,p)$ is the metric graph underlying $\Gamma$.
We wish to identify $\pi_{c_G}^{-1}(t,p)$ with the string diagram $\Gamma$.
To do so, we must endow $\pi_{c_G}^{-1}(t,p)$ with a fatgraph structure and a marking of each output boundary cycle.
The cell $c_G$ is labeled by the fatgraph $G$ so $\pi_{c_G}^{-1}(t,p)$ has a canonical fatgraph structure for all $(t,p)$ in $c_G$.
To promote this fatgraph structure to the structure of a string diagram, we must choose a marked point on each output boundary.
If in $G$ a point marking an output lies at a vertex, then we mark the corresponding vertex of $\pi_{c_G}^{-1}(t,p)$.
If it lies in the interior of a directed edge, then we mark the corresponding directed edge of
the
output cycle of $\pi_{c_G}^{-1}(t,p)$ according to the $p_i$ coordinate of $x_\Gamma$.
Recall that input circles are marked by the $0$-cell of our model of $S^1$.
\begin{remark}
If $c_{G'}$ is a face of $c_{G}$ with inclusion map $i_{G',G}: c_{G'} \hookrightarrow c_G$, then for all $(t',p') \in c_{G'}$, $\pi_{c_{G'}}^{-1}(t',p')$ is a string diagram canonically isomorphic to the string diagram $\pi_{c_{G}}^{-1}(i(t',p'))$.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
Let $\tilde{i}_{G,G'}: \pi_{c_{G'}}^{-1}(c_{G'}) \to \pi_{c_G}^{-1}(i_{G',G}(c_{G'}))$ be the unique map such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\tilde{i}_{G',G} \circ \pi_{c_G} = \pi_{c_{G'}} \circ i_{G',G}$
\item $\tilde{i}_{G',G}$ restricts to the canonical isomorphism $\pi_{c_{G'}}^{-1}(t',p') \to \pi_{c_{G}}^{-1}(i(t',p'))$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Let $\{c_G\}$ be the collection of cells of $\overline{SD}$.
$$U\overline{SD} = \left( \bigsqcup_{c_G} U\overline{SD}(c_G) \right) / \sim$$
where if
$c_{G'}$ a face of $c_G$,
$(t',p') \in c_{G'}$,
$y' \in \pi_{c_{G'}}^{-1}(t',p' ), \tilde{i}_{G',G}(y') \in \pi_{c_G}^{-1}(i(t',p') )$,
then
$y' \sim \tilde{i}(y')$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Since the diagram
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{U\overline{SD}(c_{G'}) \ar[rr]^{\tilde{i}_{G',G}} \ar[d]_{\pi_{c_{G'}}}
& & U\overline{SD}(c_{G}) \ar[d]^{\pi_{c_{G}}} \\
c_{G'} \ar[rr]^{i_{G', G}} \ar[rd]_{\Phi_{G'}}
& & c_G \ar[ld]^{\Phi_{G}} \\
& \overline{SD} &\\
}
\end{displaymath}
commutes, the map $$\bigsqcup_G (\Phi_G \circ \pi_{c_G}): \bigsqcup_G U\overline{SD}(c_G) \to \overline{SD}$$ is well defined on $U\overline{SD}.$
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
Let $\pi: U\overline{SD} \to \overline{SD}$ be the well-defined map $\bigsqcup_G \Phi_G \circ \pi_{c_G}$.
\end{definition}
\section{The String Topology Construction}\label{STC}
Let \(M\) be a compact, oriented, Riemannian manifold of dimension $d$.
Let $g$, $k$, and $\ell$ be integers such that $g\ge 0$, $k>0$, and $\ell>0$ and such that:
\[ \chi := -(2-2g-k-\ell) \ge 1 . \]
The integer $\chi$ is minus the Euler characteristic of a Riemann surface of genus $g$ with $k+\ell$ boundary components.
Let $R$ be a commutative ring with 1.
Let \(\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD})\) denote the cellular chain complex of the regular cell complex \(\overline{SD}\) with $R$ coefficients, and let $C_*$ denote the singular chain functor with $R$ coefficients.
We will suppress the indices $g$,$k$, and $\ell$ and write $\overline{SD}$ for $\overline{SD}$.
Let $LM$ denote the free loop space of $M$, and $LM^k$ and $LM^\ell$ denote the $k$ and $\ell$-fold Cartesian products of $LM$.
In this section we define a chain map
\[ \mathcal{ST}: \mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_*(LM^k) \longrightarrow C_*(LM^\ell). \]
We will define the map on a generator of the free $R$-module
\[ \mathcal{C}_m(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_n(LM^k) \]
and then show that extending this map linearly produces a chain map.
A generator of
\[ \mathcal{C}_m(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_n(LM^k) \]
is a pair $(c,\sigma)$, where $c$ is an $m$-cell of $\overline{SD}$ and $\sigma$ is a singular $n$-simplex of $LM^k$.
We will define a series of chain maps from $C_*(c \times \Delta^n)$ to $C_*(LM^\ell)$.
We will define $\mathcal{ST}(c,\sigma)$ to be the image of a certain chain in $C_{n+m}(c \times \Delta^n)$ under this series of chain maps.
\begin{prop}\label{prop adjoint}
The set
\(\hbox{Maps}(\Delta^n,LM^k)\)
is a basis for the free $R$-module
$C_n(LM^k)$.
Let $\sqcup_{k} S^1$ denote the disjoint union of $k$ copies of $S^1$.
Then \(\hbox{Maps}(\Delta^n,LM^k)\) is isomorphic to the set
\[\hbox{Maps}(\Delta^n \times \sqcup_{k} S^1, M).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hbox{Maps}\left(\Delta^n,LM^k\right) &=& \hbox{Maps}\left(\Delta^n, \hbox{Maps}(S^1,\,M)^k\right)\\
&=& \hbox{Maps}\left(\Delta^n, \hbox{Maps}(\sqcup_{k} S^1,\, M) \right)\\
&=& \hbox{Maps}\left(\Delta^n \times \sqcup_{k} S^1,\, M\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
We will abuse notation let $\sigma$ denote both a singular simplex of $LM^k$ and an element of $\hbox{Maps}(\Delta^n \times \sqcup_{k} S^1, M)$.
Fix a generator $(c,\sigma)$ of $\mathcal{C}_m(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_n(LM^k)$, so that $c$ is an $m$-cell of $\overline{SD}$ and
\[\sigma: \Delta^n \times \sqcup_{k} S^1 \longrightarrow M.\]
\subsection{The Thom class representative}
Let $\delta: M \to M \times M$ denote the diagonal map.
Then the $\chi$-fold Cartesian product of $\delta$ is a multi-diagonal map
\[\delta^\chi: M^\chi \to M^{2\chi}.\]
Let $D=\delta^\chi(M^\chi)$.
The manifold $M$ is Riemannian, and the metric $g$ induces a topological metric $d_g$ on $M$.
Let $d$ denote the metric on $M^{2\chi}$ defined by
\[ d((x_1, \ldots, x_{2\chi}),(y_1, \ldots, y_{2\chi})) = \mbox{max}\{ d_g(x_i,y_i)\,\, | \,\, 1 \le i \le 2\chi\}.\]
\begin{definition}For a positive real number $\varepsilon$,
\[ N_\varepsilon := \{ x \in M^{2\chi} \,\, | \,\, d(x,D) < \varepsilon\}.\]
\end{definition}\begin{prop}\label{prop epsilon}
For each point
\[ (x_1,y_1, \ldots , x_\chi, y_\chi) \in N_\varepsilon, \]
there is a point
\[(w_1,w_1, \ldots , w_\chi,w_\chi)\in D\]
such that for each $i$
\[ d_g(x_i,w_i) < \varepsilon \;\;\; \mbox{ and } \;\;\; d_g(y_i,w_i) < \varepsilon.\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If
\[ (x_1,y_1, \ldots , x_\chi, y_\chi) \in N_\varepsilon,\]
then
\[ d\left((x_1,y_1,\ldots , x_\chi, y_\chi), D\right) < \varepsilon.\]
Since $D$ is compact, there is a point
\[ (w_1, w_1, \ldots , w_\chi, w_\chi) \in D\]
which minimizes
\[ \left\{d\left((x_1,y_1, \ldots , x_\chi, y_\chi), w\right) \,\, | \,\, w \in D \right\}.\]
(The point $w$ need not be unique.)
In particular,
\[d\left((x_1,y_1, \ldots , x_\chi, y_\chi),(w_1, w_1, \ldots , w_\chi, w_\chi)\right) < \varepsilon \]
in the metric on $M^{2\chi}$.
Thus for each $i$,
\[ d_g(x_i,w_i) < \varepsilon \;\;\; \mbox{ and } \;\;\; d_g(y_i,w_i) < \varepsilon.\]
\end{proof}
Let $[U]\in H^{\chi d}(M^{2\chi})$ denote the Thom class of the normal bundle of $D \subset M^{2\chi}$.
For small $\varepsilon$, $N_\varepsilon$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of this normal bundle.
In particular, if $\varepsilon$ is less than the injectivity radius of $(M,g)$, then $N_\varepsilon$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of the normal bundle. (See \cite{milnorstasheff}.)
\begin{definition}Let $\varepsilon$ denote the one half of the injectivity radius of $M$.
\end{definition}The Thom class $[U]$ can be represented by a cocycle
\[ C^{\chi d}(M^{2\chi}, M^{2\chi} \setminus N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}).\]
By the excision axiom, the inclusion
\[
(M^{2\chi} \setminus ( M^{2\chi} \setminus N_{\varepsilon}), (M^{2\chi} \setminus N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) \setminus ( M^{2\chi} \setminus N_\varepsilon)) \hookrightarrow (M^{2\chi}, M^{2\chi} \setminus N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2})\]
induces an isomorphism in cohomology.
Thus the Thom class $[U]$ can be represented by a cocycle in
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&C^{\chi d}(M^{2\chi} \setminus ( M^{2\chi} \setminus N_{\varepsilon}), (M^{2\chi} \setminus N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) \setminus ( M^{2\chi} \setminus N_\varepsilon))\\
&=& C^{\chi d}(N_\varepsilon, N_\varepsilon \setminus N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2})
\end{eqnarray*}
We fix such a representative $U$.
\subsection{The evaluation map.}
We now define an evaluation map which will be used in the string topology construction.
A point $x_\Gamma \in \overline{SD}$ corresponds to a string diagram $\Gamma$.
Recall that such a string diagram is a CW-complex built by attaching $\chi$ copies of the interval $I$ to $k$ copies of the circle $S^1$.
Let $e_i(\Gamma)$ denote the $i$-th chord and let $\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}$ denote the $i$-th attaching map, so that
\[ \varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}: \{0,1\} \to \sqcup_k S^1.\]
For each $1 \le i \le \chi$ and $j \in \{0,1\}$, we define a map
by the formula
\[
\begin{array}{lll}
\tau_{i,j}:& \overline{SD} &\to \sqcup_k S^1\\
& x_\Gamma &\mapsto \varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(j).
\end{array}
\]
That is to say, $ \tau_{i,0}(x_\Gamma)$ is the initial vertex of the $i$-th chord of $\Gamma$, and $ \tau_{i,1}(x_\Gamma)$ is final vertex of the $i$-th chord of $\Gamma$.
Precomposing with $\tau_{i,j}$ gives a new map $\bar{\tau}_{i,j}$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bar{\tau}_{i,j}: \hbox{Maps}(\sqcup_k S^1, M) &\to& \hbox{Maps}(\overline{SD},M) \\
f &\mapsto& f \tau_{i,j}.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
For every $n \ge 0$, each $\bar{\tau}_{i,j}$ induces a map
\[ ev(n,i,j): \hbox{Maps}(\sqcup_k S^1 \times \Delta^n, M) \to \hbox{Maps}(\overline{SD} \times \Delta^n ,M).\]
To be more explicit,
\begin{eqnarray*}
ev(n,i,0)(\sigma)(x_\Gamma,t) &=& \sigma\left(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(0),t\right)\\
&=& \sigma(\mbox{intital vertex of }i\mbox{-th chord of } \Gamma,t)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
ev(n,i,1)(\sigma)(x_\Gamma,t) &=& \sigma\left(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(1),t\right)\\
&=& \sigma(\mbox{final vertex of }i\mbox{-th chord of } \Gamma,t).
\end{eqnarray*}
For each $n$, the product of the $2\chi$ maps $ev(n,i,j)$ is a map
\[ ev^n: \hbox{Maps}(\sqcup_k S^1 \times \Delta^n, M) \to \hbox{Maps}(\overline{SD} \times \Delta^n ,M^{2\chi}).\]
\begin{definition}\label{def barS}
Let $c$ be a subset of $\overline{SD}$ and let $\varepsilon>0$, and let
\[ \sigma: \bigsqcup_k S^1 \times \Delta^n \to M.\]
We define
\[ \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) := \{ (x_\Gamma,t) \in c \times \Delta^n \,\, | \,\, ev^n(\sigma)(x_\Gamma,t) \in N_\varepsilon\}.\]
When $c$ and $\sigma$ are clear from context --- as is the case throughout this section, where they denote a fixed cell of $\overline{SD}$ and singular simplex of $M$ --- we will call this set $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon$.
\end{definition}\begin{prop}\label{prop within e}
Let $(x_\Gamma,t) \in \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)$.
There exists a point \[w=(w_1,w_1, \ldots, w_\chi,w_\chi)\in D\]
such that for each $i$,
\[ d_g(\sigma(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(0),t),w_i) < \varepsilon \;\;\; \mbox{ and } \;\;\; d_g(\sigma(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(1),t),w_i) < \varepsilon.\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If $(x_\Gamma,t)$ lies in $ \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)$, then by definition
\[ ev^n(\sigma)(x_\Gamma,t) := \left(\sigma(\varphi_{e_1(\Gamma)}(0),t),\sigma(\varphi_{e_1(\Gamma)}(1),t), \,\, \ldots\,\, , \sigma(\varphi_{e_\chi(\Gamma)}(0),t),\sigma(\varphi_{e_\chi(\Gamma)}(1),t)\right)\]
lies in $ N_\varepsilon$.\
Thus by Proposition \ref{prop epsilon}, there exists a point $w\in D$ such that each $\sigma(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(0),t)$ and $\sigma(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(1),t)$ lie in a ball of radius epsilon in $M$ centered at $w_i$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The fundamental chain of $c \times \Delta^n$.}\label{section c}
The topological space $c$ is a product of simplices,
so the space $c \times \Delta^n$ is homeomorphic to $D^{n+m}$, and
\[ H_{n+m}\left( c \times \Delta^n, \partial (c \times \Delta^n) \right)= R. \]
Let $j_\#$ denote the quotient map:
\[ j_\#: C_{n+m}(c \times \Delta^n) \to C_{n+m}( c \times \Delta^n, \partial (c \times \Delta^n)).\]
We would like to choose a cycle in $\mu \in C_{n+m}( c \times \Delta^n)$ such that $j_\#(\mu)$ represents a generator in \(H_{n+m}( c \times \Delta^n, \partial (c \times \Delta^n))\).
We now define the cycle explicitly.
The $m$-cell $c$ is a product of simplices, and so can be written as:
\[ c = c^1 \times \ldots \times c^p\]
where each factor $c^r$ is a simplex of dimension $j_r$, and
\[ j_1 + \ldots + j_{p} = m.\]
The vertices of each simplex $c^r$ are ordered, so there is a unique ordered simplicial map
\[ \mu_{c^r}: \Delta^{j_r} \to c^r.\]
Moreover, this map is an element of $C_{j_r}(c^r)$.
Thus there is a singular chain given by the tensor product of simplicial maps:
\[ \mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p} \in C_{j_1}(c^1) \otimes \ldots \otimes C_{j_{p}}(c^{p}).\]
Recall the theorem of Eilenberg and Zilber which states that the bifunctors
\[ \{X,Y\} \mapsto C_*(X) \otimes C_*(Y)\]
and
\[ \{X,Y\} \mapsto C_*(X \times Y)\]
are naturally quasi-isomorphic~\cite{ez}.
Let $EZ$ denote the natural Eilenberg-Zilber quasi-isomorphism
\[ C_*(X) \otimes C_*(Y)\xlongrightarrow{EZ} C_*(X \times Y).\]
\begin{definition}\label{def muc}
Let $\mu_c$ denote the image of \( \mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p}\) under the composition:
\[ C_{j_1}(c^{1}) \otimes \ldots \otimes C_{j_{p}}(c^{p}) \xlongrightarrow{EZ} C_m\left(c^{1} \times \ldots \times c^{p}\right) = C_m(c).\]
\end{definition}\begin{definition}\label{def 1n}
Let
\[ 1_n: \Delta^n \to \Delta^n \]
denote the identity map, which is an element of $C_n(\Delta^n)$.
\end{definition}\begin{definition}\label{def mu}
Let $\mu_{c \times \Delta^n}$ denote the image of $\mu_c \otimes 1_n$ under the Eilenberg-Zilber map
\[ C_m (c) \otimes C_n(\Delta^n) \xlongrightarrow{EZ} C_{m+n}(c \times \Delta^n).\]
\end{definition}This chain $\mu_{c \times \Delta^n}$ is the desired chain in $C_{m+n}(c \times \Delta^n)$.
\subsection{The chain maps used to define $\mathcal{ST}$.}
We now define a series of chain maps, such that \(\mathcal{ST}(c,\sigma)\) is the image of $\mu_{c\times\Delta^n}$ under the composition of the maps in the series.
The inclusion map of pairs
\[j: (c \times \Delta^n, \varnothing) \hookrightarrow (c \times \Delta^n, c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2})\]
induces the quotient map $j_\#$:
\[C_*(c \times \Delta^n) \xlongrightarrow{j_\#} C_*(c \times \Delta^n, c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}).\]
This map $j_\#$ is our first chain map.
The second map is excision:
\begin{align*}
C_*(c \times \Delta^n, &c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) \\
&\xlongrightarrow{s} C_*\left(c \times \Delta^n \setminus \left(c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\varepsilon\right), \left(c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\setminus \left(c \times \Delta^n\setminus \tilde{S}_\varepsilon\right)\right)\\
&= C_*( \tilde{S}_\varepsilon, \tilde{S}_\varepsilon\setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}).
\end{align*}
More precisely, $s$ is a chain homotopy inverse to the quasi-isomorphism induced by the inclusion
\[\left(c \times \Delta^n \setminus \left(c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\varepsilon\right), \left(c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\setminus \left(c \times \Delta^n\setminus \tilde{S}_\varepsilon\right)\right) \hookrightarrow (c \times \Delta^n, c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}).\]
See, for example, \cite[Proposition 2.21]{hatcher} for an explicit formula for $s$.
Next we must cap with the Thom class representative.
For a fixed $c$ and $\sigma$, the restriction of the evaluation is:
\[ ev^n(\sigma)|_{c\times \Delta^n}:c\times \Delta^n \to M^{2\chi}. \]
\begin{prop}\label{prop whut}
The further restriction of the evaluation map to $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon$ is a map of pairs:
\[ev^n(\sigma)|_{\tilde{S}_\varepsilon}: (\tilde{S}_\varepsilon, \tilde{S}_\varepsilon\setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) \to (N_\varepsilon, N_\varepsilon\setminus N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}).\]
We will denote this restriction by $ev_c$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon$ is defined to be the preimage of $N_\varepsilon$ under $ev^n(\sigma)$.
\end{proof}
We pullback the Thom cocycle $U$ by $ev_c$ to get a class
\[ev_c^*(U)\in C^{\chi d}(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon, \tilde{S}_\varepsilon\setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}).\]
The next map in our sequence is the cap product with this Thom class:
\[ C_*( \tilde{S}_\varepsilon, \tilde{S}_\varepsilon\setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) \xlongrightarrow{\cap ev_c^*(U)} C_{*-\chi d}(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon).\]
\subsection{Mapping string diagrams to $M$ using geodesics.}
The next map is the heart of the construction.
\begin{definition}\label{def mapssm}
Let $S \subset \overline{SD}$.
We define a space ${\mathcal Maps}(S,M)$ as follows.
As a set,
\[ {\mathcal Maps}(S,M) := \bigsqcup_{x_\Gamma \in S} \hbox{Maps}(\Gamma, M).\]
Let
\( p: USD \to SD\)
be the projection map.
The topology on ${\mathcal Maps}(S,M)$ is generated by open sets of the following form:
\[ \left\{W \subset \hbox{Maps}(p^{-1}(V),M)\,\, | \,\, V \mbox{ is an open set in }S\right\}.\]
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}A neighborhood of a point $f: \Gamma \to M$ in ${\mathcal Maps}(S,M)$ is an open set
\[ W \subset \hbox{Maps}(p^{-1}(V),M)\]
such that $V$ is a neighborhood of $x_\Gamma$ in $S$ and
\[ F|_\Gamma = f\]
for some $F \in W$.
\end{remark}\begin{definition}\label{def pi}
Let
\[\pi: c \times \Delta^n \to c\]
be the projection map.
Set
\[ S_\varepsilon := \pi(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon).\]
\end{definition}
We define a map of spaces
\[ \alpha^{in}: \tilde{S}_\varepsilon \to {\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon,M).\]
In order to do so, we must consider geodesics in $M$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop geos}
For each $1 \le i \le \chi$, there is a unique geodesic segment
\[ \gamma_i: I \to M\]
such that:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_i(0) &=& \varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(0)\\
\gamma_i(1) &=& \varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(1).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
Here $\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(0)$ and $\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(1)$ are the initial and final endpoints of the $i$-th chord of $\Gamma$.
This proposition says that there is a unique geodesic segment which starts at the initial vertex of the $i$-chord and ends and the final vertex of the $i$-th chord of $\Gamma$.
\begin{proof}
Since $(x_\Gamma,t)$ lies in $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)$, Proposition \ref{prop within e} says that there is a point
\[ (w_1,w_1,\,\, \ldots \,\, ,w_\chi,w_\chi) \in D\]
such that $\sigma(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(0),t)$ and $\sigma(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(1),t)$ lie in a ball of radius $\varepsilon$ in $M$ centered at some $w_i$.
By the triangle inequality,
\begin{eqnarray*}
d_g\left(\sigma(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(0),t), \sigma(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(1),t)\right) &\le& d_g\left(\sigma(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(0),t),w_i\right) + d_g\left(w_i,\sigma(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(1),t)\right)\\
&<& 2\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $M$ is a complete Riemannian manifold with injectivity radius $2\varepsilon$, there is a unique geodesic segment
\[ \gamma_i: I \to M\]
such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_i(0) &=& \varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(0)\\
\gamma_i(1) &=& \varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(1).
\end{eqnarray*}
(This is a standard fact; see, for example, \cite[Theorem 14]{peterson}.)
\end{proof}
We define a map
\[ \alpha^{in}: \tilde{S}_\varepsilon \to {\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon,M).\]
A point $(x_\Gamma,t)\in\tilde{S}_\varepsilon$ is sent to a map \[f_{x_\Gamma,t}:\Gamma \to M.\]
The graph $\Gamma$ is composed of metric, oriented, circles and chords.
Each circle is canonically identified with the standard circle $S^1$, and each chord $e_i$ is canonically identified with the standard interval $I$.
Thus to define a map $\Gamma \to M$, it suffices to define maps
\[ \sqcup_k S^1 \to M \]
and maps
\[ \sqcup_{i=1}^k e_i \to M\]
which agree at the attaching points of the chords.
\begin{definition}\label{def g}
We define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde{S}_\varepsilon &\xlongrightarrow{\alpha^{in}}& {\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon,M)\\
(x_\Gamma,t)&\mapsto& f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}:\Gamma \to M.
\end{eqnarray*}
The map $ f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}$ is given by pasting together the following maps.
Since
\[ \sigma: \sqcup_k S^1 \times \Delta^n \to M,\]
for each $t\in \Delta^n$ we have a map
\[ \sigma_t: \sqcup_k S^1 \to M.\]
On input circles, we apply $\sigma_t$:
\[ f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}|_{\substack{\sqcup_k S^1}} \equiv \sigma_t.\]
On the $i$-th chord, we follow the geodesic $\gamma^i$:
\[ f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}|_{\substack{e_i}} \equiv \gamma^i.
\]
Since $\gamma^i(0)= \sigma_t\left(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(0)\right)$ and $\gamma^i(1)= \sigma_t\left(\varphi_{e_i(\Gamma)}(1)\right)$, the maps agree on chord endpoints and paste together to give a well-defined map
\[ f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}: \Gamma \to M.\]
\end{definition}
The final map in the construction uses output boundary cycles to go from ${\mathcal Maps}(S_e,M)$ to $LM^\ell$.
\begin{definition}We define a map
\[out: {\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon,M) \to LM^\ell\]
Recall from section \ref{sdbarUSD} that for any string diagram $\Gamma$, there is a map
\[b_\Gamma: \bigsqcup_\ell S^1 \to \Gamma\]
which maps the $i$-th circle onto the $i$-th output boundary cycle of $\Gamma$ by reversing orientation.
Given a map
\[f:\Gamma \to M,\]
define
\[ out(f): \bigsqcup_\ell S^1 \xlongrightarrow{b_\Gamma}\Gamma \xlongrightarrow{f} M.\]
\end{definition}
\subsection{The map $\mathcal{ST}$.}
\begin{definition}\label{def stc}
Consider the following composition of maps:
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_*(c \times \Delta^n) &\xlongrightarrow{j_\#}& C_*\left(c \times \Delta^n, c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right) \\
&\xlongrightarrow{s}& C_*\left(c \times \Delta^n \setminus \left(c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\varepsilon\right), \left(c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\setminus \left(c \times \Delta^n\setminus \tilde{S}_\varepsilon\right)\right)\\
&=& C_*\left( \tilde{S}_\varepsilon, \tilde{S}_\varepsilon\setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)\\
&\xlongrightarrow{\cap ev_c^*(U)}& C_{*-\chi d}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon\right)\\
&\xlongrightarrow{\alpha^{in}_\#}& C_{*-\chi d}\left({\mathcal Maps}(S_e,M)\right)\\
&\xlongrightarrow{out_\#}& C_{*-\chi d}\left(LM^\ell\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
We denote this composition $g_{(c,\sigma)}$.
We define $\mathcal{ST}(c,\sigma)$ to be the image of $\mu_{c \times \Delta^n}$ under this composition:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{ST}(c,\sigma)
&:=& g_{(c,\sigma)}(c,\sigma)\\
&:=& out_\# \circ \alpha^{in}_\# \left( s\circ j_\# (\mu_{c \times \Delta^n})\cap ev_c^*U\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{definition}
\section{$\mathcal{ST}$ is a chain map.}
In this section we check that $\mathcal{ST}$ is a chain map.
The graded module
\[\mbox{Hom}\left(\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_*(LM^k), C_*(LM^\ell)\right)\]
is a chain complex with differential
\[ d_{\mbox{Hom}} f := \partial f - (-1)^{\mbox{deg}(f)} f d_\otimes.\]
This choice of signs for the differential ensures that a 0-cycle is a chain map and that a 0-boundary is a null-homotopic chain map.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm chain}
The map
\[ \mathcal{ST}: \mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_*(LM^k) \longrightarrow C_*(LM^\ell) \]
satisfies
\[ d_{\mbox{Hom}}(\mathcal{ST}) = 0.\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}Let $\partial$ denote the singular differential, let $d$ denote the cellular differential in $\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD})$, and let $d_\otimes$ denote the differential in $\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_*(LM^k)$.
Then the statement is:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial \mathcal{ST}(c,\sigma) &=& (-1)^{\chi d} \mathcal{ST}d_\otimes(c,\sigma)\\
&=&(-1)^{\chi d} \left( \mathcal{ST} (dc,\sigma) + (-1)^m \mathcal{ST} (c,\partial \sigma)\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{remark}The idea of the proof is as follows.
The chain $\mathcal{ST}(c,\sigma)$ is defined to be $g_{(c,\sigma)}(\mu_{c\times \Delta^n})$, where $g_{(c,\sigma)}$ is a composition of chain maps and $\mu_{c\times \Delta^n}$ is a chain in $C_{n+m}(c\times \Delta^n)$.
More precisely, $\mu_{c\times \Delta^n}$ represents a generator of $H_{n+m}(c\times \Delta^n, \partial(c\times \Delta^n))$.
Thus $\mu_{c\times \Delta^n}$ should be thought of as a ``fundamental chain'' of $c\times \Delta^n$.We show that in the appropriate sense, ``the boundary of fundamental chain is the fundamental chain of the boundary''.
The precise statement is Lemma \ref{nate lem3}.
The other issue is that the map $g_{(c,\sigma)}$ depends on $c$ and $\sigma$.
The boundary of the chain $\mu_{c\times \Delta^n}$ has terms coming corresponding to the faces of $c$ and of $\Delta^n$.
We must check that applying $g_{(c,\sigma)}$ to a term in the boundary of the chain $\mu_{c\times \Delta^n}$ coming from a face $\partial c$ of $c$ gives the same result as applying $g_{(\partial c,\sigma)}$ to $\mu_{\partial c \times \Delta^n}$.
Similarly, we must check that applying $g_{(c,\sigma)}$ to a term in the boundary of the chain $\mu_{c\times \Delta^n}$ coming from a face $\partial \sigma$ of $\sigma$ gives the same result as applying $g_{(c, \partial \sigma)}$ to $\mu_{c \times \partial \Delta^n}$.
The precise statements are Lemmas \ref{nate lem2} and \ref{nate lem1}.
Now we proceed with the proof.
First we fix some notation.
Let $c$ denote a fixed $m$-cell of $\overline{SD}$ and let $\sigma$ denote a fixed singular $n$-simplex of $LM^k$.
As discussed in section \ref{section c}, the cell $c$ is a product of simplices
\[ c = c^1 \times \, \ldots \, \times c^p,\]
where $c^r$ is a simplex of dimension $j_r$.
Since the dimension of $c$ is $m$, we have
\[ \sum_{j=1}^p j_r = m.\]
Moreover, the vertices of each simplex factor are ordered.
Let $\partial_s c^r$ denote the face of $c^r$ given by omitting the $s$-th vertex, and let $ \partial_{rs} c $ denote the product
\[c^1 \times \, \ldots \, \times \partial_s c^r \times \, \ldots\, \times c^p.\]
There is a unique ordered simplicial map
\[ \partial_{rs}: \partial_{rs} c = \left( c^1 \times \, \ldots \, \times \partial_s c^r \times \, \ldots\, \times c^p\right) \to \left( c_1 \times \, \ldots \,\times c^r \times \,\ldots \, \times c^p\right)=c.\]
Crossing with the identity on $\Delta^n$ gives a map:
\[ \partial_{rs} \times 1_n: \partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n \to c \times \Delta^n.\]
Let
\[ \partial_i: \Delta^{n-1} \to \Delta^{n} \]
denote the unique map of ordered simplices which omits the $i$-th vertex.
Crossing with the identity on $c$ give a map:
\[ 1_c \times \partial_i: c \times \Delta^{n-1} \to c \times \Delta^n.\]
Using these maps, we able to state the three lemmas from which the theorem follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{nate lem3}
Recall from Definitions~\ref{def muc},~\ref{def 1n}, and ~\ref{def mu} the chain
\[ \mu_{c \times \Delta^n} := EZ(\mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p} \otimes 1_n) \in C_{n+m}(c \times \Delta^n).\]
Let
\[ \epsilon(r,s) = s + \sum_{u=1}^{r-1} j_u .\]
Then we have:
\[\partial \mu_{c \times \Delta^n} =
\sum_{r=1}^p \sum_{s=1}^{j_r} (-1)^{\epsilon(r,s)}(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\# \left(\mu_{\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n}\right)
+ (-1)^m \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i (1_c \times \partial_i)_\# (\mu_{c\times\Delta^{n-1}}).\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the Eilenberg-Zilber map is a natural transformation, the following diagram commutes.
\(
\xymatrix {
C_*(c^1)\otimes \ldots \otimes C_*(\partial_s c^r) \otimes \ldots \otimes C_*(c^p)\otimes C_*(\Delta^n)
\ar[d]^-{(1_{c^r})_\# \otimes \ldots \otimes (\partial_s)_\# \otimes \ldots \otimes (1_{c^p})_\# \otimes (1_n)_\#}
\ar[r]^-{EZ}
& C_*(c^1 \times \, \ldots \, \times \partial_s c^r \times \, \ldots\, \times c^p \times \Delta^n) \ar[d]^-{(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#}\\
C_*(c^1)\otimes \ldots \otimes C_*(c^r)\otimes \ldots \otimes C_*(c^p)\otimes C_*(\Delta^n)
\ar[r]^-{EZ}
&C_*(c_1 \times \, \ldots \,\times c^r \times \,\ldots \, \times c^p \times \Delta^n).
}
\)
Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\# \left(\mu_{\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n}\right) &:=&
(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\# EZ \left( \mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{ \partial_s c^r} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p} \otimes 1_n\right)\\
&=& EZ \left( (1_{c^r})_\#\mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes (\partial_s)_\# \mu_{ \partial_s c^r} \otimes \ldots \otimes(1_{c^p})_\#\mu_{c^p} \otimes (1_n)_\# 1_n\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since the identity map on spaces induces the identity map on chains, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\# \left(\mu_{\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n}\right) &=&
EZ \left(\mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes (\partial_s)_\# \mu_{ \partial_s c^r} \otimes \ldots \otimes\mu_{c^p} \otimes 1_n \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, $(\partial_s)_\# \mu_{ \partial_s c^r}$ is the map
\begin{equation}\label{one}
\Delta^{j_r-1} \xlongrightarrow{\mu_{ \partial_s c^r}}\partial_s c^r \xlongrightarrow{\partial_s} c^r.
\end{equation}
Here $\mu_{ \partial_s c^r}$ is the canonical simplicial map of $j_r$-dimensional simplices with ordered vertices, and $\partial_s$ is the simplicial map from a $j_r-1$ simplex to a $j_r$ simplex with omits the $s$-th vertex.
Conversely, the term $\partial_s \mu_{c^r}$ which appears in the simplicial boundary of $\mu_{c^r}$ is the map
\begin{equation}\label{two}
\Delta^{j_r-1} \xlongrightarrow{\partial_s} \Delta^{j_r} \xlongrightarrow{\mu_{ \partial_s c^r}} c^r.
\end{equation}
Now, the compositions (\ref{one}) and (\ref{two}) are the same simplicial map, so we have
\begin{equation}\label{three}
(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\# \left(\mu_{\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n}\right) =
EZ \left(\mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \partial_s \mu_{c^r} \otimes \ldots \otimes\mu_{c^p} \otimes 1_n \right)
\end{equation}
in $C_{n+m-1}(c \times \Delta^n)$.
A completely analogous argument, again using the naturality of the Eilenberg-Zilber map, shows that:
\begin{equation}\label{four}
(1_c \times \partial_i)_\# (\mu_{c\times\Delta^{n-1}}) = EZ \left(\mu_{c^1}\otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p} \otimes \partial_i 1_n\right)
\end{equation}
in $C_{n+m-1}(c \times \Delta^n)$.
We compute:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial \mu_{c \times \Delta^n}
&:=& \partial EZ \left( \mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p}\otimes 1_n\right) \\
&=& EZ \partial\left(\mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p}\otimes 1_n\right)\\
&=& EZ \Big( \partial\left(\mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p}\right)\otimes 1_n
+ (-1)^m \left( \mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p}\right)\otimes \partial 1_n\Big)\\
&=& EZ \Big( \sum_{r=1}^p (-1)^{\sum_{u=1}^{r-1} j_u}\mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \partial \mu_{c^r}\otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p}\otimes 1_n
\\
&\;& \hspace{4cm}
+ (-1)^m \mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p}\otimes \partial 1_n \Big)\\
&=& EZ \Big( \sum_{r=1}^p \sum_{s=1}^{j_r} (-1)^{\epsilon(r,s)} \mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \partial_s \mu_{c^r} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p}
\\
&\;&\hspace{4cm}+
(-1)^m \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i \mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p}\otimes \partial_i 1^n \Big)\\
&=& \sum_{r=1}^p \sum_{s=1}^{j_r} (-1)^{\epsilon(r,s)} EZ \left( \mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \partial_s \mu_{c^r} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p}\right)
\\
&\;&\hspace{4cm}
+ (-1)^m \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i EZ \left( \mu_{c^1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mu_{c^p}\otimes \partial_i 1^n \right)\\
&=& \sum_{r=1}^p \sum_{s=1}^{j_r} (-1)^{\epsilon(r,s)} (\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\# (\mu_{\partial_{rs}c \times \Delta^n}) + (-1)^m \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i(1_c \times \partial_i)_\# (\mu_{c\times\Delta^{n-1}}).
\end{eqnarray*}
The final equality follows from (\ref{three}) and (\ref{four}).
\end{proof}
We proceed with the next lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{nate lem2}
The following diagram commutes.\\
\begin{center}
\(
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1}(c \times \Delta^n) \ar[r]^{g_{(c,\sigma)}}& C_{n+m-1-\chi d}(LM^\ell)\\
C_{n+m-1}(\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^{n}) \ar[u]^{( \partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#} \ar[ur]_{g_{(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)}}
}
\)
\end{center}
\end{lemma}
In words, the lemma says that applying $g_{(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)}$ gives the same result as first including $\partial_{rs}c \times \Delta^{n}$ as a face of $c \times \Delta^n$ and then applying $g_{(c,\sigma)}$.
\begin{proof}
Recall that $g_{(c,\sigma)}$ and $g_{(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)}$ are compositions of the several maps of Definition~\ref{def stc}.
We show the above diagram commutes by showing that various maps induced by $(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#$ commute with each of the maps of Definition~\ref{def stc}.
More precisely, we will show that the following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation}\label{dia foo}
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1}(c \times \Delta^n) \ar[r]^-{j_\#} & \bullet \ar[r]^-s & \bullet \ar[rr]^{\cap ev_c*(U)} && \bullet \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{in}_\#} & \bullet \ar[r]^-{out_\#}& C_{n+m-1-\chi d}(LM^\ell). \\
C_{n+m-1}(\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n) \ar[u]_-{(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#} \ar[r]^-{j_\#} & \bullet\ar[u]_-{(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#} \ar[r]^-s & \bullet\ar[u]_-{(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#} \ar[rr]^{\cap ev_{\partial_{rs} c}*(U)} && \bullet \ar[u]_-{(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#} \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{in}_\#} & \ar[u]_-{(\partial_{rs})_\#}\bullet \ar[ur]_-{out_\#}
}
\end{equation}
The names of some of the entries in the diagram are suppressed to make the diagram easier to read.
The four squares and the triangle in the above diagram are Diagrams (\ref{dia two}), (\ref{dia three}), (\ref{dia four}), (\ref{dia eight}), and (\ref{dia ten}) below.
Since
\[g_{(c,\sigma)}(x) := out_\# (\alpha_{in})_\# \big( (sj_\# x) \cap ev_c^*U\big),\]
the commutativity of (\ref{dia foo}) implies the lemma.
We now proceed with the proof.
Recall from Definition~\ref{def barS} the space $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)$ associated to a pair $(c,\sigma)$:
\[ \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma) = (ev^n(\sigma)|_{c\times\Delta^n})^{-1}(N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}), \]
where
\[ ev^n(\sigma): \overline{SD} \times \Delta^n \to M^{2\chi}.\]
The following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation}\label{dia one}
\xymatrix{
c \times \Delta^n \ar[r]^{ev^n(\sigma)|_{c\times\Delta^n}} & M^{2\chi}.\\
\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n \ar[u]^{\partial_{rs} \times 1_n} \ar[ur]_{ev^n(\sigma)|_{\partial_{rs} c\times \Delta^n}}
}
\end{equation}
Thus, $\partial_{rs}\times 1_n$ maps $\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)$ into $ c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)$.
Therefore the map $\partial_{rs}\times 1_n$ gives a well-defined map of pairs
\[ \partial_{rs}\times 1_n: \left(\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^{n}, \partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)\right) \to \left(c \times \Delta^n, c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right).\]
Thus the following diagram, which is the leftmost square in (\ref{dia foo}), commutes
\begin{equation}\label{dia two}
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1}(c \times \Delta^n) \ar[r]^-{j_\#}
& C_{n+m-1}\left(c \times \Delta^n, c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right)\\
C_{n+m-1} (\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^{n}) \ar[r]^-{j_\#} \ar[u]^{( \partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#}
& C_{n+m-1}\left(\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^{n}, \partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)\right). \ar[u]^{( \partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#}
}
\end{equation}
Using the commutativity of (\ref{dia one}), we see that $\partial_{rs}\times 1_n$ maps $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)$ into $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)$ and maps $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)$ into $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)\setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)$.
Thus, $\partial_{rs}\times 1_n$ restricts to a well-defined map of pairs:
\[ \partial_{rs}\times 1_n: \left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)\right) \to \left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)\setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right).\]
Consider second square in (\ref{dia foo}).
\begin{equation}\label{dia three}
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1}\left(c \times \Delta^n, c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right)
\ar[r]^-{s}
& C_{n+m-1}\left( \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right)\\
C_{n+m-1}\left(\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^{n}, \partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)\right) \ar[u]^{( \partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#} \ar[r]^-{s}
& C_{n+m-1}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)\right). \ar[u]^{( \partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#}
}
\end{equation}
The horizontal arrows are the chain level excision maps.
If $\tau$ is a singular simplex of $\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^{n}$, then $s(\tau)$ given by performing two operations.
First subdivide $\tau$ into smaller simplices that lie entirely in $\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^{n} \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)$ or entirely in $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)$, and then discard all simplices of the first type.
Similarly, $s(( \partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#\tau)$ is given by first subdividing $(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#\tau$ into simplices that lie entirely in $c \times \Delta^{n} \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)$ or entirely in $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)$ then discarding simplices of the first type.
See the proof of~\cite[Proposition 2.21]{hatcher} for explicit formulas for $s$.
Observe that
\[ \left(c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right) \bigcap \left(\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^{n}\right) = \partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^{n} \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)
\]
and
\[ \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) \bigcap \partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^{n} = \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma). \]
Thus for a singular simplex $\tau$ of $\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^{n}$,
\[s( \partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#\tau = ( \partial_{rs}\times 1_n)s\tau\]
and so Diagram~\ref{dia three} commutes.
The next diagram we consider is the third square in (\ref{dia foo}):
\begin{equation}\label{dia four}
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1}\left( \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right) \ar[rr]^-{\cap ev_c^*(U)}
& & C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)\right)\\
C_{n+m-1}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)\right) \ar[u]^{( \partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#}
\ar[rr]^-{\cap ev_{\partial_{rs}c}^*(U)}
& & C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma)\right).
\ar[u]^{( \partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#}
}
\end{equation}
Recall from Proposition~\ref{prop whut} that $ev_c$ is abbreviated notation for the restriction of
\[ ev^n(\sigma): \overline{SD} \to M^{2\chi}\]
to $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)$, and that $ev_c$ is a map of pairs:
\[ev_c := ev^n(\sigma)|_{\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)}: \left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)\setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right) \to (N_\varepsilon, N_\varepsilon\setminus N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}).\]
Since $ev_{\partial_{rs} c}$ is simply the further restriction of $ev^n(\sigma)$ to $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)$, the following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation}\label{dia five}
\xymatrix{
\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)\setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right)
\ar[r]^-{ev_c}
& (N_\varepsilon, N_\varepsilon\setminus N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) \subset M^\chi.\\
\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)\right)
\ar[u]^{\partial_{rs} \times 1_n} \ar[ur]_{ev_{\partial_{rs} c}}
}
\end{equation}
Thus for a chain
\[x \in C_{n+m-1}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma)\right),\]
we have the following.
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\# \left( x \cap ev_{\partial_{rs}c}^*(U)\right)
&=& (\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\# \big( x \cap (\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)^* (ev_c)^* U\big)\\
&=& \big( (\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#\, x\big) \cap (ev_c)^* U.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus Diagram (\ref{dia four}) commutes.
We now consider the commutativity of the boundary map $\partial_{rs}$ with the map $\alpha^{in}$.
Recall that $\partial_{rs}$ denotes the inclusion
\[\partial_{rs}: \partial_{rs} c = c_1 \times \ldots \times \partial_s c^r \times \ldots \times c^p \hookrightarrow c_1 \times \ldots \times c^p = c\]
of the face $\partial_{rs} c$ into the cell $c$.
The map $\partial_{rs} c$ induces an inclusion
\[ \partial_{rs}: \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma) \hookrightarrow \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma).\]
Let $\pi$ denote the projection maps
\[ \pi:c \times \Delta^n \to c\]
and
\[\pi: \partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n \to\partial_{rs} c.\]
Then the following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation}\label{dia six}
\xymatrix{
\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n \ar[d]^\pi \ar[rr]^{\partial_{rs} \times 1_n} & & c \times \Delta^n \ar[d]^\pi\\
\partial_{rs} c \ar[rr]^{\partial_{rs}} & & c.
}
\end{equation}
Recall from Definition~\ref{def pi} that
\[S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) := \pi \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma).\]
Thus the inclusion $\partial_{rs}$ induces an inclusion
\[ \partial_{rs}: S_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs} c,\sigma) \hookrightarrow S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma).\]
Recall from Definition~\ref{def mapssm} the space
\[ {\mathcal Maps}(S,M) := \bigsqcup_{x_\Gamma \in S} \hbox{Maps}(\Gamma, M).\]
The map $\partial_{rs}$ induces an inclusion
\[ \partial_{rs}: {\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma),M) \hookrightarrow {\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma),M).\]
A point in ${\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma)$ is a map
\[f: \Gamma \to M\]
where $x_\Gamma \in S_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma)$.
Then the image $\partial_{rs}(f)$ of $f$ under the inclusion $\partial_{rs}$ is simply the same map $f$.
Consider the following diagram:
\begin{equation}\label{dia seven}
\xymatrix{
\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{in}}
& {\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma),M)\\
\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma)
\ar[u]^{ \partial_{rs}\times 1_n} \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{in}} & {\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma),M). \ar[u]^{\partial_{rs}}
}
\end{equation}
Let $(x_\Gamma,t)\in \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma)$.
Recall from Definition~\ref{def g} that
$\alpha^{in}(x_\Gamma,t)$ is a map
\[f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}: \Gamma \to M.\]
The definition of $f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}$ depends on $x_\Gamma$, $\Gamma$, and $\sigma$, but not the ambient cell $\partial_{rs} c$.
Thus $\alpha^{in}(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)(x_\Gamma,t)$ and $\partial_{rs}\alpha^{in}(x_\Gamma,t)$ are the same map
\[f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}: \Gamma \to M.\]
Therefore Diagram (\ref{dia seven}) commutes.
Applying the singular chain functor to Diagram (\ref{dia seven}) gives the fourth square in Diagram (\ref{dia foo}):
\begin{equation}\label{dia eight}
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)\right) \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{in}_\#}
& C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left({\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma),M)\right)\\
C_{n+m-1-\chi d} \left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma)\right)
\ar[u]^{ (\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\#} \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{in}_\#} & C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left({\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma),M)\right). \ar[u]^{(\partial_{rs})_\#}
}
\end{equation}
Finally, consider the following diagram:
\begin{equation}\label{dia nine}
\xymatrix{
{\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma),M) \ar[r]^-{out}& LM^\ell.\\
{\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma),M) \ar[u]^{\partial_{rs}} \ar[ur]_-{out}.
}
\end{equation}
A point in ${\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma),M) $ is a map
\[f:\Gamma \to M\]
where $x_\Gamma$ is a point in $S_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,s)$.
The map $out_\#(f)$ is the composition
\[ \bigsqcup_\ell S^1 \xlongrightarrow{b} \Gamma \xlongrightarrow{f} M,\]
where $b$ is the output boundary cycle map of $\Gamma$.
Since $out_\#(f)$ depends only on the string diagram $\Gamma$, $out_\#\partial_{rs}(f)$ is precisely the same map.
Thus Diagram (\ref{dia nine}) commutes.
Taking chains, we have to following commutative diagram, which is the triangle in Diagram (\ref{dia foo}).
\begin{equation}\label{dia ten}
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left({\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma),M)\right) \ar[r]^-{out_\#}& C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left(LM^\ell\right).\\
C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left({\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c,\sigma),M)\right) \ar[u]^{(\partial_{rs})_\#} \ar[ur]_-{out_\#}.
}
\end{equation}
Combining Diagrams (\ref{dia two}), (\ref{dia three}), (\ref{dia four}), (\ref{dia eight}), and (\ref{dia ten}) shows that Diagram (\ref{dia foo}) commutes and gives the lemma.
\end{proof}
We proceed with the next lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{nate lem1}
The following diagram commutes.\\
\begin{center}
\(
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1}(c \times \Delta^n) \ar[r]^{g_{(c,\sigma)}}& C_{n+m-1-\chi d}(LM^\ell)\\
C_{n+m-1}(c \times \Delta^{n-1}) \ar[u]^{(1_c \times \partial_i)_\#} \ar[ur]_{g_{(c,\partial_i \sigma)}}
}
\)
\end{center}
\end{lemma}
Recall that $g_{(c,\sigma)}$ is the series of chain maps rising in the string topology construction for $(c,\sigma)$.
In words, the lemma says that applying $g_{(c,\partial_i\sigma)}$ gives the same result as first including $c \times \Delta^{n-1}$ as a face of $c \times \Delta^n$ and then applying $g_{(c,\sigma)}$.
\begin{proof}
The proof is quite similar to the proof of Lemma \ref{nate lem2}, so we will omit some of the details.
However, the roles of $c$ and $\sigma$ in the construction are not identical, so some slightly different arguments are needed.
Once again, we will show the diagram commutes by showing that a more complicated diagram commutes:
\begin{equation}\label{dia bar}
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1}(c \times \Delta^n) \ar[r]^-{j_\#} & \bullet \ar[r]^-s & \bullet \ar[rr]^{\cap ev_c*(U)} && \bullet \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{in}_\#} & \bullet \ar[r]^-{out_\#}& C_{n+m-1-\chi d}(LM^\ell). \\
C_{n+m-1}(c \times \Delta^{n-1}) \ar[u]_-{(1_c \times \partial_i)_\#} \ar[r]^-{j_\#} & \bullet\ar[u]_-{(1_c \times \partial_i)_\#} \ar[r]^-s & \bullet\ar[u]_-{(1_c \times \partial_i)_\#} \ar[rr]^{\cap ev_{\partial{rs} c}*(U)} && \bullet \ar[u]_-{(1_c \times \partial_i)_\#} \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{in}_\#} & \ar[u]_-{i_\#}\bullet \ar[ur]_-{out_\#}
}
\end{equation}
The names of some of the entries in the diagram are suppressed to make the diagram easier to read.
The inclusion
\[ \partial_i: \Delta^{n-1} \to \Delta^n\]
induces the vertical maps in the following commutative diagram:
\begin{equation}\label{dia 2two}
\xymatrix{
\hbox{Maps}(\sqcup_k S^1 \times \Delta^n, M) \ar[r]^-{ev^n} \ar[d]^-{\partial_i}& \hbox{Maps}(\overline{SD} \times \Delta^n, M^{2 \chi}) \ar[d]^-{\partial_i}\\
\hbox{Maps}(\sqcup_k S^1 \times \Delta^{n-1}, M) \ar[r]^-{ev^{n-1}} & \hbox{Maps}(\overline{SD} \times \Delta^{n-1}, M^{2 \chi}).
}
\end{equation}
The commutativity of (\ref{dia 2two}) implies that the following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation}\label{dia 2three}
\xymatrix{
c \times \Delta^n \ar[rr]^-{ev^n(\sigma)|_{c \times \Delta^n}} & & M^{2\chi}.\\
c \times \Delta^{n-1} \ar[urr]_-{ev^{n-1}(\partial_i\sigma)|_{c \times \Delta^{n-1}}} \ar[u]^-{1_c \times \partial_i}
}
\end{equation}
Recall that
\[ \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) := (ev^n(\sigma)|_{c \times \Delta^n})^{-1}(N_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)) \subset M^{2 \chi}.\]
Thus by the commutativity of (\ref{dia 2three}), $1_c \times \partial_i$ induces well-defined maps of pairs:
\[ 1_c \times \partial_i: \left(c \times \Delta^{n-1}, c \times \Delta^{n-1} \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\partial_{i} \sigma)\right) \to \left(c \times \Delta^{n}, c \times \Delta^{n} \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right)\]
and
\[ 1_c \times \partial_i: \left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_{i} \sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\partial_{i} \sigma)\right) \to \left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)\setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right).\]
These maps form right edge of the first and second squares, respectively, of Diagram (\ref{dia bar}).
The first two squares in Diagram (\ref{dia bar}) are:
\begin{equation}\label{dia 2one}
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1}(c \times \Delta^n) \ar[r]^-{j_\#} & C_{n+m-1}\left(c \times \Delta^n, c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right)\\
C_{n+m-1}(c \times \Delta^{n-1}) \ar[u]_-{(1_c \times \partial_i)_\#} \ar[r]^-{j_\#} & C_{n+m-1}\left(c \times \Delta^{n-1}, c \times \Delta^{n-1} \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\partial_{i} \sigma)\right) \ar[u]_-{(1_c \times \partial_i)_\#}
}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{dia 2four}
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1}\left(c \times \Delta^n, c \times \Delta^n \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma) \right)\ar[r]^-s & C_{n+m-1} \left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)\setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right) \\
C_{n+m-1}\left(c \times \Delta^{n-1}, c \times \Delta^{n-1} \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\partial_{i} \sigma)\right) \ar[u]_-{(1_c \times \partial_i)_\#} \ar[r]^-s & C_{n+m-1}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_{i} \sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\partial_{i} \sigma)\right) \ar[u]_-{(1_c \times \partial_i)_\#}
}
\end{equation}
An argument completely analogous to the one given in the proof of Lemma~\ref{nate lem2} for Diagrams (\ref{dia two}) and (\ref{dia three}) shows that Diagrams (\ref{dia 2one}) and (\ref{dia 2four}) commute.
We proceed to the third square in (\ref{dia bar}).
The maps in diagram (\ref{dia 2three}) restrict to give the following commutative diagram:
\begin{equation}\label{dia 2five}
\xymatrix{
\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)\setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right) \ar[rr]^-{ev^n(\sigma)|_{\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) }} & & \big(N_\varepsilon, N_\varepsilon \setminus N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\big) \subset M^{2\chi}.\\
\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_{i} \sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_{i} \sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\partial_{i} \sigma)\right) \ar[urr]_-{ev^{n-1}(\partial_i\sigma)|_{\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_{i} \sigma) }} \ar[u]^-{1_c \times \partial_i}
}
\end{equation}
Thus for a chain
\[ x \in C_{n+m-1}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_{i} \sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\partial_{i} \sigma)\right) \]
we have the following.
\begin{eqnarray*}
(1_c \times \partial_i)_\# \left( x \cap \left( ev^{n-1}(\partial_i\sigma)|_{\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_{i} \sigma) }\right)^* U \right)
&=& (1_c \times \partial_i)_\# \big( x \cap (\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)^* \big(ev^n(\sigma)|_{\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)}\big)^* U\big)\\
&=& (1_c \times \partial_i)_\#\, x\cap \big(ev^n(\sigma)|_{\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)}\big)^* U.
\end{eqnarray*}
This computation says precisely that the following diagram, which is the third square of (\ref{dia bar}), commutes.
\begin{equation}\label{dia 2six}
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1}\left( \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\sigma)\right) \ar[rrr]^-{\cap \big(ev^n(\sigma)|_{\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)}\big)^* U}
& & & C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)\right)\\
C_{n+m-1}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i s), \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i s) \setminus \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,\partial_i s)\right) \ar[u]^{( 1_c \times \partial_i )_\#}
\ar[rrr]^-{\cap \left((ev^{n-1}(\partial_i\sigma)|_{\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_{i} \sigma) }\right)^* U}
& & & C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i s)\right).
\ar[u]^{( 1_c \times \partial_i )_\#}
}
\end{equation}
We now consider the fourth square in Diagram(\ref{dia bar}).
Recall from Definition~\ref{def barS} and Proposition~\ref{prop whut} that
\[ \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) := \{ (x_\Gamma, t) \in c \times \Delta^n \,\, | \,\, ev^n(\sigma)(x_\Gamma,t) \in N_\varepsilon\}\subset c \times \Delta^n\]
and
\[ S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) := \pi \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) \subset c.\]
Thus
\[ S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) = \{ x_\Gamma \in c \,\, | \,\, ev^n(\sigma)(x_\Gamma,t) \in N_\varepsilon \mbox{ for some } t \in \Delta^n\}\]
and similarly
\[ S_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i \sigma) = \{ x_\Gamma \in c \,\, | \,\, ev^{n-1}(\partial_i \sigma)(x_\Gamma,t) \in N_\varepsilon \mbox{ for some } t \in \Delta^{n-1}\}.\]
By the commutativity of Diagram~\ref{dia 2three}, $S_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i \sigma)$ is a subset of $ S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)$.
Let
\[i:S_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i \sigma) \hookrightarrow S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)\]
denote the inclusion.
This inclusion induces an inclusion
\[i: {\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i \sigma),M) \hookrightarrow {\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma),M).\]
We claim that the following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation}\label{dia 2seven}
\xymatrix{
\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma) \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{in}}
& {\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma),M)\\
\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i s)
\ar[u]^{ 1_c \times \partial_i} \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{in}} & {\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i s),M). \ar[u]^{i}
}
\end{equation}
Let $(x_\Gamma,t) \in \tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i s)$.
Then $\alpha^{in}(1_c \times \partial_i)(x_\Gamma,t)$ is a map
\[f_{(1_c \times \partial_i)(x_\Gamma,t)}:\Gamma \to M\]
and $\alpha^{in}(x_\Gamma,t)$ is a map
\[f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}:\Gamma \to M.\]
For a point $\theta$ on an input circle of $\Gamma$,
\[f_{(1_c \times \partial_i)(x_\Gamma,t)}(\theta) = \sigma(t,\theta).\]
and
\[f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}(\theta) = \partial_i \sigma(t,\theta).\]
Since $t$ is a point in $\partial_i \Delta^{n}$,
\[ \sigma(t,\theta) = \partial_i \sigma(t,\theta).\]
Thus, the maps $f_{(1_c \times \partial_i)(x_\Gamma,t)}$ and $f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}(\theta)$ agree on the input circles of $\Gamma$.
The behavior of the maps $f_{(1_c \times \partial_i)(x_\Gamma,t)}$ and $f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}$ and on the chords of $\Gamma$ is given by the geodesic construction of Proposition~\ref{prop geos}.
Since $f_{(1_c \times \partial_i)(x_\Gamma,t)}$ and $f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}$ agree on input circles, they are agree on chord endpoints.
The construction of Proposition~\ref{prop geos} depends only on the images of the chords endpoints in $M$, so the maps $f_{(1_c \times \partial_i)(x_\Gamma,t)}$ and $f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}$ are determined by their restriction to input circles.
Thus
\[ f_{(1_c \times \partial_i)(x_\Gamma,t)} \equiv f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}.\]
In particular,
\[ i( f_{(x_\Gamma,t)}) = f_{(1_c \times \partial_i)(x_\Gamma,t)}\]
so Diagram~\ref{dia 2seven} commutes.
Applying the singular chain functor to Diagram (\ref{dia 2seven}) gives fourth square in Diagram(\ref{dia bar}):
\begin{equation}\label{dia 2eight}
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\sigma)\right) \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{in}_\#}
& C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left({\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma),M)\right)\\
C_{n+m-1-\chi d} \left(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i s)\right)
\ar[u]^{ (1_c \times \partial_i)_\#} \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{in}_\#} & C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left({\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i s),M)\right). \ar[u]^{i_\#}
}
\end{equation}
The triangle in Diagram (\ref{dia bar}) is
\begin{equation}\label{dia 2ten}
\xymatrix{
C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left({\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\sigma),M)\right) \ar[r]^-{out_\#}& C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left(LM^\ell\right).\\
C_{n+m-1-\chi d}\left({\mathcal Maps}(S_\varepsilon(c,\partial_i s),M)\right) \ar[u]^{{i}_\#} \ar[ur]_-{out_\#}
}
\end{equation}
An argument completely analogous to the one given for Diagram (\ref{dia ten}) in the proof of Lemma~\ref{nate lem2} shows that (\ref{dia 2ten}) commutes.
Combining Diagrams (\ref{dia 2one}), (\ref{dia 2four}), (\ref{dia 2six}), (\ref{dia 2eight}), and (\ref{dia 2ten}) shows that Diagram (\ref{dia bar}) commutes, and the lemma follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm chain}.]
Fix a generator $(c,\sigma)$ of $\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_*(LM^k) $.
We compute:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial \mathcal{ST}(c,\sigma) &:=& \partial g_{(c,\sigma)}(c,\sigma)\\
&:=& \partial out_\# \alpha^{in}_\# \left( sj_\# (\mu_{c \times \Delta^n})\cap ev_c^*U\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since all the maps in the above composition are chain maps, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial \mathcal{ST}(c,\sigma) &=& out_\# \alpha^{in}_\# \partial\left( sj_\# (\mu_{c \times \Delta^n})\cap ev_c^*U\right)\\
&=& out_\# \alpha^{in}_\# (-1)^{\chi d} \left( \left( sj_\# \partial (\mu_{c \times \Delta^n})\cap ev_c^*U\right) - sj_\# (\mu_{c \times \Delta^n})\cap ev_c^*\delta U\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $U$ is a cocycle, $\delta U = 0$, and we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial \mathcal{ST}(c,\sigma) &=&out_\# \alpha^{in}_\# (-1)^{\chi d} \left( \left( sj_\# \partial (\mu_{c \times \Delta^n})\cap ev_c^*U\right) - sj_\# (\mu_{c \times \Delta^n})\cap ev_c^*\delta U\right)\\
&=& out_\# \alpha^{in}_\# \left( (-1)^{\chi d} \left( sj_\# \partial (\mu_{c \times \Delta^n})\cap ev_c^*U\right) \right)\\
&=& (-1)^{\chi d}g_{(c,\sigma)} (\partial \mu_{c \times \Delta^n}).
\end{eqnarray*}
By Lemma \ref{nate lem3},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial \mathcal{ST}(c,\sigma) &=& (-1)^{\chi d}g_{(c,\sigma)} (\partial \mu_{c \times \Delta^n})\\
&=& (-1)^{\chi d}g_{(c,\sigma)} \Big(\sum_{r=1}^p \sum_{s=1}^{j_r} (-1)^{\epsilon(r,s)}(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\# \left(\mu_{\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n}\right)
\\
&\;& \hspace{4cm}
+ (-1)^m \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i (1_c \times \partial_i)_\# \left(\mu_{c\times\Delta^{n-1}}\right)\Big)\\
&=& (-1)^{\chi d}\Big(\sum_{r=1}^p \sum_{s=1}^{j_r} (-1)^{\epsilon(r,s)}g_{(c,\sigma)}(\partial_{rs}\times 1_n)_\# \left(\mu_{\partial_{rs} c \times \Delta^n}\right)
\\
&\;& \hspace{4cm}
+(-1)^m \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^ig_{(c,\sigma)}(1_c \times \partial_i)_\# \left(\mu_{c\times\Delta^{n-1}}\right)\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
Using Lemmas \ref{nate lem2} and \ref{nate lem1}, we continue:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial \mathcal{ST}(c,\sigma)
&=& (-1)^{\chi d} \left(\sum_{r=1}^p \sum_{s=1}^{j_r} (-1)^{\epsilon(r,s)} g_{(\partial_{rs}c, \sigma)}\mu_{\partial_{rs}c\times\Delta^n} + (-1)^m \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i g_{(c,\partial_i s)} \left(\mu_{c\times\Delta^{n-1}}\right)\right)\\
&=& (-1)^{\chi d}\left(\sum_{r=1}^p \sum_{s=1}^{j_r} (-1)^{\epsilon(r,s)} \mathcal{ST}(\partial_rs c, \sigma) + (-1)^m \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i \mathcal{ST}(c,\partial_i \sigma) \right)\\
&=& (-1)^{\chi d}\left( \mathcal{ST} (dc,\sigma) + (-1)^m \mathcal{ST}(c,\partial \sigma) \right)\\
&=& (-1)^{\chi d} \mathcal{ST} d_\otimes (c,\sigma).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm chain} actually shows something slightly more general.
Let $W$ be any cochain in $M^{2\chi}$ supported near $D$.
That is say, let
\[ W \in C^{w}\left( N_\varepsilon, N_\varepsilon - N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right).\]
Then we can substitute $W$ for $U$ in Definition~\ref{def stc} to get a degree $-w$ map
\[ \mathcal{ST}_W: \mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_*(LM^k) \to C_{*-w}(LM^\ell).\]
\begin{prop}\label{prop w}
The boundary of $\mathcal{ST}_W$ in
\[\mbox{Hom}_{-w}\left(\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_*(LM^k),\, C_{*}(LM^\ell)\right) \]
is as follows:
\[ d_{\mbox{Hom}}\mathcal{ST}_W =(-1)^{w+1} \mathcal{ST}_{\delta W}.\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $(c,\sigma)$ be a generator of $\mathcal{C}_m(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_n(LM^k)$.
The above computation in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm chain} shows that:
\[ \partial \mathcal{ST}_W(c,\sigma) = (-1)^w \mathcal{ST} d_\otimes (c,\sigma) - (-1)^{w} \mathcal{ST}_{\delta W}(c,\sigma).\]
Thus we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
d_{\mbox{Hom}}\mathcal{ST}_W(c,\sigma) &:=& \partial \mathcal{ST}_W(c,\sigma) - (-1)^w \mathcal{ST}_Wd_\otimes (c,\sigma)\\
&=& (-1)^w \mathcal{ST} d_\otimes (c,\sigma) - (-1)^{w} \mathcal{ST}_{\delta W}(c,\sigma) - (-1)^w \mathcal{ST}_W d_\otimes (c,\sigma)\\
&=& (-1)^{w+1} \mathcal{ST}_{\delta W}(c,\sigma).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Now we can establish how our map $\mathcal{ST}$ changes if we replace $U$ by a different representative of the Thom class.
\begin{cor}\label{cor new thom}
Let be $U$ and $U'$ be two representatives of the Thom cohomology class in
\[H^{\chi d}\left(N_\varepsilon, N_\varepsilon \setminus N_\frac{e}{2}\right).\]
Then $\mathcal{ST}_U$ and $\mathcal{ST}_U'$ differ by a boundary in
\[\mbox{Hom}_{-w}\left(\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_*(LM^k),\, C_{*}(LM^\ell)\right). \]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since $U$ and $U'$ represent the same cohomology class,
there is a cochain
\[ W \in C^{\chi d}\left(N_\varepsilon, N_\varepsilon \setminus N_\frac{e}{2}\right)\]
such that
\[ \delta W = (-1)^{w+1}(U - U'). \]
We compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
d_{\mbox{Hom}}(\mathcal{ST}_W ) &=& (-1)^{w+1} \mathcal{ST}_{\delta W}\\
&=& (-1)^{w+1} \mathcal{ST}_{(-1)^{w+1}(U - U')} \\
&=& \mathcal{ST}_U - \mathcal{ST}_{U'}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem ez}
We have defined a chain map
\[ \mathcal{ST}: \mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_*(LM^k) \longrightarrow C_*(LM^\ell). \]
Using the Eilenberg-Zilber functor, we can define a new map
\[ \widetilde{\mathcal{ST}}: \mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_*(LM)^{\otimes k} \to C_*(LM)^{\otimes \ell}.\]
To be explicit,
$\widetilde{\mathcal{ST}} $ is the composition
\[ \mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_*(LM)^{\otimes k} \xrightarrow{ 1 \otimes EZ^{-1} } \mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes C_*(LM^k) \xrightarrow{\mathcal{ST}} C_*(LM^\ell) \xrightarrow{EZ} C_*(LM)^{\otimes \ell}.\]
\end{remark}
\begin{example}\label{loopproduct}
The chain-level loop product is the map
$$\widetilde{\mathcal{ST}}(c_\Gamma, -): C_*(LM) \otimes C_*(LM) \to C_*(LM)$$
where $c_\Gamma$ is the $0$-cell of $\overline{SD}(0,2,1)$ corresponding to the string diagram $\Gamma$ of type $(0,2,1)$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
For the chord $e_\Gamma$, $\varphi_{e_\Gamma}(0)$ coincides with the marked point on the first input and $\varphi_{e_\Gamma}(1)$ coincides with the marked point on the second input.
\item
The point marking the output coincides with the vertex $v_1$ on input 1 between the directed edge $\vec{e}$ with target $v_1$ and the directed edge corresponding to the first input circle.
\end{enumerate}
See Figure 5.
In Corollary \ref{corcor} we will see that the chain-level loop product induces a commutative algebra structure on $H_*(LM)$ which agrees with the structure induced by the Chas-Sullivan loop product.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics{fatgraph3.pdf}
\label{fatgraph3}
\caption{The string diagram giving the chain-level loop product.}
\end{figure}
\section{Induced operations on homology}
Sullivan chord diagrams were introduced by Cohen-Godin in \cite{CG} to define string topology operations on the homology of the loop space.
In this section we show that the string topology construction defined in Section \ref{STC} recovers those defined in \cite{CG}.
\begin{definition}{\cite{CG}}
A Sullivan chord diagram of type $(g, k, \ell)$ is a fat graph of type $(g, k + \ell)$ that consists of a disjoint union of $k$ disjoint circles together with the disjoint union of connected trees whose endpoints lie on the circles. The cyclic orderings of the edges at the vertices must be such that each of the $k$ disjoint circles is a boundary cycle. These $k$ circles are referred to as the incoming boundary cycles and the other $\ell$ boundary cycles are referred to as outgoing boundary cycles. Edges of the trees are referred to as ghost edges.
\end{definition}
Again, we fix $(g, k, \ell)$ for the remainder of this section.
\begin{definition}
Let $Sull$ be the space of marked metric Sullivan chord diagrams of type $(g, k, \ell)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Let $\Gamma \in SD$, then $\Gamma$ is a marked metric Sullivan chord diagram. In particular, $\overline{SD} \cap Sull = SD$.
\end{remark}
In \cite{CG}, Cohen and Godin define operations
$$\mu_\Gamma:h_*(LM)^{\otimes k} \to h_*(LM)^{\otimes \ell}$$ for $\Gamma$ a marked metric Sullivan chord diagram and $h_*$ any homology theory supporting an orientation of $M$. Let
$$Maps(S(\Gamma), M) = \{f: \Gamma \to M \; | \; f \textrm{ is constant on each ghost edge}\}$$ and let $\rho_{in}$ and $\rho_{out}$ be restrictions of such maps to inputs and outputs respectively:
$$LM^k \stackrel{\; \rho_{in}}{\longleftarrow} Maps(S(\Gamma), M) \stackrel{\rho_{out}}{\longrightarrow} LM^\ell.$$
Cohen and Godin show that $\rho_{in}$ is a finite codimension embedding and apply a Thom collapse to obtain an umkehr map on homology:
$$h_*(LM^k) \stackrel{\; (\rho_{in})_!}{\longrightarrow} h_{* - \chi d}(Maps(S(\Gamma), M)) \stackrel{(\rho_{out})_*}{\longrightarrow} h_{* - \chi d}(LM^\ell).$$
To be more explicit, let $Maps(S(\Gamma), M)^{\nu(\Gamma)}$ denote the Thom space of the normal bundle
of $\rho_{ {in}_!} \left(Maps(S(\Gamma),M)\right)$ inside $LM^k$.
Let
\[\tau: LM^k \to Maps(S(\Gamma), M)^{\nu(\Gamma)}\]
denote the Thom collapse map, and let
\[t: h_*(Maps(S(\Gamma), M)^{\nu(\Gamma)}) \to h_{*-\chi d}(Maps(S(\Gamma),M))\]
denote the Thom isomorphism.
Then $(\rho_{in})_! = t \circ \tau_*$.
\begin{definition}{\cite{CG}} Let $\Gamma$ be a marked metric Sullivan chord diagram of type $(g, k, \ell)$.
Then $$\mu_\Gamma = (\rho_{out})_* \circ (\rho_{in})_!: h_*(LM^k) \to h_{* - \chi d}(LM^\ell).$$
\end{definition}
We use the notation $\mu_\Gamma$ for this operation as in \cite{CG}; this should not be confused with the notation $\mu_{c \times \Delta^n}$, introduced in Section \ref{STC}, for the fundamental chain of the space $c \times \Delta^n$.
Now we consider the string topology construction of Section \ref{STC} for a fixed string diagram $\Gamma$, and compare it to the string topology operations $\mu_\Gamma$ when $h_* = H_*$, that is, singular homology with field coefficients.
\begin{definition}
Let $\Gamma$ be a string diagram of type $(g, k, \ell)$. If $x_\Gamma$ is not a 0-cell in the cell decomposition of $\overline{SD}$, then it is in the interior of a higher dimensional cell.
Subdivide this cell by taking its barycentric subdivision using $x_\Gamma$ as the barycenter.
This sudivision gives a new cell decomposition of $(g, k, \ell)$ for which $x_\Gamma$ is a 0-cell.
Let $c_\Gamma$ denote this 0-cell, and define a map
$$\lambda_\Gamma: C_*(LM^k) \to C_{* - \chi d}(LM^\ell)$$
by
\[ \lambda_\Gamma(\sigma) = \mathcal{ST}(c_\Gamma, \sigma).\]
\end{definition}
\begin{prop}
The map $\lambda_\Gamma$ satisfies
\[ \partial \lambda_\Gamma = (-1)^{\chi d} \lambda_\Gamma \partial.\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $d c_\Gamma = 0$, the statement follows immediately from Theorem \ref{thm chain}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{CG}
Let $x_\Gamma \in SD$, let the coefficient ring $R$ be a field and let $(\lambda_\Gamma)_*$ be the map induced on homology by $\lambda_\Gamma$. Then
$$H_*(LM)^{\otimes k} \cong H_*(LM^k) \stackrel{(\lambda_\Gamma)_*}{\longrightarrow} H_{* - \chi d}(LM^\ell) \cong H_{* - \chi d}(LM)^{\otimes l}$$
is equal to $\mu_\Gamma$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Recall from Section \ref{STC} the definition of the evaluation map $$ev_{c_\Gamma, \sigma}: \Delta^n \to M^{2\chi}$$ for $\sigma: \Delta^n \to LM^k$.
Recall from \cite{CG} the definition of the evaluation map $e_\Gamma: LM^k \to M^{|v(\Gamma)|}$.
Here
$$V(\Gamma)=\{v^1_1, \dots, v^1_{n_1}, v^2_1, \dots, v^2_{n_2}, \dots, v^k_1, \dots, v^k_{n_k}\}$$ is the set of vertices of $\Gamma$, and the evaluation map is given by
$$e_\Gamma(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \dots, \gamma_k) = (\gamma_1(v^1_1), \dots, \gamma_1(v^1_{n_1}), \gamma_2(v^2_1), \dots, \gamma(v^2_{n_2}), \dots, \gamma_k(v^k_1), \dots, \gamma_k(v^k_{n_k})).$$
If $\Gamma$ has chord endpoints coinciding on input circles, then $|v(\Gamma)| < 2\chi$.
Let $v^i_j$ have multiplicity $m^i_j$. Define the map $$i_\Gamma: M^{|V(\Gamma)|} \to M^{2\chi}$$
by first repeating the coordinate $\gamma_i(v^i_j)$ a total of $(m^i_j -2)$ times and then permuting the coordinates according to the ordering of the chords of $\Gamma$.
Let $\mathscr{F}(g, n)$ be the space of marked metric fatgraphs with genus $g$ and $n$ boundary components. Let $$S: SD \to \mathscr{F}(g, k+ \ell)$$ be the map obtained by collapsing each chord to a point and let $V(S(\Gamma))$ be the set of vertices of the fatgraph corresponding to $S(x_\Gamma)$. Let
$$i'_\Gamma: M^{|V(S(\Gamma))|} \to M^{\chi}$$
be defined by repeating coordinates and permuting so that the lower square in the following diagram commutes.
The upper square in the diagram is Cohen and Godin's pullback square. The full diagram commutes. We are particularly interested in the triangle relating Cohen and Godin's evaluation map to the evaluation map defined in section \ref{STC} for $\sigma: \Delta^n \to LM^k$ a generator of $C_n(LM^k)$.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{Maps(S(\Gamma), M) \ar[rr]^{\rho_{in}} \ar[d]_{e_\Gamma}
& & LM^k \ar[d]^{e_\Gamma} \\
M^{|V(S(\Gamma))|} \ar[rr]^{\Delta_\Gamma} \ar[d]
& & M^{|v(\Gamma)|} \ar[d] ^{i_\Gamma}& & \Delta^n \ar[ull]_{\sigma} \ar[dll]^{ev_{c_\Gamma}}\\
M^{\chi} \ar[rr]^{\delta^\chi}
& & M^{2\chi} \\
}
\end{displaymath}
In particular, $\rho_{in}, \Delta_\Gamma$ and $\delta^\chi$ are each codimension $\chi d$ embeddings. If $U$ in $C^{\chi d}(N_\varepsilon, N_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}})$ represents the Thom class of the multidiagonal $\delta^\chi: M^\chi \to M^{2\chi}$, then $$f_\Gamma^*(U) \in C^{\chi d}(f_\Gamma^{-1}(N_\varepsilon), f_\Gamma^{-1}(N_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}))$$ represents the Thom class of $$\rho_{in} :Maps(S(\Gamma), M) \to LM^k.$$ Additionally,
$$ev_{c_\Gamma}^*(U) = \sigma^*(f_\Gamma^*(U)) \in C^{\chi d}(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon, \tilde{S}_\varepsilon - \tilde{S}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}})$$
where $f_\Gamma = i_\Gamma \circ e_\Gamma$.
For the neighborhood $N_\varepsilon$ of the multidiagonal $\delta^\chi(M^\chi) \subset M^{2\chi}$, $f_\Gamma^{-1}(N_\varepsilon)$ is a neighborhood of $\rho_{in}(Maps(S(\Gamma), M)) \subset LM^k$ and $$\tilde{S}_\varepsilon = ev_{c_\Gamma}^{-1}(N_\varepsilon) = \sigma^{-1}(f_\Gamma^{-1}(N_\varepsilon)) \subset \Delta^n.$$
The umkehr map on homology $$(\rho_{in})_!: h_*(LM^k) \to h_{*-\chi d}(Maps(S(\Gamma), M))$$ is defined in \cite{CG} by composing the map induced on homology by a Thom collapse and the Thom isomorphism. Indeed, for $h_* = H_*$, we realize the map $(\rho_{in})_!$ as induced on homology by a specific composition of chain maps. Let $f_\Gamma^{-1}(N_\varepsilon) = F_\varepsilon$ and $f_\Gamma^{-1}(N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) = F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ be the tubular neighborhoods of $Im(\rho_{in})$.
Consider the following commutative diagram of spaces.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{(LM^k, \emptyset) \ar[rr]^{J} \ar[d]^\tau
&& (LM^k, LM^k - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) \ar[d]^q
\\
(LM^k/(LM^k - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}), \emptyset)\ar[rr]^{\hspace{-2cm}J'}
&& (LM^k/(LM^k - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}), (LM^k - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2})/(LM^k - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}))\\
}
\end{displaymath}
Here, $J$ and $J'$ are induced by inclusions of the empty set into the appropriate spaces, $\tau$ is the Thom collapse map and $q$ is the quotient map. The maps induced by $J'$ and $q$ on homology are isomorphisms in dimensions $>0$. In particular if $q_\#$ is the induced map on chains, $q_\#$ has a chain homotopy inverse in dimensions $>0$. Call this map $q_\#^{-1}$. Then the following diagram commutes up to chain homotopy.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{C_*(LM^k, \emptyset) \ar[rr]^{J_\#} \ar[d]^{\tau_\#}
&& C_*(LM^k, LM^k - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2})
\\
C_*(LM^k/(LM^k - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}), \emptyset)\ar[rr]^{\hspace{-2cm}J'_\#}
&& C_*(LM^k/(LM^k - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}), (LM^k - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2})/(LM^k - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2})) \ar[u]^{q_\#^{-1}}
\\
}
\end{displaymath}
In particular, the maps induced on homology $J_*$ and $q_*^{-1} \circ J'_* \circ \tau_*$, are equal in dimensions $>0$ and $q_*^{-1}$ and $J'_*$ are isomorphisms in dimensions $>0$.
The Thom isomorphism is induced by the composition of the following chain maps.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$$S: C_*(LM^k, LM^k - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) \to C_*(F_\varepsilon, F_\varepsilon - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2})$$
is given by excising $LM^k - F_\varepsilon$.
\item
$$\cap f^*_\Gamma(U): C_*(F_\varepsilon, F_\varepsilon - F_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) \to C_{* - \chi d}(F_\varepsilon)$$
is given by capping with the pulled-back Thom class representative.
\item
$$p_\#: C_{*-\chi d}(F_\varepsilon) \to C_{*-\chi d}(Maps(S(\Gamma), M))$$
is the map induced on by the projection map
$p: F_\varepsilon \to Maps(S(\Gamma), M)$. Here we are implicitly using the diffeomorphism between $F_\varepsilon$ and the pulled-back normal bundle.
\end{enumerate}
The chain map $p_\# \circ \cap f^*_\Gamma(U) \circ S$ induces the Thom isomorphism on homology and $$p_\# \circ \cap f^*_\Gamma(U) \circ S \circ J_\#$$ induces $$(\rho_{in})_!: H_*(LM^k) \to H_{*-\chi d}(Maps(S(\Gamma), M)).$$
Notice that since $\cap f^*_\Gamma(U)$ has degree $-\chi d<0$, we need only be concerned with dimensions $>0$.
The rest of the proof relies on the homotopy commutativity of a large diagram of chain complexes and chain maps. For simplicity, we indicate only the maps explicitly here. The composition of maps in the top row gives the chain map inducing $(\rho_{in})_!$ as described above. The maps in the bottom row are those in the definition of the string topology construction Section \ref{STC} when $c = \{x_\Gamma\}$ is a 0-cell.
In what follows we prove homotopy commutativity of three sub-diagrams one-by-one. Let $\sigma: \Delta^n \to LM^k$ be a generator of $C_n(LM^k)$.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{\bullet\ar[r]^{J_\#}
& \bullet \ar[r]^S
& \bullet \ar[r]^{\cap f_\Gamma^*(U)}
& \bullet \ar[rr]^{p_\#}
&& \bullet \ar[drr]^{(\rho_{out})_\#} \ar[dd]_{inc_\#}
\\
& \hspace{1.2cm}(1) &&&(2)&& (3) & \bullet \\
\bullet \ar[r]^{ j_\#} \ar[uu]^{\sigma_\#}
& \bullet \ar[r]^{s}
& \bullet \ar[r]^{\cap ev_{c_\Gamma}^*(U)}
&\bullet \ar[rr]^{\alpha^{in}_\#} \ar[uu]^{\sigma_\#}
&&\bullet \ar[urr]_{out_\#} \\
}
\end{displaymath}
\textbf{Diagram (1):}
Diagram (1) is in fact a sequence of three commutative squares. Vertical maps are all induced by $\sigma: \Delta^n \to LM^k$. Indeed, $\sigma$ sends
\begin{itemize}
\item
$(\Delta^n, \tilde{S}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}) \to (LM^k, LM^k - F_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}})$
\item
$(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon, \tilde{S}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}) \to (F_\varepsilon, F_\varepsilon-F_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}})$
\item
$\tilde{S}_\varepsilon \to F_\varepsilon$
\end{itemize}
By abuse of notation, we call all induced chain maps $\sigma_\#$.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{C_*(LM^k) \ar[r]^{\hspace{-1cm}J_\#}
& C_*(LM^k, LM^k - F_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}) \ar[r]^{\; \; S}
& C_*(F_\varepsilon, F_\varepsilon-F_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}) \ar[r]^{\; \; \; \cap f_\Gamma^*(U)}
& C_{*- \chi d}(F_\varepsilon)
\\
&&\\
C_*(\Delta^n) \ar[r]^{\hspace{-1cm} j_\#} \ar[uu]^{\sigma_\#}
& C_*(\Delta^n, \Delta^n - \tilde{S}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}) \ar[r]^s \ar[uu]^{\sigma_\#}
& C_*(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon, \tilde{S}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}) \ar[r]^{\cap ev_{c_\Gamma}^*(U)} \ar[uu]^{\sigma_\#}
& C_{*-\chi d}(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon) \ar[uu] \ar[uu]^{\sigma_\#}
& \\
}
\end{displaymath}
The first two squares of Diagram (1) clearly commute. The third square commutes because $ev_{c_\Gamma}^*(U) = \sigma^*(f_\Gamma^*(U))$.
\textbf{Diagram (2):}
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{C_{*- \chi d}(F_\varepsilon) \ar[rr]^{p_\#}
&& C_{*- \chi d}(Maps(S(\Gamma), M)) \ar[dd]^{(inc_\Gamma)_\#}
\\ & \\
C_{*- \chi d}(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon)\ar[uu]^{\sigma_\#} \ar[rr]^{\alpha^{in}_\#}
&& C_{* - \chi d}(Maps(S_\varepsilon, M)) \\
}
\end{displaymath}
Since $c = c_\Gamma = x_\Gamma$ is a 0-cell, $c \times \Delta^n = \{x_\Gamma\} \times \Delta^n \cong \Delta^n$, $\pi: c \times \Delta^n \to c$ is the map $\pi: \{x_\Gamma\} \times \Delta^n \to \{x_\Gamma\}$. If $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon = \emptyset$ then the operation is identically zero. If $\tilde{S}_\varepsilon \neq \emptyset$ then $S_\varepsilon = \{x_\Gamma\}$ and $\mathcal{M}aps(S_\varepsilon, M) = Maps(\Gamma, M)$ is the usual mapping space. The map
$$inc_\Gamma: Maps(S(\Gamma), M) \to Maps(\Gamma, M)$$ is then just the inclusion of maps that are constant on chords of $\Gamma$ and $(inc_\Gamma)_\#$ is the induced map on chains.
Diagram (2) is induced by a diagram of spaces and continuous maps. This diagram commutes up to homotopy.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{F_\varepsilon \ar[rr]^{\hspace{-1cm}p}
&& Maps(S(\Gamma), M) \ar[dd]^{inc_\Gamma}
\\ & \\
\tilde{S}_\varepsilon\ar[uu]^{\sigma} \ar[rr]^{\alpha^{in}}
&& Maps(\Gamma, M) \\
}
\end{displaymath}
Let $t \in \tilde{S}_\varepsilon \subset \Delta^n$. Then $\sigma(t) \in f_\Gamma^{-1}(N_\varepsilon) \subset LM^k$ determines a map $ \bigsqcup_k S^1 \to M$ which, by abuse of notation we also call $\sigma(t)$, such that for all chords $e_\Gamma$ of $\Gamma$, $\sigma(t)(\varphi_{e_\Gamma}(0))$ and $\sigma(t)(\varphi_{e_\Gamma}(1))$ lie in some $\varepsilon$ ball in $M$. The map $\alpha^{in}(t)$ maps $\Gamma$ to $M$ by mapping its input circles via $\sigma(t)$ and mapping each chord $e$ to the unique geodesic segment joining $\sigma(t)(\varphi_e(0))$ and $\sigma(t)(\varphi_e(1))$ and lying in the $\varepsilon$ ball as described in Section \ref{STC}.
The projection map $p: f_\Gamma^{-1}(N_\varepsilon) \to Maps(S(\Gamma), M)$ is a deformation retraction. It
takes the map
$\sigma(t): \bigsqcup_k S^1 \to M$, such that for all chords ${e_\Gamma}$ of $\Gamma$, $\sigma(t)(\varphi_{e_\Gamma}(0))$ and $\sigma(t)(\varphi_{e_\Gamma}(1))$ lie in some $\varepsilon$ ball, to a map $p(\sigma(t)): \bigsqcup_k S^1 \to M$, such that for all ${e_\Gamma}$, $\sigma(t)(\varphi_{e_\Gamma}(0))=\sigma(t)(\varphi_{e_\Gamma}(1))$. In particular, $\sigma(t)$ and $p(\sigma(t))$ are homotopic.
This homotopy extends to a homotopy $H_t: \Gamma \times I \to M$ between the maps of $\Gamma$ to $M$: $\alpha^{in}(t)$ and $inc_\Gamma( p ( \sigma(t)))$. Then $$H: \tilde{S}_\varepsilon \times I \to Maps(\Gamma, M), \;(t, s) \mapsto H_t(s)$$ is a homotopy between $\alpha^{in}$ and $inc_\Gamma \circ p \circ \sigma$. This shows that Diagram (2) commutes up to the chain homotopy induced by $H$. By abuse of notation, denote the chain homotopy by $H$ as well, so
$$\partial H + H \partial = (inc_\Gamma)_\# \circ p_\# \circ \sigma_\#.$$
\textbf{Diagram (3)}
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{ C_{* - \chi d}(Maps(S(\Gamma), M)) \ar[drr]^{(\rho_{out})_\#} \ar[dd]_{(inc_\Gamma)_\#}
\\
&&C_{*-\chi d}(LM^\ell))\\
C_{*- \chi d}(Maps(\Gamma, M)) \ar[urr]_{out_\#} \\
}
\end{displaymath}
Diagram (3) is induced by a strictly commutative diagram of spaces and continuous maps:
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{ Maps(S(\Gamma), M) \ar[drr]^{\rho_{out}} \ar[dd]_{inc_\Gamma}
\\
&&(LM^\ell)\\
Maps(\Gamma, M) \ar[urr]_{out} \\
}
\end{displaymath}
Let $$\tilde{\mu_\Gamma} = (\rho_{out})_\# \circ p_\# \circ \cap f^*_\Gamma(U) \circ S \circ J_\#$$
and $$\lambda_{\Gamma, \sigma} = out_\# \circ \alpha^{in}_\# \circ \cap ev_{c_\Gamma}^*(U) \circ s \circ j_\#.$$
The (homotopy) commutativity of Diagrams (1), (2), and (3) tells us that
$$K: C_*(\Delta^n) \to C_{* - \chi d + 1}(LM^\ell), \; \;K = out_\# \circ H \circ \cap ev_{c_\Gamma}^*(U) \circ s \circ j_\#$$
satisfies $$\partial K - (-1)^{- \chi d + 1} K \partial = \tilde{\mu_\Gamma} \circ \sigma_\# - \lambda_{\Gamma, \sigma}.$$
Thus, $K$ is a chain homotopy between
$$\tilde{\mu_\Gamma} \circ \sigma_\# \textrm{
and }\lambda_{\Gamma, \sigma} .$$
Recall that
$$\lambda_\Gamma : C_*(LM^k) \to C_{*- \chi d}(LM^\ell), \; \sum_i a_i \sigma_i \mapsto \sum_i a_i \lambda_{\Gamma, \sigma_i}(\mu_{\Delta^n})$$
where $\mu_{\Delta^n}$ is the fundamental chain of $\Delta^n$.
We use $K$ to build a chain homotopy
$$K':C_*(LM^k) \to C_{* - \chi d + 1}(LM^\ell)$$
between $\tilde{\mu}_\Gamma $ and $\lambda_\Gamma$.
For a generator $\sigma: \Delta^n \to LM^k$ of $C_*(LM^k)$ let $K'(\sigma) = (-1)^{-\chi d+1} K(\mu_{\Delta^n})$. Then
\begin{align*}
K'(\partial \sigma) &= (-1)^{-\chi d+1} K(\partial \mu_{\Delta^n}) \\
&= \partial K\mu_{\Delta^n} - \tilde{\mu}_\Gamma ( \sigma_\#(\mu_{\Delta^n})) + \lambda_{\Gamma, \sigma}(\mu_{\Delta^n})\\
& = (-1)^{-\chi d+1} \partial K'(\sigma) - \tilde{\mu}_\Gamma(\sigma) + \lambda_\Gamma(\sigma)\\ \\
\textrm{so } K' \partial &= (-1)^{-\chi d+1} \partial K' - \tilde{\mu}_\Gamma + \lambda_\Gamma
\end{align*}
Therefore, $K'$ is a chain homotopy between $\lambda_\Gamma$ and $\tilde{\mu}_\Gamma$ and both maps induce $$\mu_\Gamma: H_*(LM)^{\otimes k} \cong H_*(LM^k) \to H_{* - \chi d}(LM^\ell) \cong H_{* - \chi d}(LM)^{\otimes \ell}.$$
\end{proof}
Recall the definition of the chain-level string bracket $\mathcal{ST}(c_\Gamma, -)$ of Example \ref{loopproduct}.
Since $c_\Gamma$ is a cycle, the chain-level loop product is a chain map and so it induces a product
$$H_*(LM)^{\otimes 2} \to H_{*-d}(LM).$$
\begin{cor}\label{corcor}
The chain-level loop product induces the Chas-Sullivan loop product
$$\bullet: H_i(LM) \otimes H_j(LM) \to H_{i+j-d}(LM).$$ We obtain an isomorphism $$H_*(LM) \to H_*(LM)$$ of commutative algebra structures.
\end{cor}
\begin{remark}
Together with the BV operator on $H_*(LM)$ induced by the $S^1$ action on $LM$, we recover Chas and Sullivan's original BV algebra structure on $H_*(LM)$.
\end{remark}
The operation $\mu_\Gamma$ of \cite{CG} depends only on $(g, k, \ell)$.
The proof of this fact in \cite{CG} uses the fact that $Sull$ is path connected. The construction may be generalized to $$\mu_\alpha: h_*(LM^k) \to h_{* + |\alpha| - \chi d}(LM^\ell)$$ for any $\alpha \in h_*(Sull)$. Details of a generalization do not appear in \cite{CG} but do in \cite{ChataurBordism}.
The operation $\mu_\Gamma$ is equal to $\mu_1$ for $1$ a generator of $h_0(Sull)$.
The construction of Section \ref{STC} induces operations $$H_*(LM)^{\otimes k} \to H_{* + |\alpha| - \chi d}(LM)^{\otimes \ell}$$ coming from classes $\alpha$ in $H_*(\overline{SD})$. We are interested in comparing these operations on homology to those previously defined \cite{CG, ChataurBordism}. We examine the operations coming from $0$-dimensional homology classes in detail. The space $\overline{SD}$ is disconnected in general; we will define an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $\overline{SD}$ such that the quotient $\overline{SD} / \sim$ is connected. This quotient is a compactification of a space homotopy equivalent to Cohen-Godin's space $Sull$.
\begin{definition}
Let $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ be two string diagrams. $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ differ by a slide if they are identical except for the attaching map of one chord: $e$ in $\Gamma$ and $e'$ in $\Gamma'$ are related as follows. Assume in $\Gamma$, $\varphi_e(a) = \varphi_f(b)$ for $a,b \in \{0,1\}$, where the chord $f$ follows (respectively precedes) $e$ in the cyclic order at this vertex. Then in $\Gamma'$, $\varphi_{e'}(a) = \varphi_f(c)$ for $c \in \{0,1\}, c \neq b$ and $e'$ precedes (respectively follows) $f$ in the cyclic order at this vertex.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[h]\label{slideslidea}
\centering
\includegraphics{slideslidea.pdf}
\caption{Two string diagrams that differ by a slide.}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}
Let slides generate an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $\overline{SD}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Slide equivalence induces an equivalence relation on the set of cells of $\overline{SD}$ and hence on the set of generators of the cellular chains $\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD})$.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
Let $\overline{\mathscr{SD}}$ denote $\overline{SD}/\sim$ and let $\mathscr{SD}$ denote $SD/\sim$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
If $z$ is a chain in $\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD})$, let
\[\mathcal{ST}(z,- ): C_*(LM^k) \to C_{* + m - \chi d}(LM^\ell)\]
be defined by $\mathcal{ST}(z,-)(\sigma) = \mathcal{ST}(z,\sigma)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
If $z$ is an $m$-cycle in $\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD})$, then $\mathcal{ST}(z,-): C_*(LM^k) \to C_{* + m - \chi d}(LM^\ell)$ is a degree $m-\chi d$ chain map.
\end{remark}
We wish to compare $\mathcal{ST}(z,-)$ and $\mathcal{ST}(z',-)$ when $z$ and $z'$ are slide equivalent cycles. Below, we define a map
$$\Lambda_{z, z'}: C_*(LM^k) \to C_{* +m - \chi d + 1}(LM^\ell)$$ and in Proposition \ref{slideprop} we show it is a chain homotopy between $\mathcal{ST}(z,-)$ and $\mathcal{ST}(z',-)$.
Fix a generator $\sigma: \Delta^n \to LM^k$ of $C_n(LM^k)$ and cells $c$ and $c'$ of $\overline{SD}$ that differ by a slide. Recall that the construction of $\mathcal{ST}$ uses a map $g_{(c, \sigma)}$, which is a composition of chain maps $C_*(c \times \Delta^n) \to C_{*-\chi d}(LM^k)$. Analogously, the construction of the map $\Lambda_{c,c'}(\sigma)$ below uses a map $L_{c, c', \sigma}$, which is a composition of chain maps $C_*(I) \otimes C_*(c \times \Delta^n) \to C_{*-\chi d}(LM^k)$. Most of the maps in the composition are completely analogous to those in the definition of $g_{(c,\sigma)}$. The cells $c$ and $c'$ are fixed for this discussion and so we drop them from the notation and let $L_\sigma$ be the following composition of chain maps.
The first map in the composition defining $L_\sigma$ is the Eilenberg-Zilber map $$EZ: C_*(I) \otimes C_*(c \times \Delta^n) \to C_*(I \times c \times \Delta^n).$$
Here we describe $c \times I$ as a space of marked metric fatgraphs such that $c \times \{0\} \sim c$ and $c \times \{1\} \sim c'$. Consider $(x_\Gamma, t) \in {x_\Gamma} \times I$. Assume the $i$-th chord $e_i$ of $\Gamma$ slides over the chord $e$ to produce $\Gamma'$. Assume $\varphi_{e_i}(0) = \varphi_{e}(0)$ in $\Gamma$, $\varphi_{e_i}(0) = \varphi_{e}(1)$ in $\Gamma'$ and that $\varphi_{e_i}(1)$ in $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ are equal. Under the identification of $e$ with $[0,1]$ we abuse notation and write $\varphi_{e}(0) = 0$ and $\varphi_{e}(0) = 1$.
Let $\Gamma_s$ be the marked metric fatgraph produced when $\varphi_{e_i}(0) = s$. Notice $\Gamma_0 = \Gamma$ and $\Gamma_1 = \Gamma'$. Let $x_{\Gamma_s} = (s, x_\Gamma) \in I \times c$ refer to the graph $\Gamma_s$.
\begin{figure}[h]\label{slidea}
\centering
\includegraphics{slidea.pdf}
\caption{$\{x_\Gamma\} \times I$ and the corresponding fatgraphs.}
\end{figure}
To describe the next map in the composition defining $L_\sigma$, we first need to define an evaluation map. This will be done in two steps.
For any $x_{\Gamma_s} \in I \times c$, the deletion of the $i$-th chord $e_i$ from $\Gamma_s$ yields a string diagram $\Gamma^i$ of type $(g_i, k_i, \ell_i)$.
Let $x_{\Gamma^i}$ be the corresponding point in the space $\overline{SD}(g_i, k_i, \ell_i)$ of string diagrams of type $(g_i, k_i, \ell_i)$. Let
\begin{align*}
F^i: \overline{SD} &\to \overline{SD} (g_i, k_i, \ell_i)\\
x_\Gamma &\mapsto x_{\Gamma^i}.
\end{align*}
We define a preliminary evaluation map
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{ev}^n(\sigma): I \times c \times \Delta^n &\to M^{2\chi - 2}\\
(s, x_\Gamma, t) &\mapsto ev^n(\sigma)(x_{\Gamma^i}, t)
\end{align*}
where $$ev^n: Maps(\sqcup_k \times \Delta^n, M) \to Maps (\overline{SD}(g_i, k_i, \ell_i) \times \Delta^n, M^{2\chi -1})$$
is as in Section \ref{STC}.
Let
$\tilde{T}_\varepsilon = \{(s, x_\Gamma, t) | \widetilde{ev}^n(\sigma)(s, x_\Gamma, t) \in N_\varepsilon\}$, where $N_\varepsilon \subset M^{2\chi - 2}$ is the $\varepsilon$ neighborhood of the multidiagonal $\delta^{\chi - 1}(M^{\chi - 1}) \subset M^{2 \chi -2}$. (We will abuse notation and use $N_\varepsilon$ again in a moment for the $\varepsilon$ neighborhood of the multidiagonal \newline $\delta^{\chi - 1}(M^{\chi}) \subset M^{2\chi}$.)
Let $\pi^i: I \times c \times \Delta^n \to c$ be the projection map and let $T_\varepsilon = \pi^1(\tilde{T}_\varepsilon)$.
The map $(\alpha^{in})^i: \tilde{T}_\varepsilon \to Maps(F^i(\pi^i(\tilde{T}_\varepsilon)), M)$ is analogous to the map $\alpha^{in}$ of section \ref{STC}: for each point of $x_{\Gamma_s} \in \tilde{T}_\varepsilon$ we are mapping the string diagram $\Gamma^i$ to $M$. In particular, for $(s, x_\Gamma, t)$, the chord $e$ of $\Gamma^i$ is mapped to a short geodesic segment $\gamma$ in $M$ joining $\sigma(\varphi_e(0))$ and $\sigma(\varphi_e(1))$.
We are now prepared to define the evaluation map
$ev^n_{c, c'}(\sigma): \tilde{T}_\varepsilon \to M^{2 \chi}.$
Let
$ev^n_{c, c'}(\sigma)(s, x_\Gamma, t)_j$ denote the $j$th coordinate of $ev^n_{c, c'}(\sigma)(s, x_\Gamma, t)$ and $\widetilde{ev}^n(\sigma)_j$ denote the $j$th coordinate of $\widetilde{ev}^n(\sigma)$.
Then
\begin{displaymath}
ev^n_{c, c'}(\sigma)(s, x_\Gamma, t)_j = \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\widetilde{ev}^n(\sigma)_j & j < 2i - 1\\
\widetilde{ev}^n(\sigma)_{j-2} & j > 2i\\
\sigma(\varphi_{e_i}(1))& j =2i\\
\gamma(s)& j = 2i-1
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
Let $$\tilde{U}_\varepsilon = \{(s, x_\Gamma, t) : ev_{c,c'}^n(\sigma)(s, x_\Gamma, t) \in N_\varepsilon \subset M^{2 \chi}\}$$
and $$ev_{c,c'} = ev_{c,c'}^n(\sigma)|_{(\tilde{U}_\varepsilon, \tilde{U}_\varepsilon - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2})}: (\tilde{U}_\varepsilon, \tilde{U}_\varepsilon - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) \to (N_\varepsilon, N_\varepsilon - N_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}).$$
The next three maps in the composition defining $L_\sigma$ are completely analogous to those defined in section \ref{STC} and we use similar notation.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$j^I_\#: C_*(I \times c \times \Delta^n) \to C_*(I \times c \times \Delta^n,I \times c \times \Delta^n - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2} )$ is the quotient map induced by inclusion $(I \times c \times \Delta^n, \emptyset) \to (I \times c \times \Delta^n,I \times c \times \Delta^n - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2} )$.
\item
$s^I: C_*(I \times c \times \Delta^n,I \times c \times \Delta^n - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2} ) \to C_*(\tilde{U}_\varepsilon,\tilde{U}_\varepsilon - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2} )$
is given by excision.
\item
$\cap ev_{c, c'}^*(U): C_*(\tilde{U}_\varepsilon,\tilde{U}_\varepsilon - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2} ) \to C_{*- \chi d}(\tilde{U}_\varepsilon )$
is the cap product with the pulled-back Thom class representative $U$.
\end{enumerate}
We modify the definition of the map $\alpha^{in}$ only slightly in this setting, again using similar notation.
Let $p: I \times c \times \Delta \to I \times c$ be the projection and let $U_\varepsilon = p(\tilde{U}_\varepsilon))$.
We define
$$(\alpha^{in})^I: \tilde{U}_\varepsilon \to Maps(U_\varepsilon, M)$$
$$(s, x_\Gamma, t) \mapsto f_{(s, x_\Gamma, t)}: \Gamma_s \to M.$$
Again, the map $f_{(s, x_\Gamma, t)}$ is given by pasting together maps on input circles and chords.
Input circles of $\Gamma_s$ are mapped via $\sigma: \sqcup_k S^1 \times \Delta^n \to M$:
$$f_{(s, x_\Gamma, t)}|_{\sqcup_k S^1} = \sigma_t.$$
On the $j$-th chord, $j \neq i$, we follow the geodesic $\gamma^j$ joining $\sigma_t(\varphi_{e_j}(0))$ and $\sigma_t(\varphi_{e_j}(1))$.
On the $i$-th chord, we follow the geodesic $\gamma^i$ joining $\sigma_t(\varphi_{e_i}(1))$ and $\gamma(s)$.
We are ready to define the last two maps in the composition giving $L_\sigma$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$(\alpha^{in})^I_\#: C_{*- \chi d}(\tilde{U}_\varepsilon ) \to C_{*- \chi d}(Maps(U_\varepsilon, M ))$ is the map induced on chains by $(\alpha^{in})^I$.
\item
$out^I_\#: C_{*- \chi d}(Maps(U_\varepsilon, M )) \to C_{*- \chi d}(LM^\ell )$ is the map induced by the restriction $out^I: Maps(U_\varepsilon, M ) \to LM^\ell$ to outputs as usual.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{definition}
Let $$L_\sigma = out^I_\# \circ ((\alpha^{in})^I)_\# \circ \cap ev_{c, c'}^*(U) \circ s^I \circ j^I_\# \circ EZ: C_*(I) \otimes C_*(c \times \Delta) \to C_{*- \chi d}(LM^\ell ).$$
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
$L_\sigma$ is a degree $-\chi d$ chain map, that is, $$\partial \circ L_\sigma = (-1)^{- \chi d}L_\sigma \circ \partial.$$
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{Lsigma}
Let $\partial_i: \Delta^{n-1} \to \Delta^n$ be the inclusion of the $i$-th face given by omitting the $i$-th vertex and let $\sigma_i$ be the restriction of $\sigma_i = \sigma \circ \partial_i$. Let $\partial_{r,s}: \partial_{rs}c \to c$ correspond to the $s$th face map of the $r$th simplex factor of $c$ as in section \ref{STC}. Then the map $L_{\sigma,c,c'}$ satisfies
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L_{\sigma,c,c'}((\partial_0)_\#(\mu_{\Delta^0}) \otimes \mu_{c \times \Delta^n}) = g_{(c, \sigma)}(\mu_{c \times \Delta^n}) = \mathcal{ST}(c, \sigma)$
\item $L_{\sigma,c,c'}((\partial_1)_\#(\mu_{\Delta^0}) \otimes \mu_{c \times \Delta^n}) = g_{(c', \sigma)}(\mu_{c' \times \Delta^n}) = \mathcal{ST}(c', \sigma)$
\item
$L_{\sigma, c, c'}(\mu_I \otimes EZ((\partial_{rs})_\#(\mu_{\partial_{rs} c}) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^{n}}))
\\ = L_{\sigma, \partial_{rs}c, \partial_{rs}c'}(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\mu_{\partial_{rs}c} \otimes \mu_{\Delta^{n}}))$
\item $L_{\sigma,c,c'}(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\mu_c \otimes (\partial_i)_\#(\mu_{\Delta^{n-1}}))) = L_{\sigma_i, c,c'}(\mu_I \otimes \mu_{c \times \Delta^{n-1}})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof of the four statements relies on the fact that
$$\partial(I \times c \times \Delta^n)= (\{1\} \times c \times \Delta^n)\cup (\{0\} \times c \times \Delta^n) \cup (I \times \partial c \times \Delta^n) \cup (I \times c \times \partial \Delta^n).$$
Recall that we have described $I \times c$ as a space of marked metric fatrgraphs such that $\{0\} \times c \sim c$ and $\{1\} \times c \sim c'$. We have the maps
$$ \partial_0 \times id: c' \times \Delta^n \sim \{1\} \times c' \times \Delta^n \to I \times c \times \Delta^n$$
and
$$ \partial_1 \times id: c \times \Delta^n \sim \{0\} \times c \times \Delta^n \to I \times c \times \Delta^n$$
The evaluation map
$ev^n_{c,c'}(\sigma): \tilde{T}_\varepsilon \to M^{2 \chi}$
satisfies
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$ev^n_{c,c'}(\sigma)\circ (\partial_0 \times id)|_{(\partial_0 \times id)^{-1}(\tilde{T}_\varepsilon)} = ev_{c'}^n(\sigma)|_{(\partial_0 \times id)^{-1}(\tilde{T}_\varepsilon)}$
\item
$ev^n_{c,c'}(\sigma)\circ (\partial_1 \times id)|_{(\partial_1 \times id)^{-1}(\tilde{T}_\varepsilon)} = ev_{c}^n(\sigma)|_{(\partial_1 \times id)^{-1}(\tilde{T}_\varepsilon)}$
\item
$ev^n_{c,c'}(\sigma) \circ (id \times \partial_{rs} \times id)|_{ (id \times \partial_{rs} \times id)^{-1}(\tilde{T}_\varepsilon)} = ev^n_{\partial_{rs}c, \partial_{rs}c'}(\sigma)$
\item
$ev^n_{c,c'}(\sigma) \circ (id \times id \times \partial_i)|_{(id \times id \times \partial_i)^{-1}(\tilde{T}_\varepsilon)} = ev^{n-1}_{c,c'}(\sigma_i)|_{(id \times id \times \partial_i)^{-1}(\tilde{T}_\varepsilon)}$
\end{enumerate}
Therefore,
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\partial_0 \times id: c' \times \Delta^n \sim \{1\} \times c \times \Delta^n \to I \times c \times \Delta^n$
satisfies
$$(\tilde{S'}_\varepsilon, \tilde{S'}_\varepsilon - \tilde{S'}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) \to (\tilde{U}_\varepsilon, \tilde{U}_\varepsilon - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2})$$
\item
$\partial_1 \times id: c \times \Delta^n \sim \{0\} \times c \times \Delta^n \to I \times c \times \Delta^n$
satisfies
$$(\tilde{S}_\varepsilon, \tilde{S}_\varepsilon - \tilde{S}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}) \to (\tilde{U}_\varepsilon, \tilde{U}_\varepsilon - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2})$$
\item
$id \times \partial_{rs} \times id: I \times \partial_{rs}c \times \Delta^n \to I \times c \times \Delta^n$
satisfies
$$(\tilde{U}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c, \partial_{rs}c',\sigma),\tilde{U}_\varepsilon(\partial_{rs}c, \partial_{rs}c',\sigma) - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(\partial_{rs}c,\partial_{rs}c',\sigma)) \to (\tilde{U}_\varepsilon(c,c'\sigma),\tilde{U}_\varepsilon(c,c',\sigma) - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,c',\sigma)) $$
\item
$id \times id \times \partial_i: I \times c \times \Delta^{n-1} \to I \times c \times \Delta^n$
satisfies
$$(\tilde{U}_\varepsilon(c,c',\partial_i\sigma),\tilde{U}_\varepsilon(c,c',\partial_i\sigma) - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,c',\partial_i\sigma)) \to (\tilde{U}_\varepsilon(c,c'\sigma),\tilde{U}_\varepsilon(c,c',\sigma) - \tilde{U}_\frac{\varepsilon}{2}(c,c',\sigma)) $$
\end{enumerate}
These maps induce the vertical maps in the following commutative diagrams. (Again, we suppress names of chain complexes and chain maps when they are clear.)
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{
&\bullet\ar[r]^{j_\#} \ar[ldd]_{(\partial_\iota)_\#(\mu_{\Delta^0}) \otimes} \ar[dd]^{(\partial_\iota \times id)_\#}
& \bullet \ar[r]^s \ar[dd]^{(\partial_\iota \times id)_\#}
& \bullet \ar[rr]^{\cap ev_{c}^*(U)} \ar[dd]^{(\partial_\iota \times id)_\#}
&& \bullet \ar[rr]^{\alpha^{in}_\#} \ar[dd]^{(\partial_\iota \times id)_\#}
&& \bullet \ar[drr]^{(out)_\#} \ar[dd]^{(\partial_\iota \times id)_\#}
\\
&& \hspace{1.2cm} &&&&&& & \bullet \\
\bullet \ar[r]^{EZ}
&\bullet \ar[r]^{ j^I_\#}
& \bullet \ar[r]^{s^I}
& \bullet \ar[rr]^{\cap ev_{c,c'}^*(U)}
&&\bullet \ar[rr]^{(\alpha^{in})^I_\#} &&\bullet \ar[urr]_{out^I_\#} \\
}
\end{displaymath}
for $\iota \in \{0,1\}$.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{
C_*(I) \otimes C_*(\partial_{rs}c \times \Delta^n)\ar[r]^{} \ar[dd]_{id \otimes (\partial_{rs} \times id)_\#}
& \bullet \ar[r] \ar[dd]_{(id \times \partial_{rs} \times id)_\#}
& \bullet \ar[r] \ar[dd]^{}
& \bullet \ar[rr]^{} \ar[dd]^{}
&& \bullet \ar[r]^{} \ar[dd]^{}
& \bullet \ar[drr]^{} \ar[dd]^{}
\\
&& \hspace{1.2cm} &&&&& & \bullet \\
C_*(I) \otimes C_*(c \times \Delta^n) \ar[r]^{\hspace{1cm} EZ}
&\bullet \ar[r]^{ j^I_\#}
& \bullet \ar[r]^{s^I}
& \bullet \ar[rr]^{\cap ev_{c,c'}^*(U)}
&&\bullet \ar[r]^{(\alpha^{in})^I_\#} &\bullet \ar[urr]_{out^I_\#} \\
}
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{
C_*(I) \otimes C_*(c \times \Delta^{n-1})\ar[r]^{} \ar[dd]_{id \otimes (id \times \partial_i)_\#}
& \bullet \ar[r] \ar[dd]_{(id \times id \times \partial_i)_\#}
& \bullet \ar[r] \ar[dd]^{}
& \bullet \ar[rr]^{} \ar[dd]^{}
&& \bullet \ar[r]^{} \ar[dd]^{}
& \bullet \ar[drr]^{} \ar[dd]^{}
\\
&& \hspace{1.2cm} &&&&& & \bullet \\
C_*(I) \otimes C_*(c \times \Delta^n) \ar[r]^{\hspace{1cm} EZ}
&\bullet \ar[r]^{ j^I_\#}
& \bullet \ar[r]^{s^I}
& \bullet \ar[rr]^{\cap ev_{c,c'}^*(U)}
&&\bullet \ar[r]^{(\alpha^{in})^I_\#} &\bullet \ar[urr]_{out^I_\#} \\
}
\end{displaymath}
By evaluating each diagram on the appropriate chains, we obtain the four statements of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Fix a generator $\sigma: \Delta^n \to LM^k$ of $C_n(LM^k)$ and $m$-cells $c$ and $c'$ of $\overline{SD}$ that differ by a slide. Let $$\Lambda_{c,c'}(\sigma) = (-1)^{-\chi d}L_\sigma(\mu_I \otimes \mu_{c \times \Delta^n}).$$ Extend $\Lambda_{c,c'}$ to $C_*(LM^k)$ linearly.
\item
Assume $z$ and $z'$ are chains in $C_*(LM^k)$ such that $$z = \sum_j a_j c_j, z' = \sum_j a_j c_j'$$ where $c_j$ and $c_j'$ differ by a slide for all $j$. Define $$\Lambda_{z,z'}: C_*(LM^k) \to C_{* - \chi d +1}(LM^\ell)$$ by
$\Lambda_{z,z'}(\alpha) = \sum_j a_j \Lambda_{c_j, c_j'}(\alpha)$ for $\alpha \in C_*(LM^k)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{prop}\label{slideprop}
If $z$ and $z'$ are slide-equivalent cycles in $\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD})$, then
$\Lambda_{z, z'}$ is a chain homotopy between $\mathcal{ST}(z,-)$ and $\mathcal{ST}(z',-)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We need to show that $$\partial \Lambda_{z,z'} - (-1)^{- \chi d +m+1} \Lambda_{z,z'} \partial = \mathcal{ST}(z,-) - \mathcal{ST}(z',-).$$
First, fix $m$-cells $c$ and $c'$ of $\overline{SD}$ that differ by a slide.
\begin{align*}
\Lambda_{c,c'} (\partial \sigma) =& \Lambda_{c,c'}\left(\sum_i (-1)^i \sigma_i\right)\\
=& \sum(-1)^i \Lambda_{c,c'}(\sigma_i)\\
=& (-1)^{\chi d}\sum_i (-1)^i L_{\sigma_i} (\mu_I \otimes \mu_{c \times \Delta^{n-1}})
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\partial \Lambda_{c,c'}(\sigma) &= (-1)^{-\chi d} \partial L_\sigma(\mu_I \otimes \mu_{c \times\Delta^n}) \\
=& L_\sigma \partial_{\otimes}(\mu_I \otimes \mu_{c \times\Delta^n})\\
=& L_\sigma(\partial \mu_I \otimes \mu_{c \times \Delta^n} - \mu_I \otimes \mu_I \otimes \partial \mu_{c \times \Delta^n})\\
=& L_\sigma( (\partial_0)_\#(\mu_{\Delta^0}) \otimes \mu_{c \times \Delta^n}) - L_\sigma( (\partial_1)_\#(\mu_{\Delta^0}) \otimes \mu_{c \times \Delta^n}) \\
&\; \; - L_\sigma(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\partial(\mu_c) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^n} + (-1)^m\mu_c \otimes \partial(\mu_{\Delta^n})))\\
=& L_\sigma( (\partial_0)_\#(\mu_{\Delta^0}) \otimes \mu_{c \times \Delta^n}) - L_\sigma( (\partial_1)_\#(\mu_{\Delta^0}) \otimes \mu_{c \times \Delta^n}) \\
&\; \; -L_\sigma(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\partial(\mu_c) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^n})) - (-1)^mL_\sigma(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\mu_c \otimes \sum_i(-1)^i(\partial_i)_\#(\mu_{\Delta^{n-1}})))\\
=& L_\sigma( (\partial_0)_\#(\mu_{\Delta^0}) \otimes \mu_{c \times \Delta^n}) - L_\sigma( (\partial_1)_\#(\mu_{\Delta^0}) \otimes \mu_{c \times \Delta^n}) \\
&\; \; -L_\sigma(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\partial(\mu_c) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^n})) - (-1)^m
\sum_i(-1)^i
L_\sigma(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\mu_c \otimes(\partial_i)_\#(\mu_{\Delta^{n-1}})))
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{Lsigma},
\begin{align*}
\partial \Lambda_{c, c'}(\sigma)
=& \mathcal{ST}(c',\sigma ) - \mathcal{ST}(c, \sigma) -(-1)^m\sum_i (-1)^i L_{\sigma_i}(\mu_I \otimes \mu_{c \times \mu_{\Delta^{n-1}}})
\\
\;& \hspace{2cm}
-L_\sigma(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\partial(\mu_c) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^n}))\\
=& \mathcal{ST}(c', \sigma) - \mathcal{ST}(c, \sigma )
-(-1)^{\chi d +m}\sum_i (-1)^i \Lambda_{c,c'}(\sigma_i)
-L_\sigma(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\partial(\mu_c) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^n}))\\
=& \mathcal{ST}(c', \sigma) - \mathcal{ST}(c, \sigma)
-(-1)^{\chi d +m} \Lambda_{c,c'}(\partial \sigma)
-L_\sigma(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\partial(\mu_c) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^n}))
\end{align*}
So $\Lambda_{c,c}$ fails to be a chain homotopy between $\mathcal{ST}(c,-)$ and $\mathcal{ST}(c',-)$ exactly by the term
$$-L_{\sigma,c,c'}(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\partial(\mu_c) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^n})).$$
Recall that
$$L_{\sigma, c, c'}(\mu_I \otimes EZ((\partial_{rs})_\#(\mu_{\partial_{rs} c}) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^{n}}))
= L_{\sigma, \partial_{rs}c, \partial_{rs}c'}(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\mu_{\partial_{rs}c} \otimes \mu_{\Delta^{n}}))$$ from Lemma \ref{Lsigma}.
Assume $c_p$ and $c_q$ are two $m$-cells of $\overline{SD}$ such that $$\partial_{r_ps_p}c_p = \partial_{r_q s_q}c_q.$$ Let $c_p'$ and $c_q'$ be two other cells of $\overline{SD}$ which differ from $c_p$ and $c_q$ by a single compatible slide. Then
$$L_{\sigma, c_p, c_p'}(\mu_I \otimes EZ((\partial_{r_ps_p})_\#(\mu_{\partial_{r_ps_p}c_p}) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^n})) = L_{\sigma, c_q, c_q'}(\mu_I \otimes EZ((\partial_{r_qs_q})_\#(\mu_{\partial_{r_qs_q}c_q}) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^n})).$$
Let $z = \sum_j a_j c_j$ and $z' = \sum a_j c'_j$ be $m$-cycles such that $c_j$ and $c_j'$ differ by a single compatible slide for all $j$, then
\begin{align*}
\partial z &= \partial \left(\sum_j a_j c_j \right) = \sum_j a_j \partial(c_j) = 0 = \sum_{j,r,s}(-1)^{\epsilon(r,s)}a_j\partial_{rs}c_j = 0\\
&\implies
\sum_{j,r,s}(-1)^{\epsilon(r,s)}a_j L_{\sigma, c_j, c'_j}(\mu_I \otimes EZ((\partial_{rs})_\#(\mu_{\partial_{rs}c_j}) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^n}))
= 0
\\
&\implies
\sum_j a_j L_{\sigma, c_j, c'_j}(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\partial(\mu_{c_j}) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^n}))=0
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\partial \Lambda_{z,z'}(\sigma) =& \sum_j a_j c_j \partial \Lambda_{c_j,c_j'}(\sigma) \\
=&\sum_j a_j c_j \Big(\mathcal{ST}(c_j', \sigma) - \mathcal{ST}(c_j, \sigma)
-(-1)^{\chi d +m} \Lambda_{c_j,c_j'}(\partial \sigma)
\\
&\; \hspace{2cm}
-L_{\sigma, c_j, c'_j}(\mu_I \otimes EZ(\partial(\mu_{c_j}) \otimes \mu_{\Delta^n}))\Big)\\
=& \mathcal{ST}(z', \sigma) - \mathcal{ST}(z, \sigma )
-(-1)^{\chi d +m} \Lambda_{z,z'}(\partial \sigma).
\end{align*}
In particular,
$$\partial \Lambda_{z,z'} - (-1)^{- \chi d +m+1} \Lambda_{z,z'} \partial = \mathcal{ST}(z',-) - \mathcal{ST}(z,-)$$
and $\Lambda_{z,z'}$ is a chain homotopy of $\mathcal{ST}(z,-)$ and $\mathcal{ST}(z',-)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
If $z$ and $z'$ are slide-equivalent $m$-cycles in $\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{SD})$, then $\mathcal{ST}(z,-)$ and $\mathcal{ST}(z', )$ induce the same map on homology: $$H_*(LM^k) \to H_{* + m - \chi d}(LM^\ell)$$.
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}
Let $R$ be a field and let $\mathcal{ST}_*: H_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes H_*(LM^k) \to H_{*-\chi d}(LM^\ell)$ be the map induced by $\mathcal{ST}$ on homology. Let $q: \overline{SD} \to \overline{\mathscr{SD}}$ be the quotient by slide-equivalence. Then $\mathcal{ST}_*$ factors through $$q_* \otimes id: H_*(\overline{SD}) \otimes H_*(LM^k) \to H_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}) \otimes H_*(LM^k).$$\end{cor}
In particular, we have a well-defined homology-level string topology construction $$H_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}) \otimes H_*(LM^k) \to H_{*-\chi d}(LM^\ell).$$
We now compare the operations $H_*(LM^k) \to H_{* -\chi d}(LM^\ell)$ arising from elements of $H_0(\mathscr{SD})$ to those of \ref{CG}.
Let $\mathscr{F}(g,k,\ell)$ be the space of marked metric fatgraphs of genus $g$ and $k+\ell$ boundary cycles, partitioned into $k$ inputs and $\ell$ outputs. The map $$\pi: Sull \to \mathscr{F}(g,k,\ell)$$ defined in \cite{CG} collapses ghost edges of a Sullivan chord diagram. Let $$Im(\pi) = RSull,$$ the space of reduced Sullivan chord diagrams. Godin shows \cite{GodinThesis} that $\pi$ is a homotopy equivalence. A nice outline of the proof is given in \cite{ChataurBordism}.
For a reduced Sullivan chord diagram with $k$ inputs, its edge-lengths may be scaled so that each input boundary cycle has length $1$ and that this rescaling is a homotopy equivalence. Let $R_1Sull$ be the space of reduced Sullivan chord diagrams whose inputs each have length $1$ and let $r_1: RSull \to R_1Sull$ be the deformation retraction given by rescaling input lengths. If $\Gamma$ is a string diagram such that $x_\Gamma \in SD$, then $\pi(x_\Gamma) \in R_1Sull$.
Denote the chord-contracting map $\pi|_{SD}: SD \to R_1Sull$ by $\pi_{SD}$. If $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ are slide-equivalent string diagrams, then $\pi_{SD}(x_\Gamma) = \pi_{SD}(x_{\Gamma'})$ so $\pi_{SD}$ factors through the quotient map $SD \to \mathscr{SD}$. Let $\pi_{\mathscr{SD}} \to R_1Sull$ be the induced map.
\begin{prop}
The map $\pi_{\mathscr{SD}}: \mathscr{SD} \to R_1Sull$ is a homotopy equivalence.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Recall that the space $\overline{SD}$ is a space with a regular cell complex structure and that slide-equivalence is cellular. We have a regular cell complex structure on $\overline{\mathscr{SD}}$ and $\mathscr{SD}$ is again union of open cells. The space $R_1Sull$ is also a union of open cells: each cell is labeled by a combinatorial type of reduced Sullivan chord diagram and parameters in a cell measure where vertices lie on input boundary cycles relative to the marked point and where marked points lie on output boundary cycles. These are exactly the parameters in a cell of $\mathscr{SD}$.
Recall also that a cell $c$ of $\mathscr{SD}$ is a product
$$\Delta^{n_1} \times \Delta^{n_2} \times \dots \times \Delta^{n_k} \times [0,1]^{N_\ell}$$
where $N_\ell$ is the number of output boundary components where the marked point lay in the interior of a directed chord edge.
Because $\pi_{\mathscr{SD}}$ collapses chords, the image $\pi_{\mathscr{SD}}(c)$ of $c$ is the product
$$\Delta^{n_1} \times \Delta^{n_2} \times \dots \times \Delta^{n_k}.$$
Let $\mathscr{U}$ be a cover of $R_1Sull$ by open sets $U$ such that every $U$ is a contractible neighborhood of an open cell. Then $\pi_{SD}^{-1}(U)$ is an open neighborhood of a cell in $\mathscr{SD}$ and $\pi_{SD}: \pi_{SD}^{-1}(U) \to U$ is a homotopy equivalence, in particular, a weak homotopy equivalence. By Corollary 1.4 of \cite{May}, $\pi_{\mathscr{SD}}: \mathscr{SD} \to R_1Sull$ is a weak equivalence. Whitehead's theorem implies that it is a homotopy equivalence.
\end{proof}
We have proved that if $\pi_\mathscr{SD}': R_1Sull \to \mathscr{SD}$ is a homotopy inverse for $\pi_\mathscr{SD}$ then
$$\pi_\mathscr{SD}' \circ r_1 \circ \pi: Sull \to \mathscr{SD}$$
is a homotopy equivalence.
\begin{cor}\label{SDSull}
$Sull$ and $\mathscr{SD}$ are homotopy equivalent.
\end{cor}
\begin{theorem}\label{SullSDcommute}
Let
\[i: Sull \stackrel{\cong}{\to} \mathscr{SD} \hookrightarrow \overline{\mathscr{SD}}\]
be the composition of inclusion and homotopy equivalence. The following diagram commutes.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{ H_0(Sull) \otimes H_*(LM)^{\otimes k} \ar[drr]^{\mu} \ar[dd]_{i_0 \otimes id}
\\
&&H_{*-\chi d}(LM)^{\otimes \ell}\\
H_0(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}) \otimes H_*(LM)^{\otimes k} \ar[urr]_{\widetilde{\mathcal{ST}}_*} \\
}
\end{displaymath}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The spaces $\mathscr{SD}$ and $\overline{\mathscr{SD}}$ and $Sull$ are all connected. Let $c_{[\Gamma]}$ be a 0-cell in $\mathscr{SD}$ representing a generator of $H_0(Sull)$. Then $i(c_{[\Gamma]})$ represents the generator of $H_0(\overline{\mathscr{SD}})$.
Together, Theorem \ref{CG} and Proposition \ref{slideprop} show that $$\mu(c_{[\Gamma]}, ) = \widetilde{\mathcal{ST}}_*(i(c_{[\Gamma]}), ).$$ That is, the diagram commutes when evaluated on $c_{[\Gamma]}$.
Since all the maps in the diagram are linear, the diagram commutes.
\end{proof}
\section{The TQFT structure on homology}
Recall that in Theorem \ref{SullSDcommute} we saw that we recover string topology operations on $H_*(LM)$ arising from homology classes in $H_0(Sull)$. Gluing of Sullivan chord diagrams is defined in \cite{CG} and used to define a positive boundary topological quantum field theory.
In this section we define gluing of string diagrams and show that induced operations on homology respect this gluing for $H_0(\overline{\mathscr{SD}})$.
Gluing of slide-equivalence classes of string diagrams is defined as follows.
Let $x_{\Gamma_1} \in \overline{SD}(g_1, k_1, \ell_1)$ and $x_{\Gamma_2} \in \overline{SD}(g_2, k_2, \ell_2)$. Let $\mathfrak{o}_1= \{ o_1, o_2, \dots, o_{\ell_1}\}$ be the set of outputs of $\Gamma_1$, $\mathfrak{i}_2=\{i_1, i_2, \dots, i_{k_2}\}$ be the set of inputs of $\Gamma_2$ and $\mathfrak{s} \subset \mathfrak{o}_1 \times \mathfrak{i}_2 $ be a subset where any element of $\mathfrak{o}_1$ or $\mathfrak{i}_2$ appears at most once as a coordinate of an ordered pair. For $(o_r, i_s) \in \mathfrak{s}$, we identify output the output $o_r$ with the input $i_s$ according to their parametrizations by $S^1$ for all $(o_r, i_s) \in \mathfrak{s}$. Notice that this will usually involve a rescaling of $i_s$ to have the same length as $o_r$. The result of the identifications need not be a string diagram: chord endpoints of $\Gamma_2$ may be identified with points in the interiors of chords of $\Gamma_1$.
Rather than gluing string diagrams, we glue slide-equivalence classes instead.
\begin{definition}
Let $\Gamma_i$ represent the slide-equivalence class $[\Gamma_i]$ (corresponding to $x_{\Gamma_i} \in \overline{SD}(g_, k_i, \ell_i)$ and $x_{[\Gamma_i]} \in \overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_i, k_i, \ell_i)$) $i \in \{1,2\}$). Identify $o_r$ of $\Gamma_1$ with $i_s$ of $\Gamma_2$ for all $(o_r, i_s) \in \mathfrak{s}$ as above. If any chord endpoint $v$ of $\Gamma_2$ is identified with a point in interior of a chord $e$ of $\Gamma_1$, then slide $v$ to one endpoint or the other of $e$ so that it coincides with a vertex on an input circle of $\Gamma_1$. The result is a string diagram $\Gamma_1 \# \Gamma_2$ of type $(g_1+g_2+|\mathfrak{s}|-1, k_1+k_2-|\mathfrak{s}|,\ell_1+\ell_2-|\mathfrak{s}|)$. We order inputs by first listing inputs of $\Gamma_1$ followed by inputs of $\Gamma_2$ that do not appear as a coordinate in $\mathfrak{s}$ and order the outputs by first listing the outputs of $\Gamma_1$ that do not appear as a coordinate in $\mathfrak{s}$ followed by the outputs of $\Gamma_2$. The slide-equivalence class $[\Gamma_1\#_\mathfrak{s} \Gamma_2]$ is independent of the representatives $\Gamma_i$. Therefore, the following map is well defined.
\begin{align*}
\#_\mathfrak{s}:\overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_2, k_2, \ell_2) \times \overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_1, k_1, \ell_1) &\to \overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_1+g_2+|\mathfrak{s}|-1, k_1+k_2-|\mathfrak{s}|,\ell_1+\ell_2-|\mathfrak{s}|)\\
(x_{[\Gamma_2]}, x_{[\Gamma_1]}) &\mapsto x_{[\Gamma_1\#_\mathfrak{s} \Gamma_2]}.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
We would like to say that such operations give
$$\bigsqcup_{(g, k, \ell)} \overline{\mathscr{SD}} (g, k, \ell)$$
the structure of a properad \cite{Vallette} but composition of such operations need not be associative. However, for any $\mathfrak{s}$, $\#_\mathfrak{s}$ is a cellular map and composition of induced maps on cellular chains, and hence on homology, is associative.
\begin{definition}
Let $ (\#_\mathfrak{s})_\#$ and $ (\#_\mathfrak{s})_*$ denote
the maps induced by $\#_\mathfrak{s}$ on cellular chains and cellular homology.
To be explicit:
\begin{align*}
( \#_\mathfrak{s})_\#:\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_2, k_2, \ell_2)) &\otimes \mathcal{C}_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_1, k_1, \ell_1)) \stackrel{EZ}{\to}
\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_2, k_2, \ell_2)) \times \overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_1, k_1, \ell_1)) \\
&\to
\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_1+g_2+|\mathfrak{s}|-1, k_1+k_2-|\mathfrak{s}|,\ell_1+\ell_2-|\mathfrak{s}|))\\
( \#_\mathfrak{s})_*:H_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_2, k_2, \ell_2)) &\otimes H_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_1, k_1, \ell_1)) \stackrel{EZ}{\to}
H_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_2, k_2, \ell_2)) \times \overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_1, k_1, \ell_1)) \\
&\to
H_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_1+g_2+|\mathfrak{s}|-1, k_1+k_2-|\mathfrak{s}|,\ell_1+\ell_2-|\mathfrak{s}|))
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
We might hope that
the maps $(\#_\mathfrak{s})_\#$ (respectively $(\#_\mathfrak{s})_*$) give
$$\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}) = \bigsqcup_{(g, k, \ell)} \mathcal{C}_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}} (g, k, \ell)) \left( \textrm{ respectively } H_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}})= \bigsqcup_{(g, k, \ell)} H_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}} (g, k, \ell)) \right)$$
respectively the structure of a properad
and that $\widetilde{\mathcal{ST}}$ would give $C_*(LM)$ the structure of an algebra over the properad $\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}})$ (respecively that
$\widetilde{\mathcal{ST}}_*$ would give $H_*(LM)$ the structure of an algebra over the properad $H_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}})$).
This not need be the case. There exist cellular chains of $\overline{SD}$ and
whose composition is $0$ in $\mathcal{C}_*(\overline{\mathscr{SD}})$ for dimension reasons, but the composition of the corresponding string topology operations is not identically $0$. This situation occurs, for example, when the first chain is a cell of string diagrams that have an output boundary cycle made up only of directed edges corresponding to chords and that output is identified with an input of the second chain in $\#_\mathfrak{s}$.
However, we do have the following result.
\begin{prop}
Let $k_2 = \ell_1 = |\mathfrak{s}|$,
$\overline{\mathscr{SD}}_1 = \overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_1, k_1, \ell_1)$,
$\overline{\mathscr{SD}}_2 = \overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_2, k_2, \ell_2)$, and
$\overline{\mathscr{SD}}_3 = \overline{\mathscr{SD}}(g_1+g_2, k_1, \ell_2)$.
Then the following diagram commutes.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{ H_0(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}_2) \otimes H_0(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}_1) \otimes H_*(LM)^{\otimes k_1}
\ar[rr]^{id \otimes \mathcal{ST}_*}
\ar[dd]_{(\#_\mathfrak{s})_0 \otimes id}
&& H_0(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}_2) \otimes H_{*}(LM)^{\otimes k_2}
\ar[dd]^{\mathcal{ST}_* \otimes id}
\\
&
\\
H_0(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}_3) \otimes H_*(LM)^{\otimes k_1}
\ar[rr]_{\mathcal{ST}_*}
&& H_*(LM)^{\otimes \ell_2} \\
}
\end{displaymath}
\end{prop}
Implicit in the diagram are the appropriate degree shifts.
\begin{proof}
Gluing of Sullivan chord diagrams is defined slightly differently then gluing of slide-equivalence classes: outputs of $\Gamma_1$ are identified with inputs of $\Gamma_2$ according to their parametrizations. Pointwise, gluing of Sullivan chord diagrams need not be continuous or well-defined,
but there is a well-defined induced map on 0-dimensional homology:
$$(\#)_0: H_0(Sull_2) \otimes H_0(Sull_1) \to H_0(Sull_2 \times Sull_1) \to H_0(Sull_3)$$
and operations arising from 0-dimensional homology classes are well defined.
Theorem 6 of \cite{CG} implies that the following diagram commutes.
\textbf{Diagram (1):}
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{ H_0(Sull_2) \otimes H_0(Sull_1) \otimes H_*(LM)^{\otimes k_1}
\ar[rr]^{id \otimes \mu_1}
\ar[dd]_{(\#)_0 \otimes id}
&& H_0(Sull_2) \otimes H_{*}(LM)^{\otimes k_2}
\ar[dd]^{\mu_2 \otimes id}
\\
&
\\
H_0(Sull_3) \otimes H_*(LM)^{\otimes k_1}
\ar[rr]_{\mu_3}
&& H_*(LM)^{\otimes \ell_2} \\
}
\end{displaymath}
By Corollary \ref{SDSull}, the horizontal maps in the following diagram are isomorphisms. Each of the vertical maps is given by $1\otimes1 \mapsto 1$.
\textbf{Diagram (2):}
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{ H_0(Sull_2) \otimes H_0(Sull_1)
\ar[rr]^{(i_2)_0 \otimes (i_1)_0}
\ar[dd]_{(\#)_0}
&& H_0(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}_2) \otimes H_0(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}_1)
\ar[dd]^{(\#_\mathfrak{s})_0}
\\
&
\\
H_0(Sull_3)
\ar[rr]_{i_3}
&& H_0(\overline{\mathscr{SD}}_3)\\
}
\end{displaymath}
We have a large commutative diagram. The outer square is diagram (1) above. The inner square is the desired commutative diagram. The square on the left commutes by diagram (2) above and the other three squares commute by Theorem \ref{SullSDcommute}. This implies the desired diagram commutes.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{ \bullet
\ar[rrr]^{id \otimes \mu_1}
\ar[dr]^{i_0 \otimes i_0 \otimes id}
\ar[ddd]_{\#_0 \otimes id}
&&&
\bullet
\ar[dl]_{i_0 \otimes id}
\ar[ddd]^{\mu_2 \otimes id}
\\
& \bullet
\ar[r]
^{id \otimes \widetilde{\mathcal{ST}}_*}
\ar[d]_{\#_{\mathfrak{s}_0} \otimes id}
& \bullet
\ar[d]^{\mathcal{\widetilde{ST}}_* \otimes id}
&
\\
& \bullet
\ar[r]_{\widetilde{\mathcal{ST}}_*}
& \bullet \ar[dr]_{id}
\\
\bullet \ar[ur]_{i_0 \otimes id}
\ar[rrr]_{\mu_3}
&&&
\bullet \ar[ul]
}
\end{displaymath}
\end{proof}
We have shown that the operations induced by elements of $H_0(\overline{\mathscr{SD}})$ on the homology of the loop space agree with those in \cite{CG} and that these operations respect gluing. Thus we
obtain a Frobenius algebra structure of $H_*(LM; R)$, in the sense of \cite{CG}, when $R$ is a field.
\begin{cor}
The isomorphisms $H_0(Sull (g, k, \ell)) \to H_0(\overline{\mathscr{SD}} (g, k, \ell))$ induced by the inclusions $i: Sull (g, k, \ell) \to \overline{\mathscr{SD}} (g, k, \ell)$ induce an isomorphism
$$H_*(LM) \to H_*(LM)$$ of Frobenius algebras without counit.
\end{cor}
\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}
|
\section{\@startsection{section}{1}{\z@}{3.5ex plus 1ex minus
.2ex}{2.3ex plus .2ex}{\large\bf}}
\defAppendix \Alph{section}{\arabic{section}}
\def\Alph{section}.\arabic{subsection}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{subsection}}
\def\arabic{subsubsection}{\arabic{subsubsection}}
\def |
\section{Introduction}
High energy QCD has reached a mature stage of development, for dilute-dense scattering
(for example for DIS with nuclei) \cite{GLR,MUQI,MV,JIMWLK,B,K}. However,
for dilute-dilute scattering at high energy, (for example the scattering of two virtual photons with large but almost equal virtualities),
despite the great deal of effort by experts in the field (see for example Refs.
\cite{MSW,LL,IT,KOLU,HIMST,BRAUN,AKLP,LMP,KLM} ), we are still waiting for the desired breakthrough.
In this paper we address the problem of the scattering amplitude for the dilute - dilute system, using the BFKL Pomeron calculus \cite{BFKL,LIPREV,GLR,MUQI,BRAUN,BFKL,BART}.
The BFKL Pomeron calculus is
elegantly formulated
in terms of the functional integral \cite{BRAUN}. Namely,
\begin{equation} \label{BFKLFI}
Z[\Phi, \Phi^+]\,\,=\,\,\int \,\,D \Phi\,D\Phi^+\,e^S \,\,\,\hspace{0.5cm}\mbox{with}\hspace{0.5cm}\,S \,=\,S_0
\,+\,S_I\,+\,S_E
\end{equation}
where $S_0$ describes free Pomerons, $S_I$ corresponds to their mutual interaction
while $S_E$ relates to the interaction with the external sources (target and
projectile). $S_0$ has a simple expression:
\begin{equation} \label{S0}
S_0\,=\,\int\,d Y \,d Y'\,d^2 x_1\, d^2 x_2\,d^2 x'_1\, d^2 x'_2\,
\Phi^+(x_1,x_2;Y)\,
G^{-1}(x_1,x_2;Y|x'_1,x'_2;Y')\,\Phi(x'_1,x'_2;Y')
\end{equation}
while
\begin{equation} \label{SI}
S_I\,=\,\frac{2\,\pi \bar{\alpha}_s^2}{N_c}\,\int \,d Y'\,\int
\,\frac{d^2 x_1\,d^2 x_2\,d^2 x_3}{x^2_{12}\,x^2_{23}\,x^2_{13}}
\Big\{ \left( L_{12}\Phi(x_1,x_2;Y')\,\right)\,
\Phi^+(x_1,x_3;Y')\,\Phi^+(x_3,x_2;Y')\,\,+\,\,h.c. \Big\} \end{equation}
where $h.c.$ denotes the Hermitian conjugate.
$S_E$ describes the interaction with the scattering particles (two small colliding dipoles in our case),
but we do not need the explicit expression for this term in our paper.
$Y$ is the rapidity of the dipole. For dipole-dipole scattering $Y = \ln s $ in the leading log approximation where $s$ is the energy of colliding dipoles.
\eq{BFKLFI} is written in the leading log approximation. The following notation, $\bar{\alpha}_s = N_c \alpha_s/\pi$ will be assumed
throughout.
$\Phi$ and $\Phi^+$ relate to the BFKL Pomeron and $G(x_1,x_2;Y|x'_1,x'_2;Y')$ is the Green function of the BFKL Pomeron which takes the form:
\begin{equation}
G^{-1}(x_1,x_2;Y| x'_1,x'_2;Y')\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} p^2_1\,p^2_2\,\left(
\frac{\partial}{\partial Y} + H \right) \hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \left(
\frac{\partial}{\partial Y} + H^+ \right)\,p^2_1\,p^2_2 \label{G1}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
H f(x_1,x_2;Y) \,\,= \,\,\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s}{2
\pi}\,\int\,d^2 x_3\, K\left( x_1, x_2| x_3\right)\,\left\{
f(x_1,x_2;Y)\,-\,f(x_1,x_3;Y)\,-\,f(x_3,x_2;Y) \right\} \label{H}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{K}
K\left( x_1, x_2| x_3\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \frac{
x^2_{12}}{x^2_{23}\,x^2_{13}}\hspace{2cm} L_{12} \hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} x^4_{12} \,p^2_1\,p^2_2 \hspace{2cm}p_k\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} -i \nabla_{x_k}\hspace{0.5cm}\left( k\,=\,1,2\right)
\end{equation}
The exact Green function for the Pomeron, which is the goal of this paper to derive, is equal to:
\begin{equation} \label{PHIG}
G(x_1,x_2;Y| x'_1,x'_2;Y')\,\,=\,-\frac{\int D \Phi\,D\Phi^+ \Phi\left( x_1, x_2; Y \right) \,\Phi^+\left( x'_1.x'_2; Y'\right)\,e^{S[\Phi,\Phi^+]}}{ \int D \Phi\,D\Phi^+ \,e^{S[\Phi,\Phi^+]}}
\end{equation}
and the bare (initial) BFKL Pomeron Green function\cite{LIPREV} is determined by \eq{PHIG},
where only the term $S_0$ is included in $S[\Phi,\Phi^+]$.
It is worthwhile mentioning that due to conformal invariance of the BFKL Pomeron calculus, the form of the triple Pomeron vertex is known unambiguously,
and coincides with the direct calculations found in ref. \cite{BART}\footnote{For the sake of completeness in this presentation, we would like to mention that there is still a discussion in the literature, about
whether or not the BFKL Pomeron calculus in the form of Eq. (1.1), correctly takes into account the reggeized
gluons. However, Eq. (1.1) reproduces the non-linear Balitsky-Kovchegov equation, including the term for the gluon reggeization.
As far as we know, no other examples have been suggested, where Eq.(1.1) provides an incorrect result
due to problems with gluon reggeization."}
The simplicity of \eq{BFKLFI} is thanks to the key assumption,
that the triple Pomeron vertex is the only essential vertex for Pomeron interactions.
In other words. in \eq{BFKLFI} we neglect all other local vertices (for example, the vertex for the transition of one Pomeron to three and so on).
We have no rigorous proof for this conjecture.
There even exist arguments that the four Pomeron vertex should also be included \cite{KLP}.
It should noted also, that the BFKL Pomeron calculus given by \eq{BFKLFI}, is formulated in the leading $1/N_c$ approximation,
where $N_c$ is the number of colours. It is known that
the BFKL Pomeron calculus cannot be a correct approximation for the scattering amplitude in the next-to-leading order in $1/N_c$ approach,
due to the fact that $2 n $- gluon states in the $t$-channel give a larger intercept than $n$ BFKL Pomerons \cite{MPOM}.
Nevertheless we consider \eq{BFKLFI} to be a good first approximation, for the dilute-dilute system of scattering.
We will return to the discussion of all these problems in the conclusion, where we show that they are not important for the solution derived in this paper.
The goal of this paper is to calculate the class of enhanced diagrams. The simplest examples of these diagrams are shown in \fig{f1loop} and \fig{fnloop}. In other words we are going to sum BFKL Pomeron loops in this paper.
These diagrams lead to a new Green function of the BFKL Pomeron (the term $S_0$ in \eq{BFKLFI} ), while the vertices of the interaction of the new dressed Pomeron
remain the same as they appear in $S_I$. It is worthwhile mentioning that if the Green function of the dressed Pomeron, will be such that the Pomeron contribution will lead
to a decrease with energy, then the problem would be solved without needing to consider the interaction of the dressed Pomerons.
However, if this is not the case and the dressed Pomeron still increases with energy, then the
interaction of the dressed Pomeron needs to be included.
On the other hand, for the scattering of two dipoles with small sizes, within a wide range of energy the enhanced diagrams dominate,
since the interactions of the Pomeron with the target and the projectile are small {in the leading $1/N_c$-approximation.
This paper is organized in the following way.
In the next section the formulae for the triple Pomeron vertex and the Pomeron Green function are introduced.
Using these ingredients
we calculate the sum over the class of enhanced diagrams shown in \fig{f1loop} - \fig{fnloop}, namely one-Pomeron loops in series, in $\left(\omega,\nu\right)$
representation.
This is done in a step-by-step way,
in order to introduce the reader to the method of integration and assumptions used in this treatment, which will be used
later on for more complicated diagrams.
The third section is the main body of this paper.
Using the techniques developed in \sec{sloops}, we extend this approach to the sum over all enhanced diagrams,
using two principle selection rules. First, we are searching only for the contribution to the vertices that are singular in $\nu$.
Second, we assume that the contribution of the Pomeron loops in effective vertices, for multi-Pomeron production are negligibly small.
This approximation is closely related to the Mueller-Patel-Salam-Iancu
approach \cite{MPSI}, but in this paper this strategy is formulated in $(\omega, \nu)$-representation.
In section 3.1 the equations for the effective multi-Pomeron vertices are derived and solved.
In section 3.2 we present the results of the summation, for the Green function of the dressed Pomeron. It turns out that the exchange of the dressed Pomeron, leads to the total cross section for dipole-dipole scattering that decreases with energy.
This result is reminiscent of the Pomeron Green function in $1+1$ dimensional Pomeron calculus, \cite{AAJ,ALMC,CLR,CI,BOMU}
which also decreases due to the contribution of Pomeron loops.
In the conclusion section, we summarize our results, and discuss the current stage of development of the BFKL Pomeron calculus.
The appendix provides detailed information about the ingredients of the BFKL Pomeron calculus, including the bare Pomeron Green function and the triple Pomeron vertex.
\section{Summing simple Pomeron loops}\label{sloops}
In this section we sum the set of enhanced diagrams shown in \fig{f1loop} - \fig{fnloop}, namely
one-Pomeron loops in series.
The sum over all diagrams of this type
will teach us the main characteristic features of the enhanced diagrams, which we will use for developing an approach for summing over a more general class of diagrams.
\subsection{Bare Pomeron}
\DOUBLEFIGURE[t]{1-4-1pomeron.eps,width=50mm,height=45mm}{1-5-1loop.eps,width=45mm,height=45mm}
{The basic diagram with the exchange of one Pomeron in the $t$-channel.
\label{f1pomeron}}{The diagram with one Pomeron loop. \label{f1loop} }
The most basic diagram is the exchange of one Pomeron in the $t$-channel without any loops. The expression for this diagram
which is shown in
\fig{f1pomeron}
is given by the following expression in $\omega$ representation \cite{1.Navelet:2002zz,Navelet:1998yv,2.Navelet:2002zz,Bialas:1997xp,Kozlov:2004sh}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{1pomomega}
&&G_{0}\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\,\frac{g\left(\nu\right)}{\omega-\omega\left(\nu\right)}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\mbox{where}\hspace{0.5cm} g\left(\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{\nu^2}{\biggl(\nu^2+\mathlarger{\f{1}{4}}\biggr)^2}\label{gnu}\end{eqnarray}
The following inverse Mellin transform allows us
to pass to $Y$ representation:
\begin{eqnarray}&&
G_{0}\left( Y,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\ml{\ml{\int}}^{a+i\infty}_{a-i\infty}d\omega \,\,\,e^{\omega\,Y}G_{(0)}\left(\omega,\nu\right)
\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\,e^{\,\omega\left(\nu\right)\,Y}\,g\left(\nu\right)\,\label{1pomY}\end{eqnarray}
The contour of integration is placed to the right of all singularities of $G_0\left( \omega,\nu\right)$.
\subsection{One loop}
\label{s1loop}
The first correction to the basic diagram is the diagram with one loop
shown below in \fig{f1loop}.
The amplitude for the one-loop diagram takes the following form in $\omega$ representation \cite{BRAUN}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
A_{(1)}\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right)\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}\!\!d\nu^{\,\prime}\,\, m\left(\omega,\nu,\nu^{\,\prime}\right) G_0\left(\omega,\nu^{\,\prime}\right) \label{1loopomega}\end{eqnarray}
where $m\left(\nu,\nu^{\,\prime},\omega\right)$ is the Pomeron self mass, given by the following formula:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&m\left(\nu,\nu^{\,\prime},\omega\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu_1\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu_2\,g\left(\nu_1\right)\,g\left(\nu_2\right)
\mathlarger{\frac{ \Gamma\biggl(\nu\,\begin{vmatrix}\,\nu_1,\nu_2\biggr) \Gamma\biggl(\nu^{\,\prime}\,\end{vmatrix}\,\nu_1,\nu_2\biggr) }{\biggl(\,\omega-\omega\left(\nu_1\right)-\omega\left(\nu_2\right)\,\biggr)}}\hspace{1cm}
\label{definitionSigma}\end{eqnarray}
The triple Pomeron vertex has the following definition \cite{1.Korchemsky:1997fy}
\footnote{The coefficient in front of
\eq{tpv} contains an extra factor of $1/N_c$ in accordance \eq{SI}, compared to the same coefficient that appears in
\cite{1.Korchemsky:1997fy}.}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Gamma\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{16\,\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{N_c}\left( \Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{planar}}}\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)
-\frac{2\pi}{N_c^2}\,\, \Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{non-planar}}}\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\Rb\label{tpv}\\
\nonumber\\
&& \Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{planar}}}\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)
\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \left(\mathlarger{\f{1}{4}}+\nu^2\right)^2\Omega\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\label{planar}\\
\nonumber\\
&& \Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{nonplanar}}}\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)
\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \left(\mathlarger{\f{1}{4}}+\nu^2\right)^2\Lambda\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\biggl(
\chi\left(\nu\right)-\chi\left(\nu_1\right)-\chi\left(\nu_2\right)\biggr)\label{nonplanar}
\end{eqnarray}
where the functions $\chi\left(\nu\right)$\,, $\,\,\Omega\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)$ and $\Lambda\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)$ are defined explicitly in Eqs. (\ref{chi}),
(\ref{thesumofomegas}) and (\ref{lanu}) respectively. $ \Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{planar}}}$ and $ \Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{nonplanar}}}$ denote
the two diagrams that contribute to the vertex, namely the planar and non-planar diagrams shown below in \fig{fvertex} (a) and \fig{fvertex} (b)
(the diagrams in \fig{fvertex} are taken from ref. \cite{1.Korchemsky:1997fy}).
\FIGURE[h]{\begin{minipage}{150mm}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=1-1-vertex.eps,width=140mm}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The two contributing diagrams to the triple Pomeron vertex.
}
\label{fvertex}}
$\Gamma\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)$ is the vertex at the top of the loop of \fig{f1loop}, whereby the Pomeron with scaling dimension $\nu$ splits into two Pomerons that
form the loop, with scaling dimensions $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$. The vertex at the bottom of the loop is labeled by $\Gamma\left(\nu^{\,\prime}\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)$,
whereby the Pomerons with scaling dimensions $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ recombine to one Pomeron with scaling dimension $\nu^{\,\prime}$.
Before proceeding to calculate $m\left(\omega,\nu,\nu^{\,\prime}\right)$, it is instructive to switch to the variables $\lambda$, $\sigma$ and $\Delta$ defined as:
\begin{eqnarray}&&
\lambda\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} i/2 - \nu\,;\hspace{1cm}\lambda^{\,\prime}\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} i/2 - \nu^{\,\prime}\,;\hspace{1cm}
\sigma\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\nu_1+\nu_2\,;\hspace{1cm}
\Delta\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\nu_1-\nu_2\label{depm}\end{eqnarray}
In tems of ($\lambda,\sigma,\Delta$) variables, then \eq{definitionSigma} reads:
\begin{eqnarray}&&
m\left(\omega,\lambda,\lambda^{\,\prime}\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\sigma\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\Delta\,\, g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma+\Delta}{2}}\right) g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma -\Delta}{2}}\right)
\frac{\Gamma\biggl(\lambda\,\begin{vmatrix}\,\sigma,\Delta\biggr)\Gamma\biggl(\lambda^{\,\prime}\,\end{vmatrix}\,\sigma,\Delta\biggr)}{\left(\,\omega-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma+\Delta}{2}}\right)-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma-\Delta}{2}}\right)\,\right)}\,\,\hspace{1cm}
\label{b.1.Sigma}
\end{eqnarray}
The product of vertices $\Gamma\left(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\right)\Gamma\left(\lambda^{\,\prime}\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\right)$ that appears in \eq{b.1.Sigma},
contains two poles in the $\sigma$-plane in the following regions (for details see Eqs. (\ref{2.om1nu} - \ref{2.om3nu}) and \eq{lanu}):
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sigma\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\lambda\hspace{1.6cm}\Leftrightarrow\hspace{1cm} i/2-\nu\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\nu_1+\nu_2\label{b.1.ourregion}\\
\nonumber\\
&&\sigma\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} i-\lambda\hspace{1cm}\Leftrightarrow\hspace{1cm} i/2 + \nu\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\nu_1+\nu_2\label{b.2.ourregion}
\end{eqnarray}
We need to check that the vertices $\Omega$ and $\Lambda$ converge as $\nu\to \infty$,
for both of the regions of \eq{b.1.ourregion} and \eq{b.2.ourregion}.
From \eq{lanu} its clear that $\Lambda$ falls down for pure imaginary $\nu = i \kappa$, as $\exp\left(- 2 \,\kappa \ln \kappa \right)$.
Actually, we will see below that we need to integrate
the $\nu$-image of the amplitude to calculate the scattering amplitude in coordinate space, in the following way:
\begin{equation} \label{NUTOZETA}
A\left( \zeta \right)\,\,=\,\,\int \frac{d \nu}{2 \pi}\,e^{ i \nu \ln \zeta}\,A\left( \nu\right)
\end{equation}
One can see, that independent from the sign of $\ln \zeta$, we have to close the $\nu$-contour of integration for $\Lambda$ over the upper half-plane.
Since the pole of \eq{b.1.ourregion} lies in the upper half-plane, then the $\nu$-integral for the part of the vertex proportional to $\Lambda$,
is taken using the contour which is closed around the pole given by \eq{b.1.ourregion}. \\
The situation with the part of the vertex proportional to $\Omega$ is quite different.
One can see that at large and pure imaginary $\nu$, then $\Omega$ falls down only as a power of $\nu$. Therefore, the convergence of the integral in \eq{NUTOZETA} depends on the sign of $\ln \zeta$.
We choose $\zeta > 1$ . For this choice of $\zeta$ we can close the $\nu$-integration contour over the upper half-plane for both $\Lambda$ and $\Omega$.\\
With this in mind,
$\lambda\to 0$ from above the real axis, is our region of interest for calculating the contribution to the vertex proportional to $\Lambda$.
Whereas $ \lambda\to 0$ from below the real axis, is the relevant region for calculating the part of the vertex proportional to $\Omega$. The dominant high energy
behaviour $\exp\left( 2\omega_0\,Y\right)$ stems from the region $\nu_1,\nu_2\to 0$, (or in other words $\sigma\to 0$).
Thus since $\lambda\to 0^+$ is our region of interest, then \eq{b.1.ourregion} is the relevant region, whereas \eq{b.2.ourregion} does not
yield $\sigma\to 0$ as $\lambda\to 0^+$.
In light of this observation,
it is useful to extract the pole explicitly by making the following definition:
\begin{eqnarray}&&
\Gamma\left(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\mathlarger{\frac{\tilde{\Gamma}\left(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\right)}{\lambda-\sigma}}\label{b.3.Gammatilde}\end{eqnarray}
In this approach, $\tilde{\Gamma}\left(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\right)$ is finite in the region $\sigma\to \lambda$.
Hence plugging \eq{b.3.Gammatilde} into \eq{b.1.Sigma} leads to the following formula:
\begin{eqnarray}&&
m\left(\omega,\lambda,\lambda^{\,\prime}\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\sigma\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\Delta\,\,
\,\frac{g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma +\Delta}{2}}\right) g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma -\Delta}{2}}\right)}{\left(\,\omega-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma+\Delta}{2}}\right)-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma -\Delta}{2}}\right)\,\right)}\,\,
\frac{\tilde{\Gamma}\biggl(\lambda\,\begin{vmatrix}\,\sigma,\Delta\biggr)\tilde{\Gamma}\biggl(\lambda^{\,\prime}\,\end{vmatrix}\,\sigma,\Delta\biggr)}
{\biggl(\lambda-\sigma\biggr)\biggl(\lambda^{\,\prime}-\sigma\biggr)}\hspace{1cm}
\label{b.2.Sigma}\\
\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm} -2\pi i \ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\Delta\,\, \left\{
\,\frac{g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma +\Delta}{2}}\right) g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma -\Delta}{2}}\right)}{\left(\,\omega-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma +\Delta}{2}}\right)-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma -\Delta}{2}}\right)\,\right)}\,\,
\frac{\tilde{\Gamma}\biggl(\lambda\,\begin{vmatrix}\,\sigma,\Delta\biggr)\tilde{\Gamma}\biggl(\lambda^{\,\prime}\,\end{vmatrix}\,\sigma,\Delta\biggr)}
{\biggl(\lambda^{\,\prime}-\lambda\biggr)}\,\,\right\}_{\sigma\,=\,\lambda}
\hspace{1cm}
\label{b.3.Sigma}\end{eqnarray}
where in the last step the $\sigma$-integral was solved by taking the residue of the pole at $\sigma\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\lambda$.
Switching back to $\left(\nu,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)$ variables, then \eq{b.3.Sigma} reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&m\left(\omega,\nu,\nu^{\,\prime}\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} -2\pi i \ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu_2 \left\{
\frac{g\left(\nu_1\right) g\left(\nu_2\right)}{\biggl( \omega-\omega\left(\nu_1\right)-\omega\left(\nu_2\right) \biggr) }\,\,
\frac{\tilde{\Gamma}\biggl(\nu\,\begin{vmatrix}\,\nu_1,\nu_2\biggr)\tilde{\Gamma}\biggl(\nu^{\,\prime}\,\end{vmatrix}\,\nu_1,\nu_2\biggr)}
{\biggl(\nu^{\,\prime}-\nu\biggr)}\right\}_{i/2-\nu\, =\,\nu_1+\nu_2}
\label{b.3a.Sigma}\end{eqnarray}
Interestingly, the Pomeron self-mass $m\left(\omega,\nu,\nu^{\,\prime}\right)$ contains a simple (first order) pole in the region
$\nu=\nu^{\,\prime}$. Hence using the result of \eq{b.3a.Sigma}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu^{\,\prime} m\left(\omega,\nu,\nu^{\,\prime}\right) G_0\left(\omega,\nu^{\,\prime}\right)=
4\pi^2\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty} d\nu_2 \left\{
\frac{g\left(\nu_1\right) g\left(\nu_2\right)\,\tilde{\Gamma}^2\biggl(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\biggr)}{\biggl( \omega-\omega\left(\nu_1\right)-\omega\left(\nu_2\right) \biggr) }\,G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right)\right\}_{\!i/2-\nu\,=\,\nu_1+\nu_2}\, \hspace{0.5cm}
\label{b.3c.Sigma}
\end{eqnarray}
where the right hand side of \eq{b.3c.Sigma} was derived by taking the residue of the pole at $\nu\,=\,\nu^{\,\prime}$, after integrating over $\nu^{\,\prime}$.
The right hand side of \eq{b.3c.Sigma} can be re-written in the following equivalent form:
\begin{eqnarray}&&\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu^{\,\prime} m\left(\omega,\nu,\nu^{\,\prime}\right) G_0\left(\omega,\nu^{\,\prime}\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right) G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right)\label{useful}\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&
\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu_1\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu_2\,\,\mathlarger{\frac{g\left(\nu_1\right)\,g\left(\nu_2\right)}
{\biggl(\,\omega-\omega\left(\nu_1\right)-\omega\left(\nu_2\right)\,\biggr)}} \,\frac
{\tilde{\Gamma}^2\biggl(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\biggr)}
{\left( \mathlarger{\frac{i}{2}} -\nu-\nu_1-\nu_2\right)\,}
\,\,
\label{1.definitionSigma}\end{eqnarray}
where the $\nu_1$ integral in \eq{1.definitionSigma} is solved by taking the residue of
the pole at $i/2 - \nu-\nu_1-\nu_2=0$.
Thanks to the simplification of \eq{useful}, then \eq{1loopomega} can be re-cast as:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
A_{(1)}\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right) \Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,\,G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right) \label{1.1loopomega}\end{eqnarray}
In order to pass to $Y$ representation, use the following inverse Mellin transform:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&A_{(1)}\left( Y,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\ml{\ml{\int}}^{a+i\infty}_{a-i\infty}d\omega\,\,\, e^{\omega\,Y}A_{(1)}\left(\omega,\nu\right)\label{0.1loopY}\end{eqnarray}
which after inserting Eq. (\ref{1.1loopomega}) yields:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&A_{(1)}\left( Y,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\,\,g^2\left(\nu\right)\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu_1\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu_2\,\frac{g\left(\nu_1\right) g\left(\nu_2\right)}{\biggl( \omega-\omega\left(\nu_1\right)-\omega\left(\nu_2\right)\biggr)}
\frac
{\tilde{\Gamma}^2\biggl(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\biggr)}
{\left( \mathlarger{\frac{i}{2}} -\nu-\nu_1-\nu_2\right)\,}
\hspace{1cm}\label{1loopY}\\
\nonumber\\
&&\times\,\mathlarger{\frac{e^{\omega\left(\nu\right)\,Y}}{\omega\left(\nu\right)-\omega\left(\nu_1\right)-\omega\left(\nu_2\right)}}\,\left(\,\mathlarger{\frac{e^{\left\{\,\omega\left(\nu_1\right)+\omega\left(\nu_2\right)-\omega\left(\nu\right)\,\right\}\,Y}\,-1\,}{\omega\left(\nu\right)-\omega\left(\nu_1\right)-\omega\left(\nu_2\right)}}
\,+Y\,\right)
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Two loops}
\DOUBLEFIGURE[t]{1-6-2loop.eps,width=45mm,height=80mm}{1-7-nloop.eps,width=35mm,height=80mm}
{The diagram with two Pomeron loops.
\label{f2loop}}{The diagram with $n$ Pomeron loops in succession. \label{fnloop} }
The second correction to the basic diagram is the diagram with two loops
shown below in \fig{f2loop}.
The amplitude for the 2-loop diagram takes the following form in $\omega$ representation:
\begin{eqnarray}&&
A_{(2)}\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right) \ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu^{\,\prime}\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu^{\,\prime\prime}
\,\,m\left(\omega,\nu,\nu^{\,\prime}\right) \,\,G_0\left(\omega,\nu^{\,\prime}\right)\,\, m\left(\omega,\nu^{\,\prime},\nu^{\,\prime\prime}\right)\,\,
G_0\left(\omega, \nu^{\,\prime\prime}\right)
\hspace{1cm}\label{0.2loopomega}\end{eqnarray}
Thanks to the useful result of \eq{useful},
the amplitude for the 2-loop diagram of \eq{0.2loopomega}
simplifies to the following formula:
\begin{eqnarray}&&
A_{(2)}\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,\,\biggl(\,\,G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,\,\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,\,\biggr)^2\label{2loopomega}\end{eqnarray}
where $\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)$ is given by \eq{1.definitionSigma}.
In order to pass to $Y$ representation, use the following inverse Mellin transform:
\begin{eqnarray}&&
A_{(2)}\left( Y,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\ml{\ml{\int}}^{a+i\infty}_{a-i\infty}d\omega\,\,\, e^{\omega\,Y}A_{(2)}\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,\,\,\label{2loopY}\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm}
g^3\left(\nu\right) \prod^2_{k=1}\,\,\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu^k_1\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\nu^k_2\,\,\,g\left(\nu^k_1\right)\,g\left(\nu^k_2\right)
\frac
{\tilde{\Gamma}^2\biggl(\nu\,\vert\,\nu^k_1,\nu^k_2\biggr)}
{\left( \mathlarger{\frac{i}{2}} -\nu-\nu^k_1-\nu^k_2\right)\,}
\label{toowide}\\
&&\times\hspace{0.3cm}\left\{\hspace{0.3cm} \mathlarger{\frac{e^{\omega_1\,Y}}{\omega-\omega_1}}+\mathlarger{ \frac{e^{\omega_2\,Y}}{\omega-\omega_2}} +
e^{\omega\left(\nu\right)\,Y}\left(\mathlarger{\frac{1}{\left(\omega-\omega_1\right)\left(\omega-\omega_2\right)}}\right)\,\frac{1}{2!}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\hspace{0.7cm}+\hspace{0.3cm}
e^{\omega\left(\nu\right)\,Y}\frac{d}{d\omega}\left(\mathlarger{\frac{1}{\left(\omega-\omega_1\right)\left(\omega-\omega_2\right)}}\right) \,Y+e^{\omega\left(\nu\right)\,Y}\frac{d^2}{d\omega^2}\left(\mathlarger{\frac{1}{\left(\omega-\omega_1\right)\left(\omega-\omega_2\right)}}\right)\frac{Y^2}{2!}\hspace{0.3cm}\right\}_{\omega \,=\, \omega(\nu)}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\omega_k\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\omega\left(\nu_1^k\right)+\omega\left(\nu_2^k\right)\label{omk}\end{eqnarray}
\begin{boldmath}
\subsection{$n$ loops}\label{snloops}
\end{boldmath}
Extending this approach to the diagram with $n$ loops in succession
shown in \fig{fnloop}, leads to the following amplitude in $\omega$ representation:
\begin{eqnarray}&&
A_{(n)}\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,\,\biggl(\,\,G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,\,\biggr)^n\label{1.nloopomega}\end{eqnarray}
The sum over the class of diagrams shown in \fig{fnloop} with an alternating minus sign,
for all $n \in \left( 0,\infty\right)$ i.e. from $n=0$ loops up to infinity gives the Green function of the dressed Pomeron, labeled $G_2\left(\omega,\nu\right)$.
In this notation:
\begin{eqnarray}&&G_2\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\sum^\infty_{n=0}\left( -1\right)^nA_{(n)}\left( \omega,\nu\right)\,\,\,
=\hspace{0.3cm}
\frac{G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right)}{\biggl( \hspace{0.2cm}1\,\,+\,\,G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,\,\hspace{0.2cm}\biggr)} \label{1.G2} \end{eqnarray}
From \eq{1.G2}, the renormalized propagator $G_2\left(\omega,\nu\right)$ can be expressed in terms of the bare Pomeron propagator $G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right)$ as:
\begin{equation}
G_2^{-1}\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} G_0^{-1}\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}+\hspace{0.3cm}\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)\label{G2G0}\end{equation}
\begin{boldmath}
\subsection{Calculation of $\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)$}\label{sSigma}
\end{boldmath}
In this section, we calculate explicitly the formula for the Pomeron loop $\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)$, defined above in \eq{1.definitionSigma}\footnote{Throughout the paper the notation $\lim_{x \to a} f(x)$ is used to denote the asymptotic behaviour of f(x) at $x \to a$. It is not meant in the conventional way as used in analysis} .
In ($\lambda,\sigma,\Delta$)
notation introduced in Eqs. (\ref{depm}):
\begin{eqnarray}&&
\Sigma\left(\omega,\lambda\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\sigma\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\Delta\,\,
\,\frac{g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma+\Delta}{2}}\right) g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma -\Delta}{2}}\right)}{\left(\,\,\,\omega-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma+\Delta}{2}}\right)-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\sigma-\Delta}{2}}\right)\,\,\,\right)}\,\,
\frac{\tilde{\Gamma}^2\biggl(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\biggr)}
{\biggl(\lambda-\sigma\biggr)}\label{2.Sigma}\\
\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm} -2\pi i\hspace{0.3cm} \mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\sigma\to \lambda}}}\hspace{0.3cm}\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\Delta\,\,
\,\frac{g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda +\Delta}{2}}\right) g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda -\Delta}{2}}\right)}{\left(\,\,\,\omega-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda +\Delta}{2}}\right)-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda -\Delta}{2}}\right)\,\,\,\right)}\,\,
\tilde{\Gamma}^2\biggl(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\biggr)\label{3.Sigma}\end{eqnarray}
where in the last step, the integration over $\sigma$ was solved by taking the residue of the pole at
$\sigma\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\lambda$.
On the RHS of \eq{1.G2},
there are singularities at $i/2+\nu\to 0$ and $i/2-\nu\to 0$ that stem from $G_0\left(\omega,\nu\right)$ in the numerator (see definition of \eq{gnu}).
However as discussed above, only the region $i/2-\nu\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\lambda\to 0$ is relevant (see \eq{b.1.ourregion} and the surrounding discussion).
In light of this, the largest contribution to the propagator of the dressed Pomeron $G_2\left(\omega,\nu\right)$ stems from the region $i/2-\nu\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\lambda\to 0$.
Hence we need to know the asymptote of $\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)$ in this region
which can be found from \eq{3.Sigma}:
\begin{eqnarray}&&\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\lambda\to 0}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\Sigma\left(\omega,\lambda\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} -2\pi i\hspace{0.3cm} \mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\sigma\to\lambda\\\lambda\to 0}}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\Delta\,\,
\,\frac{g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda +\Delta}{2}}\right) g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda -\Delta}{2}}\right)\,\,}
{\left(\,\,\,\omega-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda +\Delta}{2}}\right)-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda -\Delta}{2}}\right)\,\,\,\right)}\,\,\,
\tilde{\Gamma}^2\biggl(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\biggr)\,\hspace{1cm} \label{5.Sigma}\end{eqnarray}
Throughout the paper the notation $\lim_{x \to a} f(x)$ is used to denote the asymptotic behaviour of f(x) at $x \to a$. It is not meant in the conventional way as used in analysis}
It is worthwhile mentioning
here the two contributions to the vertex $\tilde{\Gamma}\left(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\right)$ in this region.
Recall that from the definition of \eq{tpv} and \eq{b.3.Gammatilde} that:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\Gamma}\left(\,\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\,\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \frac{16\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{N_c}\left(\lambda-\sigma\right)\left(\,\Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{planar}}}\left(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\right)-\frac{2\pi}{N_c^2}\,\,
\Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{nonplanar}}}\left(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\right)\,\right)\label{1.pnp}\end{eqnarray}
From Eqs. (\ref{planartend}) and (\ref{nonplanartend}) the asymptotes $
\left(\lambda-\sigma\right)\Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{planar}}}\left(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\right)$ and
$
\left(\lambda-\sigma\right)\Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{nonplanar}}}\left(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\right)$
in the narrow region where $\lambda\to \sigma$ and $\sigma\to 0$, are the same up to a numerical coefficient.
With this in mind, thanks to the suppression factor of
$2\pi/N_c^2$ in front of $
\Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{nonplanar}}}\left(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\right)$ in \eq{1.pnp},
the contribution of the non-planar diagram to the vertex is parametrically smaller by a factor of $2\pi/N_c^2$ than the planar
diagram, in our region of interest.
Nevertheless for the sake of completeness, the contribution of both diagrams to the vertex are included
in the calculation of $\Sigma\left(\omega,\lambda\right)$.
Now inserting the asymptote of \eq{2.asymptotep} into \eq{5.Sigma} leads to the following result:
\begin{eqnarray}&&\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\lambda\to 0}}}\hspace{0.2cm}
\Sigma\left(\omega,\lambda\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} -2\pi ia^2\,\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0}}}}\hspace{0.2cm}
\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}d\Delta
\,\frac{g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda +\Delta}{2}}\right) g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda -\Delta}{2}}\right)}
{\left(\,\,\omega-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda +\Delta}{2}}\right)-\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda - \Delta}{2}}\right)\,\,\right)}\,\,\left(\,\,\frac{\lambda^2}{ \biggl(\lambda+\Delta\biggr)\biggl(\lambda-\Delta\biggr)}\,\,\right)^2\hspace{1cm}
\label{6.sigma}
\end{eqnarray}
where the numerical coefficient $a$ is given in \eq{definitionap}.
Assuming that the typical value of $\Delta$ is small, then\footnote{Throughout the paper the notation $\lim_{x \to a} f(x)$ is used to denote the asymptotic behaviour of f(x) at $x \to a$. It is not meant in the conventional way as used in analysis} \eq{6.sigma} can be re-cast as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}&&\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\lambda\to 0}}}\hspace{0.2cm}
\Sigma\left(\omega,\lambda\right)\,\,=\,\, -2\pi ia^2\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0}}}}\hspace{0.2cm}
\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty}\!\!d\Delta
\,\frac{g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda +\Delta}{2}}\right) g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda -\Delta}{2}}\right)}
{\omega^{\,\prime\prime}\left( \mathlarger{\frac{\lambda}{2}}\right)\biggl(\Delta-\Delta_+\biggr)\biggl(\Delta-\Delta_-\biggr)}\,\,\left(\,\,\frac{\lambda^2}{\biggl(\lambda+\Delta\biggr)\biggl(\lambda-\Delta\biggr)}\,\,\right)^2\hspace{0.5cm}
\label{7.Sigma}\\
&&
\Delta_\pm\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\mathlarger{\frac{\pm\biggl( \omega-2\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda}{2}}\right)\biggr)^{\mathlarger{\h}}}{\omega^{\,\prime\prime}\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda}{2}}\right)}}
\label{Depm}\end{eqnarray}
After closing the $\Delta$ integration contour over the upper half -plane that encloses the pole at $\Delta=\Delta_+$, and taking the residue in this region, then \eq{7.Sigma}
simplifies to:
\begin{eqnarray}&&\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\lambda\to 0}}}\hspace{0.2cm}
\Sigma\left(\omega,\lambda\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} 4\pi^2 a^2\,\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0}}}}\hspace{0.2cm}
\,\frac{g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda +\Delta_+}{2}}\right) g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda -\Delta_+}{2}}\right)}
{\omega^{\,\prime\prime}\left( \mathlarger{\frac{\lambda}{2}}\right)\biggl(\Delta_+-\Delta_-\biggr)}\,
\,\,\,\left(\,\,\frac{\lambda^2}{\biggl(\lambda +\Delta_+\biggr)\biggl(\lambda-\Delta_+\biggr)}\,\,\right)^2
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm} 2\pi^2 a^2\,\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0}}}}\hspace{0.2cm}
\,\frac{g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda +\Delta_+}{2}}\right) g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda -\Delta_+}{2}}\right)}
{\left(\omega-2\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda}{2}}\right)\Rb^{\mathlarger{\h}}}\,
\,\,\,\left(\,\,\frac{\lambda^2}{\biggl(\lambda +\Delta_+\biggr)\biggl(\lambda-\Delta_+\biggr)}\,\,\right)^2\label{9.Sigma}
\end{eqnarray}
Assuming that $\Delta_+$ is small (i.e. in the region $\omega\to 2\omega\left(\lambda/2\right)$), then as $\lambda\to 0$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\lambda\to 0}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
g\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda +\Delta_+}{2}}\right)\to4\left(\lambda +\Delta_+\right)^2\hspace{3cm}\left(\,\Delta_+\ll 1\,\right)\label{gdl}\end{eqnarray}
where the definition of \eq{gnu} was used, with a similar result for $g\left(\,\,\left(\lambda-\Delta_+\right)/2\,\,\right)$. Hence
in the narrow region that $\omega\to 2\omega\left(\lambda/2\right)$ and $\lambda\to 0$, then \eq{9.Sigma} reduces to:
\begin{eqnarray}&&\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0\\\omega\to 2\omega\left(\lambda/2\right)}}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\Sigma\left(\omega,\lambda\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
32\pi^2 a ^2\,\,\,\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0\\\omega\to2\omega\left(\lambda/2\right)}}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\,\frac{\lambda^4}
{\sqrt{\omega-2\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda}{2}}\right)}}\,\,\,
\hspace{1cm}\label{10.Sigma}\end{eqnarray}
for small $\Delta_+$, as $\omega\to2\omega\left(\lambda/2\right)$.
\subsection{Green function of the dressed Pomeron}
The Green function of the dressed Pomeron can be calculated using \eq{G2G0},
which can be reduced to the following expression
\begin{equation} \label{G2-1}
G_2^{-1}\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,=\, \frac{1}{g(\nu)} \left( \omega \,\,-\,\,\omega\left( \nu\right) \,+\, g\left( \nu\right)
\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right) \right) \,\,\,\xrightarrow{ \lambda \to 0}\,\,-\,4\lambda^2
\left( \omega \,\,-\,\,\omega\left( \nu \right) \,-\, \left( 1/4\lambda^2\right)
\Sigma\left(\omega,\lambda\right)\Rb\end{equation}
The singularities of the Green function stems from the following equation (substituting \eq{10.Sigma}):
\footnote{Throughout the paper the notation $\lim_{x \to a} f(x)$ is used to denote the asymptotic behaviour of f(x) at $x \to a$. It is not meant in the conventional way as used in analysis.
\begin{eqnarray} \label{GFSI}
&&\omega \,\,-\,\,\omega\left( \nu \right) \,-\, \left( 1/4\lambda^2\right)
\Sigma\left(\omega,\lambda\right)\,\,\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} 0\label{1.GFSI}\\
\nonumber\\
\Rightarrow\hspace{0.3cm}&&
\omega \,\,-\,\,\omega\left( \nu \right)\,\,-\,\,
8\pi^2 a ^2\,\,\,\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0\\\omega\to2\omega\left( \lambda /2\right)}}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\,\frac{\lambda^2}
{\sqrt{\omega-2\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda}{2}}\right)}}\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} 0 \label{2.GFSI}\end{eqnarray}
One can see that in the region where $\omega > 2 \omega\left(\frac{\lambda}{2}\right)$, the correction to the pole at $\omega = \omega(\nu)$ is small, and can be neglected.
However when $\omega \to 2 \omega \left(\frac{\lambda}{2}\right)$ this correction becomes large, and
then the dominant contribution in this region
is:
\begin{eqnarray} &&\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0\\\omega\to2\omega\left( \lambda /2\right)}}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
G_2\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0\\\omega\to2\omega\left( \lambda /2\right)}}}}\hspace{0.3cm}\mathlarger{\frac{1}{\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)}}\,\label{2.G2G0}\end{eqnarray}
whereby substituting Eqs. (\ref{9.Sigma}) and (\ref{gdl}):
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0\\\omega\to2\omega\left( \lambda /2\right)}}}}
G_2\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,= \mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0\\\omega\to2\omega\left( \lambda /2\right)}}}}\,\,\left\{
\frac{\sqrt{\omega-2\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda}{2}}\right)}}
{32\pi^2 a^2 \biggl( \lambda+\Delta_+\biggr)^2\biggl(\lambda-\Delta_+\biggr)^2}\,\,\frac{1}{ \left( \mathlarger{\frac{\lambda^2}{ \left(\lambda+\Delta_+\right)\left(\lambda-\Delta_+\right)}}\right)^2}\right\}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\&&
\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\frac{\sqrt{\omega-2\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda}{2}}\right)}}
{32\pi^2 a^2\lambda^4\, }\,\,\hspace{1cm}
\label{3.G2G0}\end{eqnarray}
Since $\Delta_+$ is small in the limit that $\omega\to2\omega\left( \lambda /2\right)$ (see \eq{Depm}) then \eq{3.G2G0} simplifies to the following
asymptotic formula:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0\\\omega\to2\omega\left( \lambda /2\right)}}}}
G_2\left(\omega,\nu\right)\,
\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\lambda\to 0\\\omega\to2\omega\left( \lambda /2\right)}}}}\hspace{0.7cm}
\frac{1}
{32\pi^2 a^2\,\lambda^4}\,\,\sqrt{\omega-2\omega\left(\mathlarger{\frac{\lambda}{2}}\right)}\label{4.G2G0}\end{eqnarray}
\eq{4.G2G0} is the dominant part of the propagator of the dressed Pomeron.
The behaviour of the dressed Pomeron propagator with energy can be seen by transforming to $Y$ representation using the following inverse Mellin transform:
\begin{eqnarray}&&
A^{\mbox{dressed}} \left( Y,\nu \right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\ml{\ml{\int}}^{a+i\infty}_{a-i\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi i}\,e^{\omega\,Y}G_2\left(\omega,\nu\right)\label{DRPOY}\end{eqnarray}
\eq{DRPOY} leads to the amplitude of the exchange of one dressed Pomeron, that grows with energy according to the following
behaviour:
\begin{equation} \label{DRPO}
A^{\mbox{dressed}} \left( Y,\nu\right) \,\,\,\,\,\,\, \propto \,\,\,\,\,\, \frac{1}{Y^{3/2} }\,e^{2 \omega\left(\lambda/2\right)\,Y}
\end{equation}
We believe that we have learned two lessons from this re-summation. The first one is that the enhanced diagrams change the asymptotic behaviour of the scattering amThroughout the paper the notation $\lim_{x \to a} f(x)$ is used to denote the asymptotic behaviour of f(x) at $x \to a$. It is not meant in the conventional way as used in analysis}plitude.
The second is that they contribute in the rather narrow region $
\lambda \to 0$ and $\omega \to 2 \omega(\lambda/2)$.
\begin{boldmath}
\section{High energy asymptotic behaviour of the scattering amplitude}
\end{boldmath}
\subsection{The Pomeron interaction vertices}
The goal of this section is to sum over all enhanced diagrams,
using a method based on
the example of the previous section.
The aim of our technique is to show that the
more general diagrams for the Pomeron self-mass $\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)$ shown in \fig{sigmas}, are equivalent to the
diagram of \fig{Eqsigma} after replacing the Pomeron $1\to 2$ vertex with the $1\to n$ vertex.
From a field theory perspective, when one of the diagrams in \fig{sigmas} is cut, a factor of
$ 1/\left( \omega - \sum_i \omega(\nu_i)\right)$ is included in the expression for $\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)$,
where the sum is over all the Pomerons in the cut, with BFKL kernel $\omega\left(\nu_i\right)$.
In this approach, each cut brings an additional pole in the $\omega$-plane.
$\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)$ can be transformed to $Y$ representation by the inverse Mellin transform:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma\left( Y,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\ml{\ml{\int}}^{a+i\infty}_{a-i\infty}d\omega\, e^{\omega Y}\,\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)\label{invmellin}\end{eqnarray}
Using \eq{invmellin}, the contour of the $\omega$-integral
can be closed over each pole that stems from $ 1/\left( \,\omega - \sum_i \omega(\nu_i)\,\right)$.
The residue from each pole
will lead to the expression for $\Sigma\left( Y,\nu\right)\,\,\propto\,\,\exp \left( \sum_i \omega(\nu_i) Y\right)$ (where $Y$ is the energy variable
for dipole - dipole scattering.)
The largest contribution to $\Sigma\left( Y,\nu\right)$ stems from the pole $1/\left(\,\omega-\sum^n_{i=1}\omega\left(\nu_i\right)\,\right)$ in the $\omega$-plane,
where $n$ is the maximum number of Pomerons, that can be cut in the diagram.
The residue of this pole yields the contribution to $\Sigma\left( Y,\nu\right)$ of the order:
\begin{equation} \label{MAXCONT}
\Sigma_n\left( Y,\nu\right) \,\,\,\propto\,\, V^n \exp\left( \,\, \sum^n_{i=1} \omega(\nu_i)\,Y\,\,\right)\,\,\,\approx\,\,\,a^n e^{n \omega_0 Y}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_0 = 4\bar{\alpha}_s\ln 2$ is the
leading order contribution to the intercept of the BFKL Pomeron, (see the expansion of \eq{OMNU0} and the surrounding discussion).
Based on this observation,
we propose the following method
for calculating the Pomeron self-mass $\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)$, for the general
diagrams of \fig{sigmas}. Consider the diagram, where the maximum number of Pomerons in a cut is $n$.
Then $\Sigma_n\left(\omega,\nu\right)$ is proportional to:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma_n\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}\propto\hspace{0.3cm}\,\left(\,\frac{1}{\omega-\omega\left(\nu_1\right)}\,\right)\,\left(\,\frac{1}{\omega-\omega\left(\nu_1\right)-\omega\left(\nu_2\right)}\,\right)
\,\dots\,\left(\,\frac{1}{\omega-\sum^n_{i=1}\omega\left(\nu_i\right)}\,\right)
\label{cuts}
\end{eqnarray}
where each pole $1/\left(\, \omega-\sum_i \omega\left(\nu_i\right)\,\right)$ stems from a different cut in the diagram. The term
$1/\left(\,\omega-\sum^n_{i=1}\omega\left(\nu_i\right)\,\right)$ comes from the cut, that cuts the maximum number ($n$) Pomerons.
To transform to $Y$ representation, \eq{cuts} should be substituted into \eq{invmellin}. In our approach,
we close the $\omega$-contour around the pole $1/\left(\,\omega-\sum^n_{i=1}\omega\left(\nu_i\right)\,\right)$ (the maximum Pomeron cut).
Then the solution is equal to the residue of this pole, i.e. we replace $\omega\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\sum^n_{i=1}\omega\left(\nu_i\right)$
everywhere in the integrand.
The remaining poles are absorbed in the expression for the $1\to n$ Pomeron vertex, (which we will
derive below).
In this way the diagrams of \fig{sigmas} are equivalent to the diagram shown in \fig{Eqsigma}.
In this approach, $\Sigma_n$ can be calculated according to the following formula (which is shown
graphically in \fig{Eqsigma}):
\begin{equation} \label{EQSI}
\mathlarger{\Sigma}_n\left( \omega, \nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \ml{\ml{\int}}\,
\mathlarger{\prod}_i^n\, \frac{d \nu_i}{2 \pi i}\, \nu_i^2\,\Gamma\left( \nu\,\vert\, \{\nu_i\}\right)\,\, \frac{1}{\omega \,-\,\sum^n_{i=1} \,\omega(\nu_i)}\,\,\Gamma\left( \nu\,\vert\, \{\nu_i\}\right)
\end{equation}
where $\left\{\nu_i\right\}$ denotes $\nu_1,\nu_2,\dots\nu_n$.
This method of calculation, is directly related to the Mueller-Patel-Salam-Iancu approximation,
for calculating the main contribution to the scattering amplitude due to the exchange of BFKL Pomerons \cite{MPSI}.
Strictly speaking, \eq{EQSI} is the $t$-channel unitarity constraint in $(\omega, \nu)$-representation.
\DOUBLEFIGURE[t]{sigmas.eps,width=90mm,height=40mm}{Eqsigma.eps,width=70mm,height=40mm}
{Examples of the diagrams for the Pomeron self-energy $\Sigma$. Dashed lines denote the cut with the maximal number of Pomerons. Wavy lines are used for BFKL Pomerons.
\label{sigmas}}{The graphical representation for the formula of \protect\eq{EQSI},
for the Pomeron self-energy $\Sigma_n$. \label{Eqsigma} }
\FIGURE[h]{\begin{minipage}{160mm}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=vertices.eps,width=150mm}}\end{minipage}
\caption{The diagrams for the multi-Pomeron vertices. Fig. a) shows the simplest $1\to2$ vertex.
Fig. b) and Fig. c) show the $1\to3$ vertices, and Figs. d) - i) show the $1\to 4$ vertices. The dashed lines show the cross sections with different energy ($\omega$) propagators. Wavy lines describe the BFKL Pomerons.
} \label{vertices}}
The diagrams for the $1\to n$ Pomeron vertices are shown in \fig{vertices}. The simplest diagram for the $1 \to 2$ vertex
shown in \fig{vertices} a), was calculated in the previous section in detail.
It is useful to illustrate the main steps of this calculation,
since this approach can be easily generalized to the calculation of the $1\to n$ vertex, for arbitrary $n$.
We draw attention to the formula for the $1\to 2$ vertex given in \eq{tpv}.
Recall that in this formula, $\nu$ is the scaling dimension of the Parent Pomeron, and
$\nu_1,\nu_2$ are the scaling dimensions of the two daughter Pomerons, that are produced at the vertex.
The dominant contribution to the $1\to 2$ vertex
stems from the singular region $i/2 - \nu\,=\, \nu_1 + \nu_2$.
Closing the integration contour around this pole, leads to the conservation relation:
\begin{equation} \label{CONRE}
i/2 - \nu \,=\,\nu_1 + \nu_2\hspace{1cm}\mbox{or}\hspace{1cm}\lambda_{12}\,=\,\lambda_1 \,+\,\lambda_2
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{12}\,=\,i/2-\nu$ and $\lambda_i\,=\,\nu_i\,\,\,(i=1,2)$.
The values of $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ are small, since this leads to the dominant $Y$-dependence of the simple loop of \fig{f1loop}, proportional to
$\exp\left( 2 \omega_0 Y\right)$\footnote{The dominant contribution stems from small
$\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$, which are of the order $ \ln (x^2)/\sqrt{\omega^{\,\prime\prime}(0)\,Y}\,\,\ll\,\,1$, where $x^2$ is the variable, built from the size of the dipole
(see ref.\cite{LMP} for the formula for $x^2$).}. Hence from \eq{CONRE} we can conclude that $\nu \to i/2$, (or in other words $i/2-\nu =\lambda_{12} \to 0$) at the $1\to 2$ vertex.\\
Now we generalize to the notation $\nu_i$ $(i=1,2,\dots, n)$, where $\nu_i$ denotes the scaling dimension of the
$n$ daughter Pomerons, produced from the $1\to n$ vertex. The values of the $\nu_i$'s are small, which leads to
the $Y$-dependence of the diagrams proportional to
$\exp\left( n \omega_0 Y\right)$. At the simplest $1\to 2$ vertex (see \fig{vertices} a) ) where $ \nu_{12}\to\nu_1,\nu_2$,
the conservation law $i/2-\nu_{12}=\nu_1+\nu_2$ holds. Hence for $\nu_1,\nu_2$ small, then $\nu_{12}=i/2$.
At the $1\to 3$ vertex shown for example in \fig{vertices} b) $\nu_{123}\to\nu_{12},\nu_3$, and at the $1\to 4$ vertex shown for example
in \fig{vertices} h),
$\nu_{1234}\to\nu_{12},\nu_{34}$.In general this leads to the conservation rule at large $n$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_{12\dots n}=i\left( n-1\right) /2+\sum^n_{i=1}\lambda_i\hspace{1cm}\lambda_i\ll 1\label{nconre}
\end{eqnarray}
where the scaling dimensions of the produced Pomerons, are denoted by $\lambda_i$, where $ \lambda_i \ll 1$. Here $n$ is the integer number which counts the
number of Pomerons produced in the tree decay, that started with one Pomeron.
Within the general $1 \to n$
vertex diagram, $\nu_{12\dots n}$ is close to $i \left( n - 1\right) /2$.
Note that \fig{vertices} a) contains one vertex, \fig{vertices} b) contains 2 vertices and \fig{vertices} d) contains 3 vertices, such that
one can generalize to the $1\to n$ vertex that contains $n-1$ sets of $1\to 2$ vertices.
The expression for the $1\to 3$ vertex diagrams, as illustrated in \fig{vertices} b) and \fig{vertices} c) can be written as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{V13}&&
\Gamma\left( \nu_{123}\,\vert \,\nu_1,\nu_2,\nu_3\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\\
\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm}
\left\{\,\,\, \frac{ \Gamma\left( \nu_{123}\,\vert\, \nu_{12},\nu_3\right)\,g\left( \nu_{12}\right)\,\Gamma\left( \nu_{12}\,\vert\, \nu_1,\nu_2\right)
}{\omega \,\,-\,\,\omega(\nu_{12} )\,\,-\,\,\omega(\nu_3)} \,\hspace{0.3cm}+\hspace{0.3cm}
\frac{\Gamma\left( \nu_{123}\,\vert \,\nu_{23},\nu_1\right)\,g\left( \nu_{23}\right)\, \,\Gamma\left( \nu_{23}\,\vert\, \nu_2,\nu_3\right)
}{\omega \,\,-\,\,\omega(\nu_{23} )\,\,-\,\,\omega(\nu_1)}\right\}_{\omega =\sum^3_{i=1}\omega(\nu_i) }
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
In \eq{V13}, $\omega=\sum^3_{i=1}\omega\left(\nu_i\right)$ because we are taking the residue of the $\omega$-plane pole $1/\left(\omega-\sum^3_{i=1}\omega\left(\nu_i\right)\Rb$,
which comes from the cut in the diagrams of \fig{vertices} (b) and \fig{vertices} (c), that cuts all 3 Pomerons. \eq{V13} can be
be written as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{V131}
&\Gamma\left( \nu_{123}\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2,\nu_3\right)\,\,=\,\,\,
\Gamma\left( \nu_{123}\,\vert\, \nu_{12},\nu_3\right)\,\hat{\Gamma}\left( \nu_{12}\,\vert \,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)
\,\,\,+\,\,
\Gamma\left( \nu_{123}\,\vert\, \nu_{23},\nu_1\right) \,\hat{\Gamma}\left( \nu_{23}\,\vert\, \nu_2,\nu_3\right)
\end{eqnarray}
where the following definition was introduced:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hat{\Gamma}\left(\nu_{12}\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{g\left(\nu_{12}\right)\Gamma\left(\nu_{12}\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)}{\omega\left(\nu_1\right) +\omega\left(\nu_2\right)-\omega\left(\nu_{12}\right)}\,\label{1.V132}
\end{eqnarray}
\FIGURE[h]{\begin{minipage}{140mm}{
\centerline{\epsfig{file=verteq1.eps,width=120mm}}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The graphic form of the equation for $\hat{\Gamma}$, given in \eq{EQVN}
} \label{vertices1}}
with a similar definition for $\hat{\Gamma}\left(\nu_{23}\,\vert\,\nu_2,\nu_3\right)$. The equation for the vertex where 1 Pomeron $\to\,\,\, n$ Pomerons is shown in \fig{vertices1}.
The equation for the vertex takes the following form:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{EQVN}
&&\hat{\Gamma}\left( n, \lambda\,\vert\,\{\lambda_i=\nu_i\}\right) \,\,\,=\,\,\,\sum^{n-1}_{j=1}\hat{\Gamma}\left( n-1,\lambda\,\vert\,\{\lambda_{i}\}, \lambda_j \right) \, \hat{\Gamma}\left( 2,\lambda_j\,\vert\, \lambda_{i},\lambda_{k}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\Gamma}\left( 2,\lambda_{i k}\,\vert\,\lambda_i,\lambda_k\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} g \left(\lambda_{i k}\right)\frac{\Gamma\left(\lambda_{i k}\,\vert\,\lambda_i,\lambda_k\,\right)}{\omega\left(\lambda_{i k}\right) -\omega\left(\lambda_i\right)-\omega\left(\lambda_k\right)}\label{diff1}
\end{eqnarray}
This equation tells us, that the emission of one extra Pomeron (shown by a zigzag line in \fig{fWI}),
can be reduced to the emission of one extra Pomeron from the produced $(n-1)$ daughter Pomerons.
Diagrams where the extra Pomeron is emitted elsewhere in the decay tree, cancel.
Indeed, the vertex for one Pomeron emission $\Gamma\left( 2, \lambda|\nu_i, \nu_k\right)$ can be re-written in the form
\begin{equation} \label{WI1}
\Gamma\left( 2, \lambda_{i k}|\lambda_i, \lambda_k\right)\,\,\,=\,\,\hat{\Gamma}\left( 2, \lambda_{i k} |\lambda_i ,\lambda_k\right)\,\Big\{\,\,G^{-1}\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(1)}\right)\,\,-\,\,G^{-1}\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(2)}\right)\,\,\Big\}
\end{equation}
where, using the example of \fig{fWI} - B:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& G^{-1}\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(1)}\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\omega-\Sigma^{(1)}\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\omega-\omega\left(\lambda_{012}\right)-\omega\left(\lambda_3\right)\label{Sigma(1)}\label{SI1}\\
\nonumber\\
&& G^{-1}\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(2)}\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\omega-\Sigma^{(2)}\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\omega-\omega\left(\lambda_0\right)-\omega\left(\lambda_{12}\right)-\omega\left(\lambda_3\right)\label{Sigma(2)}\label{SI2}
\end{eqnarray}
Using this Ward identity we can show, that thanks to the cancellations of the diagrams, (as shown by the example of \fig{fWI}),
the emission of the extra Pomeron occurs only from the produced $(n - 1)$ daughter Pomerons in the final state.
Diagrams where the extra Pomeron is produced from intermediate Pomerons in the decay tree, cancel. In \fig{fWI} we show the use of the Ward identity
when calculating the $1 \to 4$ vertex, in terms of the $1 \to 3$ vertex.
The blob in \fig{fWI} is used to denote the product of two vertices $\hat{\Gamma}(1\to 2)\,\hat{\Gamma}(1\to 2)$ without any $G(\omega,\nu_{ik})$ between them. After summing all of the diagrams in \fig{fWI}-A,\fig{fWI}-B and
\fig{fWI}-C, one can see that $\hat{\Gamma}(4,\lambda | \nu_1,\nu_2,\nu_3, \nu_4)\,\,=\,\,\sum_{i=1}^3\hat{ \Gamma}\left( 3,\lambda | \lambda_{ik},\nu_l,\nu_j\right) \hat{\Gamma}\left( 2 ,\lambda_{ik} | \nu_i, \nu_k \right)
$ where $i \neq k \neq l \neq j$.
\FIGURE[h]{\begin{minipage}{140mm}{
\centerline{\epsfig{file=PomLoopwi.eps,width=120mm}}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The illustration of the Ward identity of \protect{\eq{WI1}}. The extra emitted Pomeron is denoted by the zigzag line.
} \label{fWI}}
After this general outline of the calculation using \eq{WI1}, we calculate the example of $\Gamma\left( 1 \to 4\right)$ in more detail.
Each diagram of \fig{fWI} can be written as a product of three $\hat{\Gamma}\left( 2, \lambda_{i k}|\lambda_i, \lambda_k\right)$ terms. Since
$\hat{\Gamma}\left( 2, \lambda_{i k}|\lambda_i, \lambda_k\right)\,\propto \lambda_{i k}/(\lambda_i \lambda_k)$ (see \eq{GA1} below), one can see that this product turns out to be
the same for each of the diagrams in Fig.10. Having this in mind, and using \eq{WI1} we have for the diagram of \fig{fWI}-B
\begin{eqnarray} \label{WI2}
\mbox{Fig. 10 - B}& \rightarrow &\hat{\Gamma}\left( 4, \lambda| \lambda_0,\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3\right)\,=\,\hat{\Gamma}\left( 2,\lambda | \lambda_{012},\lambda_3\right) \hat{\Gamma}\left( \lambda_{012} | \lambda_{12}, \lambda_0\right) \hat{\Gamma}\left( \lambda_{12} | \lambda_{1}, \lambda_2\right)\nonumber\\
&\times& G\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(2)}\right) \Big \{\,\,
G^{-1}\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(1)}\right)\,\,-\,\,G^{-1}\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(2)}\right)\,\,\Big\} G\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(1)}\right)\,\,
G^{-1}\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(1)}\right)\nonumber\\
&=& \prod^3_{i=1} \hat{\Gamma}_i \Big\{ G\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(2)}\right)\,G^{-1}\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(1)}\right)\,-\,\,1\Big\}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\prod^3_{i=1} \hat{\Gamma}_i$ is used to denote the product of corresponding $\hat{\Gamma}$ terms, since it does not depend on the diagram.
The first term in \eq{WI2} describes the emission from the produced Pomerons and has the same structure as the diagram of \fig{fWI}-A at $\omega = \sum^3_{i=0} \omega\left( \lambda_i\right)$. Indeed, $\hat{\Gamma}$ for this diagram has the form
\begin{eqnarray} \label{WI3}
\mbox{Fig. 10 - A}& \rightarrow &\hat{\Gamma}\left( 4, \lambda| \lambda_0,\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3\right)\,=\,\hat{\Gamma}\left( 2,\lambda | \lambda_{012},\lambda_3\right) \hat{\Gamma}\left( \lambda_{012} | \lambda_{02}, \lambda_1\right) \hat{\Gamma}\left( \lambda_{02} | \lambda_{0}, \lambda_2\right)\nonumber\\
&\times& G\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(2)}\right)\,\Big( - \omega\left( \lambda_{0 1 2} \right) + \omega\left( \lambda_{1}\right) + \omega\left(\lambda_{02}\right)\Big)
\frac{1}{ \omega - \omega\left( \lambda_{0 1 2} \right) - \omega\left( \lambda_3\right)} G^{-1}\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(1)}\right)\nonumber\\
&\xrightarrow{ \omega = \sum^3_{i=0} \omega\left( \lambda_i\right)}& \prod^3_{i=1} \hat{\Gamma}_i
G\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(2)}\right)\,G^{-1}\left( \omega, \Sigma^{(1)}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
The difference between \eq{WI3} and the first term in \eq{WI2} is in the expression for $\Sigma^{(2)}$ which is equal to $\Sigma^{(2)}\,=\,\omega\left( \lambda_1\right) + \omega\left( \lambda_{02}\right) + \omega\left( \lambda_3\right)$ instead of \eq{SI2}.
The second term in \eq{WI2} cancels with the diagram of \fig{fWI}-C. This diagram is actually equal to sum of the two terms shown in \fig{vertices}-h and \fig{vertices}-i. This sum is equal to the following expression.
\begin{eqnarray} \label{WI}
\mbox{Fig. 10 - c}& \rightarrow &\hat{\Gamma}\left( 4, \lambda| \lambda_0,\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3\right)\,=
\prod^3_{i=1} \hat{\Gamma}_i \frac{1}{ \omega \,-\,\omega\left(\lambda_{12}\right) - \omega\left( \lambda_{03}\right)}\nonumber\\
& \times&
\left\{\left( \omega\left( \lambda_{0} \right) + \omega\left( \lambda_3\right) - \omega\left( \lambda_{03}\right)\Rb \frac{ \omega\left( \lambda_0\right) + \omega\left( \lambda_3\right) - \omega\left( \lambda_{03}\right)}
{\omega - \omega\left( \lambda_{03}\right) - \omega\left( \lambda_1\right) - \omega\left( \lambda_2\right)}\right.\,\nonumber\\
&+&\,\left.
\left( \omega\left( \lambda_{1} \right) + \omega\left( \lambda_2\right) - \omega\left( \lambda_{12}\right)\Rb \frac{ \omega\left( \lambda_1\right) + \omega\left( \lambda_2\right) - \omega\left( \lambda_{12}\right)}
{\omega - \omega\left( \lambda_{12}\right) - \omega\left( \lambda_0\right) - \omega\left( \lambda_3\right)}\right\} \nonumber\\
&\xrightarrow{ \omega = \sum^3_{i=0} \omega\left( \lambda_i\right)}&\,\,\,\, \prod^3_{i=1} \hat{\Gamma}_i
\end{eqnarray}
Summarizing we see that \eq{WI1} leads to the cancellation of the emission of the Pomeron from the internal lines in the diagram. Such cancellations are analogous to the cancellation in gauge theories since \eq{WI1} is similar to the Ward identity in these theories.
As discussed above, at the $1\to 2$ vertex, the conservation rule $i/2-\nu_j=\nu_i+\nu_k\,\, ( \lambda_{i k} = \lambda_i + \lambda_k)$ (see \eq{CONRE} and
the surrounding discussion). We are interested in
the region where $\nu_i$ and $\nu_k$ are small, since this leads to the $Y$-dependence of the diagrams proportional to $\exp\left( n\omega_0 Y\right)$, which is the dominant
contribution. Thus the relevant region is $i/2-\nu_j\to 0$.
Substituting for $\Gamma\left(\nu_j\,\vert\,\nu_i,\nu_k\,\right)$ the formula of \eq{tpv}, then \eq{diff1} becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}&&\hat{\Gamma}\left( 2,\nu_j\,\vert\,\nu_i,\nu_k\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{16\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{N_c}\,\,\,\,g\left(\nu_j\right)\,\,\,\,\frac{\left(\Gamma_{\footnotesize{\mbox{planar}}}\left(\nu_j\,\vert\,\nu_i,\nu_k\,\right) - \mathlarger{\frac{2\pi}{N_c^2}}
\Gamma_{\footnotesize{\mbox{nonplanar}}}\left(\nu_j\,\vert\,\nu_i,\nu_k\,\right)\Rb}{\omega(\nu_j)\,-\,\omega(\nu_i)\,-\,\omega(\nu_k)}
\label{diff2}
\end{eqnarray}
Now to calculate the residue of $\hat{\Gamma}\left( 2,\nu_j\,\vert\,\nu_i,\nu_k\right)$ in our region of interest, namely
$i/2-\nu_j-\nu_i-\nu_k\to 0$ when $\nu_i,\nu_k\to 0$,
simply substitute into \eq{diff2} the asymptotic formulae for $\Gamma_{\footnotesize{\mbox{planar}}}$ and $\Gamma_{\footnotesize{\mbox{nonplanar}}}$
derived in Eqs. (\ref{planartend}) and (\ref{nonplanartend}). Note that in this region, as $i/2-\nu_j\to\nu_i+\nu_k\to 0$ the denominator of \eq{diff2} tends to
$ \omega(\nu_j)\,-\,\omega(\nu_i)\,-\,\omega(\nu_k)\to\bar{\alpha}_s/\left( \frac{1}{2}+i\nu_j\right)$ (see definition of \eq{bfkl} ) and $g\left(\nu_j\right)\to -\left( \frac{1}{2}+i\nu_j\right)^{-2}/4$ (see definition \eq{gnu}).
With this in mind, overall \eq{diff2} in this region reads:
\begin{eqnarray}&&\lim_{\substack{i/2-\nu_j-\nu_i-\nu_k\to 0\\\nu_i,\nu_k\to 0}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\hat{\Gamma}\left( 2,\nu_j\,\vert\,\nu_i,\nu_k\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \lim_{\substack{i/2-\nu_j-\nu_i-\nu_k\to 0\\\nu_i,\nu_k\to 0}}\,b\,\frac{\left( \frac{1}{2}+i\nu_j\right)}{\nu_i\nu_k}\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm}\lim_{\nu_i,\nu_k\to 0}\hspace{0.3cm}
b\,\frac{\,\left( \nu_i+\nu_k\right)}{\nu_i\nu_k}\ \label{GA1}\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&b\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \frac{-a}{4\bar{\alpha}_s}\label{definitionb}
\end{eqnarray}
where the constant $a$ is defined in \eq{definitionap}. Now
\eq{EQVN} is the equation for the BFKL Pomeron fan diagram.
Fan diagrams
can be summed using the generating functional technique that has been developed in $\left( Y, \zeta\right)$ representation\footnote{$\zeta$ is conjugate variable to $\nu$ (see more details below)} (see ref. \cite{GENFUN} for details).
For the generating functional, we can write the linear equation in terms of functional derivatives,
which reflects the fact that the Pomeron can decay into two Pomerons. In the dipole model,
this decay can be written as the decay of one dipole to two dipoles.
\eq{EQVN} simplifies this functional equation to a recursive formula.
Two simplification rules are essential for our approach:
(i) the most singular part of the triple Pomeron vertex has a much simpler form in $\nu$ representation,
than the BFKL kernel in coordinate representation, and (ii) the loop correction to the vertex can be neglected at high energies
(see ref. \cite{MPSI} for a full explanation).
\eq{EQVN} can be viewed as an equation in time (rapidity).
Indeed, \eq{EQVN} states that the process of $n$-Pomeron production can be considered to be the production of $n-1$ Pomerons at time $t$,
and the later decay of one of the produced Pomerons into two, at time $t+\delta t$ ($\delta t \ll 1$),
as shown in \fig{vertices1}. Using \eq{GA1} we can rewrite \eq{EQVN} in the following form:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{EQVN1}
&&\hat{\Gamma}\left( n, \lambda\,\vert\,\{\nu_i\}\right) \hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} b \,\sum^{n-1}_{j=1}\hat{\Gamma}\left( n-1,\lambda\,\vert\,\{\nu_i\}, \nu_j \right)\,
\left(\,\frac{\nu_{i}+\nu_{k}}{\nu_{i}\,\nu_{k}}\,\right)\\
\nonumber\\
&& i\neq j\neq k\neq l\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where on the LHS of \eq{EQVN1} the notation $\{\nu_i\}=\nu_1,\nu_2,\dots\nu_n$, whereas on the RHS the notation $\{\nu_i\}=\nu_1,\nu_2,\dots\nu_n;\,\,\,\nu_i\neq \nu_j$.
In this approach
\eq{EQVN1} yields the following solution:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{SOL1}
&&\hat{\Gamma}\left( n, \lambda\,\vert\,\{\nu_i\}\right)\,\,\,=\,\,\,\,\lambda \,\left( n-1\right)!\,\prod^n_{i=1}\,\Phi\left( \nu_i\right)
\,\,\,\,\,\mbox{with}\,\,\,\,\,\,\Phi\left( \nu_i\right)\,\,=\,\frac{b}{\nu_i}
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to check that this solution satisfies both the recursive equation (see \eq{EQVN1}) and the initial condition of \eq{GA1}.
\subsection{Green function of the resulting BFKL Pomeron}
Using the formula of \eq{SOL1} for the vertices, we can calculate $\Sigma_n\left( \omega,\nu\right)$ from \eq{EQSI} as:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Sigma_n\left( \omega, \nu\,=\,i(n - 1)/2 + \lambda\right)\,\,\,\,=\,\,\,\bar{\alpha}_s^2\,\left( -1\right)^n b^{2n}\frac{ (n-1)!}{n}\,\frac{1}{g(\nu)}\,\ml{\ml{\int}}\, \prod_i^n \frac{d \nu_i}{2 \pi i} \,\delta\left( \lambda \,-\, \sum^n_i \nu_i\right)\,
\frac{1}{\omega \,-\,\sum^n_i \omega_i(\nu_i)}
\hspace{1cm}\label{EQSI1}\end{eqnarray}
The explanation behind the factor in front in \eq{EQSI1}, is as follows.
The vertices that enter into \eq{EQSI1}, are equal to $\hat{\Gamma}$ after multiplying by a factor of $
\left(\omega\left(\nu\right)-\omega\left(\nu_1\right)-\omega\left(\nu_2\right)\Rb/g(\nu)$ (see the definition of \eq{diff1}). In the region where $\lambda=i/2-\nu\to 0$, this factor reduces to the asymptote
$\bar{\alpha}_s /\left( \lambda\,g(\nu)\right)$ for large $n$.
The factor of $
(-1)^n (n - 1)!/n$ that appears in \eq{EQSI1} has the following meaning:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{MNG}
(-1)^n (n - 1)!/n\,\,&=&\,\, (-1)^{n-1} \,\mbox{\{ $(-1)$ for each Pomeron loop\}}\,\times\,(n-1)!^2 \,\mbox{\{ from \eq{SOL1} \}}\nonumber\\
&\times&\,\,\frac{1}{n!} \,\mbox{\{ from the identity of the Pomerons\}}\,\times (-1)\,\mbox{\{ from definition of $\Sigma$\}}\end{eqnarray}
We do not need to integrate over the entire phase space in $\nu_i$, due to the identity of Pomerons.
It is enough to integrate within the region $\nu_n \,> \,\nu_{n-1}\,>\,\dots
\,>\,\nu_i\,\dots\,>\nu_1$. As one can see, in this region all of the Pomerons have different $
\nu$'s, and can be considered to be different particles. This region covers the $1/n!$ part of the entire phase space in $\nu$.
Further summation turns out to be simpler in $Y$ and $\ln \zeta = \ln xx^*$ representation, where $Y$ is the rapidity of the dipole-dipole scattering, while
\begin{eqnarray}
\zeta\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} x x^*\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \frac{r^2 R^2}{\left( \vec{b} + \frac{1}{2}(\vec{r} - \vec{R})\right)^2\,\left(\vec{b} - \frac{1}{2}(\vec{r} - \vec{R})\right)^2}\label{definitionzeta}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vec{b}$ is the impact parameter of the dipole-dipole scattering, and $\vec{r}$ and $\vec{R}$ are the sizes of the two dipoles. Using these variables, $\Sigma_n\left( Y, \zeta\right)$
can be calculated using the following transform:
\begin{equation}\label{SIYX}
\Sigma_n\left( Y,\zeta\right) \,\,=\,\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^{a + i \infty}_{a - i \infty}\frac{d \omega}{2\pi i} \,e^{\omega Y}\,
\ml{\ml{\int}}^{i a^{\,\prime} + \infty}_{ia^{\,\prime} -\infty}\frac{d \nu }{2\pi } \,e^{i \nu \ln\zeta}\,\,\Sigma_n\left( \omega, \nu\right)
\end{equation}
First we switch to $Y$ representation using the following inverse Mellin transform:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma_n\left( Y, \nu\right) \,\,&=&\,\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^{a + i \infty}_{a - i \infty}\frac{d \omega}{2\pi i} e^{\omega Y} \Sigma_n\left( \omega,\nu\right)\,\,=\,\,\bar{\alpha}_s^2\,
(-1)^n\,b^{2n}\frac{ (n-1)!}{n}\,\frac{1}{g(\nu)}\,\ml{\ml{\int}} \prod_i^n \frac{ d \nu_i}{2 \pi i}\,e^{\omega(\nu_i)\,Y} \,\delta\left( \lambda \,-\, \sum^n_i \nu_i\right)
\label{SIYNU}
\hspace{1cm}\end{eqnarray}
Then we switch to $\zeta$ representation using the following approach:
\begin{eqnarray}&&
\Sigma_n\left( Y, \zeta\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \ml{\ml{\int}}^{i a^{\,\prime} + \infty}_{ia^{\,\prime} - \infty}\frac{d \nu }{2\pi } \,e^{i \nu \ln\zeta}\,\,\Sigma_n\left( Y, \nu\right)\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm} \bar{\alpha}_s^2\, (-1)^nb^{2n}\,\frac{ (n-1)!}{n}\,\frac{1}{g(\nu)} \ml{\ml{\int}}^{i a^{\,\prime} + \infty}_{ia^{\,\prime} - \infty}\frac{d \nu }{2\pi } \,e^{i \nu \ln\zeta}
\ml{\ml{\int}} \prod_i^n \frac{ d \nu_i}{2 \pi i}\,e^{\omega(\nu_i)\,Y} \,\delta\left( \lambda \,-\, \sum^n_i \nu_i\right)\label{lwit}
\end{eqnarray}
As we have discussed generally speaking $\nu \,=\,\nu_n \,-\, \lambda$\footnote{We recall that $\lambda = \ln \zeta/\bar{\alpha}_s Y \,\ll\,1$}. However, the value of
$\nu_n$ turns out to be different from $(n-1)!$ in general, for various different $1\to n$ vertex diagrams. In Table 1
we give the examples for $1\to n$ vertex diagrams, up to $n=6$.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|| c | c| c| c| c| c||}
\hline
$\nu_n{\Big/}\Gamma$ & $1 \to 2$ & $1 \to 3$ & $1 \to 4$& $1 \to 5$& $1 \to 6$\\
\hline
i & 0 & 0& 0& 4 & 0 \\
\hline
i/2 & 1& 0 & 4& 0 & 80\\
\hline
0 & 0 & 2&0 & 16& 0 \\
\hline
-i/2& 0 &0&2 & 4& 40 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The number diagram for the values of $\nu_n$ for diffrent vetices $\Gamma$.}
\end{table}
Unfortunately, we have not
derived the general rules for how to calculate the value of $\nu_n$ for the $1\to n$ vertex.
We consider two models for such numbers: (i) each $1\to n$ vertex has $\nu_n=0$, and (ii)
each $1\to n$ vertex has $\nu_n = i (n - 1)/2$.
The first model gives the sum of the leading twist contribution $\zeta^{i \nu} \to 1$,
while the second model sums over all high twists $\zeta^{i \nu} \to \zeta^{-n/2}$.
We believe that considering these two models for finding the value of $\nu_n$, provides the largest possible contributions.
This belief is based on the following simple examples. As can be seen from \eq{lwit}, we are summing an asymptotic series of the form:
\begin{equation} \label{sum}
\sum^\infty_{n=0} (- 1)^n\, C_n\, L^n
\end{equation}
where $L$ is a large parameter. Our first model means that for the leading twist contribution, we choose $\nu_n=0$ in all $n!$-diagrams.
This leads to $C_n \propto n!$. In the exact approach, the number of diagrams with $\nu_n=0$ is less than $n!$.
However, the largest sum corresponds to $C_n = n!$. One can see this by setting $C_n=1$ and $C_n = 1/n!$ in \eq{sum}.
The same occurs in the second model, which we believe leads to the maximal sum of the highest twist contributions.
\subsection{Summing high twists}
Recall that $\nu\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} i (n-1)/2+\lambda \approx i(n-1)/2$ at large $n$\footnote{We recall that $\lambda = \ln \zeta/\bar{\alpha}_s Y \,\ll\,1$}, such that after switching to the integration variable $\lambda$, then \eq{lwit} can be written as:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\Sigma_n\left( Y, \zeta\right)\,\,=\,\,\zeta^{(1-n)/2}\,\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{4}\,(n-1)^2\,b^{2n}\,(-1)^{n-1}\,\frac{(n-1)!}{n}\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^{ia^{\,\prime}+\infty}_{ia^{\,\prime}-\infty} \frac{d \lambda}{2\pi }
\,e^{i \lambda \ln \zeta}\,\ml{\ml{\int}} \prod_{i=1}^n \frac{ d \nu_i}{2 \pi i}\,e^{\omega(\nu_i)\,Y} \,\delta\left( \lambda \,-\, \sum^n_i \nu_i\right)\nonumber\\
&&= \, \,\zeta^{(1-n)/2}\,\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{4}\,(n-1)^2\,b^{2n}\,(-1)^{n-1}\,\frac{(n-1)!}{n}\,\ml{\ml{\int}}
\prod^n_{i=1}\frac{ d \nu_i}{2 \pi i}\,\,
\, e^{\omega(\nu_i) \,Y + i\,\nu_i \ln \zeta} \label{SIYNUa}
\end{eqnarray}
where we took the integral over $\lambda$ using the $\delta$-function. Using \eq{OMNU0}
we can solve the integral over $\nu_i$ explicitly, using the method of steepest descents.
In this approach \eq{SIYNUa} simplifies to:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{SIYNU1}
&&\Sigma_n\left( Y,\zeta\right) \hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\zeta^{(1-n)/2}\,\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{4}\,\, b^{2n}\,(-1)^{n-1}\,\frac{(n-1)^2}{n}(n-1)!\,
\, \left( \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{ D Y}}\,e^{\omega(0)Y - \ln^2\zeta/(4 D Y)}\right)^n \\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm}
\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{4}\,\sqrt{\zeta}\, \,\, (-1)^{n-1}\,\frac{(n-1)^2}{n}\,\Gamma\left( n \right) \,L^{n}\,\label{SIYNU2}\\
\nonumber\\
\mbox{where}\hspace{0.5cm}
&&L\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} b^2\,\, \sqrt{\frac{\pi\, }{D\,Y\zeta }} \,\exp\left( \omega(0)\,Y\,\,-\,\,\frac{\ln^2 \zeta}{4\,D\,Y} \right)
\label{L}\end{eqnarray}
Using the integral representation for the Euler-Gamma function (see formula {\bf 8.310(1)} of ref. \cite{GR}):
\begin{equation} \label{GAM}
\Gamma\left( n + 1\right) \,=\,\int^\infty_0 \,t^{n}\,e^{-\,t}\,d t
;
\end{equation}
and since we are summing from $n=2$, (since the first $1\to n$ vertex in the sum is the
$1\to 2$ vertex), we obtain the following result for $\Sigma\left( Y,\zeta\right)$:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{SIGMASUM}&&
\Sigma\left( Y,\zeta \right) \hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\,\sum_{n =2}^\infty\, \Sigma_n\left( Y, \zeta \right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}-\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{4}\,\sqrt{\zeta}\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_0 e^{-t}\,\frac{d t}{t}\,\sum^\infty_{n=2}\,\,\frac{(n-1)^2}{n}\left( - t L\right)^n \nonumber \\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm}\,\,-\,\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{4}\,\,\sqrt{\zeta}\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_0 \,\frac{d t}{t} \,e^{- t}\,\left\{ \frac{Lt + 2(Lt)^2 - \ln( 1 + Lt)
- 2 Lt \ln(1 + Lt) - (Lt)^2 \ln(1 + Lt)}{(1 + Lt)^2}\,\right\}\nonumber
\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm}\,\,-\,\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{4}\,\,\sqrt{\zeta}\, \,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_0 \,\frac{d T}{T} \,e^{- T/L}\, \frac{T + 2T^2 - \ln( 1 + T)
- 2 T \ln(1 + T) - T^2 \ln(1 + T)}{(1 + T)^2}\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm}\,\,\,\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{4}\,\,\sqrt{\zeta}\,\Sigma\left( L \right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $T = L t$.
For large $L$ we find that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{LALBE}
\Sigma\left( L\right)\,\,
&\xrightarrow{L \gg 1} &\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_0 \,\frac{d T}{T} e^{-T/L}\left( 2 - \ln T+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\ln T}{T}\right)\Rb\,\,\,\approx\,\,\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^L_0 \,\frac{d T}{T} \left( - \ln T\right)\,\,=\,\,-\,(\ln L)^2/2
\end{eqnarray}
Inserting \eq{LALBE} into \eq{SIGMASUM},
using the definition for $L$ given in \eq{L}, we see that at large $Y$ and in terms of $\ln \zeta$, then $\Sigma\left( Y,\zeta\right)$ tends to the following simple formula:
\begin{equation} \label{SIGMAAS}
\Sigma\left( Y,\zeta\right) \,\,\,=\,\,\,\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{8}\,\,\sqrt{\zeta}\, \left(\, \omega_0 Y \,-\,\frac{\ln^2\zeta}{4 D Y} \,-\,\frac{1}{2} \ln Y\,-
\frac{1}{2}\ln\zeta\,+\,\ln \left( b^2 \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{ D}}\right)\Rb^2
\end{equation}
Using the following formula to transform to $\left(\,\omega,\nu\,\right)$ representation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma\left(\omega,\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_0 d\zeta\,\zeta^{\,-1-i\nu }\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_0dY \,e^{-\omega Y}\Sigma\left( Y,\zeta\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty} d\ln\zeta\,e^{\, -i\nu\,\ln \zeta}\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_0dY \,e^{-\omega Y}\Sigma\left( Y,\zeta\right)\label{followingtransform}\end{eqnarray}
Note that \eq{followingtransform} is the double Mellin transform from $\left( Y,\zeta\right)$ to $\left(\omega,\nu\right)$ representation.
This corresponds to the inverse-Mellin transform of \eq{SIYX} which
was used to transform from $\left( \omega,\nu\right)$ to $\left( Y,\zeta\right)$ representation.
Then inserting \eq{SIGMAAS} into \eq{followingtransform}
for large $Y$, leads to the following equation for $\Sigma\left( \omega, \nu\right)$:
\begin{equation} \label{SIGASON}
\Sigma\left( \omega, \nu\right)\,\,\xrightarrow{\omega \to 0}\,\,\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{8}\,\,\frac{1}{\left( i\nu\,+\, \mathlarger{\h} \right)}\,\frac{\left( 2\,\omega^2_0
\,\,+\,\,\omega_0\, \omega\,\ln \omega\,\,+\,\,\,\mathcal{O}\left(\omega^2\right)
\,\right)}{\omega^3}
\end{equation}
where the last term $\mathcal{O}\left(\omega^2\right)$, labels small terms proportional to $\omega^2$. In reality, due to the $\omega^3$ term in the denominator of \eq{SIGASON},
then overall this $\mathcal{O}\left(\omega^2\right)$ term, leads to terms which are singular in powers of just $1/\omega$, and hence smaller than the singular terms by powers of $1/\omega^2$ and $1/\omega^3$
that come before. The Green function of the dressed Pomeron reads:
\begin{equation} \label{GDP1}
G\left( \omega, \nu\right)\,\,=\,\,\frac{1}{\omega - \omega\left( \nu \right) + \Sigma\left( \omega,\nu\right)}\,\,=\,\,\frac{1}{\omega - \omega\left( \nu\right) \,+\,\mathlarger{\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{8}\,\,\frac{1}{\left( i\nu + \mathlarger{\h} \right)}\,\left(\frac{2\,\omega^2_0}{\omega^3}\,\,+\,\,\,\omega_0\, \frac{\ln \omega}{\omega^2}\right)}
}
\end{equation}
For small $\omega$ and $\nu$, we can neglect the contribution from $G_0^{-1}\left( \omega,\nu\right) = \omega - \omega\left( \nu\right)$. Therefore, in this limit the Green function of the
dressed Pomeron is given by the following formula:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{0GDP2}
G\left( \omega, \nu\right)&&\,\, \xrightarrow{\omega \to 0}\,\,\frac{\mathlarger{\frac{8}{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}\,\frac{\omega^3}{\omega_0}}\,\left( \mathlarger{\h} +i\nu \right)}{\left(\,2\, \omega_0
+\,\,\omega\,\ln \omega \,\right)}\\
\nonumber\\
&&\,\,\xrightarrow{\omega \to 0}\,\,\frac{4}{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}\frac{\omega^3}{\omega^2_0}\,\,\left( i\nu + \frac{1}{2}\right)\label{GDP2}\end{eqnarray}
where in \eq{GDP2} the second term in the denominator of \eq{0GDP2} is neglected in the limit that $\omega\to 0$.
One can see that \eq{GDP2} leads to the function that has no singularity at $\omega \to 0$ and therefore, the
corresponding imaginary part of the scattering amplitude vanishes.
To gain a better understanding, keeping the second term in the denominator of \eq{0GDP2} yields:
\begin{equation}
\label{GDP3}
G\left( \omega, \nu\right)\,\,=\,\frac{4}{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}\frac{\omega^3}{\omega_0^2}\,\,\left(\frac{1}{2} + i\nu \right)\,\left( 1 \,\,-\,\,\frac{\omega\,\ln\omega}{2\omega_0}\right)
\,\,=\,\,G^{(1)}\left( \omega, \nu\right)\,\,+\,\,G^{(2)}\left( \omega, \nu\right)
\end{equation}
Passing to ($Y,\zeta$)-representation we see that the asymptotic behaviour of the Pomeron Green function
is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{ASBE0}
G\left( Y, \zeta\right)\hspace{0.3cm}&&=\hspace{0.3cm}\ml{\ml{\int}} ^{ia^{\,\prime} +\infty}_{i a^{\,\prime}-\infty}\frac{d\nu}{2\pi}\,e^{\,i\nu\ln \zeta}\ml{\ml{\int}}^{a+i\infty}_{a-i\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi i}\,e^{\,\omega Y}
\,G\left( \omega, \nu\right) \,\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm}\,\ml{\ml{\int}} ^{ia^{\,\prime} +\infty}_{i a^{\,\prime}-\infty}\frac{d\nu}{2\pi}\,e^{\,i\nu\ln \zeta}\ml{\ml{\int}}^{a+i\infty}_{a-i\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi i}\,e^{\,\omega Y}
\,G^{(2)}\left( \omega, \nu\right) \nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm}-\,\frac{2}{\bar{\alpha}_s^2\,\omega^3_0}\,\,\left( \mathlarger{\h} + \frac{\partial}{\partial\ln\zeta} \right)\,\delta\left( \ln \zeta\right)
\ml{\ml{\int}}^{\infty}_{0}\,d \omega\, e^{\,\,\omega Y}\,\,\omega^4 \ln \omega\end{eqnarray}
Closing the contour of integration on the real negative $\omega$-axis, we have:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{ASBE}
G\left( Y, \zeta\right)\hspace{0.3cm}&&=\hspace{0.3cm}
\,
\,\frac{2}{\bar{\alpha}_s^2\,\omega^3_0}\,\,\left( \mathlarger{\h} + \frac{\partial}{\partial\ln\zeta} \right)\,\delta\left( \ln \zeta\right)
\ml{\ml{\int}}^{\infty}_{0}\,d \omega\, e^{\,-\,\omega Y}\,\,\omega^4 \,\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm} \,\,\,\,\,\,\frac{2}{\bar{\alpha}_s^2\,\omega^2_0}\,\,\left( \mathlarger{\h} + \frac{\partial}{\partial\ln\zeta} \right)\,\delta\left( \ln \zeta\right)\,\frac{4!}{Y^5}
\end{eqnarray}
From \eq{ASBE} its clear
that the Green function leads to the cross section that decreases as $1/Y^5$, and the character of this asymptotic
behaviour depends on $\zeta$. The factor that depends on $\zeta$, in front of \eq{ASBE},
indicates that the main contribution turns out to be a leading twist contribution.\\
This decrease at ultra high energies is
the most salient result of this paper.
It is well known that the Pomeron calculus in zero transverse dimensions, leads to the Green function of the Pomeron that decreases with energy, (see refs. \cite{AAJ,ALMC,CLR,CI,BOMU}).
However, in our case the decrease of the cross section is only logarithmic, whereas in the Pomeron calculus in zero transverse dimensions, the cross section falls exponentially at large $Y$.
Therefore, we claim that the BFKL evolution of the sizes of the interacting dipoles, do not lead to a new qualitative effect.
However, it is interesting that the character of the asymptotic behaviour, crucially depends on the size of the interacting dipole.
\subsection{Summing the leading twist contribution}
In the previous subsection we demonstrated that summing the contribution of high twists, leads to
the solution which appears to be the leading twist contribution. Therefore, it seems reasonably possible to derive the leading twist contribution.
We will do this assuming that $\nu_n = 0$ for every odd $n$ (see Table I). Recalling that $ g(\nu)\to 16\nu^2$ as $\nu \to 0$, and using the formula $\nu=\nu_n-\lambda$ then
we can re-write \eq{lwit} in the form
\begin{eqnarray}&&
\Sigma_n\left( Y, \zeta\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \ml{\ml{\int}}^{i a^{\,\prime} + \infty}_{ia^{\,\prime} - \infty}\frac{d \lambda }{2\pi } \,e^{i \lambda \ln\zeta}\,\,\Sigma_n\left( Y, \lambda\right)\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm} \bar{\alpha}_s^2\, (-1)^nb^{2n}\,\frac{ (n-1)!}{n}\ \ml{\ml{\int}}^{i a^{\,\prime} + \infty}_{ia^{\,\prime} - \infty}\frac{d \lambda }{2\pi } \,\frac{1}{16 \,\lambda^2 }\,e^{i \lambda \ln\zeta}
\ml{\ml{\int}} \prod_i^n \frac{ d \nu_i}{2 \pi i}\,e^{\omega(\nu_i)\,Y} \,\delta\left( \lambda \,-\, \sum^n_i \nu_i\right)\label{ltwit}
\end{eqnarray}
Using the following representation for the $\delta $- function, namely,
\begin{equation} \label{DELFU}
\delta\left( \lambda \,-\,\sum^n_{i=1} \nu_i\right)\,\,=\,\,\frac{1}{2 \pi} \ml{\ml{\int}}^{ \infty}_{- \infty} \,d \mu\,e^{i \mu\,\left( \lambda \,-\,\sum^n_{i=1} \nu_i\right) }
\end{equation}
and integrating over $\lambda$ by closing the integration contour around the double pole at $\lambda = 0$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray} \label{LT1}&&
\Sigma_n\left( Y, \zeta\right) \hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \frac{ \bar{\alpha}_s^2}{16}\, (-1)^n\,b^{2n}\,\frac{ (n-1)!}{n}\,\,\frac{1}{2 \pi} \ml{\ml{\int}}^{ \infty}_{- \infty} \,d \mu\, \left( i \ln \zeta + i \mu\right)
\prod^n_{i=1} \ml{\ml{\int}} \frac{ d \nu_i}{2 \pi i}\,e^{- i \nu_i\,\mu\,\,+\, \,\omega(\nu_i)\,Y } \nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
Integrating over $\nu_i$ using the method of steepest descents, we have:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{0.LT2}
&&\Sigma_n\left( Y, \zeta\right) \hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{ \bar{\alpha}_s^2}{16}\, (-1)^nb^{2n}\,\frac{ (n-1)!}{n}\,\,\frac{1}{2 \pi} \ml{\ml{\int}}^{\infty}_{- \infty} \,d \mu\, \left( i \ln \zeta + i \mu\right) \left(
\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{ D\,Y}}\,\exp\left( \omega_0 Y \,\,-\,\,\mathlarger{\frac{\mu^2}{4 D Y}}\right)\Rb^n \end{eqnarray}
Finally after solving the $\mu$ integral, using the result that $\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{-\infty} dx \exp\left( -ax^2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \sqrt{\pi/a}$ yields:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Sigma_n\left( Y, \zeta\right) \hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{16}\,\ln \zeta\, (-1)^n\,\,\frac{ (n-1)!}{n}\sqrt{\frac{D\,Y}{\pi\, n}}\,L^n\label{0.LTL}\\
\nonumber\\
&&
L\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} b^2\,\, \sqrt{\frac{\pi\, }{D\,Y }} \,e^{ \omega(0)\,Y} \label{LTL}
\end{eqnarray}
Using \eq{GAM} we can re-write \eq{LTL} in the form
\begin{eqnarray} \label{LT3}
\Sigma\left( Y, \zeta\right) & \hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}& \frac{ \bar{\alpha}_s^2}{16}\,\sqrt{\frac{D\,Y}{\pi}}\,\ln \zeta\,\sum^\infty_{n=2}\,(-1)^n\,\,\frac{ (n-1)!}{n^{3/2}}\,\,L^n \,\nonumber\\
&=&\,\,\frac{ \bar{\alpha}_s^2}{16}\,\sqrt{\frac{D\,Y}{\pi}}\,\ln \zeta\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{0} d t \,e^{-t} \sum^\infty_{n=2}\,(-1)^n\,\,\frac{ L^n t^{n-1}}{n^{3/2}}\,\, \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{16}\,\sqrt{\frac{D\,Y}{\pi}}\,\ln \zeta\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{0} \frac{d t }{t}\,e^{-t} \,\Big( L t \,\,+\,\,Li_{3/2}\left( - L t\right)\Big) \end{eqnarray}
For properties of the Polylogarithm function see Ref.\cite{LI}.
Since we assumed that $\nu_n=0$ occurs only at odd $n$, we can extract this from the sum of \eq{LT3},
by subtracting from it the function where $L \to -L$. In this approach, finally we arrive at the expression:
\begin{eqnarray}&&
\Sigma\left( Y, \zeta \right) \hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \frac{ \bar{\alpha}_s^2}{16}\,\sqrt{\frac{D\,Y}{\pi}}\,\ln \zeta\,\left(\, 2 L\,+\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_{0}
\frac{d T}{T}\,\exp\left( -T/L\right)\,\left( \,Li_{3/2}\left( - T\right) \,\,-\,\,\,Li_{3/2}\left( T\right)\Rb\,\right)\,\,\label{LT4}\\
\nonumber\\
&&=\,\,\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{16}\,\sqrt{\frac{D\,Y}{\pi}}\,\ln \zeta\,\Sigma\left( L \right)\label{LT4b}\end{eqnarray}
where $T= L t$. Since the asymptotic behaviour of the Polylogarithm function $Li_s(-T) $ is known, namely
\begin{equation} \label{ASLI}
Li_s\left( - T\right) \,\,\xrightarrow{ T \gg 1}\,\,-\frac{\ln^{s}\left( T\right)}{\Gamma(1 + s)} \,
\end{equation}
Then with this in mind, the integral of \eq{LT4} is expected to lead to the following result:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{LT4a}&&
\Sigma\left( L\right)\he2 L + \ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_0\frac{d T}{T} \,\exp\left(-T/L\right)\,\left( \,Li_{3/2}\left( - T\right) \,\,-\,\,\,Li_{3/2}\left( T\right)\Rb\,\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\xrightarrow{L \gg 1}\,2 L - \ml{\ml{\int}}^\infty_0\frac{d T}{T} \,\exp\left(-T/L\right) \,\frac{\left( \ln T\right)^{3/2}}{\Gamma(5/2)}\,\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\&&
=\hspace{0.3cm} 2 L \,\,-\,\,\,\frac{2}{5}\frac{\left( \ln L\right)^{5/2}}{\Gamma(5/2)}\,
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore at large $Y$, after inserting \eq{LT4a} into \eq{LT4b}, yields the following high energy behavior for
$ \Sigma\left( Y, \zeta \right)$:
\begin{equation}\label{LT5}
\Sigma\left( Y, \zeta \right) \hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{16}\,\,\ln \zeta\,\left(\, 2
b^2
e^{\omega_0 Y}\,\,-\,\,\frac{1}{\Gamma\left( 7/2\right)}\sqrt{\frac{DY}{\pi}}\left(\,\, \omega_0 Y - \frac{1}{2} \ln Y +\ln\left( b^2\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{D}}\right)\,\,\right)^{5/2}\,\right)
\end{equation}
Using the formula of \eq{followingtransform} to switch to $\left(\omega,\nu\right)$ representation, by approximating the second term in \eq{LT5}
at $Y$ as $\sqrt{\mathlarger{\frac{DY}{\pi}}}\left( \omega_0 Y - \mathlarger{\h} \ln Y +\ln\left( b^2\sqrt{\mathlarger{\frac{\pi}{D}}}\right)\Rb^{5/2}\approx
\mathlarger{\sqrt{\frac{D}{\pi}}}\left( \omega_0^{5/2}Y^3-\mathlarger{\frac{5}{4}}\ln Y\omega_0^{3/2}Y^2+\mathcal{O}\left( Y\right)\Rb$, leads to the formula:
\begin{equation}\label{LT6}
\Sigma\left( \omega, \nu\right)\,\, \hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \,\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{16}\,\,\frac{1}{\nu^2}\,\left(\,- \frac{2b^2}{\omega \,-\,\omega_0}\,+\,\frac{1}{\Gamma\left( 7/2\right) }
\sqrt{\frac{D}{\pi}}\left( 6\frac{\omega_0^{5/2}}{\omega^4} \,\,+\,\,\frac{5}{2}\frac{\omega_0^{3/2}}{\omega^3}\,\left( \ln \omega\,\,+\,\,{\cal O}(\mbox{Const})\right)\,\right)\,\right)
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{O}\left(\mbox{Const}\right)$ denotes constant terms that do not depend on $\omega$.
Plugging \eq{LT6} into the formula for the dressed Pomeron propagator $G_2\left( \omega,\nu\right)$, defined in \eq{1.G2},
then one arrives at the following expression:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{LT7}
&&G_2\left( \omega, \nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{1}{\omega - \omega\left( \nu \right) + \Sigma\left( \omega,\nu\right)}\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{1}{\omega - \omega\left( \nu\right) \,+\,\,\mathlarger{\frac{ \bar{\alpha}_s^2}{16}}\,
\,\mathlarger{\frac{1}{\nu^2}}\,\mathlarger{\left(\, -\frac{2b^2}{\omega \,-\,\omega_0}\,+\,\frac{1}{\Gamma\left( 7/2\right) }
\mathlarger{\sqrt{\frac{D}{\pi}}}\,\left( 6\frac{\omega_0^{5/2}}{\omega^4} \,\,+\,\,\frac{5}{2}\frac{\omega_0^{3/2}}{\omega^3}\, \ln \omega\,\right)\,\right) } }\label{LT7a}\end{eqnarray}
From inspection of Eqs. (\ref{LT6}) and (\ref{LT7}), then $\omega \to \omega_0$ leads to the asymptote $G_2\left( \omega, \nu\right)\,\propto\,\omega - \omega_0$
and therefore, this region does not contribute to the cross section due to the absence of singularities in the region $\omega = \omega_0$.
In the limit that $\omega \to 0$, \eq{LT7a} tends to the following limit (where the third term in the denominator of \eq{LT7a} dominates in this region):
\begin{eqnarray}
G_2\left( \omega, \nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}
&&\xrightarrow{\omega\,\to\,0}\hspace{0.3cm} \frac{1}{\,\,\mathlarger{\frac{ \bar{\alpha}_s^2}{16}}\,
\,\mathlarger{\frac{1}{\nu^2}}\,\mathlarger{\left(\, \,\frac{1}{\Gamma\left( 7/2\right) }
\mathlarger{\sqrt{\frac{D}{\pi}}}\,\left( 6\frac{\omega_0^{5/2}}{\omega^4} \,\,+\,\,\frac{5}{2}\frac{\omega_0^{3/2}}{\omega^3}\, \ln \omega\,\right)\,\right) } }
\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{16 \,\nu^2}{\bar{\alpha}_s^2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{D}}\,\Gamma\left(\frac{7}{2}\right) \,\frac{\omega^4}{6 \omega_0^{5/2}}\,\left( 1\,\,-\,\,\frac{5}{12}\,\frac{\omega}{\omega_0}\,\ln \omega\,+\,
\mathcal{O}\left( \omega^2\ln^2\omega\right)\Rb
\hspace{1cm}\label{LT7b}\end{eqnarray}
The first term in brackets in \eq{LT7b} leads to $G_2\left( \omega, \nu\right)\,\propto\,\omega^4$,
which also does not contribute to the total cross section, thanks to the absence of any singularities in this region.
Hence it follows that the first contribution stems from the second term in \eq{LT7b},
which
leads to the contribution to $G_2\left( \omega ,\nu\right)$ equal to:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&G_2\left(\omega,\nu\right)
\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} -\frac{25\pi\nu^2}{12\,D^{\frac{1}{2}}\bar{\alpha}_s^2} \,\, \,\frac{\omega^5}{\omega_0^{7/2}}\,\,\ln \omega\,\label{LT7c}\end{eqnarray}
where in passing from \eq{LT7b} to \eq{LT7c} the fact that $\Gamma\left( 7/2\right)\,=\,15\pi^{1/2}/8$ was used. Finally
passing to ($Y,\zeta$)-representation we see that the asymptotic behaviour of the Pomeron Green function
is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{LT8}&&
G_2\left( Y, \zeta\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\ml{\ml{\int}} ^{ia^{\,\prime} +\infty}_{i a^{\,\prime}-\infty}\frac{d\nu}{2\pi}\,e^{\,i\nu\ln \zeta}\ml{\ml{\int}}^{a+i\infty}_{a-i\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi i}\,e^{\,\omega Y}
\,G_2\left( \omega, \nu\right) \,\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{25\pi}{12\,D^{\frac{1}{2}}\bar{\alpha}_s^2\,\omega_0^{7/2}} \,\,
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\ln\zeta^2}\,\delta\left( \ln \zeta \right)\,\frac{1}{Y^6}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence its clear from \eq{LT8} that the summation of the leading twist contribution, leads to the same qualitative result, namely that the Pomeron Green function
vanishes at large $Y$, but only logarithmically.
This style of decrease is steep enough to provide the final answer, without the need for further re-summation.
It should be mentioned that in spite of the decreasing behavior of the amplitude with energy, at large values of $b$ the integral over the
impact parameter turns out to be divergent, indicating that the problem of the large $b$-dependence
cannot not be cured by summing enhanced diagrams.
Moreover, this problem needs new ideas from non-perturbative QCD, in order to find a solution.
\section{Conclusions}
This paper describes the technique developed to find the sum of enhanced diagrams ( Pomeron loops), in the dipole-dipole scattering process.
In conclusion we would like to mention
two main features of the result. The first one, that the cross section and/or the Green function of the dressed BFKL Pomeron falls down with energy. The second result,
is that
the asymptotic behaviour depends crucially on the size of the colliding dipoles, and the impact parameter of the collision.
We wish also to draw the attention of our reader, to two selection rules which are essential for our approach to the summation of
the enhanced diagrams. First, we restrict ourselves to the contribution to the triple BFKL Pomeron vertex (see \eq{tpv}), that is singular in the region
$i/2-\nu-\nu_1-\nu_2\to 0$, for small $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$,
since this part of the vertex generates the most singular contribution, leading to a larger result than the other parts of the vertex.
Second, we neglected the contribution from Pomeron loops to the dressed vertices. This assumption
is equivalent to the Mueller-Patel-Salam-Iancu approximation \cite{MPSI}, formulated in the $s$-channel of the reaction.
Therefore, we sum the Pomeron loop diagrams, but using the above mentioned specific assumption
about Pomeron vertices. It should be stressed that the Mueller-Patel-Salam-Iancu approximation, as well as our approximation,
selects the diagrams with the most essential increase with energy, and therefore, it can be used in our approach.
As we have discussed in the introduction, we cannot prove the BFKL Pomeron calculus, based only on the triple Pomeron vertices. Moreover, we personally
have an argument stating, that it is necessary to introduce the four BFKL Pomeron vertex \cite{KLP}.
The fact that we obtained the total cross section that decreases with energy,
stands as a reminder
of the constant cross section obtained, only after taking into account the four Pomeron vertex, in $1+1$ dimensional Pomeron calculus. However, we would like to stress that in our case, there is only a logarithmic decrease, which is steep enough to
claim that the summation of the enhanced diagram provides the solution to the problem.
As we have mentioned in the introduction, using the BFKL Pomeron calculus in the form of \eq{BFKLFI}, we neglected both the vertices of transition of one
Pomeron to more than two Pomerons, as well as the contribution of the multi -gluon states in the next-to-leading $1/N_c$ order (see \fig{mpom}).
\FIGURE[h]{\begin{minipage}{140mm}{
\centerline{\epsfig{file=EndiMP.eps,width=120mm}}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The vertex of one Pomeron to three Pomerons (\fig{mpom}-a); the contribution of the multi-Pomeron states (\fig{mpom}-b)
and the first correction to the two Pomerons state (\fig{mpom}-c). The wavy lines denote the Green function of the dressed Pomeron.}
\label{mpom}}
In \fig{mpom} the wavy lines denote the dressed Pomeron Green function ($G$),
which is proportional to $Y^{-5}$ or to $Y^{-6}$ depending on the model.
Therefore, the contribution of the diagram of \fig{mpom}-a is equal to
\begin{eqnarray} \label{V13}
A_{13}\, \,&\propto&\,\int d Y'\,\Gamma\left( 1\to 3\right) G\left( Y - Y'\right)\,G^3\left( Y'\right)\\
& \rightarrow&\,\Gamma\left( 1 \to 3\right) \int d Y' \left( Y - Y'\right)^{-5}\,Y'^{-15} \propto \Gamma\left( 1 \to 3\right) Y^{-5} \propto G\left( Y\right)\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
One can see that the new vertex $ \Gamma\left( 1 \to 3\right)$ led to the renormalization of the coupling of the Pomeron with the dipole, that is included in \eq{BFKLFI} in the term $S_E$. In other words, the new vertex did not change the BFKL Pomeron calculus.
The multi-gluon state, i.e. 2$n$-gluons in the $t$ channel, generates a larger intercept, than
the intercept that the corresponding number ($n$) Pomerons would generate. As shown in Ref. \cite{MPOM},
the new intercept can be calculated by summing the Pomeron exchanges, with the new vertex of the interaction of two Pomerons (see \fig{mpom}-b).
The contribution of the first diagram shown in \fig{mpom}-c is equal to
\begin{eqnarray} \label{V22}
A_{22}\,& \propto & \,\int d Y'\,\Gamma\left( 2 \to 2\right) G^2\left( Y - Y'\right)\,G^2\left( Y'\right)\\
& \rightarrow&\,\Gamma\left( 2 \to 2\right) \int d Y' \left( Y - Y' \right)^{-10}\,Y'^{-10} \propto \Gamma\left( 2\to 2\right) Y^{-10} \propto G^2\left( Y\right)\,\ll\,G\left( Y\right)\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the contribution of the multi -Pomeron exchanges with the interaction between them leads to small, negligible contributions.
In light of this, we conclude that the correction to the BFKL Pomeron calculus cannot change the fact that the total cross section falls at high energy.
Of course, we have discussed only those multi-gluon states in the $t$ - channel,
where each pair of gluons is in a colourless state. These states have been discussed in Ref.\cite{MPOM}. As far as we know, this is the only known example
of the source of the intercept, which is larger than the intercept of the exchange of several Pomerons. Unfortunately, we do not know
about the situation with the exchange of more general $n$-gluon states, which could make the BFKL Pomeron calculus incorrect in the $1/N_c$ approximation.However, the examples of such states have not been found ( see Ref.
\cite{KOKOMA}).
We would like to recall, that the final re-summation was applied in the case of two extreme models, for the $\nu$ dependence of the 1 Pomeron $\to$ $n$ Pomerons transition
vertices. The answer to this problem, is the next challenging problem which we hope to resolve
in the near future.
Nevertheless, we believe that the problem addressed in this paper, is the first to be solved in order
to start a theoretical discussion on what could happen with the dilute-dilute system of scattering, at high energy.
Observing the substantial difference between the Pomeron self-energy and its Green function,
we conclude that the quantum effects due to the BFKL Pomeron interaction, change the character of the asymptotic behaviour.
Since these effects are so strong,
they have to be taken into account for dilute-dense and dense-dense scattering, at ultra high energies.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This research was supported by the Funda\c{c}$\tilde{a}$o para ci$\acute{e}$ncia e a tecnologia (FCT),
and CENTRA - Instituto Superior T$\acute{e}$cnico (IST), Lisbon and by the Fondecyt (Chile) grant 1100648.
One of us (JM) would like to thank Tel Aviv University for their hospitality on this visit,
during the time of the writing of this paper.
\renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\begin{boldmath}
\section{Appendix A - The BFKL kernel and the triple Pomeron vertex} \label{seca}
\end{boldmath}
The BFKL kernel $\omega\left(\nu\right)$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\omega\left(\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\bar{\alpha}_s\chi\left(\nu\right)\,;\hspace{3cm}\,\left(\,\bar{\alpha}_s\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{\alpha_s N_c}{\pi}\,\right)\label{bfkl}\\
\nonumber\\
&&\chi\left(\nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\Re\left(\psi\left( 1\right)-\psi\left( \frac{1}{2}+i\nu\right)\Rb\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}2\psi\left( 1\right)-\psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\nu\right)-\psi\left(\frac{1}{2}-i\nu\right)\label{chi}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\psi\left( x\right)$ is the Di-Gamma function, defined as \cite{GR}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi\left( x\right)\hspace{0.3cm}&&=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{d}{dx}\ln \Gamma\left( x\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}-\,\gamma_E-\sum^\infty_{k=0}\left( \frac{1}{x+k}-\frac{1}{1+k}\right)\label{psi}\end{eqnarray}
In the vicinity of $\nu \to 0$, the BFKL kernel takes the following form
\begin{equation} \label{OMNU0}
\omega\left( \nu\right)\hspace{0.3cm}= \,\,\,\,4\bar{\alpha}_s\,\ln 2-14\bar{\alpha}_s\zeta\left( 3\right) \nu^2\,\,=\,\, \omega\left( 0\right) \,\,-\,\,D \nu^2\,\,\equiv\,\,\omega_0\,\,-\,\,D \nu^2
\end{equation}
{\bf \large The planar vertex}
The triple Pomeron vertex $\Gamma\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)$ was defined above in \eq{tpv},
in terms of two contributing diagrams, namely the planar and non-planar diagrams shown in \fig{fvertex}.
The expression for the planar diagram given in \eq{planar}, contained the function
$\Omega\left(\nu\vert\nu_1,\nu_2\right)$, which is given by the following integral (for a detailed explanation and derivation of these results, see
Ref. \cite{1.Korchemsky:1997fy}):
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Omega\left(\nu\vert\nu_1,\nu_2\right)=\!\!\int\frac{d^2z_0d^2z_1d^2z_2}{\mid z_{01}z_{12}z_{20}\mid^2}\!\!
\left(\frac{z_{01}}{z_0z_1} \frac{\bar{z_{01}}}{\bar{z}_0\bar{z}_1}\right)^{\!\mathlarger{\h}+i\nu}\!\!
\!\left(\frac{z_{12}}{\left( 1-z_1\right)\left( 1-z_2\right)}\!\frac{\bar{z}_{12}}{\left( 1-\bar{z}_1\right)\left( 1-\bar{z}_2\right)}\right)^{\!\mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_1}\!\!\!
\biggl( z_{20}\bar{z}_{20}\biggr)^{\!\mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_2}\hspace{0.9cm}\label{2.Omega}\end{eqnarray}
The integrations of \eq{2.Omega} were evaluated in \cite{1.Korchemsky:1997fy}, where the following results were derived.
Note that in the original paper of ref. \cite{1.Korchemsky:1997fy}, the symmetric property $\Omega\left(\nu_1\,\vert\,\nu_2,\nu_3\right)\,=\,
\Omega\left(\nu_3\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\,=\,\Omega\left(\nu_2\,\vert\,\nu_3,\nu_1\right)$ was derived. We have used this
symmetric property, and hence the version of the function $\Omega$ written below is based on a different permutation of arguments and differs from the version
given in ref. \cite{1.Korchemsky:1997fy}.
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Omega\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\Omega_1\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)
\hspace{0.3cm}+\hspace{0.3cm}\Omega_2\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm} +\hspace{0.3cm}
\Omega_3\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\label{thesumofomegas}\\
\nonumber\\
&&\Omega_1\left(\nu\,\vert\, \nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\pi^3\,\,\frac{\Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_1+i\nu_2-i\nu\biggr)}{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1-i\nu_2+i\nu\biggr)}\,\,
\frac{\Gamma^2\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1\biggr)\Gamma^2\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_2\biggr)}{\Gamma^2\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu\biggr)}\label{om1nu}\\
&&\times\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^1_0 dx\left( 1-x\right)^{-\mathlarger{\frac{1}{2}}-i\nu}\,\,_2F_1\left( \frac{1}{2}+i\nu_1,\frac{1}{2}-i\nu_1\begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix} x\right)\,_2F_1\left( \frac{1}{2}+i\nu_2,\frac{1}{2}-i\nu_2 \begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix}x\right)\nonumber\\
&&\times\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^1_0 dy \,y^{-\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu}\left( 1-y\right)^{-\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1-i\nu_2+i\nu}\,\,_2F_1\biggl( \frac{1}{2}-i\nu_1,\frac{1}{2}-i\nu_1 \begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix} y\biggr)\,_2F_1\biggl( \frac{1}{2}-i\nu_2,\frac{1}{2}-i\nu_2
\begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix} y\biggr)\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&&\Omega_2\left(\nu\,\vert\, \nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\pi^3\,\,\frac{\Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_1+i\nu_2-i\nu\biggr)}{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1-i\nu_2+i\nu\biggr)}\,\,
\frac{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}+i\nu\biggr)\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu\biggr)\Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1\biggr)\Gamma^2\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_2\biggr)}
{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_1\biggr)}\hspace{1cm}\label{om2nu}\\
\nonumber\\&&\times\,\underline{\,_4F_3\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_2,\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_2,\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu,\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu\begin{vmatrix} 1,1+i\nu_1-i\nu,1-i\nu_1-i\nu\end{vmatrix} 1\biggr)}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3cm}\Gamma\biggl(1+i\nu_1-i\nu\biggr)\Gamma\biggl(1-i\nu_1-i\nu\biggr)\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\times\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^1_0 dx\,\left( 1-x\right)^{-\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1-i\nu_2+i\nu}\,\,_2F_1\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1,\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1\begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix}x\biggr)\,_2F_1\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_2,\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_2 \begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix} x \biggr)\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&&\Omega_3\left(\nu\,\vert\, \nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\Omega_2\left( \nu\,\vert\,\nu_2,\nu_1\right)\hspace{0.5cm}\label{om3nu}\end{eqnarray}
Using the following identity for the Hyper-geometric function (see Ref.\cite{GR} formula {\bf 9.100})
\begin{eqnarray}
\,_2F_1\left(\,a,b\,\begin{vmatrix}c\end{vmatrix}x\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\left( 1-x\right)^{c-a-b}\,_2F_1\left( c-a,c-b\begin{vmatrix}c\end{vmatrix}x\right)\label{1.2F1}
\end{eqnarray}
then the factor $\,_2F_1\left(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1,\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1\begin{vmatrix}1\end{vmatrix}x\right)
\,_2F_1\left(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_2,\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_2\begin{vmatrix}1\end{vmatrix}x\right)$ that appears in Eqs. (\ref{om1nu}) and (\ref{om2nu}) may be re-written, such that:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Omega_1\left(\nu\,\vert\, \nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\pi^3\,\,\frac{\Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_1+i\nu_2-i\nu\biggr)}{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1-i\nu_2+i\nu\biggr)}\,\,
\frac{\Gamma^2\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1\biggr)\Gamma^2\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_2\biggr)}{\Gamma^2\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu\biggr)}\label{1.om1nu}\\
&&\times\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^1_0 dx\left( 1-x\right)^{-\mathlarger{\frac{1}{2}}-i\nu}\,\,_2F_1\left( \frac{1}{2}+i\nu_1,\frac{1}{2}-i\nu_1\begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix} x\right)\,_2F_1\left( \frac{1}{2}+i\nu_2,\frac{1}{2}-i\nu_2 \begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix}x\right)\nonumber\\
&&\times\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^1_0 dy \,y^{-\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu}\left( 1-y\right)^{-\mathlarger{\h} + i\nu_1+ i\nu_2+i\nu}\,\,_2F_1\biggl( \frac{1}{2} + i\nu_1,\frac{1}{2} + i\nu_1 \begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix} y\biggr)
\,_2F_1\biggl( \frac{1}{2} + i\nu_2,\frac{1}{2} + i\nu_2
\begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix} y\biggr)\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&&\Omega_2\left(\nu\,\vert\, \nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\pi^3\,\,\frac{\Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_1+i\nu_2-i\nu\biggr)}{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1-i\nu_2+i\nu\biggr)}\,\,
\frac{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}+i\nu\biggr)\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu\biggr)\Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1\biggr)\Gamma^2\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_2\biggr)}
{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_1\biggr)}\hspace{1cm}\label{1.om2nu}\\
\nonumber\\&&\times\,\underline{\,_4F_3\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_2,\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_2,\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu,\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu\begin{vmatrix} 1,1+i\nu_1-i\nu,1-i\nu_1-i\nu\end{vmatrix} 1\biggr)}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3cm}\Gamma\biggl(1+i\nu_1-i\nu\biggr)\Gamma\biggl(1-i\nu_1-i\nu\biggr)\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\times\,\ml{\ml{\int}}^1_0 dx\,\left( 1-x\right)^{-\mathlarger{\h} + i\nu_1+ i\nu_2+i\nu}\,\,_2F_1\biggl( \mathlarger{\h} + i\nu_1,\mathlarger{\h} + i\nu_1\begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix}x\biggr)
\,_2F_1\biggl( \mathlarger{\h} +i\nu_2,\mathlarger{\h} +i\nu_2 \begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix} x \biggr)\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&&\Omega_3\left(\nu\,\vert\, \nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\Omega_2\left( \nu\,\vert\,\nu_2,\nu_1\right)\hspace{0.5cm}\label{1.om3nu}\end{eqnarray}
Using the following expansions for the Hyper-geometric functions (see Ref.\cite{GR} formulae {\bf 9.100} and {\bf 9.14}):
\begin{eqnarray}&&
\,_2F_1\left( a,b\,\begin{vmatrix} c\end{vmatrix} x\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\frac{\Gamma\left( c\right)}{\Gamma\left( a\right)\Gamma\left( b\right)}\sum^\infty_{n=0} \frac{\Gamma\left( a+n\right)\Gamma\left( b+n\right)}{\Gamma\left( c+n\right)}\frac{x^n}{n!}\label{2.2F1}\\
\nonumber\\
&&
\,_4F_3\left( a,b,c,d\,\begin{vmatrix} f,g,h\end{vmatrix} x\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\frac{\Gamma\left( f\right) \Gamma\left( g\right) \Gamma\left( h\right)}{\Gamma\left( a\right)\Gamma\left( b\right) \Gamma\left( c\right)\Gamma\left( d\right)}
\sum^\infty_{n=0} \frac{\Gamma\left( a+n\right)\Gamma\left( b+n\right) \Gamma\left( c+n\right)\Gamma\left( d+n\right)}{\Gamma\left( f+n\right) \Gamma\left( g+n\right) \Gamma\left( h+n\right)}\frac{x^n}{n!}
\hspace{1.5cm}
\label{4F3}
\end{eqnarray}
Then Eqs. (\ref{1.om1nu} - \ref{1.om3nu}) can be re-cast in the following form:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Omega_1\left(\nu\,\vert\, \nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\pi^3\,\,\frac{\Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h} +i\nu_1+i\nu_2-i\nu\biggr)}{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1-i\nu_2+i\nu\biggr)}\,\,\frac{\Gamma\left(\mathlarger{\h} -i\nu_1\right)\Gamma\left(\mathlarger{\h} -i\nu_2\right)}{\Gamma^2\left(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu\right)
\Gamma^3\left(\mathlarger{\h} + i\nu_1\right)
\Gamma^3\left( \mathlarger{\h} +i\nu_2\right)}\label{2.om1nu}\\
\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&&\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\sum}}^\infty_{m,n=0}\,\,\Gamma\left(\mathlarger{\h} +i\nu_1+m\right)\Gamma\left(\mathlarger{\h} -i\nu_1 + m\right) \Gamma\left(\mathlarger{\h} +i\nu_2+n\right)\Gamma\left(\mathlarger{\h} -i\nu_2 + n\right)\,\,\,
\frac{B\left( m+n+1 \,\vert\,\mathlarger{\h} -i\nu\right)}{\Gamma^2\biggl( 1+m\biggr)\Gamma^2\biggl( 1+n\biggr) }\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\sum}}^\infty_{p,r=0}\,\,\Gamma^2\left(\mathlarger{\h} + i\nu_1+p\right)\Gamma^2\left(\mathlarger{\h} + i\nu_2 + r\right)\,\,
\frac{B\left( \mathlarger{\h} - i\nu + p + r\,\vert\,\mathlarger{\h} + i\nu + i\nu_1 +i\nu_2 \right)}{\Gamma^2\biggl( 1+p\biggr)\Gamma^2\biggl( 1+r\biggr) }\,\,\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Omega_2\left(\nu\,\vert\, \nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\pi^3\,\,\frac{\Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h} +i\nu_1+i\nu_2-i\nu\biggr)}{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1-i\nu_2+i\nu\biggr)}\,\,\frac{\Gamma\left(\mathlarger{\h} +i\nu\right)\Gamma\left(\mathlarger{\h} -i\nu_1\right)
\Gamma\left(\mathlarger{\h} -i\nu_2\right)}{\Gamma\left(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu\right)
\Gamma^3\left(\mathlarger{\h} + i\nu_1\right)
\Gamma^3\left( \mathlarger{\h} +i\nu_2\right)}\label{2.om2nu}\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\&&\times\hspace{0.3cm}\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\sum^\infty_{p=0}}}\,\,\,
\frac{\Gamma\left(\mathlarger{\h} +i\nu_2 +p\right)\Gamma\left(\mathlarger{\h} - i\nu_2 +p\right)\Gamma^2\left(\mathlarger{\h}-i\nu +p\right)}{\Gamma\biggl( 1-i\nu +i\nu_1+p\biggr)\Gamma\biggl( 1-i\nu -i\nu_1+p\biggr)}\frac{1}{\Gamma^2\biggl( 1+p\biggr)}\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\times\,\hspace{0.3cm}
\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\sum^\infty_{m,n=0}}}\,\,\,\Gamma^2\left(\mathlarger{\h} + i\nu_1 +m\right) \Gamma^2\left(\mathlarger{\h} + i\nu_2 + n\right) \frac{
B\left( 1+m+n\,\vert\,
\mathlarger{\h} +i\nu + i\nu_1 + i\nu_2\right)}{\Gamma^2\biggl(
1+m\biggr)\Gamma^2\biggl( 1+n\biggr)}
\nonumber\\\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&&\Omega_3\left(\nu\,\vert\, \nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\Omega_2\left( \nu\,\vert\,\nu_2,\nu_1\right)\hspace{0.5cm}\label{2.om3nu}\end{eqnarray}
where $B\left( m\,\vert\,n\right)$ is the well known beta-function, defined as (see Ref.\cite{GR} formula {\bf 8.380}):
\begin{eqnarray}&&
B\left( m\,\vert\,n\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \ml{\ml{\int}}^1_0 dx \,x^{m-1}\left( 1-x\right)^{n-1}\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}\frac{\Gamma\left( m\right)\Gamma\left( n\right)}{\Gamma\left( m+n\right)}\label{beta}\end{eqnarray}
In the region $\nu_1 \to 0$ and $\nu_2 \to 0$ we can simplify the expressions for the $\Omega_i$.
All of the $\Omega_i$ contain a pole at $ i/2- \nu -\nu_1 - i \nu_2 =0$. In vicinity of this pole:
\begin{equation} \label{B1}
B\left( n \vert \frac{1}{2} + i \nu + i\nu_1 + i \nu_2\right) \,\,\rightarrow\,\,\frac{1}{ \frac{1}{2} + i \nu + i\nu_1 + i \nu_2}\,\,+\mbox{\{non singlular terms\}}
\end{equation}
Using the limit of \eq{B1} we can calculate the residue of the pole at
$ i/2- \nu -\nu_1 - i \nu_2 =0$
of the function $\Omega_2\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\,\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \Omega_3\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_2,\nu_1\,\right)$, for the
even narrower region where $\nu_1 \to 0$ and $\nu_2 \to 0$. In this approach, from \eq{2.om2nu} in this region, the residue is:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{om2snu}&& \mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{ i/2- \nu -\nu_1 - i \nu_2 \to 0 \\ \nu_1,\nu_2\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\left( i/2 - \nu -\nu_1 -\nu_2\,\right)\,\Omega_2\left(\nu\,\vert\, \nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} 4 \pi^3\,\,\,_4F_3\left( \mathlarger{\h},\mathlarger{\h},1
,1 \begin{vmatrix} 1, \mathlarger{\f{3}{2}}, \mathlarger{\f{3}{2}}\end{vmatrix} 1\right)\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\times\,\,\,\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{ \nu_1,\nu_2\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}\,_2F_1\left(
\mathlarger{\h} + i\nu_1,\mathlarger{\h} + i\nu_1\begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix} 1 \right)
\,_2F_1\left(\mathlarger{\h} +i\nu_2,\mathlarger{\h} +i\nu_2 \begin{vmatrix} 1\end{vmatrix} 1 \right)\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&=\hspace{0.3cm} \mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{\nu_1,\nu_2\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
-\,\,\frac{\pi}{3\nu_1\nu_2} \label{om2snuf}
\end{eqnarray}
The identical result is true for $\Omega_3\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)$. Repeating this procedure we obtain that $\Omega_1\propto \left( \nu_1 + \nu_2\right) \ll \Omega_2$.
Thus in the region $ i/2- \nu -\nu_1 - i \nu_2 =0$ when $\nu_1,\nu_2\to 0$, then the function $\Omega\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} \sum^3_{i=1}\Omega_i\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)$
tends to $-2\pi/3\nu_1\nu_2$, neglecting the contribution from $\Omega_1$. Inserting this into \eq{planar} leads to the result:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{ i/2- \nu -\nu_1 - i \nu_2 \to 0 \\ \nu_1,\nu_2\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\left( i/2 - \nu -\nu_1 -\nu_2\,\right)\,\Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{planar}}}\left(\nu\,\vert\, \nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{ i/2- \nu \to 0 \\ \nu_1,\nu_2\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\frac{-2\,\pi\,\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\nu\right)^2}{3\nu_1\nu_2}\label{planartend}\end{eqnarray}
{\bf \large The non-planar vertex}
\vspace{0.3cm}
The formula for the triple Pomeron vertex of \eq{tpv} contained also the contribution of the non-planar diagram,
given by \eq{nonplanar}.
This expression included the function $\Lambda \left(\nu\vert\nu_1,\nu_2\right)$
, which is given in terms of the following integral in ref. \cite{1.Korchemsky:1997fy}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Lambda\left(\nu\vert\nu_1,\nu_2\right)=\!\!\ml{\ml{\int}}\frac{d^2z_0d^2z_1}{\mid z_{01}\mid^4}\!\!
\left(\frac{z_{01}\bar{z_{01}}}{z_0z_1\bar{z}_0\bar{z}_1}\right)^{\!\mathlarger{\h}+i\nu}\!\!\!
\left(\frac{z_{01}}{\left( 1-z_0\right)\left( 1-z_1\right)}\frac{\bar{z}_{01}}{\left( 1-\bar{z}_0\right)\left( 1-\bar{z}_1\right)}\right)^{\mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_1}\!\!
\!\biggl( z_{01}\bar{z}_{01}\biggr)^{\mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_2}\hspace{0.7cm}\label{2.Lambda}
\end{eqnarray}
The integrations of \eq{2.Lambda} were evaluated in ref. \cite{1.Korchemsky:1997fy}, where the following result was derived:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\he2^{2i\nu+2i\nu_1+2i\nu_2-1}\,\pi^2\,\,\frac{\Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}-i\nu\biggr) \Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_1\biggr) \Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}-i\nu_2\biggr) }
{\Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}+i\nu\biggr) \Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_1\biggr) \Gamma\biggl( \mathlarger{\h}+i\nu_2\biggr)}
\,\,
\hspace{5cm}\label{lanu}\end{eqnarray}
$$\times \frac{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\f{1}{4}}+\mathlarger{\h}\left( i\nu+i\nu_1+i\nu_2\right)\biggr)}{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\frac{3}{4}}-\mathlarger{\h} \left( i\nu +i\nu_1+i\nu_2\right)\biggr)}\frac{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\f{1}{4}}+\mathlarger{\h}\left( i\nu+i\nu_1-i\nu_2\right)\biggr)}
{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\frac{3}{4}}-\mathlarger{\h} \left( i\nu +i\nu_1-i\nu_2\right)\biggr)}\,\,
\frac{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\f{1}{4}}+\mathlarger{\h}\left( -i\nu+i\nu_1+i\nu_2\right)\biggr)}{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\frac{3}{4}}-\mathlarger{\h} \left(- i\nu +i\nu_1+i\nu_2\right)\biggr)}
\frac{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\f{1}{4}}+\mathlarger{\h}\left( i\nu-i\nu_1+i\nu_2\right)\biggr)}{\Gamma\biggl(\mathlarger{\frac{3}{4}}-\mathlarger{\h} \left( i\nu -i\nu_1+i\nu_2\right)\biggr)}\nonumber$$
Using the above expression it is easy to see that:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{ i/2- \nu -\nu_1 - i \nu_2 \to 0 \\ \nu_1,\nu_2\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\left( i/2 - \nu -\nu_1 -\nu_2\right)\,\Lambda\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{ i/2- \nu -\nu_1 - i \nu_2 \to 0 \\ \nu_1,\nu_2\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\frac{\pi^2}{2}\,\,\,\frac{\left(\frac{1}{2} +i\nu\right)}{\nu_1\nu_2}\label{0.asymptoten}
\end{eqnarray}
Plugging this result into the definition of the non-planar diagram of \eq{nonplanar}, we
can derive the non-planar diagram in the limit
$ i/2- \nu -\nu_1 - i \nu_2 \to 0$ where $\nu_1,\nu_2\to 0$.
Using the fact that $\lim_{i/2-\nu\to 0}\chi\left(\nu\right)\to 1/\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\nu\right)$ (see the definition of \eq{chi}),
the asymptote is:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{ i/2- \nu -\nu_1 - i \nu_2 \to 0 \\ \nu_1,\nu_2\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\left( i/2 - \nu -\nu_1 -\nu_2\right)\,\Gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize{nonplanar}}}\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{ i/2- \nu \to 0 \\ \nu_1,\nu_2\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\frac{\pi^2}{2}\,\,\,\frac{\left(\frac{1}{2} +i\nu\right)^2}{\nu_1\nu_2}\label{nonplanartend}\end{eqnarray}
Finally, inserting the asymptotes of Eqs. (\ref{planartend}) and (\ref{nonplanartend}) into \eq{tpv},
we can calculate
$\tilde{\Gamma}\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\left( i/2 - \nu -\nu_1 -\nu_2 \right) \Gamma\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)$
in the region $ i/2- \nu -\nu_1 - i \nu_2 \to 0$ where $\nu_1,\nu_2\to 0$ as:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{ i/2 - \nu -\nu_1 -\nu_2\to 0\\ \nu_1,\nu_2\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\tilde{\Gamma}\left(\nu\,\vert\,\nu_1,\nu_2\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{ i/2 - \nu \to 0\\ \nu_1,\nu_2\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\,\frac{a\,\left( \frac{1}{2} + i \nu\right) ^2}{\nu_1\nu_2}
\label{02.asymptotep}\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{where}\hspace{0.5cm} a\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm} -\,\frac{16\bar{\alpha}_s^2}{N_c}\,\,\,\,
\left( \hspace{0.3cm} \frac{2\pi}{3}\hspace{0.3cm}+\hspace{0.3cm} \frac{\pi^3}{N_c^2}\hspace{0.3cm}\right)\label{definitionap}
\end{eqnarray}
In terms of the variables $\left\{\,\,\lambda,\sigma,\Delta\,\,\right\}$ defined in \eq{depm}, then \eq{02.asymptotep}
becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{ \lambda\to \sigma\\ \sigma\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}
\tilde{\Gamma}\left(\lambda\,\vert\,\sigma,\Delta\right)\hspace{0.3cm}=\hspace{0.3cm}
\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\lim_{\substack{ \lambda\to \sigma \\ \sigma\to 0 }}}}\hspace{0.3cm}\,
\,\,\frac{a\,\lambda ^2}{\left( \lambda +\Delta \right)\left( \lambda - \Delta\right)}
\label{2.asymptotep}
\end{eqnarray}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\label{sec:bib}
\input{Loop-ref.tex}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction \label{introduction}}
Colloidal self-assembly provides a route for the fabrication of functional materials with novel mesoscopic structures, which are robust but adaptable to changing external conditions. Indeed, soft colloidal solids including gels and glasses, are examples of three dimensional structures that may be tuned, e.g., by changes in temperature.
Advances in the synthesis of well-defined colloidal particles, with surface patterning in the sub-micron range, paves the way for the design of their macroscopic behaviour \cite{vanblaaderen2006,intro1,Granick1,Granick2,Sacanna1,Sacanna2,B718131K,Leunissen1}.
One focus of research concerns the development of large-scale fabrication techniques required for the exploitation of the new materials in a wide range of applications \cite{intro2}. The other, which includes modeling and computational efforts, based on the fact that anisotropic colloids may be viewed as the molecules of novel materials, aims at tailoring their (self)assembly into a variety of functional structures \cite{Glotzer15102004,intro3}.
The primitive model of patchy colloids consists of hard-spheres with $f$ patches on their surfaces. The patches act as bonding sites and promote the formation of well defined clusters, whose structure and size distribution depend on the properties of the patches ($f$ and the bonding energy) and on the thermodynamic conditions (density and temperature). Computational studies of patchy particle models, over the last decade, produced a number of results \cite{SciortinoReview2010}. In particular, Sciortino and co-workers showed that, for low values of $f$ (approaching 2), low densities and temperatures can be reached without encountering the phase boundary. These empty phases were shown to be network (percolated) liquids, suggesting that, on cooling, patchy particles with low functionality assemble into amorphous states of arbitrary low density -- equilibrium gels. These gels are novel structures that may be assembled under controlled and reproducible equilibrium conditions.
Remarkably, the results of the simulations are well described by classical liquid state theories: Wertheim's first order perturbation theory \cite{wertheim1,wertheim2,wertheim3,wertheim4} predicts correctly the equilibrium thermodynamic properties; Flory-Stockmayer \cite{flory1,stock1,flory2} theories of polymerization describe quantitatively the size distributions of the patchy particle clusters as well as the percolation threshold.
Very recently, Ruzicka and co-workers reported experimental evidence of empty liquids in dilute suspensions of Laponite \cite{emptyexp} confirming the patchy particle model as the primitive model of real equilibrium gels.
In this paper we use theoretical tools to study the structure of equilibrium gels in model binary mixtures of patchy colloids. We investigate the stability of these amorphous soft-solid materials and show that there are four types of gels, the stability of which may be controlled by the temperature and composition of the mixture.
The phase diagram of mixtures of patchy particles with identical patches was investigated by Bianchi et al \cite{PhysRevLett.97.168301} and established the stability of the empty fluid regime. Later on we clarified the conditions for the stability of empty fluids and characterized their (network) structure using a generalization of the Flory-Stockmayer theory \cite{C0SM01493A}. The phase diagram of monodisperse systems and of mixtures of colloidal particles with dissimilar patches was also investigated, elucidating the conditions for the emergence of criticality and establishing more general conditions for the stability of network (percolated) fluids \cite{C0SM01493A,heras:104904,PhysRevLett.106.085703,10.1063/1.3605703}.
In the context of a related model, Hall and co-workers \cite{B907873H,goyal:064511} investigated the structures formed by monodisperse systems and equimolar mixtures of dipolar colloids with particles of two different sizes and dipole moments. Their studies, based on (discontinuous) molecular dynamics, focused on kinetic pathways and the resulting non-equilibrium structures. In addition to solid phases, they report two novel structures, both bicontinuous gels. The bicontinuous gels were shown to have tunable pore size determined by the size and dipole moment ratios of the colloidal particles.
Here we investigate the thermodynamic phase diagram and the percolation regime of a model binary mixture of patchy colloidal particles. Each species has three patches with two different types of bonding energies, one promoting bonds between the same species while the other promotes bonds between different species. We have identified four distinct percolated phases: two gels where only one of the species is percolated, a mixed gel where the two species are percolated but neither species percolates by itself, and a bicontinuous gel where the two species percolate independently, forming two interpenetrating spanning networks. The competition between the entropy of bonding and the energy of bonding determines the stability of the different network phases. We show that for appropriate mixtures a transition between the mixed and bicontinuous gels is induced as the temperature and/or the composition of the mixture changes.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In section \ref{theory} we describe the model and the theory: Wertheim's thermodynamic perturbation theory for mixtures of associating fluids (\ref{wertheim}) and a generalization of the Flory-Stockmayer theory of percolation to mixtures of patchy particles (\ref{percolationsec}). In section \ref{Results} we present the results for a series of representative mixtures. We describe the fluid phase diagrams, with emphasis on the percolation regime, of symmetric and asymmetric mixtures and discuss the conditions for the connectivity transitions between mixed and bicontinuous gels. Finally, in Sec. \ref{Conclusions} we summarize our conclusions.
\section{Model and Theory\label{theory}}
The model is a binary mixture of $N_1$ and $N_2$ equisized hard spheres (HSs) with diameter $\sigma$. Each species has three interaction or bonding sites on its surface. The
association between bonding sites is described using Wertheim's first-order perturbation theory. Therefore, two particles can form one single bond between two sites, one on
each particle. Bonding sites are distributed randomly on the particle surfaces in such a way that all sites are available to bonding (i.e. there is no shading of any site by
nearby bonds).
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig1.eps,width=2.in,clip=}
\caption{The model: a binary mixtures of equisized hard spheres with three bonding sites of two different types on each particle.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Species $1$ has two bonding sites of type $A$ and one of type $C$ while species $2$ has two sites of type $B$ and one of type $D$ (see Fig. \ref{fig1}). Although the model may
seem complex, the idea is quite simple: each species has two types of bonding sites, one which promotes bonds between particles of the same species (sites of type $A$ and $B$)
while the other promotes bonds between different species (sites of type $C$ and $D$). Note that the minimum number of bonds required for each species to percolate is $3$.
\subsection{Helmholtz free energy: Wertheim's thermodynamic perturbation theory \label{wertheim}}
In references \cite{wertheim1,wertheim2,wertheim3,wertheim4,Chapman:1057} Wertheim's first order perturbation theory is described in detail. Here we state briefly the main
results and set the notation.
The Helmholtz free energy of the binary mixture of patchy particles can be written as the sum of two contributions:
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{H}=F/N=f_{HS}+f_b,
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_{HS}$ is the free energy density of the reference system of hard-spheres and $f_b$ the perturbation due to the attractive bonding interactions. $N=N_1+N_2$ is the total
number of particles.
The free energy of the reference system of HSs, $f_{HS}$, may be split into ideal-gas and excess terms: $f_{HS}=f_{id}+f_{ex}$. The ideal-gas free energy is given (exactly) by
\begin{equation}
\beta f_{id}=\ln\eta-1+\sum_{i=1,2}x^{(i)}\ln(x^{(i)} {\cal V}_i),
\end{equation}
where $\beta=kT$ is the inverse thermal energy, ${\cal V}_i$ is the thermal volume, $x^{(i)}=N_i/N$ is the molar fraction of species $i$ and $\eta=\eta_1+\eta_2$ is the total packing fraction ($\eta=v_s\rho$, with $\rho$ the total number density and $v_s=\pi/6\sigma^3$ the volume of a single particle). The excess part accounts for the excluded volume interactions between hard spheres. We have approximated it using the Carnahan-Starling equation of state for HSs \cite{carnahan:635} (note that both species have the same diameter):
\begin{equation}
\beta f_{ex}=\frac{4\eta-3\eta^2}{(1-\eta)^2.}
\end{equation}
The bonding free energy, $f_b$, accounts for the interactions between sites. Within Wertheim's first-order perturbation theory \cite{wertheim1,wertheim2,wertheim3,wertheim4}, it
is written as \cite{Chapman:1057}:
\begin{equation}
\beta f_b=\sum_{i=1,2} x^{(i)}\left[\sum_{\alpha\in \Gamma(i)}\left(\ln X_\alpha^{(i)}-\frac{X_\alpha^{(i)}}{2}\right)+\frac12 n(\Gamma(i))\right],\label{fb}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma(i)$ is the set of bonding sites or patches on one particle of species $i$ ({\it i.e.}, $\Gamma(1)=\{A,A,C\}$, $\Gamma(2)=\{B,B,D\}$) and $n(\Gamma(i))$ is the total number of bonding sites per particle of species $i$. The variables $\{ X_\alpha^{(i)} \}$ are the probabilities of finding one site of type $\alpha$ on a particle of species $i$ {\it not} bonded. The bonding free energy has two contributions: the bonding energy and an entropic term related to the number of ways of bonding two particles.
The law of mass action establishes a relation between $\{ X_\alpha^{(i)} \}$ and the thermodynamic variables:
\begin{equation}
X_\alpha^{(i)}=\left[1+\eta\sum_{j=1,2}x^{(j)}\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma(j)}X_\gamma^{(j)}\Delta_{\alpha\gamma}^{(ij)}\right]^{-1}.\label{xnotbonded}
\end{equation}
$\Delta_{\alpha\gamma}^{(ij)}$ characterises the bond between a site $\alpha$ on a particle of species $i$ and a site $\gamma$ on a particle of species $j$. We model the interaction between sites by square well potentials with depths $\varepsilon_{\alpha\gamma}$ that depend on the type of bonding sites ($\alpha$ and $\gamma$) but not on the particle species ($i$ and $j$). As a result, when the particles have the same diameter, $\Delta_{\alpha\gamma}^{(ij)}$ are independent of the particle species, and are given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\alpha\gamma}^{(ij)}=\Delta_{\alpha\gamma}=\frac1{v_s}\int_{v_{b}}g_{HS}({\bf r})\left[\exp(\beta\varepsilon_{\alpha\gamma})-1\right]d{\bf r}.\label{delta}
\end{equation}
$g_{HS}({\bf r})$ is the radial distribution function of the reference HS fluid and the integral is calculated over the bond volume $v_b$ (we have considered that all bonds have the same volume, $v_b=0.000332285\sigma^3$). We approximate $g_{HS}$ by its contact contact value (the bond volume is very small). Then Eq. (6) simplifies to:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\alpha\gamma}=\frac{v_b}{v_s}\left[\exp(\beta\varepsilon_{\alpha\gamma})-1\right]A_0(\eta),\label{delta2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
A_0(\eta)=\frac{1-\eta/2}{(1-\eta)^3}
\end{equation}
is the contact value of $g_{HS}$. By substituting $\Delta_{\alpha\gamma}$ given by Eq. (\ref{delta2}) in Eq. (\ref{xnotbonded}) we find that $X_\alpha^{(i)}$ depends only on $\alpha$, the type of site ({\it i.e.}, $X_\alpha^{(i)}=X_\alpha,\;\; \forall\; i$).
In what follows we will denote the composition of the mixture $x$ by the molar fraction of species $1$: $x\equiv x^{(1)}$ ($x^{(2)}=1-x$). We choose to minimize the Gibbs free energy per particle ($g=p/\rho+f_H$) to obtain the equilibrium properties of the mixture. We set the composition $x$, pressure $p$ and temperature $T$ and locate the binodals by a standard common-tangent construction on $g(x)$.
\subsection{Percolation thresholds\label{percolationsec}}
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig2.eps,width=3.2in,clip=}
\caption{Schematic representation of a tree tree-like cluster of a binary mixture of patchy particles (right). On the left one particle of species $k$ (at level $i+1$) is bonded to a particle of species $j$ (at level $i$) through sites of type $\gamma$ and $\beta$ respectively.}
\label{treelike}
\end{figure}
The percolation threshold is analysed using a generalization of the Flory-Stockmayer theory of polymerization \cite{flory1,stock1,flory2} (see Refs. \cite{PhysRevE.81.010501,C0SM01493A} for details) which neglects closed loops. The percolation thresholds and the cluster size distributions were found to be in good agreement with the results of Monte Carlo simulations for the pure fluids \cite{tavares3}, and we expect the same level of accuracy for binary mixtures.
Let $n_{i+1,\gamma}^{(k)}$ denote the number of bonded sites of type $\gamma$ on particles of species $k$ at the level $i+1$ of a tree-like cluster of particles (see Fig. \ref{treelike}). This is related to $\{ n_{i,\alpha}^{(j)} \}$, the set of all types of bonded sites in the previous level, through the recursive relations given by (see Fig. \ref{treelike} and Refs. \cite{PhysRevE.81.010501,C0SM01493A}):
\begin{equation}
n_{i+1,\gamma}^{(k)}=\sum_{j}\sum_{\alpha\in\Gamma_d(j)}\sum_{\beta\in\Gamma_d(j)}p_{\beta_j\rightarrow\gamma_k}\left(f_{\beta}^{(j)}-\delta_{\beta\alpha}\right)n_{i,\alpha}^{(j)},
\label{levelperco}
\end{equation}
where: $\Gamma_d(j)$ is the the set of distinct bonding sites on species $j$ ({\it i.e.}, $\Gamma_d(1)=\{A,C\}$ and $\Gamma_d(2)=\{B,D\}$); the sum on $j$ runs over all species $j=\{1,2\}$; $f_{\beta}^{(j)}$ is the number of $\beta$ sites on a particle of species $j$ ({\it e.g.}, $f_A^{(1)}=2$); $\delta_{\beta\alpha}$ is the Kronecker delta and $p_{\beta_j\rightarrow\gamma_k}$ is the probability of bonding a site $\beta$ on a particle of species $j$ to a site $\gamma$ on a particle of species $k$. Summing over all $k$ and $\gamma$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
P_{\beta_j}=\sum_k\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma_d(k)}p_{\beta_j\rightarrow\gamma_k},
\end{equation}
the probability of finding a bonded site $\beta$ on a particle of species $j$. At this point, it is possible to establish a connection with thermodynamics through the law of mass action, since by definition:
\begin{equation}
P_{\beta_j}=1-X_\beta^{(j)}.
\label{eqptotal}
\end{equation}
A term-by-term analysis of Eqs. (\ref{eqptotal}) and (\ref{xnotbonded}) yields expressions for the equilibrium probabilities $p_{\beta_j\rightarrow\gamma_k}$ in terms of the thermodynamic variables.
In order to calculate the percolation threshold it is convenient to write equations (\ref{levelperco}) in matrix form:
\begin{equation}
\tilde n_i=\tilde T^i\tilde n_0,\label{progressions}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde n_i$ is a vector with components $n_{i,\gamma}^{(k)}$ and $\tilde T$ is a square matrix of size $\Gamma_d(1)+\Gamma_d(2)$ with:
\begin{equation}
T_{\gamma_k\alpha_j}=\sum_{\beta\in\Gamma_d(j)}p_{\beta_j\rightarrow\gamma_k}\left(f_{\beta}^{(j)}-\delta_{\beta\alpha}\right).
\end{equation}
For the binary mixture of particles with three sites, $\tilde T$ is a $4\times4$ matrix \footnote{In the model considered here the subscripts denoting the particle species in $p_{\beta_j\rightarrow\gamma_k}$ are redundant, and have been omitted in what follows. $p_\beta\gamma$ is the probability of bonding a site $\beta$ to a site $\gamma$.}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde T & = & \left(\begin{array}{c | c} \tilde T_{11} & \tilde T_{21} \\ \hline \tilde T_{12} & \tilde T_{22} \end{array} \right) = \nonumber \\
& = & \left(\begin{array}{c c | c c} p_{AA} + p_{CA} & 2p_{AA} & p_{BA} + p_{DA} & 2p_{BA} \\ p_{AC} + p_{CC} & 2p_{AC} & p_{BC} + p_{DC} & 2p_{BC} \\ \hline p_{AB} + p_{CB} & 2p_{AB} & p_{BB} + p_{DB} & 2p_{BB} \\ p_{AD} + p_{CD} & 2p_{AD} & p_{BD} + p_{DD} & 2p_{BD} \end{array}\right).
\label{matrix}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure*}
\epsfig{file=Fig3.eps,width=6.in,clip=}
\caption{Schematic representation of the gel structures: a standard gel of species $1$ (left), a bicontinuous gel or bigel (middle), and a mixed gel (right). The figure is
a cartoon consistent with the bonding rules of the model. Each particle is bonded to three other particles (bonding sites not shown) and there are no closed loops. The upper
row depicts the position of the particles. Bonds between particles of the same species are represented in the lower row by straight lines connecting the center of mass of two
bonded particles. Each red (blue) line corresponds to a bond between two particles of species $1$ $(2)$. Bonds between particles of different species are not shown.}
\label{figschematic}
\end{figure*}
Let $\lambda_+$ denote the largest (absolute value) eigenvalue of $\tilde T$. Then, the progressions defined by Eq. (\ref{progressions}) converge to $0$ if $|\lambda_+|<1$ and
diverge if $|\lambda_+|>1$. The percolation threshold occurs when $|\lambda_+|=1$. The analysis of $\lambda_+$ allows us to distinguish percolated from non-percolated structures of
the mixture, but it does not differentiate, for example, bicontinuous from mixed gels as the mixture is percolated in both cases. In order to distinguish different percolated
structures we have to analyse, in addition to the percolation threshold of the mixture, the percolation thresholds of each species. The matrix $\tilde T$ may be split into four
blocks $\tilde T_{ij}$, $i,j=\{1,2\}$ (see Eq. (\ref{matrix})), where each block $\tilde T_{ij}$ is a $2\times2$ matrix that accounts for (all) the bonds between species $i$ and
$j$. The largest eigenvalues of $\tilde T_{11}$ and $\tilde T_{22}$ ($\lambda_+^{(11)}$ and $\lambda_+^{(22)}$ respectively) yield the percolation thresholds of both species. In
a percolated binary mixture ($|\lambda_+|\ge1$) it is then possible to distinguish four different percolating structures:
\begin{itemize}
\item $|\lambda_+^{(11)}<1|$ and $|\lambda_+^{(22)}<1|$. The mixture is percolated but removal of one of the species destroys the connectivity of the spanning cluster.
We refer to this structure as a mixed gel ($MG$) and illustrate it schematically in Fig. \ref{figschematic} (right).
\item $|\lambda_+^{(11)}\ge1|$ and $|\lambda_+^{(22)}\ge1|$. The mixture as well as both species are percolated. We refer to this structure as a bicontinuous gel or ''bigel''
($BG$) as the spanning cluster consists of two interconnected spanning clusters of the pure components. Removal of one species does not destroy the connectivity of the
spanning cluster. The bigel is illustrated in the middle of Fig. \ref{figschematic}.
\item $|\lambda_+^{(11)}\ge1|$ and $|\lambda_+^{(22)}<1|$. The mixture and species $1$ are percolated but species $2$ is not. Removal of species $2$ does not destroy the
connectivity of the spanning cluster. We refer to this structure as a standard gel $G_1$
and illustrate it schematically in Fig. \ref{figschematic} (left).
\item $|\lambda_+^{(11)}<1|$ and $|\lambda_+^{(22)}\ge1|$. The mixture and species $2$ are percolated but species $1$ is not. Removal of species $1$ does not destroy the
connectivity of the spanning cluster. We refer to this structure as a standard gel $G_2$.
\end{itemize}
Table \ref{table1} classifies the structure of the binary mixture based on the analysis of the percolating cluster.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\vspace{.1in}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$|\lambda_+|$ & $|\lambda_+^{(11)}|$ & $|\lambda_+^{(22)}|$ & percolation state \\
\hline
$<1$ & $<1$ & $<1$ & non-percolated \\
$\ge1$ & $<1$ & $<1$ & percolated: mixed gel \\
$\ge1$ & $\ge1$ & $\ge1$ & percolated: bigel \\
$\ge1$ & $\ge1$ & $<1$ & percolated: gel 1 \\
$\ge1$ & $<1$ & $\ge1$ & percolated: gel 2 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Structure of the binary mixture based on the type of percolating cluster, characterised by the largest eigenvalues of $\tilde T$, $\tilde T_{11}$
and $\tilde T_{22}$.}\label{table1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Results}\label{Results}
The phase diagram of the pure fluids was analysed in Ref. \cite{C0SM01493A}. The fluids exhibit a first order phase transition that ends at a critical point. The transition
involves two fluid phases at different densities and fraction of unbonded sites. One phase (high density, small fraction of unbonded sites) is always percolated while the other
(low density and large fraction of unbounded sites) is percolated only at pressures and densities close to the critical point. We call these phases network fluid and vapor,
respectively.
The results for the binary mixture are presented as temperature-composition phase diagrams at constant pressure and the following remarks apply to all of them: the
binodal lines are depicted as solid-black lines; shaded areas are two-phase regions; empty circles are critical points; black squares are azeotropic points. In all cases the
network fluid phases are percolated (the liquid side of the binodal is percolated). Therefore, at a given composition, the mixture is percolated at temperatures below the temperature
of the network fluid-vapor phase transition. In order to distinguish different percolated structures, percolation thresholds for each species are also calculated. The percolation line of species $1$ is depicted as a solid-red line. When we remove the bonds between species $1$ and $2$, species $1$ is percolated on the right of this line (indicated by the red arrow). The dashed-blue line is the percolation line of species $2$. On the left of this line (indicated by the blue arrow), species $2$ is percolated when we remove the bonds between species $2$ and $1$.
\subsection{Symmetric binary mixture AAA-BBB}\label{AAABBB}
We start by describing the results for a simplified model: a binary mixture where the particles of species $1$ have three patches of type $A$ and those of species $2$ have three
patches of type $B$. In addition, we analyse the symmetric case only. That is, we set $\varepsilon_{AA}=\varepsilon_{BB}=\varepsilon$ and vary the bonding energy of the $AB$ bonds
($\varepsilon^*_{AB}=\varepsilon_{AB}/\varepsilon_{AA}$).
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig4.eps,width=3.in,clip=}
\caption{Reduced temperature-composition phase diagram at constant pressure for a symmetric $AAA-BBB$ binary mixture with $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.97$ (top) and $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=1.03$ (bottom). The pressure is $p^*=pv_s/\varepsilon_{AA}=4.19\times10^{-5}$, well below the critical pressure of the pure fluids. $x$ is the composition of species $1$ (HSs with three patches of type $A$). See the beginning of section \ref{Results} for a description of the symbols and the graphical codes.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
Two representative phase diagrams of this mixture are depicted in Fig. \ref{fig4} for different bonding energies: $\varepsilon^*_{AB}=0.97$ (top) and $\varepsilon^*_{AB}=1.03$ (bottom).
In the first mixture (top panel) the interaction energy between sites on different species is lower than the interaction energy between sites on the same species ($\varepsilon^*_{AB}=0.97$). At high temperatures there is a network fluid-vapor phase transition with a positive azeotrope at $x=0.5$. At low temperatures a demixing region, bounded by an upper critical point, occurs between two network fluids. The demixing is driven by the bonding energy: at low temperatures most sites are bonded but $AB$ bonds hardly occur as they increase the bonding energy. Obviously, the same effect occurs at intermediate temperatures (below the network fluid-vapor phase transition and above the demixing region). However, in this range of temperatures the level of association is much lower and the energy gain does not compensate the loss in the entropy of mixing. As a result, the mixture is stable.
Let us focus now on the percolation threshold(s). Below the network fluid-vapor phase transition the mixture is percolated. The analysis of the percolation threshold for each species (solid-red and dashed-blue lines) reveals three different gel structures. In the region located to the left of the solid-red line ($x\gtrsim0$) only the particles of species $2$ are percolated. The gel is a standard ($G_2$). The same behaviour occurs (recall that the mixture is symmetric) to the right of the shaded-blue line ($x\lesssim1$), but in this case the
gel is a standard ($G_1$). In the intermediate region, both species percolate separately, there is a bicontinuous gel ($BG$). As the temperature decreases, the BG region spans a wider range of compositions. At very low temperatures, however, the bigel is pre-empted by the demixing region where two standard gels $G_1$ and $G_2$ coexist.
The second mixture, Fig. \ref{fig4} (bottom panel), illustrates the behaviour of a compound forming mixture: the attraction between sites on different species is stronger than that between sites on the same species. This has a profound effect both on the thermodynamic and the percolation behaviour. The network fluid-vapor phase transition and the azeotropic point at $x=0.5$ are still present. However, this is a negative azeotrope, characteristic of compound forming mixtures. Another important difference is that the mixture is always stable at temperatures below the network fluid-vapor phase transition. The demixing region disappears as there is no driving force for phase separation. The bonding free energy (entropy
of mixing) is minimal (maximal) when the number of $AB$ bonds is maximal.
At the percolation level there are also important differences. In this mixture, there is no bigel structure. Near $x=0.5$ neither species percolates separately although the mixture
is percolated. This is the mixed gel ($MG$) structure where the $AB$ bonds dominate being responsible for the connectivity of the spanning cluster.
As the composition of the mixture increases, the fraction of bonds between particles of species $1$ ($AA$ bonds) also increases with a corresponding decrease in the fraction of $AB$ bonds. As a result the $MG$ structure is replaced by a standard $G_1$ gel. The symmetric behaviour (formation of a $G_2$ gel) occurs at low values of the composition.
The percolation thresholds of species $1$ and $2$ tend asymptotically to $x=2/3$ and $x=1/3$ respectively, as the temperature vanishes. For mixtures with compositions $x<1/3$ or $x>2/3$
there are no $MG$ structures, as the fraction of $AB$ bonds is small and the gel is a standard single species structure. This is not the case for bicontinuous gels. At low
temperatures the percolation thresholds of species $1$ and $2$ tend asymptotically to $x=1$ and $x=0$ (note that in Fig. \ref{fig4} (top) the percolation lines are not shown at
temperatures below the demixing region). If there was no demixing, a bicontinuous gel would be found at any composition at low temperatures.
The symmetric mixture analysed above is the simplest system where bicontinuous and mixed gels are formed. However, it is not possible to find both structures in the same mixture. In addition, the bicontinuous structure is pre-empted by a demixing transition between two standard gels. To address these questions, we analyse a (more) general class of $AAC-BBD$ mixtures in the next section.
\subsection{Symmetric binary mixture AAC-BBD}\label{AACBBD}
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig5.eps,width=2.5in,clip=}
\caption{Bonding energies between different sites of the model.}
\label{figinteractions}
\end{figure}
There are up to $10$ bonding energies in $AAC-BBD$ binary mixtures and, therefore, many possibilities to describe the formation of bicontinuous and mixed gels. We have focused on
the simplest by restricting the bonding energies as depicted in Fig. \ref{figinteractions}: The bonding interaction between any pair of sites on particles of the same species
is identical ($\varepsilon_{AA}=\varepsilon_{AC}=\varepsilon_{CC}=\varepsilon_{BB}=\varepsilon_{BD}=\varepsilon_{DD}=\varepsilon$). This sets the energy scale of the model; The strongest interaction is that between sites of type $C$ and $D$ ($\varepsilon_{CD}=1.05\varepsilon$); There is no interaction between sites of type $A$ and $D$ nor between sites $B$
and $C$ ($\varepsilon_{AD}=\varepsilon_{BC}=0$); Finally, we vary $\varepsilon_{AB}$, the interaction between sites of type $A$ and $B$. The physical idea behind this choice is the following: if the interaction between unlike species is due to the strongest $CD$ bonds only ($\varepsilon_{AB}=0$), a bicontinuous gel structure is expected at low temperatures.
The reason is that most of the particles will be bonded to two other particles of the same species and to one particle of the other species, resulting in long interconnected chains
of identical particles. On the other hand, if the interaction between $A$ and $B$ sites is sufficiently strong a mixed gel is expected as many particles are bonded to at least two particles of the other species (through $CD$ and $AB$ bonds).
In what follows we describe temperature-composition phase diagrams for different values of the interaction between the $A$ and $B$ sites. The pressure is $p^*=pv_s/\varepsilon=4.19\times10^{-5}$, the same as in the previous section ({\it i.e.} well below the critical pressure of the pure fluids).
\subsubsection{$\varepsilon_{AB}\ll\varepsilon$}
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig6.eps,width=3.in,clip=}
\caption{Reduced temperature-composition phase diagram at constant pressure for an $AAC-BBD$ binary mixture with $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.83$. The pressure is $p^*=4.19\times10^{-5}$,
well below the critical pressure of the pure fluids. $x$ is the molar fraction for species $1$.}
\label{fig0.83}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig0.83} we illustrate the phase diagram for a binary mixture with $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=\varepsilon_{AB}/\varepsilon=0.83$. The behaviour is qualitatively the same for
lower values of the $AB$ interaction down to $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0$. At high temperatures and large (small) values of the composition there is a phase transition between a vapor
and a gel phase where only species $1$ ($2$) is percolated. The regions of stability of $G_1$ and $G_2$ gels are relatively small due to the presence of a large demixing region
which meets the fluid-vapor binodal at a $G_1VG_2$ triple point. As the temperature decreases, the two-phase region increases until it spans a very large range of compositions.
However, at sufficiently low temperatures, a new region of stability appears. Based on the percolation analysis (the percolation lines are not shown as they are always inside the demixing region) this new low temperature phase is a bicontinuous gel. The phase diagram exhibits a first order phase transition between $G_1$ or $G_2$ and the $BG$ phase.
The phase behaviour can be rationalized in terms of the competition between the entropy of bonding and the energy of bonding. At very low temperatures, the energy of bonding dominates. The mixture is stable due to the formation of $CD$ bonds which are energetically favourable. The stable phase is a bicontinuous gel since each particle is bonded to a single particle
of the other species. The other two bonding sites (type $A$ for species $1$ or type $B$ for species $2$) are bonded to identical sites, on particles of the same species, giving rise to two interconnected spanning networks. The reason is that $AA$ and $BB$ bonds are stronger than $AB$ bonds. Strictly speaking, the previous argument is correct only at $x=0.5$ and very low temperatures. If $x>0.5$, for example, it is also possible to find bonds of type $CC$ or $AC$ since there are more sites of type $C$ than sites of type $D$. However, it is only at values of the composition very close to those of the pure fluids that the $BG$ phase is replaced by standard $G_1$ or $G_2$ gels. At high temperatures, the behaviour of the system is dominated by the entropy of bonding. $CD$ bonds are energetically favourable, but the formation of these bonds decreases the entropy of bonding since the other two bonding sites are forced to form bonds with identical sites ($AB$ bonds are still unfavourable). Note that the same argument applies at low temperatures, but at high temperatures the gain in the energy of bonding from $CD$ bonds does not compensate the loss in the entropy of bonding (in addition, the fraction of unbonded sites is higher at high temperatures). The entropy of bonding drives the phase separation between the two standard gels $G_1$ and $G_2$ where bonds between sites of identical particles are maximized, independently of their type ({\it e.g.} $AA$, $AC$ or $CC$ bonds for the $G_1$ phase).
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig7.eps,width=3.in,clip=}
\caption{Caption as in Fig. \ref{fig0.83} for mixtures with: $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.87$ (top), $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.89$ (middle), and $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.93$ (bottom).}
\label{figab8789}
\end{figure}
As expected, the demixing region decreases as the interaction between the $A$ and $B$ sites increases. At $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.87$ (see Fig. \ref{figab8789} top) the demixing
region is still connected to the network fluid-vapor binodal. At intermediate temperatures there is a triple point where three bicontinuous gels at different compositions coexist.
Below the triple point there are two symmetric and small regions of phase coexistence of two BGs, which end at lower critical points. At $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.89$ (see Fig. \ref{figab8789} middle) the demixing region is a closed loop of immiscibility bounded by upper and lower critical points. At $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.93$ (see Fig. \ref{figab8789} bottom)
the demixing region has completely disappeared. There is no phase separation at temperatures below the network fluid-vapor binodal.
Let us focus now on the percolation threshold(s). In all cases depicted in Fig. \ref{figab8789}, the percolation lines intercept the network fluid-vapor binodal at high temperatures
and tend asymptotically to $x=0$ and $x=1$ as the temperature vanishes. It is possible to find a $BG$ at any composition if the temperature is sufficiently low. At compositions near $x=0$ and $x=1$ (pure fluids) the stable phase is a standard gel, $G_1$ or $G_2$, where only one species percolates. These regions grow as the interaction between the $A$ and $B$
sites increases. As a result, the intermediate region (where the $BG$ is stable) decreases. This is to be expected as the fraction of particles with more than one bond between
different species increases as $\varepsilon_{AB}$ increases.
Considering only the percolation thresholds, we conclude that the stability of the bicontinuous gel increases as the interaction between the $A$ and $B$ sites decreases. However,
at low $\varepsilon_{AB}$ there is a two standard gels demixing region, which effectively reduces the stability of the $BG$ phase. Consequently, there is an optimal value of $\varepsilon_{AB}$ that maximizes the thermodynamic stability of the $BG$ structure.
\subsubsection{$\varepsilon_{AB}\approx\varepsilon$}
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig8.eps,width=3.in,clip=}
\caption{Caption as in Fig. \ref{fig0.83} for mixtures with: $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.99$ (top), $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=1.02$ (bottom).}
\label{figab99102}
\end{figure}
The most interesting systems correspond to mixtures where the energy of the $AB$ bonds (between unlike species) is similar to the energy of the $AA$ and $BB$ bonds (between like species). In Fig. \ref{figab99102} we illustrate the phase diagram of a binary mixture with $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.99$ (top) and $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=1.02$ (bottom). In both cases we
find the four different gel structures by varying the temperature and/or the composition of the mixture. In the pure fluid regime ($x\approx0$ and $x\approx1$) only one species is percolated giving rise to standard $G_1$ or $G_2$ gels, while in the equimolar regime around $x=0.5$ there is a competition between bicontinuous and mixed gels. The bigel is stable
at high temperatures and the mixed gel at low temperatures. The stability of the $BG$ or $MG$ is again the result of a competition between the entropy and the energy of bonding.
Let us start by describing the mixture with $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=1.02$, that is, all bonds between different species ($AB$ and $CD$) are stronger than the bonds between particles of
the same species ({\it e.g.} $AA$, $AC$ or $CC$). We expect a stable mixed gel (or standard gels if the composition is far from $x=0.5$). In fact, a $MG$ appears at low temperatures, but at high temperatures there is a small region where a $BG$ is stable. The stability of the $BG$ results from a gain in the entropy of bonding. Consider a particle of species $1$.
It has $2$ sites of type $A$ which form $AA$, $AC$ and $AB$ bonds, and $1$ site of type $C$ which forms $CC$, $CA$ or $CD$ bonds. There are $27$ different combinations when all sites are bonded. $7$ of these favor the formation of mixed gels (those with $2$ or $3$ bonds between different species) while $20$ favour bicontinuous gels (those with no more than $1$ bond between different species). At high temperatures, the entropic part of the bonding free energy dominates and it is possible to stabilize bicontinuous gels even when the $AB$ bonds are stronger than, for example, $AA$ or $AC$ bonds. The opposite behaviour (a stable mixed gel when the $AB$ bonds are weaker than the $AA$ or $AC$ bonds) is also possible. In Fig. \ref{figab99102} (top), we illustrate the phase diagram of a mixture with $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.99$. At high temperatures the $BG$ is stable but at low temperatures we find a small region of stability of the $MG$. Finally, at zero temperature, the $BG$ reappears at $x=0.5$ (note that the ground state, at $x=0.5$, is a bicontinuous gel since there are only $CD$ and $AA$ or $BB$ bonds in order to minimize the energy). The $MG$ is stable in a small region at low temperatures because it minimizes the energy of bonding. Recall that there are $7$ combinations of bonds that favour a $MG$. When $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.99$ the average energy per bond of these configurations is $\langle\varepsilon^*_{MG}\rangle\approx1.007$, while the average over the configurations that favor a $BG$ is $\langle\varepsilon^*_{BG}\rangle=1.002$.
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig9.eps,width=3.in,clip=}
\caption{Reduced temperature-composition phase diagram at constant pressure for an $AAC-BBD$ binary mixture with $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=1.02$. The pressure is $p^*=pv_s/\varepsilon=5.24\times10^{-4}$, slightly below the critical pressure of the pure fluids.}
\label{figab102p2}
\end{figure}
If the above argument is correct, we should find a stable $MG$ at low temperatures when $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=0.975$ (at this value of $\varepsilon_{AB}$ the mixed and bigel average energies per bond are equal, $\langle\varepsilon^*_{BG}\rangle=\langle\varepsilon^*_{MG}\rangle=1$). However, the $MG$ appears when $\varepsilon_{AB}^*\approx0.977$ (at the given pressure). This discrepancy may be traced to the assumption that all the sites are bonded, which is only an approximation at finite $T$. In fact, the fraction of unbonded sites can
play a major role in the stability of percolated structures. For example, at high temperatures and pressures slightly below the critical pressure of the pure fluids, the fraction of unbonded sites is relatively high. Then, a significant fraction of particles will have only one or two sites bonded, increasing the number of configurations that favor a mixed gel.
As a result the $MG$ becomes stable at temperatures above the region of stability of the $BG$. An example is shown in Fig. \ref{figab102p2}, where the interaction between sites $A$
and $B$ is $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=1.02$ (the same as in Fig. \ref{figab99102} (bottom)) at a pressure $p^*=pv_s/\varepsilon=5.24\times10^{-4}$ (slightly below the critical pressure of
the pure fluids). Lowering the temperature at $x=0.5$ we find a reentrant sequence of gel structures: $MG-BG-MG$.
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig10.eps,width=3.in,clip=}
\caption{Reduced temperature-packing fraction phase diagram at constant pressure of the symmetric $AAC-BBD$ binary mixture at composition $x=0.47$. The interaction between the $A$
and $B$ sites is $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=1.02$. A tie line connecting two coexisting phases is out of this plane.}
\label{figxcte}
\end{figure}
In Fig \ref{figxcte} we represent a different phase diagram for the mixture with $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=1.02$. This is a cut of the $(T,\eta,x)$ phase diagram at constant composition $x=0.47$ (note that in this representation a tie line connecting two coexisting points is out of the plane). The dotted-black line is the percolation threshold of the mixture
(not shown in the other phase diagrams since the fluid phase is always percolated).
\subsubsection{$\varepsilon_{AB}\gg\varepsilon$}
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig11.eps,width=3.in,clip=}
\caption{Caption as in Fig. \ref{fig0.83} for mixtures with: $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=1.05$.}
\label{figab105}
\end{figure}
When the interaction between sites $A$ and $B$ is much stronger than the interaction between sites of the same species, we expect only mixed and standard gels. We finish this section with a simple case where $\varepsilon_{AB}^*=\varepsilon_{CD}^*=1.05$, that is, all the bonds between different species are stronger than the bonds between identical particles. This system is similar to the symmetric binary mixture $AAA-BBB$, analysed in section \ref{AAABBB}, but not identical. The phase diagram is depicted in Fig. \ref{figab105}. There are $3$ azeotropic points on the network fluid-vapor binodal ($2$ positive azeotropes at $x\approx0.18$ and $x\approx0.82$, and a negative azeotrope at $x=0.5$). The mixture is completely stable below the network fluid-vapor binodal temperature. A mixed gel is stable in a broad region around $x=0.5$. This region is bounded on the left by a $G_2$ structure and on the right by a $G_1$ structure. As expected, no $BG$ structure is found.
\subsection{Asymmetric binary mixture AAC-BBD}\label{AACBBDa}
The phenomenology described above is not restricted to symmetric binary mixtures, which were considered for simplicity only. In Fig. \ref{figasi} we show an example of a similar
phase diagram for an asymmetric binary mixture. It corresponds to a mixture where the symmetry is broken through the interactions between the sites on particles of species $2$. The
set of interaction energies is: $\varepsilon_{AA}=\varepsilon_{AC}=\varepsilon_{CC}=\varepsilon$ (it sets the scale of energy), $\varepsilon_{BB}=\varepsilon_{BD}=\varepsilon_{DD}=0.75\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon_{CD}=0.95\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon_{AB}=0.88\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon_{AD}=\varepsilon_{BC}=0$. The mixture is always percolated at temperatures below the network fluid-vapor binodal (which now occupies a significant region of the phase diagram). By varying the temperature and composition of the mixture it is possible to find the four percolated structures described for symmetric mixtures. As before, the stability of the different structures can be
understood in terms of the competition between the energy and the entropy of bonding.
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig12.eps,width=3.in,clip=}
\caption{Reduced temperature-composition phase diagram at constant pressure ($p^*=4.19\times10^{-5}$) of an asymmetric $AAC-BBD$ binary mixture. See the text for details
of the bonding interactions.}
\label{figasi}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{Conclusions}
We have studied the thermodynamics and percolation thresholds of a simple model of patchy colloidal particles: a binary mixture of hard spheres with different types of bonding
sites on their surfaces. Despite the simplicity of the model, the mixture exhibits a very rich phase diagram. The network fluid regime includes up to four gel phases, including bicontinuous and mixed gels. The bicontinuous gels described here are similar to those studied by Hall an co-workers \cite{B907873H,goyal:064511} in mixtures of dipolar colloids.
The stability of the different percolated structures is determined by a competition between the entropy of bonding (number and type of bonding sites) and the energy of bonding (bonding energy). Therefore, we expect the results to be relevant to a wide range of patchy particle systems, regardless of the size and/or the geometry of the colloids.
We have shown that by tuning the bonding energies it is possible to design binary mixtures with stable bigels and/or mixed gels in a wide range of temperatures and
compositions. When the strength of the bonds between like and unlike particles is similar, we find an interesting competition between the mixed and bicontinuous gels, including
reentrant behaviour. The mixtures where both bicontinuous and mixed gels compete are promising candidates to fabricate materials with novel physical properties. An obvious example
is a mixture where one of the species transmits a given property (light, electricity...) while the other does not. It is possible to control the transmission of that property by
simply varying the temperature, in the regime where $MG$ and $BG$ compete.
We have not considered here the stability of positionally ordered phases. Solid phases will appear at low temperatures and/or high pressures preempting part of the phase diagrams. Nevertheless, the gels we have analysed appear at relatively low packing fractions. In addition, it is expected that the random distribution of patches on the particle surfaces
will frustrate the formation of solid structures.
\section{Acknowledgments}
This work has been supported, in part, by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through Contracts Nos. POCTI/ISFL/2/618 and PTDC/FIS/098254/2008, by the
R$\&$D Programme of Activities (Comunidad de Madrid, Spain) MODELICO-CM/S2009ESP-1691, and by the Spanish Ministry of Education through grant FIS2010-22047-C05-01. D. de las Heras
is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education through contract No. EX2009-0121.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Four decades have passed now since the {\it Uhuru} discovery of the
X-ray binary (henceforth XRB) Cen X-3 was first reported
\citep{giet71}. What began in the early- to mid-1970s as detailed
individual studies of the small number of XRBs known at the time,
as also pioneering works on the construction of general models of
such binaries \citep{Lambet1,PriRe,DavOs} has now blossomed into a
mature, rich subject (for overviews, see, \eg, Shapiro \& Teukolsky
1983; Ghosh 2007), with a large number of XRBs discovered
and catalogued today in the Milky Way, the Magellanic Clouds,
and nearby external galaxies, and the fine details of the behavior
of each class of XRBs well-recorded from timing and spectral studies
with the aid of several generations of X-ray observatories of
ever-increasing sensitivity and resolution. It is thus becoming
possible now to do studies of the {\it collective} properties of
XRB populations, obtaining statistically meaningful distributions
of some of their essential properties \citep{KimFab04,Grimetal02,
Grimetal03,Gil04,GGS04a,GGS04b,KimFab10,LPH05,LPH06},
and exploring the essential physics underlying these distributions,
which is rooted in the basic scenarios for the formation,
evolution, and dynamics of XRBs (van den Heuvel 1983, 1991,
1992, 2001), which have been constructed
gradually over these four decades, and which are widely accepted now.
By collective properties, we mean here the distributions of X-ray
luminosities and binary periods of these XRBs, the distribution
of pulse periods of those binaries which exhibit periodic X-ray pulses,
and perhaps also the distribution of their spectral properties at a
future date.
In this series of papers, we explore the theoretical underpinnings of
the observed distribution of the collective properties of XRBs in
normal galaxies. We focus here on XRBs
{\it outside} the globular clusters of these galaxies (\ie, in the stellar
field of the galaxy), where the effects of encounters
between XRBs and neighboring stars, as well as those between XRBs
themselves, are generally thought to be negligible, due to the
relatively low stellar density there. This situation is at the opposite
limit to that obtaining in dense cores of globular clusters, where
such encounters are thought to be {\it dominant} in determining the
formation, evolution, and destruction of XRBs, and so their collective properties.
We have studied this latter limit of XRBs in globular
clusters in an earlier series of papers (Banerjee \& Ghosh 2006, 2007,
2008). The current study may thus be regarded as complementary to the
earlier one. We shall confine ourselves here to the distributions of
X-ray luminosity and binary orbital period, since the most detailed
distributions available are on these properties, and also
since these properties are most readily associated with binary evolutionary
characteristics. To understand the distributions of properties like pulse
periods of X-ray pulsars and spectral parameters of XRBs, one must also take
into account the details of the accretion torque on the neutron star,
and of the X-ray emission processes. We defer these projects to the
future, noting that with $\sim$ 140 X-ray pulsars already known, the
pulse-period distribution may be amenable to such a future study.
The crucial simplification that makes a straightforward approach
feasible in the limit that we study here is that
the absence of any significant influence on a given XRB of either the
stellar background or other XRBs implies that each XRB can be thought
of as evolving in {\it isolation}, following the well-studied and
now widely-accepted scenarios for the formation and evolution
of individual XRBs, starting from primordial binaries
generated in normal star-formation activity in a galaxy (see, \eg,
van den Heuvel 2001 and the references therein).
This, in turn, implies that we need only have a knowledge of the
distribution of the essential parameters of these primordial
binaries, and evolve these distributions through the essential
processes that occur during the evolution of a primordial binary
into a XRB. The task becomes even simpler when only initial and
final states matter in the above processes, since we need only
keep track of these states to carry out the transformation of
the relevant probability distribution, and so connect the primordial
distribution to the XRB distribution in a one-to-one
correspondence. This is, in fact, the case
for massive or high-mass X-ray binaries (henceforth HMXBs). On
the other hand, when following one or more of these evolutionary processes
requires the knowledge of the entire evolution during a particular
process, and not just of the initial and final states, the
calculation becomes more laborious (although still
straightforward in principle). This is the case for
low-mass X-ray binaries (henceforth LMXBs).
In this first paper of the series, we focus our attention on HMXBs
containing neutron stars.
A particular circumstance that helps in this case is that, because
of the short evolutionary timescales of the massive companions
of the neutron stars in HMXBs, the timescale for the entire evolution
from the primordial binary stage to the HMXB stage (as also the
operational lifetime of the HMXB) is short \citep{vdH01} compared to the
timescale on which the star-formation rate (which determines the
creation rate of primordial binaries) evolves \citep{Madau,GW01}.
As a consequence,
the entire process we study here can be viewed as happening at a
constant star-formation rate, so that the star-formation history of
the galaxy adds no extra complication. Figuratively
speaking, it is as if we are taking a ``snapshot'' of the above
processes confined entirely to one epoch (the current one,
$z = 0$, for the HMXB populations of the Milky Way and other
local galaxies, and an appropriately earlier epoch for the HMXB
populations of spiral galaxies at significant redshifts).
This argument does not, of course, apply to LMXBs,
since their evolutionary timescales are comparable to or longer
than \citep{vdH91} those on which the star-formation rate evolves.
Accordingly, we have to explicitly take into account the
evolution in the star-formation rate when we apply our scheme
to LMXBs, as we shall describe in later papers
in the series. Thus, for example, for
describing the LMXB populations of local galaxies, we shall
need to use not only the star-formation rate at $z = 0$ but
also the rates at $z > 0$, \ie, the star-formation history of
the galaxy.
This difference between the evolutionary characteristics of
HMXB and LMXB populations is, of course, closely
related to the earlier statement about the initial-to-final
state correspondence for HMXBs versus the additional role of
intermediate states for LMXBs.
In the following sections, we first describe the distributions of the
essential parameters of the primordial binary populations that we
adopt for our study of HMXBs, following well-established
scenarios and norms in the literature. In particular, we adopt the
standard initial mass function (henceforth IMF) and the standard
log-uniform distribution (also known as \"Opik's law) for the orbital
separation, as is done in the literature. We then describe how
these parameters change in the essential processes that occur as
a primordial binary evolves \citep{vdH01}. The first change occurs
when the primary
evolves, fills its Roche lobe, and transfers its envelope to the
secondary, leaving behind its He core. The second change occurs when
this He core finishes its further evolution, and explodes in the
supernova (SN) that creates the neutron star. We give explicit
relations connecting the binary parameters in the initial and final
states of these two processes. Using these relations, we show how
the standard rules of probability transformation enable us to
derive the distributions of the post-SN binary parameters from the
original primordial binary parameters through the Jacobian
formalism. Next, we consider what happens when the massive
companion to the neutron star evolves off the main sequence,
becoming a giant/supergiant, and driving a strong stellar wind,
from which the neutron star accretes matter, thus turning on the
HMXB phase \citep{vdH01}.
We adopt standard stellar-wind models from the literature
and show how we can derive the distributions of
both the X-ray luminosities $L_X$ and the orbital periods
$P_{orb}$ of the HMXBs from the distributions we obtained above.
We then compare our calculated distributions with the observed
distributions of $L_X$ \citep{Grimetal02,Gil04,GGS04a}
and $P_{orb}$ \citep{LPH05,LPH06} reported in the
literature. We show that the main feature of the observed
$L_X$-distribution, \viz, the power-law behavior with a
differential slope $dN/dL_X \approx -1.6$ over a wide range
of $L_X$ \citep{Gil04} is reproduced well in our calculated
distribution over the luminosity range covered by
neutron-star HMXBs.
At the lowest luminosities, below the range covered in the
above observational work, our calculated distribution shows
a shallower rise in $dN/dL_X$ with decreasing $L_X$.
We show that this feature is consistent with
recent observations (Shtykovskiy \& Gilfanov 2005a,b) of
the Magellanic Clouds. For the $P_{orb}$-distribution,
we show that the general features of the observed distribution
are in reasonable agreement with the results of our calculations
within observational uncertainties.
Subsequent sections of the paper are arranged as follows.
In Sec.\ref{sec:hmxboverview}, we give a brief overview of the
formation of neutron-star HMXBs from primordial binaries and their
subsequent evolution, and we describe the standard distribution
of primordial binary parameters that we adopt.
In Sec.\ref{sec:paramchange}, we describe how the
binary parameters evolve through the processes of (a) the first mass
transfer in the system and
(b) the subsequent supernova of the He-core of the primary.
In Sec.\ref{sec:jacob}, we introduce the Jacobian formalism for
calculating how the distribution of binary parameters transforms
as these parameters evolve as described in the previous section.
In Sec.\ref{sec:psnpdf}, we discuss the distribution of the essential
parameters of the post-SN binary. In Sec.\ref{sec:psntoxrb}, we
detail the evolution of the post-SN binary into a HMXB, summarizing
the essentials of the stellar and stellar-wind models that provide these
details, and indicating the further transformation of distributions
needed at this point. In Sec.\ref{sec:hmxbdist}, we discuss our
calculated HMXB distributions of luminosity (\ie, the X-ray luminosity
function or XLF) and binary period, compare them with observed
distributions, and discuss the effect on our model calculations of
varying essential inputs like the initial mass function (IMF), stellar
wind models, and so on. Finally, in Sec.\ref{sec:discussion}, we discuss
our results from various angles, including issues about primordial
binary parameters, roles of Be-star binaries and black holes,
physical origins of some essential features of the HMXB distributions,
and then summarize our conclusions and future outlook. Details of some
of our calculational methods are summarized in Appendix A.
\section{HMXB Formation and Evolution}
\label{sec:hmxboverview}
Scenarios for the formation and evolution of HMXBs have been studied in
detail since the early 1970s, and a ``standard'' picture has now
emerged, which is very well-documented
\citep{vdH83,vdH91,vdH92,vdH01}, thus making it
unnecessary to recount it here in detail. Very briefly, one starts with
a primordial binary of two massive stars. The more massive of
the two (\ie, the primary) evolves faster, ends its main sequence life
and expands rapidly to become a giant, the whole process occurring on
a timescale of $\sim 10^6-10^7$ years. The giant overflows its Roche lobe and
starts transferring its hydrogen envelope to the secondary, at which point
there are two possibilities, depending on the ratio of the thermal
timescales of the two stars, which, in turn, depends on their
mass ratio. The first possibilty arises if the mass
ratio is not so extreme (quantitative arguments are given in the next
section) that the above two timescales are not different by more than
an order of magnitude, say. The secondary can then accept the entire
mass transferred by the primary. This leaves behind only the He-core
of the primary, and the secondary becomes so massive after
assimilating the H-envelope of the primary that it in fact turns into
the more massive component of the system. This is the channel through
which HMXBs form. The second posibility arises if the mass ratio is
so extreme that the thermal timescales are disparate by more than the
above amount, in which case the secondary is unable to accept the mass
transferred by the primary, and this mass forms a common enevelope (CE)
surrounding the secondary and the He-core of the primary. This is the
standard channel through which LMXBs are thought to form, which we
do not discuss further in this paper.
In the HMXB channel, the system now consists of a He-core plus a
massive star, which was the secondary earlier, but is now the
more massive component.
The He-core finishes the rest of its evolution rapidly
(in $\sim 10^5-10^6$ years), and explodes in a supernova, leaving
behind a neutron star which will become the main X-ray emitter in
the HMXB. The massive companion to the neutron star now finishes its
main-sequence evolution in $\sim 10^6$ years, expands to become a
supergiant, and drives a strong stellar wind. Accretion from this
wind by the neutron star generates X-rays, and the system thus
turns on as a HMXB. This HMXB phase lasts $\sim 10^4-10^5$ years,
after which the massive companion fills its Roche lobe. The
subsequent mass-transfer is very large and rapid, which leads to
considerable mass loss from the system, formation of a common
envelope (CE) surrounding the neutron star and the He-core of the
evolved massive companion, and a total extinction of the X-ray source.
The outcome of this CE evolution, \viz, the formation of a compact
binary consisting of the neutron star and the He-core of its former
massive companion, which, after the SN of this He-star, ultimately
leads to the formation of a double-degenerate system consisting
either of an eccentric double-neutron-star binary or of two runaway
single neutron stars \citep{vdH01}, lies outside the scope of this
work.
In recent years, variations, modifications and additions to the
above standard scenario have been considered. For example, it
has been suggested that CE evolution of sufficiently wide systems
during the first mass transfer may still lead to tight post-CE
systems which would contribute to HMXB production (see \cite{linden}
and references therein), and that these systems might remain
tight even after the SN explosion, turning promptly into HMXBs with
unevolved companions. Further, under certain other circumstances, CE
evolution might lead to tightly-bound HMXBs with He-rich donors
\citep{linden}. In this first look at the problem, we shall not
consider these fascinating possibilities, but rather confine
ourselves to the standard picture, since our aim here is to
assess the viability of our approach in the simplest testing
ground, before attempting further refinements.
\subsection{Primordial Binary Distribution}
\label{sec:primordial}
We consider now the distribution of the essential properties of the
primordial binaries from which HMXBs evolve according to the
standard scenario sketched above.
The progenitor primordial binary system is described by three
essential properties, namely, the mass of primary ($M_p$), the mass
of the secondary ($M_s$), and the orbital separation ($a_0$). An
equivalent description is in terms of $M_p$, the mass ratio
$q = M_s/M_p$, and $a_0$. We use the second description throughout
this work, following the custom of recent literature on the subject,
and briefly mention the correspondence between the two descriptions
in Sec.\ref{sec:mdist}. Also, as is often done in this subject, we take the
primordial binary orbits to be circular for the purposes of the
problem we study here.
The constraints imposed by the HMXB problem under consideration here
limits the allowed range of the above parameters. If we restrict
ourselves to only neutron-star HMXBs, as we do in this paper, then
the primary mass $M_p$ is restricted to be between
roughly 9\Msun\ and 30\Msun\ \citep{Hegetal03}.
This means, of course, that those HMXBs which have black holes (either
stellar-mass or intermediate-mass) as their compact, X-ray emitting
components are outside the scope of this work. We return to this point
in Sec.\ref{sec:blackhole}. Next, the secondary mass $M_s$ is restricted
from below by the requirement mentioned above, \ie, that its thermal
timescale must not be larger than that of the primary
by more than one order of magnitude, which
implies a rough lower bound $M_S\ge 0.3M_p$, since the thermal timescale
goes roughly as the inverse square of the mass in this mass-range. The
upper bound on $M_S$ is of course $M_s\le M_p$ by
definition. This means, therefore, that the allowed range of the
primordial-binary mass ratio is roughly $0.3\le q\le 1$ for HMXB formation.
Finally, the initial orbital separation $a_0$ is restricted
from above by the condition of Roche lobe overflow when the primary
evolves off the main sequence, without which there would be no mass
transfer, and the stipulated HMXB formation scenario will not operate.
It is customary to take this upper limit as $a_0 \le 10^3\Rsun$,
which is not very restrictive.
Consider now the distributions of $M_p, q$, and $a_0$ we use in this
work, in keeping with the common practice in the literature.
The $M_P$-distribution is described in terms of a
suitable Initial Mass Function (IMF), \ie, the probability density
$f_M(M)$ of a stellar mass being in the range $M$ to $M+dM$. The IMF
is widely taken to be of a power-law form $f_M(M) \propto
M^{-\alpha}$, the classic Salpeter IMF \citep{Salp} corresponding to
$\alpha=2.35$, and a more recent suggestion being $\alpha=2.7$
\citep{Kroup}. We adopt the Salpeter IMF for our main calculations
and study the effect of varying the IMF on the
$L_X$-distribution in Sec.\ref{sec:IMFvary}.
The $q$-distribution is generally taken as a power-law in $q$,
given by $f(q)\propto q^{\beta}$,
where the exponent $\beta$ may depend on the type of XRB
population being studied. Following the usage in recent works on
population studies of HMXBs \citep{belc08,linden},
we adopt a uniform $q$-distribution, $\beta = 0$, in our
HMXB studies in this paper. (However, we do note that our formalism
has the provision for handling non-uniform distributions of $q$, which
will indeed be used in our LMXB studies described in subsequent
papers in this series.)
The distribution of the orbital separation
$a_0$ is almost universally taken in the literature
to be a loguniform one (\ie, an equal number of systems
in equal intervals of $\log a_0$), also
known as \"Opik's law \citep{Opik}. This implies a probabilty
density $f(a_0)$ of the separation being
in the range $a_0$ to $a_0+da_0$ as $f(a_0)
\propto 1/a_0$. We adopt \"Opik's law in our work.
In order to construct the total probibility distribution function
of primordial binaries, we need only note that the above pieces of
the probability density function (PDF) are independent of each other,
subject to the restrictions in the allowed ranges of values detailed
above. Thus, subject to these restrictions, the total PDF is
given by:
\begin{equation}
f_{primo}(M_p, q, a_0) = \frac{1}{N} \frac{M_p^{-\alpha}}{a_0}
\label{eq:primopdf}
\end{equation}
Here $N$ is a normalization parameter. Note that, although this PDF
is mathematically defined over much larger ranges of parameters,
we are interested only in the allowed range for HMXB formation, as
explained above. Hence, we set $f_{primo}=0$ over the forbidden range,
and so choose the normalization parameter $N$ that the integral of
the PDF over the allowed range is unity. Consequently, although this
PDF has no explicit dependence on $q$ due to the assumed uniform
$q$-distribution for this HMXB study, the allowed range of $q$,
\ie, $0.3-1$, does have an effect on the value of $N$.
\section{Evolutionary Changes in Binary Parmeters}
\label{sec:paramchange}
In this section, we summarize the changes in the binary parameters as
the system evolves through the first mass-transfer phase,
and the subsequent SN of the He-core of the original
primary. As mentioned in Sec.\ref{sec:intro}, these changes only require
keeping track of the relations between the initial and final states in
each of the above two processes, which makes the ensuing
transformations relatively simple.
\subsection{First mass transfer}
\label{sec:masstrans}
In keeping with previous work on the subject, we assume that there is
negligible mass loss from the system during this process, \ie, the
mass transfer is \emph{conservative}, so that the H-envelope of the primary
is entirely transferred to the secondary, leaving behind its He-core of
mass $M_{p,c}$ given by:
\begin{equation}
M_{p,c} = M_0 M_p^{1/\xi},
\label{eq:coremass}
\end{equation}
where typical values of $M_0$ and $\xi$ used in the literature
are 0.073\Msun and 0.704 respectively, for a metallicity of
$z\approx 0.03$. This is a commonly-used analytic approximation
to the results of numerical stellar-evolution calculations (Ghosh 2007
and references therein).
Because the mass transfer is conservative, the binary parmeters
$\bar{M}_p$, $\bar{M}_s$, and $\bar{a}$ at the end of it are related
to the primordial binary parameters as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{M}_p &=& M_{p,c}~, \nonumber \\
\bar{M}_s &=& M_p + M_s - M_{p,c}~,
\label{eq:pImtr}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
\bar{a} = a_0 \left[\frac{M_p M_s}{\bar{M}_p \bar{M}_s}\right]^2~.
\label{eq:pIachange}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Supernova}
\label{sec:sn}
The post-mass-transfer binary is detached. The He-core described above
evolves further and explodes as a supernova (SN), which leaves behind a
neutron star of a typical mass of 1.4 \Msun\ and blows off the rest
of the He-star. This sudden mass loss from the system alters the orbital
separation and makes the orbit eccentric. We assume in this work that
the neutron star has the above mass in all cases. Neglecting any
effects of the expanding supernova ejecta on the secondary, \eg,
ablation, the secondary remains completely unchanged in this process.
Since we assume that the mass of the neutron star is always fixed to
1.4 \Msun, it can no longer be used formally as a free parameter in the
description of the post-SN system. Therefore, we choose the orbital
eccentricity $e$ as the third parameter, so that the
post-SN system is described by the companion mass ($M_c$), the semimajor
axis ($a$) and the eccentricity ($e$).
Natal supernova kicks introduce additional changes in
the post-SN parameters. It is generally believed today that the SN
explosion need not have exact spherical symmetry. Many suggestions
have been given for the physical origin of this asymmetry, \eg, density
inhomogeneity in the pre-collapse core, anisotropic neutrino emission,
unequal momentum fluxes in the jet and anti-jet directions, and so on
\citep{scheck04, scheck06}. It has also been
pointed out that a seed anisotropy, once introduced by these
mechanisms, will be enhanced during the hydrodynamic evolution of the
explosion and may impart a large kick to the neutron star.
Proper motion measurement of radio pulsars is used as a diagnostic of
these natal kicks. Such studies have shown that the distribution of
the pulsar velocities can be described by a 3D isotropic Maxwellian,
in which the kick speed $v$ is distributed as
$f(v) \propto v^2 exp(-v^2/2\sigma^2)$ \citep{hobbs}, with
$\sigma = 265$ km/s \citep{hobbs}, and the direction of the kick
velocity is distributed isotropically. Earlier works had suggested
that the distribution might actually be bimodal, represented by two
Maxwellians, so that the overall distribution would be the weighted
sum of these \citep{arzoumanian}.
Recent works have argued that electron-capture
supernovae (ECSN) are likely to produce much lower kicks with
$\sigma \approx 50$ km/s or lower \citep{linden},
while the larger value given in the previous paragraph
is appropriate for iron-core-collapse supernovae (ICCSN).
We note here that studies of the proper motions of
pulsars involve single pulsars, some of which would have come from a
single star collapse. For the rest, which were obtained
by disruption of binary systems, there would clearly be an observational
bias towards higher kick velocities, since it is these systems
which became preferentially unbound to yield the single pulsars
whose proper motions are studied observationally. However,
such effects are difficult to account for at this stage of
understanding of the problem, and it is customary in the literature
to apply the inferred distribution of kick velocities directly to
the X-ray binary progenitors, as we have done here.
Effects of isotropic Maxwellian SN-kicks in progenitors of X-ray
binaries were studied in a pioneering work by Kalogera (1996).
For our study here, we have devised a method related to that
described in the above work, but designed specifically for our
purposes here. The method works as follows. If we define our
co-ordinate system such that, just before the SN explosion, the line
joining the two stars is along the x-axis and the neutron star is
moving in the positive z-direction with a keplerian orbital
velocity $v_{orb}$, then a kick of
magnitude $v_k$ in the direction $\hat{n}(\theta, \phi)$ would
produce a change in orbital parameters given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{M_i^t}{a_i} + v_k^2 + 2v_kcos\theta\sqrt{\frac{M_i^t}{a_i}}
&=& M_f^t\left(\frac{2}{a_i} - \frac{1}{a_f}\right) \nonumber \\
a_i^2 \left[v_k^2sin^2\theta sin^2\phi + \left(\sqrt{\frac{M_i^t}{a_i}}
+ v_k cos\theta \right)^2\right] &=& M_f^ta_f\left(1-e^2\right)
\label{eqn:postsn}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the angles $\theta$ and $\phi$ are defined in the usual way,
$M^t$ denotes the total mass of the system, and the subscripts $i$
and $f$ denote the initial and final values (\ie, \emph{pre-SN} and
\emph{post-SN} values). All quantities here are in solar units, with
$v$ in the units of $\sqrt{G\Msun/\Rsun}$.
Due to the Maxwell-distributed random SN-kicks given to the neutron star,
the one-to-one correspondence between the pre-SN and post-SN binary
parameteres, which would have existed in the absence of such kicks,
is broken now.
Instead, we need to calculate a suitable \emph{average} effect of
SN-kicks on the transformation between the pre-SN and post-SN
parameters, which takes into account the underlying distribution of
the kicks. To this end, we average eqs.\ref{eqn:postsn} over the
distribution of $v_k$, upon which the linear terms in $v_k
cos\theta$ vanish due to isotropy, and the distribution-averaged
transformation equations become:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{M_i^t}{a_i} + \vsqav &=& M_f^t\left(\frac{2}{a_i} -
\frac{1}{a_f}\right) \nonumber \\
a_i^2 \left(\frac{M_i^t}{a_i} + \frac{2}{3}\vsqav \right)
&=& M_f^ta_f(1-e^2)
\label{eqn:postsnav}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, \vsqav\ is $v^2$ averaged over the kick-distribution. For a
Maxwellian distribution, it is given by:
\begin{equation}
\left<v^2\right> = \frac{\int v^4 exp(-v^2/2\sigma^2)dv}
{\int v^2 exp(-v^2/2\sigma^2)dv}
\label{eqn:vsqav}
\end{equation}
Those properties of \vsqav\ for a Maxwellian which we need for our work
are detailed in Appendix A. We assume here a combination of two
Maxwellians with values of $\sigma$ appropriate for ICCSN and ECSN, as
described above. The way for determining the appropriate proportions
of these two components is described below in Sec.\ref{invtrans}.
For each of the two components, the parameter transformations are
also given in Appendix A.
\section{Post-SN probability density function}
\label{sec:psnpdf}
\subsection{Jacobian formalism}
\label{sec:jacob}
Probability theory provides us with a method of transforming the PDF of a
set of variable to the PDF of another set of variables, if we know
the relations between the these two sets of variables. Let us assume
that a system is described by a set of variables denoted by a vector
$\bar{X}$. A given specific process transforms this set of
parameters to another set of (the same number of) parameters denoted by
$\bar{Y}$. Both the forward transformation $\bar{Y}(\bar{X})$ and the
inverse transformation $\bar{X}(\bar{Y})$ are mathematically defined.
The initial PDF as a function of $\bar{X}$, $f_X(\bar{X})$ then
transforms as follows:
\begin{equation}
f_Y(\bar{Y}) = f_X(\bar{X}(\bar{Y}))
\left| \frac{\partial \bar{X}}{\partial \bar{Y}} \right|
\label{eqn:jacob}
\end{equation}
Here, $\left| \frac{\partial \bar{X}}{\partial \bar{Y}} \right|$ is called
the Jacobian determinant of the inverse transformation. The above
theorem can now be applied to our problem in order to transform the
PDF of the primordial binaries to the post-SN PDF.
\subsection{Inverse transformation and post-SN PDF}
\label{invtrans}
In order to apply the above formalism to our problem, we
need to invert the above parameter transformation relations,
which is straightforward. The Jacobian of this
transformation ($J_{mtr}$) can also be readily calculated.
In the two regions described in Appendix A, these transformations
can be obtained and the Jacobian ($J_{sn}$) can be calculated
explicitly, as detailed in Appendix A.
Working in either region, the post-SN PDF is given by:
\begin{equation}
\bar{f}_{psn}(M_c, e, a) = f_{primo} J_{mtr} J_{sn}
\label{eqn:psnpdf}
\end{equation}
The PDF of the parameters
of the post-SN binary, $M_c,e,a$, no longer factorizes into
individual PDFs for these three parameters, unlike the situation for
the PDF of primordial binaries. This is as expected, since
the parameter transformation laws given above mix the
parameters. An immediate consequence of this is that the PDF for any
one of the above post-SN binary parameters needs to be obtained by
integrating the PDF of Eqn.\ref{eqn:psnpdf} over the other two
parameters.
As described above, we use two values of the dispersion in the kick
distribution, $\sigma$, appropriate for ICCSN and ECSN. We
have also described above the method of
calculating the distribution in each case.
The actual distribution of the parameters with both types of SN present
is the weighted sum of these two PDFs for the two values of $\sigma$,
and this weighting comes from the following considerations.
For the range of $M_p$ which leads to ECSN events, we have adopted
here the value advocated in recent works \citep{pod04},
which is 8-11 \Msun .
The relative contribution of the ECSN and ICCSN is then
given by $N_{EC}/N_{ICC} = N(M_{min},M_{tran})/N(M_{tran},M_{max})$, which
depends upon the IMF. Here, $M_{min} = 9\Msun, M_{max} = 30\Msun$
define the allowed range of primary masses given earlier, and
$M_{tran}$ is the primary mass for transition from ECSN to ICCSN.
For a Salpeter IMF, this ratio is 0.42 for $M_{tran} = 11\Msun$
and 0.67 for $M_{tran} = 12\Msun$. We take this ratio as 0.42
wherever it occurs in our calculations here.
\subsection{Properties of the post-SN PDF}
\label{sec:psnprop}
In order to appreciate the nature of the post-SN distribution, we
calculate and plot the individual PDFs for each of these parameters,
obtained by integrating $\bar{f}_{psn}$ over the other two.
We now discuss each of these distributions.
\subsubsection{Companion mass}
\label{sec:compmass}
The distribution of the companion mass shows a slow early rise and then
broken power-law behaviour with the break occuring at $\sim 30\Msun$, as
shown in Fig.\ref{fig:mcdf}. The power-law slope is $\approx -2.4$,
in the mass range $20-30 \Msun$, whereas above the break point the
$M_c$-distribution becomes steeper, with a slope of
$\approx -5.2$. The kink seen
at the breakpoint of 30\Msun\ becomes a \emph{fold} in the
bivariate distribution as a function of $M_c$ and $a$ (See Fig.
\ref{fig:mcadf}). This kink appears at the mass which
corresponds to the upper limit of the primary mass in the primordial
binary. The allowed range of the primary mass is $9\Msun\leq M_p \leq
30\Msun$: this constraint was imposed to ensure the formation of
neutron star as an end product of the stellar evolution of the
primary.
It can be easily seen from the relation given above between
the mass of the primary and that of its He-core that
the mass range obtained for $M_c$ if we take $M_p = 30 \Msun$,
corresponding to the entire allowed range
of $M_s$, is $\approx 30\Msun - 51\Msun$. Thus
for $M_c \leq 30 \Msun$, a large range of $M_p$ can contribute,
whereas for $M_c>30 \Msun$ the allowed range of $M_p$ is rapidly
cut off as $M_c$ increases, which causes a rapid reduction in the
number of systems possible in this region. Thus, the effect of
the allowed phase-space region
is reflected in the transition in the power-law index of the
$M_c$-distribution. In the region where large parts of the
phase space of $M_p$ are allowed to contribute, the
slope of the PDF is close to the input IMF slope of $-2.35$.
For masses above the kink, only small parts can contribute,
resulting in a steeper fall. For similar reasons of forbidden
phase space, a downturn is expected at very low values of $M_c$,
in the mass range $\sim (10-15)\Msun$.
Upon inclusion of SN-kicks, the above mass distribution is
essentially unchanged in the mid-$M_c$ range, except that
the kink at $\sim 30\Msun$ becomes less prominent. But
the distribution is cut off more sharply at the lowest and
highest masses, the former being immediately understandable
since kicks tend to preferentially unbind systems with
lower binding energy.
The bivariate $M_c-a$ distribution shown in Fig.\ref{fig:mcadf}
reveal the complexity introduced by the kicks. Although the
surface shows similarities to its no-kick counterpart
in general features, several additional features
appear due to Maxwellian-averaged kicks corresponding to
the two different values of $\sigma$ given
above for the two types of SN, namely, ECSN and ICCSN.
\subsubsection{Semimajor axis}
\label{sec:semimajor}
Fig.\ref{fig:ladf} shows the PDF of $log(a)$, the post-SN semimajor
axis on a logarithmic scale. The PDF without considering the effect of
SN-kicks is flat (\ie, loguniform in $a$) in the mid-$a$ range,
with smooth rise and fall at
low and high values of $a$ respectively. This is clearly a direct
consequence of the assumed flat, \"Opik's-law distribution of
primordial binaries, which remains unchanged
at the intermediate values of $a$. The PDF with the SN-kicks
included clearly shows two additional features. First, there is
a general shift of the distribution towards wider orbits, entirely
as expected, since SN-kicks generally tend to widen orbits.
Second, the PDF is not exactly loguniform, \ie, flat in the
mid-$a$ range now: a slow fall with increasing $a$
is observed in this range, before the PDF falls off rapidly at
large $a$, as before. This second feature is a consequence of the
fact that SN-kicks steadily reduce the probability of survival of
wider binaries even in the mid-$a$ range, before
destroying them altogether at large $a$-values.
\subsubsection{Eccentricity}
\label{sec:eccen}
In the absence of kicks, the eccentricity introduced by the
SN explosion is equal to the fractional mass loss form the
system. As this fraction is small ($\sim 10$\% or less) in
case of HMXBs, only small eccentricities are introduced by the
SN in the no-kick scenario. Figure \ref{fig:edf},
which shows the post-SN eccentricity PDF, confirms this.
However, introduction of the SN-kicks
changes this result completely, making the post-SN systems
much more eccentric, as expected. Further, the results
for ICCSN and ECSN are quite different in terms of post-SN
eccentricity, also as expected because of the large difference
between $\sigma$ in the two cases (see above). Due to the small
kicks imparted in case of ECSN with \vsqav\ independent of the
details of the pre-SN system (see Sec.\ref{sec:sn} and Appendix A), the
eccentricities are generally smaller than in the ICCSN case
(although larger than in the no-kick case), and the e-distribution
is spread over a large range. By contrast, for ICCSN the kicks are
much larger, leading to large eccentricities, as shown in
Fig.\ref{fig:edf}. Further, in this case \vsqav\ is almost a
fixed fraction of the disruption velocity of the pre-SN system
for Maxwellian (and possibly also for other similar) distributions,
as explained in Appendix A, so that the e-distribution
is narrowly peaked around a value determined by that fraction.
It is likely that more detailed calculations would widen this peak
somewhat, but no qualitative changes are expected.
The composite PDF of eccentricity for ECSN and ICCSN naturally
shows a double-peaked structure, as in Fig.\ref{fig:edf}.
Of course, the e-distribution calculated above refers to
the immediate post-SN systems, which are not observable as
XRBs. These systems subsequently undergo tidal
circularization rapidly, so that most of them become circular
or nearly so by the time mass transfer begins and the
system turns on as a HMXB.
Since eccentricity is an irrelevant parameter at the HMXB stage,
we integrate $\bar{f}_{psn}$ over the eccentricity to obtain
only the bivariate PDF as a function of $M_c$ and $a$, which is shown
in Fig.\ref{fig:mcadf}.
\section{Post-SN binary to HMXB}
\label{sec:psntoxrb}
Post-SN systems evolve over the main-sequence lives of their
companions as detached systems on a short timescale
($\sim 10^6$ years), during which the orbit is tidally
circularized. Therefore, a bivariate post-SN PDF adequately
describes the HMXB system, being given by:
\begin{equation}
f_{psn}(M_c, a) = \int_0^1 \bar{f}(M_c, a, e) de
\label{eqn:psnbi}
\end{equation}
Observed collective properties of HMXBs are usually given as
distributions of their luminosities ($L$) (\ie, the X-ray luminosity
function or XLF) and orbital periods ($P_b$), instead of $M_c$ and
$a$, which we have worked with upto this point. In order to
compare our results with observations, a further transformation
$(M_c, a) \rightarrow (L, P_b)$ is therefore required now.
$P_b$ can be calculated for given values of $M_c$ and $a$ using Kepler's
third law. If all the masses and distances are expressed in the
units of the solar values, then $P_b$ in hours is given by:
\begin{equation}
P_b^2 = 7.72\, \frac{a^3}{M_c+M_{NS}}
\label{eqn:kepler}
\end{equation}
Here $M_{NS} = 1.4\Msun$ is the mass of the neutron star. To
calculate the luminosity as a function of $M_c$ and $a$,
prescriptions of the mass-loss rate from the companion and the
capture mechanism by the neutron star are required.
The companion expands into a giant/supergiant after completing
its main-sequence life, and loses mass by driving a strong stellar
wind at a rate $\dot{M}_w$. The neutron star captures a fraction
of this lost mass. The accretion rate onto the neutron star
is then given by $\dot{M} = \dot{M}_w \times$ (capture fraction).
In this work, we assume that HMXBs are entirely
\emph{wind-fed giant/supergiant} systems, thus ignoring those
systems in which a main-sequence companion close to its
Roche lobe may drive a (weak) \emph{atmospheric} Roche-lobe
overflow. This is certainly justified at higher X-ray luminosities,
since systems fed only by the latter mechanism would be found at
the lowest end of the XLF. In a similar vein, we also do not
include HMXBs with Be-star companions (see Sec.\ref{sec:bestar}),
since the transient nature of these systems with low duty cycles
implies a low \emph{time-averaged} luminosity, which would put
them, again, at the low end of a time-averaged XLF, which is
generally difficult to determine.
The X-ray luminosity $L$ is then given by the standard stellar-wind model,
according to which the massive companion drives a wind mass-loss at
a rate $\dot{M}_w$, and with a terminal wind speed of $V_w$. Of this,
a fraction $\sim\left[\frac{GM_{NS}}{V_w^2a}\right]^2$ (the capture
fraction introduced above) is captured and accreted by the neutron
star, and the gravitational energy release from this accretion
generates the X-rays. In order to connect $L$
to the stellar and orbital parameters, we first
note that $L$ is the rate of release of the gravitational energy of
the accreted matter and hence is directly proportional to accretion
rate \mdot as
\begin{equation}
L = {GM_{NS}\mdot\over R_{NS}}~,
\label{eqn:acclum}
\end{equation}
which we can express numerically as
$L_{36} \approx 1.17 \mdotten$, where $L_{36}$ is $L$ in
units of $10^{36}$ ergs/s and \mdotten is \mdot in units of
$10^{-10}$ \Msun /yr. Next, we note that the accretion rate \mdot is
related to the wind mass-loss rate $\dot{M}_w$ and the above
capture fraction as
\begin{equation}
\mdot = \dot{M}_w\times\left[\frac{GM_{NS}}{V_w^2a}\right]^2~.
\label{eqn:accrate}
\end{equation}
To proceed further, we need models of stellar winds, which we
consider next.
\subsection{Stellar wind models}
\label{sec:windmodel}
Models of stellar wind relate the mass loss rate and the terminal
velocity of the wind to stellar parameters like mass, radius
and luminosity. In our case, these parameters are
the mass of the companion, the radius of the companion $R_c$
and the luminosity of the companion $L_c$. Some well-known
stellar-wind models which we consider here are those due to
Castor \etal, Kudritzi-Reimers, and Vink \etal\
\citep{castor, reimers, KudReim, vink}, which span the range from
the classic CAK model \citep{castor} of the 1970s to the
recent Vink \etal\ model \citep{vink}.
The rates of mass loss in these models are given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{Kudritzki-Reimers :} \;
\dot{M}_w &=& \gamma_{\rm KR} \: \frac{L_c R_c}
{M_c}\nonumber \\
\mbox{Castor \etal : } \;
\dot{M}_w &=& \gamma_{\rm CAK} \: \frac{L _cR_c^{0.5}}
{M_c^{0.5}} \nonumber \\
\mbox{Vink \etal} \;
\dot{M}_w &=& \gamma_{\rm Vink} \: \frac{L _c^{2.45}R_c^{-0.5}}
{M_c^{1.3}}
\label{eqn:windmassloss}
\end{eqnarray}
The constants $\gamma_{\rm KR}$, $\gamma_{\rm CAK}$, and
$\gamma_{\rm Vink}$ are given in the original works. We use
the KR model in our main work here, and summarize the
effects of varying the stellar-wind model in Sec.\ref{sec:windvary}.
\subsubsection{Stellar models}
\label{sec:starmodel}
Results of numerical calculations of stellar evolution
give stellar parameters like radius and luminosity as
functions of the mass, metallicity and the age of the star.
For using the above stellar-wind models in our calculations,
we need these parameters for a given mass and metallicity of
the wind-driving companion. In the spirit of our semi-analytic
approach, we use the parameters given by Hurley, Pols and
Tout (2000, henceforth HPT) in their comprehensive work on
the construction of analytic approximations to the standard
numerical results of stellar-evolutionary codes. The range
of $M_c$ shown in Fig.\ref{fig:mcdf} and discussed in
Sec.\ref{sec:compmass} leads to the conclusion that, except
for a small region at the lower end of this range, the massive
companions ignite He in the core while in the Hertzsprung
gap (HG), while those in that small region do so at the top
of the giant branch (GB). The companion's luminosity remains
nearly constant in the HG, as discussed in HPT. Relevant
fitting formulae for the luminosity and radius in the
core Helium burning (CHeB) phase are given in Sec.5 of HPT,
particularly Secs.5.1 and 5.3. We have used a metallicity
$z=0.02$ in our main calculations, varying it later to test its
effect on HMXB distribution (see Sec.\ref{sec:othervary}).
The terminal velocity $V_w$ which appears in Eqn.\ref{eqn:accrate}
is of the order of escape velocity from the surface of the
companion and hence can be taken as a function of $M_c$, so
that the accretion rate can be expressed in the form:
\begin{equation}
\dot{M} \propto \frac{f(M_c)}{a^2},
\label{eqn:accr}
\end{equation}
where the function $f(M_c)\sim\dot{M}_w/V_w^4$ contains
the physics of wind mass-loss. Equation \ref{eqn:accr}
gives the accretion rate as a function of $M_c$ and $a$ and
so, along with Eqn.\ref{eqn:kepler}, provides the transformation
from $(M_c, a)$ to $(\dot{M}, P_b)$,
\subsection{Transformation of parameters}
\label{sec:hparamtr}
Inverse transformations for eqns. \ref{eqn:accr} and
\ref{eqn:kepler} need to be obtained to transform the PDF. We
first carry out the transformation from $(M_c, a)$ to
$(\dot{M}, P_b)$. We note here that the PDF as a function
of $\dot{M}$ and $L$ will be identical up to a numerical factor since
the two are linearly related to each other. The inverse transformation
can become complicated because $f(M_c)$ can be a very complicated
function and hence difficult to invert analytically. Our goal would,
of course, be to construct a procedure that works with a general
$f(M_c)$, so that the formalism can be applied to any model without
changing the procedure. We first write the accretion rate as
\begin{equation}
\mdotten = 3.92 \frac{f(M_c)}{a^2} .
\label{eqn:acrate}
\end{equation}
The numerical factor is so chosen that $\gamma_{\rm KR}=10^{-4}$;
for other models the numerical constants can be appropriately
adjusted in a similar way. With the aid of Eqns.\ref{eqn:kepler} and
\ref{eqn:accrate}, we can eliminate $a$ and write
\begin{equation}
g(M_c) = G(P_b, \mdotten) ,
\label{eqn:htr1}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
g(M_c) &=& \frac{f^3(M_c)}{(M_c+M_{NS})^2} .\nonumber \\
G(P_b, \mdotten) &=& 2.78 \times 10^{-4} \mdotten^3 P_b^4 .
\label{eqn:defhtr1}
\end{eqnarray}
This equation can be numerically solved to obtain $M_c$ as a
function of $(P_b, \mdotten)$, which is the first inverse
transformation equation. After computing $M_c$ numerically,
$a$ can be computed using
\begin{equation}
a = h(M_c) H(P_b, \mdotten),
\label{eqn:htr2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
h(M_c) &=& \frac{M_c+M_{NS}}{f(M_c)} .\nonumber \\
H(P_b, \mdotten) &=& 3.3 \times 10^{-2} \mdotten P_b^2 .
\label{eqn:defhtr2}
\end{eqnarray}
Using these inverse transformations, we calculate the Jacobian. The partial
derivatives take the following forms in terms of the functions
$G(\dot{M}_{-10}, P_b)$, $H(\dot{M}_{-10}, P_b)$, $g(M_c)$ and $h(M_c)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial M_c}{\partial \mdotten} &=&
\frac{\partial G}{\partial \mdotten} \left(\frac{dg}{dM_c}\right)^{-1}
\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial M_c}{\partial P_b} &=&
\frac{\partial G}{\partial P_b} \left(\frac{dg}{dM_c}\right)^{-1}
\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial a}{\partial \mdotten} &=& h\:\frac{\partial H}{\partial \mdotten}
+ H\:\frac{dh}{dM_c}\left(\frac{dg}{dM_c}\right)^{-1}\frac{\partial G}{\partial \mdotten}
\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial a}{\partial P_b} &=& h\:\frac{\partial H}{\partial P_b}
+ H\:\frac{dh}{dM_c}\left(\frac{dg}{dM_c}\right)^{-1}\frac{\partial G}{\partial P_b}
\label{eqn:partials}
\end{eqnarray}
From eqs.(\ref{eqn:htr1}), (\ref{eqn:htr2}) \& (\ref{eqn:partials}), we can
calculate the Jacobian as a function of $P_b$ and \mdotten\ as:
\begin{equation}
J = \left[\frac{M_c+M_{NS}}{f(M_c)}\right]^3\;
\left\{3\:\frac{df}{dM_c}-2\:\frac{f(M_c)}{M_c+M_{NS}}\right\}^{-1}\;
\left[1.84\times10^{-5}\:\mdotten^3P_b^5\right]
\label{eqn:hjacob}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Transformation of Distributions}
\label{sec:transdist}
The distribution of HMXBs in $P_b$ and \mdotten\ can now be obtained
with the aid of Eqs.(\ref{eqn:jacob}) and (\ref{eqn:psnbi}). It is:
\begin{equation}
f_{HMXB}(P_b, \mdotten) = f_{PSN}\left(M_c(P_b, \mdotten),
a(P_b, \mdotten)\right)\;\left|J(P_b, \mdotten)\right|,
\label{eqn:hmxbpdf}
\end{equation}
and $\mdot$ and $L$ are of course proportional to each other,
as explained above.
The resultant bivariate PDF
$f_{HMXB}(L,P_b)$ is displayed as a surface in Fig.\ref{fig:pbldf},
and the individual PDFs for the $L$- and $P_b$-distributions are shown
in Figs.\ref{fig:hxlf} and \ref{fig:pdist} respectively.
For obtaining the individual
distribution of each variable, the bivariate distribution is
integrated over the other variable, as explained earlier, the range
of integration extending over only the allowed range of the concerned
variable.
In Fig.\ref{fig:pblrange}, we show the allowed region in the $L-P_b$
plane, which shows how the allowed region in the $M_c-a$ plane shown in
Fig.\ref{fig:mcarange} is mapped onto the plane of the new variables.
The effect of the above transformation is a
rotation of the allowed zone in $(P_b, L)$ plane. The simple bounds
on parameters of primordial binaries given earlier transformed into
a nearly rectangular allowed region in the parameter space $(M_c, a)$
for post-SN binaries (see Fig.\ref{fig:mcarange}).
After transformation to the \emph{HMXB parameters}, however, this
allowed zone rotates into an inclined band, as shown in
Fig.\ref{fig:pblrange}. The boundaries given in this figure serve
as integration limits for the calculation of the individual PDFs
from the bivariate distribution in terms of $L$ and $P_b$.
\section{The HMXB Distribution}
\label{sec:hmxbdist}
We now discuss the nature of the distributions of the luminosities and
binary periods of HMXBs calculated above, and compare them with
the current state of observational knowledge of these distributions.
We emphasize that we are not attempting a detailed fit to the data
at this stage, but focusing instead on a comparison between the
general trends in calculated and observed distributions. The purpose
of such a comparison is of course to determine if a more detailed
computational scheme, \eg, a numerical population synthesis, is worthwhile in
the future for a giving a more detailed account of the observations.
A major virtue of an approach like ours is that it is
capable, at least in principle, of assessing in a transparent way the
relative importance of various components (\eg, the role of the
primordial binary distributions vis-a-vis that of the evolutionary
processes like the first mass transfer and the SN) in determining
the final HMXB distribution. Such an assessment helps greatly in
planning the strategy of subsequent computational studies.
\subsection{Orbital Period Distribution}
\label{sec:porbdist}
The PDF of HMXBs as a function of $P_b$ is obtained immediately
by integrating $f_{HMXB}$ given in Eqn.\ref{eqn:hmxbpdf} over the
accretion rate. The computed $P_b$ distribution
without SN-kicks (see fig. \ref{fig:pdist})
is rather similar to the corresponding post-SN $a$ distribution,
\ie, a flat \"Opik's law in the mid-region ($P_b \sim 300 - 3\times 10^4$
hrs), with a gradual rise to this flatness at shorter periods and a
slightly sharper fall-off from it at longer periods.
The distribution with the inclusion of SN-kicks also resembles the post-SN
$a$ distribution with SN-kicks: the rise now is more gradual, reaching
a maximum at $P_b \sim 1000-1500$ hrs. Instead of a flat top,
a slow fall is observed mid-$P_b$ range,
followed by a sharper fall-off at long periods, as before. The major
and obvious difference between the two distributions is an overall
shift towards wider orbits and longer periods when SN-kicks are
included, entirely as expected and as seen earlier in the post-SN
$a$-distribution. We compare our theoretically obtained
$P_b$-distribution with observations in Sec.\ref{sec:observe}.
\subsection{X-ray luminosity function}
\label{sec:hxlf}
The XLF of HMXBs can be obtained by integrating Eqn.\ref{eqn:hmxbpdf}
over $P_b$, using the limits described previously and carrying out a
simple linear transformation for \mdotten\ to \lum. The XLF
is given by:
\begin{equation}
f_L(\lum) = \frac{1}{1.17} \int f_{HMXB}(P_b, \mdotten) \, dP_b
\label{eqn:hxlfgen}
\end{equation}
where $\mdotten = \lum/1.17$. Figure \ref{fig:hxlf} shows the numerically
computed XLF. A broken power-law can be fitted to this computed XLF,
with a cut-off at the neutron-star Eddington limit.
Equation \ref{eqn:hxlf} gives the
power-law exponents in the low and high luminosity regimes, obtained
by least-squares fits to the computed XLF:
\begin{equation}
\frac{dN}{dL}\propto\:L^{\eta}\; \mbox{with}\;
\eta = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-1.63 & 0.65 < L_{36}< 7.5 \\
-0.98 & 10^{-3}< L_{36}< 10^{-2}
\end{array} \right.
\label{eqn:hxlf}
\end{equation}
The XLF calculated without SN-kicks is also given for reference. It
overlaps with the XLF with SN-kicks in the low-luminosity regime, and
shows a slightly shallower power-law of exponent is $\eta = -1.43$ in the
high-luminosity regime, the cross-over point being at
$L_{cr} \approx 8\times 10^{34}$ erg/s.
We now examine the effects of the various model parameters, \eg,
stellar-wind model, IMF slope, metallicity, and so on on our theoretical
XLF.
\subsection{Comparison with observations}
\label{sec:observe}
\subsubsection{The XLF}
\label{sec:compxlf}
We first compare the calculated $L$-distribution of Fig.
\ref{fig:hxlf} with the
observed distribution. The major feature of the observed
$L$-distribution is a power law
with a differential slope $dN/dL\propto L^{-1.6}$ over a wide
range of luminosities $3\times 10^{35}{\rm erg/s}
\le L \le 3\times 10^{40}{\rm erg/s}$. This is the so-called
``universal'' X-ray luminosity function (XLF) of HMXBs, obtained in
the following way. Whereas the observed XLFs of various nearby
early-type galaxies (\eg, the Milky Way, SMC, M82 and M83, the Antennae,
NGC 4736, and so on) follow this trend, their normalizations are
not the same. However, when the XLF of a given galaxy is normalized
by the current star-formation rate (SFR) in that galaxy, XLFs for all
these galaxies fall essentially on top of each other, yielding the
above ``universal'' XLF \citep{Gil04,GGS04a,GGS04b,Grimetal02,
Grimetal03}. This is due to the well-known fact that the
strength of the HMXB population and their X-ray output is proportional
to the current SFR, and is closely related to the discussion given
in earlier on how the rapid HMXB evolution leads
to a distribution of HMXBs which is, in effect, a ``snapshot'' of
the galaxy taken at its current SFR.
In comparing calculated and observed XLFs, we note first that,
since we confine ourselves to only neutron-star HMXBs in this
work, our calculated XLF applies only to luminosities not exceeding
the Eddington luminosity $L_E$ for a $\sim$ 1.4\Msun\ neutron star, \ie,
$\sim 2\times 10^{38}{\rm erg/s}$. The observed XLF extends upto
almost 2 decades of luminosity above this, and the HMXBs at these higher
luminosities are believed to be black-hole systems, with the possibility
of both stellar-mass black holes and intermediate-mass black holes (at
the highest luminosities) being present. We return to this question in
more detail in Sec.\ref{sec:blackhole}.
With this caveat in mind, we note that there is a remarkable agreement
between the calculated and observed XLFs in the luminosity range
$3\times 10^{35}{\rm erg/s}\le L\le 10^{38}{\rm erg/s}$,
above which the calculated XLF cuts off at the Eddington limit
for neutron stars, as expected, so that no comparison with
observations is possible at higher $L$. Below $L\approx 3\times
10^{35}{\rm erg/s}$, there was no data
when the works referred to at the beginning of this subsection were
published. However, more recent $XMM-Newton$ observations of
the Magellanic Clouds have extended the XLF below this lower limit,
down to about $L\approx 10^{34}{\rm erg/s}$ or slightly lower, for
SMC and LMC \citep{SG05a,SG05b}. The results indeed suggest a flattening of
the XLF at low luminosities, and the best-fit differential slope of
the observed XLF at these luminosities for SMC, which is given in
the above reference
as $-1.13^{+0.3}_{-0.13}$, is in fact almost consistent with our
calculated slope at low luminosities, given in Fig.\ref{fig:hxlf} and
Eq.(\ref{eqn:hxlf}). However, we must be cautious with our calculated
XLF in the low-luminosity regime, since we have neglected (a)
main-sequence companions undergoing atmospheric Roche-lobe overflow,
and (b) Be-star companions in our calculations here, as explained
above.
\subsubsection{The $P_b$-distribution}
\label{sec:comppb}
Observations of HMXB orbital periods are available in substantial
numbers only for our galaxy and the Magellanic Clouds. Measurements
of orbital periods have been performed for $\sim 80$ systems
\citep{LPH05, LPH06}.
Figure\ref{fig:pbobs} shows the distribution of orbital periods
constructed with this data. The distribution shows a rising part in the range
$10-300$ hrs. With the (large) error bars, the distribution in the region
$P_b \approx 300 - 10000$ hrs is consistent with either a uniform
trend or a slow rise/decay with a peak around $P_b \approx 2000$ hrs.
It can be seen that our theoretical $P_b$-distribution is generally
consistent with the observed one within the error bars, except at very
long orbital periods, where the observed distribution shows a sharp
cut-off beyond orbital periods $\sim 1$ year.
Such an apparent cut-off is expected for two observational reasons.
First, it is very difficult to follow systems with such long orbital
periods for sufficient times to establish reliable orbital periods.
Second, such wide binary systems would generally have low
luminosities, which would put them at the faint end of the
XLF, and add further to the difficulties of a successful
observation. Thus strong selection effects work against observation
of HMXBs with long orbital periods. By contrast, the theoretical
distribution extends upto the widest orbits that can survive the
basic processes involved, particularly the SN explosion. The fact
that these very wide binaries do not show up in the observed
distribution does not imply that they do not exist, but simply that
they are unobservable in practice.
\subsection{Parameter Study}
\label{sec:parstud}
We now examine the effects of the various model parameters, \eg,
stellar-wind model, IMF, metallicity, and so on on our theoretical
XLF.
\subsubsection{Effects of stellar wind models}
\label{sec:windvary}
We consider the two alternative models by CAK and Vink \etal,
which were introduced in Sec.\ref{sec:windmodel}. XLFs computed for these
models are shown in Fig.\ref{fig:xlfmod}. It can be seen that the XLFs
overlap in the low-luminosity regime for all models, which means that the
XLF is independent of the exact form of $f(M_c)$ (see above) in this
region. The XLF's differential slope is close to -1 in this regime.
The position of the cross-over luminosity $L_{cr}$ is different for the
three models with similar power-law exponents above respective $L_{cr}$.
The CAK model cuts off rather abruptly at luminosities
considerably below the Eddington luminosity of neutron stars and so
appears unable to account for the observations. Barring the
difference in the $L_{cr}$, the Kudritzki-Reimers model and the
Vink model give similar results, in general agreement
with observations.
\subsubsection{Effects of the IMF slope}
\label{sec:IMFvary}
The IMF is typically given as a single power-law in the mass range that is
relevant to the problem at hand. The power-law index of the IMF ($\alpha$)
is considered to be within the range $\sim 2.0 - 2.7$, $\alpha = 2.35$
being the standard value given by Salpeter and widely used in this mass range. We
study the effect of varying $\alpha$ on XLF in the range 2.0 - 3.0. The
effect is shown in the Fig.\ref{fig:xlfmod}. The XLF at low luminosities
below the kink shows hardly any variation. We therefore display the XLF
only for luminosities above the kink. Even above the kink, the XLF slope
varies by a small amount (from -1.47 to -1.66 between the lower and upper
limits to $\alpha$ considered here), showing relative insensitivity of the
XLF to the IMF slope. For an exact matching with the observed XLF, a
slightly steeper IMF seems to be preferred, if other
parameters remain unchanged.
\subsubsection{Other effects}
\label{sec:othervary}
Among other parameters in the problem, we consider the stellar-wind velocity
$V_w$ and the metallicity $z$. The terminal velocity of the wind is an
important factor in determining the capture fraction.
It is typically of the order of the
escape velocity at the surface of the companion and generally thought to
be $\sim 10^3$ km/s. We varied $V_w$ around this canonical value to
test the effect on the XLF. The changes in both the XLF slope and the
high-luminosity cutoff were insignificant.
Consider next the metallicity $z$, which affects the stellar parameters
and the wind mass loss rate. We considered a large range of $z$
from $10^{-4}$ to $0.02$, and used the model of Vink \etal~(2001) to
study the effects of varying $z$ on our final results. The results are
shown in Fig.\ref{fig:xlfmod1}.
There is no significant difference between the XLFs
for $z = 0.01$ and $z = 0.02$: both have a slope $\approx -1.6$ in the
luminosity range $2\times 10^{37} - 2\times 10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$. The
XLF for $z = 0.001$ also has nearly the same slope, but a somewhat
different crossover luminosity. Finally, the XLF for $z = 10^{-4}$ is
markedly different, but such low metallicities are not realistic for
HMXBs, as they would be expected only in old stellar systems.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
In this work, we have developed a strightforward, first-principles
scheme for understanding collective properties of HMXB populations,
starting from standard, well-known
collective properties of primordial binaries
which are the progenitors of HMXBs, and following the transformations
of the probability distributions through the evolutionary processes that
lead to the formation of HMXBs. Our purpose, of course, was to assess
if the standard picture of primordial binaries and the standard
evolutionary scenario for HMXBs together can account for the observed
collective properties of HMXBs in a basic, simple way. The fact that
we find that such an account can indeed be given is most encouraging,
and it constitutes, in our view, an essential
step towards attempts at elaborate population synthesis schemes
designed for understanding further details of these collective
properties. Since our procedure is transparent and readily
understandable at each step, it is easy in our scheme to follow
the role of each ingredient in shaping the final HMXB distribution.
In this section, we discuss various issues of principle and procedure
which are relevant to this line of approach, and conclude with plans
for the future.
\subsection{Primordial-binary mass distribution}
\label{sec:mdist}
We pointed out in Sec.\ref{sec:primordial}
that distributions of the masses
$M_p,M_s$ of the primary and secondary in the primordial
binary can be described either in terms of these masses
themselves, \ie, the pair ($M_p,M_s$), or alternatively in terms
of the primary mass and the mass ratio $q\equiv M_s/M_p$, \ie,
the pair ($M_p,q$). Both have been done in the literature
\citep{Warn,JasFer,Halb,Trim,Kouetal,KobFry},
and we have chosen here the second description for its closer
correspondence with essentially all recent work.
The relation between these two approaches has been discussed
thoroughly by Tout (1991).
\subsection{Be-star binaries}
\label{sec:bestar}
Massive companions in HMXBs are of two types in general, \viz, OB
giants/supergiants and Be stars, the latter being characterized by
(a) strong, broad emission lines that supply evidence for rapid
stellar rotation, and (b) somewhat lower masses and wider orbits.
Since we have confined our detailed calculations in this work to
the former, as stated in Sec.\ref{sec:psntoxrb}, we now discuss
the expected role of Be-star binaries in HMXB XLF.
It is believed
that Be stars are often surrounded by an outflowing disk of
matter expelled by centrifugal forces from the fast-roating equatorial
regions of the star, in addition to the usual stellar wind emitted
from all over the stellar surface. Accretion by the neutron star from
this outflow material generally follows the basic description from
stellar winds given in Sec.\ref{sec:windmodel}, with
appropriate values of $V_w$ for
the fast wind and the slowly outflowing disk, with one major
caveat. Since the matter in the rapidly-rotating outflow disk has
much angular momentum, it may form an {\it accretion} disk around the
neutron star, which would then drain on the neutron star a slow,
viscous timescale. This complicates the description considerably,
as the outflow disk is generally expected to be tilted with respect
to the orbital plane \citep{Ghosh95}, so that the orbiting neutron star would
``crash'' through this outflow disk (twice per orbit in general),
possibly acquire an accretion disk, and accrete it slowly over the
rest of the orbit. This would naturally lead to outbursts of X-ray
emission, which are indeed observed in Be-star HMXBs.
The question for our purposes here is: how does all this affect the
XLF of HMXBs? First consider the observational situation.
The point to note here is that Be-star HMXBs
are basically transient systems with low duty cycles,
so that a long-term average of the luminosity of a Be-system is
much lower than that of an OB supergiant-system. Thus, in an XLF
constructed from a long-term monitoring of the X-ray sky with an
all-sky monitor, one would expect the high-$L$ parts to be
dominated by OB-systems, while the low-$L$ parts may have
considerable contributions from Be-systems. Indeed, the observed
XLFs cited earlier in this paper
have been constructed from recent work with
X-ray observatories in the following way. The XLF for the
Milky Way has be constructed from $\sim 4$ years of observation
with the all-sky monitor on $RXTE$. Thus, the above argument
certainly applies to this case. Indeed, since the typical
long-term average expected from Be-systems would be at or below
the lower end of the luminosity-range over which the XLF is
actually reported (and this applies to basically all observed XLFs
except those obtained from $XMM-Newton$ observations of SMC and
LMC; see Sec.\ref{sec:compxlf}), we would expect little contribution
to the reported XLF from Be-star systems.
However, note that the XLF for other nearby galaxies reported in
these references have been constructed essentially from one
``snapshot'' (\ie, a single exposure) taken by $Chandra$ and
$XMM-Newton$ \citep{Gil04}.
Given this, it is remarkable that the XLFs of
all these galaxies (suitably normalized by their SFRs) are
essentially coincident with one another over the same range of
$L$, as explained earlier. Considering the fact that,
because of their low duty cycles, only a small fraction of the
Be-systems would be present in these ``snapshot'' XLFs, we would
still expect some contribution from them in a range of $L$ typical
of the outbursts of Be-systems. The fact that these XLFs appear
very similar to the above long-term average XLF of the Milky Way
over the canonical luminosity range $3\times 10^{35}{\rm erg s}
^{-1}\le L\le 3\times 10^{40}{\rm erg s}^{-1}$ is therefore most
noteworthy, and may imply that, for reasons which are not
clear at present, Be-systems may not have made a substantial
contribution to these observed XLFs.
Now consider the inclusion of Be-systems in calculational schemes
like ours. To the extent that the wind-accretion formalism can
be applied to accretion from both the fast, low-density wind
from the stellar surface and the slow, high-density outflow in
the equatorial disk \citep{Ghosh95}, these systems are already in
our scheme, at least in principle.
However, while a quantitative description of the periodic
acquisition and drainage of accretion disks described above has
been done for individual binary systems \citep{PraGho}, its
inclusion in a study of collective properties of HMXB populations
is more complex and outside the scope of this work.
\subsection{Black-hole HMXBs and ULXs}
\label{sec:blackhole}
As mentioned in Sec.\ref{sec:compxlf},
the observed ``universal'' XLF of HMXBs extends
to about two decades of luminosity above the Eddington luminosity for
canonical 1.4\Msun~neutron stars. While we focus on neutron-star HMXBs
in this study, it is interesting to consider this brightest end of the
XLF briefly. If the X-ray sources here are accretion-powered, they can
only contain accreting black holes (some sources upto luminosities
$\sim 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ can of course be close juxtapositions of
several neutron-star sources, as has sometimes been suggested), either
stellar-mass ones ($M_{BH}\sim 10\Msun$), or even the so-called
intermediate-mass black holes (IMBH), with masses $M_{BH}\sim
(10^2-10^5)\Msun$, the X-ray sources corresponding to the latter
objects being often called ultra-luminous X-ray sources (ULX).
A truly remarkable feature of the
universal HMXB XLF is that a single, smooth power law gives
an excellent account of X-ray binaries containing neutron stars,
stellar-mass black holes, and IMBHs over the entire luminosity
range $3\times 10^{35}{\rm erg s}^{-1}\le L\le 3\times 10^{40}
{\rm erg s}^{-1}$, \ie, above the ``kink'' in the XLF \citep{Gil04}.
While it is not difficult to extend
the formation and evolution scenario
outlined in the earlier sections to include higher primary masses
which would produce stellar-mass black holes, and then imagine
that the other systematics would go through in such a way as to
extend the power-law XLF, this argument does not automatically
include ULXs and IMBHs, whose formation scenario has to be
different and more exotic, \eg, black-hole mergers in dense stellar
clusters. And yet, as Gilfanov (2004) has noted, these ``rare'' and
``exotic'' objects appear to form a smooth extension of the ``ordinary''
HMXB population. Whether this is really true or not can possibly
be probed with future observations in a way suggested by this author:
if we adopt the alternative hypothesis that the apparent cutoff in the
currently observed XLF at $L\sim 3\times 10^{40}
{\rm erg s}^{-1}$ really corresponds to the maximum possible
luminosity of what we may call ``ordinary'', stellar-mass black holes
referred to above, then these ``exotic'' IMBHs may show up beyond
this cutoff if we can observe regions with extremely high
star-formation rates, since the merger scenario for the formation of
IMBHs implies that they would occur in very dense regions with
very high star-formation rates. However, since such IMBHs would
necessarily be rarer than stellar-mass black holes, we should expect
a ``step down'' at the presently observed cutoff, beyond which the
XLF would continue at a lower strength. This is a fascinating
possibility.
\subsection{Shape of the XLF}
\label{sec:xlfshape}
Understanding the XLF shape is an important step towards extracting
information about various processes which determine the
collective properties of HMXBs. Two main features of the XLF calculated
using our scheme are (1) A kink at $L_{cr} \approx 8 \times 10^{34}$ erg/s,
and (2) a power-law behavior with the differential slope of -1.6 above
$L_{cr}$. We will discuss the possible origin of these two features in
this section.
\subsubsection{The XLF kink}
\label{sec:xlfkink}
The origin of the kink in the HMXB XLF can be understood in terms of
allowed zones in the parameter space. This is demonstrated in a clear
way by overplotting contours of constant $L$ on the allowed zone in
the $(M_c, a)$ plane, as shown in Fig.\ref{fig:mcarange}. Let us
first examine a simple ``toy'' model for the XLF. In this model, we
approximate the post-SN PDF as a function of $M_c$ and $a$ as $f_{psn}
\propto M_c^{-\alpha}/a$ (as discussed earlier,
this ``toy'' is not too bad an approximation over much
of the parameter range in case of no SN-kicks). We now note
that $L$ can be written in a schematic way as $L\propto f(M_c)/a^2$. Next
we transform the approximate form of the post-SN PDF from $(M_c, a)$ to
$(M_c, L)$. A bit of simple algebra shows that such a transformation gives
a PDF of the form $f_H\propto M_c^{-\alpha}/L$. Integrating this PDF
over $M_c$ would yield $dN/dL\propto L^{-1}$, if the limits of
integration were independent of $L$.
Figure \ref{fig:mcarange} shows that this is indeed the case for
$10^{33} {\rm erg/s} \leq L \leq L_{cr}$, since the $M_c$-limits are
clearly seen to be almost independent of $L$ when $L$ lies in
this range.
By contrast, as we move to higher $L$-values,
the contours become shorter by cutting off low-$M_c$ regions. In
other words, the lower limit of integration becomes a function
of $L$. Shortening of the contour length results in a power-law XLF
with the slope steeper than -1. Eventually, near the neutron-star
Eddington luminosity, the contour passes out of the allowed region
altogether, and the XLF is cut off.
At very low luminosities we expect a similar mechanism to cause a
turnover in the XLF (which would cut it off eventually at extremely
low luminosities), as is clear from Fig.\ref{fig:mcarange}, since
higher-$M_c$ regions are progressively cut off as $L$ decreases in
this range. However, this effect is not expected to be
very important for two reasons. First, cutting of the highest-mass
regime in $M_c$ is not a severe problem, since the $M_c$-distribution
drops steeply in that regime anyway. Therefore, one
needs to go to very low luminosities ($\leq 10^{32}$ erg/s) to
observe this effect. Second, with current observational sensitivity,
we can track the XLF behavior below $L_{cr}$ only for a few nearby
galaxies, and the very low luminosities indicated above are not
even approached. It appears, therefore, that this XLF turnover is unlikely
to be amenable to observation in the near future, and accordingly we
do not consider it any further.
\subsubsection{The XLF slope}
\label{sec:xlfslope}
The XLF of HMXBs obtained observationally does not reach luminosities
below $L_{cr}$ for most of the galaxies (see Sec.\ref{sec:observe}).
Therefore, only the power-law regime above $L_{cr}$ can be compared
with observations in most cases. Physical origins of this
power-law index are an important aspect of our understanding of
the collective properties of HMXBs. Note first that our calculation of the
XLF is a numerical one, and the power-law result given in Sec.
\ref{sec:hxlf} is only an analytic approximation
to it. However, simple qualitative arguments may serve to illustrate
the basic physics underlying such calculations, and we consider such
arguments below.
In a pioneering argument of this type, Postnov (2003;
also see Postnov \& Kuranov 2005) proceeded as follows.
Expressing the XLF as:
\begin{equation}
{dN\over dL} = {dN\over dM_c}{dM_c\over dL},
\label{eqn:postnov}
\end{equation}
one can use a suitable estimate of the mass-function $dN/dM_c$
of the companion for these arguments. The estimation of
$dM_c\over dL$ is more involved, and the original Postnov method
was to estimate $dL\over dM_c$ as follows, and use its reciprocal.
Using $L \propto \dot{M} \propto\dot{M}_w/(a^2V_w^4)$
(see Sec.\ref{sec:psntoxrb}),
this author obtained a power-law form $L\propto M_c^{\beta}$, with
the aid of a simple stellar-wind model $\dot{M}_w\propto L_c/V_w
\propto L_c\sqrt{R_c/M_c}$, into which the following scalings for
massive stars were inserted: $L_c\propto M_c^3$, $R_c\propto
M_c^{0.8}$. This gave $\beta\approx 2.5$. Finally, assuming a
power-law form for the companion mass distribution, \ie,
$dN/dM_c\propto M_c^{-\alpha}$, straightforward algebra with
Eq.(\ref{eqn:postnov}) leads to an XLF slope of $dN/dL\propto
L^{-(\alpha+\beta -1)/\beta}$. Postnov (2003) assumed $\alpha = 2.35$ (\ie,
the exponent of the Salpeter IMF) for the $M_C$-distribution,
which led to an XLF slope of $\approx -1.54$.
In revisiting the above argument, we note first that Eq.(\ref{eqn:postnov})
is incomplete, since N is a function of both $M_c$ and $a$, whose form
we have calculated explicitly in the earlier sections. Thus, the complete
equation is
\begin{equation}
{dN\over dL} = {\partial N\over\partial M_c}{dM_c\over dL} +
{\partial N\over\partial a}{da\over dL}~.
\label{eqn:bhadghosh}
\end{equation}
Next, we note that the scalings of $L_c$ and $R_c$ with $M_c$
used in the Postnov (2003) work apply to massive {\it main-sequence}
stars, but not to the evolved massive stars
of interest here. Also, the wind mass-loss prescription used in
that work is similar to that in the CAK model of the 1970s,
which our calculations have shown to be inadequate. The rough
scalings for $L_c$ and $R_c$ for evolved massive companions of
interest here can be obtained from the appropriate formulae in
Sec.5 of HPT, and are $L_c\propto M_c^{1.8}$,
$R_c\propto M_c^{4.6}$.
With these scalings, and our $M_c$-distribution shown in
Fig.\ref{fig:mcdf}, which we can approximate with
the power-law of exponent $\alpha = 2.4$ that applies to its
principal part, we can evaluate the first term on the right-hand side
of Eq.(\ref{eqn:bhadghosh}). For the Kudritzki-Reimers model,
it can be easily shown that $\beta\approx 5.4$, so that
this first term gives an XLF slope $-(\alpha+\beta -1)/\beta\approx -1.27$.
The other stellar model gives an essentially identical final
result. The rest of the contribution comes from the second term
on the right-hand side of Eq.(\ref{eqn:bhadghosh}), which can be easily
calculated and which leads to our overall XLF slope $\approx -1.63$.
We have gone through this argument in detail because it addresses an
interesting observation made by Gilfanov (2004) that, in HMXB
systems powered by stellar-wind accretion, the distribution of $\dot{M}$
and therefore $L$ should be governed by the properties of the massive
companion, in particular the distribution of $M_c$ and $L_c$. Our
work here shows that this is largely, but not completely, true. The
properies of the massive companion are contained in the first term
on the right-hand side of Eq.(\ref{eqn:bhadghosh}), and keeping only
this term, as Postnov (2003) did, amounts to neglecting altogether
the binary orbital properties which are contained in the second term
on the right-hand side of Eq.(\ref{eqn:bhadghosh}), and which also
influence the XLF. The estimates summarized above give a measure of
the relative sizes of the effects of the companion and the orbit, and
demonstrate that, while the latter are certainly smaller, they are by
no means negligible.
\subsection{Conclusions and outlook}
\label{sec:conclude}
In this work, we have described a method for obtaining the
distributions of some of the essential collective properties of HMXB
populations in the stellar fields of normal/starburst galaxies,
wherein we start from accepted distributions of primordial binaries
which are progenitors of such HMXBs, and follow the transformation
of these distributions with the aid of a Jacobian formalism as the
primordial binary population evolves into the HMXB population.
Our method, which is semi-analytic, traces in a transparent way the
effects of various processes in the course of this evolution, and so
assesses with ease which physical processes dominate in determining
which distribution. For example, the distribution of the properties of
the massive companions seems to have the dominant effect on the XLF,
although the distribution of the orbital parameters does have a
significant effect, as we demonstrated
in Sec.\ref{sec:xlfslope}. But the distribution of HMXB orbital
periods appears to be strongly influenced by both the primordial
orbital distribution and the SN-kick properties.
The agreement between our calculated XLF and binary-period
distribution and the observed HMXB distributions is most encouraging,
and it justifies a future Monte Carlo population synthesis scheme
for a more detailed undrstanding of how HMXB populations are built
in the stellar fields of normal galaxies. However, we must first
extend our present method to the more complex problem of following the
formation and evolution of LMXB populations from their corresponding
primordial binaries, as mentioned in Sec.\ref{sec:intro}. This will
occupy us in the next papers in this series.
\acknowledgments
It is a pleasure to thank M. Gilfanov, E. P. J.van den Heuvel, V. Kalogera,
L. Stella, and R. A. Sunyaev for stimulating discussions, and an
anonymous referee for valuable comments which greatly improved the paper.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sect:intro}
In general, the interaction of a charged particle with a medium can
be derived from the treatment of its electromagnetic interaction with
that medium, where the interaction is mediated by a corresponding
photon. The processes that occur are ionization, Bremsstrahlung, Cherenkov
radiation, and, in case of inhomogeneous media, transition radiation (TR).
The latter process had been predicted by Ginzburg and Frank \cite{gin} in
1946. It was first observed in the optical domain by Goldsmith and
Jelley \cite{gold} in 1959 and further studied experimentally with
electron beams of tens of keV \cite{tr_opt}.
The relevance of this phenomenon for
particle identification went unnoted until it was realized that, for
highly-relativistic charged particles ($\gamma\gtrsim 1000$), the spectrum
of the emitted radiation extends into the X-ray domain \cite{gar}.
While the emission probability for such an X-ray photon is small, its
conversion leads to a large energy deposit compared to the average energy
deposit via ionization. This led to the application of TR
for particle identification at high momenta \cite{che0}.
Since then many studies have been pursued, both at the level of
the basic understanding of TR production \cite{ter,che1,art,dur}
as well as with regard to the applications in particle detection and
identification \cite{che1,fab,cam,pri,cob,fab1,che2,fab2,bun}.
Consequently, TRDs have been used and are currently being used or
planned in a wide range of accelerator-based experiments, such as
UA2 \cite{ans}, ZEUS \cite{zeus}, NA31 \cite{na31}, PHENIX \cite{ed1,ed2},
HELIOS \cite{dol}, D$\emptyset$ \cite{det,d0}, kTeV \cite{ktev},
H1 \cite{gra,h1}, WA89 \cite{wa89}, NOMAD \cite{nom1}, HERMES \cite{her},
HERA-B \cite{herab}, ATLAS \cite{atl}, ALICE \cite{ali}, CBM \cite {cbm}
and in astro-particle and cosmic-ray experiments:
WIZARD \cite{wizard}, HEAT \cite{heat}, MACRO \cite{macro},
AMS \cite {ams}, PAMELA \cite {pam}, ACCESS \cite{access}.
In these experiments the main purpose of the TRD is the discrimination
of electrons from hadrons, but pion identification has been performed
at Fermilab in a 250 GeV hadron beam \cite{errede} and $\pi/\Sigma$
identification has been achieved in a hyperon beam at CERN \cite{wa89}.
The subject of transition radiation and how it can be applied to
particle identification has already been comprehensively reviewed in
Ref. \cite{dol,fav}. An excellent concise review is given in \cite{pdg}.
Therefore, we restrict ourselves to a general description of the phenomenon
and how TRD is employed in particle identification detectors.
We will then concentrate on more recent developments of TRDs and specific
analysis techniques, in particular for the detectors at the CERN
Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
\section{Production of Transition Radiation}\label{sect:tr_prod}
\subsection{TR production in single foil radiators}
The practical theory of TR production is extensively presented in
References~\cite{che1,art,dur}. Extensions of the theory for
non-relativistic particles are covered in~\cite{hiro}.
Here, we briefly summarize the most
important results for relativistic charged particles.
The double differential energy spectrum radiated by a charged particle with
a Lorentz factor $\gamma$ traversing an interface between two dielectric
media (with dielectric constants $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$)
has the following expression:
\begin{equation} \frac{\mathrm{d}^2 W}{\mathrm{d} \omega \mathrm{d} \Omega}=\frac{\alpha}{\pi^2}\left(
\frac{\theta}{\gamma^{-2}+\theta^2+\xi_1^2}-
\frac{\theta}{\gamma^{-2}+\theta^2+\xi_2^2}\right)^2 \end{equation}
which holds for: $\gamma\gg 1, \quad \xi_1^2, \xi_2^2\ll 1, \quad \theta\ll 1$.
$\xi^2_i=\omega_{Pi}^2/\omega^2=1-\epsilon_i(\omega)$, where $\omega_{Pi}$ is
the (electron) plasma frequency for the two media
and $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant ($\alpha$=1/137).
The plasma frequency $\omega_P$ is a material property and can be
calculated as follows:
\begin{equation} \omega_P = \sqrt{\frac{4\pi\alpha n_e}{m_e}} \approx 28.8\sqrt{\rho\frac{Z}{A}}
\quad \mathrm{eV} \end{equation}
where $n_e$ is the electron density of the medium and $m_e$ is the
electron mass. In the approximation $\rho$ is the density in $\mathrm{g/cm^3}$
and $\frac{Z}{A}$ is the average charge to mass ratio of the material.
Typical values for plasma frequencies are $\omega_P^{CH_2}$=20.6 eV,
$\omega_P^{Air}$=0.7 eV.
Since the emission angle $\theta$ of the TR is small ($\theta \simeq
\sqrt{\gamma^{-2}+\xi_2^2} \approx 1/\gamma$) one
usually integrates over the solid angle to obtain the differential energy
spectrum:
\vspace{.1cm}
\begin{equation} \left(\frac{\mathrm{d} W}{\mathrm{d} \omega}\right)_{interface}=\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\left(
\frac{\xi_1^2+\xi_2^2+2\gamma^{-2}}{\xi_1^2-\xi_2^2}\ln
\frac{\gamma^{-2}+\xi_1^2}{\gamma^{-2}+\xi_2^2}-2\right)\end{equation}
A single foil has two interfaces to the surrounding medium at which
the index of refraction changes. Therefore, one needs to sum up the
contributions from both interfaces of the foil to the surrounding
medium. This leads to:
\vspace{.1cm} \begin{equation} \left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 W}{\mathrm{d} \omega \mathrm{d}
\Omega}\right)_{foil}= \left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 W}{\mathrm{d} \omega \mathrm{d}
\Omega}\right)_{interface} \times 4\sin^2(\phi_1/2) \end{equation} where
$4\sin^2(\phi_1/2)$ is the interference factor. The phase $\phi_1$ is
related to the formation length $Z_i$ (see below) and the thickness
$l_i$ of the respective medium,
i.e. $\phi_{i}\simeq(\gamma^{-2}+\theta^2+\xi_i^2)\omega
l_i/(2\beta\,c)$. Following the arguments in Ref.~\cite{che1} the average
amplitude modulation is $\langle 4\sin^2(\phi_1/2)\rangle\approx 2$.
The above spectra are shown in Fig.~\ref{f:two} for one
interface of a single Mylar foil (25~$\mathrm{\mu m}$) in air
(using the same parameters as in Ref.~\cite{che1}).
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{trd-two}}
\caption{TR spectrum for single interface and single foil configurations.}
\label{f:two}
\end{figure}
Absorption of TR in the material of the radiator has not been considered
in the above. The effective TR yield, measured at the exit of the radiator,
is strongly suppressed by absorption for energies below a few keV \cite{che1}
(see also \cite{pdg}), see Fig.~\ref{f:tr_dep} below.
\subsection{TR production in regular multiple foil radiators}
As shown above the emission probability for a TR photon in the plateau region
is of order $\pi/\alpha$ per interface. For this to lead to a
significant particle discrimination one needs to realize many of
theses interfaces in a single radiator.
For a stack of $N_f$ foils of thickness $l_1$, separated by
a medium (usually a gas) of thickness $l_2$, the double differential
energy spectrum is:
\vspace{.1cm}
\begin{equation} \left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 W}{\mathrm{d} \omega \mathrm{d} \Omega}\right)_{stack}=
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 W}{\mathrm{d} \omega \mathrm{d} \Omega}\right)_{foil}
\times \exp\left(\frac{1-N_f}{2}\sigma\right)
\frac{\sin^2(N_f\phi_{12}/2)+\sinh^2(N_f\sigma/4)}
{\sin^2(\phi_{12}/2)+\sinh^2(\sigma/4)} \end{equation}
where $\phi_{12}=\phi_1+\phi_2$ is the phase retardation, with
$\phi_{i}\simeq(\gamma^{-2}+\theta^2+\xi_i^2)\omega l_i/2$,
and $\sigma=\sigma_1+\sigma_2$ is the absorption cross section
for the radiator materials (foil + gas).
Due to the large absorption cross section below a few keV,
low-energy TR photons are mostly absorbed by the radiator itself.
The TR produced by a multi-foil radiator can be characterized by the following
qualitative features:
\clearpage
\begin{itemize}
\item One can define the so-called "formation zone" $Z_i$
\vspace{0.1cm}
\begin{equation}
Z_i=\frac{1}{\gamma^{-2}+\xi_i^2}\frac{2\,\beta c}{\omega}.
\end{equation}
This can be interpreted as the distance beyond which the electromagnetic field
of the charged particle has readjusted and the emitted photon is separated
from the field of the parent particle. The formation zone depends on the
charged particle's $\gamma$, on the TR photon energy and is of the order of
a few tens of microns for the foil and a few hundreds of microns for air \cite{dol}.
The yield is suppressed if $l_i\ll Z_i$, which is referred to as the
{\em formation zone effect}. \\
For constructive interference one gets:
\begin{equation} \left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 W}{\mathrm{d} \omega \mathrm{d} \Omega}\right)_{foil}=2\times
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 W}{\mathrm{d} \omega \mathrm{d} \Omega}\right)_{interface} ; \quad
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 W}{\mathrm{d} \omega \mathrm{d} \Omega}\right)_{stack}=N_f\times
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 W}{\mathrm{d} \omega \mathrm{d} \Omega}\right)_{foil}\,\,. \end{equation}
\item The TR spectrum has its most relevant maximum at
\vspace{0.1cm}
\begin{equation}
\omega_{max}=\frac{l_1\omega_{P1}^2}{2\pi \beta c} \label{eq:omega_max},
\end{equation}
which can be used to ``tune'' the TRD to the most relevant absorption
cross section of the detector
by varying the material and thickness of the radiator foils.
\item For $l_2/l_1\gg 1$ the TR spectrum is mainly determined by the single
foil interference.
\item The multiple foil interference governs the saturation at high
$\gamma$, above a value of
\begin{equation} \gamma_s=\frac{1}{4\pi\beta c}\left[(l_1+l_2)\omega_{P1}+\frac{1}{\omega_{P1}}
(l_1\omega^2_{P1}+l_2\omega^2_{P2})\right].\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\noindent
\subsection{TR production in irregular radiators}
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.95\textwidth]{microscope}}
\caption{Electron microscope images of a polymethacrylimide foam
(Rohacell HF71)(left) and a typical polypropylene fiber radiator
(average diameter $\approx$ 25~$\mu$m) (right) \cite{alice-tr}.}
\label{f:rads}
\end{figure}
In general, TR generated by irregular radiators can be calculated
following prescriptions discussed in Ref.~\cite{gar}. However, for all
practical purposes this procedure is limited to the treatment of
irregularities in the materials and tolerances from the fabrication of
otherwise regularly spaced radiators. For materials like foam or
fibers (used e.g. by HERMES, ATLAS in the central barrel, ALICE and AMS)
as shown in Fig.~\ref{f:rads} this procedure is impractical. Here, the measured
response is simulated in terms of a regularly spaced radiator with
comparable performance \cite{alice-tr} or by applying an overall efficiency
factor~\cite{ege}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{tr_dep_d15d300n100}}
\caption{TR production as a function of: the Lorentz
factor $\gamma$ (upper panel, corresponding to an electron momentum of 0.2,
0.5, 1 and 2 GeV/c), foil thickness $l_1$ (middle panel)
and foil spacing $l_2$ (lower panel).}
\label{f:tr_dep}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Basic features of TR production}
In Ref.~\cite{fab} TR has been studied for different (foil) radiator
configurations.
The interference pattern discussed above has been demonstrated by
Cherry et al.~\cite{che1} and by Fabjan and Struczinkski~\cite{fab}, who also
verified the expected dependence of the highest energy interference
maximum on the foil thickness, Eq.~\ref{eq:omega_max}.
In Ref.~\cite{fab} a slightly simpler expression for the TR production
has been proposed:
\begin{equation} \frac{\mathrm{d} W}{\mathrm{d} \omega}=\frac{4\alpha}{\sigma(\kappa+1)}(1-\exp(-N_f\sigma))
\times \sum_n\theta_n\left(\frac{1}{\rho_1+\theta_n}-\frac{1}{\rho_2+\theta_n}
\right)^2 [1-\cos(\rho_1+\theta_n)] \label{tr1} \end{equation}
where:
\begin{equation}\rho_i=\omega l_1/2\beta c(\gamma^{-2}+\xi_i^2), \quad \kappa=l_2/l_1,
\quad \theta_n=\frac{2\pi n-(\rho_1+\kappa\rho_2)}{1+\kappa}>0 \label{tr2}\end{equation}
In the following we utilize this formula to show how the TR yield
and spectrum (at the exit of the radiator) depend on the Lorentz factor
$\gamma$ of the incident charged particle, as well as on the foil
thickness ($l_1$) and spacing ($l_2$) for a regular radiator of $N_f$=100 foils.
These basic features of TR production are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{f:tr_dep}.
The threshold-like behavior of TR production as a function of $\gamma$
is evident, with the onset of TR production around $\gamma\simeq$1000.
The yield saturates quickly with $l_1$ (formation length for
CH$_2$ is about 7~$\mu$m), the average TR energy is proportional to $l_1$,
Eq.~\ref{eq:omega_max}.
Taking into account absorption of TR photons in the foils leads to an optimum
of foil thickness in the range 15-20 $\mu$m (dependent also on
the thickness of the detector).
The TR yield is proportional to $l_2$ for gap values of a few hundred $\mu$m,
saturating slowly with $l_2$, as the formation length for air
is about 700~$\mu$m; the spectrum is slightly harder for larger
gap values.
Due to the dependence of TR on $\gamma$, it is evident that
there is a wide momentum range (1--100 GeV/c) where electrons
(resp. positrons) are the only particles producing transition radiation.
Kaons can also be separated from pions on the basis of TR in a certain
momentum range (roughly 200--700 GeV/c) \cite{errede} and
$\pi/\Sigma$ identification in a hyperon beam has been done
as well \cite{wa89}.
\section{From TR to TRD}\label{sect:det}
Having introduced the main features of TR production above, we shall
now focus on its usage for particle identification in high-energy
nuclear and (astro-)particle experiments. We outline the main characteristics,
design considerations and optimization for a TRD, based on simulations.
\subsection{TR detection}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.56\textwidth]{lambda-3gas}
\caption{Absorption length as a function of energy for X-rays in argon,
krypton and xenon. The data was taken from the NIST database~\cite{nist}.}
\label{f:tr_gas}
\end{figure}
An obvious choice to detect transition radiation is a gaseous detector.
A proposal to use silicon detectors in a TRD has also been put forward
\cite{sitrd} and TR detection with crystals has been proposed too
\cite{access}, see below for more details.
Affordability for large-area coverage, usually needed in (accelerator)
experiments, is a major criterion. In addition, a lightweight construction
make gaseous detectors a widespread solution for TRDs.
Most of the TRD implementations are based on multiwire drift chambers,
but straw tubes have been used too, for example in the NOMAD \cite{nom1},
HERA-B \cite{herab}
ATLAS \cite{atl}, PAMELA \cite{pam} and AMS \cite{ams} detectors.
We will describe the detector realization in the examples covered in
Section~\ref{sect:modern_trds}.
See e.g. \cite{blum} for all the important details concerning drift
chambers principles and operation.
For gaseous detectors we present the absorption length \cite{nist} vs. TR
energy in Fig.~\ref{f:tr_gas} for Ar, Kr and Xe.
Obviously, the best detection efficiency is reached using the heaviest
gas, Xe, which has an absorption length around 10 mm for ``typical''
TR photon energies in the range of 3-15 keV (produced by a radiator of
typical characteristics, $l_1$=10-20 $\mu$m, $l_2$=100-300 $\mu$m, see
Fig.~\ref{f:tr_dep}).
The electron identification is further enhanced by the ``favorable'' ionization
energy loss, $\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x$ in Xe, which has the highest value of the Fermi
plateau of all noble gases.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{tr_p_d15d300n100}
\caption{Produced and detected average number of TR photons, $<N_{TR}>$
(upper panel), and total TR energy, $<E_{TR}^{tot}>$ (middle panel), as
a function of electron momentum. In the lower panel we show for comparison
the average ionization energy deposit, $<\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x>$, for pions and electrons.}
\label{f:tr_det}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{f:tr_det} we consider a detector with a gas volume of
1~cm thickness and show its TR detection capability
as a function of momentum. On average, about 2/3 of the
number of produced TR photons (employing a radiator with $l_1$=15 $\mu$m,
$l_2$=300 $\mu$m, $N_f$=100, which will be our baseline choice in the
following) are detected in such a detector, filled with a mixture
Xe-CO$_2$ [85-15].
About half the total produced TR energy $E_{TR}^{tot}$, which is
the sum over all detected TR photons for an electron of a given momentum,
is detected.
For the chosen configuration, on average the signal from TR is comparable to the
ionization energy deposit, $<\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x>$, also shown in Fig.~\ref{f:tr_det}.
\subsection{Basic performance characteristics of a TRD}
It is important to emphasize that, due to the very small TR emission angle,
the TR signal generated in a detector is overlapping with the ionization due
to the specific energy loss $dE/dx$ and a knowledge (and proper simulation)
of dE/dx~\cite{alice-dedx} (see also Section~\ref{sect:alice}) is a necessity
for the ultimate understanding and modeling of any TRD.
The energy deposit spectra of pions and electrons in a Xe-based detector
are presented in Fig.~\ref{f:like} (left panel). For pions it represents
the energy loss in the gas and is close to a Landau distribution.
For electrons, it is the sum of the ionization energy loss and
the signal produced by the absorption of the TR photons.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{tabular}{lcr}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{dedx_xeco15_d15d300n100_p02}
\end{minipage} &
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{like_xeco15_d15d300n100_p02}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Spectra of the total energy deposited in one layer of a TRD
for pions and electrons (left panel) and electron likelihood distributions
constructed from them for six layers (left panel).
}
\label{f:like}
\end{figure}
It is evident that due to the large tails in the energy loss
spectrum for pions, the detector has to have many layers. In case the
full charge signal is available the
discrimination is done using either a normal mean, a truncated mean
(discarding the highest measured value of the detector sets)
or, preferably, a likelihood method \cite{bun,zeus,nom2}.
Likelihood distributions are constructed from the measured spectra of
identified particles. Taking these spectra (for each layer) as probability
distributions for electrons ($P(E_i|e)$) and pions ($P(E_i|\pi)$ ) to
produce a signal of magnitude $E_i$, one constructs the
{\em likelihood} (to be an electron) as \cite{ap0}:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{likelihood}=\frac{P_e}{P_e+P_\pi}, \quad
P_e=\prod_{i=1}^NP(E_i|e), \quad
P_\pi=\prod_{i=1}^NP(E_i|\pi)
\label{e:l1}
\end{equation}
or, equivalently (also called log-likelihood) \cite{nom2}:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{likelihood}=\sum_{i=1}^N\log\frac{P(E_i|e)}{P(E_i|\pi)}
\label{e:l2}
\end{equation}
where the product (sum) runs over the number of detector layers.
The likelihood defined by Eq.~\ref{e:l1} is shown in Fig.~\ref{f:like}
(right panel) for pions and electrons, for a likelihood
derived from the integrated charge signal.
The electron identification performance of a TRD is quantified in terms
of the {\em pion efficiency} at a given electron efficiency and is the
fraction of pions wrongly identified as electrons.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{minipage}{.48\textwidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{pieff-eeff_xeco15_d15d300n100_p02}
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}{.48\textwidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{pieff-n_xeco15_d15d300n100_p02}
\end{minipage} \end{tabular}
\caption{Pion efficiency as a function of the electron efficiency (left panel)
and as a function of the number of layers (right panel).} \label{f:pieff}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{f:pieff} we show the calculated pion efficiency as a function of
electron efficiency and as a function of the number of layers for a momentum
of 2 GeV/c. The pion efficiency depends strongly on the electron efficiency,
which is a parameter that can be adjusted at the stage of the data analysis.
It is chosen such that the best compromise between electron efficiency
and purity is reached.
Usually 90\% electron efficiency is the default value used to quote a TRD
rejection power and we will use this value throughout the paper.
Even more crucial for the design of the detector is the dependence on the number
of layers, which has a lot of implications, see below.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.55\textwidth]{eff_p_d15d300n100}
\caption{Pion efficiency as a function of momentum.}
\label{f:pieff-p}
\end{figure}
The dependence of the pion efficiency on momentum is shown in Fig.~\ref{f:pieff-p}.
The rejection power improves dramatically between 0.5 and 1~GeV/c and slightly
up to 2~GeV/c as a result of the onset of TR production in this momentum range.
Beyond 2~GeV/c TR yield saturates and the rejection power decreases as a
consequence of the relativistic rise of the ionization energy loss of pions.
While in detail this behavior depends on the specific choice of the radiator,
it is a generic feature of the TRD pion rejection capability.
\subsection{TRD design considerations}
Considering the above mentioned properties of TR generation and
absorption, it is evident that a TRD requires careful optimization
concerning the following aspects governing the radiator and detector
design:
\subsubsection{ Radiator}
\begin{itemize}
\item
{\em Type:} regular (foils) vs. random (foams, fibers). Owing to the
interference effects mentioned above foil radiators were
shown to produce more TR photons than foams \cite{ed1,alice-tr} at comparable
density. However, a number of fiber radiators have shown comparable performance
to foil radiators~\cite{fab,bun,but,wat,zeus,hol,gra,ktev,her,alice-tr}.
\item
{\em Material:} since many interfaces are necessary the foil material
itself needs to have an as low X-ray absorption coefficient
as possible. Li~\cite{cob}, Be, polypropylene - CH$_2$~\cite{ed2,nom1},
and mylar~\cite{che1} have been used.
The same argument holds for the gas inside the gaps. He~\cite{h1}
would be the preferred choice for its low absorption
cross section. However, for practical reasons (like special containment
vessels etc.) most commonly air~\cite{ed2}, N$_2$~\cite{nom1},
or CO$_2$~\cite{na31} are being used.
\item
{\em Configuration:} as shown above, the foil and gap thicknesses ($l_1$, $l_2$)
and number of foils ($N_f$) determine the TR production yield and spectrum.
The foil thickness can be matched to the detector thickness.
The thickness of the gap between foils shall be ideally around 1~mm
(see Fig.~\ref{f:tr_dep}). However, for a given total radiator thickness, a compromise
needs to be found between the total number of foils per radiator and the foil gap.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Detector}
\begin{itemize}
\item
{\em Gas:} type and thickness. As discussed above, Xe is the best choice for
the main gas, while the choice of the quencher is broad and dictated by different
arguments. For instance, methane, CH$_4$, is an effective quencher but
its flammability forbids its usage in collider experiments.
Nowadays CO$_2$ is widely used.
Ref.~\cite{dol,dol1} provide a comprehensive discussion on gas properties
of relevance to TRDs.
Cleanliness of the gas is important, both in view of signal collection
(avoiding electron attachment, in particular for drift chambers \cite{alice-att})
and to avoid aging~\cite{ageing}.
\item
{\em Read-out and signal processing:} the different options include integral
charge detection~\cite{na31,wa89,nom1,her}, cluster counting~\cite{fab2,zeus,dol,atl}
or a time-resolved amplitude readout using FADCs~\cite{wat,hol,gra,ans,zeus,d0,h1}.
The latter allows to use both integral charge and cluster counting for
TR recognition.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.55\textwidth]{trd_X_d15d300n100_p2}
\caption{Detected TR yield (upper panel, note the factor of 10 scale used for
plotting of the detected total TR energy, $<E_{TR}^{tot}>$) and pion efficiency
for 8 layers as a function of the single (layer) detector thickness. }
\label{f:pieff-x}
\end{figure}
Obviously, the depth of the detector should be large enough to ensure efficient
X-ray absorption, and, if included in the detector design, to allow for a better
pion rejection by exploiting the position information of the clusters.
Given the cost of Xe, the total volume of the detector and gas system
also needs to be considered.
The dependence of the TRD performance on the thickness of the detection element
is shown in Fig.~\ref{f:pieff-x}. We consider 8 layers of a radiator and
a detector of variable thickness. On average a factor 2 more TR photons are
detected if one increases the thickness of the detector from 0.4~cm to 3~cm.
For the total detected TR energy the factor is slightly larger than 2 and the
overall rejection power increases by more than an order of
magnitude. The most significant
improvement is seen up to a detector thickness of about 1.5~cm, with rather
marginal gain for an even thicker detector.
As shown above, the number of layers (providing independent signal values for
a particle) is a crucial choice for a TRD.
Limitations arise, for large-scale detectors, due to budgetary constraints
and sometimes even due to space availability in a detector setup.
Another constraint can be the total amount of material a TRD represents:
usually, $X/X_0\sim$10-20\% is achievable for a TRD. This usually tolerable
for other detector systems (like time-of-flight or calorimeters) placed behind
the TRD in an experiment.
For a given overall detector depth, there is a ``trade-off'' between
the number of layers and the layer thickness. A thin layer design
allows a faster detector readout, while a thick layer option, if speed
is not a crucial requirement, may be more advantageous for large track densities
requiring good readout granularity.
The two approaches, as implemented in the ATLAS \cite{atl} and ALICE \cite{ali},
respectively, are illustrated in detail in the following sections.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.55\textwidth]{pieff-xdet_xeco15_d15d300_p02}
\caption{Pion efficiency as a function of the number of layers for three
scenarios of detector granularity.}
\label{f:pieff-y}
\end{figure}
The dependence of the pion efficiency on the number of layers (for 90\% electron
efficiency) is shown in Fig.~\ref{f:pieff-y} under the constraint of a
constant overall radiation length of the entire TRD.
In estimating the pion efficiency,
we have here focused on the total charge recorded in a detector layer.
Sometimes the total charge is obtained by integrating above a certain
low value threshold (typically 10 times the noise level)~\cite{nom2}.
In drift chambers, the clusters are counted if they are above a high value
threshold. Often, the threshold used is a variable one, increasing as a
function of the drift time (``intelligent threshold'')~\cite{ed1}.
An improved version of this method is the time-over-threshold method
(ToT)~\cite{tot}, which is applied also for thin detectors.
The total charge in (large) clusters was also used~\cite{zeus}.
It was pointed out in Ref.~\cite{hol} that a bidimensional likelihood
on cluster position and integral charge improves the rejection by
a factor of 2 compared to the likelihood based on the integral
charge. A somewhat smaller
improvement with this method was recently measured~\cite{alice-trd2d}.
Neural networks were also proposed~\cite{bari-neural,alice-neural}
as a powerful method, which can be used when the time-sampled signal
information is available.
They can provide a significant improvement of the pion rejection~\cite{alice-ppr}
(see also below).
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.55\textwidth]{TRD_07}
\caption{TRD rejection power as function of the total length of the detector
for various high-energy (astro-)particle experiments (figure from \cite{pdg}).
The line is drawn to guide the eye.}
\label{f:rejj}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Synopsis of TRDs used in different experiments}
\begin{sidewaystable}
\centering
{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
Experiment ~&Radiator (x,cm) &Detector (x,cm) &Area(m$^2$) / N &L (cm)
& N. chan. & Method &~~ $\pi_{rej}$~~ \\ \hline
{\bf HELIOS}& foils (7) &Xe-C$_4$H$_{10}$ (1.8) & 4 / 8 & 70 &1744 &N &2000\\
\hline
{\bf H1} &foils (9.6) &Xe-He-C$_2$H$_6$ (6) &5.3 / 3 &60 & 1728 &FADC &10\\ \hline
{\bf NA31} & foils (21.7)&Xe-He-CH$_4$ (5)& 18 / 4&96 &384 &Q &70 \\ \hline
{\bf ZEUS} &fibres (7) &Xe-He-CH$_4$ (2.2) &12 / 4 &40 &2112 &FADC &100\\ \hline
{\bf D0} & foils (6.5) &Xe-CH$_4$ (2.3) &11 / 3 & 33 &1536 &FADC &50 \\ \hline
{\bf NOMAD} &foils (8.3) &Xe-CO$_2$ (1.6) &73 / 9 &150 &1584 & Q &1000 \\ \hline
{\bf HERMES} & fibres (6.4) &Xe-CH$_4$ (2.54) &28 / 6 & 60 &3072 & Q &1400 \\
\hline
{\bf kTeV} & fibres (12) &Xe-CO$_2$ (2.9) & 39 / 8 &144 & $\sim$10 k &Q &250
\\ \hline
{\bf PHENIX}& fibres (5) &Xe-CH$_4$ (1.8) &300 / 6 & 4 &43 k &FADC &$\sim$300 \\
\hline
{\bf PAMELA} & fibres (1.5) & Xe-CO$_2$ (0.4) & 0.7 / 9 & 28 & 964 & Q,N & 50 \\
\hline
{\bf AMS} & fibres (2) & Xe-CO$_2$ (0.6) & 30 / 20 & 55 & 5248 & Q & 1000 \\
\hline
{\bf ATLAS} & fo/fi (0.8) &Xe-CO$_2$-O$_2$ (0.4)& 1130 / 36 & 40-80 &351 k &
N,ToT &100 \\ \hline
{\bf ALICE}& fi/foam (4.8) &Xe-CO$_2$(3.7)& 716 / 6 &52 &1.2 mil. &FADC &200 \\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{TRD characteristics used in high-energy (astro-)physics experiments.}
\label{t:trd}
\end{sidewaystable}
In Table~\ref{t:trd} we show the main characteristics and the
performance of TRDs used in various high-energy (astro-)particle experiments.
Fig. \ref{f:rejj} shows the rejection power of TRD vs. its total length
\cite{gra,dol}, as compiled recently in \cite{pdg}, for the configurations
presented in the above table and for the ones in Ref.
\cite{fab2,bun,ans,det,gra,but,wat,hol}.
In most of the cases the momentum range was below 10 GeV/c.
There is a clear improvement of the rejection power when the overall length
of the detector increases.
But one should keep in mind that the performance of a TRD depends also on
the configuration (``granularity'', as we discussed above) and signal processing
(most of the results have been obtained using the likelihood method).
No relevant difference is observed between charge (``Q'') and cluster counting
(``N'') methods \cite{dol}.
It is also apparent that, within errors fiber radiators are comparable to
foil radiators in terms of performance vs. length~\cite{zeus,hol}.
However, scaled to the total radiation thickness, foil radiators are often
superior in terms of their TR yield~\cite{alice-tr}.
\subsection{Further developments}
\subsubsection{Heavy element detection}
A novel application of TRDs is in the detection of nuclei in cosmic rays of
energies up to 100 TeV/nucleon~\cite{access}. This requires a different design
as compared to TRDs discussed above in terms of radiators (material and geometry)
as well as detectors. For space-borne experiments, additional
constraints specific to space instruments have to be considered.
The proposed concept of ACCESS~\cite{access} is different compared to
a ``classic'' TRD in the following aspects:
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{access}
\caption{Schematic layout for a test performed with a prototype for
the ACCESS experiment (from~\cite{access}).}
\label{f:access}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item
The radiator is constructed from foils of 100-200 $\mu$m thickness, made of
either mylar or Teflon. An aluminum honeycomb structure was tested too. The foil
spacing is around 3.5 mm. The resulting TR has a harder spectrum compared to
the cases discussed above. The most probable value is in the range of 60-230~keV.
\item
The detector employs NaI(Tl) crystals readout by photomultipliers via
light guides, which collect the Compton scattered TR at 90$^\circ$
with respect to the
charged particle incidence (which is perpendicular to the radiator) as
depicted in Fig.~\ref{f:access}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=.95\textwidth]{boron}
\vspace{-2cm}
\caption{Response of mylar (left) and aluminum radiators (right) to
boron nuclei, for details see~\cite{boron}.}
\label{f:boron}
\end{figure}
On average, up to about 0.03 photons are detected~\cite{access} from each
radiator, depending on its type, for particles with $Z$=1 with Lorentz factors
around $\gamma$=10$^5$. Short of beams of heavy elements with the
mentioned $\gamma$-factors, Fig.~\ref{f:boron} shows a comparison of an
aluminum based radiator (right panel) employing the above mentioned
Compton scattered X-rays ( from boron nuclei) detected with CsI-crystals
compared to a mylar radiator (left panel) read out via a
Xe-based detector~\cite{boron}.
\subsubsection{Silicon-TRD}
An interesting new approach is based on TR detection using silicon strip
detectors \cite{sitrd}. The method is based on the explicit separation
of the measurement of TR from the signal from ionization, exploiting the
position resolution of the Si-strip detector and deflection of the charged
particle in a magnetic field.
The prototype realization and performance of such a SiTRD was
demonstrated in \cite{sitrd}. A schematic drawing of the detection
principle is shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{f:sitrd}.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.95\textwidth]{sitrd}
\caption{Left panel: Schematic drawing of the operating principle of a
Si-TRD; middle panel: Electron identification efficiency; right
panel: pion contamination for three different SIGRAFIL C radiator
thicknesses (15~mm (circles), 30~mm (squares), 45~mm (triangles))
taken at magnetic fields of 0.44~T (dotted lines) and 0.87~T (dashed
lines), from~\cite{sitrd}.}
\label{f:sitrd}
\end{figure}
While pion rejection factors of about 20 (for momenta of 1-2 GeV/c)
to about 65 (at 5 GeV/c) were achieved, the electron efficiency
actually dropped with increasing momentum from about 60\% to 10\%, respectively.
Measurements were performed wit a setup of four radiators+Si-strip detector modules placed in two
different magnetic fields. The radiators were irregular carbon-fiber
radiators (SIGRAFIL C).
It is clear that, in order to allow for an unambiguous association
of the TR signal to the parent charged particle, this interesting concept can
only be exploited for detectors operated in setups where the occupancy is very small.
Space-borne instruments are obvious candidates for this technology.
\section{Selected modern implementations of TRDs}\label{sect:modern_trds}
In this section we present recent implementation of TRDs, with special
emphasis on two different TRD systems in large detectors at the LHC,
ATLAS and ALICE. These two systems illustrate two complementary
approaches, dictated by their respective requirements: i) the ATLAS
TRT is a fast detector with thin detector layers realized with straw
tubes, with many layers and moderate granularity, designed for
operation in very high-rate pp collisions; ii) the ALICE TRD is a
slower detector, with thick radiators and drift chambers arranged in 6
layers, with very high granularity, optimized for Pb+Pb collisions.
In addition, we shall briefly discuss the TRDs for a fixed-target
experiments (HERMES, CBM), as well as that of the AMS experiment as an
emblematic system for a space-borne experiment.
\subsection{ATLAS TRT}\label{sect:atlas}
\subsubsection{General design}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.9\textwidth]{trt_cut}
\caption{Schematic cutaway view of the ATLAS inner barrel
detectors comprising the innermost pixel detector, the
semiconductor barrel and end-cap tracker(SCT) along with the barrel and
end-cap transition radiation tracker(TRT) (from~\cite{atlas-lhc}).}
\label{atlas-inner}
\end{figure}
The ATLAS Transition Radiation Tracker (TRT) is part of the ATLAS
central tracker, the inner detector, depicted in Fig.~\ref{atlas-inner}.
It is designed to operate in the 2~T field of
the ATLAS solenoid, where it provides both tracking information and
particle identification at the design luminosity of the LHC of
$\cal{L}$=$10^{34}\,cm^{-2}s^{-1}$. At this luminosity up to 22
overlapping events are expected in a single bunch crossing occurring
every 25~ns.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{tabular}{lr} \begin{minipage}{.41\textwidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{trt_barrel_photo}
\caption{TRT barrel during final attachment of cooling and electrical
services (from~\cite{atlas-lhc}).}
\label{barrel-photo}
\end{minipage} &\begin{minipage}{.55\textwidth}\vspace*{-4mm}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.74\textwidth,angle=-90]{trt_endcap_photo}
\caption{Completed TRT end-cap during final service integration
(from~\cite{atlas-lhc}).}
\label{endcap-photo}
\end{minipage} \end{tabular}
\end{figure}
The TRT itself is subdivided into two section, the TRT
barrel ($|\eta|<1.0$) and the TRT end-caps
($1.0<|\eta|<2.0$)~\cite{atlas-barrel,atlas-endcap}. The TRT barrel
has the sensor layers running parallel to the beam axis, while the
sensor layers of the end-cap TRT are radially
oriented. Fig.~\ref{barrel-photo} shows the TRT barrel, while
Fig.~\ref{endcap-photo} shows the TRT end-cap
prior to installation. Typically, the TRT provides 36 hits per track
with a precision of about 140~$\mu$m in the bending direction. The
combination of the precision inner tracker and the hits in the TRT
contribute to the precision momentum measurement and robust pattern
recognition of the ATLAS detector.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\caption{Synopsis of the ATLAS TRT parameters}
\label{atlas:tab:overview}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
& TRT barrel & TRT end-cap \\\hline
Pseudo-rapidity coverage & $|\eta|<1.0$ & $1.0<|\eta|<2.0$ \\
Position along beam axis & $|z|<712$~mm & $848<|z|<2710$~mm \\
Radial position & $563<r<1066$~mm & $644<r<1004$~mm \\
Total weight & 707~kg & 2$\times$1120~kg\\
\hline
Number of straw planes & 73 & 160 \\
Number of layers & 73 & 160 \\
Length of straws & 144~cm & 37~cm \\
Total number of straws& 52544 & 122880 \\
Radiator & fibers & 15~$\mu$m PP
foils with spacer \\
Radiation length & $0.2\,X/X_0$ & $\approx 0.6\,X/X_0$ \\
\hline
Gas volume & $\simeq$1 m$^3$ & 0.6 m$^3$ \\\hline
Detector gas & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Xe/CO$_2$/O$_2$ (70\%/27\%/3\%)} \\
Straw diameter &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{4~mm}\\
Gas gain & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$2.5\cdot 10^4$}\\
Cathode voltage & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{-1530~V}\\
Drift velocity & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$52$~$\mu$m/ns}\\
\hline
Number of readout channels & 105088 & 245760 \\
\hline
Counting rate per wire & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{up to 20~MHz}\\
Average number of hits per wire & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{22-36}\\
Average number of TR hits & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{5-10 (for electrons), 2
(for $\pi$)}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Detector layout}
The ATLAS TRT is based on straws, which in case of the barrel are
144~cm long. They are electrically separated into two halves at
$\eta=0$ and arranged in a total of 73 planes. The end-cap straws are
37~cm long, radially arranged in wheels with a total of 160 planes.
The straws themselves are polyimide tubes with a diameter of 4~mm.
Its wall is made of two 35~$\mu$m thick
multi-layer films bonded back-to-back. The film comprises a 25~$\mu$m
thick polyimide film with a 200~nm Al layer protected by a 5-6~$\mu$m
thick graphite-polyimide layer. The backside of the film is coated
with a 5~$\mu$m polyurethane layer used to
heat-seal the two films back-to-back.
Carbon fibers along the straws ensure their stability. The anodes
are 31~$\mu$m diameter gold-plated tungsten wires.
They are directly connected to the front-end electronics and kept at
ground potential. The anode resistance is approximately 60~$\Omega$/m and the
assembled straw capacitance is $<$10 pF. The signal attenuation length
is $\approx$~4 m and the signal propagation time is $\approx$~4 ns/m.
The straws are operated at a gain of $2.5\cdot 10^4$ with a
gas mixture of Xe/CO$_2$/O$_2$(70:27:3) and a slight overpressure with
respect to atmospheric pressure of 5-10~mbar.
Under normal operating conditions, the maximum electron
collection time is $\approx$48~ns and the drift-time accuracy leads to
a position resolution in bending direction of about
130~$\mu$m\cite{atlas-straws}. TR photons are
absorbed in the Xe-based gas mixture, and yield much larger signal
amplitudes than minimum-ionizing charged particles. The distinction
between TR and tracking signals is obtained on a straw-by-straw basis
using separate low and high thresholds in the front-end electronics.
For the barrel straws, the anode wires
are read out on both ends. Close to center, the
wires are supported mechanically by a plastic insert glued to the
inner wall of the straw. The wires are electrically separated by a fused glass
capillary of 6~mm length and 0.254~mm diameter to cope with the
occupancy. This leads to a local inefficiency of about 2~cm around the
center of the straw. For the innermost nine layers of the wires are
subdivided into three segments, which renders only the 31.2 cm-long
end-segments on each side active.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.8\textwidth]{trt_iso}
\caption{Isometric view of a ATLAS TRT barrel module (from~\cite{atlas-barrel}).}
\label{barrel-explosion}
\end{figure}
For stable operation, the wire offset with respect
to the straw center is needs to be $<300\,\mu$m. Since the wire sag
itself is $<15\,\mu$m this
translates directly into the requirement on the straightness of the straws.
To maintain straw straightness in the barrel, alignment planes made of
polyimide with a matrix of holes are positioned each 25~cm along the
z-direction of the module. A schematic drawing of the assembly of TRT barrel
module is shown in Fig.~\ref{barrel-explosion}.
Stable operation of the ATLAS TRT straws with the Xe-based gas mixture
requires a re-circulating gas system with continuous monitoring of the
gas quality. To avoid pollution from permeation through the straw walls
or through leaks, the straws are operated within an envelope of CO$_2$.
\subsubsection{Electronics}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.9\textwidth]{trt_fee}
\caption{Schematic drawing of the ATLAS TRT electronics readout chain,
along with the detector signal after amplification and shaping, the
baseline restoration and the dual discriminator (from~\cite{atlas-lhc}).}
\label{trt-electronics}
\end{figure}
The ATLAS TRT electronics readout chain along with typical signals at the various
stages of signal processing are shown in Fig.~\ref{trt-electronics}.
The analog signal processing and threshold discrimination to detect
signals from both minimum-ionizing particles for tracking and transition
radiation from electrons
as well as the subsequent time digitization and data pipelining
are implemented in two ASICs, which are directly mounted on the
detector.
Each stage of the TRT signal readout chain
comprises: (1) an eight-channel analog ASIC~\cite{atlas-pasa}, called the
ASDBLR realized in bi-CMOS radiation tolerant DMILL technology. It
accounts for amplification, shaping, and baseline restoration. It
includes two discriminators, one operating at low threshold (typically
250 eV) for signals from minimum-ionizing particles and one operating at
high threshold (typically 6 keV) for transition radiation detection.
(2) a 16-channel ASIC fabricated using commercial
radiation tolerant 0.25~$\mu$m CMOS technology~\cite{atlas-dtmroc}.
This ASIC performs the drift-time measurement ($\approx$3~ns
binning).
It includes a digital
pipeline for holding the data during the L1 trigger latency, a
derandomising buffer and a 40~Mbits/s serial interface. It also
includes the necessary interface to the timing, trigger and control as
well as DACs to set the discriminator thresholds of the analog ASIC
along with further test circuitry. These ASICs are mounted on
front-end boards directly attached to the detector. The electronics
is cooled by a liquid mono-phase fluorinated (C$_6$F$_{14}$) cooling system.
At the TRT operating low threshold used for tracking (equivalent to
$\approx$15\% of the average signal expected from minimum-ionizing particles),
the mean straw noise occupancy is about 2\%.
The expected maximum straw occupancy is 50\%. The entire front-end electronics
chain was exposed to a neutron dose of about $4\cdot 10^{14}$~cm$^{-2}$
and to a $\gamma$-ray dose of 80~kGy.
Variations of up to 25\% were observed in the ASDBLR gain, however, with no change
in the effective thresholds and noise performance after a standard voltage
compensation procedure.
\subsubsection{ATLAS TRT performance}
As mentioned above the TRT plays a central role within ATLAS for
electron identification, cross-checking and complementing the
calorimeter, especially at momenta below 25~GeV/c. In addition, the TRT
contributes to the reconstruction and identification of electron
track segments from photon conversions down to 1~GeV and of electrons
which have radiated a large fraction of their energy in the silicon
layers.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.9\textwidth]{trt_eff}
\vspace{-2cm}
\caption{Left panel) Average probability of a high-threshold hit in
the barrel TRT as a function of the Lorentz $\gamma$-factor for
different particle species. Right panel) Pion efficiency (determined
at 90\% electron efficiency) as a
function of pion energy using different discrimination techniques
(cf. text)(from~\cite{atlas-lhc}).}
\label{trt-gamma-effi}
\end{figure}
In a combined testbeam the response of the ATLAS inner barrel to pions,
electrons and muons in the momentum range between 2
and 350 GeV/c has been evaluated. In Fig.~\ref{trt-gamma-effi}
the high-threshold hit probability towards different particle species
is shown (left panel). TR contributes significantly to the
high-threshold hits for electron momenta above 2~GeV/c and saturation
sets in for electron momenta above about 10~GeV/c. The right panel of
that figure shows the
resulting pion identification efficiency for an electron efficiency of
90\%, achieved by performing a likelihood evaluation based on the
high-threshold probability for electrons and pions for each
straw. It also demonstrates how the inclusion of
time-over-threshold information (which quantifies the energy deposit
in the straw) improves the pion rejection by about a factor of two
when combined with the high-threshold hit information.
The pion rejection power reaches a maximum at momenta of $\approx$5~GeV/c.
In general, pion rejection factors above 50 are achieved in the energy range
of 2-20 GeV.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.6\textwidth]{trt_pion_eff}
\caption{Expected pion efficiency as a function of pseudo-rapidity at
90\% electron efficiency for electrons with a transverse momentum
of $p_t=$25~GeV/c (from~\cite{atlas-lhc}).}
\label{trt-pion-effi}
\end{figure}
The electron-pion separation expected for the ATLAS TRT, including the
aforementioned time-over-threshold information, is shown as a function of
pseudo-rapidity in Fig.~\ref{trt-pion-effi} as the pion identification
efficiency expected for an electron efficiency of 90\%. The shape observed
is strongly correlated with the number of TRT straws crossed by the track.
It decreases from approximately 35 to a minimum of 20 in the
transition region between the barrel and end-cap TRT,
$0.8<|\eta|<1.1$.
It also decreases rapidly at the edge of the
TRT fiducial acceptance, which is limited to $|\eta|>1.8$.
Since the TR yield depends on momentum and these results are for fixed
transverse momentum $p_t$,
part of the $\eta$ dependence arises from the momentum dependence
of the TR yield.
Owing to its more efficient regular foil radiator, the performance in
terms of particle identification is better in the end-cap TRT than in
the barrel TRT~\cite{atlas-lhc}.
\subsection{ALICE TRD}\label{sect:alice}
\subsubsection{General design}
\label{alice:design}
The purpose of the ALICE TRD~\cite{ali} is twofold. On the one hand, it
provides efficient electron identification in the central barrel for momenta
above 1 GeV/c. On the other hand, based on its inherent
tracking capability, the readout is able to provide a fast
trigger for charged particles with high momenta. In
conjunction with data from the Inner Tracking System (ITS) and the
Time Projection Chamber (TPC) it is possible to study
the production of light and heavy vector-mesons and the
dilepton continuum both in p-p as well as in Pb-Pb collisions.
The trigger will be used for jet studies and to
significantly enhance the recorded $\Upsilon$-yields,
high-p$\,_t$ $J/\psi$, and the high-mass part of the dilepton continuum.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{alitrd_geom}
\caption{Schematic drawing of the TRD layout in the ALICE space
frame (courtesy D. Mi\` skowiec).
Shown are 18 super modules (light blue face side) each
containing 30 readout chambers (red) arranged in five stacks of six
layers. One chamber has been displaced for clarity. On the outside
the TRD is surrounded by the time-of-flight (TOF) system (dark
blue). On the inside the heat shield (yellow) towards the TPC is
shown. In radial direction the TRD occupies the range 2.9-3.7 m and
the length is almost 8 m.}
\label{alice:TRDlayout}
\end{figure}
The design parameters of the TRD were driven by the physics
considerations~\cite{alice-trdtdr}:
\begin{itemize}
\item []{\em Pion rejection capability} - this is governed by the
signal-to-background ratio in the measurement of $J/\psi$ production
and its p$_t$ dependence. This led to the design goal for the pion
rejection capability of a factor 100 for momenta above 1
GeV/c \cite{alice-trdtdr}, which is necessary for the
measurement of the lighter vector-mesons and the determination of
the continuum between the $J/\psi$ and the $\Upsilon$.
\item []{\em Position and momentum resolution} - needs to be of the
order of a fraction of a TPC pad to match and exploit the combined
momentum resolution leading to an overall mass resolution of about
100 MeV/c$^2$ at the $\Upsilon$-mass. The
anticipated momentum resolution of the TRD itself at 5
GeV/c of 3.5\% (4.7\%) for low (high) multiplicity will crucially
determine the sharpness of the trigger threshold in p$\,_t$ as well as the
capability to reject fake tracks.
\item []{\em Radiation length} - has to be minimized in order to
reduce Bremsstrahlung leading to incorrect momentum determination or
loss of electrons and to reduce photon conversions resulting in
increased occupancy as well as incorrect matching.
\item[] {\em Detector granularity} - in bending direction it is
governed by the desired momentum resolution and in longitudinal
direction by the need to correctly identify and track electrons
through all layers of the detector even at the largest anticipated
multiplicities. This led to pads with an average area of about 6
cm$^2$. With this a tracking efficiency of 90\% can be achieved for
single tracks at a maximum occupancy of 34\% including secondaries
at the highest simulated multiplicity density of $\rm d
N_{\textrm{ch}}/\rm d\eta$ = 8000.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Detector layout}
\label{trd:Layout}
The final design of the TRD is depicted in
Fig.~\ref{alice:TRDlayout}. The TRD consists of 540 individual readout
detector modules. They are arranged into 18 so called super modules
(Fig.~\ref{alice:TRDsm})
each containing 30 modules arranged in five stacks and six
layers. In longitudinal ($z$) direction the active length is 7~m,
the overall length of the entire super module (Fig.~\ref{alice:TRDsm})
is 7.8~m, its weight is about 1700~kg.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.55\textwidth]{alitrd_sm3}
\caption{Super module during assembly with the chambers of the first three
layers installed.}
\label{alice:TRDsm}
\end{figure}
Each detector element consists of a carbon fiber laminated
Rohacell/polypropylene fiber sandwich radiator of 48~mm thickness, a
drift section of 30~mm thickness, and a multi-wire proportional
chamber section (7~mm) with pad readout. The pad planes are
supported by a honeycomb carbon-fiber sandwich back panel
(22~mm). While very light, the panel and the radiator provide enough
mechanical rigidity of the chamber to cope with overpressure up to
1~mbar to ensure a deformation of less than 1~mm. The entire readout
electronics is directly mounted on the back panel of the
detector. Including the water cooling system the total thickness of
a single detector layer is 125~mm. In the bending plane ($r\varphi$)
each pad row consists of 144 pads. The central chambers consist of
12, all others of 16 pad rows. This leads to an overall channel
count of 1.18$\times$10$^6$. The total active area subtended by the
pads is 716~m$^2$.
The construction parameters, operating conditions and design performance
of the detector are summarized in Table~\ref{alice:tab:overview}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\caption{Synopsis of the ALICE TRD parameters}
\label{alice:tab:overview}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Pseudo-rapidity coverage & $-0.84<\eta<0.84$ \\
Radial position & $2.90<r<3.68$~m \\\hline
Largest module & $117\times 147$~cm$^{2}$ \\
Active detector area & 716 m$^{2}$ \\
Radiator & fiber/foam sandwich, 4.8 cm per layer \\
Radial detector thickness (for $|z|>$ 50~cm) & $X/X_{0}=21.6\%(25.7\%)$ \\
\hline
Module segmentation & 144 in $\varphi$ \hskip10mm 12--16 in $z$ \\
Typical pad size & $0.7\times8.8$~cm$^{2}$ \\
Total number of pads & $1.18\times10^{6}$ \\
\hline
Detector gas & Xe/CO$_2$ (85\%/15\%) \\
Gas volume & $27.2$~m$^{3}$ \\
Depth of drift region & $3$~cm \\
Depth of amplification region & 0.7~cm \\
Drift field & $0.7$~kV/cm \\
Drift velocity & $1.5$~cm/$\mu$s\\
\hline
Number of readout channels & $1.18\times10^{6}$ \\
Time samples in $r$ (drift) & 24 \\
ADC & 10 bit, 10 MHz\\
Number of multi-chip modules & 70848\\
Number of readout boards & 4104 \\
\hline
Pad occupancy for $\mathrm{d}N_{ch}/\mathrm{d}\eta=8000$ & $34\%$ \\
Pad occupancy in pp & $2\times 10^{-4}$ \\
Space-point resolution at $1$~GeV$\,c^{-1}$ \hfill in $r\varphi$ & $400 (600)$~$\mu$m for $\mathrm{d}N_{ch}/\mathrm{d}\eta=2000$ (8000)\\
\hfill in $z$\ \ \ & $2$~mm (offline) \\
Momentum resolution & $\delta p/p = 2.5\% \oplus 0.5\% (0.8\%)p$/(GeV/c) \\
& for $\mathrm{d}N_{ch}/\mathrm{d}\eta=2000$ (8000) \\
Pion suppression at $90\%$ electron efficiency & better than 100 for $p \geq$ 1~GeV/c\\
\hline
Event size for $\mathrm{d}N_{ch}/\mathrm{d}\eta=8000$ & 11 MB \\
Event size for pp & 6 kB \\
Rate limitit for triggering & 100 kHz \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Cross-sectional views of a single TRD chamber are shown in
Fig.~\ref{alice:TRDprinciple}. Ionizing radiation produces electrons
in the counting gas (Xe/CO$_2$ (85:15)).
Particles exceeding $\gamma \approx 1000$ will in addition
produce about 1.45 X-ray photons in the energy range of 1 to 30
keV. The largest conversion probability for TR is at the
very beginning of the drift region. All electrons from ionization
energy loss and X-ray conversions will drift towards the anode
wires. Following gas amplification the signal is induced on the readout
pads. A typical track is shown in the inset of the central panel of
Fig.~\ref{alice:TRDprinciple}. The inclination of the track in
bending direction is a direct measure of its transverse momentum.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{tabular}{cc} \begin{minipage}{.48\textwidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{alitrd_prin}
\end{minipage} &\begin{minipage}{.48\textwidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{alitrd_prinx2}
\end{minipage} \end{tabular}
\caption{Schematic cross-sectional view of a detector module in
$rz$-direction (left panel) and $r\varphi$-direction (right
panel). The inset shows the charge deposit from an inclined track.}
\label{alice:TRDprinciple}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.53\textwidth,height=.5\textwidth]{alitrd_sig}
\caption{The average pulse height as a function of drift time for pions
(triangles), electrons without a radiator (squares) and electrons
with a radiator (circles) for 2 GeV/c momentum.}
\label{alice:TRDsig}
\end{figure}
For particles with a momentum of 2 GeV/c the average amplitude of
the cathode pad signal versus drift time is shown in Fig.~\ref{alice:TRDsig}.
The conversion of the TR right at the entrance of the chamber,
i.e. at large drift times, is clearly visible.
\subsubsection{Readout electronics}
An overview of the ALICE TRD readout electronics \cite{alice-fee} is shown
in Fig.~\ref{alice:electronics}. The electronics including the optical
serializers ORI (two per chamber) is directly mounted on the backside
of the detector modules. The data are transmitted to the Global
Tracking Unit (GTU) via 60 optical fibers per super module. The GTU
either passes the data directly to the DAQ
or further processes the data in order to derive a fast Level
1 trigger decision. In that case individual tracklets from different
layers of a stack are combined to determine the multiplicity of
high-p$\,_t$ particles or to detect high-momentum e$^+$e$^-$-pairs. At
Level 1, after about 6.1~$\mu$s this trigger is transmitted to the
Central Trigger Processor CTP.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{alitrd_MCMs}
\caption{Schematic overview of the readout electronics of the TRD.}
\label{alice:electronics}
\end{figure}
Most of the on-detector readout electronics are realized as ASICs. Two
such chips, an 18-channel preamplifier shaper (PASA), and
a so-called Tracklet Processor (TRAP) have been integrated into a
multi-chip module (MCM). The PASA \cite{alice-pasa} is a folded
cascode with differential output (120 ns shaping time, 850e ENC for an
input capacitance of 25 pF, 12.4 mV/fC gain, and 12 mW/channel power
consumption). It has been realized using the AMS 0.35~$\mu$m CMOS
process. Each PASA has 18 input and 21 output channels. For
reconstruction of tracklets the extra output channels are fed into the
analog inputs of the TRAPs on neighboring MCMs to allow for continuous
charge sharing across MCM boundaries.
The Tracklet Processor~\cite{alice-trap} is a mixed signal design
(UMC 0.18~$\mu$m). It comprises 21 ADCs, digital filters, event
buffers, and processing units that allow to
calculate the inclination of track segments in bending direction as well as
the total charge deposited along the track (Local Tracking Unit -
LTU). This feature allows to identify high-p$\,_t$ particles on the
trigger level. Evaluation of the deposited energy will furthermore
allow to tag possible electron candidates on the trigger level.
The resulting track segments from
the different detector layers have to be matched in three dimensions
for transverse momentum reconstruction.
Based on the data of all 1.2 million analog channels, the
reconstruction has to be performed within 6.1 $\mu$s to derive the
Level-1 trigger decision. The entire trigger timing sequence involving
the LTU and the GTU is depicted in Fig.~\ref{alice:trigger}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.83\textwidth]{alitrd_trigger}
\caption{Trigger timing diagram for the generation of a high-p$_t$
trigger.}
\label{alice:trigger}
\end{figure}
The massively parallel hardware architecture of the GTU is capable of
processing up to 20 000 track segments within 2~$\mu$s.
The core of the GTU, along with a custom bus system,
is the so-called Track Matching Unit (TMU).
It is an FPGA-based system utilizing PCI and 12 fiber-optical transceiver
interfaces gathering the data from a stack of six chambers. It is
realized as a CompactPCI plug-in card. The main FPGA is a Xilinx
Virtex-4 FX chip which includes an integrated multi-gigabit serializer/
deserializer and PowerPC processor blocks.
\subsection{ALICE TRD performance}
\label{alice:performance}
\subsubsection{Specific energy loss and TR}
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{tabular}{lr} \begin{minipage}{.48\textwidth}
\vspace{-1.cm}
\centering\includegraphics[width=1.1\textwidth]{alitrd_dedx}
\caption{Measurement of the specific energy deposit of 2 GeV/c
pions (top) and electrons (bottom) in Xe,CO$_2$ (85:15) along with
simulations \cite{alice-dedx}. ``$\delta$ escape'' denotes the realistic
treatment of $\delta$-rays.}
\label{alice:dedx}
\end{minipage} &\begin{minipage}{.48\textwidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{alitrd_tr_updated}
\caption{Measurement and simulation of the transition radiation
spectrum from 2 GeV/c electrons with the ALICE TRD
radiator sandwich. The top panel shows the energy distribution of
TR photons, the bottom panel the response per incident
electron \cite{alice-tr}.}
\label{alice:tr}
\end{minipage} \end{tabular}
\end{figure}
Measurements of the specific energy loss of electrons and pions of
2 GeV/c momentum in the Xe/CO$_2$ gas mixture are shown in
Fig.~\ref{alice:dedx} along with simulations. A correct understanding of
the particle separation capability relies on a precise
understanding of the details in the specific energy deposit of
electrons and pions. Fig.~\ref{alice:dedx} demonstrates the level of
agreement that has been achieved in the simulations. In that context
it has been shown that a correct description of the escape
probability of energetic $\delta$-electrons is needed to describe the
tails of the energy distributions as well as their
momentum dependence \cite{alice-dedx}.
The radiator is a composite structure using different inhomogeneous
materials.
The front and back sides consist of 8 mm Rohacell foam
covered with 0.1 mm carbon fiber laminate and 25 $\mu$m aluminized
mylar foil. It is filled with irregular polypropylene fiber mats (average
fiber diameter 20 $\mu$m).
The transition radiation production of this
structure has been evaluated in prototype tests employing a method
to separate TR from the parent track via electron deflection
in a magnetic field, as described in \cite{fab}.
For electrons the production of transition radiation
sets in at $p\approx$0.5 GeV/c and levels off at
about 2 GeV/c, where on average 1.45 transition radiation
photons are produced of which 1.25 are detected per incident
electron\cite{alice-tr}. The measured transition radiation energy
spectra along with simulations are shown for 2 GeV/c electrons in
Fig.~\ref{alice:tr}.
\subsubsection{Electron identification}
A parameterization of the measured amplitude spectra as a
function of drift time and momentum both for electrons and pions
provides the necessary likelihood distributions~\cite{alice-neural}
that allow to evaluate the electron identification performance.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{eff-p-3meth}
\caption{Pion rejection as a function of momentum for three methods:
i) likelihood on integral charge (L$_Q$), ii) bidimensional likelihood
on integral charge and largest cluster position (L$_{QX}$),
iii) neural networks (NN). Figure taken from \cite{alice-ppr}.}
\label{f:p_3met}
\end{figure}
The dependence of the pion efficiency on momentum (for 90\% electron efficiency)
obtained with the ALICE TRD prototype measurements \cite{alice-ppr}
is shown in Fig.~\ref{f:p_3met} for three methods:
i) likelihood on integral charge (L$_Q$), ii) bidimensional likelihood
on integral charge and largest cluster position (L$_{QX}$),
iii) neural networks (NN).
As expected, the higher performance of the more complex signal readout
and processing is clearly demonstrated \cite{alice-neural}.
\subsubsection{Tracking}
The chief tracking device in ALICE is the TPC. The tracking performance
of the ALICE TRD itself is a requirement regarding a reasonably sharp trigger
threshold for individual particles in the range of up to $p_{\,\rm t}
\approx 10$ GeV/c. At nominal magnetic field (B=0.5~T)
this entails a position resolution for each time bin of $\sigma_y
\,\lesssim\, 400\,\mu\rm m$ and a resulting angular resolution per
layer of $\sigma_\varphi \,\lesssim\, 1^\circ$. The achievable respective
resolutions have been measured and are a function of the
signal-to-noise ratio~\cite{alice-posres}. They are shown in
Fig.~\ref{alice:posres}. At a signal-to-noise ratio of about
40 the detector meets the requirements.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{tabular}{lr} \begin{minipage}{.65\textwidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{alitrd_posres}
\end{minipage} &\begin{minipage}{.32\textwidth}
\caption{Measurements and simulations of the position (top) and
angular resolution of the ALICE TRD as a function of the signal-to-noise ratio.
Open (full) symbols refer to electrons and pions measured with (without)
radiator in front of the drift chamber along with the respective
simulations \cite{alice-posres}.}\label{alice:posres}
\end{minipage} \end{tabular}
\end{figure}
Using the above position and angular resolutions the stand-alone
tracking resolution of the TRD was estimated in simulations for different
momenta as a function of multiplicity density. For momenta below 2 GeV/c
the stand-alone momentum resolution of the TRD is around
$\delta p_{\,\rm t}/p_{\,\rm t} \approx 2.5-3\% $ with little
dependence on the multiplicity.
Through the inclusion of the TRD into the tracking in the central barrel an
overall momentum resolution around 3\% can be obtained up to momenta of
about 90 GeV/c.
\subsection{TRDs for fixed-target accelerator experiments}
A great variety of TRDs were employed for fixed-target high-energy experiments.
We discuss here, briefly, the TRD of the HERMES experiment at HERA \cite{her}
and that of the proposed CBM experiment at the future FAIR facility~\cite{cbm}.
\subsubsection{HERMES}\label{sect:hermes}
The TRD of the HERMES experiment \cite{her} employed random fiber radiators
of 6.35~cm thickness (corresponding on average to 267 dielectric layers) and
proportional wire chambers of 2.54~cm thickness, filled with Xe-CH$_4$.
The TRD consisted of two arms, each with 6 radiator-detector layers
flushed with CO$_2$ in between.
As a consequence of a rather thick radiator, the pion rejection factor
achieved with a truncated mean method was 130 for a momentum of 5 GeV/c
and 150 averaged over all measured momenta, for an electron efficiency of 90\%.
Using a likelihood method, the pion rejection factor averaged over all
measured momenta
was determines to be 1460$\pm$150, decreasing to 489$\pm$25 for an
electron efficiency of 95\%.
\subsubsection{CBM}\label{sect:cbm}
The TRD of the CBM (Compressed Baryonic Matter) experiment \cite{cbm}
at the planned FAIR \cite{aa:fair} accelerator facility at GSI
is aimed to provide electron identification and charged particle tracking.
The required pion suppression is a factor of about 100 and the position
resolution has to be of the order of 200-300 $\mu$m. In order to fulfill
these tasks, in the context of the high rates and high particle multiplicities
in CBM, a careful optimization of the detector is required.
Currently, the whole detector is envisaged to be subdivided into three
stations, positioned at distances of 4, 6 and 8 m from the target,
each one of them composed of at least three layers.
Because of the high rate environment expected in the CBM experiment
(interaction rates of up to 10 MHz), a fast readout detector
has to be used.
To ensure the speed and also to minimize possible space charge effects
expected at high rates, it is clear that the detector has to have
a thickness of less than 1~cm. Two solutions exist for such a
detector: a multiwire proportional chamber (MWPC) with pad readout
or straw tubes.
While both had been investigated at the earlier stage of the detector design,
the MWPC solution is currently favored. A novel concept of
a ``double-sided'' MWPC had been tested in prototypes \cite{cbm-double}
and is a strong candidate for the inner part of the detector. This
detector design provides twice the thickness of the gas volume, while
keeping the charge collection time to that of a single MWPC.
For the radiator both possibilities, regular and irregular, are
under consideration. The final choice of the radiator type for the CBM TRD
will be established after the completion of prototypes tests.
Measurements with prototypes, both in beam \cite{cbm-rate}
and with X-ray sources \cite{cbm-rate2} demonstrate that the detector
can handle the design rates.
The main characteristics of the TRD are:
i) cell sizes: 1-10 cm$^2$ (depending on the polar angle, tuned for
the occupancy to remain below 10\%);
ii) material budget: $X/X_0\simeq$15-20\%;
iii) rates: up to 100 kHz/cm$^2$;
iv) doses (charged particles): up to 16 krad/year, corresponding to
26-40 mC/cm/year charge on the anode wires.
For a classical MWPC-type TRD with the envisaged 9-12 layers, the
total area of detectors is in the range 485-646~m$^2$. The total number
of electronic channels is projected to between 562 and 749 thousand.
\subsection{TRDs for astro-particle physics}
A recent review of TRDs for astro-particle instruments is given in \cite{tkirn}.
In general, both balloon and space experiments lead to compact design
requirements.
For short-term balloon flights, like the WIZARD/TS93~\cite{wizard} and
HEAT~\cite{heat} experiments, the main challenge is the rather strong variation
of temperature and pressure during the flight, which require
significant corrections of
the measured detector signals.
The requirements imposed by the long-term operation of a TRD in space as
envisaged for the AMS experiment~\cite{ams}, lead to challenging aspects of
its operation without maintenance. The mechanical requirements arising from
vibrations during the launch demand special design and laboratory
qualifications~\cite{danilo,tkirn}.
The TRD of the WIZARD/TS93 experiment~\cite{wizard} weighs about 240~kg and
covers an active area of 76$\times$80~cm$^2$. Ten layers of carbon fiber
radiators of 5~cm thickness and 1.6~cm-thick proportional wire chambers filled
with Xe-CH$_4$ give a total of 2560 electronics readout channels.
A pion contamination at the sub-percent level has been achieved in testbeam
measurements.
The TRD of the HEAT experiment~\cite{heat} is composed of six layers of
polyethylene fiber radiators (12.7~cm thickness) and 2~cm-thick proportional
wire chambers operated with Xe-CH$_4$. Proton rejection factors around 100
were achieved for 90\% electron efficiency for 10 GeV/c momentum.
The TRD designed for the PAMELA experiment~\cite{pam} is composed of a total
of 1024 straw-tube detectors of 28~cm length and 4~mm diameter,
filled with Xe-CO$_2$ mixture and arranged in 9 layers interleaved with radiators of carbon
fibers. Pion rejection factors around 20 for 90\% electron efficiency
were measured in testbeams at momenta of few GeV/c.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{etube_eppimu}
\caption{Energy deposition in a single straw of the AMS TRD for protons,
pions, muons and electrons obtained in beamtest measurements.
The lines are Geant3 simulations (from~\cite{ams}).}
\label{f:ams1}
\end{figure}
The TRD of the AMS experiment~\cite{ams}, which was recently installed
on the International Space Station (ISS), has an envisaged operational duration
of about three years. The TRD will contribute to the AMS required proton
rejection factor of about 10$^6$, necessary for the study of positron spectra
planned with AMS.
The detection elements are 5248 straw tubes of 6~mm diameter, arranged in
modules of 16 straws each, with a length of up to 2~m.
The straws, with 30~$\mu$m gold-plated tungsten anode wires, are operated at
1350~V, corresponding to a gas gain of 3000.
The radiator is a 2~cm thick polypropylene fleece. Special cleaning of the
radiator material is required to meet the outgassing limits imposed by NASA.
Special tightness requirement for the straw tubes~\cite{tkirn2} are imposed by
the limited supply of detector gas (the AMS TRD has a gas volume of 230 liters).
The spectra of energy deposition in a single straw of the AMS TRD for protons,
pions, muons and electrons obtained in beamtest measurements are shown in
Fig.~\ref{f:ams1}. A very good description of the measurements has been achieved
with modified Geant3 simulations~\cite{ams}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{ams_prej}
\caption{The proton rejection factor of the AMS-02 TRD as a function of
beam energy (from~\cite{ams}).}
\label{f:ams2}
\end{figure}
The excellent proton rejection performance achieved in testbeams with a full
20 layer prototype for the AMS TRD is shown in Fig.~\ref{f:ams2}.
A neural network method has been used~\cite{ams}, delivering a proton rejection
factor (at 90\% electron efficiency) between 1000 and 100 for momenta between
15 and 250~GeV/c.
\section{Summary and conclusions}\label{sect:sum}
The TRD technique offers a unique opportunity for electron separation with
respect to hadrons in a wide momentum range from 1 to 100 GeV/c.
The separation between pions, kaons and protons (or heavier hadrons) is possible
in well defined windows of momenta.
We have presented a survey of the Transition Radiation Detectors employed
in accelerator and space experiments, with special emphasis on the two large
detectors presently operated in the LHC experiments, the ATLAS TRT and the
ALICE TRD.
Building on a long series of dedicated measurements and on various implementation
of TRDs in complex experimental particle physics setups, these two particular
TRD systems are challenging in their scale and required performance, both for
tracking and electron identification. The ALICE TRD provides in
addition fast triggering
capability.
They also illustrate two complementary approaches, dictated by their respective
requirements: the ATLAS TRT being a very fast detector, with moderate
granularity, perfectly suited for operation in high-rate pp collisions,
while the ALICE TRD is a slower detector with very good granularity,
optimized for Pb+Pb collisions.
With data taking at the LHC now in full swing, the evaluation of the performance
of these two systems, which is already well underway \cite{perf_lhc}, will
serve as a solid basis for the design of TRDs for future high-energy
(astro-)particle and nuclear physics experiments.
|
\section{Speed Measurements in Flat and Curved Spacetime}
\label{ch1}
Newtonian physics loses its applicability when speeds approach the speed of
light, like for neutrinos; we should pass at least to Special Relativity (SR).
In SR, the world lines of CERN and of the Gran Sasso neutrino detector form
two almost straight timelike lines of spatial separation $0.7 \cdot 10^{3}$km, with
a relative velocity \textbf{v} given by corotation with our home planet Earth
at the respective latitudes \{$46^{\circ}$, $42^{\circ}$\} and longitudes \{$6^{\circ}$, $13^{\circ}$\}. The magnitude of v is some 12\% of the corotation speed with Earth
at CERN's (northern) latitude, seen redshifted when viewed from CERN.
Consequently, the Gran Sasso clock moves redshifted w.r.t. the CERN clock,
hence runs more slowly than the CERN clock by a redshift of z = v/c
$\approx 10^{-6.5}$. If SR were the proper spacetime geometry for this
experiment, the neutrino travel time would thus be found shortened by some
$10^{-6.5}$.
But as is well-known, gravity at the surface of Earth modifies clock rates
more strongly than do typical kinematic redshifts (given by \ $\beta$\ :=
v/c). The general-relativistic (GR) counterpart to $\beta^{2}$\ in
\textit{Robertson}'s line element \ --\ \ which describes a generalised
\textit{Schwarzschild} geometry \ --\ is 2m/R: \ \ \
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau}{\mathrm{dt}}\right)^{2}\ \,=\ \,\mathrm{1}-\frac{\mathrm{2m}}{\mathrm{r
}-\left(\frac{\mathrm{d\textbf{x}}}{\mathrm{cdt}}\right)^{2}-2\
\frac{\mathrm{d\textbf{x}}\cdot\mathrm{\textbf{J}}}{\mathrm{cdt}}
\end{equation}
in application to Earth in which the three PPN parameters $\beta,\gamma,$ and
$\delta$ have been set equal to unity, $\tau$ is proper time (measured, e.g.,
by caesium clocks), m := GM/c$^{2}$ = $10^{0.11}$cm \ is the gravitational
length of Earth, corresponding to its mass $\mathrm{M}=10^{27.78}$g, r := radial
coordinate, and \ \textbf{J} := $-4\int\frac{\mathrm{d\textbf{x}}}{\mathrm{cdt
}\frac{\mathrm{dm}}{\mathrm{r}}$ is the vector potential for the spin motion of
Earth; \textbf{J} is understood as the retarded volume integral over Earth; it
describes the \textit{Lense-Thirring effect}. In our application, m/r is
$\gtrsim$10$^{-9}$ (for r $\approx$ R), and $\beta$ := dx/cdt $\gtrsim$
$10^{-6}$ holds for our comoving clocks, so that J is negligibly small
($\approx 10^{-15}$), and the line element simplifies to: \ (d$\tau
$/dt)$^{2}$ = (1 - 2m/r - $\beta^{2}$), \cite{KrotscheckKundt1983}\cite{Will1993}.
We now see that for the curved GR geometry of Earth described approximately by
the truncated Robertson line element, all we have to do is replace the
kinematic potential $\beta^{2}$ of the SR approach by the full gravitational
potential \ 2m/r + $\beta^{2}$ ($\gtrsim$ 2m/r), in order to get a fair
estimate of the deviations of true (geometric) velocities from coordinate
velocities. Even so, this task is far from trivial because near a rotating
body, there do not exist global spacelike hypersurfaces (of fixed time)
\ --\ \ just remember G\"{o}del's cosmological model \ --\ \ nor are photon
paths described by straight lines (as in SR). We would be forced into lengthy
calculations applied to a timelike triangle spanned by a neutrino's null
geodesic, by its (curved) 3-space projection, and by the (curved, timelike)
worldline of the detector: Are the observed 61 nsec deviation a geometric
effect? According to \cite{KrotscheckKundt1978}, the answer is a clear
''no'': the basic equations of motion (for elementary particles) do not allow
for tachyonic solutions.
But we can argue more directly: We can compare our GR problem with the
corresponding SR problem considered above, in which we replace the small
kinematic redshift $\beta$\ ($\gtrsim 10^{-6}$) by the much larger
gravitational redshift $\sqrt{\mathrm{2m}/\mathrm{R}}\approx 10^{-4.4}$ in
Robertson's line element, a shift which is just slightly larger than the
relative time deficit ($10^{-4.6}$) measured recently by the two clocks. This
estimate leads me to the conclusion that the caesium clocks have measured a
coordinate effect, not an excess of the neutrinos' speed\ over luminal. Note
that one nsec in a day means a clock uncertainty of smallness 10$^{-14}$! General
Relativity must no longer be ignored in terrestrial high-time-resolution measurements.
\section{Summary}
\label{summary}
When the terrestrial Loran (Long-range-navigation) system was improved from a
timing accuracy of $\mu$sec to nsec, we entered the era of
general-relativistic kinematics on Earth.
This experiment is the first to have shown it.
\begin{acknowledgements}
I am indebted to Ole Marggraf for support, encouragement, and help with the electronics.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
If $X$ is a submanifold of a complex torus, then by a classical
result of Ueno \cite[Thm.10.9]{Uen75} the manifold $X$ is an analytic fibre bundle with fibre a torus $T$
over a manifold $Y$ with ample canonical bundle. Moreover if $X$ is projective, then it decomposes (after
finite \'etale cover) as a product $Y \times T$. Since for a submanifold of a complex torus the
cotangent bundle $\Omega_X$ is globally generated, it is natural to ask if there are analogues
of Ueno's result under a weaker positivity assumption.
Generalising a conjecture by Yau on compact K\"ahler manifolds with nonpositive bisectional curvature,
Wu und Zheng \cite{WZ02} proposed the following problem.
\begin{conjecture} \label{conjecturenef}
Let $X$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold with nef cotangent bundle $\Omega_X$. Then there exists a finite \'etale cover
$X' \rightarrow X$ such that the Iitaka fibration $X' \rightarrow Y'$ is a smooth fibration
onto a projective manifold $Y$ with ample canonical bundle and all the fibres are complex tori.
\end{conjecture}
In this note we prove this conjecture for projective manifolds with semiample canonical bundle, i.e.
some positive multiple $mK_X$ is generated by its global sections.
\begin{theorem} \label{theoremmain}
Let $X$ be a projective manifold with nef cotangent bundle $\Omega_X$
and semiample canonical bundle $K_X$.
Then Conjecture \ref{conjecturenef} holds for $X$.
\end{theorem}
Since $K_X = \det \Omega_X$ is nef, the abundance conjecture \cite[Sec.2]{Rei85}
claims that the semiampleness condition is redundant. So far this conjecture is known to hold if
$\dim X\leq 3$; see \cite{Uta92}. Note however that
a projective manifold with nef cotangent bundle does not contain any rational curves, so the
abundance conjecture reduces to the weaker nonvanishing conjecture \cite[Thm.1.5]{a16}.
In particular our statement holds for fourfolds with $\kappa(X) \geq 0$.
For manifolds with nonpositive bisectional curvature one expects the torus fibration
to be locally trivial \cite[p.264]{WZ02}. This is no longer true if we assume only that $\Omega_X$ is nef:
universal families over compact curves in the moduli space of abelian varieties (polarised and with level three structure) provide immediate counter-examples.
However if we assume that the cotangent bundle $\Omega_X$ itself is semiample we obtain
a precise analogue of Ueno's theorem:
\begin{theorem} \label{theoremsemiample}
Let $X$ be a projective manifold with semiample cotangent bundle, i.e. for some
positive integer $m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}$, the symmetric product $S^m \Omega_X$ is globally generated.
Then there exists a finite \'etale cover
$X' \rightarrow X$ such that $X' \simeq Y \times A$ where $Y$ has ample canonical bundle and $A$ is an abelian variety.
\end{theorem}
This generalises a theorem of Fujiwara \cite[Thm.II]{Fuj92}.
While many of our arguments also work for compact K\"ahler manifolds, a crucial tool
is a theorem of Kawamata \cite[Thm.2]{Kaw91} which allows us to exclude the existence of higher-dimensional fibres.
In low dimension an elementary argument works also in the K\"ahler case (cf. Lemma \ref{lemmakawamatakaehler}), so we obtain:
\begin{theorem} \label{theoremkaehler}
Let $X$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold with nef cotangent bundle. If $\dim X \leq 3$, then
Conjecture \ref{conjecturenef} holds for $X$.
\end{theorem}
This improves a result of Kratz \cite[Thm.1]{Kra97}.
On a technical level the key point is that in our situation the tangent bundle is numerically flat
with respect to the Iitaka fibration. This allows to combine techniques used by Demailly, Peternell and Schneider
in the study of manifolds with nef tangent bundles \cite{DPS94} with those introduced by Koll\'ar \cite{Kol93}
and Nakayama \cite{Nak99b} to understand torus fibrations.
{\bf Acknowledgements.} I want to thank Simone Diverio, Noburo Nakayama, Thomas Peternell and Maxime Wolff for helpful discussions.
\begin{center}
{\bf Notation}
\end{center}
We work over the complex field $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$. For positivity notions of vector bundles on compact K\"ahler
and projective varieties we refer to \cite{DPS94} and \cite{Laz04b}.
A fibration is a proper surjective morphism \holom{\varphi}{X}{Y} with connected fibres
from a complex manifold onto a normal complex variety $Y$.
We say that the fibration $\varphi$
\begin{itemize}
\item is almost smooth if for every $y \in Y$ the reduction $F_{\red}$ of the
fibre $F:=\fibre{\varphi}{y}$ is smooth and has the expected dimension;
\item is smooth in codimension one if there exists an analytic subset of codimension at
least two such that $(X \setminus \fibre{\varphi}{Z}) \rightarrow (Y \setminus Z)$ is a smooth fibration;
\item has generically constant moduli if there exists a manifold $F_0$ such that every generic
fibre $F$ is isomorphic to $F_0$. By a theorem of Fischer and Grauert \cite{FG65} this is equivalent
to the property that $\varphi$ is locally trivial over some Zariski open set.
\end{itemize}
If \holom{\varphi}{X}{Y} is a fibration and $\mu: X' \rightarrow X$ a finite \'etale cover,
there exists a fibration $\holom{\varphi'}{X'}{Y'}$ and a finite map
$\holom{\mu'}{Y'}{Y}$ such that $\varphi \circ \mu=\mu' \circ \varphi'$.
Since we never consider $\holom{\mu'}{Y'}{Y}$ we call the fibration $\holom{\varphi'}{X'}{Y'}$
the Stein factorisation (of $\varphi$ and $\mu$).
\section{A structure result for fibrations}
Recall that a vector bundle $E$ on a compact K\"ahler variety is numerically flat \cite[Defn.1.17]{DPS94}
if both $E$ and $E^*$ are nef. This is equivalent to the property that $E$ is nef and $\det E$ is numerically trivial,
i.e. $c_1(E)=0$.
If \holom{\varphi}{X}{Y} is a fibration from a K\"ahler manifold onto a normal variety and $E$ a vector bundle on $X$,
we say that $E$ is $\varphi$-nef (resp. $\varphi$-numerically flat) if this property holds for any variety $Z \subset Y$
that is contracted by $\varphi$, i.e. such that $\varphi(Z)=pt$.
We note that if the cotangent bundle $\Omega_X$ is $\varphi$-nef,
then any subvariety $Z \subset X$ contracted by $\varphi$ has nef cotangent sheaf:
indeed $\Omega_Z$ is a quotient of $\Omega_X|_Z$, so it is nef.
Moreover in this case $\varphi$ does not contract any rational curves: if $f: \ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^1 \rightarrow X$
is a non-constant morphism such that $\varphi \circ f$ is constant,
the tangent map gives a non-zero map $f^* \Omega_X \rightarrow \Omega_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^1} \simeq \sO_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^1}(-2)$, which violates the nefness assumption.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaalmostsmooth}
Let $X$ be a K\"ahler manifold that admits an equidimensional fibration \holom{\varphi}{X}{Y}
onto a normal variety $Y$ such that the tangent bundle $T_X$ is $\varphi$-numerically flat.
Then the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The fibration $\varphi$ is almost smooth. Moreover every set-theoretical fibre $F_{ \red}$
is a finite \'etale quotient $T \rightarrow F_{\red}$ of a torus $T$.
\item There exists a finite \'etale cover $X' \rightarrow X$ such that the Stein factorisation
\holom{\varphi'}{X'}{Y'} is smooth in codimension one and the smooth fibres are tori.
\item If moreover $X$ is projective, there exists a finite \'etale cover $X' \rightarrow X$ such that the Stein factorisation
\holom{\varphi'}{X'}{Y'} is an abelian group scheme.
\item If $X$ is compact and $\varphi$ has generically constant moduli, there exists a finite \'etale cover $X' \rightarrow X$
such that the Stein factorisation \holom{\varphi'}{X'}{Y'} is smooth and locally trivial.
If moreover $X$ is projective, then (after finite \'etale cover) one has $X' \simeq Y' \times A$
with $A$ an abelian variety.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark*}
The statement does not generalise to non-K\"ahler manifolds. In fact there are examples of compact non-K\"ahler surfaces $X$
admitting an elliptic fibration onto $\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^1$ that is almost smooth with a unique singular fibre.
Arguing as in \cite[V.13.2]{BHPV04} one sees that one cannot remove the multiple fibre by an \'etale cover $X' \rightarrow X$.
\end{remark*}
\begin{proof}
{\bf Step 1: $\varphi$ almost smooth in codimension one, i.e. there exists a subvariety $Z \subset Y$
of codimension at least two such that $(X \setminus \fibre{\varphi}{Z}) \rightarrow (Y \setminus Z)$ is almost smooth.}
We argue by contradiction.
Choosing a generic disc that meets a codimension one component of the $\varphi$-singular locus in a generic point, we reduce the problem to the case where $Y$ is a curve. Let $F$ be a fibre such that the reduction
$F_{\red}$ is not smooth. We decompose the divisor $F=\sum_{i=1}^k a_i F_i$ where the $F_i$ are pairwise distinct prime divisors. Since $F_1$ is contained in a $\varphi$-fibre, the bundle $\Omega_X|_{F_1}$ is numerically flat.
Thus its quotient $\Omega_{F_1}$ is nef, so on the one hand the dualising sheaf $\omega_{F_1}$ is nef.
On the other hand by adjunction one has $\omega_{F_1} \simeq (\omega_X \otimes \sO_{X}(F_1))|_{F_1}$.
Since $\omega_X|_{F_1}$ and $\sO_{X}(F)|_{F_1}$ are numerically trivial, we see that
$$
\omega_{F_1} \sim_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}} \sO_{F_1}(-\sum_{i=2}^k \frac{a_i}{a_1} (F_i \cap F_1)).
$$
Thus $\omega_{F_1}$ is nef and anti-effective, hence trivial. By connectedness of the fibre, we have $k=1$, i.e.
$F$ is irreducible. Since $T_X$ is $\varphi$-nef, a result of Demailly-Peternell-Schneider
\cite[Prop.5.1]{DPS94} (see also Remark \ref{remarkgap}) now shows that $F_{\red}$ is smooth, a contradiction.
Thus $\varphi$ is almost smooth in codimension one, and if $F$ is a fibre such that $F_{\red}$ is smooth,
its normal bundle $N_{F_{\red}/X}$ is numerically flat \cite[Prop.5.1]{DPS94}.
In particular by adjunction $K_{F_{\red}} \equiv 0$ and as we have seen above, the cotangent bundle $\Omega_{F_{\red}}$ is nef.
The Chern class inequalities \cite[Thm.2.5.]{DPS94}
$$
0 = c_1^2(\Omega_{F_{\red}}) \geq c_2(\Omega_{F_{\red}}) \geq 0
$$
show that $c_2(F_{\red})=0$. Thus a classical result of Bieberbach \cite[Cor.4.15]{Kob87} shows that $F_{\red}$ is a finite \'etale quotient of a torus.
{\bf Step 2: Proof of Statement 2).}
Let $N \subset Y$ be a subvariety of codimension at least two. Since $\varphi$ is equidimensional, $\fibre{\varphi}{N}$ has codimension
at least two. Hence we have an isomorphism of fundamental groups
$\pi_1(X) \simeq \pi_1(X \setminus \fibre{\varphi}{N})$ and any
\'etale cover $(X \setminus \fibre{\varphi}{N})' \rightarrow (X \setminus \fibre{\varphi}{N})$ extends to an \'etale cover
$X' \rightarrow X$. Thus by Step 1) we can suppose without loss of generality that we are in the situation of the following
lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmalifting}
Let $\holom{\varphi}{X}{Y}$ be an almost smooth fibration from a K\"ahler manifold $X$ onto a manifold $Y$.
Suppose that $\varphi$ is smooth in the complement of a smooth divisor $D \subset Y$.
Suppose moreover that for every fibre $F$, the set-theoretical fibre
$F_{\red}$ is a finite \'etale quotient $T \rightarrow F_{\red}$ of a torus $T$.
Then there exists a finite \'etale cover $X' \rightarrow X$ such that the Stein factorisation
\holom{\varphi'}{X'}{Y'} is smooth in codimension one and the smooth fibres are tori.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark*}
This result is certainly well-known to experts. In fact the fibration being almost smooth,
the local monodromies of the variation of Hodge structures
around $D$ are finite. The existence of the cover $X' \rightarrow X$
then follows analogously to the proof of \cite[Thm.6.3]{Kol93}.
For the convenience of the reader we follow an argument indicated by Noburo Nakayama.
\end{remark*}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemmalifting}]
We can cover $Y$ by polydiscs $\Delta$ of dimension $m:=\dim Y$ such that
$$
\Delta \cap D = \{ (w_1, \ldots, w_m) \in \Delta \ | \ w_m = 0 \}
$$
and for $y \in \Delta \cap D$ and $x \in \fibre{\varphi}{\Delta}$ there exist local coordinates $z_1, \ldots, z_n$ around $x$
such that $\varphi$ is given by $(z_1, \ldots, z_n) \rightarrow (z_1, \ldots, z_{m-1}, z_m^k)$, where $k$
is the multiplicity of the fibre $F$. Let $\Delta' \rightarrow \Delta$ be a finite map from some $m$-dimensional disc $\Delta'$
that ramifies exactly along $\Delta \cap D$ with multiplicity $k$.
Let $X_{\Delta'}$ be the normalisation
of the fibre product $\Delta' \times_\Delta X$, then a local computation shows that
$X_{\Delta'} \rightarrow \fibre{\varphi}{\Delta} \subset X$ is \'etale
and the fibration $X_{\Delta'} \rightarrow \Delta'$ is smooth. Since $\Delta'$ retracts onto a point
we have an isomorphism $\pi_1(F) \simeq \pi_1(X_{\Delta'})$, where $F$ is any fibre.
The cover $X_{\Delta'} \rightarrow \fibre{\varphi}{\Delta}$ being \'etale and surjective this shows that we have an injection
$$
\pi_1(F) \hookrightarrow \pi_1(\fibre{\varphi}{\Delta}).
$$
By \cite[Thm.7.8]{Nak99b} this implies that $\varphi$
is bimeromorphically equivalent to a fibration $\holom{\tilde \varphi}{\tilde X}{\tilde Y}$
which becomes smooth after a finite \'etale cover. As we have just seen for such a
fibration the natural morphism $\pi_1(\tilde F) \rightarrow \pi_1(\tilde X)$ is injective.
Since the fibrations $\varphi$ and $\tilde \varphi$ are bimeromorphic, this shows that
$$
\pi_1(F) \rightarrow \pi_1(X)
$$
is injective. Thus by \cite[Thm.8.6]{Nak99b} (which is the analogue of \cite[Thm.6.3]{Kol93} for the K\"ahler case) there
exists a finite \'etale cover $X' \rightarrow X$ such that the Stein factorisation
$\holom{\varphi'}{X'}{Y'}$ is bimeromorphically equivalent to a smooth torus fibration
$\holom{\tilde \varphi}{\tilde X}{\tilde Y}$.
Up to blowing up $\tilde Y$ and excluding the image of the exceptional locus we can suppose without loss of generality that $\tilde Y= Y'$. Since in codimension one the $\varphi'$-fibres
do not contain any rational curves, there exists a codimension two set $B \subset Y'$
such that the restriction of the
bimeromorphic map \merom{\mu}{\tilde X}{X'} to $\tilde X \setminus \fibre{\tilde \varphi}{B}$ is a morphism and an isomorphism onto its image. Since $\tilde \varphi$ is smooth, this proves the statement.
\end{proof}
{\bf Step 3: $\varphi$ is almost smooth.} This property does not change under finite \'etale cover, so we can assume
by Step 2) that $\varphi$ is smooth in codimension one. Moreover $\varphi$ is equidimensional, so
the relative cotangent sheaf $\Omega_{X/Y}$ is locally free in codimension one and has determinant
$\sO_X(K_{X/Y})$. We consider the foliation $\sF \subset T_X$ defined by the reduction of every
$\varphi$-fibre $F$, i.e. on the non-singular locus $F_{\red, \nons} \subset F_{\red}$
we have
$$
(*) \qquad T_{F_{\red, \nons}} = \sF|_{F_{\red, \nons}}.
$$
Since $\varphi$ is smooth in codimension one, the sheaves $T_{X/Y}:=\Omega_{X/Y}^*$ and $\sF$
coincide in codimension one, hence $\det \sF \simeq \sO_X(-K_{X/Y})$. We claim that the foliation $\sF$
is regular which obviously implies that the reduction of every fibre is smooth.
{\em Proof of the claim.}
The inclusion $\sF \subset T_X$
induces a map $\alpha: \det \sF \rightarrow \bigwedge^{\ensuremath{rk} \ \sF} T_X$ and
by \cite[Lemma 1.20]{DPS94} it is sufficient to show that $\alpha$ has rank one in every point.
By $(*)$ the restriction of $\alpha$
to $F_{\red, \nons}$ identifies to the map induced by $T_{F_{\red, \nons}} \subset T_X|_{F_{\red, \nons}}$,
hence $\alpha|_{F_{\red}}$ is not zero on any irreducible component of $F_{\red}$.
Since $\det \sF \simeq \sO_X(-K_{X/Y})$ and $\bigwedge^{\ensuremath{rk} \ \sF} T_X$ are $\varphi$-numerically flat,
we know by \cite[Prop.1.2(12)]{CP91} that
$\alpha|_{F_{\red}}$ does not vanish in any point of $F_{\red}$.
Thus $\alpha$ does not vanish in any point of $X$.
{\bf Step 4: Proof of Statement 3).}
By what precedes we know that $\varphi$ is almost smooth and (after finite \'etale cover) smooth
in codimension one. Since $X$ is projective we know by \cite[Thm.6.3]{Kol93}
that (after finite \'etale cover) the fibration $\varphi$ is birational to an abelian group scheme
$\tilde \varphi: \tilde X \rightarrow \tilde Y$.
Since $\tilde \varphi$ is a group scheme, there exists a section $s: \tilde Y \rightarrow \tilde X$.
Let $Z$ be the strict transform of $s(\tilde Y)$ under the birational map
$\tilde X \dashrightarrow X$. Then $\varphi|_Z: Z \rightarrow Y$ is birational,
i.e. $Z$ is generically a section of $\varphi$.
In particular for a general fibre $F$ we have $F \cdot Z=1$. Since for any fibre $F_0$ we
have $[F_0]=m [F]$ with $m$ the multiplicity of the fibre $F_0$, we see that all the fibres are reduced.
Thus the almost smooth fibration $\varphi$ is smooth.
{\bf Step 5: Proof of Statement 4).}
By Statements 1) and 2) we know that (after finite \'etale cover) the almost smooth fibration $\varphi$
has tori as general fibres. If $\varphi$ has generically constant moduli,
we have (after finite \'etale cover) that $q(X)=q(Y)+\dim F$ \cite[Prop.6.7]{CP00}.
Since the reduction of every $\varphi$-fibre is an \'etale quotient of a torus, the
Albanese map $\alpha_X: X \rightarrow \Alb(X)$ maps
each $\varphi$-fibre isomorphically onto a fibre of the locally trivial fibration $\varphi_*: \Alb(X) \rightarrow \Alb(Y)$.
By the universal property of the fibre product we have a commutative diagram
$$
\xymatrix{
\Alb(X) \times_{\Alb(Y)} Y \ar[rd]_\psi
& X \ar[l] \ar[r]^{\alpha_X} \ar[d]_{\varphi} & \Alb(X) \ar[d]^{\varphi_*}
\\
& Y \ar[r]^{\alpha_Y} & \Alb(Y)
}
$$
The map $\psi$ is the pull-back of $\varphi_*$ by the fibre product, so it is a locally trivial fibration. The base $Y$ is normal,
so the total space $\Alb(X) \times_{\Alb(Y)} Y$ is normal.
By what precedes the morphism $X \rightarrow \Alb(X) \times_{\Alb(Y)} Y$ is bimeromorphic and finite, hence
an isomorphism by Zariski's main theorem. In particular $\varphi=\psi$ is smooth and locally trivial.
If $X$ is projective, the Albanese torus is an abelian variety.
Thus we know by Poincar\'e's reducibility theorem \cite[Thm.5.3.5]{BL04} that (after finite \'etale cover) one has $\Alb(X) \simeq \Alb(Y) \times F$, hence the fibre product $\Alb(X) \times_{\Alb(Y)} Y$ is isomorphic to $Y \times F$.
\end{proof}
As a corollary of the proof we obtain the following statement.
\begin{corollary}
Let $X$ be a K\"ahler manifold that admits an equidimensional almost smooth fibration \holom{\varphi}{X}{Y}
onto a normal variety $Y$ such that the general fibre $F$ is a finite \'etale quotient $T \rightarrow F$
of a torus $T$. Then there exists a finite \'etale cover $X' \rightarrow X$ such that the Stein factorisation
\holom{\varphi'}{X'}{Y'} is smooth in codimension one and the smooth fibres are tori.
\end{corollary}
Note that by \cite[Lemme 2.3]{Cla10} for a torus fibration that is smooth in codimension one
the map $\pi_1(F) \rightarrow \pi_1(X)$ is injective. Thus in the situation above
$\varphi$ has generically large fundamental group along the general fibre \cite[Defn.6.1]{Kol93}, i.e.
the statement is a natural inverse to \cite[Thm.6.3]{Kol93}.
We can also deduce a simplified version of \cite[Prop.5.1]{DPS94}:
\begin{corollary} \label{corollarydps}
Let $X$ be a quasi-projective manifold that admits a fibration \holom{\varphi}{X}{Y}
onto a normal variety $Y$ such that the tangent bundle $T_X$ is $\varphi$-nef.
Then $\varphi$ is equidimensional and almost smooth.
If $X$ is projective, there exists a finite \'etale cover $X' \rightarrow X$ such that the Stein factorisation \holom{\varphi'}{X'}{Y'} is smooth.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark} \label{remarkgap}
Sol\'a Conde and Wi\'sniewski \cite[Ch.4.2]{SW04} point out that the proof of the ``First case'' of \cite[Prop.5.1]{DPS94} has a gap and give a completely different proof under the additional condition that $\varphi$ is a Mori contraction
\cite[Thm.4.4]{SW04}.
Note that we used \cite[Prop.5.1]{DPS94} in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemmaalmostsmooth}, but only
for a fibration over a curve which corresponds to the ``Second case'' of their proof.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
If $K_X$ is not $\varphi$-nef, we know by the relative contraction theorem \cite[Thm.3.25]{KM98} that there exists
an elementary Mori contraction $\holom{\mu}{X}{Z}$ that factors $\varphi$, i.e.
there exists a fibration $\psi: Z \rightarrow Y$ such that $\varphi=\psi \circ \mu$.
Applying \cite[Thm.4.4]{SW04} to $\mu$ we see that $\mu$ and $Z$ are smooth, in
particular $T_Z$ is $\psi$-nef. Since a composition of equidimensional and almost smooth fibrations is equidimensional and
almost smooth, we can argue inductively and suppose without loss of generality that $K_X$ is $\varphi$-nef.
Since $T_X$ is also $\varphi$-nef, it is $\varphi$-numerically flat. Hence
$\Omega_X$ is also $\varphi$-nef, so the $\varphi$-fibres do not contain any rational curves.
By a theorem of Kawamata \cite[Thm.2]{Kaw91} this shows that $\varphi$ is equidimensional.
Conclude by Lemma \ref{lemmaalmostsmooth},1) and 3).
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs of the main statements}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theoremmain}.]
Since $K_X$ is semiample we can consider the Iitaka fibration $\varphi: X \rightarrow Y$.
Note that the anticanonical divisor $-K_X$ is $\varphi$-numerically trivial.
Since $\Omega_X$ is nef, hence $\varphi$-nef, the tangent bundle $T_X$
is $\varphi$-numerically flat. By Corollary \ref{corollarydps} the fibration $\varphi$ is equidimensional.
We conclude by Lemma \ref{lemmaalmostsmooth},3) that there exists a finite \'etale cover
such that the Iitaka fibration is an abelian group scheme.
By \cite[5.9.1]{Kol93} the projective manifold $Y$ is of general type, so in order to see that
$K_Y$ is ample it is sufficient to show that $Y$ does not contain any rational curves\footnote{
This is a well-known consequence of cone theorem, base-point free theorem and \cite[Thm.2]{Kaw91}.}.
Yet the abelian group scheme $X \rightarrow Y$ has a section, so any rational curve $\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^1 \rightarrow Y$
would lift to $X$. This is excluded by the nefness of $\Omega_X$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theoremsemiample}.]
By Theorem \ref{theoremmain} we can suppose (after finite \'etale cover) that the Iitaka fibration $\varphi: X \rightarrow
Y$ is smooth with abelian fibres. Let $F=\fibre{\varphi}{y}$ be any smooth fibre, then we have an exact sequence
$$
0 \rightarrow (\varphi^* \Omega_Y)|_F \rightarrow \Omega_X|_F \rightarrow \Omega_F \simeq \sO_F^{\oplus \dim F}
\rightarrow 0.
$$
Since $\Omega_X|_F$ is semiample and $\det \Omega_F$ is trivial we know by \cite[Cor.4]{Fuj92} that
the exact sequence splits. In particular the Kodaira spencer map is zero in $y$. Since this holds for all $y$
we see that $\varphi$ has constant moduli. Conclude by Lemma \ref{lemmaalmostsmooth},4).
\end{proof}
Before we can prove Theorem \ref{theoremkaehler} we need a technical lemma which
is a first step towards a generalisation of \cite[Thm.2]{Kaw91} to the K\"ahler case.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmakawamatakaehler}
Let $X$ be a compact K\"ahler threefold and let $\holom{\varphi}{X}{S}$ be
a fibration onto a projective surface such that $-K_X$ is $\varphi$-nef. Let $D \subset X$ be a divisor that is contracted
by $\varphi$. Then $D$ is uniruled.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark*}
The proof is based on the fact that a compact K\"ahler surface $D$ with Gorenstein singularities
is uniruled if the canonical sheaf $\omega_D$ is not pseudoeffective. This is well-known if $D$ is smooth
and standard arguments (cf. the proof of \cite[Lemma 4.2]{a16}) allow to generalise to singular $D$.
Note that for projective manifolds the implication
$$
K_D \ \mbox{not pseudoeffective} \ \Rightarrow \ D \ \mbox{uniruled}
$$
is a famous theorem \cite{BDPP04}, but for K\"ahler manifolds this is only known up to dimension three \cite{Bru06}.
\end{remark*}
\begin{proof}
We fix a K\"ahler form $\alpha$ on $X$.
Let $H$ be an effective divisor passing through $\varphi(D)$, then
we can write $\varphi^* H=H'+mD$ with $m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}$ and $D \not\subset \mbox{supp} H'$ but $D \cap H' \neq 0$.
Since $\varphi^* H \cdot D = 0$ we have
\[
\alpha \cdot (\varphi^* H)^2 = \alpha \cdot \varphi^* H \cdot (H' + mD) = \alpha \cdot (H')^2 + \alpha \cdot H' \cdot mD,
\]
and developing the left hand side implies $\alpha \cdot H' \cdot mD = - \alpha \cdot m^2 D^2$.
Since $H' \cap D$ is an effective non-zero cycle, we see that $\alpha \cdot D^2<0$.
By the adjunction formula we have $\omega_D \simeq \sO_D(K_X+D)$, so our computation shows that
$$
\omega_D \cdot \alpha|_D = (K_X+D) \cdot D \cdot \alpha < 0.
$$
Therefore $\omega_D$ is not pseudoeffective, hence $D$ is uniruled.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theoremkaehler}.]
Since $K_X$ is nef and $\dim X \leq 3$, it is semiample \cite[Thm.1]{Pet01}, \cite{DP03}.
Let $\varphi: X \rightarrow Y$ be the Iitaka fibration, then the anticanonical divisor $-K_X$ is $\varphi$-trivial.
Since $\Omega_X$ is nef, hence $\varphi$-nef and $-K_X$ is $\varphi$-trivial, the tangent bundle $T_X$
is $\varphi$-trivial. If $\dim Y=1$ we conclude by Lemma \ref{lemmaalmostsmooth},2).
The cases $\dim Y=0$ or $3$ being trivial, we are left with case $\dim Y=2$:
By Lemma \ref{lemmakawamatakaehler}, the fibration $\varphi$ is equidimensional.
Thus it is almost smooth and (after finite \'etale cover) smooth in codimension one by Lemma \ref{lemmaalmostsmooth},2). Since every complete family of elliptic curves is isotrivial,
$\varphi$ has generically constant moduli. We conclude by Lemma \ref{lemmaalmostsmooth},4).
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Systems of colloidal particles that interact with pair potentials that feature short-ranged attraction have been extensively studied in the literature. The typical bulk phase diagram shows a characteristic gas-liquid phase transition that can become metastable with respect to freezing for sufficiently short range of attraction~\cite{Lekkerkerker1992,Ilett1994,Schmidt2000,Dijkstra1999a}.
While the addition of a short-ranged soft repulsion is known to change the phase diagram~\cite{Fortini2005,Pini:2006p279} only quantitatively, a repulsion with a range larger than that of the attraction can have a dramatic effect on the topology of the phase diagram~\cite{Candia2006}.
Moreover, both in experiments and in dynamical simulations the equilibrium phase diagram for systems with competing interactions is often overshadowed by non-equilibrium phenomena such as vitrification, gelation and cluster formation~\cite{Sciortino2005,Mossa2004,Campbell2005,Coniglio2006,Archer:2007p4145}.
Typically, pair potentials with a short-ranged attraction show spontaneous clustering of particles at sufficiently low temperatures.
The geometric structure of clusters of particles has been studied theoretically, e.g. for the Lennard-Jones potential~\cite{HOARE:1971p3888,Taffs:2010p3894}, hard spheres~\cite{SLOANE:1995p3886}, and hard spheres that additionally interact with a short-ranged attraction~\cite{Arkus:2009p3887}. The structures obtained using the Morse potential were analyzed by~\citet{Doye:2011p3893} and by~\citet{Taffs:2010p3892} and compared to those from the Asakura-Oosawa potential~\cite{Asakura1954,Vrij1976}.
Stable clusters of colloids are interesting because they can be viewed as colloidal molecules~\cite{Blaaderen2003,duguet2011} that can potentially be used as building blocks for the fabrication of novel materials.
The size and geometric structure of colloidal clusters, however, are not easily controllable in experiments. Several different methods that offer control of the clustering process have been proposed.
\citet{Jiang:2007p902} prepared clusters using Janus colloidal particles, i.e. spherical particles that possess oppositely charged hemispheres. Cluster of particles with larger numbers of patches have also been studied~\cite{Zhang:2004p3779,Wilber:2007p4113,Wilber:2009p2272}. \citet{Erb:2009p703} succeeded in preparing clusters of magnetic particles.
One particularly promising approach, based on the evaporation of the dispersed phase in an emulsion,
was developed~\cite{Velev:1997p909} by~\citet{Velev:1996p4063,Velev:1996p906}. Here colloidal particles adsorb at the interface between dispersed and continuous phase in order to minimize the interfacial free energy (Pickering effect)~\cite{binks}.
During evaporation the particles are pushed together by capillary forces and subsequently held together by van der Waals interactions.
\citet{Manoharan:2003p937} prepared micron-sized clusters using this technique with polystyrene microspheres that were 844 nm in diameter. The authors found clusters of particles with packings that minimize the second moment of the mass distribution. The emulsion method is versatile and was subsequently used to obtain clusters of particles 220 nm in diameter~\cite{Cho:2005p916}, of patchy particles~\cite{Cho:2007p814,Kim:2008p851}, and of bidisperse colloids~\cite{Cho:2005p908}. Shear was used by \citet{Zerrouki:2006p4273} to produce monodispersed droplets. A similar technique is based on aerosol droplets~\cite{Cho:2007p919} instead of oil droplets.
Similar in spirit to the emulsion evaporation technique, an alternative miniemulsion technique~\cite{Wagner:2008p844,Wagner:2010p3885} was recently developed. Here, a miniemulsion is prepared from a standard emulsion by ultrasonication. The sound waves produce an emulsion of small droplets in a process of fission and fusion [65]. The average size of the droplets can be tuned in the range of 360 nm to 1800 nm~\cite{Landfester:2000p1556}.
Small colloidal particles can then be used in solution with the small monodispersed droplets of the miniemulsion to obtain clusters~\cite{Wagner:2010p3885} that have diameters much smaller than 1 $\mu m$. Although these clusters can consist of many constituent colloidal spheres, they remain small enough to reside in the colloidal domain~\cite{Hoffmann:2009p2493}, i.e. Brownian motion thermalizes such systems. Therefore hierarchical self-assembly comes within reach.
In contrast to the large body of experimental work and the closely related theoretical efforts to understand the resulting cluster structures and their symmetries, little theoretical work has been done to describe the {\it process} of cluster formation.
\citet{Roman:2000p4109} proposed a model for a dispersion of hard spheres and emulsion droplets, but these authors did not investigate cluster formation.
\citet{Lauga2004} modeled and simulated the evaporation-driven
assembly of colloidal particles. They considered individual
droplets with varying numbers of adsorbed particles and calculated
the (non-spherical, in general) shape of the oil-water interface by
the requirement of minimal surface free energy. They considered
different values of the contact angle and reported good agreement
with experimental findings.
Very recently, \citet{Mani:2010p4140} studied the stability of larger colloidosome-like shells of particles, albeit without modeling the assembly process.
In this paper we present a basic model to describe the process of cluster assembly through emulsion droplet evaporation. We use Monte Carlo computer simulations to study the cluster formation of colloids with competing short-ranged attraction and long-ranged repulsion interactions.
Differently from \citet{Lauga2004} we also simulate the dynamical capture of the colloidal particles onto droplet surfaces and studied not only the cluster structures,
but also analyzes the histograms of the cluster size distribution.
We complement these calculations with experiments of polystyrene particles in an oil-in-water emulsion.
We use cryogenic field emission scanning electron microscopy (cryo-FESEM) and field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) to investigate the intermediate and final stages of cluster formation, respectively. The cryo-FESEM micrographs show the distribution of small particles on a droplet surface.
We find the simulation results to be in good agreement with the experimental results for both intermediate and final cluster structures. We also find good quantitative agreement between experimental and simulation results for the cluster size distribution.
Having demonstrated the validity of our model, we study the possibility of hierarchical self-assembly, by carrying out simulations of a mixture of thermal tetrahedral clusters and emulsion droplets. We obtain clusters of clusters (superclusters) with structures that differ from the clusters made of single particles.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{s:int} we give the details of the pair interactions. In Sec.~\ref{s:sim} and \ref{s:exp} we present simulation and experimental details, respectively. In Sec.~\ref{s:fluid}, we describe the results for the dynamics of cluster formation. In Sec.~\ref{s:cls}, we show the results for the cluster structures and for the histograms of the size distributions. In Sec.~\ref{s:super}, we present the results for the superclusters.
Final remarks and conclusions are given in Sec.~\ref{s:conc}.
\section{Model and Methods}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig1a}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig1b}
\caption{Pair interactions for the binary mixture of colloids and droplets. a) Comparison between the Asakura-Oosawa-Yukawa (AOY) and the Square-Well-Yukawa (SWY) potentials with $q=0.1$, $\kappa \sigma_{c}$=10, $ \beta \epsilon_{Y}$=24.8, $\beta \epsilon_{AO}=2.1$, $\beta \epsilon_{SW}=9$. These parameters were chosen in order to
obtain $|\rm min(\beta \phi_{\rm cc})|=\rm max(\beta \phi_{\rm cc}) =9$.
b) Colloid-droplet potential $\phi_{cd}/\gamma \sigma^2$ scaled by the droplet-solvent interfacial tension $\gamma$ for $\sigma_{d}/\sigma_{c}=3, 2, 1.1$, and 1 (from right to left).
}
\label{fig:pot}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Definition of the pair interactions}
\label{s:int}
We study a binary mixture of $N_{c}$ colloidal particles with hard-sphere diameter $\sigma_{c}$ and $N_{d}$ droplets of diameter $\sigma_{d}$.
The total interaction energy $U$ is the sum of colloid-colloid, droplet-droplet and colloid-droplet interactions,
\begin{eqnarray}
U&=&\sum_{i<j}^{N_{c}} \phi_{cc}(|\vec r_{i}-\vec r_{j}| )+\sum_{i<j}^{N_{d}} \phi_{dd}(|\vec R_{i}-\vec R_{j}| ) \nonumber \\
&& + \indent \sum_{i}^{N_{c}} \sum_{j}^{N_{d}} \phi_{cd}(|\vec r_{i}-\vec R_{j}|),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vec{r}_i$ is the center-of-mass position of colloid $i$, $\vec R_{j}$ is the center-of-mass position of droplet $j$, $\phi_{cc}$ is the colloid-colloid pair interaction, $\phi_{cd}$ is the colloid-droplet pair interaction, and $\phi_{dd}$ is the droplet-droplet pair interaction.
We consider two different types of colloid-colloid interactions.
The first is the sum of the short-ranged attractive Asakura-Oosawa potential $U_{\rm AO}(r)$ and the long-ranged repulsive Yukawa potential $U_{\rm Y}(r)$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\rm cc}(r)=\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
\infty & r< \sigma_c\\
U_{\rm Y}(r) + U_{\rm AO}(r)
& \text{otherwise,} \\
\end{array} \right .
\label{eq:AOY}
\end{equation}
with $\beta=1/k_{B} T$, where $k_{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant and
$T$ the temperature.
Here the Yukawa potential is defined by
\begin{equation}
U_{\rm Y}(r) = \epsilon_{\rm Y} \sigma _{c} \frac {e^{- \kappa
(r -\sigma_c)}}{r} ,
\label{YU}
\end{equation}
and the Asakura-Oosawa potential~\cite{Asakura1954,Vrij1976} is
\begin{equation}
U_{\rm AO}(r)=\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\epsilon_{\rm AO} f(r) & \, \, \sigma_{c}< r< \sigma_{c}(1+q) \\
0 & \text{ otherwise,}
\end{array} \right .
\label{te:ao}
\end{equation}
with $f(r)= \left [ 1- \frac{3 r}{2
(1+q)\sigma_c} + \frac{r^3}{2(1+q)^3\sigma_c^3}\right ] $.
The parameter $\epsilon_{\rm AO}$ controls the strength of attraction, while $\epsilon_{\rm Y}$ controls the strength of the repulsion. The range of the interactions are controlled by the parameter $q$ for the AO potential and by $\kappa$ for the Yukawa interaction. We refer to the combined interaction (\ref{eq:AOY}) as the Asakura-Oosawa-Yukawa (AOY) potential.
Although both the AO and Yukawa potentials have very specific physical interpretations, we use them in this paper merely as generic models for a steep short-range attraction and a long-range repulsion, respectively.
The AO potential describes the depletion attraction between colloidal particles due to the presence of non-adsorbing polymers with radius of gyration $\sigma_{c} q/2$. In the limit of small $q$ Eq.(\ref{te:ao}) is exact and $f(r)$ is related to the free volume gained by the polymers when two colloids are close to each other~\cite{Dijkstra1999a}.
The Yukawa potential describes the interaction between two charged particles screened by a medium with inverse Debye length $\kappa$.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pot}a), for a typical set of parameters (justified below) that we used in the simulations, the potential $ \phi_{\rm cc}(r)$ defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:AOY}) has a maximum at distance $r_{\rm peak}$.
In order to investigate the influence of the shape of the attractive part of the potential we also consider a modified version of (\ref{eq:AOY}) using a square well potential for distances smaller than $r_{\rm peak}$.
This is
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\rm cc}(r)=\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
\infty & r< \sigma_c\\
- \epsilon_{SW}
& \sigma_c<r< r_{\rm peak} \\
U_{Y}(r) + U_{\rm AO}(r)
& \text{otherwise,}
\end{array} \right .
\label{eq:SWY}
\end{equation}
which we refer to as the Square-Well-Yukawa (SWY) potential. It is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pot} with a dashed line. This potential is very similar to that used by~\citet{Mani:2010p4140} in their pioneering study of the stability of colloidal shells.
The parameter space of the interaction is arbitrarily restricted to potentials with the shape shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pot}, i.e. with $\rm max( \phi_{\rm cc}) = |\rm min(\phi_{\rm cc})|$, and hence $\phi_{\rm cc}(r_{\rm peak}) = - \phi_{\rm cc}(\sigma_{c})$. The height of the repulsive barrier, $\phi_{\rm cc}(r_{\rm peak}) - \phi_{\rm cc}(\infty)$, is half the depth of the attractive well, $\phi_{\rm cc}(r_{\rm peak}) - \phi_{\rm cc}(\sigma_{c})$.
The droplet-droplet interaction is taken to be hard-core repulsion
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\rm dd}(r)=\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
\infty & r< \sigma_d+\sigma_{c}\\
0 & \text{otherwise,}
\end{array} \right .
\label{eq:dd}
\end{equation}
with an effective hard-core diameter $\sigma_d+\sigma_{c}$ that is larger than the bare droplet diameter $\sigma_{d}$. Using the effective diameter ensures that the surface-surface distance between any two droplets is always larger than one colloid diameter. In this way two droplets can never bind together due to a shared colloid.
The colloid-droplet interaction is aimed at modeling the Pickering effect. The loss of interfacial energy~\cite{Pieranski1980} when a particle is trapped at the surface of the droplet is $\gamma S$, with $S$ the droplet surface that is covered by the colloid, and $ \gamma$ the droplet-solvent interfacial tension.
The relation is valid when the interfacial tension between the colloid and the droplet is the same as that between the colloid and the solvent.
The surface $S$ has different expressions depending on the size of the droplet and the colloid-droplet separation.
If the diameter of the droplets is larger than the diameter of the colloidal particles, i.e. for $\sigma_d > \sigma_{c}$, the colloid-droplet energy is
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\rm cd}(r)= \left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
- \gamma \pi \sigma_{d} h & \frac{\sigma_d-\sigma_{c}}{2}<r< \frac{\sigma_d+\sigma_{c} }{2}\\
0 & \mbox{otherwise,}
\end{array} \right .
\label{eq:DC}
\end{equation}
with $h=(\sigma_{c}/2-\sigma_{d}/2+r)(\sigma_{c}/2+\sigma_{d}/2-r)/(2r) $ the height of the spherical cap that results from the colloid-droplet intersection.
On the other hand, when the diameter of the droplets is smaller than the diameter of the colloidal particles, i.e. $\sigma_d < \sigma_{c}$, we assume
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\rm cd}(r)= \left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
- \gamma \pi \sigma_{d}^{2} & r< \frac{\sigma_c-\sigma_{d}}{2} \\
- \gamma \pi \sigma_{d} h & \frac{\sigma_c-\sigma_{d}}{2}<r< \frac{\sigma_c+\sigma_{d} }{2}\\
0 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array} \right .
\label{eq:DC1}
\end{equation}
Within this model we neglect the influence of the particle on the oil-water interfacial curvature. The contact angle changes upon changing the position of the particle with respect to the oil-water interface, while in reality the contact angle remains constant and the curvature of the oil-water interface changes, such that the droplet becomes non-spherical, which is beyond our model.
\subsection{Simulation method}
\label{s:sim}
In our model we neglect the coalescence of the droplets and the hydrodynamic interactions due to the solvent. Even with these simplifications, the relevant time scale is not easily reachable in standard Brownian Dynamics (BD) simulations. Hence, we carry out Metropolis Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, that for small displacement steps can reproduce the correct dynamics~\cite{Sanz:2010p3489} and are much more efficient to run than BD simulations. The evolution of the system is therefore described by the number of MC sweeps per particle.
For the colloidal particles~\cite{Sanz:2010p3489} the MC maximum trial displacement $d_{c}$ is set to $d_{c}=0.01 \sigma_{c}$.
We define a bond between two colloidal particles when their distance is smaller than $r_{\rm peak}$.
A cluster is defined as a set of colloidal particles connected by a network of bonds.
The translational diffusion of the clusters is achieved by translational MC cluster moves~\cite{WU:1992p4146} with maximum linear displacement $d^{t}_{\rm cls}=d_{c}/\sqrt[6]{N}$ with $N$ the number of particles in the cluster. This approximates the hydrodynamic slowing down of a spherical cluster that satisfies the Stokes-Einstein equation for the diffusion constant $D=\frac{k_{B}T}{3 \pi \eta \sigma_{\rm cls}}$, with $\eta$ the viscosity of the solvent and $\sigma_{\rm cls}$ the diameter of the sphere that approximate the shape of the cluster. Here, we assume that $\sigma_{\rm cls} \sim \sqrt[3]{N}$.
Additionally, we mimic the cluster rotational diffusion via rotational MC moves, in which clusters are rotated around a random axis with a maximum angle $d^{r}_{\rm cls}= 0.01 \sigma_{c}/\sigma_{\rm cls}$.
In a cluster move~\cite{WU:1992p4146,Frenkel:2002p2093}, all particles belonging to a cluster are translated or rotated by the same amount. In order to satisfy the condition of detailed balance all cluster moves that lead to two clusters merging or a cluster and a single particle merging are rejected.
The droplets move according to the MC scheme with a maximum displacement $d_{d}=d_{c} \sqrt{\sigma_{c}/\sigma_{d}}$.
The evaporation dynamics is introduced by forcing the droplets diameter $\sigma_{d}$ to shrink at a fixed rate. The rate is chosen so that the droplets vanish half-way though the simulation ($5 \times 10^{5}$ sweeps). This leaves another $5 \times 10^{5}$ sweeps to investigate the stability of the clusters against thermal fluctuations. Here the timescales are chosen for practical reasons. In the experiments stability can be relevant on the time scales of years, while the clusters experiments last typically tens of minutes. Hence, our simulation do not address the true long-time behavior of the system.
We restrict ourselves to symmetric potentials with $\rm max(\beta \phi_{\rm cc}) = | \rm min(\beta \phi_{\rm cc})|$.
In particular, we investigate the case ${\rm max}(\beta \phi_{\rm cc}) = 9$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pot} ($q=0.1$, $\kappa \sigma_{c}=10$ and $r_{c}=2.5 \, \sigma_{c} $).
The height of the repulsive barrier is $9 k_{B} T$, a value big enough to hinder spontaneous clustering, while the depth of the attractive well is $18 k_{B} T$, so that in practice a particle cannot escape by thermal fluctuations.
For these parameters we find that the maximum of the potential is at $r_{\rm peak}=1.0845 \sigma_{c}$.
For each parameter set we run eight independent MC simulations with $N_{c}=500$ colloidal particles with packing
fraction $\eta_{c}=0.0034$, and 0.01. The droplets packing fraction is fixed at $\eta_{d}= 0.1$. Simulations have been performed for initial droplet sizes $\sigma_{d}(0)=2,4,6$, and $8 \sigma_{c}$. Each simulation consisted of $10^{6}$ MC sweeps. In every sweep all particles are attempted to be moved on average once.
The droplets and the particles are initialized randomly in the cubic simulation box, with the constraints that all colloids are outside of the droplets and that the minimum distance between colloidal particles is larger than $r_{\rm peak}$. Hence, we start in a state without clusters.
We characterize the cluster structure by the bond-number $n_{b}$, corresponding to the number of pairwise bonds in a cluster. The number of bonds is also an estimate of the total energy of the cluster; a higher number of bonds corresponds to a greater attractive energy.
\subsection{Experimental methods}
\label{s:exp}
\subsubsection{Cluster preparation}
The colloidal particles are positively charged and narrowly dispersed polystyrene spheres with 154 nm diameter. A detailed description of the preparation of the constituent particles and their assembly into clusters is given in Ref.~\cite{Wagner:2008p844}. In particular, in these experiments, the particles were added both via the water and via the oil phase.
For the present studies the clusters were prepared in a slightly modified fashion. Briefly, 53 mg polystyrene particles suspended in 3 ml of toluene and 73 $\mu$l dodecane (to suppress Ostwald ripening) were emulsified with 27 ml of an aqueous solution of Pluronic$\textsuperscript{\textregistered}$ F-68 (1 wt.\%) using an ultrasonic homogenizer (Sonoplus HD 3200, Bandelin). Evaporation of the dispersed toluene phase under reduced pressure (50 mbar, 40 $^\circ$C) initiated the assembly of the particles into clusters.
\subsubsection{Electron microscopy of droplet and assembly morphology}
The emulsion droplets bearing polystyrene particles at their surface were examined on a cryogenic field emission scanning electron microscope (Ultra Plus, Zeiss). Specimen preparation was accomplished by sandwiching 4 $\mu$l of the emulsion in between two aluminum platelets (3 mm x 0.5 mm, 0.15/0.15 mm, Engineering Office M. Wohlwend). The carrier assembly was plunged into a high-pressure-freezing machine (EM HPM100, Leica) and was vitrified at 2000 bar within 20 ms. This helped sealing the sandwich so that nucleation of ice crystals and specimen damage were suppressed. In a cryo preparation chamber (EM MED020 FF, Leica) the sample was freeze-fractured, lightly etched for 60 s at $-112 \ ^\circ$C, and sputtered with platinum in an amount equivalent to a 4 nm thick coating. The specimen was transferred by a cryo shuttle (EM VCT 100, Leica) to the cold stage of the microscope. Micrographs were recorded digitally at a temperature of $-160 \ ^\circ$C, with an aperture of 10 $\mu$m and a voltage of 1.0 kV.
The morphologies of the colloidal assemblies were analyzed by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) on a Zeiss LEO 1530 Gemini microscope equipped with a field emission cathode operating at 3 kV. A minute amount of the cluster suspension (10$^{-5}$ wt.\%) was placed onto a silicon wafer (CrysTec) and dried under ambient conditions. The specimen was coated with a platinum layer of 1.3 nm thickness using a sputter coater (Cressington 208HR) to make the specimen conductive.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Dynamics of cluster formation}
\label{s:fluid}
Figure~\ref{fig:snp} shows simulation snapshots at four different stages of the simulation.
The initial configuration of the simulation (Fig.~\ref{fig:snp}a) is a binary mixture of non-overlapping spheres. The large (pink) spheres represent the droplets, while the small (blue) spheres represent single colloidal particles. After $3.6\times 10^{5}$ MC sweeps (Fig.~\ref{fig:snp}b) particles are trapped at the surface of a droplet (red).
Figure~\ref{fig:snp}c) shows the configuration after $5\times 10^{5}$ sweeps, just after the droplets have vanished completely. Figure~\ref{fig:snp}d) shows the configuration at the end of the simulation after $10^{6}$ sweeps. All clusters that are formed formed due to the droplets are still present in the system demonstrating the stability of the clusters against thermal fluctuations. Few doublets (green) have also formed spontaneously. \href{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9wlarGvJmQ&context=C2a833ADOEgsToPDskLFofSSFhvugIcYhueO99zW}{See also a movie of the simulation here.}
As a check we simulated the structure of the pure colloidal fluid without droplets.
We find that the structure of the single component fluid is largely composed of single particles with only 1\% of particles belonging to doublets. Larger clusters are not formed during the span of our simulations.
This can be explained easily by the following argument. The minimum distance between colloidal particles is at the beginning of the simulation larger than $r_{\rm peak}$. In order to form a bond, the colloidal particles have to overcome the repulsive energy barrier ($9 k_{B}T$) of the colloid-colloid interaction. The probability to thermally overcome this barrier is very small, and in order to form larger clusters the particles have to be forced beyond the repulsive barrier. Hence, in the restricted time interval that is accessible in the simulations, the colloidal fluid is (quasi-)stable. However, for longer times further clustering might occur (see discussion in the Sec.~\ref{s:sim}).
In the binary mixture, a clustering mechanism is provided by the shrinking droplets.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{fig2}
\caption{Snapshots of the binary mixture of colloids and droplets at colloid packing fraction $\eta_{c}=0.0034$ and SWY potential. Shown are results at different stages of the simulation. a) Initial configuration, b) after $3.6\times 10^{5}$, c) after $5 \times 10^{5}$, d) after $10^{6}$ MC sweeps. Droplets are shown as pink spheres, single colloidal particles are depicted as blue spheres, green is used for particles belonging to spontaneously formed clusters. Colloidal particles trapped at the surface of a droplet or in a droplet-induced cluster are shown in red. A movie of the simulation is available \href{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9wlarGvJmQ&context=C2a833ADOEgsToPDskLFofSSFhvugIcYhueO99zW}{here.}}
\label{fig:snp}
\end{figure*}
The formation of small clusters implies that only a limited number of particles are bound onto the droplets.
The small size of our particle makes them ideal for the
self-assembly of small clusters that are well suited as building
blocks for subsequent self-assembly, but prevented us to follow the assembly process in experiments in real
space like~\citet{Manoharan:2003p937}.
Therefore, we studied their distribution in the experimental emulsions with cryo-FESEM. The micrographs (Fig.~\ref{fig:cry}) indicate a random distribution of the positions of the particles at the droplet surface. The void in the center presents the imprint of the frozen dispersed phase, i.e. a single micron-sized toluene droplet. The polystyrene particles left in the cavity after sublimation of toluene are randomly distributed at the former droplet surface. Because toluene is a good solvent for polystyrene, the particles are significantly swollen at the droplet interface as expressed by a larger diameter. This agrees with the fact that the micrograph indicates that the polystyrene particles prefer the dispersed toluene phase.
The position distribution of the particles on the droplet surface in simulations (Fig.~\ref{fig:snp}b and inset Fig.~\ref{fig:cry}) is in good agreement with the experiment and indicates that the particles can freely diffuse on the surface of the droplets.
In simulations, we consider the case that the particle surface has no preference of whether it wets oil or water. Hence the contact angle at a (planar) oil-water interface is 90$^{\circ}$ because of the assumption that the colloid-solvent interfacial tension is equal to the colloid-droplet interfacial tension -- see the discussion above Eq.(\ref{eq:DC}) .
Despite the difference in contact angle between simulation and experiments we do not expect the contact angle to affect the final results~\cite{Lauga2004}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig3}
\caption{
Colloidal particles trapped at the surface of an emulsion droplet obtained with a Cryo-FESEM micrograph of a toluene-in-water emulsion stabilized by crosslinked polystyrene particles. Inset: Simulation snapshot of a single droplet and colloidal particles trapped at its surface obtained after $3 \times10^{5}$ MC sweeps.}
\label{fig:cry}
\end{figure}
The liquid structure can be further characterized in computer simulations. We calculated the colloid-droplet radial distribution functions, $g_{cd}(r)$, and the colloid-colloid radial distribution functions, $g_{cc}(r)$, at different stages of the simulations. Since the droplet diameter $\sigma_{d}$ changes continuously during the simulation the resulting transient structures captured by the distribution functions are not at equilibrium.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{fig4a1} &
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{fig4a2}\\
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{fig4b1}&
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{fig4b2}\\
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{fig4c1}&
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{fig4c2}\\
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{fig4d1}&
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{fig4d2}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Colloid-droplet (left column) and colloid-colloid (right column) radial distribution functions, $g_{cd}(r)$ and $g_{cc}(r)$, respectively, as a function of the scaled distance $r/\sigma_{c}$ at colloid packing fraction $\eta_{c}=0.0034$. We plot $g_{cc}(r)$ for the SWY (blue full line) and the AOY (yellow dashed line) potentials. Shown are results at different stages of the computer simulation: a) after $10^{5}$, b) after $3 \times 10^{5}$, c) after $3.6\times 10^{5}$, d) after $5 \times 10^{5}$ MC sweeps.}
\label{fig:gr}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:gr} shows $g_{cd}(r)$ and $g_{cc}(r)$ at different stages. For the colloid-colloid correlation function we plot both the results of the SWY (blue full line) and AOY potentials (yellow dashed line).
In particular, Fig.~\ref{fig:gr}a) shows the correlation functions after $10^{5}$ MC sweeps.
The colloid-droplet radial distribution function $g_{cd}(r)$ has a small peak at $r \simeq 3.1 \ \sigma_{c}$ corresponding to the instantaneous droplet radius $\sigma_{d}(t)/2$. The peak is due to colloidal particles trapped at the droplet surface. At the same time the colloid-colloid radial distribution functions $g_{cc}(r)$ are apparently flat outside of the core region. In fact, the radial distribution function is decaying in a way consistent with the Boltzmann factor $g(r)=e^{-\beta \phi_{cc}(r)}$ as expected for an equilibrium low density gas.
Figure~\ref{fig:gr}b) shows the correlation functions after $3 \times 10^{5}$ MC sweeps. The cross pair correlation function $g_{cd}(r)$ shows that the droplets have shrunk to a radius $\sigma_{d}(t)/2\simeq 1.45 \ \sigma_{c}$, while $g_{cc}(r)$ has developed structure at intermediate distances. These results can be explained by particles trapped at the surface of the droplets and interacting with each other via the long-ranged colloid-colloid repulsion.
After $3.6\times 10^{5}$ MC sweeps (Fig.~\ref{fig:gr}c) the droplet radius has become smaller than $\sigma_{c}$. The strong peak at $r = \sigma_{c}$ indicates that a large number of bonds between colloidal particles have formed for both the AOY and SWY potentials. Finally, after $5 \times 10^{5}$ MC sweeps (Fig.~\ref{fig:gr}d) a dramatic change of $g_{cd}(r)$ is observed, which is due to droplets having a diameter $\sigma_{d}(t) =0$, and diffusing freely. We show the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:gr}d) for completeness, but stress that it does not correspond to any physical situation. On the other hand, $g_{cc}(r)$ shows that strong peaks have formed also at distances larger than $\sigma_{c}$, indicating the presence of small clusters.
The time evolution of $g_{cc}(r)$ for the two potentials is very
similar. Most notably the final configurations differ due to different final cluster structures.
\subsection{Cluster structure and size distribution}
\label{s:cls}
An overview of the different cluster structures found at the end of the simulation runs and in the experiment is presented in Figs.~\ref{fig:snap1} and~\ref{fig:snap2}.
In particular, Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1} shows the simulation structures obtained at colloid packing fraction $\eta_{c}=0.0034$ for the SWY potential and $\sigma_{d}(0)=8 \, \sigma_{c}$.
We find clusters with sizes between $n_{c}=2$ (doublets not shown) and $n_{c}=9$, with $n_c$ the number of particles belonging to a cluster.
In particular, we find that for $n_c \leq 7$ the clusters have the same structures as Lennard-Jones clusters~\cite{HOARE:1971p3888}. We find triplets for $n_c=3$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1}a), tetrahedra for $n_c=4$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1}b), triangular dipyramids for $n_c=5$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1}c), octahedrons for $n_c=6$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1}d), and pentagonal dipyramids for $n_c=7$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1}e). For large number of particles we find the snub disphenoid for $n_c=8$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1}f) and triaugmented triangular prism for $n_c=9$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1}g, with two different orientations).
In computer simulations clusters with particle numbers $n_c\geq10$ are obtained at higher packing fractions. The additional structures obtained at colloid packing fraction $\eta_{c}=0.01$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:snap2}.
The square dipyramid is found for $n_c=5$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1}a)
Also, for the clusters with $n_c=10$ ( gyroelongated square dipyramid in Fig.~\ref{fig:snap2}b) and $n_c=12$ (icosahedron in Fig.~\ref{fig:snap2}d) we find good agreement with experiments.
The cluster with $n_c=11$ (icosahedron minus one, Fig.~\ref{fig:snap2}c) was, on the other hand, not found in experiments. As this structure is identical to the icosahedron except for one missing particle, it can easily be missed in the experimental FESEM micrographs.
These structures are also in good agreement with those observed in previous experiments~\cite{Manoharan:2003p937,Wagner:2010p3885}.
As noted by~\citet{Manoharan:2003p937}, clusters containing $n_c=8$ (snub disphenoid), $n_c=9$ (triaugmented triangular prism) and $n_c=10$ (gyroelongated square dipyramid) particles are members of a set of convex polyhedra~\cite{JOHNSON:1966p3889}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig5}
\caption{Cluster structures found in simulations (left) for SWY potential, $\sigma_{d}(0)=8 \sigma_{c}$, $\eta_{c}=0.0034$ and micrographs from FESEM (right). The scalebars indicate 200nm. The wireframe in the simulation structures connects the particles centers in order to visualize the geometric arrangement.}
\label{fig:snap1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig6}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1}, but for $\eta_{c}=0.01$. Only additional structures not found at $\eta_{c}=0.0034$ are shown.}
\label{fig:snap2}
\end{figure}
Larger cluster structures can be obtained not only by increasing the colloid packing fraction but also by increasing the starting droplet size, as demonstrated by the histograms of the number of clusters $N_{n_{c}}$, with $n_{c}$ the number of colloidal particles forming the cluster. Figure~\ref{fig:hist} shows the cluster distribution for varying starting droplet sizes $2< \sigma_{d}(0)/\sigma_{c}<8$. From Fig.~\ref{fig:hist}a) to Fig.~\ref{fig:hist}d) the distribution becomes broader for larger droplet diameters $\sigma_{d}(0)$, while at the same time the yield of smaller clusters decreases.
The presence of a greater number of large clusters at larger droplet diameters can be explained by the larger surface available to capture colloidal particles in the initial stages of the simulation. Likewise, the probability to capture a small number of colloidal particles decreases with increasing droplet surface, which leads to a decrease in the yield of small clusters.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{fig7a}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{fig7b}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{fig7c}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{fig7d}
\caption{Distribution of the number of clusters, $N_{n_{c}}$, as a function of the number of particles in the cluster, $n_{c}$, found in computer simulations (SWY, $\eta_{c}=0.0034$). For clarity, the $n_{c}=1$ bar is omitted. Shown are result for different initial droplet sizes: a) $\sigma_{d}(0)/\sigma_{c}=2$. b) $\sigma_{d}(0)/\sigma_{c}=4$. c) $\sigma_{d}(0)/\sigma_{c}=6$. d) $\sigma_{d}(0)/\sigma_{c}=8$.}
\label{fig:hist}
\end{figure}
The comparison with experiments can be made more quantitative by comparing the experimentally~\cite{Wagner:2010p3885} measured weight fraction of the clusters with the total number of particles, $n_{c} N_{n_{c}}$, belonging to a cluster with $n_{c}$ colloids. In order to compare the two quantities we normalize the experimental results with the weight fraction of single particles and the simulation results by the number of single particles $N_{1}$.
In the first experiments by Wagner et al, the particles were
dispersed in the oil phase. In subsequent work \citet{Wagner:2010p3885}, experimentally compared this situation with that of adding particles via the water phase. They found that
the same cluster structures result and that the cluster size
distributions are also similar. In the present paper, for
consistency, in Fig. 8 we compare the simulation results to
experiments where the particles were added via the water phase. We
keep, as an additional data set, the size distributions that were
obtained by adding particles via the oil phase.
Figure~\ref{fig:comp} shows the two experimental results together with the simulation results for the SWY potential, $\sigma_{d}(0)/\sigma_{c}=4$, and $\eta_{c}=0.0034$ corresponding to a percentage of particles per oil of 3.4\%.
As the degree of polydispersity of our emulsions is low~\cite{Wagner:2010p3885}, we do not expect it to have a significant effect on the experimental size distribution, and the comparison to the (monodispersed) simulation results is viable. \citet{Zerrouki:2006p4273} ], at 5\% in weight of silica microparticles per volume of oil, found a fraction with respect to singlets of 0.75, 0.7 and 0.47 for doublets, triplets and quadruplets, respectively. Although these are higher yields than what we found in our simulations and experiments, their experimental parameters differ significantly from ours, so that no conclusion about the relative performance of both methods can be drawn.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig8}
\caption{Comparison between the number of particles $n_{c} N_{n_{c}}/N_{1}$ belonging to a cluster of size $n_{c}$ found in simulations and the weight fraction of particles as a function of $n_{c}$ measured in experiments (see Figures 4 and 6 of Ref.~\cite{Wagner:2010p3885}). The simulation results are for starting droplet size $\sigma_{d}/\sigma_{c}=4$, and $\eta_{c}=0.0034$. In the experiments the amount of building blocks added via the water or oil phase was 108 mg. For both simulation and experiments the percentage of particles per oil was 3.4\%.}
\label{fig:comp}
\end{figure}
In simulations, we find that clusters with the same number of constituent particles can still have a variety of different structures (isomers).
Instead of distinguishing between all possible isomers we classify clusters based on their number of bonds. The bond-number $n_{b}$ is defined as the total number of bonds in a cluster and, although unable to distinguish between all possible isomers, gives an indication of the compactness of the cluster; for a given value of $n_{c}$ a smaller number of bonds indicates a more open structure as compared to a cluster with more bonds.
Fig.~\ref{fig:links}a shows a stacked histogram of the number of clusters with a specific bond-number (SWY potential, $\sigma_{d}(0)=8 \sigma_{c}$, $\eta_{c}=0.0034$).
The total height of the columns indicates the number of cluster $N_{n_{c}}$ with $n_{c}$ particles.
Each bar is divided in differently colored regions with a relative size proportional to the number of clusters with $n_{b}$ bonds. Each region is labeled with the actual bond-number.
For $n_{c}=2, 3$, only one type of cluster is found with $n_{b}=1, 3$, respectively. Clearly these bond-numbers correspond to doublets and triplets, respectively.
For $n_{c}=4$, two different structures are found, a small fraction of clusters with an open structure with only four bonds, and a structure with six bonds, corresponding to the tetrahedron shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1}b.
For increasing number of constituent particles the number of isomers increases.
Fig.~\ref{fig:links}b) shows the stacked histogram of the number of clusters with a specific bond-number for the AOY potential ($\sigma_{d}(0)=8 \sigma_{c}$, $\eta_{c}=0.0034$).
Strikingly, the AOY potential produces a larger number of different isomers than the SWY potential.
In particular, the AOY potential has isomers with smaller bond-numbers compared to the SWY potential. We interpret the more open structures that we find for the AOY potential as a direct result of its steep attraction and the resulting slow equilibration of the cluster geometry.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig9a}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig9b}
\caption{Number of cluster $N$ with $n_{c}$ colloidal particles ($\sigma_{d}(0)=8 \, \sigma_{c}$ and $\eta_{c}=0.0034$). The total height of the columns indicates the number of cluster $N_{n_{c}}$ with $n_{c}$ particles.
Each bar is divided in differently colored regions with a relative size proportional to the number of clusters with $n_{b}$ bonds. The numerical label indicate the bond-number for the region. For clarity, the $n_{c}=1$ bar is omitted. a) Results for the SWY potential. Shown are also the names of the most relevant structures. b) Results for the AOY potential.}
\label{fig:links}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Hierarchical assembly: Superclusters}
\label{s:super}
In order to investigate the possibility of hierarchical assembly of colloidal particles using the droplet-evaporation technique we carried out computer simulations of a mixtures of tetrahedral clusters and emulsion droplets.
Hence, we prepared an initial configuration of the simulation consisting of clusters with tetrahedral symmetry (Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1}b). No single particles or other than tetrahedral cluster structures were present.
The tetrahedral clusters are thermal in the sense that the particles forming the clusters are kept together solely by the short-ranged attraction and can in principle dissolve, i.e. bonds can break on a long time scale by thermal activation. In experiments, bond breaking is even more unlikely because clusters are held together by van der Waals interactions, which are much stronger than the attraction used in our model. Nevertheless, structures that require bond-breaking in order to form are easily recognized.
Figure~\ref{fig:snap3} shows the structures obtained in the simulations (SWY potential, $\sigma_{d}=9 \sigma_{c}$, $\eta_{c}=0.1$).
In particular, Fig.~\ref{fig:snap3}a-b) show two structures consisting of two tetrahedral building blocks. The octahedral dipyramid (Fig.~\ref{fig:snap3}a) is formed by two tetrahedra rotated by $30^{o}$ against each other and with two faces touching. Fig.~\ref{fig:snap3}b) shows two truncated hexagonal layers. This cluster formation is possible only because one of the initial tetrahedral clusters has dissolved. This structure is therefore not accessible experimentally when non-thermal clusters are used.
Fig.~\ref{fig:snap3}c) shows superclusters of three tetrahedra, while Fig.~\ref{fig:snap3}d) shows a supertetrahedron, i.e. a cluster formed by four tetrahedra arranged a tetrahedral geometry.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{fig10}
\caption{Supercluster structures (SWY potential, $\sigma_{d}(0)=9 \sigma_{c}$, $\eta_{c}=0.1$). Particles with the same color belong to the same initial tetrahedral building block. a) Octahedral dipyramid, b) truncated hexagonal layers, c) Supercluster composed of three tetrahedra, d) Supertetrahedron. }
\label{fig:snap3}
\end{figure*}
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{s:conc}
We investigated cluster formation via emulsion droplet evaporation with computer simulations and experiments.
We used Metropolis Monte Carlo simulations to model the process of cluster formation in a binary mixture of colloidal particles and emulsion droplets. The colloidal particles interact via both a short-ranged attraction and a long-ranged repulsion, while the second component that represents the emulsion droplets interacts only with an attractive well with the colloids. This potential well has a minimum at the droplet surface in order to induce the Pickering effect.
The droplet-droplet interaction is a hard-core interaction with a hard-sphere diameter chosen so that the droplets cannot merge. The droplets shrink at a fixed rate, in order to model experimental conditions of droplet evaporation.
We also performed experiments on polystyrene spheres 154 $nm$ in diameter in a toluene-water emulsion.
The emulsion was vitrified and analyzed with cryo-FESEM, before the evaporation process. The micrographs indicated a random distribution of the positions of the particles that are trapped at the droplet surface. These results can be surprising because charged particles act as electric dipoles when trapped onto droplets due to the effect that the part of their surface exposed to the nonpolar solvent (toluene) cannot sustain its charge. The resulting long-ranged dipolar repulsions may result in regular spatially separated arrangements of the particles at the interface~\cite{nikolaides2002,horozov2003}. For micron-sized particles this is supported by optical micrographs that indicate polyhedral arrangements when a small number of particles are bound onto an emulsion droplet~\cite{manoharan2006}. A different scenario can be expected for our submicron-sized particles because their higher diffusivity can interfere with repulsive interactions, and suppress regular orientation. Interestingly, an earlier study of droplets stabilized by a large number of submicron-sized colloids could even demonstrate that the particles are not necessarily kept separated from each other and can form close-packed islands or even a monolayer~\cite{binks2002}.
Computer simulation snapshots and radial distribution functions were used to analyze the dynamics of cluster formation in computer simulation. In agreement with experimental results we find that in our model the particles can freely diffuse on the surface of the droplet before the evaporating droplets force particle agglomeration into clusters.
The degree of ordering of the particles on the droplet surface depends on the range of the repulsive interaction, (Debye screening length) that in our model is of the order of two particle diameters. Choosing a longer range for the repulsion could lead to ordered distribution of particles on the surface of the droplets. Furthermore the strength of dipolar interactions, neglected in our present model, could be relevant.
After the complete evaporation of the droplets we find stable clusters that range from sphere doublets to complex polyhedra. The structures and size distributions found in simulations matched those found in experiments.
Histograms show that larger clusters can be obtained by increasing the initial size of the droplets or by increasing the density of colloidal particles at the expense of a smaller yield for smaller clusters in accordance with the results of~\citet{Wagner:2010p3885}.
The bond number was used to distinguish different structures with the same number of constituent particles.
We found that although the AOY potential gives the same clusters and size distributions as the SWY potential, the AOY interaction results in a larger number of possible structures than the SWY interaction.
In particular, the AOY potential gives structures with a smaller number of bonds, i.e. with more open structure. This is intuitively reasonable, since the steep attractive part of the AOY potential results in a difficult equilibration of the geometric structure of the clusters.
Although these potentials do not model quantitatively our experimental system, this study can give an indication of what type of interactions one should use in order to change the cluster morphology to more open (softer) clusters.
Our simple model reproduces the experimental results accurately despite a lack of realistic energy or time scales. It is therefore sensible to assume that the model captures the essential physics of the assembly process and that more complex assembly processes can be studied with a certain confidence. Hence, the model can be useful to guide experimental work. As an example we applied the theoretical model to a fluid mixture of tetrahedra clusters and droplets. The computer simulations show that the assembly process via emulsion droplet evaporation can lead to stable superclusters with two, three and four tetrahedral building blocks. These novel structures are not found in the assembly of single nanoparticles and could represent a step in the direction of novel and complex mesoscale materials.
We neglected in our theoretical model the formation of dipole moments for particles trapped at the droplet surface. Including dipolar interactions and increasing the range of the repulsion both constitute interesting steps beyond the current work. Furthermore, using our present model for studying gelation, as was recently reported in colloidal dispersions with a small immiscible liquid~\cite{Koos:2011p4276}, could be interesting.
\acknowledgments We thank Douglas J. Ashton and Helmut R. Brand for useful discussions. We thank Beate F\"orster and Martina Heider, Bayreuth Institute of Macromolecular Research, for taking cryo-FESEM images. I.S. acknowledges the Elite Network of Bavaria for support in the frame of the Elite Study Program "Macromolecular Science". We acknowledge the DFG for financial support via SFB840/A3.
|
\section{Introduction\label{sec:introduction}}
\textit{Pure} single-photon states are an essential ingredient for quantum information technologies such as quantum communication \cite{gisin_quantum_2007}, quantum enhanced measurements \cite{giovannetti_quantum-enhanced_2004} and quantum computing \cite{walmsley_toward_2005}. In the past decades various sources have been investigated to produce the required \textit{pure} single-photon states including semiconductor quantum dots \cite{michler_quantum_2000, santori_indistinguishable_2002}, trapped atoms \cite{kuhn_deterministic_2002, beugnon_quantum_2006}, trapped ions \cite{maunz_quantum_2007, barros_deterministic_2009} and four-wave-mixing processes \cite{rarity_photonic_2005, chen_fiber-based_2006,fan_broadband_2007,fulconis_nonclassical_2007, smith_photon_2009, ling_mode_2009,soller_bridging_2010, soller_high-performance_2011}. To date, however, the most widely used sources for the creation of single photons are still based on parametric down-conversion (PDC) \cite{hong_measurement_1987, castelletto_optimizing_2006, pittman_heralding_2005, uren_efficient_2004,lvovsky_quantum_2001} where substantial efforts haven been made over the past several years to engineer photon-pairs with single-mode characteristics \cite{mosley_heralded_2008, eckstein_highly_2011, gerrits_generation_2011, evans_bright_2010, poh_eliminating_2009}.
PDC sources feature many advantages: The setups are compact, cost effective, robust, operate at room temperature, and can be integrated in optical circuits. However, they also possess some inherent drawbacks: First, the photon heralding is a statistical process and, hence, PDC always only approximates a deterministic single-photon source. Second, multi-photon-pair emission \cite{sekatski_detector_2011, huang_photon-counting_1989, osullivan_conditional_2008, rohde_photon_2007, rohde_improving_2007, huang_optimized_2011, wasilewski_statistics_2008, achilles_direct_2006, mauerer_how_2009, broome_reducing_2011} limits the heralding rates and the fidelity of the generated single-photon states. Finally, the spectral properties of the source may lead to a heralding of single photons in a mixture of frequency modes, diminishing the purity of the heralded state.
In this paper we investigate the trade-off between heralding rates and the fidelity of the heralded states using PDC processes extending the work presented in Refs. \cite{virally_limits_2010} and \cite{osullivan_conditional_2008}. We consider both binary avalanche photodiode detectors, as currently employed in laboratories, but also extend our analysis to incorporate the rapidly growing field of photon-number-resolved detection \cite{fitch_photon-number_2003,divochiy_superconducting_2008,kardynal_avalanche-photodiode-based_2008, miccaronuda_high-efficiency_2008, fujiwara_multiphoton_2005}. Our results quantify the definitive limits of parametric down-conversion sources to create pure single-photon states and show how well they are able to approximate deterministic behavior.
\section{PDC state generation}
Fig. \ref{fig:single_photon_generation_process} sketches the process of parametric down-conversion using a pulsed laser system. The incoming pump interacts with the crystal material featuring a \(\chi^{(2)}\) nonlinearity creating two down-converted beams usually labeled signal and idler. These two beams exhibit perfect correlation in photon number, which means that during the interaction a certain number of photon pairs is generated depending on the efficiency of the PDC.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figure_1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic of the PDC process used to herald single-photon states: An incoming pump pulse decays inside a nonlinear medium into two beams labeled signal and idler which feature a perfect photon-number correlation. The idler beam is subsequently detected to herald the presence of the signal state.}
\label{fig:single_photon_generation_process}
\end{figure}
The process is, in the interaction picture, described by the following Hamiltonian
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\hat{H}_{PDC} \propto \chi^{(2)} \int \mathrm d^3 r \, \hat{E}^{(-)}_p(\vec{r},t) \hat{E}^{(+)}_s(\vec{r},t)\hat{E}^{(+)}_i(\vec{r},t) + h.c.
\label{eq:pdc_hamiltonian}
\end{eqnarray}
where we consider both the spatial and spectral-temporal degree of freedom. Solving this Hamiltonian \cite{christ_probing_2011, christ_spatial_2009}, assuming a non depleted classical pump laser to drive the down-conversion process, we obtain the following PDC state:
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\ket{\psi}_{PDC} = \exp\left[-\frac{\imath}{\hbar} \left(B \sum_{k,l} \iint \mathrm d\omega_s \, d \omega_i \, f_{k,l}(\omega_s, \omega_i) \right. \right. \\ \times \left. \left .\hat{a}_k^{(s)\dagger}(\omega_s) \hat{a}_l^{(i)\dagger}(\omega_i) + h.c. \right)\right] \ket{0}.
\label{eq:pdc_state_multimode}
\end{align}
The operators \(\hat{a}_k^{(s)\dagger}(\omega_s)\) and \(\hat{a}_l^{(i)\dagger}(\omega_i)\) create photons with spatial mode numbers \(k\) and \(l\) and frequencies \(\omega_s\) and \(\omega_i\) into the signal and idler beam, respectively. The exact form of the output state is given by the function \(f_{k,l}(\omega_s, \omega_i)\) describing its spectral and spatial structure depending on the applied pump beam and nonlinear optical material \footnote{In the high-gain regime time-ordering effects have to be considered in the derivation of Eq. \eref{eq:pdc_state_multimode} \cite{wasilewski_pulsed_2006}.}.
The spectral and spatial degrees of freedom are the first obstacle for the heralding of pure single-photon states. Since the photons are emitted into a multitude of spatial and spectral modes the detection of the idler beam to herald the presence of the signal results in a projection of the signal state into a mixture of spatial and spectral modes. Hence, the heralded signal does \textit{not} form a \textit{pure} single-photon state.
The easiest solution to cope with this problem is to apply heavy spectral and spatial filtering in the heralding arm \cite{huang_optimized_2011, smirr_optimal_2011, branczyk_optimized_2010}. This will eliminate all distinguishing features and project the heralded signal into a spectrally as well as spatially pure state. However, one should be aware of the fact that the applied filter absorbs the main part of the generated idler photons and, hence, leads to significantly lower heralding rates and, furthermore, increases the higher-order photon components in the signal arm, negatively affecting the state fidelity in the photon number degree of freedom.
A more elegant approach relies on engineering the down-conversion process to emit PDC states occupying a single spectral and spatial mode. In the spatial degree of freedom waveguides can be used to restrict the signal and idler beams to the fundamental mode \cite{christ_spatial_2009}. In the spectral degree of freedom, however, a pulsed laser system, appropriately chosen materials and wavelengths have to be applied \cite{grice_spectral_1997, mosley_heralded_2008}.
For PDC processes which are engineered to emit beams into a \textit{single} spatial and spectral mode the generated output state corresponds to a twin-beam squeezed state \cite{barnett_methods_2003}
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\ket{\psi}_{PDC} &= \exp\left[r \hat{A}^\dagger \hat{B}^\dagger - r \hat{A} \hat{B} \right] \ket{0}\\
&= \mathrm{sech} \,(r)\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \tanh^n(r)\ket{n_s, n_i}
\label{eq:pdc_state}
\end{align}
where we set the phase factor to \(\pi\) as it is unimportant within the scope of this paper. We used capital operators \(\hat{A}\) and \(\hat{B}\) for the signal and idler beam \cite{rohde_spectral_2007} to highlight the pulsed nature of the output state. With this state devoid of multiple spatial and spectral modes the remaining limitations for the heralding of single-photons stem from higher-order photon-number components: Detecting the photons in idler projects the signal into a mixture of photon-number states and, hence, decreases the purity of the heralded state.
\section{Heralding single photons from single-mode PDC sources\label{sec:heralding_single-photons_from_single-mode_PDC_sources}}
Following the discussion of PDC in the previous chapter we now calculate the attainable heralding rates and single-photon fidelities using the state in Eq. \eref{eq:pdc_state} and either binary or photon-number resolving detectors.
The most common method to herald single-photon states from PDC employs binary avalanche photo detection. Depending on its efficiency \(\eta\) it yields a ``Click'' event when photons are measured and a ``NoClick'' event when no photons are detected. Its measurement operators---as a positive operator valued measure (POVM)---are given by \cite{silberhorn_detecting_2007}
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\hat{\Pi} _{\mathrm{"No Click"}} &= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left(1- \eta\right)^n \ket{n}\bra{n}\\
\hat{\Pi}_{\mathrm{"Click"}} &= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left[1-\left(1- \eta\right)^n \right] \ket{n}\bra{n}.
\label{eq:povm_binary}
\end{align}
Another approach relies on performing photon-number-resolved measurements in the heralding arm, which are able to enhance the heralding of single-photon states by suppressing the higher photon number components. In past years great advances have been made in photon-number-resolved detection and state-of-the-art detectors feature high detection efficiencies and exhibit an increasing fidelity resolving higher photon numbers. The POVM elements of a general photon-number-resolving detector measuring \(n\) photons are given by \cite{kok_linear_2007, osullivan_conditional_2008}
\begin{align}
\hat{\Pi}(n) = \sum_{N=n}^\infty {N \choose n} \left(1-\eta\right)^{N-n} \eta^n \ket{N}\bra{N}
\label{eq:pnr_povm}
\end{align}
where we assume that each photon has a loss probability of \(\eta\). Individual detection systems may differ from this POVM but all converge to \(\hat{\Pi}(n) = \ket{n}\bra{n}\) for perfect photon-number resolved detection. In the scope of this paper we restrict ourselves to the heralding of single photons, hence, \(n = 1\).
Comparing Eq. \eref{eq:povm_binary} and Eq. \eref{eq:pnr_povm} we notice that both operations have the same structure and are of the form
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Pi}_{c_n} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} c_n \ket{n}\bra{n}
\label{eq:general_povm}
\end{equation}
where the \(c_n\) coefficients depend on the applied detector and its efficiency \(\eta\). We note that in this formalism dark count events of imperfect detectors could also be included by adapting the \(c_0\) coefficient.
Starting with the single-mode PDC state in Eq. \eref{eq:pdc_state} and the general measurement operator in Eq. \eref{eq:general_povm}, we calculate the probability of a successful heralding event to be:
\begin{align}
\nonumber
p\,(r, c_n) &= _{PDC}\bra{\psi} \hat{\Pi}_{c_n} \ket{\psi}_{PDC}\\
&= \mathrm{sech} \,^2(r) \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n \tanh^{2n}(r)
\label{eq:general_heralding_probability}
\end{align}
and the heralded signal state after a successful detection takes the form
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\rho_s(r, c_n) &= \frac{\mathrm{tr}_i \left( \hat{\Pi}_{c_n} {\ket{\psi}_{PDC}} _{PDC}\bra{\psi} \right)}{_{PDC}\bra{\psi}\hat{\Pi}_{c_n} \ket{\psi}_{PDC}} \\
&= \frac{\sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n \tanh^{2n}(r) \ket{n_s}\bra{n_s}}{\sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n \tanh^{2n}(r)}.
\label{eq:general_heralded_signal_state}
\end{align}
The fidelity of the heralded signal state in Eq. \eref{eq:general_heralded_signal_state} against a pure single-photon is \cite{jozsa_fidelity_1994}:
\begin{align}
\nonumber
F(r, c_n) &= \bra{1} \rho_s \ket{1}\\
&= \frac{c_1 \tanh^2(r)}{\sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n \tanh^{2n}(r) }
\label{eq:general_heralded_state_fidelity}
\end{align}
Eq. \eref{eq:general_heralding_probability} and Eq. \eref{eq:general_heralded_state_fidelity} form our benchmarks for the state generation: The heralding probability per pulse \(p\,(r, c_n)\) and the fidelity of the generated signal state \(F(r, c_n)\).
In Fig. \ref{fig:binary_photon_heralding} we plotted these benchmarks for a binary detector as given in Eq. \eref{eq:povm_binary} exhibiting various detection efficiencies \(\eta\). The \(x\) axis depicts the achievable fidelities and the \(y\) axis the corresponding heralding probabilities. A source creating perfectly pure single-photon Fock states would appear on the right a source with unit creation probability on the top of the figure. The desired pure deterministic single-photon source resides in the upper right corner of the graphic.
The shaded region in Fig. \ref{fig:binary_photon_heralding} depicts the general area available using PDC in conjunction with binary detectors and presents an inherent trade-off between signal creation rate and fidelity of the heralded state. Even with perfect detectors \(\eta = 1\), either the PDC process only emits photon pairs (\(r \le 0.1\)), which yields near unit fidelities but low heralding rates, or one can choose PDC states with higher-order photon-number components leading to heralding probabilities approaching unity (\(r \ge 2\)) yet at the cost of low fidelities due to the occurring mixing in photon number.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure_2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Heralding probabilities, \(p(heralding)\), and single-photon Fock-state fidelities, \(Fidelity\), of the state created using a single-mode PDC source in conjunction with a binary detector featuring various detection efficiencies, \(\eta\). In this configuration one has to balance either high single-photon fidelities or high state generation rates.}
\label{fig:binary_photon_heralding}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:pnr_photon_heralding} we plotted the heralding probability \(p(r, c_n)\) and the state fidelity \(F(r, c_n)\) using a photon-number-resolving detector as defined in Eq. \eref{eq:pnr_povm} for various detection efficiencies \(\eta\). It is evident that photon-number-resolving detectors are superior to binary detectors. They enable unit fidelities in conjunction with heralding rates up to \(25\%\) only constrained by the thermal photon-number distribution emitted by the down-conversion process (\(p_{th}^{(max)}(1)=25\%\)). In the case of perfect detection \(\eta = 1\), this figure gives the fundamental limit of PDC sources. Creating perfectly pure single-photon Fock states the maximum achievable heralding rate is \(25\%\). The corresponding PDC source features an amplitude of \(r=0.88\), corresponding to a squeezing value of 7.64 dB and a mean-photon number of \(\langle n_{ph} \rangle = 1\).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure_3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Heralding probabilities, \(p(heralding)\), and single-photon Fock-state fidelities, \(Fidelity\), of the state created using a single-mode PDC source in conjunction with a photon-number resolving detector featuring various detection efficiencies, \(\eta\). These detectors suppress higher-order photon numbers and, hence, enable high fidelities in conjunction with heralding rates ranging up to 25\%.}
\label{fig:pnr_photon_heralding}
\end{figure}
\section{Heralding single photons from multimode PDC sources\label{sec:heralding_single-photons_from_multimode_PDC_sources}}
We now turn our attention to the impact of spectral multimode effects on the heralding rates and single-photon fidelities. While it is relatively straightforward to get rid of spatial multimode effects in the PDC state emission it is not trivial to construct a source which only emits into a single spectral mode \cite{mosley_heralded_2008, eckstein_highly_2011}. Hence, we extend our analysis and investigate spectrally multimode PDC as a source of single-photon states in order to evaluate to which degree multimode spectral components can be tolerated.
Including multiple spectral modes the PDC state in Eq. \eref{eq:pdc_state} takes the form \cite{christ_probing_2011}:
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\ket{\psi}_{PDC} =& \exp\left[-\frac{\imath}{\hbar} \left(B \iint \mathrm d\omega_s d \omega_i f(\omega_s, \omega_i) \right. \right. \\
\nonumber
&\times \left. \left .\hat{a}^{(s)\dagger}(\omega_s) \hat{a}^{(i)\dagger}(\omega_i) + h.c. \right)\right] \ket{0} \\
=& \bigotimes_k \exp\left[r_k \hat{A}^\dagger_k \hat{B}^\dagger_k - r_k \hat{A}_k \hat{B}_k \right] \ket{0} \\
=& \bigotimes_k \mathrm{sech} \,(r_k)\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \tanh^n(r_k)\ket{n_k^{(s)}, n_k^{(i)}}
\label{eq:pdc_state_multimode_frequency}
\end{align}
In this case, not a single twin-beam squeezed state, as depicted in Eq. \eref{eq:pdc_state}, is generated, but a multitude of twin-beam squeezers with amplitudes \(r_k\) in broadband frequency modes \(\hat{A}_k\) and \(\hat{B}_k\) \cite{rohde_spectral_2007} are emitted. For common PDC sources the squeezer distribution \(r_k\) follows an exponential decay \cite{uren_photon_2003} and is defined by
\begin{align}
\nonumber
&r_k = B \lambda_k \\
&\lambda_k =\sqrt{1-\mu}\, \mu^k \qquad 0 \le \mu \le 1
\label{eq:rk_distribtion}
\end{align}
where \(B\) is optical gain depending on the applied nonlinearity, on the pump power in the PDC process and \(\lambda_k\) corresponds to the normalized mode distribution. The \textit{effective} number of optical modes in the state is quantified by the parameter \(K = 1 / \sum_k \lambda_k^4\) \cite{eberly_schmidt_2006}.
The properties of the PDC state in Eq. \eref{eq:pdc_state_multimode_frequency} become clearer if we sort the terms according to their photon-number components,
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\ket{\psi}_{PDC} =& A \ket{0} + A \sum_k \tanh(r_k) \ket{1_k; 1_k} \\
\nonumber
&+ A \sum_{k \le k'} \tanh(r_k) \tanh(r_{k'}) \ket{1_k, 1_{k'}; 1_k, 1_{k'}} \\
&+ \dots \, ,
\label{eq:mm_pdc_state_expanded}
\end{align}
where \(A = \prod_l \mathrm{sech} \,(r_l) \), \(\ket{0} = \bigotimes_k \ket{0_k}\) and \(\varphi_k = \pi\). According to Eq. \eref{eq:mm_pdc_state_expanded} the PDC state now consists of multiple photon-pair components emitted into an array of spectral modes \(k\).
Given a multimode PDC state as defined in Eqs. \eref{eq:pdc_state_multimode_frequency} and \eref{eq:mm_pdc_state_expanded}, we calculate the heralding rates and fidelities similar to Sec. \ref{sec:heralding_single-photons_from_single-mode_PDC_sources}. In order to perform this calculation we extend the measurement operators given in Eq. \eref{eq:povm_binary}, Eq. \eref{eq:pnr_povm} and Eq. \eref{eq:general_povm} to the multimode regime:
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\hat{\Pi}_{c_n} =& c_0 \ket{0}\bra{0} + c_1 \sum_k \ket{1_k}\bra{1_k} \\
&+ c_2 \sum_{k \le k'} \ket{1_k, 1_{k'}}\bra{1_k, 1_{k'}} + \dots
\label{eq:povm_general_multimode}
\end{align}
where the \(c_n\) terms are identical to the single-mode case as we assume that the detector cannot distinguish different frequencies due to limited time resolution. Using Eq. \eref{eq:mm_pdc_state_expanded} and Eq. \eref{eq:povm_general_multimode} we obtain a multimode heralding probability of
\begin{align}
\nonumber
p(r_k, c_n) =& c_0 A^2 + c_1 A^2 \sum_k \tanh^2(r_k) \\
+& c_2 A^2 \sum_{k \le k'} \tanh^2(r_k) \tanh^2(r_{k'}) + \dots
\label{eq:general_heralding_propabiltiy_multimode}
\end{align}
and the heralded signal state takes on the form,
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\rho_s =& \frac{1}{N} c_0 \ket{0}\bra{0} + c_1 \sum_k \tanh^2(r_k) \ket{1_k}\bra{1_k} \\
\nonumber
&+ c_2 \sum_{k \le k'} \tanh^2(r_k) \tanh^2(r_{k'}) \ket{1_k, 1_{k'}}\bra{1_k, 1_{k'}} \\
&+ \dots
\label{eq_heralded_signal_state_multimode}
\end{align}
with the normalization constant \(N\) defined as
\begin{align}
\nonumber
N =&c_0 + c_1 \sum_k \tanh^2(r_k) \\
& + c_2 \sum_{k \le k'} \tanh^2(r_k) \tanh^2(r_{k'}) + \dots \, .
\label{eq:general_heralded_state_fidelity_multiple_normalisation}
\end{align}
The corresponding fidelity of the heralded photon state against a single-photon Fock state evaluates to
\begin{align}
F(r_k, c_n) = \frac{1}{N} c_1 \tanh^2(r_0).
\label{eq:general_heralded_state_fidelity_multimode}
\end{align}
Eq. \eref{eq:general_heralding_propabiltiy_multimode} and \eref{eq:general_heralded_state_fidelity_multimode} enable us to benchmark multimode PDC processes as a source of heralded single-photon states via the heralding probability \(p(r_k, c_n)\) and the fidelity \(F(r_k, c_n)\) of a heralded state including \textit{both} the spectral and photon-number degree of freedom. Note that the performance of spectrally filtered PDC states will lie below a spectrally single-mode source.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure_4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Heralding probabilities, \(p(heralding)\), and single-photon Fock-state fidelities, \(Fidelity\), of the state created using various multimode PDC sources in conjunction with a binary detector featuring unit detection efficiency \(\eta = 1\). Multiple frequency modes \(K = 2, 5, 10\) severely limit the achievable maximum fidelities}.
\label{fig:binary_photon_heralding_multimode}
\end{figure}
We visualized the obtained rates and fidelities using a binary detector with efficiency \(\eta = 1\) in Fig. \ref{fig:binary_photon_heralding_multimode}. In this figure we use four exemplary PDC states with rising \textit{effective} mode numbers \(K = 1, 2, 5, 10 \), where \(K=1\) corresponds to the single-mode case discussed in Sec. \ref{sec:heralding_single-photons_from_single-mode_PDC_sources}. Fig. \ref{fig:binary_photon_heralding_multimode} shows that the mixing in frequency diminishes the maximal attainable fidelities over the whole range of heralding rates (\(K=2,5,\) and 10 plotted up to \(B = 1.36\)).
This mixing in frequency modes also negatively affects photon-number resolved detection. Fig. \ref{fig:pnr_photon_heralding_multimode} depicts the heralding of single photons from a multimode PDC state using a photon-number-resolving detector with efficiency \(\eta=1\). Again the maximum achievable fidelities are constrained by the number of optical modes in the PDC.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure_5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Heralding probabilities, \(p(heralding)\), and single-photon Fock-state fidelities, \(Fidelity\), of the state created using various multimode PDC sources in conjunction with a photon-number-resolving detector featuring unit detection efficiency \(\eta = 1\). Again, multiple frequency modes \(K = 2, 5, 10\) severely limit the achievable maximum fidelities}
\label{fig:pnr_photon_heralding_multimode}
\end{figure}
In total multimode spectral effects ultimately limit the achievable heralded single-photon fidelities. This issue consequently must be addressed by generating the PDC state in a single spectral mode as discussed in Sec. \ref{sec:heralding_single-photons_from_single-mode_PDC_sources}. Alternatively, filtering the idler beam can be applied to create single photons in a single spectral mode, yet at the expense of severe losses in photon number.
\section{Deterministic pure-single-photon \\ generation with switched PDC sources }
Our previous calculations showed that it is impossible to build a pure deterministic single-photon source using a single PDC process. However, it has been noted that multiple PDC sources in a switched setup may be able to create a source approximating deterministic behavior \cite{migdall_tailoring_2002, pittman_single_2002, ma_experimental_2011, jennewein_single-photon_2011}. This approach employs multiple PDC single-photon sources: When one signals the successful heralding of a single-photon state the photon is routed to the output. Given a photon heralding probability of \(\nu\) and lossless routing the overall heralding probability in a switched setup---as a function of the number of applied PDC sources \(n\)---is:
\begin{align}
p(\mathrm{"switched"}) = 1 - \left(1- \nu\right)^n
\label{eq:switching_propability}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure_6.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Heralding probabilities, \(p(heralding)\), and fidelities, \(Fidelity\), accessible using a single-mode PDC source in conjunction with a binary detector (orange-shaded region), a photon-number resolving detector (red-shaded region), and multiplexing (yellow-shaded region). For an optimal source and a perfect photon-number-resolving detector with heralding probability of \(\nu = 25\%\) 17 PDC sources are required to obtain a deterministic single-photon source (\(>99\%\) emission probability). The arrows point out the achievable heralding rates using a multiplexed setup of 1, 2, 5, and 10 single photon sources.}
\label{fig:overview}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:overview} presents the impacts of multiplexing on the rates and fidelities and summarizes our results. A single-mode PDC source in conjunction with binary detectors suffers from an inherent trade-off between high heralding rates and high fidelities (orange-shaded region). Photon-number-resolving detectors solve this issue and enable heralding efficiencies up to 25\% and unit fidelities (red-shaded region). Multiplexing these single PDC setups enables access to sources featuring high heralding rates in conjunction with unit fidelities (yellow-shaded region). The achievable rates for the multiplexing of 1, 2, 5, and 10 PDC sources are displayed in Fig. \ref{fig:overview}.
The overhead in the number of PDC sources is, of course, quite significant. Hence, the most practicable route to create deterministic pure single-photon Fock states using PDC is first to move from binary to photon-number-resolved detection which enables unit fidelities and significant heralding rates for a single source. Multiplexing these setups gives access to the desired pure deterministic behavior. Given optimal PDC sources with perfect photon-number resolved-detection (\(\nu = 25\%\)) 17 PDC setups are required to approximate a deterministic pure single-photon source (\(>99\%\)).
\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion we determined the prospects for PDC to serve as a \textit{pure} deterministic single-photon source. We investigated the effects of the spectral \textit{and} the photon-number degree of freedom on heralding pure single-photon states from PDC. Our findings show that the spectral degree of freedom limits the achievable fidelities of the heralded signal states and hence spectral effects have to be negated by engineering of the PDC process to occupy a single spectral mode.
For a PDC state free of multiple spectral modes the remaining limitations stem from the higher-order photon components and the applied detectors. Binary detectors feature an inherent trade-off between high heralding probability and near unit state fidelity, whereas photon-number-resolving detectors are able to herald \textit{pure} single-photon Fock states with a probability of up to \(25\%\), given unit detection efficiencies and an optimal PDC state with a twin-beam squeezing of 7.64 dB (\(\langle n_{ph} \rangle = 1 \)). This forms the fundamental limit on heralding pure single-photon states using PDC. Applying a switched PDC setup to increase the heralding rate 17 individual sources are, hence, required to approximate a pure deterministic single-photon source (\(>99\%\) emission probability).
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under the grant agreement Q-Essence 248095. The authors thank Kaisa Laiho, Malte Avenhaus, Helge Rütz, and Benjamin Brecht for useful discussions and helpful comments.
|
\section{Introduction}
Cognitive communication system is widely accepted as a perspective way in increasing the spectrum efficiency of wireless networks, where primary links and secondary links can usually co-exist in the network, resulting in an interference limited environment. Parameter estimation in cognitive communications is a challenging problem because of (i) the existence of co-channel interference, and (ii) the high-dimensional parameters from multiple TX users to multiple RX antennas. In particular, note that different TX users often have independent carrier frequency offset (CFO) values (including both oscillator offsets and doppler offsets), which usually introduce serious nonlinear components within the observed signal, complicating the estimation problem. Meanwhile, channel responses from multiple TX users to multiple RX antennas can result in a set of high-dimensional parameters, which are also difficult to estimate. Finally, due to the existence of multi-user interference, CFO and channel parameters usually have to be treated together and be estimated in a joint way so as to approach the optimal performance, which further increases the estimation complexity.
Without loss of generality, this paper assumes Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) system, which is an overwhelming choice for modern wireless systems. The classical CFO and channel estimation method in a single-user OFDM system is based on two repeated training symbols \cite{OFDM}. It has low implementation complexity and near-optimal performance, but only applies to a single-user scenario\footnotemark. In multi-user OFDMA systems with unique subcarrier set per TX user, CFO and channel parameters can be recovered by exploiting distinct subcarrier structures among TX users (\cite{OFDMA_1, OFDMA_2}). But this method requires separate subcarrier allocation for different users. Consequently, in a general multi-user cognitive system without specific subcarrier allocation per user and with overlapped training symbols, ML and EM related methods seem to be the only applicable choice, where all TX users' parameters have to be formulated into a maximum likelihood (ML) estimation problem \cite{ML}, which is solvable under Expectation Maximization (EM) method \cite{EM} in an iterative way. However, since the entire OFDM block is stored offline and is iteratively processed multiple times, these ML and EM approaches often require high computational complexity and high processing delay.
\footnotetext{It is also applicable for multi-user scenario with non-overlapping training symbols, but this is not the case considered in this paper.}
Based on above considerations, this paper will focus on using Kalman filter structure to estimate the CFO and channel parameters in multi-user cognitive communications. Our major objective is to achieve low-complexity and low-delay estimation performance in cognitive systems. In general, Kalman filter is a good candidate for low delay and low complexity parameter estimation primarily due to its real-timing processing property. It has been conventionally used for CFO and channel estimation in multi-user OFDM systems, e.g., the FFT-Block EKF design in \cite{Kalman_MIMO}, the parallel EKF design in \cite{Kalman_Particle}, and the particle filter design in \cite{Kalman_Particle}. However, these existing designs inherently suffer from multiple issues related to complexity, delay and buffer size as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Block EKF design in \cite{Kalman_MIMO} operates on an FFT-block basis, which grows increasingly complex as FFT size becomes large (e.g., 2048 FFT size). Also, parameters estimated in this method are handled in a high dimension manner.
\item Parallel EKF design in \cite{Kalman_Particle} also operates on an FFT-block basis, marking it complex under large FFT size. Parameters in this design are jointly estimated by calculating the covariance information between different users, leading to a high matrix dimension.
\item Beyond FFT size and parameter dimension issues similar to item 1 and 2, particle filter design in \cite{Kalman_Particle} needs to repeat the Kalman operation at multiple particle samples, yielding a multiplicative effect on complexity.
\end{enumerate}
To summarize, the major challenge in implementing a low-complexity EKF design lies in the factors of: (i) multiple TX users; (ii) multiple RX antennas; (iii) high parameter dimension; and (iv) large FFT size (e.g., 2048 size).
With low-complexity and low-delay requirement in mind, this paper will present a time-sharing and interference mitigation based Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) design for multi-user cognitive communications, which can estimate the CFO and channel parameters from multiple TX users to multiple RX antennas in a time-sharing manner. Here low delay property is achieved by using Kalman filter estimation at each RX sample in a real-time manner, and low complexity property is achieved by reusing a single user EKF design in a time-sharing{\footnotemark} and pipeling way. We first present a fundamental EKF design that estimates the CFO and channel parameters from one TX user to one RX antenna. Then such basic EKF design is reused in a time-shared way to estimate the parameters from multiple TX users to multiple RX antennas. Meanwhile, at each RX sample, an interference mitigation strategy is developed to estimate and remove the expected multi-user interference. In addition, we provide an adaptive noise variance tracking module to further enhance the estimation performance. Because of the usage of EKF structure, our design is essentially different from the particle filters in \cite{Kalman_Particle} and the EM method in \cite{EM}. Our design is also different from the Parallel-EKF design in \cite{Kalman_Particle} and the FFT-Block EKF design in \cite{Kalman_MIMO} at the following perspectives: (i) our design runs at each time domain RX sample, not at an FFT-block basis; (ii) our design treats each user separately, not jointly; (iii) our design can be implemented in a time-sharing way, which is less considered in \cite{Kalman_MIMO} and \cite{Kalman_Particle}; (iv) system model in our design is different from the ones in \cite{Kalman_MIMO, Kalman_Particle} by integrating CFO parameter into channel response (see Eqn. (\ref{state_chan}) in section II). Analysis and simulations results validate that our proposed design can closely approach the Cramer-Rao bound, and has lower computational complexity than the ones in \cite{Kalman_MIMO, Kalman_Particle}. Finally, although cognitive communication is a typical application scenario for our proposed design, it is also applicable in many other multi-user systems that satisfy the conditions presented in section II.
\footnotetext{Time-sharing in this paper indicates that the same hardware module can be reused by different processes at separate time slots.}
\section{System Model}
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
We consider a total of $Q$ TX users in the cognitive network. One of them is the primary TX user (i.e., base station), and the rest are all secondary TX users. Primary TX user's transmission is based on a time division MAC protocol, where time is divided into different time frames with equal duration. Secondary users can maintain time synchronization with the primary TX user by learning and synchronizing with its time frames. Each secondary RX user is equipped with $N_A$ multiple antennas to decode the packets. Without loss of generality, we assume that every TX user has only one spatial stream, and there exists $Q \leq N_A$. Also, every TX user has a distinct training symbol{\footnotemark} $s_q(n)$ with $1 \leq q \leq Q$ and $0 \leq n \leq N_{F}-1$. Here $N_{F}$ is the FFT size of OFDM system.
\footnotetext{This unique training symbol can be determined according to either the unique user ID in the network, or the access order in the current time frame.}
Each TX user has an independent carrier frequency offset (CFO) that is caused by both the oscillator offset and the doppler offset. Denote TX user $q$'s CFO value as $\varepsilon_{q}$. For a given secondary RX user, the channel from TX user $q$ to the $m$th RX antenna of this secondary user is denoted as $h_{q,m}(p_{l}^{q,m})$, $\forall\ 1 \leq l \leq L_{\rm max}$. Here $L_{\rm max}$ is the number of time domain paths in the channel response, and $p_{l}^{q,m}$ is an integer value representing the relative delay of the $l$th path. We assume that all $p_{l}^{q,m}$ values have already been determined at an early stage (e.g., using PN sequences at coarse synchronization). The received signal at the $m$th RX antenna is derived as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
y_m(n)&=&\sum_{q=1}^Q \exp\left(j\frac{2\pi\varepsilon_{q} n}{N_{F}}\right) \sum_{l=1}^{L_{\rm max}}h_{q,m}(p_{l}^{q,m}) s_{q}\left[(n-p_{l}^{q,m})_{N_{F}}\right]\nonumber\\
&&+z_m(n), 0 \leq n \leq N_F-1
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $(n-p_{l}^{q,m})_{N_{F}}=\left\{ (n - {p_{l}^{q,m}}) {\ \rm mod\ } N_{F}\right\}$ is circular shift, and $z_m(n)$ is the background noise at the $m$th RX antenna.
The task in this work is to estimate CFO parameter $\varepsilon_q$ and channel parameter $h_{q,m}(p_{l}^{q,m})$ for all users ($1 \leq q \leq Q$) and all antennas ($1 \leq m \leq N_A$). Obviously, the optimal estimation is the solution to this maximum likelihood (ML) problem:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{ML}
&&\min \sum_{m=1}^{N_A} {\big{|}}y_m(n) - \nonumber\\
&&\sum_{q=1}^Q \exp\left(j\frac{2\pi{\widehat{\varepsilon}}_{q} n}{N_{F}}\right) \sum_{l=1}^{L_{\rm max}}{\widehat h}_{q,m}({p_{l}^{q,m}}) s_{q}\left[(n-p_{l}^{q,m})_{N_{F}}\right]{\big{|}}^2
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where ${\widehat{\varepsilon}}_{q}$ and ${\widehat h}_{q,m}({p_{l}^{q,m}})$ represent the estimated values. There are a total of $(L_{\rm max}N_A+1)Q$ parameters in Eqn. (\ref{ML}), which constitutes a high-dimensional parameter estimation problem.
\subsection{State-Space Formulation}
ML solution can generally approach the optimal performance but it requires huge computations, which are highly undesirable in most systems. Instead, this paper proposes an EKF design for the estimation of the CFO and channel parameters, which can sequentially update the estimation results at each RX sample, resulting in low buffer size and low estimation delay. Initially, it is straightforward to directly apply an EKF design at Eqn. (\ref{ML}) by building all CFO and channel parameters into one state vector, whose dimension is as high as $(L_{\rm max}N_A+1)Q$. This method will significantly increase the complexity of the derived Kalman filter. With such complexity consideration in mind, we first propose a low-dimensional EKF design that can estimate the parameters from one TX user to one RX antenna, which has only $(L_{\rm max}+1)$ parameters. Then we reuse this fundamental EKF design in a time-shared manner to estimate the parameters from multiple TX users to multiple RX antennas. In this way, high-dimensional parameters are estimated by sequentially reusing a low-dimensional estimator, which reduces the complexity of the proposed EKF design.
We first present an RX signal formulation from the perspective of TX user $q$ and the $m$th RX antenna as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{rx_single}
y_{q,m}(n)&=&\exp\left(j\frac{2\pi\varepsilon_{q} n}{N_{F}}\right) \sum_{l=1}^{L_{\rm max}}h_{q,m}(p_{l}^{q,m}) s_{q}\left[(n-p_{l}^{q,m})_{N_{F}}\right]\nonumber\\
&&+z_{q,m}(n),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
here $y_{q,m}(n)$ is extracted from $y_{m}(n)$ with the aid of interference mitigation module, and $z_{q,m}(n)$ represents the residual noise at TX user $q$ and the $m$th RX antenna, which includes both the residual co-channel interference from other TX users and the background noise at the $m$th RX antenna. Additionally, the initial value of $y_{q,m}(n)$ without any interference mitigation is set to $y_{q,m}(n) = y_{m}(n)$. Details about the interference mitigation module will be given in section III.
Now we define the associated state vector as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
&&{\rm {\bf X}}_{q,m}(n) = \left[ \varepsilon_q, {\rm {\bf H}}_{q,m}(n) \right]^T, \\
\label{state_chan}
&&{\rm {\bf H}}_{q,m}(n) = \exp\left(j\frac{2\pi n\varepsilon_q}{N_F}\right)\left[ h_{q,m}(p^{q,m}_{1}), ..., h_{q,m}(p^{q,m}_{L_{\rm max}})\right].
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The state-space model for TX user $q$ and the $m$th RX antenna can be derived from (\ref{rx_single}) as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
&&{\rm {\bf X}}_{q,m}(n) = f\left\{ {\rm {\bf X}}_{q,m}(n-1) \right\}={\rm {\bf D}}_{q,m}(\varepsilon_q){\rm {\bf X}}_{q,m}(n-1), \\
&&{\rm {\bf D}}_{q,m}(\varepsilon_q) = \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
1 & {\rm {\bf 0}}_{1\times L_{\rm max}} \\
{\rm {\bf 0}}_{L_{\rm max} \times 1} & \exp\left(j 2\pi \varepsilon_q/N_{ F}\right) {\rm {\bf I}}_{L_{\rm max}\times L_{\rm max}}
\end{array} \right]\\
&&y_{q,m}(n) = {\rm {\bf G}}_{q,m}(n){\rm {\bf X}}_{q,m}(n) + z_{q,m}(n), \\
&&{\rm {\bf G}}_{q,m}(n) = \big[ 0, s_q\left[(n-p^{q,m}_{1})_{N_{F}}\right], s_q\left[(n-p^{q,m}_{2})_{N_{F}}\right], ..., \nonumber\\ &&s_q\left[(n-p^{q,m}_{L_{\rm max}})_{N_{F}}\right] \big].
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the derived state-space formulation is a nonlinear model, since there is a nonlinear component $\exp\left(j 2\pi \varepsilon_q/N_F\right)$ in the matrix ${\rm {\bf D}}_{q,m}(\varepsilon_q)$.
\section{Interference Mitigation based EKF Design}
This section sequentially describes (i) the basic EKF design that aims at only one TX user and one RX antenna, (ii) the interference mitigation module that cancels co-channel interference at each RX sample, (iii) the proposed adaptive noise variance tracking module, and (iv) the overall paradigm of the proposed design.
\subsection{Fundamental EKF Design}
The key idea behind the EKF design is using Jacobian derivation to linearize the nonlinear matrix ${\rm {\bf D}}_{q,m}(\varepsilon_q)$ at local estimates:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{Jacobian}
&&{\rm {\bf F}}_{q,m}(n-1)= \left. \frac{\partial f\left( {\rm {\bf X}}_{q,m}(n-1) \right)} {\partial {\rm {\bf X}}_{q,m}(n-1) } \right|_{\widehat{{\rm {\bf X}}}_{q,m}(n-1|n-1)} \nonumber \\
&&= \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
1 & {\rm {\bf 0}}_{1\times L_{\rm max}} \\
\alpha(n-1){\widehat{\rm {\bf H}}}_{q,m}^T(n-1|n-1) & \exp\left(\alpha(n-1)\right) {\rm {\bf I}}_{L_{\rm max}\times L_{\rm max}}
\end{array} \right] \nonumber\\
\\
&&\alpha(n-1) = j 2\pi \widehat{\varepsilon}_{q,m}(n-1|n-1)/{N_{ F}}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where ${\widehat{{\rm {\bf X}}}_{q,m}(n-1|n-1)}$ represents the estimated state vector after processing the $(n-1)$th RX sample. Based on (\ref{Jacobian}), the prediction steps in our fundamental EKF design are:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
&&{\widehat{{\rm {\bf X}}}_{q,m}(n|n-1)} =\nonumber\\
&&{\rm {\bf D}}_{q,m}( \widehat{\varepsilon}_{q,m}(n-1|n-1) ){\widehat{{\rm {\bf X}}}_{q,m}(n-1|n-1)}, \\
&&{\rm {\bf P}}_{q,m}(n|n-1) =\nonumber\\
&&{\rm {\bf F}}_{q,m}(n-1){\rm {\bf P}}_{q,m}(n-1|n-1){\rm {\bf F}}_{q,m}^H(n-1).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
And the updating steps are as follows:
\begin{align}
\label{variance}
&{\rm {\bf K}}_{q,m}(n) = {\rm {\bf P}}_{q,m}(n|n-1){\rm {\bf G}}_{q,m}^H(n)\times \nonumber\\
&\left[ {\rm {\bf G}}_{q,m}(n){\rm {\bf P}}_{q,m}(n|n-1){\rm {\bf G}}_{q,m}^H(n) + \sigma_{q,m}^2(n) \right]^{-1},\\
&{\rm {\bf P}}_{q,m}(n|n) = \nonumber\\
&\left[ {\rm {\bf I}} - {\rm {\bf K}}_{q,m}(n){\rm {\bf G}}_{q,m}(n) \right] {\rm {\bf P}}_{q,m}(n|n-1), \\
\label{new_info}
&{\widehat{{\rm {\bf X}}}_{q,m}(n|n)} = {\widehat{{\rm {\bf X}}}_{q,m}(n|n-1)} + \nonumber\\
&{\rm {\bf K}}_{q,m}(n)\left[ y_{q,m}(n) - {\rm {\bf G}}_{q,m}(n){\widehat{{\rm {\bf X}}}_{q,m}(n|n-1)}\right].
\end{align}
Here $\sigma_{q,m}^2(n)$ represents the variance of the observation noise $z_{q,m}(n)$ in Eqn. (\ref{rx_single}). Also, CFO estimate $\widehat{\varepsilon}_{q,m}(n|n)$ in the state vector ${\widehat{{\rm {\bf X}}}_{q,m}(n|n)}$ should only use its
real part as $\widehat{\varepsilon}_{q,m}(n|n) = {\rm Real}\left[\widehat{\varepsilon}_{q,m}(n|n)\right]$. Finally, the EKF design presented above is only used for the parameter estimation of one TX user and one RX antenna. This basic EKF design is then iterated in a time-shared manner to estimate the parameters of all TX users ($1 \leq q \leq Q$) and all RX antennas ($1 \leq m \leq N_A$).
\subsection{Interference Mitigation and Refined CFO Estimation}
Before describing the interference mitigation module, we first look at the refinement of the CFO estimates. Although TX user $q$ has only one CFO parameter, our proposed EKF design can result in $N_A$ different estimates that are derived from $N_A$ RX antennas, which are denoted as $\widehat{\varepsilon}_{q,m}(n|n-1)$, $1 \leq m \leq N_A$. As a result, we can use these $N_A$ different estimates to get a refined result $\widehat{\varepsilon}_{q}(n|n-1)$, which is calculated as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
&&\widehat{\varepsilon}_{q}(n|n-1)=\nonumber\\
&&\sum_{m=1}^{N_A}\frac{1/{\rm {\bf P}}_{q,m}(n|n-1)_{(1,1)}}{\sum_{r=1}^{N_A}1/{\rm {\bf P}}_{q,r}(n|n-1)_{(1,1)}}\widehat{\varepsilon}_{q,m}(n|n-1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where ${\rm {\bf P}}_{q,m}(n|n-1)_{(1,1)}$ denotes ${\rm {\bf P}}_{q,m}(n|n-1)$'s element located at the $1^{\rm st}$ row and $1^{\rm st}$ column.
Recall that $y_{q,m}(n)$ involved in (\ref{rx_single}) and (\ref{new_info}) is extracted from the original RX signal $y_{m}(n)$ with the help of an interference mitigation strategy. Having derived the refined CFO estimate $\widehat{\varepsilon}_{q}(n|n-1)$, now the interference mitigation process can be applied at $y_{q,m}(n)$ as follows:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
&&y_{q,m}(n) = y_{m}(n) - \nonumber\\
&&\sum_{u=1,u\neq q}^{Q} \exp\left(j\frac{2\pi\widehat{\varepsilon}_{u}(n|n-1)}{N_{F}}\right)\cdot {\rm {\bf G}}_{u,m}(n){\widehat{{\rm {\bf X}}}_{u,m}(n|n-1)}.\nonumber\\
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\subsection{Adaptive Noise Variance Tracking}
Since $y_{q,m}(n)$ is extracted from $y_{m}(n)$ via interference mitigation module, the variance of $z_{q,m}(n)$, (i.e., $\sigma_{q,m}^2(n)$ used in Eqn. (\ref{variance})), is varying during the convergence process of the interference mitigation module, which has to be adaptively tracked. Such variance tracking is based on the following observation:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
&&\mathbb{E}\left| y_{q,m}(n) - {\rm {\bf G}}_{q,m}(n){\widehat{\rm {\bf X}}}_{q,m}(n|n-1) \right|^2 \approx \nonumber\\
&&{\rm {\bf G}}_{q,m}(n){\rm {\bf P}}_{q,m}(n|n-1){\rm {\bf G}}^H_{q,m}(n) + \sigma_{q,m}^2(n).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using (19), noise variance $\sigma_{q,m}^2(n)$ can be tracked as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\sigma_{q,m}^2(n) &=& \left[ 1 - \frac{1-b}{1-b^{n+1}} \right]\cdot \sigma_{q,m}^2(n-1) + \nonumber\\
&&\frac{1-b}{1-b^{n+1}}\cdot \left\{ \max\left[e_{q,m}(n),0\right]\right\}, \\
e_{q,m}(n) &=& \left| y_{q,m}(n) -
{\rm {\bf G}}_{q,m}(n){\widehat{\rm {\bf X}}}_{q,m}(n|n-1) \right |^2 - \nonumber\\
&&{\rm {\bf G}}_{q,m}(n){\rm {\bf P}}_{q,m}(n|n-1){\rm {\bf G}}^H_{q,m}(n),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $b=0.99$ is the decay factor used to exponentially weight the history values.
\subsection{Block Diagram}
The complete functional diagram of our proposed design is shown in Fig. \ref{Diagram}. In this paradigm, received samples at all RX antennas are first processed in the interference mitigation module. Then the resultant samples are sequentially processed in the basic EKF module and noise variance tracking module. For the ease of description, all components in Fig. \ref{Diagram} are depicted in a parallel manner. However, in practice these design components can be implemented in a time-shared manner, and only one single EKF module is physically required.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Diagram_compact.eps}
\caption{Block diagram of our proposed design.} \label{Diagram}
\end{figure}
\section{Simulations and Discussions}
\subsection{Parameters Setup}
The OFDM system built in the simulation has a bandwidth of 20MHz and a FFT size $N_F=2048$. Each TX user's CFO value is independently and randomly generated within the range of [-2, 2]\footnotemark. Wireless channels are generated using the SUI-3 channel model \cite{SUI_Model}, which has $L_{\rm max}=3$ non-zero paths at the time domain. SNR in this paper is defined as the ratio of the signal power to the noise power at one RX antenna, i.e., ${\rm SNR} = \sigma_R^2/\sigma_Z^2$ where $\sigma_R^2$ is the total received signal power at one RX antenna that is coming from all TX users, and $\sigma_Z^2$ is the power of the background noise. In the simulation, CFO and channel parameters are estimated using one OFDM training symbol with $N_F=2048$ samples. Estimation results are validated via the mean square error (MSE) performance. Specifically, MSE for channel estimation is defined as a normalized version:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm MSE}(h_{q,m})=\frac{\sum_{l=1}^{L_{\rm max}}\left|{\widehat h}_{q,m}(p_{l}^{q,m}) - h_{q,m}(p_{l}^{q,m})\right|^2}{\sum_{l=1}^{L_{\rm max}}\left|h_{q,m}(p_{l}^{q,m})\right|^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Cramer-Rao bounds for the MSE results of CFO and channel estimation can be derived according to \cite{CR_bound} as:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm CRB}_{\rm CFO}({\rm SNR}) = \frac{3Q}{2\pi^2\cdot N_F \cdot {\rm SNR} \cdot N_A }, \\
{\rm CRB}_{\rm Chan}({\rm SNR}) = \left( \frac{L_{\rm max}}{N_F}+\frac{3}{2N_F} \right)\frac{Q}{{\rm SNR}}.
\end{eqnarray}
\footnotetext{Since integer frequency offsets can generally be estimated during the coarse synchronization stage, CFO value at fine synchronization stage is usually between -0.5 and 0.5. But here we use range 2 to demonstrate our design's estimation performance.}
\newcommand{\tabincell}[2]{\begin{tabular}{@{}#1@{}}#2\end{tabular}}
\begin{table
\caption{Complexity Comparison (Number of Complex Multiplications)} \centering \label{Table_complexity}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline \textbf{Design Name} & \textbf{Number of Complex Multiplications}\\
\hline \textrm{Proposed Design} & $\approx L_{\rm max}^3 + 10L_{\rm max}^2 + 14L_{\rm max} +2$ \\
\hline \textrm{Full-State EKF} & $\mathcal{O}\left\{Q^3(L_{\rm max}N_A+1)^3\right\}$ \\
\hline \textrm{FFT-Block EKF \cite{Kalman_MIMO}} & {\tabincell{c}{$\mathcal{O}\{N_AN_F(QN_A)^2(L_{\rm max}+1)^2$\\$+QN_A(N_AN_F)^2(L_{\rm max}+1)^2$\\$+(QN_A)^3(L_{\rm max}+1)^3\}$}} \\
\hline \textrm{Parallel EKF \cite{Kalman_Particle}} & \tabincell{c}{$\mathcal{O}\{Q^2N_F(L_{\rm max}+1)^2+QN_F^2(L_{\rm max}+1)^2$\\$+QN_F(L_{\rm max}+1)^3\}$}\\
\hline \textrm{Particle Filter \cite{Kalman_Particle}} & \tabincell{c}{$\mathcal{O}\{N_PQ^2N_F(L_{\rm max}+1)^2+N_PQN_F^2(L_{\rm max}+1)^2$\\$+N_PQN_F(L_{\rm max}+1)^3\}$ \\ \textrm{\footnotesize $N_P$ is the number of particle samples.} } \\
\hline \textrm{EM method \cite{EM}} & \tabincell{c}{$\mathcal{O}\{N_LQN_F^2L_{\rm max}+N_LQN_FL_{\rm max}^2\}$ \\ \textrm{\footnotesize $N_L$ is the number of iterations.}} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Simulation Results}
We consider a cognitive network with one primary link and three secondary links (a total of 4 links). We investigate the CFO and channel estimations at one secondary RX user with $N_A=4$ RX antennas. Without loss of generality, we assume that this secondary RX user has the same received power from all TX users. We plot the MSE results of CFO and channel estimation in Fig. \ref{MSE_CFO} and Fig. \ref{MSE_Channel}, respectively. The results show that our proposed design can closely approach the Cramer-Rao bounds. In addition, we repeat our simulation by disabling interference mitigation module, or noise variance tracking module. The corresponding results (Fig. \ref{MSE_CFO} and Fig. \ref{MSE_Channel}) indicate that without interference mitigation, the estimation performance can be dramatically degraded. And without noise variance tracking module, there could be an error floor at high SNR values because of the inaccurate tracking of noise variance information. Using the values in Fig. \ref{MSE_CFO} and Fig. \ref{MSE_Channel}, it is feasible to further investigate the BER/PER performance. But such discussions heavily depend on the designed receiver structure, which is omitted here for page limitation.
\subsection{Delay, Buffer Size and Complexity Analysis}
This subsection evaluates the issues of complexity, delay and buffer size in the considered designs. We first look at the complexity issue. In particular, we count the number of complex multiplications involved in our proposed EKF design, which is listed in Table \ref{Table_complexity}. And for comparison, in that table, we also list the complexity results of Full-State EKF, FFT-Block EKF \cite{Kalman_MIMO}, Parallel EKF \cite{Kalman_Particle}, Particle filter \cite{Kalman_Particle}, and EM method \cite{EM}. Here Full-State EKF represents the EKF that builds all $(L_{\rm max}N_A+1)Q$ states in (\ref{ML}) into one state vector, yielding high state dimension. We can see that our proposed design enjoys the lowest computation complexity, which is only at the order of $L_{\rm max}^3$. But Full-State EKF's complexity is around $Q^3N_A^3$ higher than our design. Moreover, FFT-Block EKF, Parallel EKF, Particle Filter, and EM method's complexities{\footnotemark} all rely on FFT size $N_F$, which is significantly large in our case ($N_F = 2048$).
\footnotetext{Particle filters in \cite{Kalman_Particle} and EM designs in \cite{EM} have even higher complexity because of either the number of particle samples, or the number of iterations.}
Now we further look at the delay and buffer size in the proposed design. Since our EKF scheme updates the Kalman estimate at each RX sample (not at each FFT block) in an online and real-time manner, it has low estimation delay and requires low buffer size. However, Particle Filter \cite{Kalman_Particle}, Parallel EKF \cite{Kalman_Particle}, and EM approach \cite{EM} all operate at an FFT-block basis with buffer size $N_F=2048$ samples, resulting in both a large delay and a large buffer size. Even worse, particle filter and EM method both need to process the FFT-block multiple times (e.g., particle samples in particle filter, and iterations in EM method), leading to additional estimation delay.
\section{Conclusion}
This paper has presented a low-delay and low-complexity EKF design that can estimate the CFO and channel parameters in multi-user cognitive communications. We first present a fundamental EKF design that works at one TX user and one RX antenna. Then this basic EKF design is reused in a time-shared way to estimate the parameters for multiple TX users at multiple RX antennas. Besides, an interference mitigation strategy is proposed to estimate and cancel the multi-user interference at each RX sample. Moreover, adaptive noise variance tracking module is further employed to further enhance the estimation performance. Compared with existing related designs (FFT-Block EKF \cite{Kalman_MIMO}, Parallel EKF \cite{Kalman_Particle}, Particle filter \cite{Kalman_Particle}, and EM method \cite{EM}), our proposed design enjoys low computation complexity (because of pipelining and time-sharing design), low delay and low buffer size (due to its online and run-time estimation). Besides, its estimation performance can closely approach the Cramer-Rao bound.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Magnetic tunnel junctions (MTJs), which consist of a thin tunnel barrier sandwiched between two ferromagnetic layers \cite{Miyazaki1995L231,PhysRevLett.74.3273,JJAP.43.L588,NatureMater3.862,Parkin},
are promising for their use in magnetic random access memory (MRAM)\cite{839717}.
However, the primary disadvantage of conventional MRAM designs, which employ a current-induced field to write data, is that the writing current increases with the device density. Thus, there has been considerable interest in exploiting spin-transfer torque (STT)\cite{Slonczewski1996L1,PhysRevB.54.9353} instead\cite{albert:3809,JJAP.45.3835,Sun1999157,liu:2871,huai:222510}.
In such an STT MRAM device, the critical current is proportional to the product of the volume and the Gilbert damping constant $\alpha$ of the free layer, making low $\alpha$ an important criterion for electrode materials.
To this end, several studies have explored the dynamics and the distribution of the magnetizations in STT MRAM by using
the Landau--Lifshitz--Gilbert (LLG) equation with an STT term
\cite{miltat:6982,liu:8385,PhysRevB.71.024411,zhang:08G515,zhang:112504}.
However, other torques (spin torques) also act on the dynamic magnetization in the free layer, which form in reaction to the outward flow of spins from the layer: Mizukami {\it et al.} experimentally showed that $\alpha$ increases with the thickness of the nonmagnetic metal (NM) layer in NM/Py/NM films, and that this enhancement continues up to thicknesses of several hundred nanometers \cite{JJAP.40.580}. Their experiment supports the importance of spin torques in the magnetization dynamics of mesoscopic devices such as STT MRAMs. Further, this experimental finding was supported immediately by Tserkovnyak {\it et al.}'s \cite{PhysRevLett.88.117601,PhysRevB.66.224403} theory of spin pumping based on scattering theory, with additional theoretical confirmation by Umetsu {\it et al.} on the basis of the Kubo formula \cite{1742-6596-266-1-012084,umetsu:07D117}.
Several studies have also investigated charge transport in the presence of magnetization dynamics in magnetic multilayers.
It is known that dynamic magnetizations induce an effective electromagnetic field\cite{0022-3719-20-7-003,0305-4470-39-22-022}.
Ohe {\it et al.} simulated the effective electric field induced by the motion of the magnetic vortex core in a magnetic disk\cite{ohe:07C706},
and the field was observed experimentally\cite{ohe:123110}.
Furthermore, Zhang {\it et al.} phenomenologically derived the LLG equation having the STT term induced by this effective electric field\cite{PhysRevLett.102.086601}. And Moriyama {\it et al.} observed the dc voltage across generated by the precession of the magnetization
in an Al/AlO$_x$/Ni$_{80}$Fe$_{20}$/Cu tunnel junction.\cite{PhysRevLett.100.067602}
The origins of this voltage have been discussed from a theoretical standpoint (scattering theory)\cite{PhysRevB.77.180407,PhysRevB.78.020401,PhysRevB.79.054424}.
In addition, charge and spin currents in ferromagnets with magnetizations that slowly vary in space and time have been studied microscopically
\cite{JPSJ.75.113706,JPSJ.77.074701,PhysRevB.81.144405}. These studies employed the s-d model in continuous space and treated the perturbation within the framework of the Keldysh--Green function\cite{Haug,Rammer}.
Similarly, our aim is to describe the charge and spin transport in MTJs in the presence of a voltage across the barrier and the dynamical magnetization in the free layer. This situation just corresponds to an STT MRAM cell during the writing stage.
In this paper, we microscopically describe the charge and spin currents passing through an MTJ.
However, in contrast with previous works that relied on models in continuous space, we calculate the currents on the basis of a tight-binding scheme.
This makes it easier to account for the properties of materials and the space dependence of the magnetization
in magnetic multilayers, such as MTJs, with strongly inhomogeneous magnetic structures.
In the calculations, we consider the voltage and the dynamics of the magnetization in Berry's adiabatic approximation under the assumption that the effective exchange field is larger than the voltage and dynamics.
Our model shows that the charge current induced by the dynamical magnetization has the form
$A[\bm M_\L(t)\times\dot{\bm M}_\L(t)]\cdot\bm M_\R+B\dot{\bm M}_\L(t)\cdot\bm M_\R$,
where $\bm M_\L(t)$ and $\bm M_\R$ denote the directions of the magnetization in the free layer and fixed layer, respectively.
The first term tends to the form given by Tserkovnyak {\it et al.}\cite{PhysRevB.78.020401}, which expressed
the dc current due to the precession of $\bm M_\L(t)$ about $\bm M_\R$ as a special case;
in this sense, our result is a generalization of their work.
Furthermore, from the results concerning spin transport, we successfully derive the enhanced Gilbert damping and propose a microscopic expression for it.
\section{Model and Formalism}
\subsection{Model Hamiltonian}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{65174Fig1.eps}
\caption{{Schematic of one-dimensional magnetic tunnel junction.
$T_{\L\R}$ is the tunneling amplitude and
$t_{ij}$ represents the hopping matrix between sites $i$ and $j$ located
at either side of the interface. $\bm M_\L(t)$ and $\bm M_\R$ denote the directions of the effective exchange fields
for the left (L) and right (R) hand side layer, respectively.}}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
We consider the motion of electrons in an effective exchange field.
Furthermore, assume that the ferromagnetic layer on the left-hand side $(\LHS)$ of the MTJ is the free layer; that is, the direction of the field at time $t$ in this layer, $\bm M_\L(t)$, rotates time-dependently {(see Fig. \ref{fig:fig1}).}
Thus, the direction of the field on the right-hand side $(\RHS)$ (fixed layer), $\bm M_\R$, is time-independent.
Note that we ignore the inner structure of the tunnel barrier and account for its properties via the simple tunnel amplitude $T_{\L\R}$ between sites $\L$ and $\R$,
which denote the surfaces on the LHS and RHS, respectively.
In this model, the total Hamiltonian for the MTJ is the sum of
the one dimensional tight-binding Hamiltonians in the ferromagnetic layers,
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}_\L(t)&:=\sum_{i,j\in \LHS} c_i^\dagger\left[-t_{ij}\hat 1-\delta_{ij}J_\L\bm M_\L(t)\cdot\hat\SIG\right] c_j,\\
\mathcal{H}_\R&:=\sum_{i,j\in \RHS} c_i^\dagger\left[-t_{ij}\hat 1-\delta_{ij}J_\R\bm M_\R\cdot\hat\SIG\right] c_j,
\end{align}
and the tunnel Hamiltonian,
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}_\T&:=-T_{\L\R}c_\L^\dagger c_\R+\hc,
\end{align}
where
$c_{i\sigma}^\dagger (c_{i\sigma})$ is an operator that creates (annihilates) the $\sigma$ spin electron at site $i$, and
$t_{ij}$ is the hopping integral between sites $i$ and $j$.
The constant $J_\L (J_\R)$ represents the strength of the interaction between the spin of an electron and the effective exchange field on the LHS (RHS) layer;
and $\hat\SIG$ is the Pauli matrix, where hat ` $\hat{}$ ' denotes a $2\times 2$ matrix in spin-space.
\subsection{Adiabatic approximation}
Assuming $J_\L\gg\hbar|\D\bm M_\L(t)/\D t|$, we adopt Berry's adiabatic approximation\cite{Berry} for $\mathcal{H}_\L(t)$:
\begin{align}
c_i(t)&\simeq \hat U_\L(t)\E^{\I\gamma(t)\hat\sigma^z} d_i\for{i\in\LHS},\label{eq:ad}\\
\mathcal{H}_\L(t)&\to \mathcal{H}_\L^\ad:= \sum_{i,j\in \LHS} d_i^\dagger\left[-t_{ij}\hat 1-\delta_{ij}J_\L\hat\sigma^z\right] d_j,
\end{align}
where $c_i(t)$ is in the Heisenberg representation with respect to $\mathcal{H}_\L(t)$, $\hat U_\L(t)$ is a rotation matrix satisfying the equation $\hat U_\L^\dagger(t)\bm M_\L(t)\cdot\hat\SIG \hat U_\L(t)=\hat\sigma^z$, and
$\gamma(t)$ is Berry's phase defined by
\begin{align}
\gamma(t):=\I\int \D t\left[\hat U_\L^\dagger(t)\frac{\D\hat U_\L(t)}{\D t}\right]_{\uparrow\uparrow}\label{eq:berry}.
\end{align}
With the approximation (\ref{eq:ad}), we replace $\mathcal{H}_\T$ with
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}_\T^\ad(t)&:=-T_{\L\R}d_\L^\dagger\E^{-\I\gamma(t)\hat\sigma^z}\hat U_\L^\dagger(t) \hat U_\R d_\R+\hc,
\end{align}
where $\hat U_\R$ is a rotation matrix satisfying the equation $\hat U_\R^\dagger\bm M_\R\cdot\hat\SIG \hat U_\R=\hat\sigma^z$, and $d_i:=\hat U_\R^\dagger c_i\ \mathrm{for}\ i\in\RHS$.
Finally, our total Hamiltonian is $\mathcal{H}(t):=\mathcal{H}_\L^\ad+\mathcal{H}_\R+\mathcal{H}_\T^\ad(t)$, where
$\mathcal{H}_\R=\sum_{i,j\in \RHS} d_i^\dagger\left[-t_{ij}\hat 1-\delta_{ij}J_\R\hat\sigma^z\right] d_j$.
Thus, a nonequilibrium statistical average of the form $\Braket{d_{i\sigma}(t)d_{i'\sigma'}^\dagger(t')}$ can be derived
perturbatively with respect to $\mathcal{H}_\T^\ad(t)$ using the Keldysh--Green function technique.
\subsection{Charge and spin currents}
The charge current $I^\E(t)$ and spin current $\bm I^\ss(t)$ passing through the MTJ are defined by
\begin{align}
I^\E(t)&:=2\Re \frac{\I}{\hbar}T_{\R\L}\Braket{d_\R^\dagger(t) \hat U_\R^\dagger\hat U_\L(t)\E^{\I\gamma(t)\hat\sigma^z} d_L(t)}\quad[\mathrm{1/s}],\label{eq:Ie}\\
\bm I^\ss(t)&:=2\Re\frac{\I}{\hbar}T_{\R\L}\Braket{d_\R^\dagger(t)\hat U_\R^\dagger\hat\SIG \hat U_\L(t)\E^{\I\gamma(t)\hat\sigma^z}d_L(t)}\quad[\mathrm{1/s}]\label{eq:Is},
\end{align}
where
$\Braket{\cdots}$ denotes a statistical average in $\mathcal{H}(t)$\cite{Haug,Rammer}.
By introducing the lesser function,
\begin{align*}
\left[\hat G^<_{\L\R}(t,t')\right]_{\sigma\sigma'}:=\frac{\I}{\hbar}\Braket{\left[d_\R^\dagger(t') \hat U_\R^\dagger\right]_{\sigma'}\left[\hat U_\L(t)\E^{\I\gamma(t)\hat\sigma^z} d_\L(t)\right]_\sigma},
\end{align*}
eqs. (\ref{eq:Ie}) and (\ref{eq:Is}) can be written in the form
\begin{align}
I^\E(t)&=2\Re T_{\R\L}\tr\hat G^<_{\L\R}(t,t),\\
\bm I^\ss(t)&=2\Re T_{\R\L}\tr\hat\SIG\hat G^<_{\L\R}(t,t).
\end{align}
In the first order in $\mathcal{H}_\T^\ad(t)$, we have
\begin{align}
\hat G^<_{\L\R}(t,t)\simeq -T_{\L\R}\int\D t'
\hat U_\L(t)\E^{\I\gamma(t)\hat\sigma^z}
\hat g_\L(t-t')
\E^{-\I\gamma(t)\hat\sigma^z}
\hat U_\L^\dagger(t)
\hat A(t,t')
\hat U_\R
\hat g_\R(t'-t)
\hat U_\R^\dagger\biggr|^<
,\label{eq:lesser1}
\end{align}
where $<$ denotes the lesser component of Keldysh--Green functions\cite{Haug,Rammer}, and
\begin{align}
\hat A(t,t')&:=\hat U_\L(t)\E^{\I\gamma(t)\hat\sigma^z}\E^{-\I\gamma(t')\hat\sigma^z}\hat U_\L^\dagger(t').
\end{align}
Moreover, we introduce the unperturbed Keldysh--Green functions defined by
\begin{align}
\left[\hat g_\L(t)\right]_{\sigma\sigma'}&:=-\frac{\I}{\hbar}\Braket{\T d_{\L\sigma}(t) d_{\L\sigma'}^\dagger}_0
=-\frac{\I}{\hbar}\Braket{\T d_{\L\sigma}(t) d_{\L\sigma}^\dagger}_0\delta_{\sigma\sigma'}
,\\
\left[\hat g_\R(t)\right]_{\sigma\sigma'}&:=-\frac{\I}{\hbar}\Braket{\T d_{\R\sigma}(t) d_{\R\sigma'}^\dagger}_0
=-\frac{\I}{\hbar}\Braket{\T d_{\R\sigma}(t) d_{\R\sigma}^\dagger}_0\delta_{\sigma\sigma'}
,
\end{align}
where $\T$ is the time-ordering operator on the Keldysh contour, and $\Braket{\cdots}_0$ denotes an equilibrium statistical average in $\mathcal{H}_\L^\ad+\mathcal{H}_\R$.
Since $\hat g_\L(t)$ is the diagonal matrix in spin-space, $\hat g_\L(t)$ and Berry's phase factors commute. Thus, $\hat G^<_{\L\R}(t,t)$ reduces to
\begin{align}
\hat G^<_{\L\R}(t,t)
=-T_{\L\R}
\int\frac{\D E}{2\pi\hbar}
\int\frac{\D E'}{2\pi\hbar}
\E^{-\I E' t/\hbar}
\hat U_\L^\dagger(t)
\hat g_\L(E)
\hat U_\L(t)
\hat A(t,E')
\hat U_\R^\dagger
\hat g_\R(E-E')
\hat U_\R\biggr|^<,\label{eq:lesser2}
\end{align}
where we employ the Fourier transform of a function $f(t)$ with respect to $t$, defined by the relation
\begin{align}
f(E):=\int \D t\E^{\I Et/\hbar} f(t).
\end{align}
$E'$ in eq. (\ref{eq:lesser2}) represents the energy that an electron obtains from the dynamics of the magnetization;
we consider it in the first order:
\begin{align}
\hat G^<_{\L\R}(t,t)\simeq -T_{\L\R}
\int\frac{\D E}{2\pi\hbar}
\hat U_\L^\dagger(t)
\hat g_\L(E)
\hat U_\L(t)
\hat U_\R^\dagger
\hat g_\R(E)
\hat U_\R
\biggr|^<\notag\\
-T_{\L\R}
\int\frac{\D E}{2\pi\hbar}
\hat U_\L^\dagger(t)
\hat g_\L(E)
\hat U_\L(t)
\frac{\hbar}{\I}
\left.\frac{\D \hat A(t,t')}{\D t'}\right|_{t'=t}
\hat U_\R^\dagger
\frac{\D\hat g_\R(E)}{\D E}
\hat U_\R
\biggr|^<.
\end{align}
Then, using the relations
\begin{align}
\frac{\hbar}{\I}
\frac{\D \hat A(t,t')}{\D t'}\biggr|_{t'=t}
&=
\frac{\hbar}{2}\hat\SIG\cdot\bm M_\L(t)\times\frac{\D \bm M_\L(t)}{\D t},\\
\hat U_\L^\dagger(t)
\hat g_\L(E)
\hat U_\L(t)
&=
\hat 1 \bar g_\L(E)+\hat\SIG\cdot\bm M_\L(t)\varDelta g_\L(E),\\
\hat U_\R^\dagger
\hat g_\R(E)
\hat U_\R
&=
\hat 1 \bar g_\R(E)+\hat\SIG\cdot\bm M_\R\varDelta g_\R(E),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\bar g_{\L (\R)}(E)&:=\frac{1}{2}\tr\hat g_{\L (\R)}(E)=\frac{\left[\hat g_{\L (\R)}(E)\right]_{\uparrow\uparrow}
+\left[\hat g_{\L (\R)}(E)\right]_{\downarrow\downarrow}
}{2},\\
\varDelta g_{\L (\R)}(E)&:=\frac{1}{2}\tr\hat\sigma^z\hat g_{\L (\R)}(E)
=\frac{\left[\hat g_{\L (\R)}(E)\right]_{\uparrow\uparrow}
-\left[\hat g_{\L (\R)}(E)\right]_{\downarrow\downarrow}
}{2}
,
\end{align}
we can decompose $\hat G^<_{\L\R}(t,t)$ into two terms:
\begin{align}
\hat G^<_{\L\R}(t,t)=\hat 1 G^<_{\L\R}(t,t)+\hat\SIG\cdot \bm G^<_{\L\R}(t,t).
\end{align}
Here we define
\begin{align}
G^<_{\L\R}(t,t)&:=
-T_{\L\R}\int\frac{\D E}{2\pi\hbar}\Biggl[
\bar g_\L(E)\bar g_\R(E)+\bm M_\L(t)\cdot\bm M_\R\varDelta g_\L(E)\varDelta g_\R(E)\notag\\
&+\frac{\hbar}{2}\bm M_\L(t)\times\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\cdot\bm M_\R\bar g_\L(E)\frac{\D\varDelta g_\R(E)}{\D E}
-\I\frac{\hbar}{2}\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\cdot\bm M_\R\varDelta g_\L(E)\frac{\D\varDelta g_\R(E)}{\D E}
\Biggr]^<,\\
\bm G^<_{\L\R}(t,t)&:=
-T_{\L\R}\int\frac{\D E}{2\pi\hbar}\Biggl[
\bm M_\L(t)\varDelta g_\L(E)\bar g_\R(E)+\bm M_\R\bar g_\L(E)\varDelta g_\R(E)
+\I\bm M_\L(t)\times\bm M_\R\varDelta g_\L(E)\varDelta g_\R(E)\notag\\
&+\frac{\hbar}{2}\bm M_\L(t)\times\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\bar g_\L(E)\frac{\D \bar g_\R(E)}{\D E}
-
\I\frac{\hbar}{2}\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\varDelta g_\L(E)\frac{\D \bar g_\R(E)}{\D E}
\notag\\
&+
\I\frac{\hbar}{2}\left\{\bm M_\L(t)\times\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\right\}\times\bm M_\R\bar g_\L(E)\frac{\D \varDelta g_\R(E)}{\D E}
+
\frac{\hbar}{2}\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\times\bm M_\R\varDelta g_\L(E)\frac{\D \varDelta g_\R(E)}{\D E}
\Biggr]^<.
\end{align}
$I^\E(t)$ and $\bm I^\ss(T)$ are expressed in terms of $G^<_{\L\R}(t,t)$ and $\bm G^<_{\L\R}(t,t)$ as follows:
\begin{align}
I^\E(t)&=4\Re T_{\R\L} G^<_{\L\R}(t,t),\\
\bm I^\ss(t)&=4\Re T_{\R\L}\bm G^<_{\L\R}(t,t).
\end{align}
Finally, taking the lesser components, we obtain the following in the low-temperature limit:
\begin{align}
I^\E(t)
&=
2\pi
\abs{T_{\L\R}}^2\Biggl\{
\bar \rho_\L(\mu)\varDelta \rho_\R(\mu)
\bm M_\L(t)\times\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\cdot\bm M_\R\notag\\
&-
\int^\mu\D E \Biggl[\varDelta \rho_\L(E)\frac{\D \varDelta \chi_\R(E)}{\D E}-
\frac{\D\varDelta \chi_\L(E)}{\D E}\varDelta \rho_\R(E)
\Biggr]
\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\cdot\bm M_\R
\Biggr\},\label{eq:chargecurrent}\\
\bm I^\ss(t)
&=
\frac{4\pi\abs{T_{\L\R}}^2}{\hbar}
\int^\mu\D E
\bigl[
\varDelta \rho_\L(E) \varDelta \chi_\R(E)
+
\varDelta \chi_\L(E) \varDelta \rho_\R(E)
\bigr]
\bm M_\L(t)\times\bm M_\R
\notag\\
&+
\frac{4\pi\abs{T_{\L\R}}^2}{\hbar}
\Biggl\{
\bar \rho_\L(\mu)\bar \rho_\R(\mu)\frac{\hbar}{2}\bm M_\L(t)\times\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\notag\\
&-\int^\mu\D E\Biggl[\varDelta \rho_\L(E)\frac{\D \bar \chi_\R(E)}{\D E}-\frac{\D\varDelta \chi_\L(E)}{\D E}\bar \rho_\R(E)\Biggr]\frac{\hbar}{2}\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\notag\\
&+\int^\mu\D E\Biggl[\bar \rho_\L(E)\frac{\D \varDelta \chi_\R(E)}{\D E}-\frac{\D \bar \chi_\L(E)}{\D E}\varDelta \rho_\R(E)\Biggr]\frac{\hbar}{2}\Biggl[\bm M_\L(t)\times\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\Biggr]\times\bm M_\R
\notag\\
&+\varDelta \rho_\L(\mu)\varDelta \rho_\R(\mu)\frac{\hbar}{2}\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\times\bm M_\R\Biggr\}\label{eq:spincurrent},
\end{align}
Here $\mu$ is the chemical potential of the system. $\bar\rho_{\L (\R)}(E)$ and $\varDelta\rho_{\L (\R)}(E)$ are the spin-averaged local density of states (DOS) and the spin polarization of the local DOS, respectively, at the LHS (RHS) layer surface, defined by
\begin{align}
\bar\rho_{\L (\R)}(E)&:=-\frac{1}{\pi}\Im\bar g^\mathrm{r}_{\L (\R)}(E),\\
\varDelta\rho_{\L (\R)}(E)&:=-\frac{1}{\pi}\Im\varDelta g^\mathrm{r}_{\L (\R)}(E),
\end{align}
where $g^\mathrm{r}$'s are retarded Green's functions from the calculations taking the lesser component.
Furthermore, the $\chi$'s are defined as the real parts of the retarded Green's functions,
\begin{align}
\bar\chi_{\L (\R)}(E)&:=\frac{1}{\pi}\Re\bar g^\mathrm{r}_{\L (\R)}(E),\\
\varDelta\chi_{\L (\R)}(E)&:=\frac{1}{\pi}\Re\varDelta g^\mathrm{r}_{\L (\R)}(E).
\end{align}
\section{Discussion and Summary}
\subsection{Charge current}
The form $A[\bm M_\L(t)\times\dot{\bm M}_\L(t)]\cdot\bm M_\R+B\dot{\bm M}_\L(t)\cdot\bm M_\R$ of the charge current
{(eq. (\ref{eq:chargecurrent}))
driven by the magnetization dynamics
is consistent with previous works;
The first term tends to the form given by Tserkovnyak {\it et al.}\cite{PhysRevB.78.020401} in the special case where $\bm M_\L(t)$ precesses around $\bm M_\R$, as discussed in \S\ref{sec:EFA}.
And Xiao {\it et al.}\cite{PhysRevB.77.180407} have derived the same form for the charge current passing through the MTJ on the basis of scattering theory in the continuum space,
whereas, we calculate the current on the basis of the tight-binding model.
New insights which we found out in this study are as follows.}
If the electronic structure in the two layers of the MTJ is the same [i.e., $\varDelta\rho_\L(E)=\varDelta\rho_\R(E)$ and $\varDelta\chi_\L(E)=\varDelta\chi_\R(E)$]
or
both layers are insulators,
we have $B=0$.
However, if either layer is metallic, finite $B$ should be measured because the real part of the retarded Green's function remains finite, which reflects virtual transitions through forbidden bands.
The term $[\bm M_\L(t)\times\dot{\bm M}_\L(t)]\cdot\bm M_\R$ in eq. (\ref{eq:chargecurrent}) represents the charge current driven by the effective electric field (i.e., the spin electric field), as mentioned in \S\ref{sec:EFA}.
In other words, the effective electrochemical potential of the free layer is changed by the dynamics of $\bm M_\L(t)$, and
the resultant difference in electrochemical potentials between the two layers manifests as a bias voltage\cite{PhysRevB.78.020401}.
This situation may be realized when a barrier exists between the electrode and lead,
or when the diffusion constant of the free layer is small enough to maintain the changed effective chemical potential.
Otherwise, this charge current will flow back to the reservoir connected to the free layer without tunneling through the barrier of the MTJ.
\subsection{Spin current}
The term $\bm M_\L(t)\times\bm M_\R$ in eq. (\ref{eq:spincurrent}) represents the static effective Heisenberg coupling between $\bm M_\L(t)$ and $\bm M_\R$.
That is, the equation of motion for $\bm M_\L(t)$ described by this spin current corresponds to the equation $\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}=\frac{J_\mathrm{eff}}{\hbar |\bm S_\L(t)|}\bm M_\L(t)\times\bm M_\R$ [$\bm S_\L(t)$ is defined by eq. (\ref{eq:SL})].
This affords a Heisenberg coupling energy of $-J_\mathrm{eff}\bm M_\L(t)\cdot\bm M_\R$,
where
\begin{align}
J_\mathrm{eff}&:=-4\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2\int^\mu\D E
\left[
\varDelta \rho_\L(E) \varDelta \chi_\R(E)
+
\varDelta \chi_\L(E) \varDelta \rho_\R(E)
\right]\\
&=
\frac{1}{\pi}\int^\mu\D E\Im G^{\mathrm{r}\uparrow}_{\L\R}(E)\Delta_\R (E) G_{\R\L}^{\mathrm{r}\downarrow}(E)\Delta_\L(E),\\
G^{\mathrm{r}\sigma}_{ij}(E)&:=g_{i\sigma}^\mathrm{r}(E)T_{ij}g_{j\sigma}^\mathrm{r}(E),\\
\Delta_i(E)&:=g_{i\uparrow}^\mathrm{r}(E)^{-1}-g_{i\downarrow}^\mathrm{r}(E)^{-1}.
\end{align}
$\Delta_i(E)$ describes the exchange splitting at site $i$, and this result agrees with the expression presented by Liechtenstein {\it et al.}\cite{Liechtenstein198765}
Let us consider the term $\bm M_\L\times\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}$ in eq. (\ref{eq:spincurrent}):
\begin{align}
2\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2\bar\rho_\L(\mu) \bar\rho_\R(\mu)\bm M_\L(t)\times\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}
=
\frac{\hbar}{2e^2}\bar\Gamma\bm M_\L(t)\times\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t},
\end{align}
where {$e>0$ is the elementary charge and} $\bar\Gamma$ is the tunnel conductance of the MTJ,
\begin{align}
\bar\Gamma:=\frac{4\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2e^2}{\hbar}\bar\rho_\L(\mu) \bar\rho_\R(\mu).
\end{align}
This term describes the spin pumping in the MTJ and affords the following microscopic expression for the enhanced Gilbert damping constant:
\begin{align}
\varDelta\alpha=\frac{\hbar}{2e^2}\frac{\bar\Gamma}{|\bm S_\L(t)|}\label{eq:dalpha},
\end{align}
where $\bm S_\L(t)$ is the total spin polarization of the electrons in the LHS layer,
\begin{align}
\bm S_\L(t):=2\sum_{i\in\LHS}\int^\mu\D E\varDelta\rho_i(E)\bm M_\L(t)\label{eq:SL}.
\end{align}
Equation (\ref{eq:dalpha}) agrees with the corrected Gilbert damping constant derived by Zhang {\it et al.}\cite{PhysRevLett.102.086601} phenomenologically after considering the effect of the spin electric field induced by the dynamic magnetization.
In addition, in the present formulation, from the fact that $\varDelta\alpha$ vanishes if one ignores Berry's phase (\ref{eq:berry})\cite{miura:07C909}, it follows that one of the origins of spin pumping is the spin electric field.
As a consequence of this, $\varDelta\alpha$ is proportional to the conductance $\bar\Gamma$.
The size dependence of $\varDelta\alpha$ can be described as follows:
\begin{align}
\varDelta\alpha\propto \frac{1}{{\lambda}},
\end{align}
{where $\lambda$ is thickness of the free layer,} because $|\bm S_\L(t)|$ is roughly proportional to the volume of the free layer, and $\bar \Gamma$ to the cross-sectional area of the barrier.
\subsection{Analysis of effective field}\label{sec:EFA}
For a more transparent physical interpretation of the currents, we rewrite eqs. (\ref{eq:chargecurrent}) and (\ref{eq:spincurrent}) as follows:
\begin{align}
-e I^\E(t)&=\sum_{\sigma=\pm 1}\left[
\Gamma_\sigma^\R\bm\varepsilon_\sigma^1(t)+\gamma_\sigma^\L\bm\varepsilon_\sigma^2(t)
\right]\cdot\bm M_\R,\label{eq:chargecurrent2}\\
-e\bm I^\ss(t)&=\left[\frac{eJ_\mathrm{eff}}{\hbar}\bm M_\L(t)-\varDelta\Gamma\frac{\hbar}{2e}\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}\right]\times\bm M_\R\notag\\
&+
\sum_{\sigma=\pm 1}\sigma\Bigl\{
\Gamma_\sigma^\R\bm \varepsilon_\sigma^1(t)
+
\Bigl[
\gamma_\sigma^\L
\bm\varepsilon_\sigma^2(t)
\cdot
\bm M_\R
\Bigr]
\bm M_\L(t)
-
\Bigl[
\gamma_\sigma^\R
+\bm M_\L(t)\cdot\bm M_\R\gamma_\sigma^\L
\Bigr]
\bm \varepsilon_\sigma^2(t)
\Bigr\},\label{eq:spincurrent2}
\end{align}
where the ``conductances'' are defined by
\begin{align}
\Gamma_\sigma^\R&:=\frac{2\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2e^2\bar\rho_\L(\mu)\rho_{\R\sigma}(\mu)}{\hbar},\\
\varDelta\Gamma&:=\frac{4\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2e^2\varDelta\rho_\L(\mu)\varDelta\rho_{\R}(\mu)}{\hbar},\\
\gamma_\sigma^{\L}&:=-\frac{2\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2e^2}{\hbar}\int^\mu\D E\left[\rho_{\L\sigma}(E)\frac{\D\varDelta\chi_\R (E)}{\D E}-\frac{\D\chi_{\L\sigma}(E)}{\D E}\varDelta\rho_{\R}(E)\right],\\
\gamma_\sigma^{\R}&:=-\frac{2\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2e^2}{\hbar}\int^\mu\D E\left[\rho_{\R\sigma}(E)\frac{\D\varDelta\chi_\L (E)}{\D E}-\frac{\D\chi_{\R\sigma}(E)}{\D E}\varDelta\rho_{\L}(E)\right],
\end{align}
and the effective driving fields can be defined by
\begin{align}
\bm \varepsilon^1_\sigma(t)&:=-\frac{\sigma\hbar}{2e}\bm M_\L(t)\times\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t},\\
\bm \varepsilon^2_\sigma(t)&:=-\frac{\sigma\hbar}{2e}\frac{\D\bm M_\L(t)}{\D t}.
\end{align}
The conductances represented by a capital letter denote the ``Fermi surface terms,'' whereas those represented by a small letter denote the ``Fermi sea terms.''
The spin-dependent effective voltage $\bm\varepsilon^1_\sigma(t)\cdot\bm M_\R$ in eq. (\ref{eq:chargecurrent2}) just corresponds to the spin electric field between the layers.
To compare the expressions obtained in continuous space and in discrete space, let us define the correspondences
$\bm M(\bm r,t):=\bm M_\L(t)$ and $\bm M(\bm r+\varDelta\bm r,t):=\bm M_\R$,
where $\varDelta\bm r$ denotes the barrier thickness.
Then we find
$\bm\varepsilon^1_\sigma(t)\cdot\bm M_\R\simeq\varDelta r^i \left(-\frac{\sigma\hbar}{2e}\right)\frac{\partial\bm M(\bm r,t)}{\partial t}\times\frac{\partial\bm M(\bm r,t)}{\partial x^i}\cdot\bm M(\bm r,t)$, which is well-known as the spin electric field.
When $\bm M_\L(t)$ steadily precess about the direction of $\bm M_\R$ with a constant cone angle $\theta$ and a constant frequency $\omega$,
the voltage is time-independent:
\begin{align}
\bm\varepsilon^1_\sigma(t)\cdot\bm M_\R=-\sigma\frac{\hbar\omega}{2e}\sin^2\theta,
\end{align}
This affords an estimate $\hbar\omega/2e\sim 20$ $\mu$V at $10$ GHz. The Fermi sea term in eq. (\ref{eq:chargecurrent2}) vanishes in this case.
This result is in good agreement with that of {Xiao {\it et al.}\cite{PhysRevB.77.180407} and} Tserkovnyak {\it et al.}\cite{PhysRevB.78.020401}
Note that in general the Fermi sea term is certainly the ac current.
Next, let us consider the spin current (\ref{eq:spincurrent2}).
The terms including $\Gamma_\sigma^\R\bm \varepsilon_\sigma^1(t)+\Bigl[\gamma_\sigma^\L\bm\varepsilon_\sigma^2(t)\cdot\bm M_\R\Bigr]\bm M_\L(t)$
describe the spin transport due to the spin $\sigma$ component of the charge current.
By considering $\bm\varepsilon^2_\sigma(t)$ as a driving force,
we can interpret the term $\left[
\gamma_\sigma^\R
+\bm M_\L(t)\cdot\bm M_\R\gamma_\sigma^\L
\right]
\bm \varepsilon_\sigma^2(t)$ as the ``tunneling magnetoresistance (TMR) effect'' in spin transport.
\subsection{Effects of bias voltage}
Finally, we consider the charge and spin transport in the presence of a bias voltage $V(t)$ across the MTJ.
In Berry's adiabatic approximation under the assumption $J_\L\gg e|V(t)|$,
the effects of $V(t)$ can be included by replacing eq. (\ref{eq:ad}) with
\begin{align}
c_i(t)&\simeq \E^{-\frac{\I e}{\hbar}\int\D t V(t)}\hat U_\L(t)\E^{\I\gamma(t)\hat\sigma^z} d_i\for{i\in\LHS}.
\end{align}
In the first order in $\frac{\D V(t)}{\D t}$,
the effective exchange constant and conductances differ as follows:
\begin{align}
J_\mathrm{eff}&\to J_\mathrm{eff}+(\gamma_\uparrow^\L-\gamma_\downarrow^\L)\frac{\hbar}{e}V(t)+\varDelta\Gamma\frac{\hbar^2}{2e}\frac{\D}{\D\mu}\ln\left[\frac{\varDelta\rho_\L(\mu)}{\varDelta\rho_\R(\mu)}\right]\frac{\D V(t)}{\D t},\\
\Gamma_\sigma^\R&\to\Gamma_\sigma^\R
\left\{
1-\frac{\D}{\D\mu}\ln\left[\frac{\bar\rho_\L(\mu)}{\rho_{\R\sigma}(\mu)}\right]eV(t)
-\int^\mu\D E\frac{\bar\rho_\L(E)\frac{\D^3\chi_{\R\sigma}(E)}{\D E^3}
-
\frac{\D^3\bar\chi_{{\L}}(E)}{\D E^3}\rho_{{\R}\sigma}(E)
}{\bar\rho_\L(\mu)\rho_{\R\sigma}(\mu)}
\frac{e\hbar}{2}\frac{\D V(t)}{\D t}
\right\},\\
\varDelta\Gamma&\to\varDelta\Gamma
\left\{1
-\frac{\D}{\D\mu}\ln\left[\frac{\varDelta\rho_\L(\mu)}{\varDelta\rho_\R(\mu)}\right]eV(t)
-\int^\mu\D E\frac{\varDelta\rho_\L(E)\frac{\D^3\varDelta\chi_{\R}(E)}{\D E^3}
-
\frac{\D^3\varDelta\chi_{{\L}}(E)}{\D E^3}\varDelta\rho_{{\R}}(E)
}{\varDelta\rho_\L(\mu)\varDelta\rho_\R(\mu)}
\frac{e\hbar}{2}\frac{\D V(t)}{\D t},
\right\}
\\
\gamma_\sigma^\L&\to\gamma_\sigma^\L-\frac{2\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2 e^2}{\hbar}\int^\mu\D E\left[\rho_{\L\sigma}(E)\frac{\D^2\varDelta\chi_\R(E)}{\D E^2}+\frac{\D^2\chi_{\L\sigma}(E)}{\D E^2}\varDelta\rho_\R(E)\right]eV(t)
\notag\\
&+\frac{2\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2e^2}{\hbar}
\left[
\frac{\D\rho_{\L\sigma}(\mu)}{\D \mu}\frac{\D\varDelta\rho_{\R}(\mu)}{\D \mu}
-
\frac{\D^2\rho_{\L\sigma}(\mu)}{\D \mu^2}\varDelta\rho_{\R}(\mu)
-
\rho_{\L\sigma}(\mu)\frac{\D^2\varDelta\rho_{\R}(\mu)}{\D \mu^2}
\right]\frac{e\hbar}{2}\frac{\D V(t)}{\D t},\\
\gamma_\sigma^\R&\to\gamma_\sigma^\R
-\frac{2\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2 e^2}{\hbar}\int^\mu\D E\left[\rho_{\R\sigma}(E)\frac{\D^2\varDelta\chi_\L(E)}{\D E^2}+\frac{\D^2\chi_{\R\sigma}(E)}{\D E^2}\varDelta\rho_\L(E)\right]eV(t)
\notag\\
&+\frac{2\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2e^2}{\hbar}
\left[
\frac{\D\rho_{\R\sigma}(\mu)}{\D \mu}\frac{\D\varDelta\rho_{\L}(\mu)}{\D \mu}
-
\frac{\D^2\rho_{\R\sigma}(\mu)}{\D \mu^2}\varDelta\rho_{\L}(\mu)
-
\rho_{\R\sigma}(\mu)\frac{\D^2\varDelta\rho_{\L}(\mu)}{\D \mu^2}
\right]\frac{e\hbar}{2}\frac{\D V(t)}{\D t}.
\end{align}
\normalsize
In addition,
a term describing the TMR effect,
\begin{align}
&\frac{1}{e}\left[\bar\Gamma
+\varDelta\Gamma\bm M_\L(t)\cdot\bm M_\R
\right] V(t)
+
\frac{1}{-e}\left[
\bar\gamma
+
\varDelta\gamma
\bm M_\L(t)\cdot\bm M_\R
\right]\frac{\hbar}{2}\frac{\D V(t)}{\D t}
\end{align}
appears in the charge current, where
\begin{align*}
\bar\gamma&:=\frac{4\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2e^2}{\hbar}\int^\mu \D E\left[
\bar\rho_\L(E)\frac{\D^2\bar\chi_\R(E)}{\D E^2}
+
\frac{\D^2 \bar\chi_\L(E)}{\D E^2}\bar\rho_\R(E)\right],
\\
\varDelta\gamma&:=
\frac{4\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2e^2}{\hbar}
\int^\mu \D E\left[
\varDelta\rho_\L(E)\frac{\D^2\varDelta\chi_\R(E)}{\D E^2}
+
\frac{\D^2 \varDelta\chi_\L(E)}{\D E^2}\varDelta\rho_\R(E)
\right].
\end{align*}
For the spin current, a term describing the STT effect,
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{e}\left[(\Gamma_\uparrow^\L-\Gamma_\downarrow^\L)V(t)-(\gamma_\uparrow^\R+\gamma_\downarrow^\R)\frac{\hbar}{2e}\frac{\D V(t)}{\D t}\right]\bm M_\L(t)
+
\frac{1}{e}\left[(\Gamma_\uparrow^\R-\Gamma_\downarrow^\R)V(t)+(\gamma_\uparrow^\L+\gamma_\downarrow^\L)\frac{\hbar}{2e}\frac{\D V(t)}{\D t}\right]\bm M_\R
\end{align*}
is added, where
\begin{align}
\Gamma_\sigma^\L&:=\frac{2\pi|T_{\L\R}|^2e^2\rho_{\L\sigma}(\mu)\bar\rho_\R(\mu)}{\hbar}.
\end{align}
Then for the Gilbert damping,
since $\bar\Gamma=\Gamma_\uparrow^\R+\Gamma_\downarrow^\R$,
$\varDelta\alpha$ changes as follows:
\begin{align}
\varDelta\alpha&\to
\varDelta\alpha\left[1-\frac{\D}{\D\mu}\ln\left\{\frac{\bar\rho_\L(\mu)}{\bar\rho_\R(\mu)}\right\} eV(t)
-\int^\mu\D E\frac{
\bar\rho_\L(E)\frac{\D^3\bar\chi_{\R}(E)}{\D E^3}
-
\frac{\D^3\bar\chi_{{\L}}(E)}{\D E^3}\bar\rho_{{\R}}(E)
}{
\bar\rho_\L(\mu)\bar\rho_\R(\mu)
}
\frac{e\hbar}{2}\frac{\D V(t)}{\D t}
\right].
\end{align}
This result indicates that when writing data to an STT MRAM cell, the damping of the magnetization dynamics is influenced by not only the spin pumping but also the bias voltage.
However, the effect of the bias voltage on $\varDelta\alpha$ vanishes when both electrodes have the same electronic structure.
In summary, we derived, at the microscopic level, the charge and spin currents passing through an MTJ in response to arbitrary motion of the magnetization in the free layer.
The charge current consists of both Fermi surface and Fermi sea terms.
The Fermi surface term is driven by the spin electric field and manifests as a dc current for steady precession of $\bm M_\L(t)$ in the direction of $\bm M_\R$,
whereas the Fermi sea term is due to virtual transitions and essentially manifests as the ac current.
With regard to spin transport, we focused particularly on the enhanced Gilbert damping (or the spin pumping effect) and
thus obtained the microscopic expression for the enhanced Gilbert damping constant $\varDelta\alpha=\frac{\hbar}{2e^2}\frac{\bar\Gamma}{|\bm S_\L(t)|}$.
Under a bias voltage, the DOSs of the two layers in the MTJ are shifted.
Thus, the bias voltage changes the effective exchange constant and the conductances,
thus producing modulation of $\varDelta\alpha$. All the conductances consist of the tunneling amplitude $T_{\L\R}$ and the local DOS on the surfaces of the layers;
the real part of a retarded Green's function can be obtained from the imaginary part (namely, the local DOS) via the Kramers--Kronig relationship.
In this formulation, the properties of the barrier layer material are considered in the local DOS, which can be easily obtained by first-principles calculations.
\bibliographystyle{jpsj}
|
\section{Introduction}
The properties of both the pure and disordered Bose-Hubbard (BH) model
were first elucidated in a remarkably insightful paper by Fisher
{\it et al.}~\cite{Fisher89}. For the case of a pure (or homogeneous) system, it
was shown that a collection of interacting bosons on a lattice
undergoes a Mott insulator (MI) to superfluid (SF)
transition as the ratio $J/U$ is varied, where $J$ characterizes
the rate of hopping from one lattice site to another, and $U$ represents
the interaction between two bosons residing on a given site. The
insulating phase appears as lobes in the $\mu/U$ vs. $J/U$ plane,
where $\mu$ is the chemical potential, within which the average
occupancy per site takes on an integral value. Outside these
bounded regions, the system is a superfluid characterized by a nonzero
condensate order parameter, and the density varies continuously
with the system parameters.
The BH model became particularly germane with the advent of trapped
Bose gases and Jaksch {\it et al.}~\cite{Jaksch98} proposed that
the model would provide a realistic theoretical description of
bosons residing in an optical lattice. They obtained estimates of
the parameters appearing in the BH model and argued that the model
is relevant to the physical systems experimentally accessible.
Subsequent experiments~\cite{Bloch} indeed showed that trapped
Bose gases are
an ideal setting within which to study the theoretically predicted
MI-SF transition.
Many theoretical studies of the BH model followed the original
Fisher {\it et al.} paper~\cite{Fisher89} using a variety of
theoretical methods
and approximations and the properties of the transition in one,
two and three dimensions are now well
established~\cite{Batrouni92,Freericks96,Kuhner98,Rousseau06,Sansone07,
Sansone08,Santos09, Teichmann09}. Apart from the considerable
work done on the disordered BH
model~\cite{Fisher89,Batrouni92,Freericks96,Bissbort10,Pisarski11},
the model has also been extended to
superlattices~\cite{Rousseau06,Roth03,Buonsante04a,Buonsante04b,
Buonsante05a,Buonsante05b,Deng08,Hen09,Hen10,Chen10}, spinor
condensates~\cite{Svidzinsky03,Tsuchiya04,Rizzi05},
multi-component systems~\cite{Kuklov04,Isacsson05a,Iskin10,Chen10}
and multiband situations~\cite{Isacsson05b,Larson09,Mering11}.
With increasing complexity,
the MI-SF phase diagram becomes increasingly richer in structure.
One of the most useful theoretical approaches for obtaining a
qualitative understanding of the MI-SF transition is mean-field
theory which was originally motivated by considering the
infinite-range hopping limit~\cite{Fisher89}. Subsequent reformulations of
mean-field theory~\cite{Sheshadri93,Vanoosten01} invoked the existence
of a condensate order
parameter which was used to decouple the nonlocal hopping term of
the BH Hamiltonian. In its simplest form, which we refer to as the
site-decoupled mean-field theory (SDMFT), the decoupling leads to a
system Hamiltonian consisting of a sum
of site Hamiltonians. The latter are effectively independent but
depend on the order parameter, in general site-dependent, which
can be thought of as a variational parameter. For a homogeneous
lattice, the ground state of the system is determined by
minimizing the system energy with respect to the
order parameter. If the energy is minimized for
a non-zero value of the order parameter, the system is in the SF
phase, otherwise it is in the MI phase. The phase boundaries
obtained using this approach are consistent with the results of
more sophisticated approaches. It can be shown~\cite{Sheshadri93}
that SDMFT is
equivalent to the alternative starting point based on the
Gutzwiller ansatz for the ground-state wave
function~\cite{Rokhsar91,Krauth92}.
One of the limitations of the SDMFT is the neglect of inter-site
correlations which allow for fluctuations of various physical
variables. For example, in the MI phase of a homogeneous system,
the site occupancy is precisely integral, whereas in reality some
(albeit small) fluctuations in the site occupancy must occur.
These effects can be captured, at least to some extent, by
dividing the system into clusters
of arbitrary size and using mean-field theory to decouple the
clusters. We refer to theories of this kind as multi-site
mean-field theories (MSMFT) and in this paper, explore this
approximation for various situations. This approach has been used
previously by Buonsante {\it et
al.}~\cite{Buonsante04a,Buonsante05a} to study the MI-SF transition
in superlattices where novel (loophole)
features emerge and in an investigation
of the disorderd BH model \cite{Pisarski11}. It should be
noted that a two-site mean-field theory was also introduced
in~\cite{Jain04} using the so-called phase-space method.
The main purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed derivation
of the MSMFT and to
explain how it can be used to systematically improve the quality
of the results for the MI-SF phase boundary. It should be
emphasized at the outset that the method cannot compete in a
quantitative sense with more sophisticated methods such as
quantum Monte Carlo
(QMC)~\cite{Batrouni92,Rousseau06,Sansone07,Sansone08},
the density-matrix renormalization-group (DMRG)
method~\cite{Kuhner98,Rizzi05} and other theoretical techniques
~\cite{Freericks96,Santos09}.
However, the MSMFT method is relatively straightforward and allows
one to explore efficiently the dependence of its predictions on
the various
parameters which define more complex physical models. In addition,
as stated earlier, it has the merit
of providing useful information about inter-site correlations that
are missed in the SDMFT.
Our paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{1D} we derive the
MSMFT for the simplest case of a one-dimensional lattice where the
definition of clusters used in the multi-site decoupling
is particularly straightforward. The method is extended in Sec.
\ref{2D} to higher dimensions where more freedom is available,
within certain limits, in defining the clusters which cover the
lattice. The MI-SF transition is determined by means of a grand
potential which is a function of the various superfluid order
parameters defined for the cluster. A detailed analysis of the
grand potential leads to two different criteria for the
determination of the phase boundaries.
Our results for the case of homogeneous lattices are
presented in Sec.~\ref{Homogeneous}. In Sec.~\ref{Diatomic
Results} we consider one-dimensional superlattices; the
simplest consists of alternating $A$ and $B$
sites which we refer to as a dimer chain. In this case,
the nonequivalence of the sites requires two
different order parameters for the description of the superfluid
phase. We also consider an example of a four-site superlattice where
qualitative differences appear in the predictions of SDMFT and
MSMFT.
\section{Formalism: Multi-Site Mean-Field Theory}
\subsection{Derivation in One Dimension}
\label{1D}
Our work is based on the BH Hamiltonian~\cite{Jaksch98}
in the grand canonical ensemble. With the assumption of a single
orbital per site, this Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}\label{GCBH}
\hat{\mathcal{K}}=\hat{\mathcal{H}}~-~\mu\hat{\mathcal {N}}=
\sum_{i} \left( \varepsilon_i~-~\mu\right) \hat{n}_{i}
+\frac{1}{2}\sum_i U_i \hat{n}_{i}(\hat{n}_{i}~-~1)
- \sum_{ij} J_{ij} \hat{c}^\dagger_{i} \hat{c}_{j} ,
\end{equation}
where the index $i$ labels the sites of the optical lattice and
$\hat {c}_{i}^\dagger$ and $\hat {c}_{i}$ are site creation and
annihilation operators (henceforth referred to as site
operators), respectively; the number operator for site $i$ is
given by $\hat{n}_{i}=\hat {c}^\dagger_{i}\hat {c}_{i}$. The
system parameters include the on-site energies $\varepsilon_i$
at each lattice site,
the tunnelling energy $J_{ij}$ between sites $i$ and $j$, and the intra-site
interaction energy $U_i$. To a good approximation it is
sufficient to ignore interactions between bosons on different
sites and hopping between sites further apart than the
nearest-neighbour distance~\cite{Jaksch98,Zhou10}. Furthermore, we
will restrict our considerations to the case where the
interaction parameter has a common value $U$ for all sites and a
hopping parameter $J$ for all nearest-neighbour pairs.
Generalizations to more complex situations such as
superlattices~\cite{Buonsante04a,Buonsante04b,Buonsante05a} can
be readily
accommodated in the MSMFT that we develop. The final parameter in
the BH Hamiltonian is the chemical potential $\mu$ which controls
the number of particles in the system. Although extensions to
finite temperatures are certainly feasible~\cite{Buonsante04b},
we will only consider the properties of the BH
Hamiltonian at zero temperature.
The MSMFT~\cite{Buonsante04a} is most easily formulated for the
example of a homogeneous one-dimensional chain
with nearest-neighbour hopping. The on-site energies
$\varepsilon_i$ can be set to zero and the interactions are
taken to be site independent.
The first step in the derivation is to partition a
chain having $N_{s}$ sites into $N_c$ clusters each containing $L$
sites, so that
\begin{equation}
N_{s}=LN_{c}.
\end{equation}
We will refer to the cluster of length $L$ as an ``$L$-mer". A
schematic of the partitioning being considered is shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:Lmers}.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering \scalebox{0.7}
{\includegraphics{fig1.eps}}
\caption{ The partitioning of a one-dimensional chain into linear
clusters of length $L$. Within our mutli-site mean-field
formulation each cluster with open boundary conditions is treated
exactly, and the inter-cluster couplings (generated by the hopping
Hamiltonian) are treated
in a mean-field decoupling approximation.}
\label{fig:Lmers}
\end{figure*}
The hopping part of the Hamiltonian,
$\hat{\mathcal H}_{hop}=-J\sum_{\langle ij \rangle}
\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i}\hat{c}_{j}$, can then be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathcal
H}_{hop}=-J\sum_{j=0}^{N_{c}-1}\sum_{l=1}^{L-1}(\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{Lj
+l}\hat{c}_{Lj+l+1}+\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{Lj+l+1}\hat{c}_{Lj+l}
)-J\sum_{j=0}^{N_{c}-1}(\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{Lj+L}\hat{c}_{Lj+L+1}+\hat{c}
^{\dagger}_{Lj+L+1}\hat{c}_{Lj+L}).
\end{equation}
where we have isolated the terms with $l = L$ in the second sum
which couple sites between adjacent $L$-mers. This term will be
denoted by $\hat{\mathcal H}_{coup}$. We assume periodic
boundary conditions so that $\hat c_{LN_c+1}\equiv \hat c_{1}$.
The coupling between
$L$-mers can be eliminated by invoking the usual
argument~\cite{Sheshadri93,Vanoosten01}. We assume the existence
of a homogenous superfluid order parameter
\begin{equation}\label{orderparamdef}
\psi=\langle \hat{c}_{i} \rangle,
\end{equation}
and write
$\hat{c}_{i}=\psi + (\hat{c}_{i}-\psi)$ for each of the operators
in $\hat{\mathcal H}_{coup}$.
Neglecting quadratic terms in the fluctuation $\delta \hat c_i =
\hat{c}_{i}-\psi$, we find
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathcal
H}_{coup}\simeq -J\sum_{j=0}^{N_{c}-1}\left[
( \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{Lj+L}+\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{L(j+1)+1} ) \psi +
\left ( \hat{c}_{Lj+L} +\hat{c}_{L(j+1)+1}
\right ) \psi^* \right ] +2J N_{c}|\psi|^{2}
\end{equation}
We thus arrive at the cluster-decoupled Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\hat {\cal K} = \sum_{j=0}^{N_c-1} \hat {\cal K}_j^{MF},
\end{equation}
where $\hat {\cal K}_j^{MF}$ only depends on the
site operators within
the $j$-th $L$-mer. Taking $j=0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{KMF1D}
\hat{\mathcal K}_{0}^{MF}=\hat{\mathcal K}^{0}_{L}+\hat{\mathcal
V}^{MF}_{L},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{K01D}
\hat{\mathcal
K}^{0}_{L}=\frac{U}{2}\sum_{l=1}^{L}\hat{n}_{l}(\hat{n}_{l}-1)-\mu\sum_
{l=1}^{L}\hat{n}_{l}-J\sum_{l=1}^{L-1}(\hat{c}_{l}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{l+1
}+\hat{c}_{l+1}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{l}),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{VMF1D}
\hat{\mathcal
V}^{MF}_{L}=-J\left [ \psi(\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{1}+
\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{L} ) + \psi^* \left ( \hat c_1 +
\hat{c}_{L}\right)\right ] +2J|\psi|^{2}.
\end{equation}
The $\psi$-independent operator $\hat{\mathcal K}^{0}_{L}$ is the
Hamiltonian of a one-dimensional chain of length $L$ with open
ends. The different $L$-mers are independent physical systems but are
effectively coupled by means of the order parameter appearing in
the mean-field perturbation $\hat{\mathcal V}^{MF}_{L}$.
It is clear from the form of (\ref{VMF1D}) that the
phase of the order parameter, $\psi = |\psi|\exp{(i\phi)}$,
can be absorbed by a redefinition of the site operators:
$\exp{(-i\phi)}\hat c_l \to \hat
c_l$. The resulting Hamiltonian depends on $|\psi|$ and we
can therefore take the order parameter $\psi$ to be a real,
positive quantity.
The ground state of the system described by a single homogeneous
order parameter can be determined by minimizing
$\hat{\mathcal K}_{0}^{MF}$ with respect to $\psi$ in th $L$-mer
Fock space.
\subsection{MSMFT in Higher Dimensions}
\label{2D}
The extension of the MSMFT to higher dimensions is straightforward,
although some new elements appear due to the freedom available in
partitioning the lattice into clusters. This is illustrated in
Fig. 2(a) for the example of a two-dimensional square lattice. The
figure shows how the lattice can be covered using $L$-mers with
size $L = 1$, 2, 4, 5 and 6. It is clearly necessary that these
clusters cover the entire lattice without duplication. It is also
desirable that they have the same point-group symmetry as the
original lattice. The examples $L=1$, 4 and 9 satisfy this
latter criterion. The $L=5$ cluster has the point-group symmetry of the
square lattice, but its covering of the 2D plane introduces a
chirality not present in the homogeneous system.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig2.eps}
\caption{
The partitioning of a two-dimensional square lattice using various
repeated clusters. Shown in (a)
are single site monomers, dimers ($L=2$), and $L$-mers for
$L=4$, 5, 6.
Shown in (b) is a portion of a
two-dimensional square lattice that is partitioned into
$3\times 3$ clusters. The solid lines connect sites in a given cluster,
dotted lines show the division of the lattice into such clusters,
and the dashed lines show the inter-cluster couplings that are treated
within mean-field theory. In each cluster there are three inequivalent
sites: the central site $C$, which does not couple to neighbouring
clusters, and corner and edge sites, which respectively are
labelled $A$ and $B$.}
\label{fig:3x3}
\end{figure*}
Although we develop the MSMFT in its most general form, it will be
useful to keep in mind the example of a two-dimensional square
lattice with the 3$\times$3 clusters shown in Fig. 2(b). The sites
in the lattice can be specified by ${\bf R} + \boldsymbol{\tau}$, where
${\bf R}$ is a cluster Bravais lattice vector and $\boldsymbol{\tau}$
defines the basis of sites within the cluster. For the example of
Fig. 2(b), $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ runs over the nine sites of the 3$\times$3
clusters. A site on the boundary of a cluster will be denoted by
$\alpha$ and is connected, via $J$, to one or more boundary sites on
adjacent clusters. The mean-field decoupling of the hopping term
for the boundary site $\alpha$ in the $L$-mer and the boundary
site $\beta'$ of the
adjoining $L'$-mer is achieved using the prescription
\begin{equation}\label{mfterm}
\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\alpha}\hat{c}_{\beta'}+\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\beta'}\hat{c}_{\alpha}
\rightarrow
\psi_{\beta}\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\alpha}
+ \psi_{\beta}^*\hat{c}_{\alpha}
+ \psi_{\alpha}\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\beta'}
+ \psi_{\alpha}^*\hat{c}_{\beta'}
-\psi_\alpha^* \psi_{\beta}-\psi_\alpha \psi_{\beta}^*.
\end{equation}
In general, we allow for different order parameters for each of the
boundary sites. Since the $\beta'$ site in th $L'$-mer is related
to the $\beta$ site in the $L$-mer by
translational symmetry, we have denoted
the order parameter on this site as $\psi_\beta$.
(For example, the sites $A'_1$ and
$A_1$ in Fig. 2(b) must have the same order parameter by
translational symmetry.)
For now, we have also allowed the
order parameters to be complex. Collecting all terms pertaining to
the $L$-mer, the mean-field decoupling leads to the $L$-mer
mean-field perturbation
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathcal V}^{MF}_L(\{\psi_\alpha\}) \equiv -\sum_{\alpha\beta}
J_{\alpha\beta}
\left ( \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} \psi_\beta
+ \hat{c}_{\alpha}\psi_\beta^*
- \psi_\alpha^* \psi_\beta \right ),
\label{MFP}
\end{equation}
where the sums extend over all boundary sites. To obtain this form
we have defined the symmetric matrix $\undertilde J$ with matrix
elements $J_{\alpha\beta} \equiv Jg_{\alpha\beta}$ where
$g_{\alpha\beta}$ is the number of clusters to which the $L$-mer of
interest is connected by a pair of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ sites in
the way described above. If such a pair of sites is not coupled,
$g_{\alpha\beta} =0$. We will refer to $\undertilde J$ as the {\it
connectivity} matrix, since it encapsulates the way in which the
different sites in the cluster are connected to one another
via the mean-field couplings~\cite{footnote}.
The perturbation in (\ref{MFP}) depends on the set of order parameters
$\{\psi_\alpha\}$ defined for the ensemble of boundary sites.
The cluster Hamiltonian then takes the general form
\begin{equation}\label{KMF}
\hat{\mathcal K}^{MF}(\{\psi_{\alpha}\})=\hat{\mathcal
K}^{0}_L+\hat{\mathcal V}^{MF}_L\left(\left\{\psi_{\alpha}\right\}\right),
\end{equation}
where the $\psi_\alpha$-independent part
\begin{equation}\label{K0}
\hat{\mathcal K}^{0}_L
=\frac{U}{2}\sum_{l=1}^{L}\hat{n}_{l}(\hat{n}_{l}-1)
+\sum_{l=1}^{L}(\varepsilon_l - \mu) \hat{n}_{l}-
J\sum_{\langle lm\rangle} \hat{c}_{l}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_m,
\end{equation}
is the sum of terms in the grand canonical
Hamiltonian $\hat {\cal K}$ that depend only on the $L$-mer
variables. The final sum in (\ref{K0}) is restricted to
nearest-neighbour pairs within the $L$-mer. It is important to
note that this intra-cluster hopping leads to inter-site
correlations even within the Mott insulating phase.
The MSMFT Hamiltonian depends
on various factors, such as the dimension and geometry of the
lattice, the shape and size of the clusters and the coordination of
sites in one cluster with those of its neighbours.
The extent to which different order parameters are required
depends on the physical application and will be clarified by
example. However, we emphasize that these order parameters are
not prescribed but in general are determined by the solution of
the mean-field problem itself.
The cluster grand canonical Hamiltonian (\ref{KMF}) is Hermitian but
it is not number-conserving due to the perturbation in (\ref{MFP}). As a
result, its eigenvectors must be determined in the $L$-mer Fock
space. We denote the state with the lowest
eigenvalue $\Omega_0(\{\psi_{\alpha}\})$ as $|\Psi_0\rangle$.
For a normalized state vector, the variation of
$\Omega_0(\{\psi_{\alpha}\})$ with respect to $\psi_\gamma^*$ is
given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \Omega_0(\{\psi_{\alpha}\})}{\partial \psi_\gamma^* }
= \left \langle \Psi_0 \left | \frac{\partial \hat{\mathcal
V}^{MF}_L\left(\left\{\psi_{\alpha}\right\}\right)}{
\partial\psi_\gamma^* } \right |\Psi_0 \right \rangle = - \sum_\alpha
J_{\alpha\gamma} \langle \Psi_0 | \hat c_\alpha - \psi_\alpha
|\Psi_0\rangle.
\end{equation}
This implies that $\Omega_0(\{\psi_{\alpha}\})$ is stationary when
the order parameters satisfy
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat c_\gamma \rangle \equiv \langle \Psi_0(\{\bar
\psi_\alpha\}) | \hat
c_\gamma |\Psi_0(\{\bar \psi_\alpha\})\rangle =
\bar{\psi}_\gamma
\label{self-consistency}
\end{equation}
for all boundary sites $\gamma$, where the values of the order
parameters at the stationary point are denoted by
$\bar{\psi}_\gamma$. We thus see that stationarity of the grand
potential is associated with the physically necessary condition
that the order parameters are determined self-consistently.
If more than one stationary point arises, the
physical state of the system is assumed to correspond to the stationary
point with the minimum value of $\Omega_0(\{\bar\psi_{\alpha}\})$.
Intuition might lead one to expect that a stationary point is
an extremum of the grand potential, but it is straightforward
to show that it is {\it not}. Writing $\psi_\alpha =
\bar\psi_\alpha+\Delta\psi_\alpha$ and expanding (\ref{KMF}) about
a stationary point, we have
\begin{equation}\label{KMF_stationary}
\hat{\mathcal K}^{MF}(\{\psi_{\alpha}\})=
\hat{\mathcal K}^{MF}(\{\bar \psi_{\alpha}\})
-\sum_{\alpha\beta} J_{\alpha\beta}
\left [ ( \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} -\bar \psi_\alpha^*) \Delta \psi_\beta
+ \left ( \hat{c}_{\alpha}-\bar \psi_{\alpha} \right )\Delta \psi_\beta^*
-\Delta \psi_\alpha^* \Delta\psi_\beta \right ].
\end{equation}
We denote the sum by $\Delta {\cal \hat V}^{MF}_L$ and consider it as a
perturbation to the grand Hamiltonian
$\hat{\mathcal K}^{MF}(\{\bar \psi_{\alpha}\})$ at the stationary
point. The first order correction to the grand potential
$\Omega_0(\{\bar\psi_\alpha\})$ is
\begin{equation}
\Omega_0^{(1)}(\{\Delta\psi_\alpha\}) = \langle \Psi_0|\Delta
{\cal \hat V}^{MF}_L | \Psi_0 \rangle =
\sum_{\alpha\beta} J_{\alpha\beta}
\Delta \psi_\alpha^* \Delta\psi_\beta
\label{first_order}
\end{equation}
while the second order correction is
\begin{equation}
\Omega_0^{(2)}(\{\Delta\psi_\alpha\}) = \sum_{\nu\ne 0}
\frac{|\langle \nu | \sum_{\alpha\beta} J_{\alpha\beta}
\left [ \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} \Delta \psi_\beta
+ \hat{c}_{\alpha}\Delta \psi_\beta^* \right ] | 0 \rangle |^2}
{\Omega_0(\{\bar\psi_\alpha\})-\Omega_\nu(\{\bar\psi_\alpha\})},
\label{second_order}
\end{equation}
where the states $|\nu\rangle$ are eigenstates of $\hat{\mathcal
K}^{MF}(\{\bar \psi_{\alpha}\})$ with eigenvalues
$\Omega_\nu(\{\bar\psi_\alpha\})$.
$\Omega_0^{(2)}$ is negative definite and $\Omega_0^{(1)}$ can
always be made negative by choosing
$\Delta \psi_\beta = - \Delta\psi_\alpha$ for some pair of
deviations with all others equal to zero. Thus, unlike the
situation for the case of a single order parameter, a stationary
point is not a local minimum; the value of
$\Omega_0(\{\psi_\alpha\})$ can always be made smaller than
$\Omega_0(\{\bar \psi_\alpha\})$ by moving away from the stationary
point in some direction. For multiple order parameters,
the stationary point is, in general, a saddle point
and as a result, it cannot be located by
means of a variational principle. Below, we provide
criteria for identifying the emergence of a superfluid phase
from a Mott insulating phase without having to appeal to
a variational principle.
\subsection{Perturbative Treatment of the MI-SF Transition}
\label{phases}
The point $\{\psi_\alpha\} = \{0\}$ is always a stationary point
and it too is not an extremum in general. This point has special
significance in that it corresponds to the Mott insulating phase.
Assuming the MI-SF transition to be continuous as a function of
the system parameters (for example, the hopping strength $J$), we
expect the stationary point to move continuously away from the
$\{\psi_\alpha\} = \{0\}$ point as the parameters are varied
beyond some critical values. This behaviour can be analyzed by
treating (\ref{MFP}) as a perturbation to ${\cal \hat K}^0_L$. Depending
on the values of the system parameters ($\mu$, $J$ and $U$),
${\cal \hat K}^0_L$ has a ground state $|0\rangle$ containing
$N$ particles. The range of parameters for which this is the case
defines what we refer to as $N$-domains in the multi-dimensional
parameter space. Each of these $N$-domains can, in principle, give
rise to a Mott phase with a certain number of particles per
cluster. These
regions are conventionally referred to as Mott lobes.
The first and second order corrections to the energy
$\Omega_0(\{0\})$ are obtained with the replacement $\bar\psi_\alpha
\to 0$ and $\Delta \psi_\alpha \to \psi_\alpha$ in
(\ref{first_order}) and (\ref{second_order}). We
have
\begin{equation}
\Omega_0^{(1)}(\{\psi_\alpha\}) =
\sum_{\alpha\beta} J_{\alpha\beta}~
\psi_\alpha^* \psi_\beta
\label{first_order_0}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Omega_0^{(2)}(\{\psi_\alpha\}) = \sum_{\nu\ne 0}
\frac{|\langle \nu | \sum_{\alpha\beta} J_{\alpha\beta}
\left [ \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} \psi_\beta
+ \hat{c}_{\alpha} \psi_\beta^* \right ] | 0 \rangle |^2}
{\Omega_0(\{0\}) - \Omega_\nu(\{0\})},
\end{equation}
where in this case, the states $|\nu\rangle$ are eigenstates of $\hat
{\cal K}^0_L$ and are therefore number eigenstates. For the matrix
elements in the sum to be nonzero, the state $|\nu\rangle$
must have either $N - 1$ or $N+1$ particles. Defining the operator
\begin{equation}
\hat O_\alpha = \sum_\beta J_{\alpha\beta}~{\hat c_\beta},
\label{O-op}
\end{equation}
we see that the second order correction is given by
\begin{equation}
\Omega_0^{(2)}(\{\psi_\alpha\}) = \sum_{\alpha \beta}
M_{\alpha\beta} ~\psi_\alpha^*\psi_\beta
\label{second_order_0}
\end{equation}
where the Hermitian matrix $\undertilde{M}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
M_{\alpha\beta} = \sum_{\nu\ne 0}
\frac{\langle 0 | \hat O_\alpha
|\nu\rangle \langle \nu| \hat O_\beta^\dagger |0\rangle
+ \langle 0 | \hat O_\beta^\dagger
|\nu\rangle \langle \nu| \hat O_\alpha |0\rangle}
{\Omega_0(\{0\}) - \Omega_\nu(\{0\})}.
\end{equation}
In obtaining this result we have used the fact that the operator
$\hat O_\alpha$ only has finite matrix elements between states
whose particle numbers differ by one.
In view of (\ref{O-op}), we see that
\begin{equation}
\undertilde{M} =
\undertilde{J}\undertilde{C}\undertilde{J}
\end{equation}
where the elements of the Hermitian matrix $\undertilde{C}$ are
given by
\begin{equation}
C_{\alpha\beta} = \sum_{\nu\ne 0}
\frac{\langle 0 | \hat c_\alpha
|\nu\rangle \langle \nu| \hat c_\beta^\dagger |0\rangle
+ \langle 0 | \hat c_\beta^\dagger
|\nu\rangle \langle \nu| \hat c_\alpha |0\rangle}
{\Omega_0(\{0\}) - \Omega_\nu(\{0\})}.
\label{C}
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{first_order_0}) and (\ref{second_order_0}), we
have
\begin{equation}
\Omega_0(\{\psi_\alpha\}) = \Omega_0(\{0\}) + \sum_{\alpha\beta}
W_{\alpha\beta} ~\psi_\alpha^*\psi_\beta + \cdots,
\label{Omega_0}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\undertilde{W} \equiv
\undertilde{J}+\undertilde{M}=\undertilde{J} +
\undertilde{J}\undertilde{C}\undertilde{J}.
\label{W_matrix}
\end{equation}
We will refer to the
Hermitian matrix $\undertilde{W}$ as the energy matrix.
If the value $\Omega_0(\{0\})$ is the minimum of all stationary
points, one is in the Mott insulating phase. The question then
arises as to whether the stability of the Mott phase can be
established independently of determining
$\Omega_0(\{\bar\psi_\alpha\})$ for all of these points.
Since $\Omega_0(\{0\})$ is not an extremum, it is not obvious
{\it a priori} what
properties the energy matrix $\undertilde{W}$ must have in order
for the Mott phase to be stable. To address this query we
determine the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of $\undertilde{W}$:
\begin{equation}
\undertilde{W} ~{\bf v}_i = \omega_i ~{\bf v}_i.
\label{W_eigen}
\end{equation}
Since $\undertilde{W}$ is Hermitian, the eigenvalues are real and
the eigenvectors can be chosen to be an orthonormal set. Expanding
the order-parameter vector $\boldsymbol{\psi} \equiv \{\psi_\alpha\}$ as
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\psi} = \sum_i \xi_i ~{\bf v}_i,
\end{equation}
we see that
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Omega_0(\boldsymbol{\psi}) = \sum_i \omega_i |\xi_i|^2 .
\end{equation}
The eigenvectors ${\bf v}_i$ thus define directions in the
order-parameter
space along which the grand potential varies quadratically with
a curvature that is determined by the sign of $\omega_i$.
Furthermore, as one moves along a line in one of these directions,
the grand potential is stationary with respect to displacements
away from the line. Thus the transition to the SF phase must be
accompanied by the appearance of a stationary point
with $\boldsymbol{\psi} \ne {\bf 0}$ along one
of these directions. The only scenario consistent with the
continuous movement of the stationary point away from
$\boldsymbol{\psi} = {\bf 0}$ is that one of the positive
eigenvalues passes through zero. The first positive eigenvalue
to do so establishes the criterion for the transition to the SF
phase. This is very analogous to the situation one finds with a
single order parameter~\cite{Vanoosten01}.
We elaborate on these properties of the grand potential below,
and illustrate the general behaviour with a concrete numerical
example in Sec.~\ref{example}.
We now denote the vector relevant to the transition as ${\bf
v}_1$. When $\omega_1$ passes through zero, the stationary point
moves continuously from $\boldsymbol{\psi} = {\bf 0}$ to a point
where the order parameter is non-zero. If higher order terms in
the perturbation expansion are retained, one expects the
grand potential to behave, in the vicinity of the transition,
according to the Landau theory~\cite{Landau80} expression
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Omega_0(\boldsymbol{\psi}) = \frac{r}{2} |\xi_1|^2 +
\frac{u}{4}
|\xi_1|^4,
\label{eq:Omega_GL}
\end{equation}
where $r=2\omega_1$, and we assume $u$ to be
positive. For small and negative $\omega_1$, this leads to the
stationary order parameter
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\psi} = \sqrt{\frac{|r|}{u}} {\bf v}_1.
\label{eq:psi_mf}
\end{equation}
Since the vector ${\bf v}_1$ can be chosen to be a real, one sees
that, in the vicinity of the phase boundary, the order parameter
is real. In other words, there are no phase differences (apart
from a possible sign) between the order parameter components. In
fact, in all the examples we have studied, the components of the
order parameter vector all have the {\it same} sign, which we
take to be positive. One might argue that this is the expected
behaviour, since relative sign differences in the components would
lead to more rapid spatial variations of the order parameter with
a resultant higher kinetic energy. However, as stated earlier, the
grand potential is not an extremum at the stationary point
and can take on lower
values if one moves away from the stationary point in some
direction ${\bf v}_i$. Since this vector is orthogonal to ${\bf
v}_1$, it must necessarily have components with different signs.
One therefore
cannot argue that the components of the physically relevant
direction (${\bf v}_1$) must have the same sign on the basis of
energy considerations.
Henceforth, we assume that the components of the order parameter
are real. This assumption is supported by all self-consistent
solutions of (\ref{KMF}) that we have obtained in the SF phase.
Referring to Eq.~(\ref{W_matrix}), we see that the eigenvalue
spectrum of $\undertilde{W}$ is closely related to that of the
connectivity matrix $\undertilde{J}$. In fact, for $J \to 0$, the
eigenvectors and eigenvalues of these two matrices coincide.
The eigenvectors of $\undertilde{J}$ are defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Jeig}
\undertilde{J} {\bf u}_i = \lambda_i {\bf u}_i.
\end{equation}
The eigenvectors with zero eigenvalue play a special role in that
they are simultaneously zero-eigenvalue eigenvectors of
$\undertilde{W}$. These vectors are independent of the
magnitude of $J$ and other system parameters, and are simply
determined by the structure of $\undertilde{J}$.
The eigenvectors of $\undertilde{W}$ with non-zero eigenvalues
can be determined by using ${\bf u}_i$ as the basis vectors.
Then, in what we call the $J$-representation, we
have
\begin{equation}
W_{ij}^{(J)} = \lambda_i\delta_{ij} + \lambda_i C_{ij}^{(J)}
\lambda_j.
\end{equation}
If we order the $\lambda_i = 0$ eigenvectors as $i=1,\dots,m$ and
the remaining $n$ eigenvectors as $i=m+1,\dots,m+n$, the non-zero
eigenvectors of $\undertilde{W}$ are found in the
$n$-dimensional subspace spanned by the eigenvectors of
$\undertilde{J}$ with non-zero eigenvalues, and are determined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Wred-eig}
{\rm det}\left ( W_{n\times n}^{(J)} - \omega I_{n\times n} \right ) =
0.
\end{equation}
Here we have defined the $n\times n$ matrix
\begin{equation}
W_{n\times n}^{(J)} =D_{n\times n} + D_{n\times n}C_{n\times
n}^{(J)}D_{n\times n}
\end{equation}
where $D_{n\times n}$ is the diagonal matrix
\begin{equation}
D_{n\times n} = \left ( \begin{array}{cccc}
\lambda_{m+1} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & \lambda_{m+2} & & \vdots \\
\vdots & & \ddots & 0 \\
0 & \cdots & 0 &\lambda_{m+n}\\
\end{array} \right ),
\label{Dnxn}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
C_{n\times n}^{(J)} = \left ( \begin{array}{ccc}
C_{m+1,m+1}^{(J)}
&\cdots & C_{m+1,m+n}^{(J)}\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
C_{m+n,m+1}^{(J)} &\cdots & C_{m+n,m+n}^{(J)}\\
\end{array} \right ).
\end{equation}
The MI-SF transition is located by following the eigenvalues
determined by (\ref{eq:Wred-eig}) as a function of a system
parameter,
such as $J$. As discussed above, the positive eigenvalue
$\omega_1$ which first passes through zero determines the phase
boundary. In view of (\ref{eq:Wred-eig}), the condition for this
to happen is ${\rm det} (W_{n\times n}^{(J)} ) = 0$.
Although the eigenvalue problem in
(\ref{eq:Wred-eig}) eliminates the eigenvectors with zero eigenvalues,
in practice it is more straightforward to determine all the
eigenvalues and eigenvectors using (\ref{W_eigen}). When the
$\omega_1$ eigenvalue is identified and found to pass through zero,
the corresponding eigenvector directly determines the
relative magnitude of the order parameter components just as one
enters the SF phase. The main advantage of the
$J$-representation is that is reveals the mathematical structure
of the $\undertilde{W}$ matrix and facilitates some of the
formal developments that follow.
An alternate approach to that of following the $\undertilde{W}$
eigenvalues is based on constructing a stability criterion for
the Mott phase~\cite{Buonsante05a}. It too is based on a
perturbative analysis and
can be derived as follows. To first order in perturbation theory,
one finds that
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat c_\alpha \rangle^{(1)} = \sum_\beta S_{\alpha\beta}~\psi_\beta,
\label{order_param}
\end{equation}
where the matrix $\undertilde{S}$, which we refer to as the
stability matrix, is defined in terms of matrices introduced
earlier, namely
\begin{equation}
\undertilde{S} = - \undertilde{C} \undertilde{J}.
\label{S}
\end{equation}
We note that this matrix is {\it not} Hermitian.
Since the left-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{order_param}) is the
perturbative estimate of $\psi_\alpha$, this equation is suggestive
of an iterative scheme defined
by the linear map
\begin{equation}
\psi_\alpha^{(k+1)} = \sum_\beta
S_{\alpha\beta}\psi_\beta^{(k)},
\label{map}
\end{equation}
where $k = 0,\,1,\,2,\dots$ can be thought of as an iteration
index with $k\rightarrow\infty$ identifying the self-consistent
solution.
Defining the eigenvectors of $\undertilde{S}$ by
\begin{equation}
\undertilde{S}{\bf z}_i = \sigma_i {\bf z}_i,
\label{S_eigen}
\end{equation}
we see that the
iterative sequence converges to the Mott insulating
$\boldsymbol{\psi} = {\bf 0}$
fixed point if the absolute values of the eigenvalues
$\sigma_i$ are all less than one. Therefore, this procedure
provides an operational definition of the Mott phase in terms of
the eigenvalues of the stability matrix $\undertilde{S}$.
The definition of the stability matrix in (\ref{S}) shows that
the eigenvectors
of $\undertilde{J}$ with zero eigenvalues are also zero-eigenvalue
eigenvectors of $\undertilde{S}$, that is, ${\bf z}_i = {\bf u}_i$
for $i = 1,\dots,m$, with $\sigma_i = 0$. In the
$J$-representation, the stability matrix thus has the block structure
\begin{equation}
\undertilde{S}^{(J)} = \left ( \begin{array}{cc}
O_{m\times m} & S_{m\times n}^{(J)}\\
O_{n\times m} & S_{n\times n}^{(J)} \\
\end{array} \right ),
\label{S_J}
\end{equation}
where the null matrices ($O$) have the dimensions indicated,
\begin{equation}
S_{n\times n}^{(J)} = - C_{n\times n}^{(J)}D_{n\times n}
\label{S_J_nxn}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
S_{m\times n}^{(J)} = \left ( \begin{array}{ccc}
-C_{1,m+1}^{(J)}\lambda_{m+1} &\cdots & -C_{1,m+n}^{(J)}\lambda_{m+n}\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
-C_{m,m+1}^{(J)}\lambda_{m+1} &\cdots & -C_{m,m+n}^{(J)}\lambda_{m+n}\\
\end{array} \right ).
\label{S_J_mxn}
\end{equation}
It is clear from (\ref{S_J}) that the $\sigma = 0$ eigenvalue is
$m$-fold degenerate and that the remaining eigenvalues of
$\undertilde{S}$ are determined by the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Sred-eig}
{\rm det}\left ( S_{n\times n}^{(J)} - \sigma I_{n\times n} \right ) =
0.
\end{equation}
If these latter eigenvalues all have a magnitude less than one,
then $\boldsymbol{\psi}={\bf 0}$ is a fixed point of the map
defined in (\ref{map}), and the Mott phase is stable.
The complete set of eigenvectors of $\undertilde{S}$ consist of
the $m$ zero-eigenvalue eigenvectors of $\undertilde{J}$ together with
the remaining $n$ eigenvectors determined by considering the
$n$-dimensional eigenvalue problem
\begin{equation}
S_{n\times n}^{(J)} ~{\bf y}_i = \sigma_i ~{\bf y}_i.
\end{equation}
In view of (\ref{S_J_nxn}), this equation is equivalent to the
generalized eigenvalue problem
\begin{equation}
C_{n\times n}^{(J)} {\bf y}_i' = -\sigma_i
D_{n\times n}^{-1}{\bf y}_i',
\end{equation}
where ${\bf y}_i' \equiv D_{n\times n} {\bf y}_i$. Since
$C_{n\times n}^{(J)}$ is Hermitian and $D_{n\times n}^{-1}$ (the
inverse of (\ref{Dnxn})) is a
real diagonal matrix, it is easy to
show that the eigenvalues $\sigma_i$ are real. In addition, for
distinct eigenvalues, we have the orthogonality relation
$(D_{n\times n}~ {\bf y}_i)^T {\bf y}_j = 0$. Once the vectors
${\bf y}_i$ have been determined, the $\undertilde{S}^{(J)}$
eigenvectors for $i=m+1,\dots,m+n$ are given by
\begin{equation}
{\bf z}_i = \left ( \begin{array}{c}
{\bf x}_i\\
{\bf y}_i
\end{array} \right ),
\label{S_eigenvec}
\end{equation}
with ${\bf x}_i = \sigma_i^{-1} S_{m\times n}^{(J)} {\bf y}_i$.
We now establish the connection between the two different criteria
derived above.
The energy and stability matrices are related by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:WJIS}
\undertilde{W} = \undertilde{J}(\undertilde{I}-\undertilde{S}).
\end{equation}
An explicit expression for $\undertilde{S}$ cannot be obtained from
this equation since $\undertilde{J}$ does not in general have an
inverse. However, within
the $J$-representation, we have the more useful relation
\begin{equation}
W_{n\times n}^{(J)} = D_{n\times n} (I_{n\times n}-S_{n\times
n}^{(J)}).
\end{equation}
Since $D_{n\times n} $ has an inverse, we can write
\begin{equation}
S_{n\times n}^{(J)} = I_{n\times n}-D_{n\times n}^{-1}W_{n\times
n}^{(J)}.
\label{eq:S-W}
\end{equation}
From this we see that an eigenvector
$(q_{m+1},\cdots,q_{m+n})^T$ of $W_{n\times n}^{(J)}$
with zero eigenvalue is an eigenvector of $S_{n\times n}^{(J)}$
with eigenvalue one. This particular zero eigenvalue of the
$\undertilde{W}$ matrix is obtained at
the critical values of the system parameters and the
corresponding eigenvector, previously
denoted by ${\bf v}_1$, is given by ${\bf v}_1=
\sum_{i=m+1}^{m+n} q_i {\bf u}_i$. Using the structure of the
$\undertilde{S}^{(J)}$ eigenvectors in (\ref{S_eigenvec}), we
thus see that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:transition}
\undertilde{S} {\bf v}_1 = {\bf v}_1,\,\, {\rm when}\,\, \undertilde{W}
{\bf v}_1 = 0.
\end{equation}
We have thus proved that the energy
and stability criteria for the transition to the SF phase are
equivalent and can therefore be used interchangeably.
\subsection{Self-Consistent Superfluid Solutions}
The previous subsection outlined two different algorithms for
identifying the parameter values of the Bose-Hubbard
model for which the MI phase is stable, and
an example of the application of these methods is presented in
the next subsection. When the MI phase loses stability,
the $T=0$ ground state of the Bose-Hubbard model corresponds to
a superfluid state. The order parameter is then determined by
finding the ground state solution of (\ref{KMF}) which satisfies
the self-consistency condition given by (\ref{self-consistency}).
It is a simple matter to obtain such self-consistent solutions
numerically. The iterative map
\begin{equation}
\psi_\gamma^{(k+1)} = \langle \Psi_0(\{\psi_\alpha^{(k)}\}) | \hat
c_\gamma | \Psi_0(\{\psi_\alpha^{(k)}\}) \rangle
\label{eq:iterative_map}
\end{equation}
provides updated order parameter components in terms of their
current values. We find that any initial guess of the order
parameters, provided that they all have the same sign, converges
to a unique self-consistent solution without the need for
special mixing \cite{mixing} or more advanced techniques.
This iterative method was used extensively in a recent
paper~\cite{Pisarski11} on disordered systems where a large
number of sites with different order parameters are required.
For homogeneous systems with only one order parameter, Brent's
algorithm for root finding is particularly successful~\cite{Brent}.
\subsection{Example Calculation}
\label{example}
We now illustrate the calculation of the phase boundary and
superfluid order parameters using the methods outlined in the
previous two subsections.
It is instructive to consider the 2D square lattice partitioned
into $3\times 2$ clusters with the site labelling
indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:3x2}. For this $L$-mer,
there are six boundary sites: the four corner ($A$) sites
and the two edge ($B$) sites.
The choice of this particular cluster is useful for a number of
reasons. First, it demonstrates that meaningful physical results
can be obtained even though the cluster does not have the symmetry
of the two-dimensional square lattice. Second, it is a
relatively simple example with several order parameters which
illustrates the general formalism and the structure of the
solutions. And lastly, it has obvious symmetries which allow us
to reduce the number of independent order parameters; here there
end up being two, one for the corner sites and one for the edge
sites. Thus, for demonstration purposes this is an ideal
cluster to examine.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering \scalebox{0.6}
{\includegraphics{fig3.eps}}
\caption{ The partitioning of the two-dimensional square lattice
into $3\times 2$ clusters. The cluster consists of inequivalent
corner ($A$) and edge ($B$) sites.}
\label{fig:3x2}
\end{figure}
The calculation of the MI-SF phase boundary can be approached in
terms of the energy or stability criterion, each of which
involves the connectivity matrix $\undertilde{J}$.
For the site labelling shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3x2} and the
order parameter specified as $\boldsymbol{\psi} =
(\psi_{A_1},\psi_{A_2},\psi_{A_3},\psi_{A_4},\psi_{B_1},\psi_{B_2})^T$,
the connectivity matrix is given by
\begin{equation}
\undertilde{J} = \left ( \begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & J & 0 & J & 0 & 0\\
J & 0 & J & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & J & 0 & J & 0 & 0\\
J & 0 & J & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & J\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & J & 0\\
\end{array} \right ).
\end{equation}
We observe that the matrix is block diagonal reflecting the fact that
corner sites are coupled to corner sites, and edge sites are coupled to
edge sites. Following the notation of (\ref{eq:Jeig}), the
$\undertilde{J}$ matrix has two $\lambda = 0$
eigenvalues, and the non-zero eigenvalues are $\pm J$ and $\pm 2J$.
The energy (\ref{W_matrix}) and stability (\ref{S}) matrices
also depend on the $\undertilde{C}$ matrix in
(\ref{C}). The evaluation of this matrix requires the eigenstates
$|\nu \rangle$ and corresponding eigenvalues $\Omega_\nu(\{0\})$
of the cluster Hamiltonian in (\ref{K0}) with on-site energies
$\varepsilon_l = 0$. We present details of the
evaluation of these states in an Appendix.
As a concrete numerical example, we choose a chemical potential
of $\mu/U=0.4$ which, for small $J/U$, places the system in the
first Mott lobe with $\langle {\hat n} \rangle = 1$.
The eigenvalues of the energy matrix are obtained by solving
(\ref{W_eigen}), whereas the eigenvalues of the stability matrix
are obtained from (\ref{S_eigen}). The four non-zero eigenvalues
of these two matrices
are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3x2eigval} as a function of $J/U$. We
observe that one eigenvalue of the energy matrix associated
with the eigenvector ${\bf v}_1$ increases from
zero to positive values, and then passes through zero at the critical
hopping $J_c/U = 0.04815$ which locates the MI-SF phase boundary
for this value of $\mu/U$. At this same hopping one
finds that one of the eigenvalues of the stability matrix first
attains a magnitude of one, consistent with the discussion
following (\ref{eq:S-W}). Figure~\ref{fig:3x2eigvec} displays the
variation of the eigenvector components of these two specific
eigenstates,
namely, the eigenvector ${\bf v}_1$ of (\ref{W_eigen}) and the
eigenvector ${\bf z}_1$ of (\ref{S_eigen}). Both of these
eigenvectors have the form
$(\psi_A,\psi_A,\psi_A,\psi_A,\psi_B,\psi_B)^T$.
One sees that these two
eigenvectors are the same (${\bf z_1} = {\bf v}_1$) at
the MI-SF phase boundary and that (\ref{eq:transition}) is
indeed satisfied.
\begin{figure*}
\unitlength1cm
\begin{minipage}[t]{8cm}
\begin{picture}(6,12)
{\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{fig4.eps}}
\end{picture}\par
\caption{The non-zero eigenvalues of the
energy (top panel, in units of $U$) and stability (bottom panel)
matrices for a
homogeneous two-dimensional square lattice using a $3\times 2$
cluster vs. $J/U$. The chemical potential is $\mu/U = 0.4$. One
eigenvalue of the energy matrix crosses zero at
$J/U=0.04815$, the same position at which one eigenvalue of
the stability matrix
first attains a magnitude of one (the solid black curve in each
figure). The superfluid phase is the $T=0$ ground state
for $J/U > 0.04815$. }
\label{fig:3x2eigval}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{8cm}
\begin{picture}(6,12)
{\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{fig5.eps}}
\end{picture}\par
\caption{The normalized eigenvector components
corresponding to the energy (top) and stability (bottom)
eigenvalues shown by the the solid black curves in
Fig.~\ref{fig:3x2eigval} vs. $J/U$. The bracketed numbers
give the number of components having the indicated values,
and correspond to the corner sites (multiplicity 4) and
edge sites (multiplicity 2) of the $3\times2$ cluster. Note that
at the transition these eigenvectors are the same, as required
by (\protect\ref{eq:transition}).}
\label{fig:3x2eigvec}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
Although we allowed for a six-component order parameter in the
above analysis, we find that the relevant eigenvectors
${\bf v}_1$ and ${\bf z}_1$ only have two independent components
corresponding to the two inequivalent sites in the $3\times 2$
cluster. One, $\psi_A$, is associated with the four corner sites
and the other, $\psi_B$, is associated with the two edge sites.
As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:3x2eigvec}, these two values
are almost equal for $J/U$ close to the MI-SF transition.
Even though
the cluster does not mirror the symmetry of the square lattice,
the violation of homogeneity is relatively weak. This behaviour
persists into the SF phase. Fig.~\ref{fig:3x2psi} shows that the
self-consistently determined order parameters are close to each
other over the range of hoppings indicated. The variation shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:3x2psi} is consistent with the mean-field
prediction in (\ref{eq:psi_mf}), as is the ratio of the two
components. Also shown in this figure is the grand potential
$\Omega_0(\{\psi_\alpha\})$ for the order parameter
$\boldsymbol{\psi} = (\psi_A,\psi_A,\psi_A,\psi_A,\psi_B,\psi_B)^T$
as a function of $\psi_A$,
where the ratio $\psi_B/\psi_A$ is fixed and taken from
Fig.~\ref{fig:3x2eigvec} at $J/U = 0.04815$. In the SF phase
the grand potential shows minima at points which are very close
to the order parameters determined self-consistently according
to (\ref{self-consistency}). Thus, near the phase boundary,
the grand potential is indeed given to a good approximation by
the Landau expansion in (\ref{eq:Omega_GL}).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics{fig6.eps}}
\caption{The upper figure shows the self-consistently determined
order parameters
corresponding to the corner ($\psi_A$) and edge ($\psi_B$) sites
of the $3\times 2$ cluster as a function of $J/U$. The arrows
indicate the values of $\psi_A$ at $J/U = 0.049$ and 0.05.
The lower figure shows the grand
potential as a function of $\psi_A$ for the fixed ratio
$\psi_B/\psi_A = 0.9396$ found at the phase boundary at $J/U =
0.04815$. The curves from top to bottom are for values of
$J/U$ from
0.046 to 0.050 in steps of 0.001. In the SF phase, the grand
potential shows minima at positions which are very
close to the values of $\psi_A$ found from the self-consistent
calculations (indicated by the arrows). These results
were obtained for $\mu/U = 0.4$.
}
\label{fig:3x2psi}
\end{figure}
In view of the fact that the relevant eigenvector ${\bf v}_1$ only
has two independent order parameter components, namely $\psi_A$ and
$\psi_B$, it is of interest to see to what extent the
calculations can be simplified by assuming an order parameter
having the form $\boldsymbol{\psi} =
(\psi_A,\psi_A,\psi_A,\psi_A,\psi_B,\psi_B)^T$.
With this assumed form, the eigenvalue problem in
(\ref{W_eigen}) reduces to
\begin{equation}
\undertilde{W}^{\rm red} \boldsymbol{\psi}^{\rm red} \equiv \left ( \begin{array}{cc}
W_{AA} & W_{AB}\\
W_{BA} & W_{BB}\\ \end{array} \right )
\left ( \begin{array}{c}
\psi_A\\ \psi_B\\ \end{array} \right ) = \omega
\left ( \begin{array}{cc}
N_A & 0\\
0 & N_B\\ \end{array} \right )
\left ( \begin{array}{c}
\psi_A\\ \psi_B\\ \end{array} \right ),
\label{W_red}
\end{equation}
where $N_A$ and $N_B$ are the number of occurrences of $\psi_A$
and $\psi_B$, respectively, in the order parameter vector. For
this specific example, $N_A=4$ and $N_B=2$. The reduced matrix
elements in (\ref{W_red}) are defined as
\begin{equation}
W_{AA} = \sum_{i\in{A}}\sum_{j\in{A}} W_{ij},\quad
W_{AB} = \sum_{i\in{A}}\sum_{j\in{B}} W_{ij},\quad
W_{BA} = \sum_{i\in{B}}\sum_{j\in{A}} W_{ij},\quad
W_{BB} = \sum_{i\in{B}}\sum_{j\in{B}} W_{ij}.
\label{W_red_elem}
\end{equation}
By the same token,
the expansion of the grand potential in (\ref{Omega_0}) is given
by
\begin{equation}
\Omega_0(\psi_A,\psi_B) = \Omega_0(0,0) +
\left ( \begin{array}{cc}
\psi_A & \psi_B\\ \end{array} \right )
\left ( \begin{array}{cc}
W_{AA} & W_{AB}\\
W_{BA} & W_{BB}\\ \end{array} \right )
\left ( \begin{array}{c}
\psi_A\\ \psi_B\\ \end{array} \right ).
\label{Omega_0_reduced}
\end{equation}
We note that the eigenvalues of the matrix $\undertilde{W}^{\rm red}$
appearing in this expression do {\it not} in general yield the desired
$\undertilde{W}$ eigenvalues which must be obtained from the
generalized eigenvalue problem in (\ref{W_red}).
Performing the sums in (\ref{W_red_elem}), we obtain the explicit
expressions
\begin{equation}
W_{AA} = z_AN_A J + z_A^2 J^2 \sum_{\nu \ne 0}
\frac{|\langle \nu|
\sum_{i\in{A}}(\hat{a}_{i}^{\dagger}+\hat{a}_{i})|0\rangle|^{2}}
{\Omega_0(\{0\})-\Omega_\nu(\{0\})}~,
\label{W_AA}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
W_{BB} = z_BN_B J + z_B^2 J^2 \sum_{\nu \ne 0}
\frac{|\langle \nu|
\sum_{i\in{B}}(\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger}+\hat{b}_{i})|0\rangle|^{2}}{
\Omega_{0}(\{0\})-\Omega_\nu(\{0\})}~,
\label{W_BB}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
W_{AB} = z_A z_B J^2 \sum_{\nu \ne 0}
\frac{\langle 0|
\sum_{i\in{A}}(\hat a_i^\dagger + \hat{a}_{i})|\nu\rangle\langle \nu |
\sum_{j\in{B}}(\hat b_i^\dagger + \hat{b}_{j})|0\rangle}
{ \Omega_{0}(\{0\})-\Omega_\nu(\{0\})}~.
\label{W_AB}
\end{equation}
Here we have introduced the notation $\hat a_i$ ($\hat b_i$) for the
site operators of the $A$ ($B$) sites and define
the connectivity number $z_A$ ($z_B$). For the specific
example of the 3$\times$2 cluster, we have
$z_{A}=2$ and $z_{B}=1$. The element $W_{BA}$ is obtained from
$W_{AB}$ by interchanging $A$ and $B$. Since the matrix elements
can be chosen to be real, we in fact have $W_{BA} = W_{AB}$.
The assumption of a two-component order parameter can also be used
at the very beginning of this analysis
to simplify the mean-field perturbation in (\ref{MFP}). One finds
for the example being considered that
\begin{equation}
\label{mf_term_2op}
\hat{\mathcal
V}^{MF}_{3\times 2}=-z_{A}J\psi_{A}\sum_{i\in{A}}(\hat{a}_{i}^{\dagger}+
\hat{a}_{i})-z_{B} J\psi_{B}\sum_{i\in{B}}(\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger}+
\hat{b}_{i})+N_{A}z_{A}J\psi_{A}^{2}+N_{B}z_{B}J\psi_{B}^{2}.
\end{equation}
A perturbative treatment of this mean-field perturbation will of
course yield precisely the grand potential in
(\ref{Omega_0_reduced}). However, the direct calculation
of (\ref{Omega_0_reduced}) does not by itself reveal the correct
eigenvalue equation (\ref{W_red}) required in the determination of
the $\undertilde{W}$ eigenvalues.
The eigenvalues of the energy matrix in (\ref{W_red}) are
\begin{equation}
\omega_\pm = \frac{1}{2}(\bar W_{AA}+\bar W_{BB})\pm \sqrt{\left (
\frac{\bar W_{AA}-\bar W_{BB}}{2} \right )^2 + \bar W_{AB}^2},
\end{equation}
where $\bar W_{PQ} = W_{PQ}/\sqrt{N_P N_Q}$.
In the limit $J\to 0$, we find that $\omega_+ \simeq z_A J $ and
$\omega_- \simeq z_B J $. Thus, when symmetry is used to
reduce the order parameter to the two components $\psi_A$ and
$\psi_B$, we see that the two energy matrix eigenvalues provided
by the reduction increase linearly with $J$ and are positive. In
fact, these two eigenvalues correspond to the two eigenvalues
in Fig.~\ref{fig:3x2psi} which increase positively from zero.
We thus see that
the reduced grand potential has a local minimum for
small $J$. This behaviour should be contrasted with the result
obtained using the full six-component order parameter for which
negative eigenvalues of the energy matrix are found even in
the limit of small $J$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:3x2psi}).
To determine the MI-SF phase boundary with
increasing $J$ we must find a zero crossing of one of the
$\omega_\pm$ eigenvalues.
Since $\omega_+ > \omega_-$ for all values of $J$, the
eigenvalue which first goes to zero is $\omega_-$. Thus the location
of the phase boundary is given by the condition
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}(\bar W_{AA}+\bar W_{BB}) - \sqrt{\left (
\frac{\bar W_{AA}-\bar W_{BB}}{2} \right )^2 + \bar W_{AB}^2} = 0,
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
W_{AA} W_{BB} = W_{AB}^2.
\label{phase_boundary}
\end{equation}
We will use this equation in the following section to map out the
MI-SF phase boundary for the two-dimensional square lattice. We
note that the $N_A$ and $N_B$ factors have dropped out in
(\ref{phase_boundary}) as they must since they play no role in
(\ref{W_red}) when $\omega = 0$. In other words, it is sufficient to
look for the zero eigenvalue of $\undertilde{W}^{\rm red}$ in the
determination of the phase boundary. Also,
the ratio of the order parameter components just as one enters the
SF region will be given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\psi_B}{\psi_A} = \sqrt{\frac{W_{BB}}{W_{AA}}}.
\label{eq:ratio}
\end{equation}
In light of the very similar numerical values of $\psi_A$ and
$\psi_B$ shown above, it is reasonable to try one final
simplification, namely, enforcing the identity $\psi_A = \psi_B$.
When such an order parameter vector is used, the energy and
stability matrices reduce to scalars and one recovers a single
order-parameter theory. The critical hopping parameter obtained
in this case for $\mu/U=0.4$ is $J_c/U=0.04816$, as compared to
$J_c/U=0.04815$ obtained by allowing $\psi_A$ and $\psi_B$ to be
different. Clearly, the inequivalence of different boundary
sites in the MSMFT does not in itself adversely affect the
prediction of the location of the MI-SF phase boundary for a
homogeneous lattice.
\section{Application to homogeneous lattices in 1, 2, and 3 Dimensions}
\label{Homogeneous}
In this section we present our results for bosons on homogeneous
lattices in $d$ dimensions, focussing on the linear chain, square, and
simple cubic lattices. We discuss the phase diagrams that are predicted
by MSMFT, and the spatial correlations that are incorporated into
ground-state wave functions found using this approach.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics{fig7.eps}}
\caption{[Colour online] The MI-SF phase
boundaries for a linear chain predicted by MSMFT, compared to
the DMRG results of \protect\cite{Kuhner98} shown as circles.
The phase boundary systematically approaches the exact result
with increasing length $L$ of the cluster: $L=2$
(dash-dash-dot red line),
$L=4$ (dot-dash green line), $L=8$ (dot-dot-dash blue line). Also shown are the
boundaries of the $N$-domain where the ground state of
the full Hamiltonian for a finite chain of length $N_s$ has
$N=N_s$ particles.
}\label{fig:1d_phasediag}
\end{figure}
First, we consider the phase diagram of the linear chain in the
region of the first Mott lobe ($0<\mu/U<1$).
The relevant MSMFT data is
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1d_phasediag}. ``Exact" numerical results, found
from a DMRG study \cite{Kuhner98}, are also shown for comparison.
The SDMFT result is seen to be far from the exact phase boundary,
a result well known in
the literature~\cite{Sheshadri93,Kuhner98}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:1d_phasediag} we also show the results from the application of
MSMFT for $L$-mers of size
$L=2,4,8$. One can see that as $L$ increases the extent of the Mott
lobe approaches the DMRG results. Therefore, in one dimension we
find that there is a systematic improvement in identifying
the phase boundary upon going from SDMFT to MSMFT. However, the
predicted phase boundaries are still not close to the exact
results and lack the cusp-like feature at the tip of the lobe.
Further improvements could be achieved by increasing $L$ but the
progression in Fig.~\ref{fig:1d_phasediag} suggests that going to $L=16$
would provide only a modest improvement. This value of $L$ is
already beyond our numerical capabilities.
Also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1d_phasediag} are results obtained
from an exact diagonalization of the full Hamiltonian in
(\ref{GCBH}) for a finite linear chain with periodic boundary
conditions. Since the Hamiltonian commutes with the total number
operator, one can determine the $N$-domains in the $\mu/U$-$J/U$
plane where the ground state of $\hat{\mathcal{K}}$
has a total of $N$ particles. For chains of length $N_s$, the
first Mott lobe must be found in the region where
$N=N_s$, at least in the limit $N_s \to \infty$.
The boundaries of the $N=N_s$ region are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:1d_phasediag} for chains of length $N_s = 5$ and 10.
It is clear from the figure that the $N=N_s$ domain bounds the
exact Mott lobe with increasing accuracy with increasing $N_s$.
However, exact diagonalizations for much longer chains would be
necessary to accurately represent the tip of the Mott lobe.
Our results in two dimensions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2d_phasediag}.
In the MSMFT calculations we have used clusters of sizes $2\times 2$
and $3\times 3$; the ``exact" results
are taken from the Monte Carlo study of Ref. \cite{Sansone08}.
As in the
previous figure we also show the boundaries of the $N$-domain
($N=9$ in this case)
for the exact solution of the full Hamiltonian
of a $3\times 3$ cluster with periodic boundary conditions. To
perform the calculations for the largest cluster it was
necessary to take advantage of the symmetry of the cluster; some
details of the method used are given in the Appendix. Similar
results are
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3d_phasediag} for three dimensions, where
we have performed calculations for $2\times 2\times 1$ and a
$2\times 2\times 2$ clusters.
One sees a progressive improvement of the
phase boundary with increasing cluster size, as in the case of
the linear chain, with the phase boundary approaching the exact
(MC) results~\cite{Sansone07}. The best agreement is obtained in
three dimensions
as one might expect on the basis of the validity of mean field
theory when the upper critical dimension is approached.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics{fig8.eps}}
\caption{[Colour online] The MI-SF
phase boundaries for a two-dimensional square lattice, as calculated
using SDMFT (solid black line) and MSMFT ($2\times 2$, dashed red
line; $3\times 3$ (dotted blue line). The MC data (solid black circles)
are taken from Ref.~\cite{Sansone08}. Also shown (dot-dash black line)
is the $N$-domain ($N=9$) for the $3\times 3$ cluster determined
by calculating the ground state of the
full (non-MFT) Hamiltonian with periodic boundary conditions.
}\label{fig:2d_phasediag}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics{fig9.eps}}
\caption{[Colour online] The MI-SF
phase boundaries for a three-dimensional cubic lattice, as calculated
using SDMFT (solid black line) and MSMFT ($2\times 2\times 1$,
dashed red line; $2\times 2\times 2$, dotted blue line).
The MC data (solid black circles) taken from Ref.
\cite{Sansone07}.
}
\label{fig:3d_phasediag}
\end{figure}
For the $3\times 3$ cluster in Fig.~\ref{fig:3x3}(b), the $A$ and $B$
sites are inequivalent and as a result, the order parameters
$\psi_A$ and $\psi_B$ as one enters the SF phase will be different.
We find, however, that the ratio given in (\ref{eq:ratio})
deviates from unity by no more than a few percent. It is
therefore of interest to see the effect of enforcing the
equality of $\psi_A$ and $\psi_B$ in the MSMFT calculations.
(Note that this does not reduce MSMFT to SDMFT since one must
still determine the eigenstates of $\hat{\mathcal K}^0_L$ for
the whole cluster.) We find that the phase
boundaries shown in the two-dimensional phase diagram are
virtually unchanged when this constraint on the order parameters
is imposed. Thus the calculations for homogeneous lattices can
be simplified by assuming that the order parameters of all the
boundary sites of the cluster are the same.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics{fig10.eps}}
\caption{The average correlation function of the linear chain
within MSMFT versus the intersite spacing. Panel (a) shows
results for $L=7$ in the MI phase: the six
curves starting from 1 at $n=0$ correspond, from bottom to top,
to $J/U =$ 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.10 and 0.12. The points are
the calculated values of $\bar C_l(L)$ and the dashed curves
are plots of the fitting function (\ref{eqn:fits}). The lowest
curve in (a) shows results for $J/U = 0.10$ for $L =$ 3, 4, 5, 6
and 7, all plotted on top of each other. This curve has been
displaced from the others for clarity by multiplying the data by
$10^{-4}$. Panel (b) shows results for $L=7$ in the SF phase:
from top to bottom, $J/U =$ 0.14, 0.17, and 0.20.
}\label{fig:C_n}
\end{figure}
With several sites in the cluster, one can also consider
\textit{spatial correlations} between the various sites.
As mentioned
in the introduction, this is one of the main advantages of
using a MSMFT.
The correlations we consider are those exhibited by the
function
\begin{equation}\label{correlations}
C_{ij}=\langle \hat{\phi}^{\dagger}_{i}\hat \phi_{j}\rangle,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\hat\phi_{i}=\hat{a}_{i}-\langle\hat{a}_{i}\rangle.
\end{equation}
In the MI phase, $C_{ij}$ reduces to the single-particle
density matrix while in the SF phase it is
the contribution to the density matrix from the noncondensed
component.
We first consider our results for the linear chain, specifically
along the $\mu/U = 0.4$ line in the phase diagram of
Fig.~\ref{fig:1d_phasediag}. For
a given $L$-mer, we calculate $C_{i,i+l}$ for all possible
values of $i$ and $l$ consistent with the size of the $L$-mer.
In the MI phase we find that $C_{i,i+l}$ has a rather weak
dependence on the position $i$ within the cluster despite the
fact that the states of the cluster are calculated with
open-chain boundary conditions. For this reason we plot only
$\bar C_l(L)$, the average of $C_{i,i+l}$ over $i$. This quantity
is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:C_n} for $L =7$ for $l$
between 0 and 6 and for values of $J/U$ that span the phase
boundary. Since this log-linear plot reveals a dependence on $l$
which deviates weakly from a pure exponential, we have
fit this data to the form
\begin{equation}
\bar C_l(L) \sim {e^{-l/\xi}\over (l_0+l)^\eta},
\label{eqn:fits}
\end{equation}
where the fit parameters $l_0$, $\xi$ and $\eta$ are in general
functions of $L$~\cite{footnote1}.
We emphasize
that this form of fitting function is chosen simply because
it describes the {\it short-range} behaviour of the
correlation function with reasonable accuracy. In the limit
$L\to \infty$, one in principle would be able to determine the
asymptotic behaviour of the correlation function which for large
$l$ should behave as
\begin{equation}
\bar C_l(\infty) \sim {e^{-l/\xi_\infty}\over l^{\eta_\infty}}.
\end{equation}
At the phase boundary, one expects $\xi_\infty$ to
diverge~\cite{Kuhner98},
resulting in an algebraic decay of the correlation function.
However, the finite size
of the $L$-mers considered in our calculations precludes extracting
useful information about this
asymptotic behaviour.
We also observe that in the MI phase the values of $\bar C_l(L)$
for a fixed $l$ depend weakly on $L$. This is confirmed by the
lowest curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:C_n}(a)
for $J/U = 0.1$ where we plot all the available data for $\bar
C_l(L)$ for $L = 3,\dots,8$. This shows that the short-range
behaviour of the $\bar C_l(L)$ correlation function is not
affected significantly by increasing the cluster size. The
results in the SF phase are shown for $L=7$ in
Fig.~\ref{fig:C_n}(b). The behaviour shown here is qualitatively
different from the MI phase.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centerline{\includegraphics{fig11.eps}}
\caption{The correlation length $\xi(L)$ {\it vs.} $J/U$ for
the linear chain of length $L=$
4, 6 and 8 (bottom to top). The results were obtained by fitting
the data to (\ref{eqn:fits}); the vertical bars indicate the
estimated error.
}\label{fig:xi}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:xi} we show the correlation length $\xi(L)$ obtained
by fits of the data to (\ref{eqn:fits}) as a function of $J/U$.
In the MI phase there is a monotonic increase of $\xi$ with
$J/U$, reaching a peak (or cusp) at the phase boundary between the MI
and SF phases, the position of which of course depends on $L$.
As stated earlier, the variation of $\xi$ with $L$ at a fixed
valued of $J/U$ is relatively weak in the MI phase; part of this
variation is simply a result of fitting data over an
increasingly larger range of
$l$. However, the $L$-dependence of $\xi(L)$ is much stronger in
the SF phase. The distinct behaviour of $\xi(L)$ between the MI
and SF phases persists for all values of $\mu/U$.
As for the other fitting parameters, we find that $l_0
\simeq 1$ in the MI phase, reflecting the fact that $\bar
C_{l=0}(L)\simeq 1$; $l_0$ then increases slightly as $\bar
C_{l=0}(L)$ decreases in the SF phase. Finally, we find that
$\eta(L)$ is close to 0.4 for most of the data considered.
Rather similar behaviour is found for
the two-dimensional $3\times 3$ cluster in
Fig.~\ref{fig:3x3}(b) in the MI phase.
For this cluster there are five distinct intersite separations
$r_{ij}$, namely $1$, $\sqrt{2}$, $2$,
$\sqrt{5}$, and $2\sqrt{2}$ in units of the lattice constant.
Due to the finite size of the cluster, there are pairs of sites,
such as the nearest-neighbour $AB$ and $BC$
sites, for which the correlations are not equivalent.
However, the differences are found to be
small and we therefore average the correlations over all pairs of
sites which, by symmetry, would be equivalent in the infinite
lattice. These averaged values are
plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:2d_correlationfcn}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics{fig12.eps}}
\caption{[Colour online] The variation of the averaged pair correlations with
separation in units of the lattice constant for the
two-dimensional $3\times 3$ cluster. The points
are the result of the MSMFT calculation for
$\mu/U = 0.4$ and for $J/U=0.01$ (circle), 0.02 (square),
0.03 (diamond), 0.04 (triangle) and 0.049 (cross).
The values of $\bar C_{ij}$ as obtained from the fitting
function in (\ref{eqn:fit_2D}) are also plotted as solid points
(red) which are joined by dotted lines as a
guide to the eye. The MI-SF transition for this
value of $\mu/U$ occurs close to $J/U = 0.0492$.
}
\label{fig:2d_correlationfcn}
\end{figure}
The data in Fig.~\ref{fig:2d_correlationfcn} were fit to a
function having the following form
\begin{equation}
\bar C_{ij}=e^{-r_{ij}/\xi}\left (a+b(1-\delta_{ij})\cos4\theta_{ij}\right ),
\label{eqn:fit_2D}
\end{equation}
where $\xi$ is again the correlation length, and the parameters
$a$ and $b$ are introduced to capture the anisotropy of the
lattice correlation function. The variable $\theta_{ij}$ is the
angle that the vector ${\bf r}_{ij}$ makes with the $x$-axis.
The values of $\bar C_{ij}$ as determined by (\ref{eqn:fit_2D})
are also plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:2d_correlationfcn} for the
optimal values of the fitting parameters. These values are
joined by the dotted lines to provide a guide to the eye. It
can be seen that the data points lie
quite close to these lines for all $J/U$, indicating that the
assumed form of the angular dependence does a reasonable job of
representing the data. The correlation length $\xi$ is plotted
in Fig.~\ref{fig:2d_xi} as a function of $J/U$. The increasing
trend is similar to that found for the linear chain, but the
2D correlation length is significantly smaller than in 1D. We
emphasize again that the correlation length we have extracted
represents the short-range behaviour of the correlation
function. One would need the long-range behaviour in order to
determine the critical
behaviour of the correlation length at the MI-SF phase boundary.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics{fig13.eps}}
\caption{The dependence of the correlation length, $\xi$ (in
units of the lattice constant), on
$J/U$ for the two-dimensional square lattice using a $3\times 3$
cluster. The results were obtained by fitting the data in
Fig.~\ref{fig:2d_correlationfcn} to (\ref{eqn:fit_2D}). }
\label{fig:2d_xi}
\end{figure}
Finally, we consider the occupation number distribution for a
particular site in the $L$-mer in the MI phase. The probability
of finding the configuration $|\{n_l\}\rangle$ in $|0\rangle$, the
ground state of ${\cal K}_L^0$, is $|\langle \{ n_l
\}|0\rangle|^2$. Thus the occupation number distribution for,
say site 1, is
\begin{equation}
P(n_1) = \sum_{n_2,\cdots,n_l} |\langle \{ n_l\}|0\rangle|^2.
\end{equation}
Near the tip of the first Mott lobe of the $3\times 3$ $L$-mer of the
2D square lattice ($\mu/U = 0.4$, $J/U = 0.049$) we find $P(0) =
0.022$, $P(1) = 0.955$ and $P(2) = 0.023$ for the central site of the
$3\times 3$ $L$-mer. Even though the average occupancy
of the sites within the $L$-mer is exactly $n=1$ in the MI
phase, the occupancy of a given site does fluctuate about its
average value; the probability of finding 0 or 2 particles on
this site is roughly 2\%.
\section{Application to Superlattices}
\label{Diatomic Results}
\subsection{The Dimer Chain}
We now turn to an analysis of a simple superlattice
consisting of a
one-dimensional chain in which the on-site energies alternate in an
$...\varepsilon_{A}\varepsilon_{B}\varepsilon_{A}\varepsilon_{B}...$
fashion. Figure \ref{fig:dimerchain_gen} shows a portion of such
a lattice, with a pair of $AB$ sites being referred to as a
{\it dimer}. The BH Hamiltonian for this system can then be
expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Kdia_pre}
&&\hat{\mathcal{K}}=~\frac{\Delta}{2}\sum_{j}\left(\hat{n}_j^B -
\hat{n}_j^A\right)-~\mu\sum_{j}\left( \hat{n}_j^A +
\hat{n}_j^B\right)
+\frac{1}{2} \sum_j
\left(U_{A}\hat{n}_j^A(\hat{n}_j^A~-~1)+U_{B}
\hat{n}_j^B(\hat{n}_j^B~-~1)\right)\nonumber \\
&&\hskip 1truein-J_1\sum_{j}\left( \hat{a}^\dagger_{j}
\hat{b}_{j} + \hat{b}^\dagger_{j} \hat{a}_{j} \right) - J_2 \sum_{ j}
\left( \hat{a}^\dagger_{j+1} \hat{b}_{j} + \hat{b}^\dagger_j
\hat{a}_{j+1} \right)~,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics{fig14.eps}}
\caption{Schematic of a general dimer superlattice with
alternating site energies $\varepsilon_A$ and $\varepsilon_B$.
The level separation is $\Delta$.
The different barrier heights along the chain lead to different
intra-dimer ($J_1$) and inter-dimer ($J_2$) tunnelling energies.
}
\label{fig:dimerchain_gen}
\end{figure}
where the index $j$ labels the $j$th dimer within the lattice.
Here, we have introduced the site operators
$\hat{a}_{j}(\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{j})$ and
$\hat{b}_{j}(\hat{b}^{\dagger}_{j})$ for the $A$ and $B$ sites,
respectively, in the $j$th dimer, and the number operators
$\hat{n}_j^A=\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{j}\hat{a}_{j}$ and
$\hat{n}_j^B=\hat{b}^{\dagger}_{j}\hat{b}_{j}$.
With $\varepsilon_A = -\Delta/2$ and $\varepsilon_B =
\Delta/2$, the level separation within a dimer is $\Delta$.
We have also allowed for different interaction parameters $U_A$
and $U_B$ for the two kinds of sites and for different
intra-dimer ($J_1$) and inter-dimer ($J_2$) hopping (tunnelling)
energies. For the optical lattice potential illustrated in
Fig.~\ref{fig:dimerchain_gen}, the asymmetric barrier heights lead
to $J_1 > J_2$.
In the following, we consider the optical lattice shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:dimerchain} which has inversion symmetry
and symmetric barrier heights. In this case, $J_1 = J_2 = J$.
For simplicity, we also assume $U_A = U_B = U$. This particular
model was previously studied in \cite{Rousseau06} and
\cite{Chen10}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics{fig15.eps}}
\caption{A portion of the dimer superlattice used in the
analysis of the MI-SF transition. The inversion symmetry about
each lattice site results in equal intra- and inter-dimer
tunnelling energies $J$.
}
\label{fig:dimerchain}
\end{figure}
To implement the MSMFT, we partition the lattice into clusters
containing $N_d$ dimers, thus defining $L$-mers of size $L =
2N_d$. Each $L$-mer begins with an $A$ site and ends with a $B$
site, and the different $L$-mers are decoupled by introducing
the order parameters $\psi_A$ and $\psi_B$. Following the
procedure given in \S~\ref{2D}, we obtain the
mean-field decoupled $L$-mer Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}\label{KDIA}
\hat{\mathcal K}^{MF}=\hat{\mathcal K}^{0}_{L}+\hat{\cal V}^{MF}_{L},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{K01D_dia}
&&\hat{\mathcal K}^{0}_{L}
=\sum_{j=1}^{N_d}\left[\left(-\frac{\Delta}{2}-\mu\right
)\hat{n}_j^A+\left(\frac{\Delta}{2}-\mu\right)\hat{n}_j^B+\frac{U}{2
}\Big(\hat{n}_j^A\left(\hat{n}_j^A-1\right)+\hat{n}_j^B\left(\hat{
n}_j^B-1\right)\Big)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 1truein-J\sum_{j=1}^{N_d}(\hat{a}_{j}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{j}+\hat{b
}_{j}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{j})-J\sum_{j=1}^{N_d-1}(\hat{a}_{j+1}^{\dagger}
\hat{b}_j+\hat{b}_j^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{j+1})
\end{eqnarray}
is the Hamiltonian of an open-ended dimer chain of length
$L=2N_d$, and
\begin{equation}\label{mf_term_dia}
\hat{\cal V}^{MF}_{L}=-J\psi_{B}\left(\hat{a}_{1}^{\dagger}+\hat{a}_{1}
\right)-J\psi_{A}\left(\hat{b}_{N_{d}}^{\dagger}+\hat{b}_{N_{d}}\right)
+2J\psi_{A}\psi_{B}~
\end{equation}
is the mean-field coupling.
To determine the MI-SF phase boundary we use the energy
criterion based on the eigenvalues of the energy matrix
$\undertilde{W}$. For this example of a two-component order
parameter, the expansion of the grand potential has the form
given in (\ref{Omega_0_reduced}) with the matrix elements
\begin{equation}
W_{AA} = J^2 \sum_{\nu \ne 0}
\frac{|\langle \nu|
\hat{b}_{N_d}^{\dagger}+\hat{b}_{N_d}|0\rangle|^{2}}
{\Omega_0(\{0\})-\Omega_\nu(\{0\})}~,
\label{W_AA_dimer}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
W_{BB} = J^2 \sum_{\nu \ne 0}
\frac{|\langle \nu|
\hat{a}_{1}^{\dagger}+\hat{a}_{1}|0\rangle|^{2}}{
\Omega_{0}(\{0\})-\Omega_\nu(\{0\})}~,
\label{W_BB_dimer}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
W_{AB} = J+ J^2 \sum_{\nu \ne 0} \frac{\langle 0|
\hat b_{N_d}^\dagger + \hat{b}_{N_d})|\nu\rangle\langle \nu |
\hat a_1^\dagger + \hat{a}_{1}|0\rangle}
{ \Omega_{0}(\{0\})-\Omega_\nu(\{0\})}~,
\end{equation}
and $W_{BA} = W_{AB}$. The $\undertilde{W}$ eigenvalues in this
case are given by
\begin{equation}
\omega_\pm = \frac{1}{2}(W_{AA}+W_{BB})\pm \sqrt{\left (
\frac{W_{AA}- W_{BB}}{2} \right )^2 + W_{AB}^2}.
\end{equation}
Since $W_{AA}$ and $W_{BB}$ are negative definite, we see that
$\omega_- < 0$. On the other hand,
since $W_{AB} \simeq J$ for small $J$, while $W_{AA}$
and $W_{BB}$ are proportional to $J^2$, we see that $\omega_+$
remains positive with increasing $J$ up to the point where
\begin{equation}
W_{AA}W_{BB} = W_{AB}^2,
\end{equation}
when it goes to zero.
This equation defines the phase boundary between the MI and the
SF phases. We thus see that
$\boldsymbol{\psi}={\bf 0}$ is a saddle
point of the grand potential in the MI phase and that this point
turns into a local maximum when the SF phase is entered. The
stationary point remains a saddle point in the SF phase.
\subsubsection{Results for $N_d=1$}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig16.eps}}
\caption{ The $N$-domains of a single-dimer $L$-mer at
$\tilde{J}=0$. The site occupations of the $A$ (lower level) and
$B$ (upper level) sites is indicated by the number of black dots.
As one crosses a downward (upward) sloping line with increasing
$\mu/U$, the occupation of the lower (upper) level increases by
one. This figure applies to any number of dimers in the $L$-mer
being considered.}
\label{fig:1dimerJD0}
\end{figure}
In this subsection we present results for the case of an $L$-mer
consisting of a single dimer, that is, $N_d=1$. This
case already exhibits all the general features of the phase
diagram for a dimer chain. The results we obtain in the
following subsection show quantitative
improvements with increasing $N_d$ but are qualitatively similar.
The results we find for $N_d=1$ are also similar to those found
in an earlier investigation~\cite{Chen10}. This latter work,
however, is a SDMFT (even though different order
parameters are introduced for the $A$ and $B$ sites) since
the dimer Hamiltonian used in the perturbative analysis is
the sum of independent site Hamiltonians. In contrast, ours is
truly a MSMFT, even for $N_d=1$, since it
requires the determination of the eigenstates of the coupled
dimer Hamiltonian in (\ref{K01D_dia}).
The phase diagram for the dimer chain is determined
in the three-dimensional parameter space defined by
the dimensionless variables $\tilde \mu = \mu/U$,
$\tilde J = J/U$ and $\tilde \Delta = \Delta/U$. For given
values of $\tilde \mu$ and $\tilde \Delta$, the system is in a
MI phase for $\tilde J < \tilde J_{\rm cr}(\tilde \mu, \tilde
\Delta)$. This function defines the phase boundary as a surface
in the three-dimensional parameter space. As we shall see, this
surface consists of sections, each of which terminates on the
$\tilde J = 0$ plane and corresponds to distinct MI regions.
In order to understand the underlying structure of the phase
diagram, it is therefore useful to first consider the limiting case
of $\tilde{J}=0$ which defines the base of the Mott lobes.
For $\tilde{J}=0$ and $N_d
=1$, we have the dimensionless dimer Hamiltonian
(we can dispense with the dimer index $j$ in (\ref{K01D_dia})
since there is a single dimer in the $L$-mer)
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mathcal K}^{0}_{L}(\tilde J=0)
=\left(-\frac{\tilde{\Delta}}{2}-\tilde \mu\right)\hat{n}_A
+\left(\frac{\tilde{\Delta}}{2}-\tilde \mu\right)\hat{n}_B
+\frac{1}{2}
\left(\hat{n}_A\left(\hat{n}_A-1\right)+\hat{n}_B
\left(\hat{n}_B-1\right)\right).
\end{equation}
The occupation number states $|n_A,n_B\rangle$ are eigenstates
of this Hamiltonian with eigenvalues
\begin{equation}\label{K0J0}
\tilde \kappa_L^0 =\frac{1}{2}\left(n_{A}-\tilde{\mu}_{A}
-\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\left(\tilde{\mu}_{A}+\frac{1}{2}
\right)^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(n_{B}-\tilde{\mu}_{B}
-\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2}
-\frac{1}{2}\left(\tilde{\mu}_{B}+\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2},
\end{equation}
where $\tilde \mu_A = \tilde \mu + \tilde \Delta/2$ and $\tilde
\mu_B = \tilde \mu - \tilde \Delta/2$. The lowest energy is
obtained by minimizing $\tilde \kappa_L^0$ with respect to $n_A$
and $n_B$. Since $n_A$ is an integer, the minimizing value of
$n_A$ is the integer closest to $\tilde \mu_A +1/2$, that is,
the integer $\nu_A$ when $\nu_A -1 < \tilde
\mu_A < \nu_A$. This condition defines a region in the
$\tilde\mu$-$\tilde \Delta$ plane where the number of atoms on
the $A$ site is $\nu_A$. These regions are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD0} and
are bounded by the lines $\tilde \mu = \nu_A - \tilde \Delta/2$
for $\nu_A = 0,\,1,\cdots$. A similar analysis determines $\nu_B$,
the minimizing value of $n_B$, and the regions where this value
applies are bounded by the lines $\tilde \mu = \nu_B + \tilde
\Delta/2$ with $\nu_B = 0,\,1,\cdots$. As shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD0}, the
$\tilde \mu$-$\tilde \Delta$ plane is thus divided into domains
in which the number of particles in the dimer is $N =
\nu_A+\nu_B$. These domains are the $N$-domains introduced
earlier and define the base of the distinct MI regions. We observe
that each of these regions has specific site occupations. For
example, for $N = 2$, there is a region where the dimer
configuration is given by $\nu_A = 1,\,\nu_B=1$ and another
with $\nu_A = 2,\,\nu_B=0$. These two configurations are
degenerate in energy at a single point in the $\tilde
\mu$-$\tilde \Delta$ plane. They are also degenerate with other
configurations having a different value of $N$ along the lines
bounding the $N$-domains. With increasing $\tilde J$, the
occupation number states are no longer eigenstates of the dimer
Hamiltonian but within each Mott lobe the dimer
configuration is predominantly that indicated
in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD0} at the base of the lobe.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimercontour} we show a
contour plot of the $\tilde J_{\rm cr}(\tilde \mu,\tilde \Delta)$
surface, below which the MI phase exists. The grey scale
indicates the extent of the MI phase in the $\tilde J$ direction
which is perpendicular to the plane of the figure. In general,
we see that the area enclosed by a given contour decreases as
$\tilde J$ increases, resulting in a dome-like structure of the
MI-SF phase boundary. The $\tilde J = 0$ contour (black)
corresponds to the lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD0}
and defines the base of each
of the Mott lobes. Within each lobe the number of particles
in the dimer, $\langle \hat n_A\rangle + \langle \hat
n_B\rangle$, is equal to the integer $N$ indicated by the
configuration in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD0}.
However, as we show in more detail
later, the average site occupancies $\langle \hat n_A\rangle$
and $\langle \hat n_B\rangle$ are not constant throughout a
given lobe.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics{fig17.eps}}
\caption{The phase diagram of a dimer chain
within the MSMFT using a cluster consisting of a
single dimer. The grey scale indicates the value of $\tilde
J_{\rm cr}(\tilde \mu, \tilde \Delta)$ at which the MI-SF phase
boundary occurs. Each region bounded by a black contour ($\tilde
J = 0$) corresponds to a different Mott lobe with an integer
number of atoms $N$ in the dimer. }
\label{fig:1dimercontour}
\end{figure}
Although Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimercontour} provides the overall
structure of the phase diagram, it is useful to consider various
two-dimensional cross-sections to visualize the MI and SF
regions. A slice through Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimercontour} at a
constant value of $\tilde J$ gives one of the contours in the
figure and reveals the Mott regions as islands in the $\tilde
\mu$-$\tilde \Delta$ plane surrounded by SF regions. Another
possibility is a vertical slice through Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimercontour}
at a fixed value of $\tilde \Delta$. In
Fig.~\ref{fig:tilde_Delta_slice} we show such a slice at
$\tilde \Delta =0.75$. Together with Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimercontour}
it is easy to visualize the variation of the MI regions with
variations in $\tilde \Delta$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics{fig18.eps}}
\caption{A slice through the phase diagram in
Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimercontour} at $\tilde \Delta = 0.75$.
The average filling per site for each Mott lobe increases by
$1/2$ with increasing $\mu/U$, starting with $n = 0$ at the
bottom of the figure. The system is a SF to the right of the
phase boundary.
}
\label{fig:tilde_Delta_slice}
\end{figure}
Perhaps a more physical situation is that for a fixed optical
lattice, hence fixed values of $J$ and $\Delta$, but with
varying $U$ which can be controlled experimentally by means of a
Feshbach resonance. A cross-section at fixed $J/\Delta$ (i.e.,
$\tilde J/\tilde \Delta$)
corresponds to a plane containing the $\tilde \mu$ axis and
inclined at some angle with respect to the $\tilde J$ and
$\tilde \Delta$ axes. In Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD005}
we show the intersection of such
a plane with the Mott lobes in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimercontour} for
$J/\Delta=0.05$. The superfluid phase is indicated by the `shaded'
region (the vertical black lines) surrounding the various MI
phases that occur for different values of $N$. One can see
that odd values of $N$, corresponding to a half-integral
average number of particles per site, give rise to lobes which
emerge at integral values of $\tilde \mu$. These lobes should
not be confused with the so-called ``loopholes" discussed
in~\cite{Buonsante04a,Buonsante05a} which arise for a different
reason when more complex superlattice structures are considered.
Also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD005} are the various
$N$-domains which are bounded by the solid curves. These
domains evolve continuously from those shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD0} as the $J/\Delta = 0$ plane is tilted
into the $J/\Delta = 0.5$ plane. As one can see, the crossings
of the domain boundaries in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD0} become
avoided crossings as a result of the finite value of $J$. These
avoided crossings become more pronounced with increasing $\tilde
\Delta$ since $\tilde J = 0.05 \tilde \Delta$.
\subsubsection{Results for $N_d>1$}
We next consider the effect of increasing the number of dimers
in the $L$-mer to $N_d =2$. The $\tilde J = 0$ phase diagram
is the same as in
Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD0} but the site occupancies shown should be
understood to apply to both dimers so that the number of
particles in each of the $N$-domains is actually doubled.
The difference from $N_d=1$ becomes apparent for $\tilde J \ne
0$ and in Fig.~\ref{fig:2dimers} we show the phase diagram
for $J/\Delta = 0.05$. This phase diagram is very similar to the
$N_d=1$ phase diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD005} apart
from the appearance of a new Mott region for $N =6$
corresponding to an average
filling ($n = N/L$) of $n=3/2$ particles per site. This simply
reflects the fact that the Mott regions are stabilized with
increasing $L$-mer size as found for the homogeneous systems
discussed in \S \ref{Homogeneous}. As $N_d$ increases, $\tilde
J_{\rm cr}(\tilde \mu, \tilde \Delta)$ increases and the Mott
lobes in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimercontour} extend to larger values of
$\tilde J$. The intersection of the $J/\Delta = 0.05$ plane with
the Mott lobes can thus include additional Mott regions as found
in the present example.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics{fig19.eps}}
\caption{The phase diagram of the dimer chain obtained for
an $L$-mer consisting of a single dimer at $J/\Delta=0.05$. The
SF phase is indicated by the shaded region (the vertical
black lines) which surround the various MI regions.
The black lines are the boundaries of the $N$-domains within
which Mott regions with $N$ particles per dimer are located.
As discussed in the text, the $N$-domains are the regions
where the ground state of
$\hat{\mathcal K}^{0}_{L}$ contains $N$ particles.}
\label{fig:1dimerJD005}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics{fig20.eps}}
\caption{The phase diagram of the dimer chain at
$J/\Delta=0.05$ for an $L$-mer containing two dimers.
As compared to the single dimer phase diagram at
in Fig. \ref{fig:1dimerJD005}, we see that the Mott regions are
larger, implying the increased stabilization of the Mott phase.
This is particularly evident in the bottom-right corner of the
figure which shows an additional Mott region with filling
$n=3/2$.
}
\label{fig:2dimers}
\end{figure}
The other qualitative difference in Fig.~\ref{fig:2dimers}
concerns the $N$-domains which are doubled in number as
compared to those shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD005}. Depending
on the value of $\mu$ the ground state of the Hamiltonian in
(\ref{K01D_dia}) can have $N = 0,1,2,\cdots$ particles and
each of these values appears as a distinct $N$-domain in
Fig.~\ref{fig:2dimers}. Since $L=2N_d =4$, the average
number of particles per site in the $L$-mer is $n = N/4$.
The additional $N$-domains, however, have no qualitative
effect on the phase diagram and Mott phases only appear at
integral and half-integral values of $n$. We have performed some
additional calculations for $N_d =3$, that is for $L$-mers with
three dimers. As expected, we find
only slightly expanded MI regions resulting from the increased
stabilization of the Mott phases.
It is of interest to compare the MSMFT phase diagram with
that given in Fig.~17 of Ref.~\cite{Rousseau06} which
was obtained using the quantum Monte Carlo (QMC)
method. These results can effectively be taken as exact. In
terms of our variables, the data in this figure correspond to
$J/\Delta = 0.25$, a factor of five larger than the value used
in Figs.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD005} and \ref{fig:2dimers}. Before
comparing with the data in Ref.~\cite{Rousseau06},
we first note that the extent of the MI regions in the QMC simulations
for 1D systems are enhanced significantly as compared to the
MSMFT results (as seen, for example, in
Fig.~\ref{fig:1d_phasediag}). In other words,
the $\tilde J_{\rm cr}(\tilde\mu,\tilde\Delta)$ surface of the QMC
calculations lies considerably above that of the MSMFT calculations.
As a result, a direct comparison of the results obtained using
the two methods is not particularly meaningful for one and the
same fixed value of
$J/\Delta$. However, if $J/\Delta$ is scaled in proportion to the
relative extent of the MI regions, one might expect a
correspondence between the two sets of results. This is indeed
the case. The results in Fig.~17 of Ref.~\cite{Rousseau06}
are qualitatively similar to those of Fig.~\ref{fig:2dimers_0.1}
obtained for $J/\Delta = 0.1$. One obvious qualitative
difference is that the MI regions in the MSMFT calculations do
not exhibit the pointed shape seen in the QMC results as was
found for the case of the homogeneous 1D lattice (see
Fig.~\ref{fig:1d_phasediag}).
One can infer from this feature that the QMC version of
Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimercontour}
would have cusps running along the top of the Mott lobes.
Such cusps are absent in higher dimensions.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics{fig21.eps}}
\caption{The phase diagram of the dimer chain at
$J/\Delta=0.1$ for an $L$-mer containing two dimers. The range
of $\mu/U$ corresponds to that in Fig.~17 of
Ref.~\cite{Rousseau06} (note that their interaction parameter is
$U' = U/2$). The lowest unshaded region in the figure is a $n=0$
Mott insulator.
}
\label{fig:2dimers_0.1}
\end{figure}
Finally, it is instructive to consider the variation of the order
parameters $\psi_A$ and $\psi_B$ and the on-site densities
$\langle \hat n_A\rangle$ and $\langle \hat n_B\rangle$ as a
function of $\tilde \Delta$ along the line $\tilde \mu = 0.5$ in
Fig.~\ref{fig:2dimers}. The order parameters are determined
self-consistently using the iterative scheme in
(\ref{eq:iterative_map}). In the MI
phase, the order parameters converge to zero and the Hamiltonian
$\hat{\mathcal K}_L$ reduces to the dimer Hamiltonian
$\hat{\mathcal K}_L^0$. Thus in the Mott regions, $\langle \hat n_A
\rangle$ is equal to $\langle \hat n_A \rangle_0$, the value
obtained for the ground state of $\hat{\mathcal K}_L^0$, with a
similar equality for the $B$
site. In the SF regions, $\langle \hat n_A \rangle$ is no longer
equal to $\langle \hat n_A \rangle_0$ but the latter quantity is
still well-defined and it is of interest to compare it with the
actual on-site density $\langle \hat n_A\rangle$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics{fig22.eps}}
\caption{
A plot of the on-site densities for the terminating $A$ and $B$
sites of an $L$-mer containing two dimers, as a
function of $\tilde{\Delta}$, for the values of $J/\Delta=0.05$ and
$\tilde{\mu}=0.5$. The densities
$\langle \hat n_{A}\rangle$ and $\langle \hat n_{B}\rangle$
are obtained from the ground state of the full
Hamiltonian (\ref{KDIA}); for comparison, we also show the
densities
$\langle \hat n_{A}\rangle_0$ and $\langle \hat n_{B}\rangle_0$
corresponding to the ground state of $\hat{\mathcal
K}^{0}_L$ in (\ref{K01D_dia}).
The discontinuities in $\langle \hat n_{A}\rangle_0$ and
$\langle \hat n_{B}\rangle_0$ occur at the boundaries of the
$N$-domains. On the other hand, $\langle \hat n_{A}\rangle$ and
$\langle \hat n_{B}\rangle$ vary continuously, but show kinks at
the boundaries between the MI and SF phases.
}
\label{fig:A_B_density}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:A_B_density} we plot the on-site densities
for the $A$ and $B$ sites terminating the $L$-mer, as a function of
$\tilde{\Delta}$, for
$J/\Delta=0.05$ and $\tilde{\mu}=0.5$. We first consider
$\langle \hat n_A \rangle_0$ and $\langle \hat n_B \rangle_0$ which are
shown by the dashed curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:A_B_density}.
Referring
to Fig. \ref{fig:2dimers}, we see that the $\tilde \mu = 0.5$
line remains in the $N =4$ domain ($n= 1$) for $\tilde \Delta$
between 0 and approximately 3. For this range of $\tilde \Delta$,
$\langle \hat n_A \rangle_0$ and $\langle \hat n_B \rangle_0$ vary
continuously with $\tilde \Delta$.
For small $\tilde \Delta$, they are both
close to 1 but as $\tilde\Delta$ passes through 1,
$\langle \hat n_{A}\rangle_0$ increases continuously to about 2 while
$\langle \hat n_{B}\rangle_0$ decreases to about 0. This change
in occupation reflects the change in the dimer state from
predominantly $|1,1\rangle$ to $|2,0\rangle$ as
Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD0} for
$J/\Delta =0$ would suggest. For larger $\tilde \Delta$, the
$\tilde \mu=0.5$ line successively enters $N=5$, 6 and 7
domains. When an $N$-domain boundary is crossed, the densities
$\langle \hat n_A \rangle_0$ and $\langle \hat n_B\rangle_0$
calculated for the ground state of $\hat{\mathcal K}_L^0$ change
discontinuously. On entering the $N=5$ domain, $\langle \hat n_A
\rangle_0$ jumps approximately to 2.25 (the occupancy of
the interior $A$-site jumps to about 2.75).
When the $N=6$ domain is entered, $\langle \hat n_A \rangle_0$
jumps to approximately 3. The latter
indicates that the $\hat {\mathcal K}_L^0$ ground state now
has predominantly the $|3,0\rangle$ configuration.
The full curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:A_B_density} show the variation
of $\langle \hat n_A\rangle$ and $\langle \hat n_B\rangle$.
These quantities generally follow the variation of
$\langle \hat n_A\rangle_0$ and $\langle \hat n_B\rangle_0$,
respectively, and, as stated earlier, are equal to the latter
in the MI phases where $\langle \psi_A \rangle$ and $\langle
\psi_B\rangle$ are zero. Unlike $\langle \hat n_A\rangle_0$ and
$\langle \hat n_B\rangle_0$, however, $\langle \hat n_A\rangle$
and $\langle \hat n_B\rangle$ vary continuously through the SF regions
from one MI phase to another since in these regions the ground
state of $\hat {\cal K}^{MF}$ is not a number eigenstate.
We also find that the densities at the interior $A$ and $B$
sites do not deviate much from the densities at the terminating
$A$ and $B$ sites of the $N_d =2$ $L$-mer.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics{fig23.eps}}
\caption{A plot of the order parameters, $\psi_{A}$ and $\psi_{B}$, as
a function of $\tilde{\Delta}$ for $J/\Delta=0.05$
and $\tilde{\mu}=0.5$. The order parameters are shown for
$L$-mers containing one and two dimers corresponding to the phase
diagrams in Figs.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD005} and \ref{fig:2dimers}.
}
\label{fig:2dimerJD005orderparams}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:2dimerJD005orderparams} we plot the order parameters,
$\psi_{A}$ and $\psi_{B}$, as a function of $\tilde{\Delta}$ for the
same values of $J/\Delta=0.05$ and $\tilde{\mu}=0.5$. For
comparison, we show the order parameters for both the $N_d = 1$
and $N_d = 2$ $L$-mers corresponding to
Figs.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD005} and \ref{fig:2dimers}. The $\tilde \mu
= 0.5$ line passes through two MI regions in the case of $N_d = 1$
where the order parameters are zero, while in the case of
$N_d=2$, the line passes through three MI regions. The proximity
of a MI region in the $N_d=1$ case leads to the dip in the order
parameters seen in the range $\tilde \Delta \simeq$ 3.5-4. With
increasing $N_d$, the MI phase is stabilized and results in the
$\tilde \mu = 0.5$ scan passing through a MI region for this range of
$\tilde \Delta$.
In the vicinity of a MI-SF boundary the order parameters are seen
to behave as $|\tilde \Delta - \tilde \Delta_{\rm cr}|^{1/2}$
which is consistent with the mean-field behaviour given by
(\ref{eq:psi_mf}). We also observe that the value of $\psi_{A}$
is larger than that of $\psi_{B}$, implying a larger superfluid
fraction on the $A$-site as compared to the $B$-site. This is to
be expected given the lower on-site energy $\varepsilon_A$.
The condensate density ratio $(\psi_B/\psi_A)^2$, however, is
somewhat larger than what one might expect on the basis of the
on-site densities. For example, at $\tilde \Delta = 1$ we have
$(\psi_B/\psi_A)^2 \simeq 0.44$ while $\langle \hat n_B \rangle
/\langle \hat n_A \rangle \simeq 0.33$. A similar enhancement of
the condensate ratio is observed near $\tilde \Delta =3$ and
$\tilde \Delta =5$.
\newpage
The above results were found for a one-dimensional system, and
while one does not expect mean-field theory to represent
the exact ground state in this case, it is simplest to
demonstrate the application of MSMFT to lattices with a
non-monatomic basis in one dimension.
We wish to stress, however, that the qualitative behaviour obtained for
the dimer chain is also obtained for higher-dimensional
lattices. As one example, we have considered the two-dimensional
honeycomb lattice in which the site energies within
a single hexagon alternate $ABABAB$. The application of MSMFT
to this system leads to results which are essentially identical
to those obtained for the dimer chain. For
a value of $J/\Delta=0.05$ we find a phase diagram similar to
that shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2dimers_0.1};
the one minor difference is the extent of the various Mott lobes.
As for the dimer chain problem,
the phase diagram for the two-dimensional lattice can be understood
in terms of the $N$-domain structure shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dimerJD0}.
\subsection{A Superlattice with Loopholes}
In all of the examples we have considered so far, the phase
diagrams obtained using SDMFT and MSMFT are qualitatively similar.
As shown previously by Buonsante {\it et
al.}~\cite{Buonsante04a,Buonsante05a}, this is not
always the case. In particular, they find that certain superlattices
exhibit a so-called `loophole' structure which corresponds to Mott
domains that do not arise in SDMFT.
Here we briefly consider an example of this kind. The specific
superlattice we study was previously examined using
SDMFT~\cite{Buonsante04b}. It consists of a four-site superlattice
with site energies given by
$\epsilon_1 = 1.9\Delta$, $\epsilon_2 = 0.3\Delta$, $\epsilon_3
= 1.3\Delta$, $\epsilon_4 = 0.0\Delta$ with the same hopping
parameter $J$ between nearest-neighbour sites and the same
on-site interaction $U$. The phase diagram as determined in
SDMFT and MSMFT is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:loopholes}. We observe
that Mott domains for integral average filling do not arise with
SDMFT. However, within MSMFT, these domains are present and have
the loophole structure referred to above.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering{\includegraphics{fig24.eps}}
\caption{Phase diagram for a four-site superlattice which
exhibits loopholes. The parameters defining the superlattice
are given in the text. The shaded region corresponds to the SF
phase as determined using MSMFT. The dashed lines show the phase
boundaries determined using SDMFT. The numbers $n$ labelling
each of the Mott domains is the average filling of the
superlattice. We note that new Mott domains appear at $n=1$ and
$n=2$ within MSMFT.
The solid lines show the $N$-domains for the four-site
cluster. Within SDMFT, the $N$-domains boundaries are straight
lines, parallel to the $J/U$ axis, which start at the edges of the
Mott domains along the $\mu/U$ axis.}
\label{fig:loopholes}
\end{figure}
The origin of the integral-$n$ loopholes is associated with
degeneracies of different particle configurations in the atomic
limit ($J\to 0$). Denoting the $\hat {\cal K}^0_L(J=0)$
eigenstates as $|n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4\rangle$, the $N=4$ configurations
$|0,2,0,2\rangle$ and $|0,1,1,2\rangle$ have the same energy of
$E_4 = 2.6U$. As the chemical potential $\mu$ is swept through
$E_4-E_3 = 1.3U$, the particle number in the system jumps by 2.
This explains the absence of a $n=1$ Mott domain along the
$J/U=0$ axis. As $J/U$ increases, the degeneracy between the two
$N=4$ configurations is lifted within MSMFT and a $n=1$ region
becomes accessible for the formation of a Mott domain. Such a
Mott domain does indeed form as seen in
Fig.~\ref{fig:loopholes}. Within SDMFT, the degeneracy persists
since $\hat {\cal K}^0_L(J=0)$ is used in the perturbation
analysis for all $J$. As a result, the $n=1$ Mott domain does
not appear. A similar argument applies to the $n=2$ Mott domain.
Underlying its formation is the degeneracy of the $|1,3,1,3\rangle$
and $|1,2,2,3\rangle$ $N=8$ states in the atomic limit.
More generally, qualitative differences between SDMFT and MSMFT
may be found whenever degeneracies of the kind discussed
above appear in the ground states of the $\hat {\cal
K}^0_L(J=0)$ grand Hamiltonian. Such degeneracies appear in all
of the examples of loopholes considered
previously~\cite{Buonsante04a,Buonsante05a}. They also arise in
models dealing with two bosonic species~\cite{Chen10} and one
can expect differences between SDMFT and MSMFT to appear in
these cases as well.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:Conclusions}
In this paper we have developed, explained and utilized a mean-field
theory of the Mott insulator-superfluid transition of bosons
moving in optical lattices. In this approach, the lattice is
partitioned into clusters which we refer to as
$L$-mers. In the Bose-Hubbard model the $L$-mers are coupled
by the hopping Hamiltonian; they can be isolated by invoking a
mean-field decoupling procedure whereby a superfluid order
parameter is introduced for all boundary sites of the $L$-mer.
This leads to a mean-field Hamiltonian taking the form shown in
Eq.~(\ref{KMF}). The resulting theory is thus a multi-site mean-field
theory (MSMFT); it should be contrasted with site-decoupled
mean-field theories which allow for different order
parameters at different sites \cite{Chen10} but neglect
inter-site correlations.
The ground state of the mean-field Hamiltonian defines a grand
potential energy functional of the various order parameters.
The stationary points of this functional are shown to correspond
to self-consistent solutions in that the order parameters
evaluated at the stationary point coincide with the order
parameters defining the mean-field Hamiltonian itself. A
detailed analysis reveals that the stationary points are, in
general, \textit{saddle points}. As a result, they cannot be
located by minimizing the energy functional. For
weak hopping there is only one self-consistent solution, the Mott
insulating phase, whereas at larger hopping a second stationary
point appears with lower energy, corresponding to the superfluid
phase.
The identification of the phase boundaries separating the Mott
insulating and superfluid phases can be analyzed using perturbation
theory. Our work has clarified the relationship between two
different criteria for the determination of the phase
boundaries, one based on the energy functional itself and the
second based on the stability of an iterative map. We show that
the two criteria are equivalent and can be used interchangeably.
We have applied our theory to
the Bose-Hubbard model for $d$-dimensional hypercubic lattices, for
$d=1$ (chains), $d=2$ (square lattice), and $d=3$ (simple cubic
lattice). Our results demonstrate the improvements that MSMFT
affords relative to site-decoupled mean-field theories.
This, of course, is what one expects since the theory becomes
exact in the limit of an infinite $L$-mer.
Specifically, our numerical results make clear
that as the size of the $L$-mer \textit{and} the dimensionality of
the system are increased, better agreement between MSMFT
and numerical Monte Carlo data is obtained.
However, mean-field theories typically
underestimate the stability of the Mott insulating phase, and
therefore (for a given chemical potential) underestimate the critical
hopping at which this phase becomes unstable with respect to the
superfluid phase.
In addition, we have applied our MSMFT to the analysis of
one-dimensional superlattices. For the dimer chain, the
inequivalence of the two sites
within the dimer necessitates the introduction of two order
parameters. The stationary points of the resulting energy
functional are found to be saddle points in this case.
Apart from the underestimation of the critical hopping mentioned
above, the phase boundaries we obtain are in qualitative
agreement with those obtained on the basis of Monte Carlo
simulations~\cite{Rousseau06}. We also considered one example of
a more complex superlattice for which the predictions of SDMFT
and MSMFT differ qualitatively. Specifically, the phase diagram
as determined using MSMFT exhibits loopholes which are absent
in SDMFT. Such qualitative differences are expected to arise
when degeneracies exist in the $\hat {\cal K}^0_L(J=0)$ ground
state energy.
The MSMFT was used previously in a study of the disordered
Bose-Hubbard model~\cite{Pisarski11}, and will be applied to
other, more complicated situations in subsequent work.
\section*{APPENDIX}
A practical limitation of the MSMFT is the size of the Hilbert
space needed to diagonalize the mean-field Hamiltonians
$\hat {\cal K}^0_L$ and $\hat {\cal K}^{MF}$ which grows
exponentially with the size of the $L$-mer. A natural basis is
provided by the occupation number states $|\{n_l\}\rangle$ where
$l=1,\dots,L$ and $n_l = 0,1,\dots,\infty$. For a given average
number of particles per site, it is sufficient to truncate the
range of $n_l$ at some maximum number $n_{max}$ which can be
varied to ensure convergence of the eigenstate calculations.
Within this truncated basis, the dimension of the basis is $S^L$
where $S=n_{max} +1$.
The perturbative calculations require the ground state of $\hat
{\cal K}^0_L$ for $N$ particles and excited states for
$N\pm1$ particles.
The truncated basis discussed above is excessive since it
includes states with different total particle numbers. To obtain
the eigenstates within an $N$-particle subspace we therefore
retain only those states with the required number of
particles. We denote the states in this subset as $|k\rangle$,
$k = 1,\dots,N_{st}$, where $N_{st}$ is the number of states in
the set. These states are the occupation number states satisfying
$\sum_{l=1}^L n_l = N$ with $n_l \le n_{max}$.
We now discuss how the size of the basis set can be reduced
further with the use of group theory~\cite{Fano92}. To be specific, we
consider the $3\times 3$ $L$-mer illustrated in
Fig.~\ref{fig:3x3}(b). The
symmetry operations which leave the $L$-mer invariant define a
group ${\cal G}$ of order $g$ ($g=8$ in this case) with group
elements $G_m$ consisting of the identity, three rotations and
four reflections. The savings provided by group theory stem
from the fact that the Hamiltonian $\hat {\cal K}^0_L$ commutes
with the group elements $G_m$ and that the ground state
$|0\rangle$ of the $L$-mer
belongs to the identity irreducible representation with the
property $G_m|0\rangle = |0\rangle$. The reduced energy matrix
in (\ref{W_red_elem}) involves matrix elements of the form
$\langle \nu |
\sum_{l \in A}(\hat a_l^\dagger + \hat a_l) |0\rangle$.
We observe that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&G_m \sum_{l\in A}\left(\hat{a}_l^{\dagger}+\hat{a}_l\right)
|0\rangle
= G_{m}\sum_{l\in A}\left(\hat{a}_l^{\dagger}+
\hat{a}_l\right)G_{m}^{-1}G_{m}|0\rangle \nonumber \\
&& \hskip 1.25truein = G_{m}\sum_{l\in A}\left(\hat{a}_l^{\dagger}+
\hat{a}_l\right)G_{m}^{-1}|0\rangle \nonumber \\
&& \hskip 1.25truein = \sum_{l\in A}\left(\hat{a}_l^{\dagger}+
\hat{a}_l\right)|0\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
The last step is a consequence of the invariance of the sum of field
operators under a symmetry operation. The state $\sum_{l\in
A}\left(\hat{a}_l^{\dagger}+\hat{a}_l\right) |0\rangle$ thus
belongs to the identity representation and as a result, the state
$|\nu \rangle$ must also belong to this representation for the
matrix element to be finite. It is clear from this discussion
that the calculation of the matrix in (\ref{C}) cannot be
simplified using group theory since the action of $\hat c_\alpha$ on
$|0\rangle$ creates a state that belongs to other irreducible
representations.
Since $|\nu\rangle$ must belong to the identity representation,
it can be expanded in terms of states belonging to this
representation. These states are constructed as follows,
\begin{equation}\label{symmstate}
|\kappa\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{\kappa}}}\sum_{m=1}^{g}G_{m}|k\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $1/\sqrt{N_\kappa}$ is an appropriate normalization
constant. The number of distinct states formed in this way is
$N_{sym} < N_{st}$. This reduction in the dimension of the basis
set is the advantage afforded by the use of group theory.
Within this symmetrized basis, an eigenstate of $\hat{\mathcal
K}^{0}$ is expanded as
\begin{equation}\label{symeigenvec}
|\nu\rangle=\sum_{\kappa=1}^{N_{sym}}c^{(\nu)}_{\kappa}|\kappa\rangle.
\end{equation}
The expansion coefficients and corresponding eigenvalues
$\Omega_\nu(\{{\bf 0}\})$ are then obtained by the
diagonalization of the Hamiltonian matrix $\langle \kappa
|\hat{\mathcal K}^{0}_L |\kappa'\rangle$. The reduction of the
dimension of the eigenvalue problem from $N_{st}$ to $N_{sym}$
is roughly a factor $g$, the order of the group, and represents
a significant computational saving. However, even with the use
of group theory, the $4\times 4$ $L$-mer for a 2D square lattice
remains a formidable calculation.
\acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada. We would also like to
thank Vittoria Penna for useful discussions.
|
\section{introduction}
A collection of interacting coupled oscillators is one of the most intensively studied systems showing a dynamic phase
transition called a synchronization transition~\cite{KuramotoBook,PikovskyBook,Acebron2005}.
Such systems have been used as models to describe various phenomena such as the pacemakers of the heart,
the collection of amoeba, large-scale ecosystems~\cite{WinfreeBook,KJLee1996,Ivanov1996,Blasius1999,Kori2004,Radicchi2006},
and fiber-optic networks of optoelectronic oscillators~\cite{Ravoori2011}.
As the coupling strength increases, such systems undergo a phase transition from
the desynchronized (disordered) state to the synchronized (ordered) state
characterized by critical phenomena.
The most well-known theoretical formalism is the Kuramoto
model~\cite{KuramotoBook} where the oscillators interact with each other by
a sinusoidal coupling strength with respect to the phase differences of the two
oscillators.
Aside from the steady-state behavior after the initial transient behavior,
the dynamical aspect of the oscillators has also been studied recently~\cite{Strogatz1991,SWSon2008}.
Especially, the effects of temporally varying interaction structures~\cite{Holme2011} themselves
are worthwhile to investigate since we can systematically analyze the response of systems
to such structural changes of interactions~\cite{Belykh2004,Stilwell2006}. For instance,
the mobile oscillator is considered in Refs.~\cite{Frasca2008,Peruani2010,Fujiwara2011}
as an example of temporally switching interactions. In this Brief Report, we take
the Kuramoto model with periodically switching interactions and analyze the
temporal response in the collective phase of oscillators to such periodicity in
interactions.
Such periodically switching interactions may
have implications to biological or social communications among compartments
under natural circadian rhythms, for instance~\cite{CircadianRhythm}.
In terms of the temporally averaged order parameter and its amplitude of oscillation,
we verify that the model undergoes the same synchronization transition as the
mean-field (MF) Kuramoto model~\cite{Acebron2005} with the finite-size scaling (FSS) analysis.
Furthermore, with numerical simulations and analogy to the kinetic Ising model~\cite{BJKim2001},
we show that the signature of the synchronization transition is revealed in the relative
phase shift of the order parameter with respect to the density of interactions, as a resonance-like phase-shift
inversion. The result is also consistent with the diverging relaxation time
at the critical coupling strength~\cite{Strogatz1991,SWSon2008}.
Therefore, we claim that the system's temporal response to the temporally changing interactions can
be used as an indicator of a phase transition.
\section{model}
\label{model}
We consider the Kuramoto-type oscillator dynamics~\cite{Acebron2005} composed of
$N$ oscillators as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\phi_i}{dt} = \omega_i + \frac{2K}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} a_{ij} T_{ij}(t) \sin(\phi_i - \phi_j) ,
\label{Kuramoto_equation}
\end{equation}
where $\{ \phi_i \}$ is the set of oscillators' phases, $\{ \omega_i \}$ is the set of
natural frequencies of oscillators given by the Gaussian distribution with average $0$ and unit
variance, and the symmetric adjacency matrix $a_{ij} = 1$ if $i$ and $j$ are connected and $0$ otherwise.
The interaction $a_{ij} T_{ij}(t)$ mediated by the edge between the oscillators $i$ and $j$
is subject to the periodic
function as
$T_{ij}(t) = H\left[ \sin(\Omega t + \theta_{ij} ) \right]$,
where $H$ is the Heaviside step function, $\Omega$ is the frequency of switching common to all the edges,
and $\{ \theta_{ij} \}$ for $i$--$j$ pairs with $a_{ij} = 1$ is the set of edges' intrinsic phases, which is
randomly assigned from the uniform distribution of the interval
$[0, \pi )$. By choosing such an interval, the edge densities
change periodically with the exact triangle wave subject to the frequency $\Omega$,
from fully connected edges to isolated oscillators without interactions.
Note that the factor $2$ in Eq.~(\ref{Kuramoto_equation}) is to directly compare the coupling
strength $K$ of our model
with $\overline{T_{ij}} = 1/2$
to the $K$ value in the original Kuramoto model,
where $\overline{x}$ refers to the temporal average of $x(t)$ over
a period.
In addition to the original control parameter of coupling strength
$K$ in the Kuramoto model, the edge frequency $\Omega$ driving the system
is a crucial parameter as well. The response of oscillators to the toggling
interactions is measured by the temporal behavior of conventional phase order
parameter $\Delta(t)$ where
\begin{equation}
\Delta(t) \exp[i\psi(t)] = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \exp[i\phi_{i}(t)] .
\label{phase_order_parameter}
\end{equation}
The order parameter's dynamics depends on the periodic change
of interactions with the density
$\rho(t) = \sum_{i<j} a_{ij} T_{ij}(t) / \sum_{i<j} a_{ij}$.
We provide the java applet simulating this model system in case of globally connected oscillators,
for readers to observe the behavior of a system of relatively small sizes~\cite{JavaApplet}.
From now on, we present our numerical simulation results and their
implications.
\section{results}
\label{simulation}
\subsection{Globally coupled oscillators}
\label{sec:all_to_all_case}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{A typical behavior of the order parameter
$\Delta(t)$ and the interaction density $\rho(t)$. The system size
$N = 800$, the edge frequency $\Omega = 1$, and the time series of
$\Delta(t)$ depending on $K$ are shown as smooth curves in (a) and
$\rho(t)$ (independent of $K$) as black triangle waves in (a). The
$\Delta$--$\rho$ diagram for $t > 20$ after the transient behavior
is shown in (b). All the curves are results averaged over $50$
samples.
}
\label{typical_example}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{FSS scaling collapse of the temporally averaged order parameter
$\overline{\Delta}$ for
various system sizes with the critical exponents of the original MF Kuramoto model
[$K_c = 1.62(1)$, $\beta = 1/2$, and $\bar{\nu} = 5/2$]. The edge
frequency is $\Omega = 1$.
}
\label{FSS}
\end{figure}
First, we consider the globally coupled case, i.e., $a_{ij} = 1 - \delta_{ij}$.
A typical temporal behavior of oscillators is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{typical_example}, in case of $\Omega = 1$.
Note that the oscillating behavior of the order parameter $\Delta(t)$
driven by switching edges (with the same frequency)
is shown even in case of quite low values of $K$,
for which the original MF Kuramoto model corresponds to the disordered phase.
Another interesting aspect is the relative phase shift of $\Delta(t)$
with respect to $\rho(t)$. In other words, the maximum or minimum
of $\Delta(t)$ occurs after some time when the maximum of minimum
of $\rho(t)$ is reached, as shown in Fig.~\ref{typical_example}(a).
Moreover, as $K$ is increased, the delay for maximum values and
the delay for minimum values become more asymmetric, as clearly
shown in Fig.~\ref{typical_example}(b).
In spite of such temporal oscillations of $\Delta(t)$, the temporally
averaged value $\overline{\Delta}$ (averaged after the transient time $\simeq 20$)
shows exactly the same universality class of synchronization transition as the MF Kuramoto model with
$\beta = 1/2$, and $\bar{\nu} = 5/2$~\cite{Acebron2005,HHong2007},
as described in the FSS scaling collapse with $\overline{\Delta} = N^{- \beta / \bar{\nu}} f \left( \left(K - K_c (\Omega)\right) N^{1/{\bar{\nu}}} ; \Omega \right)$
(the scaling function $f$ itself, as well as the critical coupling strength $K_c$, depends on $\Omega$)
shown in Fig.~\ref{FSS}. We suggest the slightly larger value of $K_c (\Omega)$ than that of the MF model $K_c^{\textrm{MF}} = 2\sqrt{2/\pi} \simeq 1.596$~\cite{Acebron2005} stem from additional quenched randomness caused by $\{ \theta_{ij} \}$ for edges,
similarly to the lower $T_c$ (the disordered phase extended) for the kinetic Ising model under the external oscillating field~\cite{BJKim2001}.
Since we have confirmed the MF transition for $\overline{\Delta}$, from now on we focus the temporal
behavior of $\Delta(t)$, especially with respect to the oscillating interaction strength $\rho(t)$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.90\columnwidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{The difference $A$ between maximum and minimum
values of $\Delta(t)$ oscillation and the area $S$ enclosed by the loop
in $\Delta$--$\rho$ the diagram are shown in the $K$--$\Omega$ plane.
The system size
$N = 800$, and the color-coded values are $A$ (a), $A \Omega$ (b),
$S$ (c), and $S \Omega$ (d).
The time series $\Delta(t)$ for $t > 20$ after the transient behavior
is used, and all the results are averaged over $50$
samples.
}
\label{amplitude_area_density}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{$A\Omega$ (a) and $S\Omega$ (b) as functions
of $K$, for various $\Omega$ values. The black vertical lines correspond to the MF
critical coupling strength $K_c^{\textrm{MF}} = 2\sqrt{2/\pi}$.
}
\label{amplitude_area_2D}
\end{figure}
To characterize the oscillating behavior more quantitatively, we
systematically measure the difference between maximum and minimum values of $\Delta(t)$
oscillation denoted as $A$ (roughly twice the amplitude of $\Delta(t)$) and the enclosed area
in the $\Delta$--$\rho$ diagram denoted as $S$, for a wide range of
$\Omega$ and $K$ values.
Note that the data shown here are from
the system size $N = 800$, but we have checked that there exists no significant
finite-size effects based on the simulations results with smaller and
larger systems. The time series $\Delta(t)$ for $t > 20$ after the transient behavior
is used, and all the results are from averaged over $50$
samples for all the simulations from now on.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{amplitude_area_density}, the scaling behavior of $A$ and
$S$ is quite similar, and notably both $A$ and $S$
seem to be inversely proportional to $\Omega$ for $\Omega \gtrsim 1.2$.
This scaling behavior makes the $A\Omega$ and $S\Omega$ in Figs.~\ref{amplitude_area_density}(b) and
(d) depend only on $K$ for $\Omega \gtrsim 1.2$, and is also clearly
observable from the fact that the curves for $\Omega \gtrsim 1.2$ are collapsed
in Fig.~\ref{amplitude_area_2D}. Since $\Omega$ represents the angular velocity
of the fluctuation of edges (hence that of $\Delta(t)$), $A \Omega$ corresponds to
the ``linear velocity'' of $\Delta(t)$, which is shown to be conserved for a given
value of $K$. More importantly, the synchronization transition is clearly
shown in the steep change of $A$ and $S$ near
the critical coupling strength $K_c^{\textrm{MF}}$ for the original MF Kuramoto
model, as shown in Figs.~\ref{amplitude_area_density}
and \ref{amplitude_area_2D}. Therefore, we conclude that the signature of the
MF synchronization transition of Kuramoto model is resurfaced
in terms of $A$ and $S$.
Aside from the amplitude of $\Delta$ and enclosed area in the $\Delta$--$\rho$
diagram, a notable property of the $\Delta$--$\rho$ diagram in Fig.~\ref{typical_example}(b)
is successive change in the shapes of enclosed regions, as $K$ is increased.
First, the desynchronization process of $\Delta(t)$ after the onset of decreasing phase
of $\rho(t)$ is slower than the synchronization process of $\Delta(t)$ after the onset of
increasing phase of $\rho(t)$ in general.
This asymmetry is natural,
since the response of the order parameter
to such linear functions is integrated form, i.e., quadratic functions depending
on the initial values.
We show that the synchronization transition is also observed in the phase shift of $\Delta(t)$
with respect to $\rho(t)$ as well.
To systematically analyze such a phase shift caused by the temporal delay of $\Delta(t)$,
we check the relative height difference of $\Delta$ at the right and left ends in Fig.~\ref{typical_example}(b),
corresponding to $\Delta(\rho_\textrm{max})$ and $\Delta(\rho_\textrm{min})$ respectively,
also affects the shape of enclosed regions.
In Fig.~\ref{height_diff}(a),
we plot such height differences in the $K$--$\Omega$ space, and the height difference
occurs mainly in small $\Omega$ and large $K$ regimes. Interestingly, near $K \simeq 1.6$
in relatively large $\Omega$ regimes, the difference becomes negative, which corresponds to
$\Delta(\rho_\textrm{max}) < \Delta(\rho_\textrm{min})$. We call this phenomenon {\em phase-shift
inversion}. $K \simeq 1.6$ is close to the MF critical
coupling constant $K_c^{\textrm{MF}}$ again,
and we suggest that it is related to critical slowing down near the critical
point in a phase transition, as shown in the diverging relaxation time $\tau$ at $K_c^{\textrm{MF}}$~\cite{Strogatz1991,SWSon2008},
given by
$1 = \sqrt{\pi/8} K \exp[1/(2\tau^2)] \textrm{erfc}[1/(\sqrt{2}\tau)]$.
This resonance-like phase-shift inversion phenomenon occurs similarly to the
frequency matching condition around the phase transition in the MF kinetic
Ising model~\cite{BJKim2001}. In other words, the MF synchronization transition
in the Kuramoto model is also reflected in the temporal response to the periodically
switching interactions.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig5.eps}
\caption{Height difference between $\Delta(\rho_\textrm{max})$
and $\Delta(\rho_\textrm{min})$, for the globally coupled
case (a) and SFNs with $\gamma = 6.5$ (b), $3.75$ (c), and $2.2$ (d).
Note that the rescaled coupling strength $KN/\langle k \rangle$, where $\langle k \rangle$ is set as $20$,
is used for (b)--(d), to compare with the globally coupled case (a) with the same
Eq.~(\ref{Kuramoto_equation}). The same system size $N = 800$ is used for all the cases.
}
\label{height_diff}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Scale-Free Networks}
\label{sec:SFN}
To validate our conclusion on the phase transition in terms of phase-shift inversion,
we use substrate network topologies other than the globally coupled one. The
static scale-free network (SFN) model~\cite{KIGoh2001} with the tunable degree distribution
$p(k) \sim k^{-\gamma}$ provides various underlying interaction structures such as
the pure MF case ($\gamma > 5$), the MF with critical exponents
depend on $\gamma$ ($3 < \gamma < 5$), and eventually the one where critical coupling strength
vanishes as $K_c \to 0$ ($\gamma < 3$)~\cite{HHong2007}. We use the SFN model for $\{ a_{ij} \}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Kuramoto_equation})
and observe the phase-shift inversion
diagram for the three representative cases: $\gamma = 6.5$, $3.75$, and $2.2$, as shown in
Figs.~\ref{height_diff}(b)--(d).
One can observe the phase-shift inversion in SFN cases where
the synchronization transition exists ($\gamma > 3$) as well, at lower coupling strength
explained by $K_c \propto 1/\langle k^2 \rangle$ when $\langle k \rangle$ is fixed~\cite{HHong2007},
where $\langle x \rangle$ represents the averaged $x$ over the entire nodes in a network.
The $\gamma < 3$ case
reveals its vanishing critical point in the fact that the seeming phase-shift inversion
occurs in much lower values (and over the very narrow region) of coupling strength [Fig.~\ref{height_diff}(d)],
due to the finite-size effect. Therefore, the results from SFNs also clearly support
the fact that phase-shift inversion reflects the phase transition.
\section{summary and discussions}
\label{summary}
We have studied the Kuramoto model under periodically switching interactions,
checked that it shows the same mean-field synchronization transition as the
original Kuramoto model with the finite-size scaling analysis,
and found that the phase transition is observed in terms of dynamical properties
such as the amplitude of oscillation of the order parameter and
its relative phase shift with respect to the overall strength of
interactions. In particular, the latter causes the phase-shift inversion
phenomenon that the significantly large phase shift near the phase transition let
the order parameter at the minimum interaction density to be larger than
that at the maximum interaction density. The conclusion does not only hold for the globally connected
substrate structure, but also holds for other types of substrate
structures such as scale-free networks. Such observations strongly suggest that our model
is related to the mean-field kinetic Ising model with the frequency matching condition around
the phase transition~\cite{BJKim2001} and would be worth investigating further.
Since periodicity plays important roles in many parts of the nature, especially for systems
under natural circadian rhythms
or external stimuli, our results suggest that the temporal response to such periodicity
can be an important cue to characterize the system.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We greatly appreciate B.~J. Kim, H.-H. Jo, M. Gastner, T. Gross, and S. Dorogovtsev
for their valuable comments. This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (S.H.L. and P.H.),
the Wenner-Gren Foundation (S.L.),
and the WCU program through NRF Korea funded by MEST R31-2008-10029 (P.H.).
Computation was
partially carried out using the cluster in CSSPL, KAIST.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction. Polymorphisms, Gaussian measures, and colligations}
\addtocounter{sec}{1
{\bf \refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } The group $\mathrm{Gms}(M)$.}
Let $M=(M,\mu)$ be a Lebesgue space $M$ with a probability measure $\mu$ (\cite{Roh}, see, also
\cite{MI}),
let $L^p(M,\mu)$ be the space of measurable functions on $M$ with norm
$$
\|f\|_p=\Bigl(\int_M |f(m)|^p\,d\mu(m)\Bigr)^{\frac 1p}
,\qquad
\text{where $1\le p\le \infty$}.
$$
Denote by $\mathrm{Gms}(M)$ the group of all bijective a.s. maps $M\to M$ that send the measure $\mu$
to an equivalent measure.
For $g\in \mathrm{Gms}(M)$ we denote by $g'(m)$ the Radon--Nikodym derivative of $g$.
\smallskip
Fix $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}$ lying in the strip $0\le \Re\lambda\le 1$,
\begin{equation}
\lambda=\tfrac 1p+is,\qquad \text {where $1\le p\le \infty$, $s\in{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}$}
\label{eq:lambda}
.
\end{equation}
For any $g\in\mathrm{Gms}(M)$ we define the linear operator $T_\lambda(g)$ by
\begin{equation}
T_\lambda(g)f(m)=f(mg)g'(m)^\lambda
\label{eq:T-lambda}
.
\end{equation}
Evidently, the operators $T_\lambda(g)$ form a representation of the group $\mathrm{Gms}(M)$ by
isometric operators in the Banach space $L^p(M,\mu)$. For $p=2$ we get a unitary representation
in $L^2(M,\mu)$.
Polymorphims, which are introduced below, are "limit points" of the group $\mathrm{Gms}(M)$.
\smallskip
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Gaussian measures.} Consider ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}$ equipped with the Gaussian measure
$\frac 1{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-x^2/2}\,dx$.
Let $n=1$, 2, \dots, $\infty$. Denote by ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega$ the product of
$n$ copies of ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}$ equipped with
the product measure $\mu_\omega=\mu\times\mu\times\dots$.
We denote elements of ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega$ by $x=\begin{pmatrix}x_1,x_2,\dots\end{pmatrix}$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pr:linear}
If $\sum b_j^2<\infty$, then the series $\sum b_j x_j$ converges a.s. on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty$ with respect to
the measure $\mu_\infty$.
\end{proposition}
This is a special case of the Kolmogorov--Hinchin theorem about series of independent random
variables, see, e.g., \cite{Shiryaev}.
\smallskip
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Groups of symmetries of Gaussian measures.}
Denote by $\mathrm{O}(\infty)$ the infinite-dimensional orthogonal group, i.e.,
the group of all infinite real matrices $A$ satisfying the conditions
$$
AA^t=A^tA=1
,$$
where $^t$ denotes the transposition.
For an invertible real infinite matrix $A$ we consider the
polar decomposition $A=S U$, where $U\in\mathrm{O}(\infty)$, and $S$ is a positive self-adjoint operator.
We define the
group $\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)$ consisting of matrices $A=SU$ such that $S-1$
is a Hilbert--Schmidt%
\footnote{An operator $T$ is Hilbert--Schmidt, if $\sum_{ij}|t_{ij}|^2<\infty$, see, e.g., \cite{RS1}}
operator. Equivalently, we can represent
$A$ as $A=\exp(T)U$, where $U\in\mathrm{O}(\infty)$ and $T$ is a Hilbert--Schmidt self-adjoint operator.
\smallskip
Thus the set $\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)$ is the product of $\mathrm{O}(\infty)$ and the
space of self-adjoint Hilbert--Schmidt matrices. We take the
weak operator topology%
\footnote{See e.g., \cite{RS1}.} on $\mathrm{O}(\infty)$
and the natural topology on the space of
Hilbert--Schmidt matrices%
\footnote{See e.g. \cite{RS1}.} . We equip $\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)$
with the topology of product. Then $\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)$ is a topological group with respect
to this topology
({\it the Shale topology,} \cite{Sha}).
\smallskip
Consider an infinite matrix $A=\{a_{ij}\}$. Apply it to a vector $x\in{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty$,
\begin{equation}
xA=\begin{pmatrix}x_1&x_2&\dots\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}a_{11}&a_{12}&\dots\\
a_{21}&a_{22}&\dots\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\sum x_i a_{i1} & \sum x_ia_{i2}& \dots
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:xA}
\end{equation}
Let $A$ be an operator bounded in the space $\ell_2$.
By Proposition \ref{pr:linear}
the vector $xA$ is defined for almost all $x\in({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty,\mu_\infty)$.
\begin{theorem}
{\rm a)} For $A\in\mathrm{O}(\infty)$ the map $x\mapsto xA$ preserves measure $\mu_\infty$.
\smallskip
{\rm b)} For $A\in\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)$, the map $x\mapsto xA$ is defined a.s. on $({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty,\mu_\infty)$
and
sends the measure $\mu_\infty$ to an equivalent measure
$\mu(xA)$.
\smallskip
{\rm c)} Let $A=(1+T)U$, where $A\in \mathrm{O}(\infty)$ and $T$ is in the trace
class%
\footnote{See, \cite{RS1}.}. Then the Radon--Nikodym derivative is given by the formula
\begin{multline}
\frac{d\mu(xA)}{d\mu(x)}=
|\det A|\cdot \exp(-\tfrac12 \langle xA,xA\rangle+\tfrac12\langle x,x\rangle)
:=\\:=
|\det(1+T)|\cdot \exp\bigr(-\langle xT,x\rangle-\tfrac12\langle xT,xT\rangle\bigl)
\label{eq:RN}
\end{multline}
\smallskip
{\rm d)} Let $A=1+T$, where $T$ is a diagonal matrix with entries
$t_j>-1$ satisfying $\sum_j t_j^2<\infty$. Then the Radon--Nikodym derivative is given by
$$
\prod_{j=1}^\infty (1+t_j) e^{-(2t_j+t_j^2)x_j^2/2}
,$$
the product converges a.s. on $({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty,\mu_\infty)$.
\smallskip
{\rm e)} For $A$, $B\in\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)$ the identity
$$
(xA)B=x(AB)
$$
holds a.s. on $({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty,\mu)$.
\end{theorem}
The theorem is a reformulation of the Feldman--Hajeck Theorem on equivalence of Gaussian measures
(see, e.g., \cite{Kuo}, \cite{Bog}), the most comprehensive exposition is in \cite{Shilov}.
\smallskip
{\sc Remark.}
For $A\in\mathrm{GLO}_1(\infty)$, the absolute value of determinant
$|\det(A)|:=|\det(1+T)|$ is well-defined
(see, e.g, \cite{Ner-book}),
it satisfies
$$
|\det (A_1A_2)|=|\det(A_1)|\cdot |\det(A_2|
.$$
The $\det(A)$ makes no sence. \hfill $\square$
\smallskip
{\sc Remark.} In our definition the action is defined a.s, and the identity $x(AB)=(xA)B$
also is valid a.s. The removing of "a.s." is impossible, the group $\mathrm O(\infty)$ can not act
pointwise by measure preserving transformations, see \cite{Gla}.
\hfill $\square$
\smallskip
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Polymorphisms (spreading maps)}, for details, see \cite{Ner-poli}.
\cite{Ner-book}, \cite{Ner-match}).
Denote by ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$ the multiplicative group of positive real numbers,
denote by $t$ the coordinate on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$, by $\alpha*\beta$ we denote the convolution
of measures on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$.
Let $M=(M,\mu)$, $N=(N,\nu)$ be Lebesgue spaces with probability measures.
A {\it polymorphism}%
\footnote{These objects were introduced in \cite{Ner-bist}, see also
\cite{Ner-book}. The term was proposed be Vershik \cite{Ver}, who used it for measures on $M\times N$,
see also "bistochastic kernels" from \cite{Kre}. On some appearances of polymorphisms in variation
problems and mathematical hydrodynamics, see \cite{Bre}.}
$\frP:(M,\mu)\rightsquigarrow (N,\nu)$
is a measure $\frP=\frP(m,n,t)$ on $M\times N\times{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$ satisfying two conditions:
\smallskip
a) the projection of $\frP(m,n,t)$ to $M$ is $\mu$;
\smallskip
b) the projection of $t\cdot\frP(m,n,t)$ to $N$ is $\nu$.
\smallskip
We denote by $\mathrm{Pol}(M,N)$ the set of all polymorphisms $(M,\mu)\rightsquigarrow (N,\nu)$.
\smallskip
There is a well-defined associative multiplication
$$
\mathrm{Pol}(M,N)\times \mathrm{Pol}(N,K)\to \mathrm{Pol}(M,K)
$$
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Convergence of polymorphisms.}
For $\frP\in\mathrm{Pol}(M,N)$ and measurable subsets $A\subset M$, $B\subset N$ we
consider the projection $A\times B\times{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times\to{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$
and denote by $\frp[A\times B]$
the pushforward of $\frP$ under
this projection.
We say that a sequence $\frP_j\in\mathrm{Pol}(M,N)$ {\it converges}
to $\frP$ if for any $A\subset M$, $B\subset N$ we
have weak convergences
$$
\frp[A\times B]\to\frp[A,\times B],\qquad
t\cdot\frp_j[A\times B]\to t\cdot \frp[A\times B]
.$$
\begin{proposition}
The product of polymorphisms is separately continuous,
i.e. if $\frP_j$ converges to $\frP$ in $\mathrm{Pol}(M,N)$ and $\frQ_j$
converges to $\frQ$ in $\mathrm{Pol}(N,K)$,
then $\frQ\diamond \frP_j$ converges to $\frQ\diamond \frP$ and
$\frQ_j\diamond \frP$ converges to $\frQ\diamond \frP$.
\end{proposition}
Note that there is no joint continuity, generally $\frQ_j\frP_j$
does not converge to $\frQ\diamond \frP$.
\smallskip
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Embedding $\mathfrak I:\mathrm{Gms}(M)\to\mathrm{Pol}(M,M)$.}
Now let a measure $\mu$ on $M$ be continuous. We consider the embedding
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak I:\mathrm{Gms}(M)\to\mathrm{Pol}(M,M)
\label{eq:Gms-Pol}
\end{equation}
given by the following way.
Take the map $M\mapsto M\times M\times{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$
given by $m\mapsto \bigl(m,g(m),g'(m)\bigr)$. Then the
pushforward of the measure $\mu$ is a polymorphism
$\mathfrak I(g):M\to M$.
\begin{proposition} {\rm(\cite{Ner-bist}, \cite{Ner-poli})}
The group $\mathrm{Gms}(M)$ is dense in $\mathrm{Pol}(M,M)$.
\end{proposition}
\smallskip
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Formulation of problem.} We wish to describe the closure
of $\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)$ in the semigroup of polymorphisms%
\footnote{The closure of $\mathrm{O}(\infty)$ gives action of the semigroup
of all contractive linear operators by polymorphisms of ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty$, see Nelson \cite{Nel}, .}
of ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty$. Our solution is not final, we show a large semigroup
(see the next subsection) in this closure.
\smallskip
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Operator colligations.}
Fix $\omega=0$, 1, \dots, $\infty$. Denote by $\mathrm{GLO}(\omega+\infty)$
the group consisting of $(\omega+\infty)\times(\omega+\infty)$ matrices $g$
that are elements of the group
$\mathrm{GLO}$ (i.e, $\mathrm{GLO}(\omega+\infty)$ is another notation for $\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)$).
Consider the subgroup $\mathrm{O}(\infty)\subset \mathrm{GLO}(\omega+\infty)$
consisting of block $(\omega+\infty)\times(\omega+\infty)$
matrices $\begin{pmatrix}1&0\{\ov 0}&u \end{pmatrix}$,
where $u$ is an orthogonal matrix.
We say that
an {\it operator colligation} is an
element $g$ of $\mathrm{GLO}(\omega+\infty)$ defined up to the equivalence
$$
g\sim h_1 g h_2,\qquad \text{where $h_1$, $h_2\in\mathrm{O}(\infty)$},
$$
or, in more details,
$$
\begin{pmatrix}\alpha&\beta\\ \gamma&\delta\end{pmatrix}
\sim
\begin{pmatrix}1&0\{\ov 0}&u \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}\alpha&\beta\\ \gamma&\delta\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}1&0\{\ov 0}&v \end{pmatrix}
$$
where $u$, $v$ are orthogonal matrices. Denote by $\mathrm{Coll}(\omega)$ the set
of all operator colligations. In other words, $\mathrm{Coll}(\omega)$
is the double coset space
$$
\mathrm{Coll}(\omega)=
\mathrm{O}(\infty)\setminus \mathrm{GLO}(\omega+\infty) /\mathrm{O}(\infty)
.$$
The {\it product of operator colligations} is defined by the formula
$$
\begin{pmatrix}\alpha&\beta\\ \gamma&\delta\end{pmatrix}
\circ
\begin{pmatrix}\varphi} \def\le{\leqslant} \def\ge{\geqslant&\psi\\\theta&\varkappa \end{pmatrix}:=
\begin{pmatrix}\alpha&\beta&0\\ \gamma&\delta&0\\
0&0&1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}\varphi} \def\le{\leqslant} \def\ge{\geqslant&0&\psi\\ 0&1&0\\\theta&0&\varkappa \end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha\varphi} \def\le{\leqslant} \def\ge{\geqslant&\beta&\alpha\psi\\
\gamma\varphi} \def\le{\leqslant} \def\ge{\geqslant&\delta&\gamma\psi\\
\theta&0&\varkappa
\end{pmatrix}
$$
The resulting matrix has size
$$\bigl(\omega+(\infty+\infty)\bigr) \times \bigl(\omega+(\infty+\infty)\bigr) \quad=\quad
(\omega+\infty)\times(\omega+\infty)
,$$
i.e., we again get an element of $\mathrm{Coll}(\omega)$.
\begin{proposition}
The product $\circ$ is a well-defined associative operation on the set $\mathrm{Coll}(\omega)$.
\end{proposition}
This can be verified by a straightforward calculation. For a clarification of this operation,
see
\cite{Ner-book}, Section IX.5.
Classical operator colligations are matrices determined up to the equivalence
$$
\begin{pmatrix}\alpha&\beta\\ \gamma&\delta\end{pmatrix}
\sim
\begin{pmatrix}1&0\{\ov 0}&u \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}\alpha&\beta\\ \gamma&\delta\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}1&0\{\ov 0}&u^{-1} \end{pmatrix}
.
$$
Colligations, their multiplication, and characteristic functions
appeared in the spectral
theory
of non-self-adjoint operators (M.~S.~Livshits, V.~P.~Potapov, 1946--1955, \cite{Liv1},
\cite{Liv2},
\cite{Pot}, see survey in \cite{Bro}, see also algebraic version in \cite{Dym}).
\smallskip
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Results of the paper.}
First (Theorem \ref{th:existence}),
we prove the following statements:
\smallskip
--- The closure of $\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)$ in polymorphisms of $({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty,\mu_\infty)$ contains the semigroup
$\mathrm{Coll}(\infty)$.
\smallskip
--- For $n<\infty$ the semigroup $\mathrm{Coll}(n)$ admits a canonical embedding to
semigroup of polymorphisms of the space $({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n,\mu_n)$.
\smallskip
Our main purpose
is to write explicit formulas (Theorems \ref{th:formula-1}, \ref{th:formula-2}) for this embedding.
\smallskip
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } A general problem.} Many interesting actions of infinite dimensional groups
on spaces with measures are known, see survey \cite{Ner-frac} and recent 'new' constructions
\cite{KOV}, \cite{Pick}, \cite{Ner-hua}, \cite{BO}. In all cases there arises the problem of
description of closure of the group in polymorphisms,
in all the cases this gives semigroups that essentially differ from the initial groups%
\footnote{This is counterpart of Olshanski problem about weak closure of image of unitary
representation, see \cite{OlshGB}; for a finite-dimensional counterpart, see \cite{DCP}.} .
In this work and in \cite{Ner-match} the problem was solved
in two the most simple cases (Gaussian and Poisson measures).
In both cases we get unusual interesting formulas.
\section{Polymorphisms. Preliminaries}
\addtocounter{sec}{1
First, we need some preliminaries on polymorphisms.
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Measures on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$.}
Denote by ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$ the multiplicative group of positive real numbers,
denote by $t$ the coordinate on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$, by $\varphi} \def\le{\leqslant} \def\ge{\geqslant*\psi$ we denote {\it convolution} of
finite measures $\varphi} \def\le{\leqslant} \def\ge{\geqslant$ and $\psi$ on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$, it defined by
$$
\int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times} f(t)\,d(\varphi} \def\le{\leqslant} \def\ge{\geqslant*\psi)(t)=
\int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times}\int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times} f(pq)\,d\psi(p)\,d\varphi} \def\le{\leqslant} \def\ge{\geqslant(q).
$$
Recall that a sequence of finite measures $\psi_j$ on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$
{\it weakly converges} to a measure $\psi$ if for any
continuous function $f$ on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$ we have the convergence
$$
\int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^"} f(t)\,d\psi_j(t)\longrightarrow\int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times} f(t)\,d\psi(t)
.$$
\smallskip
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Product of polymorphisms.} Here we give a formal definition
of the product of polymorphisms, but actially we use Theorem \ref{th:rep-cat}
instead of the definiton. For details, see \cite{Ner-poli}.
Let $p$ be a function on $M\times N$ taking values in finite measures on
${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$. Such a function determines a measure $\frP$ on a product
$M\times N\times {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$,
$$
\iiint\limits_{M\times N\times {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times} f(m,n,t)\,d\frP(m,n,t)
:=\iint\limits_{A\times B}\int\limits_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times} f(m,n,t)\,dp(m,n)(t)\,d\nu(n)\,d\mu(m)
.$$
If $p$ satisfies two identities
\begin{align*}
\int_A \int_N \int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times} d p(m,n)(t)\,dp(m,n)(t)\,d\nu(n)\,d\mu(m)=\mu(A),
\\
\int_M \int_B \int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times}t\, d p(m,n)(t)\,\,dp(m,n)(t) \,d\nu(n)\,d\mu(m)=\nu(B)
\end{align*}
for any measurable subsets $A\subset M$, $B\subset N$,
then $\frP$ is a polymorphism. If $\frP$ has such aform,
we say that $\frP$ is absolutely continuous.
Now let $\frP\in\mathrm{Pol}(M,N)$, $\frQ\in\mathrm{Pol}(N,K)$ be absolutely continuous
polymorphisms, $p$, $q$ be the correspondin functions. Then the function
$r$ on $M\times K$ is determined by
$$
r(a,c)=\int_N p(m,n)* q(n,k)\,d\nu(n).
$$
The integral is convergent a.s.
\begin{theorem}
This product admits a unique separately continuous extension to an operation
$\mathrm{Pol}(M, N)\times\mathrm{Pol}(N,K)\to\mathrm{Pol}(M,K)$.
\end{theorem}
\smallskip
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Involution in the category of polymorphisms.}
Let $\frP:M\rightsquigarrow N$ be a polymorphism. We define the polymorphism
$\frP^\star:N\rightsquigarrow M$ by
$$
\frP^\star(n,m,t)=t\cdot\frP(m,n,t^{-1})
$$
For any polymorphisms $\frP:M\rightsquigarrow N$, $\frQ:N\rightsquigarrow K$,
the following property holds
$$
(\frQ\diamond\frP)^\star=\frP^\star\diamond\frQ^\star.
$$
If $g\in\mathrm{Gms}(M)$, then
$$
\mathfrak I(g)^\star=\mathfrak I(g^{-1})
.$$
Our next purpose is to extend the operators (\ref{eq:T-lambda}) to arbitrary polymorphisms.
\smallskip
{\bf \refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Mellin transform of polymorphisms.}
Here we present without proof some simple statements from \cite{Ner-poli}.
Notice that below we use Theorem \ref{th:rep-cat} and do not refer to the definition of product
of polymorphisms.
Fix $\lambda=\frac 1p+is\in \mathbb{C}$ as above (\ref{eq:lambda}). Let $q$
is defined from
$\frac 1p+\frac 1q=1$.
For a polymorphism $\frP:M\rightsquigarrow N$ we consider the bilinear form
on $L^p(M,\mu)\times L^q(N,\nu)\to \mathbb{C}$ given by
$$
S_\lambda(f,g)=\iiint_{M\times N\times {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times} f(m) g(n) t^\lambda\,d\frP(m,n,t).
$$
\begin{proposition}
\label{pr:mellin-le}
{\rm( \cite{Ner-poli})}
{\rm a)}
$$
|S_\lambda(f,g)|\le \|f\|_{L_p}\cdot \|g\|_{L_q}.
$$
{\rm b)} $\frP$ is uniquely determined by the family of forms $S_\lambda(\cdot,\cdot)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:operator-exists}
{\rm a} There exists a unique linear operator
$$
T_\lambda(\frP):L^p(N,\nu)\to L^p(M,\mu)
$$
such that
$$
S(f,g)=\int_M f(m)\cdot T_\lambda(\frP)\cdot g(m)\,d\mu(m).
$$
b) $\|T_\lambda(\frP)\|\le 1$, where a norm is the norm of an operator
$L^p(N,\nu)\to L^p(M,\mu)$.
\smallskip
{\rm c)} A polymorphism $\frP$ is uniquely determined
by the operator-valued function $\lambda\mapsto T_\lambda(\frP)$,
and, moreover, by its values on each line $\frac 1p+is$ for fixed $p$.
\end{corollary}
For $h\in\mathrm{Gms}(M)$, we have
$$
T_\lambda(\iota(h))=T_\lambda(h)
,$$
where $T_\lambda(h)$ is defined by (\ref{eq:T-lambda}).
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:rep-cat}
$T_\lambda$ is a representation of a category, i.e.
\begin{equation}
T_\lambda(\frQ\diamond\frP)=
T_\lambda(\frQ)T_\lambda(\frP)
\label{eq:representation}
.\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Convergence.}
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:convergence}
{\rm a)} $T_\lambda(\frP)$ is weakly continuous, i.e., if $\frP_j$ converges to $\frP$, then
\begin{equation}
\int_M f(m)\cdot T_\lambda(\frP_j) g(m))\,d\mu(m)
\quad \text{converges to}\quad
\int_M f(m) T_\lambda(\frP) g(m)\,d\mu(m)
\label{eq:two-conver}
\end{equation}
for any $f\in L^q(M)$, $g\in L^p(N)$.
\smallskip
{\rm b)} Conversely, if {\rm (\ref{eq:two-conver})}
holds for each $\lambda$ in the strip $0\le\Re \lambda\le 1$, then
$\frP_j$ converges to $\frP$. Moreover, it is sufficient
to require the convergences on the lines $\Re \lambda=0$ and $\Re\lambda=1$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Abstract statement}
\addtocounter{sec}{1
\smallskip
{\bf \refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Polymorphisms $\frl_n$.}
Let $(M,\mu)$ be a space with measure. Denote by $\Delta(m,m')$ the measure
on $M\times M$
supported by the diagonal of $M\times M$ such that the projection of $\Delta$ to
the first factor
$M$ is $\mu$.
Let $\omega=0$, 1, \dots, $\infty$.
Consider the space
${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega\times {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty$ equipped with the measure $\mu_{\omega+\infty}=\mu_\omega\times \mu_\infty$.
Let $x$, $x'$ range in ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega$, $y$ in ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty$, $t$ in ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$.
Consider the polymorphism
$$
\frl_\omega:({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega,\mu_\omega)\rightsquigarrow ({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega\times {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty,\mu_\omega\times\mu_\infty)
$$
given by
$$
\frl_\omega(x';x,y;t)=\Delta(x,x')\times \mu_\infty(y)\times \delta(t-1)
,$$
where $\delta$ is the delta-function.
The following statement is straightforward.
\begin{lemma}
\label{l:Theta}
{\rm a)} For a function $f$ on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega$ we have
$$
T_\lambda(\frl_\omega)f(x,y)=f(x)
$$
{\rm b)} For a function $g(x,y)$ on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{\omega+\infty}$, we have
$$
T_\lambda(\frl_\omega^\star)g(x)=\int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty} g(x,y)\,d\mu_\infty(y)
$$
{\rm c)} $\frl_\omega^\star\diamond\frl_\omega:{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega\rightsquigarrow{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega$ is $\Delta(x,x')\times\delta(t-1)$.
\smallskip
{\rm d)} The polymorphism
$$
\frt_\omega:= \frl_\omega\diamond\frl_\omega^\star:{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{\omega+\infty}\rightsquigarrow{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{\omega+\infty}
$$
equals
$$
\Delta(x,x')\times \mu_\infty(y)\times\mu_\infty(y')\times \delta(t-1)
,$$
where $(x,y)$ is in the first copy of ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{\omega+\infty}$ and $(x',y')$ is in the
second copy.
\smallskip
{\rm e)} The operator corresponding to $\frt_\omega$ is
$$
T_\lambda(\frt_\omega)f(x,y)=\int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty} f(x,z)\,d\mu_\infty(z).
$$
In particular, in $L^2$ this operator is the orthogonal projection to the space of functions
independent on $y$.
\smallskip
{\rm f)} Consider a sequence $h_j=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\{\ov 0}&u_j \end{pmatrix}\in\mathrm{O}(\infty)$
where $u_j$ weakly converges to $0$. Then $\mathfrak I(h_j)$ converges
to $\frt_\omega=\frl_\omega\diamond\frl_\omega^\star$.
\end{lemma}
An example of a sequence $u_j$ is
$$
u_j=\begin{pmatrix} 0&1&0\\
1&0&0\\
0&0&1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{array}{l}
\}j\\
\}j\\
\}\infty
\end{array}
$$
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Action of colligations.} Let $\omega=0$, 1, \dots, $\infty$.
Let $\fra\in\mathrm{Coll}(\omega)$, let $A$ be its representative in
$\mathrm{GLO}(\omega+\infty)$. Consider the polymorphism
$$
\tau^{(\omega)} (\fra):({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega,\mu_\omega)\rightsquigarrow ({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega,\mu_\omega)
$$
given by
$$
\tau^{(\omega)}(\fra)=\frl_\omega \mathfrak I(A) \frl_\omega^\star.
$$
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:existence}
The map $\tau^{(\omega)}:\mathrm{Coll}(\omega)\to\mathrm{Pol}({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega,{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega)$ is a homorphism of semigroups.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:closure}
For $\omega=\infty$ the image $\tau^{(\infty)}(\mathrm{Coll}(\infty))\subset \mathrm{Pol}({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty,{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty)$
is contained in the closure
of $\mathfrak I\bigl(\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)\bigr)$.
\end{theorem}
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Proof of Theorem \ref{th:existence}.}
We must verify the identity
\begin{equation}
T_{\lambda}(\fra_1)T_{\lambda}(\fra_2)=T_{\lambda}(\fra_1\circ \fra_2)
.
\label{eq:hotim}
\end{equation}
or, equivalently,
$$
T_{\lambda}(\frt_\omega A_1\frt_\omega)T_{\lambda}(\frt_\omega A_2\frt_\omega)=
T_{\lambda}^{(\omega)}(\frt_\omega A_1A_2\frt_\omega)
.$$
Let $\rho$ be a unitary representation of $\mathrm{GLO}(\omega+\infty)\simeq\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)$ continuous with respect
to the Shale topology.
Denote by $H(\omega)$ the space of $\mathrm{O}(\infty)$-invariant vectors.
Denote by $P(\omega)$ the orthogonal projection
on $H(\omega)$. For $A\in\mathrm{GLO}(\omega+\infty)$, we define the operator
\begin{equation}
\rho^{(\omega)}(\fra):=P(\omega)\rho(A):\,\, H(\omega)\to H(\omega).
\label{eq:srezka}
\end{equation}
It can be easily checked that $\rho^{(\fra)}(g)$ depends on a operator colligation $\fra$
and not on $A$ itself.
\begin{theorem}
We get a representation of the semigroup $\mathrm{Coll}(\omega)$ in the space $H(\omega)$.
\begin{equation}
\rho^{(\omega)}(\fra_1)\rho^{(\omega)}(\fra_2)=\rho^{(\omega)}(\fra_1\circ \fra_2)
.
\label{eq:multiplicativity}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
See \cite{OlshGB}, \cite{Ner-book}, see a simple proof in \cite{Ner-spheric}.
We need this theorem for representations $T_{1/2+is}$ of the group $\mathrm{GLO}(\omega+\infty)$
in $L^2({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{\omega+\infty}),\mu_{\omega+\infty}$, in this case $P(\omega)$
is $T_{1/2+is}(\frt)$,
$$
T_{1/2+is}(\fra)=T_{1/2+is}(\frt)T_{1/2+is}(A)T_{1/2+is}(\frt)
,$$
the identity \ref{eq:multiplicativity} can be written as
\begin{equation}
T_{1/2+is}^{(\omega)}(\fra_1)T_{1/2+is}^{(\omega)}(\fra_2)=T_{1/2+is}^{(\omega)}(\fra_1\circ \fra_2)
\label{eq:olsh}
\end{equation}
Since $T_\lambda$ depends holomorphically in $\lambda$, we get
(\ref{eq:hotim}).
\smallskip
{\sc Remark.} Identity \ref{eq:olsh} can be verified by a long straightforward calculation
(and in fact this was done in \cite{OlshGB}).
\smallskip
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Proof of Theorem \ref{th:closure}.}
Let $\fra\in\mathrm{Coll}(\infty)$, let $A\in\mathrm{GLO}(\infty+\infty)$
be its representative. We define the polymorphism
$$
\sigma(\fra):({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{\infty+\infty},\mu_{\infty+\infty})\rightsquigarrow ({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{\infty+\infty},\mu_{\infty+\infty})
$$
by
$$
\sigma (\fra)=\frt_\infty \diamond \tau(A)\diamond
\frt_\infty^\star
.
$$
By Lemma \ref{l:Theta}.f, the element $\frt_\infty$ is contained in the closure
of $\mathrm O(\infty)$. By separate continuity of the product,
$\frt_\infty \diamond \tau(A)\diamond \frt_\infty^\star$ is contained in the closure
of $\mathrm{GLO}(\infty+\infty)$
Next, represent the set of natural numbers ${\mathbb N}} \def\Q{{\mathbb Q}} \def\A{{\mathbb A}} \def\T{\mathbb T} \def\P{\mathbb P} \def\G{\mathbb G$ as a union of two disjoint sets $I$, $J$.
Consider the monotonic bijections $I\to{\mathbb N}} \def\Q{{\mathbb Q}} \def\A{{\mathbb A}} \def\T{\mathbb T} \def\P{\mathbb P} \def\G{\mathbb G$, $J\to{\mathbb N}} \def\Q{{\mathbb Q}} \def\A{{\mathbb A}} \def\T{\mathbb T} \def\P{\mathbb P} \def\G{\mathbb G$. In this way
we identify ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty$ and ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{\infty+\infty}$.
Denote by $\sigma(\fra; I):{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty \rightsquigarrow {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty$
the image of the polymorphism $\sigma(\fra)$ under this identification.
By construction $\sigma(\fra,I)$ is contained in the closure of $\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)$.
Now take
$$
I_k=\{\text{1, 2, 3, \dots, $k$, $k+2$, $k+4$, $k+6$,\dots}\},
$$
Then $\sigma(\fra,I_k)$ converges to $\tau(\fra)$.
\hfill $\square$
\smallskip
{\bf \refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Injectivity.}
We formulate without proof the following statement.
\begin{theorem}
The maps $\mathrm{Coll}(\omega)\to \mathrm{Pol}({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega,{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\omega)$ are injective.
\end{theorem}
This is equivalent to the statement: the family of representations
$\fra\mapsto P(\omega)T_\lambda(\fra)P(\omega)$
separates points of $\mathrm{Coll}(\omega)$.
\section{Canonical forms}
\addtocounter{sec}{1
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Canonical forms.} Let $n<\infty$, $\frg\in\mathrm{Coll}(n)$.
Let $g=\begin{pmatrix} g_{11}&g_{12}\\g_{21}&g_{22}\end{pmatrix}$ be a representative of $\frg$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{l:canonical}
Assume that rank of $g_{12}$ is maximal. Then $\frg$ has a representative of the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c}G=
\\ \phantom{=}
\\ \phantom{=}
\end{array}
\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{pmatrix}
a&b\\c&d\{\ov 0}&H
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{array}{l}
\}n\\\}n\\\}\infty
\end{array}
\\
\begin{matrix}\!\!\!
\small \underbrace{\hphantom{1}}_{n}&\!\!\!\!\!\!
\small \underbrace{\hphantom{1}}_{n+\infty}
& \hphantom{\}\infty}
\end{matrix}
\end{array}
\quad
\begin{matrix}
=\\\phantom{=}
\\\phantom{=}
\end{matrix}
\quad
\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{pmatrix}a&b_1&b_2\\
c&d_1&d_2\\
0&0&h
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{array}{l}
\}n\\\}n\\\}\infty
\end{array}
\\
\begin{matrix}\!\!\!\!\!\!\small\underbrace{\hphantom{1}}_n
&\!\!\!\!\!\!
\small \underbrace{\hphantom{1}}_{n}&\!\!\!\!\!\!
\small \underbrace{\hphantom{1}}_{\infty}
& \hphantom{\}\infty}
\end{matrix}
\end{array}
\label{eq:can-form}
\end{equation}
where $h$ is a diagonal matrxix with positive entries $h_j$, $\sum(h_j-1)^2<\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{l:oo}
Any $g=\begin{pmatrix}\alpha &\beta\\ \gamma&\delta\end{pmatrix} \in \mathrm O(n+\infty)$
admits a representation in the form
$$
g=(1+S)\begin{pmatrix}1& 0\\ 0& u \end{pmatrix}
,$$
where $S$ is a Hilbert--Schmidt matrix and $u\in \mathrm O(\infty)$.
\end{lemma}
{\sc Proof of Lemma \ref{l:oo}.} The matrix $\delta^t\delta-1$
is Hilbert--Schmidt and $\delta$ is Fredholm of index 0, therefore $\delta$ can be represented as
$$
\delta= v H u
,$$
where $u$, $v\in\mathrm O(\infty)$, and $H$ is a diagonal matrix, the matrix $H-1$ is Hilbert--Schmidt.
Therefore $g$ has the form
$$
g= \begin{pmatrix} 1&0\{\ov 0}&v \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}\alpha&\beta' \\ \gamma'& H\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\{\ov 0}&u \end{pmatrix}
$$
The middle factor is ($1+$ Hilbert--Schmidt matrix). Finally, we get a desired representation
$$
g= \left[\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\{\ov 0}&v \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}\alpha&\beta' \\ \gamma'& H\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\{\ov 0}&v \end{pmatrix}^{-1}\right]
\cdot
\left[ \begin{pmatrix} 1&0\{\ov 0}&v \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\{\ov 0}&u \end{pmatrix}
\right]
$$
{\sc Proof of Lemma \ref{l:canonical}.}
By Lemma \ref{l:oo}, we can assume that $G-1$ is a Hilbert--Schmidt
matrix.
Since $\mathop {\mathrm {rk}}\nolimits g_{12}=n$, a left multiplication by an orthogonal matrix $w$ can reduce $g_{12}$
to the form $\begin{pmatrix}c\{\ov 0}\end{pmatrix}$.
Thus we get a matrix
$R'=\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\{\ov 0}&H\end{pmatrix}$ such that $R'-1$ is Hilbert--Schmidt.
We transform $R'$ by
$$
\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\{\ov 0}&H\end{pmatrix}
\longrightarrow
\begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0\\
0&1&0\\
0&0&u
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\{\ov 0}&H\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0\\
0&v_{11}&v_{12}\\
0&v_{21}&v_{22}
\end{pmatrix},
$$
where $u$ and $\begin{pmatrix}
v_{11}&v_{12}\\v_{21}&v_{22}
\end{pmatrix}
$ are orthogonal matrices. Consider
$(n+\infty)\times\infty$ matrix $J=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1\end{pmatrix}$.
Then $H-J$ is a Hilbert--Shmidt operator,
therefore the Fredholm index of $H$ equals $n$.
Since $G$ is invertible, $\ker H=0$,
Hence
$\mathrm{codim}\, \Im H=n$. Such $H$ can be reduced to the form
$\begin{pmatrix}0&h \end{pmatrix}$, where $h$ is diagonal.
The standard proof of the theorem about singular values (see \cite{RS1})
can be adapted to this case.
\hfill $\square$
\smallskip
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Coordinates.}
Take a colligation reduced to a canonical form (\ref{eq:can-form}). We pass to
{\it Potapov coordinates} (see \cite{Pot}) on the space of matrices,
$$
\begin{pmatrix} P&Q\{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}&T\end{pmatrix}
:=\begin{pmatrix}b-ac^{-1}d&- ac^{-1}\\ c^{-1}d&c^{-1}\end{pmatrix}
$$
or
$$
\begin{pmatrix} P_1&P_2&Q\{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}_1&R_2&T\end{pmatrix}
:=\begin{pmatrix}b_1-ac^{-1}d_1&b_2-ac^{-1}d_2&- ac^{-1}\\ c^{-1}d_1&c^{-1}d_2&c^{-1}\end{pmatrix}
,$$
the size of the block matrices is $(n+\infty+n)\times(n+n)$.
Formulas below are written in the terms of $P$, $Q$, $R$, $T$, and $h$.
\section{Calculations. Finite matrices}
\addtocounter{sec}{1
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Measures $\Phi[b,M;t]$.} Let $M\ge 0$, $b\in{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}$.
We define the measure $\Phi[b,M;t]$ on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$ by
\smallskip
--- for $b>0$
$$
\Phi[b,M;t]=
\begin{cases}
\frac 1{\sqrt{2\pi}}
t^{1/b}
(- b\ln t)^{-1/2}\cosh\sqrt{-\frac{4M}b\ln t} \,\frac{dt}t & \text{if $0<t<1$};
\\
0 & \text{if $t>1$}.
\end{cases}
$$
--- for $b=0$
$$
\Phi[0,M;t]=e^{M}\delta(t-1)
$$
--- for $b<0$,
$$
\Phi[b,M;t]=
\begin{cases}
0&\text{if $0<t<1$}
\\
\frac 1{\sqrt{2\pi}}
t^{-1/b}(4M b\ln t)^{-1/2}\cosh\sqrt{\frac{4M}b\ln t}\,\frac{dt}t &
\text{if $t>1$}
\end{cases}
$$
\begin{lemma}
\label{l:Phi}
$$
\frac 1{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times} t^\lambda \Phi[b,M;t]=\frac1{\sqrt{1+b\lambda}}
\exp\Bigl\{ \frac{M}{1+b\lambda} \Bigr\}
.
$$
\end{lemma}
{\sc Proof.} To be definite, set $b>0$. We must evaluate
$$
\frac 1{\sqrt{2\pi}}
\int_0^1 t^{\lambda+1/b}(- b\ln t)^{-1/2}
\cosh
\sqrt{-\frac{4M}b\ln t}
\,\frac {dt}t
.
$$
We substitute $y=\ln t $ and get
$$
\frac 1{\sqrt{2\pi}}
\int_{-\infty}^0
e^{(\lambda+1/b)y}(- by)^{-1/2}
\cosh\sqrt{-\frac{4M}b y}\,dy
.
$$
Next, we set $z=-\frac{4M}b y$, and come to
\begin{multline*}
\frac 1{\sqrt{2\pi}\cdot\sqrt{4M}}
\int_0^\infty e^{-\frac 1{4M}(b\lambda+1)z}z^{-1/2}\cosh \sqrt z\, dz
=\\=
\frac 1{\sqrt{2\pi}\cdot\sqrt{M}}
\int_0^\infty e^{-\frac 1{4M}(b\lambda+1)u^2}\cosh u\,du
.
\end{multline*}
Writing $\cosh u=\frac 12(e^u+e^{-u})$, we get
$$
\frac 1{\sqrt{2\pi}\cdot 2\sqrt{M}}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-\frac 1{4M}(b\lambda+1)u^2}e^u\,d u=
\frac 1{\sqrt{1+b\lambda}}
\exp\Bigl\{\frac {M}{1+b\lambda}\Bigr\}
.
$$
\smallskip
{\bf \refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Formula.} We consider coordinates on $\mathrm{Coll}(n)$ defined above.
For $x$, $u\in{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n$ we define the following $\delta$-measure
$dN_{x,u}(t)$ on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$
$$dN_{x,u}(t)=A(x,u)\,\delta\bigl(t-B(x,u)\bigr),$$
where
$$
A(x,u)=
|\det T|
\exp\Bigl\{ -\frac12\|xQ+uT\|^2-\frac 12 \|(xP+uR) H^t(1- HH^t)^{-1}\|^2 \Bigr\}
,
$$
\begin{multline}
B(x,u)=|\det G|
\exp\Bigl\{
\frac 12\bigl(\|xQ+uT\|^2 -\|x\|^2+\|u\|^2-\\- (xP+uR)(1-H^tH)^{-1} (xP+uR)^t\bigr)\Bigr\}
,\end{multline}
where $\|\cdot\|$ is the standard norm in ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n$.
Denote by $h_j$ the diagonal entries of the matrix $h$. Denote by
$(\psi_1,\psi_2,\dots)$ the coordinates of the vector $xP_2+uR_2$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:formula-1}
Let $\frg\in\mathrm{Coll}(n)$ have a representative
\begin{equation}
G=
\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{pmatrix}a&b_1&b_2&0\\
c&d_1&d_2&0\\
0&0&h&0\\
0&0&0&1\\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{array}{l}
\}n\\\}n\\\}m-n\\\} \infty
\end{array}
\\
\begin{matrix}\!\!\!\!\!\!\small\underbrace{\hphantom{1}}_n
&\!\!\!\!\!\!
\small \underbrace{\hphantom{1}}_{n}&
\!\!\!\!\!\!\small \underbrace{\hphantom{1}}_{m-n}&
\!\!\!\!\!\!\small \underbrace{\hphantom{1}}_{\infty}
& \hphantom{\}\infty}
\end{matrix}
\end{array}
\label{eq:G-finite}
\end{equation}
and $h_j\ne 1$.
Then the polymorphism $\tau(\fra)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\biggl(N_{x,u}(t)*
\begin{array}{c}m-n\\\text{\Huge $\ast$}\\ j=1\end{array}
\quad \Phi\Bigl[h_j^2-1, \frac{h_j^2|\psi_j|^2}{2(1-h_j^2)};\,t\Bigr]\biggr)dx\,du
,\
\label{eq:final-1}
\end{equation}
where $*$ denotes the convolution in ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$ and {\Huge $\ast$} is the symbol of multiple convolution
with respect to $j$.
\end{theorem}
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Transformation of the determinant.}
Note that
\begin{multline*}
\det G=
\det\begin{pmatrix}
a&b_1&b_2\\
c&d_1&d_2\\
0&0&h
\end{pmatrix}
=\\=
\det\begin{pmatrix}
a&b_1\\
c&d_1
\end{pmatrix}\cdot \det(h)=
\pm
\det(c)\det(b_1-a c^{-1} d_1)\det(h)
.
\end{multline*}
Thus
$$
|\det G|
=
\left|\frac{\det (P_1)\det(H)}{\det (T)}\right|
.$$
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Calculation.}
We wish to write explicitly operators
(\ref{eq:srezka}) for the representations $T_\lambda(G)$.
$$
T_\lambda^{(n)}(G)=
T_\lambda(\frl) T_\lambda(G) T_\lambda(\frl^\star)
.
$$
Let $x\in{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n$, $y\in {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n$, $z\in{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{m-n}$, $\xi\in{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty$.
The operator $T_\lambda(\frl^\star)$ sends
a function $f(x)$ on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n$ to the same function
$f(x)$ on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n\times {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n \times {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{m-n}\times {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty$.
We apply $T_\lambda(G)$ and come to
\begin{equation}
|\det G|^\lambda
f(xa+yc)
\exp\left\{-\frac \lambda 2 \begin{pmatrix} x&y&z\end{pmatrix}
(GG^t -1)\begin{pmatrix} x^t\\y^t\\z^t\end{pmatrix}\right\}
.
\label{eq:prom1}
\end{equation}
Next, the operator $T_\lambda(\frl)$ is the average with respect to
variables
$(y,z,\xi)\in {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n \times {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{m-n}\times {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty$.
Since the function (\ref{eq:prom1})
is independent on $\xi$, we take average with respect to
$(y,z)$. We come to
\begin{multline}
T_\lambda^{(n)}(G)f(x)=
|\det G|^\lambda
\iint\limits_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n\times {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{m-n}}
f(xa+yc)\times\\ \times
\exp\left\{-\frac \lambda 2 \begin{pmatrix} x&y&z\end{pmatrix}
(GG^t -1)\begin{pmatrix} x^t\\y^t\\z^t\end{pmatrix}\right\}
\,d\mu_n(y)\, d\mu_{m-n}(z)
=\\=
\frac{|\det(G)|^\lambda}
{(2\pi)^{m/2}}
\cdot
e^{\frac1 2 x^2}
\iint\limits_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n\times {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{m-n}}
f(xa+yc)\times\\ \times
\exp\left\{-\frac \lambda 2 \begin{pmatrix} x&y&z\end{pmatrix}
GG^t \begin{pmatrix} x^t\\y^t\\z^t\end{pmatrix}
+
\frac {\lambda-1} 2 \begin{pmatrix} x&y&z\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} x^t\\y^t\\z^t\end{pmatrix}
\right\}
\,dy\,dz
\label{eq:int-operator}
\end{multline}
We change variable $y$ by $u$ according
$$
u=xa+yc,\qquad y=uc^{-1}-xac^{-1}
.
$$
Then
$$
\begin{pmatrix}x&y&z\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} x&u&z\end{pmatrix} S
,$$
where
$$
S=\begin{pmatrix}1&-ac^{-1}&0\\
0&c^{-1}&0\\
0&0&1
\end{pmatrix}
.
$$
Quadratic form in (\ref{eq:int-operator}) transforms to
$$
\left\{-\frac \lambda 2 \begin{pmatrix} x&u&z\end{pmatrix}
SGG^tS^t \begin{pmatrix} x^t\\u^t\\z^t\end{pmatrix}
+
\frac {\lambda-1} 2 \begin{pmatrix} x&u&z\end{pmatrix}
SS^t
\begin{pmatrix} x^t\\u^t\\z^t\end{pmatrix}
\right\}
$$
Passing to Potapov coordinates, we get
$$
SS^t=\begin{pmatrix}1+QQ^t&QT^t&0\\ TQ^t&TT^t&0\{\ov 0}&0&1 \end{pmatrix}
$$
$$
SG=\begin{pmatrix}0&P\{\ov 1}&R\{\ov 0}&H \end{pmatrix}
\qquad
SGG^tS^t=\begin{pmatrix} PP^t& PR^t& PH^t\\
RP^t& 1+RR^t&RH^t\\
HP^t&HR^t&HH^t
\end{pmatrix}
$$
We come to the expression of the form
$$
T_\lambda^{(n)}(G)\,f(x)=
\int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n} \mathcal K(x,u) f(u)\, du
,$$
where
the kernel $\mathcal K$ is given by
$$
\mathcal K(x,u)=(2\pi)^{-n/2}
|\det(G)|^\lambda |\det c|^{-1} \exp\{V(x,u)\}
\int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{m-n}}\exp\bigl\{ U(x,u,z)\bigr\} \,dz
,$$
where
\begin{multline}
\exp\bigl\{V(x,u)\bigr\}=\exp\Bigl\{\frac 1 2 x x^t+\frac{\lambda-1}2
\begin{pmatrix}x&u \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
QQ^t+1&QT^t\\TQ^t&TT^t
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}x^t\\u^t \end{pmatrix}
-\\-
\frac\lambda2
\begin{pmatrix}x&u \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}PP^t&PR^t\\RP^t&RR^t+1\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}x^t\\u^t\end{pmatrix}
\Bigr\}
=\\=
\exp\Bigl\{-\frac\lambda 2\|xP+uR\|^2+\frac{\lambda-1}2 \|xQ+uT\|^2+
\frac\lambda 2(\|x\|^2-\|u\|^2)\Bigr\}
\label{eq:1}
\end{multline}
and
\begin{multline}
\int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{m-n}}\exp\Bigl\{U(x,u,z)\Bigr\}\,dz=\\=
{(2\pi)}^{-(m-n)/2}
\int_{{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^{m-n}}\exp\Bigl\{\frac 12 z(-\lambda HH^t+\lambda-1)z^t\Bigr\}
\exp\Bigl\{-\lambda zH (P^tx^t+R^tu^t)\Bigr\}\,dz=
\\=
\det(\lambda HH^t-\lambda+1)^{-1/2}
\times\\ \times
\exp\Bigl\{\frac{\lambda^2} 2(xP+uR)H^t(\lambda HH^t-\lambda+1)^{-1}H(xP+yR)^t\Bigr\}
\label{eq:int-result}
\end{multline}
We wish to examine the exponential factor in (\ref{eq:int-result}).
Recall that $H$ is an $(m\times n)$ matrix of the form
$$
H=\begin{pmatrix} 0&\dots&0&h_1&0&\dots&0\\
0&\dots&0&0& h_2&\dots&0\\
\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
0&\dots&0&0&0&\dots&h_{m-n}
\end{pmatrix}
$$
Therefore $HH^t$ is the diagonal matrix with entries
$h_j^2$ and $H^t(\lambda HH^t-\lambda+1)^{-1}H$ is the diagonal matrix with entries
$0$ ($n$ times) and
$
\frac{h_j^2}{\lambda h_j^2-\lambda+1}
.$
Therefore,
(\ref{eq:int-result}) equals
\begin{equation}
(2\pi)^{n-m}
\prod_{j=1}^{m-n}
\bigl(1+\lambda ({h_j^2-1})\bigr)^{-1/2}
\exp\Bigl\{ \frac{\lambda^2 h_j^2 |\psi_j|^2}{2(\lambda h_j^2-\lambda+1)}\Bigr\}
\label{eq:product-1}
\end{equation}
Next, we write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:divergence}
\frac{\lambda^2 h_j^2}{\lambda h_j^2-\lambda+1}
=
\frac{\lambda h_j^2}{h_j^2-1}-\frac{h_j^2}{(h_j^2-1)^2}+ \frac{h_j^2}{(h_j^2-1)^2}\cdot
\frac 1{\lambda h_j^2-\lambda+1}
\end{equation}
and represent the product (\ref{eq:product-1}) as
\begin{multline}
\exp\Bigl\{-\frac 12 (xP+uR) H^t(1- HH^t)^{-2} H (xP+uR)^t \Bigr\}
\times\\ \times
\exp\Bigl\{-\frac \lambda 2(xP+uR)H^t(1-HH^t)^{-1} H (xP+uR)^t\Bigr\}
\times\\ \times
\prod_{j=1}^{m-n}
(\lambda (h_j^2-1)+1)^{-1/2}
\exp\Bigl\{\frac{h_j^2\|\psi_j\|^2}{2(h_j^2-1)^2}\cdot
\frac 1{\lambda(h_j^2-1)+1} \Bigr\}
\label{eq:2}
\end{multline}
Uniting (\ref{eq:1}) and (\ref{eq:2}), we come to a final expression for the kernel
of integral operator
\begin{align}
&\mathcal K_\lambda(x,u)=\nonumber\\=
& |\det c|^{-1}
\exp\Bigl\{ -\frac12\|xQ+uT\|^2-\frac 12 \|(xP+uR) H^t(1- HH^t)^{-1}\|^2 \Bigr\}
\times
\label{eq:line-1} \\
&\times
|\det(G)|^\lambda \cdot
\exp\Bigl\{
\frac{\lambda}2\bigl( \|xQ+uT\|^2 +\|x\|^2-\|u\|^2-
\label{eq:line-2}
\\&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad- (xP+uR)(1-H^tH)^{-1} (xP+yR)^t
\bigr)\Bigr\}
\times
\label{eq:line-3}
\\
&\times
\prod_{j=1}^{m-n}
(\lambda (h_j^2-1)+1)^{-1/2}
\exp\Bigl\{\frac{h_j^2\|\psi_j\|^2}{2(h_j^2-1)^2}\cdot
\frac 1{\lambda(h_j^2-1)+1} \Bigr\}
.
\label{eq:line-4}
\end{align}
Now we must represent the kernel as a Mellin transform of a measure
$$
\mathcal K_\lambda(x,u)=\int_0^\infty t^\lambda d M_{x,u}(t)
.
$$
The expression for $\mathcal K_\lambda(x,u)$ is a product, therefore its Mellin
transform is a convolution. We must evaluate inverse Mellin transform for all factors.
The first factor (\ref{eq:line-1}) is constant. The second factor
(\ref{eq:line-2})--(\ref{eq:line-3}) has the form
$e^{\lambda a(x,u)}$, we have
$$
e^{\lambda a(x,u)}=\int_0^\infty t^\lambda \delta\bigl(t- e^{a(x,u)}\bigr)
.$$
For factors in (\ref{eq:line-4}) the inverse Mellin transform was evaluated
in Lemma \ref{l:Phi}.
This proves Theorem \ref{th:formula-1}.
\smallskip
\section{Convergent formula}
\addtocounter{sec}{1
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Formula.} Now consider arbitrary $\frg\in\mathrm{Coll}(n)$ being in the canonical form
(\ref{eq:can-form}),
$$
\begin{pmatrix}
a&b_1&b_2\\
c&d_1&d_2\\
0&0&h\\
\end{pmatrix}
$$
To write a formula that is valid in general case, we rearrange factors in (\ref{eq:final-1}).
First, we define $\delta$-measures on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n\times{\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n$ by
$$dN^\circ_{x,u}(t)=A^\circ(x,u)\delta\bigl(t-B^\circ(x,u)\bigr),$$
where
$$
A^\circ(x,u)=
\det (T)\,
\exp\Bigl\{ -\frac 12\|xQ+uT\|^2 \Bigr\}
$$
$$
B^\circ(x,u)=\frac{|\det P_1|}{|\det T|}
\exp\Bigl\{
\frac 12\bigl(\|xQ+uT\|^2-\|xP_1+uR_1\|^2 -\|x\|^2+\|u\|^2\bigr)\Bigr\}
.$$
In fact, $dN^\circ_{x,u}(t)$ is the measure $dN_{x,u}(t)$ defined for the matrix
$\begin{pmatrix}a&b_1\\c&d_1\end{pmatrix}$.
Next, we define the following probability measures $\Xi_j=\Xi[h_j, \psi_j]$
on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$:
\begin{multline}
\Xi[h_j, \psi_j]=\\=
\exp\Bigl\{- \frac{|\psi_j|^2 h_j^2}{2(1-h_j^2)^2}\Bigr\}
\cdot \delta\Bigl(t-h_j \exp\Bigl\{\frac{|\psi_j|^2}{2(1-h_j^2)}\Bigr\}\Bigr)
*\Phi\Bigl[h_j^2-1, \frac{h_j^2 |\psi_j|^2}{2(1-h_j^2)^2};\,t\Bigr]
\label{eq:Xi}
\end{multline}
if $h_j\ne 1$. For $h_j=1$ we set
$$
\Xi[1,\psi_j]=
\frac{1}{|\psi_j|}e^{-\frac 18|\psi_j|^2}
\exp\Bigl\{- \frac{\ln^2 t}{2|\psi_j|^2}\Bigr\}\frac {dt} {t^{3/2}},
\qquad \Xi[1,0]=\delta(t-1).$$
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:formula-2}
Let $\fra\in\mathrm{Coll}(n)$ be arbitrary. Then the polymorphism
$\tau(\fra)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\Bigl(
dN^\circ_{x,u}(t)*
\begin{array}{c}\infty\\\text{\Huge $\ast$}\\ j=1\end{array}
\Xi[h_j,\psi_j]\Bigr) dx\,du
.
\label{eq:final-2}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{lemma}
\label{l:fin1}
{\rm a)} Measures $\Xi[h_j,\psi_j]$ are probabilistic.
\smallskip
{\rm b)} The products
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c}\infty\\\text{\Huge $\ast$}\\ j=1\end{array}
\Xi[h_j,\psi_j],
\qquad \qquad
\begin{array}{c}\infty\\\text{\Huge $\ast$}\\ j=1\end{array}
\bigl( t\cdot \Xi[h_j,\psi_j]\bigr)
\label{eq:long-convolution}
\end{equation}
weakly converge in the semigroup of measures on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}
\label{l:fin2}
{\rm a)} For a matrix $g$ denote by
denote by $g^{(m)}$
the matrix $\begin{pmatrix} z&0\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix}$, where $z$ is the upper left
$(n+m)\times(n+m)$ corner of the matrix $g$. Then the the polynorphism
$\tau(\frg^{(m)})$ coincides with
\begin{equation}
\Bigl(
dN^\circ_{x,u}(t)*
\begin{array}{c}m-n\\\text{\Huge $\ast$}\\ j=1\end{array}
\Xi[h_j,\psi_j]\Bigr) dx\,du
\label{eq:final-1.5}
.
\end{equation}
{\rm b)} The sequence of polymorphisns
{\rm(\ref{eq:final-1.5})}
converges in semigroup of polymorphisms of $({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^n,\mu_n)$.
to $\tau(\fra)$.
\end{theorem}
{\bf\refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Rearrangement of factors (Lemma \ref{l:fin2}.a.}
First, rearrange factors in (\ref{eq:line-1})--(\ref{eq:line-4}):
\begin{align}
&\mathcal K_\lambda(x,u)=
|\det T|
\exp\Bigl\{ -\frac12\|xQ+uT\|^2\Bigr\}
\Bigl(\frac{|\det(P_1)|}{\det (T)|}\Bigr)^\lambda
\times
\label{eq:line-5}
\\& \times
\exp\Bigl\{
\frac{\lambda}2\bigl( \|xQ+uT\|^2 +\|x\|^2-\|u\|^2-
\|xP_1+uR_1\|^2)\Bigr\}
\label{eq:line-6}
\\
&\times
\prod_{j=1}^{m-n}
\biggl(\exp\Bigl\{\frac{h_j^2 |\psi_j|^2}{2(1-h_j^2)^2} \Bigr\}
\cdot h_j^\lambda
\exp\Bigl\{\frac{\lambda|\psi_j|^2}{2(1-h_j^2)}
\Bigr\}
\times
\label{eq:line-7}
\\
&\qquad\qquad\times
\bigl(\lambda (h_j^2-1)+1\bigr)^{-1/2}
\exp\Bigl\{\frac{h_j^2\|\psi_j\|^2}{2(h_j^2-1)^2}\cdot
\frac 1{\lambda(h_j^2-1)+1} \Bigr\}
\biggr)
\label{eq:line-8}
\end{align}
Factors in the product (\ref{eq:line-5})--(\ref{eq:line-6}) looks as singular near $h_j=1$.
But this singularity is artificial, it appears due division in the line (\ref{eq:divergence}).
Returning to the previous line (\ref{eq:product-1}) of the calculation, we get
for $h_j=1$ the following factor
$$
\exp\Bigl\{-\frac12\lambda |\psi_j|^2+\frac12\lambda^2|\psi_j|^2 \Bigr\}
=\frac{1}{|\psi_j|}e^{-\frac 18|\psi_j|^2}\int_0^\infty t^\lambda \,
\exp\Bigl\{- \frac{\ln^2 t}{2|\psi_j|^2}\Bigr\}\frac {dt} {t^{3/2}}
$$
{\bf \refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Proof of Lemma \ref{l:fin2}.b).}
\begin{lemma}
The embedding $\iota:\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)\to \mathrm{Pol}({\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty, {\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\infty)$ is continuous.
\end{lemma}
{\sc Proof.} According Proposition \ref{th:convergence}.b it is sufficient to prove that
the representations $T_\lambda(g)$ of $\mathrm{GLO}(\infty)$ are weakly continuous for all $\lambda$.
It is sufficient to take $f=e^{iax}$ and $g=e^{ibx}$ in (\ref{eq:two-conver})
and to verify continuity of the corresponding matrix elements
with respect to the Shale topology. \hfill$\square$
\smallskip
Let $g$ be of the form (\ref{eq:can-form}).
For finite matrices formulas (\ref{eq:final-1}) and (\ref{eq:final-2})
coincide.
Denote by $g^{(m)}$
the matrix $\begin{pmatrix} z&0\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix}$, where $z$ is the upper left
$(n+m)\times(n+m)$ corner of the matrix $g$.
For $g^{(m)}$ the formula (\ref{eq:final-1.5}) gives a correct result.
Next, $g^{(m)}$ converges to $g$ in the Shale topology.
Therefore $\tau(g^{(m)})$ converges to $\tau(g)$ as $g\to\infty$.
This proves the last statement of the theorem.
\smallskip
\smallskip
{\bf \refstepcounter{punct}{\arabic{sec}.\arabic{punct}. } Proof of Theorem \ref{th:formula-2}.}
We must prove convergence of the infinite convolution
in (\ref{eq:long-convolution}).
The characteristic function of $\Xi[h_j,\psi_j]$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\int_0^\infty t^\lambda \Xi_j[h_j,\psi_j]=
h_j^\lambda
\bigl(1+\lambda ({h_j^2-1})\bigr)^{-1/2}
\exp\Bigl\{ \frac{\lambda^2 h_j^2 |\psi_j|^2}{2(\lambda h_j^2-\lambda+1)}-
\frac\lambda 2 |\psi_j|^2\Bigr\}
\end{equation*}
We have $\sum (h_j-1)^2<\infty$, $\sum|\psi_j|^2<\infty$. Under these conditions
we have a convergence of the product in the strip $0\le \Re\lambda\le1$. This implies
the weak convergence of measures on ${\mathbb R }} \def\mathbb{C} {{\mathbb C }} \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}} \def\H{{\mathbb H}} \def\K{{\mathbb K}^\times$.
The convergence is uniform on compacts sets with respect to $x$, $u$, and this implies coincidence
of (\ref{eq:final-2}) and limit of (\ref{eq:final-1.5}).
|
\section{Introduction}
An associative semimultiplicative set is a set $G$ together with a partially defined associative multiplication.
For instance, categories, groupoids, semigroups, inverse semigroups and groups are associative semimultiplicative sets.
An equivariant $KK$-theory for semimultiplicative sets is defined in \cite{burgiSemimultiKK}, and in this theory the $G$-action is realized by linear
(non-adjointable) partial
isometries on $C^*$-algebras and Hilbert modules.
In this paper we prove a descent homomorphism for $KK^G$ and various types of crossed products,
$$KK^{H \times G} (A,B) \longrightarrow KK^H(A \rtimes G, B \rtimes G),$$
see Theorem \ref{theoremMain}, parallel to Kasparov's descent homomorphism for groups (\cite{kasparov1988}).
We consider four types of crossed products, the reduced one, the full one, the full strong one, and another one for so-called inversely
generated semigroups.
This work originated in an attempt
to generalise the Baum--Connes map for discrete groups (\cite{baumconneshigson1994}) to discrete semimultiplicative sets.
If $G$ is an inverse semigroup then this seems conceptually (and at least partially) to work, see \cite{burgiKKrDiscrete} and \cite{burgiGreenJulg}.
If $G$ is not an inverse semigroup then still certain reduced crossed products $A \rtimes_r G$ are isomorphic to inverse semigroup crossed products $A \rtimes S$, see Corollary \ref{corollaryIsomorphRedInvSemiCrossed}, and so for these crossed products one has potentitally a Baum--Connes theory.
In the full crossed product of a semimultiplicative set, however, one usually has non-commuting source and range projections of the underlying partial isometries, and this turns out to be an obstacle in constructing a Baum--Connes map similarly as for groups and groupoids:
these Baum--Connes maps can be constructed by a combination of a
descent homomorphism and an averaging map. Avaraging, however, fails for semimultiplicative sets
and their induced non-commuting projections on modules. (But even for inverse semigroups one cannot directly avarage but need to slice
modules at first (see \cite{burgiGreenJulg})).
Roughly speaking, the theory of crossed products by semimultiplicative sets is a theory of $C^*$-algebras
generated by partial isometries. Hence we generalise this point of view by considering also inversely generated semigroups,
which are $*$-semigroups that are generated by their invertible elements.
We give a brief overview of this paper. In Sections \ref{sectionSemimultiplicativeSets}-\ref{sectionPrelim}
we recall the basic definitions of equivariant $KK$-theory for semimultiplicative sets from \cite{burgiSemimultiKK}.
In Section \ref{sectionPartIso} we prove some facts about partial isometries in connection with $G$-actions.
Sections \ref{sectionActionsCrossed}-\ref{sectionReprL1} and Section \ref{sectionInvGenSemigroups}
are dedicated to the definition of the various crossed products; Section \ref{sectionInvGenSemigroups} also includes
the definition of equivariant $KK$-theory for inversely generated semigroups.
In Section \ref{sectionCompareWithGroupsKK} we compare semimultiplicative set $G$-equivariant $KK$-theory
with Kasparov's $G$-equivariant $KK$-theory when $G$ is a group.
Sections \ref{sectionDescent}-\ref{sectionDescent3} occupy the proof of the descent homomorphism,
which is an adaption of Kasparov's proof in \cite{kasparov1988}.
\section{Semimultiplicative sets} \label{sectionSemimultiplicativeSets}
\begin{definition}
{\rm A (general) {\em semimultiplicative set} $G$ is a set endowed
with a subset $G^{(2)} \subseteq G \times G$
and a map (written as a multiplication)
$$G^{(2)} \longrightarrow G: (s,t) \mapsto s t$$
satisfying the following weak associativity condition: $s(tu) = (st)u$ whenever both expressions are defined ($s,t,u \in G$).
}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
{\rm A semimultiplicative set $G$ is called {\em associative} if
whenever
$(st)u$ or $s(tu)$ is defined, then both $(st)u$ and $s(tu)$ are defined
($s,t,u \in G$).}
\end{definition}
There is a similar notion called a semigroupoid (\cite{exelSemigroupoid}). A semigroupoid is an associative semimultiplicative set
with the property that $(s t) u$ is defined if and only if $st$ and $t u$ is defined. For instance, groupoids and small categories are semigroupoids.
In general, however, an associative semimultiplicative set is not a semigroupoid, a
typical example being a ring $R$ without the zero element, so the semimultiplicative set $G = R \backslash \{0\}$ under the multiplication inherited from $R$.
Examples for associative semimultiplicative sets include
groups, groupoids, small categories, inverse semigroups, semigroups, semigroupoids.
An associative semimultiplicative set is also called a partial semigroup in the literature
(see \cite{0809.04005}).
We remark that the weak associativity condition for a general semimultiplicative set is not essential in this paper. A general semimultiplicative set
is always realized by associative actions, so we require the weak associativity without essential loss of generality.
However, for instance, an arbitrary subset of a group is a general but not necessarily an associative semimultiplicative set.
Now the point is that general and associative semimultiplicative sets $G$ yield different classes of actions, since $G$ has to be realized by partial isometries.
If an associative semimultiplicative set $G$ has left cancellation, that is, for all $s,t_1,t_2 \in G$, $s t_1 = s t_2$ implies $t_1 = t_2$,
then we are able to define a left reduced $C^*$-algebra for $G$.
Write $(e_g)_{g \in G}$ for the canonical base in $\ell^2(G)$.
\begin{definition} \label{defLeftRegRep}
{\rm
Let $G$ be an associative semimultiplicative set with left cancellation.
The {\em left regular representation} of $G$
is the map $\lambda: G \longrightarrow B(\ell^2(G))$ given by
$$\lambda_g \Big (\sum_{h \in G} \alpha_h e_h \Big ) =
\sum_{h \in G, \, gh \mbox{ is defined}} \alpha_h e_{gh},$$
where $\alpha_h \in {\mathbb C}$.
The $C^*$-subalgebra of $B(\ell^2(G))$ generated by $\lambda(G)$ is called
the {\em reduced $C^*$-algebra} of $G$ and denoted by $C^*_r(G)$.
}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
{\rm
A {\em morphism} $\phi: G \longrightarrow H$ between two semimultiplicative sets $G$ and $H$
is a map satisfying $\phi(gh) = \phi(g) \phi(h)$ whenever $g h$ is defined ($g,h \in G$).
}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
{\rm
An {\em anti-morphism} $\varphi: G \longrightarrow H$ between semimultiplicative sets $G$ and $H$ is a map satisfying
$\varphi(g h)= \varphi(h) \varphi(g)$ whenever $gh$ is defined ($g,h \in G$).
}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
{\rm
A {\em left action} of a semimultiplicative set $G$
on a set $X$
is given by a subset
$Y \subseteq G \times X$
and a map
$$Y \longrightarrow X, \, (g,x) \mapsto g x$$
such that if $gh$ is defined, then
$(g h) x$ is defined if and only if
$g(h x)$ is defined, and in this case $(g h) x = g (h x)$
($g,h \in G, x \in X$).
}
\end{definition}
By the last definition we see that a $G$-action on a set is a morphism $\phi:G \longrightarrow {\rm PartFunc}(X)$ from $G$ into the set of partial functions on $X$.
(That is, if $g h$ is defined, then $\phi(gh)=\phi(g) \circ \phi(h)$ and the domain of both sides coincide.)
The domain of the composition of two partial functions is understood to be the maximal possible one.
The identity $\phi_1 = \phi_2$ of partial functions is understood to imply that both sides of the identity must have the same domain.
\begin{definition}
{\rm
A left $G$-action $\phi$ on $X$ is called {\em injective}
if the maps $\phi(g) \in {\rm PartFunc}(X)$ are injective on their domain for all $g \in G$.
}
\end{definition}
A {\em linear action} of $G$ on a vector space $X$ is a morphism $\phi: G \longrightarrow {\rm LinMap}(X)$ from $G$ into the linear maps on $X$.
The map $\lambda$ of Definition \ref{defLeftRegRep} may be checked to be a linear action on $\ell^2(G)$.
Left $G$-actions correspond to morphisms, and right $G$-actions to anti-morphisms.
That is, a right linear action on a vector space $X$ is an anti-morphism $\varphi: G \longrightarrow {\rm LinMap}(X)$.
\begin{definition} \label{Gaction_onHausdorffSet}
{\em
An injective left $G$-action $\phi$ on a Hausdorff space $X$ is {\em continuous} if
all maps $\phi(g) \in {\rm PartFunc}(X)$ are continuous and have clopen domains and ranges
for all $g \in G$.
}
\end{definition}
\section{$G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebras and -modules}
\label{sectionPrelim}
In this section we recall the basic definitions for $G$-equivariant $KK$-theory for a general semimultiplicative set $G$ (\cite{burgiSemimultiKK}).
All $C^*$-algebras and Hilbert modules are assumed to be
${\mathbb Z}_2$-graded \cite{kasparov1981,kasparov1988}. If $\varepsilon$ is
a grading on a linear space $X$, then $\varepsilon(T)= \varepsilon T
\varepsilon$ is a grading on the space of linear maps $T$ on $X$.
All $*$-homomorphisms between $C^*$-algebras are supposed to respect
the grading.
We let $[x,y] = xy - (-1)^{\partial x \partial y } yx$ be the graded
commutator.
At first we shall define an action by a general semimultiplicative set $G$ on a $C^*$-algebra.
This is the next definition (from \cite{burgiSemimultiKK}, Definition 11, Definition 12, Definition 20, and the remark thereafter).
\begin{definition} \label{definitionHilbertAlgebra}
{\rm
A {\em $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra} $A$
is a $({\mathbb Z}/2)$-graded $C^*$-algebra $A$ which is also regarded as a Hilbert module over itself
under the inner product $\langle x,y\rangle = x^* y$, and which is equipped with a
semimultiplicative set morphism
$$\alpha: G \longrightarrow {\rm End} (A)$$
and a semimultiplicative set anti-morphism
$$\alpha^*: G \longrightarrow {\rm End} (A)$$
such that $\alpha_g$ and $\alpha_g^*$ are zero-graded for all $g \in G$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\alpha_g &=& \alpha_g \alpha_g^* \alpha_g,\\
\alpha_g^* &=& \alpha_g^* \alpha_g \alpha_g^*,
\end{eqnarray*}
and $\alpha_g^* \alpha_g$ and $\alpha_g \alpha_g^*$ are self-adjoint for all $g \in G$, and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle \alpha_g(x),y\rangle &=& \alpha_g (\langle x, \alpha_g^*(y) \rangle ), \\
\langle \alpha_g^*(x),y\rangle &=& \alpha_g^* (\langle x, \alpha_g(y)\rangle)
\end{eqnarray*}
holds for all $x,y \in A$ and all $g \in G$.
}
\end{definition}
We usually write simply $g(x)$ rather than $\alpha_g(x)$, and $g^*(x)$
rather than $\alpha_g^*(x)$.
Instead of $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra we often say just Hilbert $C^*$-algebra if $G$ is clear from the context or unimportant.
\begin{definition} \label{defGequiHilbertCstar}
{\rm
A {\em $G$-equivariant homomorphism} $\tau:A \rightarrow B$ between two Hilbert
$C^*$-algebras $A$ and $B$ is a $*$-homomorphism intertwining both the left and and the right $G$-action,
i.e.
$\tau(g(x)) = g(\tau(x))$ and
$\tau(g^*(x)) = g^*(\tau(x))$
for all $x \in A$ and $g \in G$.
}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition} \label{definitionGHilbertModule}
{\rm
A $G$-Hilbert module ${\mathcal E}$ is a $({\mathbb Z}/2)$-graded Hilbert module ${\mathcal E}$ over a Hilbert $C^*$-algebra
$B$, such that ${\mathcal E}$ is equipped with a semimultiplicative set
morphism
$$U: G \longrightarrow {\rm LinMap}({\mathcal E})$$
and a semimultiplicative set anti-morphism
$$U^*: G \longrightarrow {\rm LinMap}({\mathcal E})$$
such that $U_g$ and $U_g^*$ are zero-graded for all $g \in G$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
U_g &=& U_g U_g^* U_g,\\
U_g^* &=& U_g^* U_g U_g^*,
\end{eqnarray*}
and $U_g^* U_g$ and $U_g U_g^*$ are self-adjoint for all $g \in G$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
U_g(\xi b) &=& U_g(\xi) g(b), \label{hilbmodrel1}\\
U_g^*(\xi b) &=& U_g^*(\xi) g^*(b),\\
\langle U_g(\xi),\eta \rangle &=& g ( \langle \xi, U_g^*(\eta) \rangle), \label{hilbmodrel3} \\
\langle U_g^*(\xi), \eta\rangle &=& g^* (\langle \xi, U_g(\eta) \rangle) \label{hilbmodrel4}
\end{eqnarray}
holds for all $\xi,\eta \in {\mathcal E}, b \in B$ and $g \in G$.
}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition} \label{definitionGstarEquivariance}
{\rm
Let $A$ and $B$ be $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebras and ${\mathcal E}$ a $G$-Hilbert module over $B$.
A $*$-homomorphism
$\pi:A \longrightarrow {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E})$
is called {\em $G$-equivariant}
if
\begin{eqnarray}
[U_g U_g^* ,\pi(a)] &=& 0, \label{equivariantRep1}\\
{[U_g^* U_g ,\pi(a)] } &=& 0, \label{equivariantRep2}\\
U_g \pi(a) U_g^* &=& \pi( g(a)) U_g U_g^*, \label{equivariantRep3}\\
U_g^* \pi(a) U_g &=& \pi( g^*(a)) U_g^* U_g \label{equivariantRep4}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $a \in A$ and $g \in G$.
}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
{\rm Let $A$ and $B$ be $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebras. A {\em
$G$-Hilbert $(A,B)$-bimodule} ${\mathcal E}$ is a $G$-Hilbert $B$-module
${\mathcal E}$ together with a $G$-equivariant $*$-homomorphism $\pi:A
\longrightarrow {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E})$. The homomorphism $\pi$ is often regarded as a left module multiplication of $A$ on ${\mathcal E}$.}
\end{definition}
We also write $g(T)=U_g T U_g^*$ and $g^*(T) =
U_g^* T U_g$ for $g \in G$ and adjoint-able operators $T \in {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E})$. Note that in general ${\mathcal L}({\mathcal E})$ is not
a $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra, as usually the action $g(\cdot)$ is not multiplicative, i.e. $g(TS) \neq g(T)
g(S)$. The {\em trivial} $G$-action on an object $X$
of a category is the action $\tau_g(x) = x$ for all $x \in X$ and $g \in G$.
For a subset $C \subseteq {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E})$ we set
\begin{eqnarray*}
Q_C &=& \{ T \in {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E})|\, [T,c] \in {\mathcal K}({\mathcal E}), \,\forall c \in C\},\\
I_C &=& \{ T \in {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E})|\, c T \mbox{ and } T c \mbox{ are in } {\mathcal K}({\mathcal E}),\, \forall c \in C\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here, ${\mathcal K}({\mathcal E})$ denotes the set of compact operators in the sense of
Kasparov (\cite{kasparov1988}).
\begin{definition}
{\rm
Let $A,B$ be $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebras.
Cycles in ${\mathbb E}^G(A,B)$ are Kasparov's cycles $(\pi,{\mathcal E},T)$ in ${\mathbb E}(A,B)$ (\cite{kasparov1988}) with the following addition:
${\mathcal E}$ is a $G$-Hilbert module
(Definition \ref{definitionGHilbertModule}) and $\pi: A \to {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E})$ is a $G$-equivariant (Definition \ref{definitionGstarEquivariance}),
and the elements
\begin{equation} \label{defCycleCondition}
g(T) - g (1)T, \,[g(1),T],\, [g^*(1),T]
\end{equation}
are in $I_A({\mathcal E})$.
Parallel to Kasparov's theory, $KK^G(A,B)$ is defined to be
${\mathbb E}^G(A,B)$ divided by homotopy induced by ${\mathbb E}^G(A,B[0,1])$.
}
\end{definition}
$KK^G(A,B)$ is functorial in $A$ and $B$ and allows an associative Kasparov product (\cite{burgiSemimultiKK}).
We recall that we have a diagonal $G$-action on tensor
products, see \cite[Lemmas 4 and 5]{burgiSemimultiKK}.
If ${\mathcal E}_1$ and ${\mathcal E}_2$ are $G$-Hilbert modules then ${\mathcal E}_1 \otimes {\mathcal E}_2$
is a $G$-Hilbert module, and ${\mathcal E}_1 \otimes_{B_1} {\mathcal E}_2$ is a $G$-Hilbert module
if $B_1 \longrightarrow {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E}_1)$ is a $G$-equivariant representation
(Definition \ref{definitionGstarEquivariance}),
both under the diagonal action $U^{(1)} \otimes U^{(2)}$.
\section{Partial isometries}
\label{sectionPartIso}
In this section we shall show that an action of a semimultiplicative set on a Hilbert module is realized by partial isometries
(Corollary \ref{GactionConsistentPartialIso}), where inverse elements go over to adjoint partial isometries
(Corollary \ref{corollaryHilbertactionInverses}).
A {\em projection} on a Hilbert module ${\mathcal E}$ is a self-adjoint
idempotent map $P$ on ${\mathcal E}$. Recall that the identity $P({\mathcal E}) =
{\mathcal H}$ links
complemented subspaces ${\mathcal H}$ of ${\mathcal E}$ with projections $P$ on
${\mathcal E}$ in a bijective way.
\begin{definition} \label{defintionPartialisometry}
{\rm A {\em partial isometry} $T$ on a Hilbert-module ${\mathcal E}$ is a
linear map $T: {\mathcal E} \rightarrow {\mathcal E}$ for which there exist two
complemented subspaces ${\mathcal H}_0$ and ${\mathcal H}_1$ in ${\mathcal E}$ such that
$T$ maps ${\mathcal H}_0$ norm-isometrically onto ${\mathcal H}_1$ and vanishes on
${\mathcal H}_0^{\bot}$. }
\end{definition}
Notice that we do not require that a partial isometry $T$ is adjoint-able.
(For instance, in Lance's book \cite{lance}, partial isometries are supposed to be adjoint-able.)
The projections $Q$ and $P$ of a partial isometry $T$
as in Definition \ref{defintionPartialisometry}
projecting onto ${\mathcal H}_0$ and ${\mathcal H}_1$,
respectively, are called the {\em source} and {\em
range projections} of $T$. Since ${\mathcal H}_0^{\bot} = \ker(T)$ and
${\mathcal H}_1 = {\mbox{range}}(T)$, $Q$ and $P$ are
uniquely determined by $T$. The {\em inverse partial isometry} $S$ of $T$,
also denoted by $S=T^*$, is the unique partial isometry $S$ on
${\mathcal E}$
which vanishes on ${\mathcal H}_1^\bot$ and satisfies $S|_{{\mathcal H}_1} =
(T|_{{\mathcal H}_0})^{-1}$. If $T$ happens to be adjoint-able then the
notation $T^*$ cannot cause confusion as in this case the inverse
partial isometry is the adjoint of $T$,
see \cite{lance}.
The set of partial isometries of ${\mathcal E}$ is denoted by ${\rm PartIso}({\mathcal E})$.
\begin{lemma} \label{characterizationlemmaPartIso}
$T$ is a partial isometry if and only if $T$ is a norm contractive linear map
and there exists a norm contractive linear map
$S:{\mathcal E} \rightarrow {\mathcal E}$
such that $S T$ and $T S$
are projections, $T = T S T$ and $S = S T S$.
In this case $S = T^*$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $S$ and $T$ are contractive, we have $\| T x \| = \|TST x\| \le \|STx\| \le \| T x \|$
and $\|S y \| = \| T S y\|$ for all $x,y \in {\mathcal E}$.
Thus $T$ is a partial isometry with source and range projections
$ST$ and $TS$, respectively, and $S=T^*$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} \label{GactionConsistentPartialIso}
If $U$ is a $G$-action on a Hilbert module then $U_g$ is a partial isometry with
inverse partial isometry $U_g^*$ ($g \in G$).
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The boundedness of $U_g$ follows from $\|\langle U_g x , U_g x\rangle\| =\|g(\langle x , U_g^* U_g x \rangle)\| \le \|x\|^2$,
and then one applies Lemma \ref{GactionConsistentPartialIso}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{IdemLemma}
A partial isometry $T$ satisfying $T=T T$ and $T^* = T^* T^*$ is a projection.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $x \in {\mathcal E}$. Set $y = T x$. Then $T y= T T y = Tx = y$.
Let $y= y_0 + y_1$ with $y_0 = T^* Ty$ and $y_1 = (1- T^* T) y$ be the orthogonal decomposition.
Then $T^* y = T^* T y = y_0$. Hence, $y_0 = T^* y= T^* T^* y = T^* y_0$, and thus
$T^* (y_0 + y_1) = y_0 = T^* y_0$, and so $T^* y_1= 0$.
We thus have
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 &=& \langle T T^* y_1, y_0 \rangle = \langle y_1, T T^* y_0 \rangle
= \langle y_1, T y_0 \rangle = \langle y_1, T T^* T y \rangle\\
&=& \langle y_1, T y \rangle = \langle y_1, y \rangle = \langle y_1, y_1 \rangle .
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus $y_1=0$ and so $T^* T y = y_0 = y = T y$. Hence, $T^* T T x = T T x$, and so $T^* T x = Tx$. Since $x$ was arbitrary,
$T^* T = T$, and thus $T$ is a projection.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
{\rm An element $g$ of a semimultiplicative set $G$ is called {\em
invertible} if there exists an element $h \in G$ such that $ghg=g$
and $h g h =h$. }
\end{definition}
Even if the inverse element $h$ may not be unique, we occasionally denote a given choice by
$h=g^{-1}$.
\begin{corollary} \label{corollaryHilbertactionInverses}
Assume that ${\mathcal E}$ is a $G$-Hilbert module and $g \in G$ is invertible.
Then $U_g^*= U_{g^{-1}}$ and $U_{g^{-1}}^*= U_g$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Set $T= U_{g g^{-1}} = U_g U_{g^{-1}}$. Then $T T= T$ and $T^* T^* = T^*$. Hence $T$ is a projection by
Lemma \ref{IdemLemma}. Similarly, $U_{g^{-1}} U_g$ is a projection.
By Lemma \ref{characterizationlemmaPartIso} (for $S:= U_g$ and $T:= U_{g^{-1}}$), $U_g^* =U_{g^{-1}}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Algebraic crossed products}
\label{sectionActionsCrossed}
In this section $G$ denotes a discrete general semimultiplicative set (if nothing else is said).
For the work with crossed products we shall need to consider also free products of elements of $G$ and their adjoints, and for that purpose
we shall introduce $G^*$ below.
\begin{definition}
{\rm
An {\em involution} on a semigroup $S$ is a map $*: S \longrightarrow S: s \mapsto s^*$ such that
${(s^*)}^* = s$ and $(s t)^* = t^* s^*$ for all $s,t \in S$.
}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
{\rm
Define $F(G)$ to be the free semigroup generated by two copies of $G$. The elements of the second copy of $G$ are denoted by $g^*$ for $g \in G$
and stand for adjoint elements.
In other words, elements $\gamma$ of $F(G)$ consist of formal words
$\gamma = x_1^{\epsilon_1} \ldots x_n^{\epsilon_n}$
with $x_i \in G$ and $\epsilon_i \in \{1,*\}$.
}
\end{definition}
We shall occasionally denote the multiplication in $G$ by $g \odot h$ ($g,h \in G)$ to distinguish it
from the multiplication in $F(G)$.
\begin{definition} \label{simple_equivalences}
{\rm
Define $G^*$ to be the semigroup which is the quotient semigroup
of $F(G)$ by the following {\em elementary equivalences} defined for all $g,h \in G$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&g \odot h = g h, \quad (g \odot h)^* = h^* g^* \qquad \mbox{if $g \odot h$ is defined}\\
&&g = g g^* g, \quad g^* = g^* g g^*.
\end{eqnarray*}
}
\end{definition}
In other words, elements of $G^*$ consist of representatives living in $F(G)$,
and two representatives $\gamma, \delta \in F(G)$ are equivalent, if there is a finite sequence
of representatives in $F(G)$ starting with $\gamma$ and ending with $\delta$,
where two representatives in this sequence differ only by a single elementary equivalence
(within a word).
$G^*$ is an involutive semigroup by concatenation and taking the formal adjoints of representatives
of $F(G)$. For simplicity we shall omit the class brackets and write $g$ rather than the class $[g]$ for elements in $G^*$, where
$g \in F(G)$ is a representative.
Note that an element in $G^*$ need not be invertible: if $g,h \in G$ are incomposable in $G$ then
usually $g h (g h)^* g h \neq g h$ in $G^*$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmafromMorphtoStarMorph}
A morphism (resp. anti-morphism) $\varphi:G \longrightarrow H$ between semimultiplicative sets $G$ and $H$
extends canonically to a $*$-morphism (resp. $*$-anti-morphism) $G^* \longrightarrow H^*$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
A morphism $\varphi: G \rightarrow H$ induces a canonical $*$-morphism $F(G) \longrightarrow F(H)$
which respects the elementary equivalences of Definition \ref{simple_equivalences}.
\end{proof}
For the work with crossed products it is useful to extend a $G$-action to a $G^*$-action, and this is what the next couple of lemmas
will be about.
\begin{lemma} \label{inverse_Action}
If $\phi$ is an injective $G$-action on a set $X$ and
$g \in G$ is invertible in $G$ then $\phi(g)^{-1} = \phi(g^{-1})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $h$ be an inverse element for $g$.
If $g x$ is defined then $(ghg) x= g (h (gx))$ is defined,
so $h (gx)$ is defined; and conversely, if $hx=hghx$ is defined then $x=ghx$ by injectivity of the $G$-action.
We have checked that the range of $\phi(g)$ is the domain of $\phi(h)$.
From $g hg x= gx$ it follows $gh x = x$ by injectivity of the $G$-action, and similarly $hgx=x$.
Thus $\phi(g)$ and $\phi(h)$ are inverses to each other.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaActionGstar}
A continuous injective left $G$-action on a Hausdorff space $X$ can be extended to a continuous injective left $G^*$-action on $X$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\phi: G \longrightarrow {\rm PartFunc}(X)$ be the $G$-action on $X$.
For $g=g_1^{\epsilon_1} \ldots g_n^{\epsilon_n} \in F(G)$ ($g_i \in G, \epsilon_i \in \{1,*\}$) define
\begin{equation} \label{extendphi}
\hat \phi(g) = \phi({g_1})^{\epsilon_1} \circ \ldots \circ \phi({g_n})^{\epsilon_n}.
\end{equation}
Here, $\phi(g)^*$ denotes the inverse partial function for $\phi(g)$.
We have to show that (\ref{extendphi}) factors through $G^*$, in other words, we must show that $\phi$ is invariant under the elementary equivalences of
Definition \ref{simple_equivalences}.
Let $s, t \in F(G)$, $g,h \in G$ and $g \odot h \in G$ be defined. Then $s (g \odot h)^* t = s h^* g^* t$ in $G^*$.
By (\ref{extendphi}) and the definition of an action $\phi$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\hat \phi(s (g \odot h)^* t)= \phi(s) \big (\phi(g \odot h) \big)^* \phi(t)\\
&=& \phi(s) \big(\phi(g) \phi(h) \big)^* \phi(t) = \phi(s) \phi(h)^* \phi(g)^* \phi(t) = \hat \phi(s h^* g^* t).
\end{eqnarray*}
The other elementary equivalences are checked similarly.
It is easy to see that the extended $\phi$ is also a continuous action
(the inverse partial functions and composition of partial functions have clopen domains and ranges again).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaHilbertmoduleGstar}
Every $G$-Hilbert $B$-module ${\mathcal E}$ induces a morphism $\hat U:G^*
\longrightarrow {\rm LinMap}({\mathcal E})$ extending the $G$-action $U$ on
${\mathcal E}$.
The relations (\ref{hilbmodrel1})-(\ref{hilbmodrel4}) hold also for all $g\in G^*$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $g_1^{\epsilon_1} \ldots g_n^{\epsilon_n} \in F(G)$ ($g_i \in G, \epsilon_i \in \{1,*\}$) define
$$\hat U_{g_1^{\epsilon_1} \ldots g_n^{\epsilon_n}} = U_{g_1}^{\epsilon_1} \ldots U_{g_n}^{\epsilon_n}.$$
This map respects the elementary equivalences of Definition \ref{simple_equivalences} since $U$ and $U^*$
are a morphism and anti-morphism, respectively, by Definition \ref{definitionGHilbertModule}.
Consequently $\hat U$ factors through $G^*$.
The relations (\ref{hilbmodrel1})-(\ref{hilbmodrel4}) are checked by induction
(recall \cite[Lemma 3]{burgiSemimultiKK}).
\end{proof}
We emphasize that $\hat U$ of the last lemma is a morphism but not a $*$-morphism.
Usually ${\mathcal E}$ is not a $G^*$-Hilbert module as $\hat U_g$ need not to be a partial isometry for $g \in G^*$.
It may thus be suggestive to write $\hat U_g^*$ for $U_{g^*}$ ($g \in G^*$) but one should be aware
that this star might not be a (well defined) operator on the sets of $U_g$'s.
There is no (obvious) involution in the image of $\hat U$.
We shall usually write $U$ rather than $\hat U$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaHilbertCstarGstar}
(i) Every $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra $A$ is also a $G^*$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra.
In particular, there is a $*$-morphism $\hat \alpha: G^* \longrightarrow {\rm PartIso}(A) \cap {\rm End} (A)$ extending the $G$-action $\alpha$.
(ii) Every $G$-equivariant representation $\pi: A \longrightarrow {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E})$ of $A$ on a $G$-Hilbert module ${\mathcal E}$ is $G^*$-equivariant
in the sense that the identities (\ref{equivariantRep1})-(\ref{equivariantRep4}) hold also for $g \in G^*$
(where $U_g^*$ has to be interpreted as $U_{g^*}$).
(iii) For all $a,b \in A$ and $g \in G^*$ one has
$gg^{*}(ab) = gg^{*}(a) b = a gg^{*}(b)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We extend the $G$-action $\alpha$ to a morphism $\hat \alpha$ on $A$ according to
Lemma \ref{lemmaHilbertmoduleGstar}. Let $g,h \in G^*$ and $a,b \in
A$.
We may write $\alpha_g \alpha_g^*(a) b = \langle \hat \alpha_g \hat \alpha_g^*(a^*), b \rangle$ for all $a \in A$ and $g \in G^*$.
Writing $\hat \alpha_g (a) = g(a)$, by identity (\ref{equivariantRep3}) (Lemma \ref{lemmaHilbertmoduleGstar}) we have
$$g g^* (a) b = \langle g g^* (a^*) , b \rangle = g (
g^* (a) g^*(b)) = g g^*(a) g g^*(b),$$
and similarly $a g
g^*( b) = g g^*(a) g g^*( b)$. Hence $g g^*(a) b = a g
g^*(b)$,
that is, $g g^* \equiv \hat \alpha_g \hat \alpha_g^*$ is self-adjoint. Since $g g^* g g^*(a) b =
g g^* (a) g g^* (b) = g g^*(a) b$, $g g^*$ is a
projection. These identites prove already (iii). Now
$$g g^* h h^* (a) b = g g^* (h h^*(a) b)
= g g^* (a h h^* (b)) = g g^* (a) h h^* (b) = h h^*
g g^* (a) b,$$
that is, $g g^*$ and $h h^*$ commute. Hence $g \equiv \hat \alpha_g$
is the product of partial isometries $\alpha_i,\alpha_j^*$ ($i,j \in G$) with commuting range and source
projections and thus by a standard inductive proof and Lemma
\ref{characterizationlemmaPartIso} a partial isometry with inverse
partial isometry $\hat \alpha_{g}^* =
\hat \alpha_{g^*}$.
This shows that $\hat \alpha$ maps into the partial isometries, and is thus a $G^*$-action, which proves (i).
The $G^*$-equivariance claimed in (ii) (meaning that the formulas of
Definion \ref{definitionGstarEquivariance} hold) follows by
induction; see also \cite[Lemma 9]{burgiSemimultiKK}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaGspaceHilbertCstar}
Let $X$ be a Hausdorff space equipped with an injective continuous right $G$-action $\tau$.
Then $C_0(X)$ is a $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra under the action
$\alpha_g(f)x =1_{\{\tau_g(x) \mbox{ is defined}\} } f(\tau_g(x))$ ($\alpha_g^* := \alpha_g^{-1}$) for $f \in C_0(X), g \in G$ and $x \in X$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By definition of a continuous action $\tau$ on $X$, the domain and range, respectively, of $\tau_g$ is a clopen subset $D_g$ and $R_g$, respectively, of $X$.
So $\alpha_g(f)$ is indeed a continuous function. $\alpha_g$ projects onto $1_{D_g} C_0(X)$, and $\alpha_g$ moves $1_{R_g} C_0(X)$ onto $1_{D_g} C_0(X)$.
$\alpha_g^*$ is the inverse map.
It is straightforward to verify Definition \ref{definitionHilbertAlgebra} and this is left to the reader.
\end{proof}
We give another characterization of a Hilbert $C^*$-algebra.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaCharacterizationHilbertCstar}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra. Then $A$ is a Hilbert $C^*$-algebra with
$G$-action $\alpha$ if and only if $\alpha$ is a morphism $\alpha:G \longrightarrow {\rm PartIso}(A) \cap {\rm End}(A)$, and
for every $g \in G$ the source and range projections $\alpha_g^*
\alpha_g, \alpha_g \alpha_g^*$ are in $Z {\mathcal M}(A)$ (center of the
multiplier algebra of $A$).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $A$ is a Hilbert $C^*$-algebra then source and range projections
of $\alpha_g$ are in $Z{\mathcal M}(A)$ as remarked in \cite[Section
7]{burgiSemimultiKK}. Conversely, assume the condition. Then $A
\subseteq {\mathcal L}(A)$ by left multiplication. Since $g g^*$ is in
$Z {\mathcal M} (A)$, $g g^*$ commutes with the left multiplication
operator $L_a(b)= ab$ ($a,b\in A$), and so $g g^*(a b ) = a g
g^*(b)$. Moreover, $g g^*(ab) = g g^* (a) b$ (since $g g^* \in {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E})$). In particular,
$gg^* (a) b = g g^*
(a b) = a g g^*(b)$. With this one easily gets $\langle
g(a),b\rangle = g \langle a, g^*(b) \rangle$.
\end{proof}
We shall now come to crossed products by $G$.
\begin{definition} \label{definitionAlgCrossedProduct}
{\rm Let $A$ be a $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra.
Write ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$
for the universal $*$-algebra
generated by $A$ and $G$ subject to the following relations: The
$*$-algebraic relations of $A$ are respected
and the identities
\begin{eqnarray}
&&g \odot h = g h \qquad \mbox{if $g \odot h$ is defined}, \label{ident0}\\
&&g g^* g = g, \quad
g g^* a = a g g^*,\quad \label{ident1}
g^* g a = a g^* g,\\
&&g a g^* = g(a) g g^*, \quad \label{ident2}
g^* a g = g^*(a) g^* g
\end{eqnarray}
hold true for
all $g,h \in G$ and $a \in A$.
}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
{\rm
Let $A$ be a $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra.
The {\em algebraic crossed product}
$A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$ of $A$ by
$G$ is the $*$-subalgebra of ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$
generated by the set
$$\{a g \in{\mathbb F}(G,A)|\, a \in A, g \in G\}.$$
}
\end{definition}
Let $A$ be a $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra.
Write
$$A_g = g g^*(A)$$
for $g \in G^{*}$.
$A_g$ is a two-sided closed ideal in $A$
by Lemma \ref{lemmaHilbertCstarGstar} (iii).
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaReprConvolutionAlg}
$A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$ is canonically isomorphic to the $*$-algebra $C_c(G^*,A)$ consisting of
formal finite sums $\sum_{g \in G^*} a_g g$ ($a_g \in A_g$)
with involution
$$\Big (\sum_{g \in G^*} a_g g \Big)^* = \sum_{g \in G^*} g^*(a_g^*) g^*$$
and convolution product
$$\sum_{g \in G^*} a_g g \sum_{h \in G^*} b_h h = \sum_{g,h \in G^*} a_g g(b_h) g h.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By induction on the length of a word in $G^*$ one checks that $g a = g(a) g$ holds in ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$ for all $g \in G^*$.
Note that $g(a) = g g^* g(a) \in A_g$ since the $G^*$-action on a Hilbert $C^*$-algebra is realized by partial isometries (Lemma \ref{lemmaHilbertCstarGstar}).
One has
\begin{equation} \label{ginfa}
a g = (g^* a^*)^* = (g^*(a^*) g^*)^* = g g^*(a) g = a_g g
\end{equation}
for all $a \in A$ and $g \in G^*$, where $a_g := g g^*(a) \in A_g$.
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
&& g g^* a = g g^*(a) g g^* = a g g^* \label{someeq123}\\
&& g a g^* = g(a) g g^* \label{someeq124}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $a \in A$ and $g \in G^*$.
Define $D=A \oplus C_c(G^{*}, A) \oplus G^*$.
Endow $D$ with the algebraic structure on the summands as given, and between the summands as we have it in ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$, for instance $g \cdot a = g(a) g \in C_c(G^*,A)$
for $a \in A$ and $g \in G^*$.
By universality of ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$ there is a $*$-homomorphism
$\phi: {\mathbb F}(G,A) \longrightarrow D$ such that $\phi(a) = a$ and $\phi(g) = g$ for all $a \in A$ and $g \in G^*$
(using (\ref{someeq123})-(\ref{someeq124})).
It is obviously injective, as $D$, and particularly $C_c(G^*,A)$, is a direct sum.
The restriction $\phi'$ of $\phi$ to $A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$ yields $C_c(G^*,A)$.
The surjectivity of $\phi'$ follows by induction from the factorization
$$a g h = (a^{1/2} g) (g^* (a^{1/2}) h)$$
for $a \in A_+$ and $g,h \in G$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaIsomFGA}
(i) There is a linear isomorphism
$${\mathbb F}(G,A) \cong A \oplus C_c(G^{*}, A) \oplus G^*.$$
(ii) The identities (\ref{ident1})-(\ref{ident2}) hold for all $a \in A$ and $g \in G^*$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This was proved in Lemma \ref{lemmaReprConvolutionAlg}.
\end{proof}
One usually has not cancellation in $G^*$, even if $G$ has it.
Assume for instance that $g,h \in G$
are not invertible and not composable in $G$. Then usually $h \neq g^* g h$ in $G^*$.
For this reason we need not have a transformation like `$x = gh$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $g^* x = h$' in the convolution
product of Lemma \ref{lemmaReprConvolutionAlg}.
\begin{definition} \label{defCovHil}
{\rm
By a {\em covariant representation} of a
$G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra $A$ we mean a $G$-equivariant
representation $\pi:A \longrightarrow B(H)$ on a $G$-Hilbert space $H$ (Definition \ref{definitionGHilbertModule} with
trivial $G$-action on ${\mathbb C}$) in the sense of Definition
\ref{definitionGstarEquivariance}.
}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaBijectionCovRepF}
Restricting a $*$-homomorphism $\phi: {\mathbb F}(G,A) \longrightarrow B(H)$ of ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$ to $A$ and $G$ gives a covariant representation
$(\phi|_A, \phi|_G,H)$
of $A$.
Conversely, a covariant representation $(\pi,u,H)$ of $A$ extends canonically to a representation $\phi:{\mathbb F}(G,A) \longrightarrow B(H)$ of ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$
determined by $\phi|_A= \pi$ and $\phi|_G = u$.
This correspondence between representations of ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$ and covariant representations of $A$ is a bijection.
\end{lemma}
By the last lemma it is often comfortable to work with {\em one} homomorphism $\phi$ rather than an equivariant representation.
A covariant representation of $A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$ is then just a restriction of $\phi$. We have the following diagram
(where $\iota$ denotes the canonical embedding).
$$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
{\mathbb F}(G,A) \ar[drr]^{\phi} & \\
A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G \ar[u]_{\iota} \ar[rr]^{(\phi|_A,\phi|_G,H)}_{\phi|_{A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G}} & & B(H)
}
\end{xy}$$
\section{Full crossed products}
\begin{definition}
{\rm
Let $(\pi,u,H)$ be a $G$-covariant representation of a $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra $A$
and $\phi$ its induced representation on ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$.
The $C^*$-algebra $A \rtimes_{(\pi,u,H)} G$ {\em induced by this covariant representation} is the norm closure
of $\phi (A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G)$.
}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
{\rm
The {\em universal covariant representation} of $A$ is the direct sum of all covariant representations of $A$.
(Actually, we choose one Hilbert space of sufficient large cardinality
which can carry all possible representations of ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$ up to equivalence
(meaning that the images of ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$ under two representations are canonically isometrically isomorphic)
and allow only representations on this Hilbert space.)
}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
{\rm
The {\em full crossed product} $A \rtimes G$
is the $C^*$-algebra induced by the universal covariant representation of $A$.
}
\end{definition}
Equivalently, $A \rtimes G$ is the norm closure of the image $\phi^\infty(A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G)$ of the universal
representation $\phi^\infty$ of ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$.
Bearing Lemma \ref{lemmaBijectionCovRepF} in mind, by an abuse of language we may also call $\phi^{\infty}$ a covariant representation of $A$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaCovRepInducedMap}
Let $\phi^\infty$ be the universal covariant representation of $A$.
If $\phi$ is another covariant representation of $A$ then
there is a homomorphism $\sigma: A \rtimes G \longrightarrow A \rtimes_\phi G$
such that $\sigma \phi^\infty(x) = \phi(x)$ for all $x \in A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$.
$$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G \ar[r]^{\phi^\infty} \ar[rd]_{\phi} &
A \rtimes G \ar[d]^{\sigma}\\
& A \rtimes_{\phi} G
}
\end{xy}$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is clear as $\phi^\infty$ is the direct sum over all representations of ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$, so is larger or equal in norm
in every point $x$ than $\phi$.
\end{proof}
Note that the above full crossed product is for proper semimultiplicicative sets, and so there are differences to
existing crossed products if one considers special categories. Let $(\pi,U,H)$ be a covariant representation
of a $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra $A$. If $G$ is a discrete group, then $U_g U_g^* = U_g^* U_g=U_e$ for all $g \in G$ by Lemma
\ref{corollaryHilbertactionInverses},
but this need not be a unit (we may resolve this difference by requiring $U_e=1$, as optionally done in Sections
\ref{sectionDescent}-\ref{sectionDescent3}).
If $G$ is an inverse semigroup, our crossed product differs from Sieben's crossed product \cite{sieben1997} which
is based on strictly covariant representations in the sense
that $U_g \pi(a) U_g^*= \pi(g(a))$. We are however consistent with Khoshkam--Skandalis' definition \cite{1061.46047},
see Lemma \ref{lemmaInvSemigroupKhoshkam}. The precise difference between the latter two crossed products is clarified in \cite{1061.46047}.
If $G$ is a semigroup, then in the existing definitions a semigroup covariant representation consists of isometries $U_g$
which strictly covariantly intertwine the $G$-action,
see Stacey \cite{stacey}, Murphy \cite{murphy}, Laca \cite{laca2000} and Larsen \cite{larsen}.
Stacey even allows a family of isometries for representations of different multiplicities.
The crossed product of ${\mathbb N}$ by surjective shift maps on $\{0,1\}^{\mathbb N}$ degenerates to $0$ according to Stacey in \cite[Example 2.1(a)]{stacey}
(this affects any crossed product construction induced by strictly covariantly intertwining isometries)
but there is an obvious non-degnerate covariant representation on $B(\ell^2(\{0,1\}^{\mathbb N}))$ in our sense.
In all constructions of this paragraph the full crossed product is (roughly speaking) the enveloping $C^*$-algebra
of the respective class of equivariant representations.
If ${\mathcal G}$ is a discrete groupoid then $gh =0$ in the groupoid $C^*$-algebra if $g$ and $h$ are incomposeable ($g,h \in {\mathcal G}$).
Taking into account such an approach to the crossed product, we consider such a variant also for semimultiplicative sets.
\begin{definition}
{\rm
Let $G$ be a general semimultiplicative set.
A covariant representation $(\pi,u,H)$ is called {\em strong} if $u_{g} u_h=0$ for all incomposable pairs $g,h \in G$.
The {\em full strong crossed product} $A \rtimes_{\rm s} G$
is the $C^*$-algebra induced by the universal strong $G$-covariant representation of $A$.
}
\end{definition}
A similar lemma as Lemma \ref{lemmaCovRepInducedMap} holds also for the strong crossed product and the strong covariant representations.
For a semigroup $S$ there exists a crossed product where the ac
\section{Reduced crossed products}
In this section we shall assume that $G$ is an associative semimultiplicative set with left cancellation.
Let $\rho$ be the injective $G$-action on $G$ given by left multiplication ($\rho_g( h) = gh$ in $G$).
It can be extended to an injective $G^*$-action on $G$ (also denoted by $\rho$) by Lemma \ref{lemmaActionGstar}.
$\rho$ induces an action $\lambda: G \longrightarrow B(\ell^2(G))$ (Definition \ref{defLeftRegRep}).
This action is an action under which $\ell^2(G)$ becomes a $G$-Hilbert space (i.e. a $G$-Hilbert module over ${\mathbb C}$). We shall regard $\ell^2(G)$
as a $G$-Hilbert module (if nothing else is said).
We may extend this action
to a $G^*$-action, and denote this extension also by $\lambda$
(and it is the same action as the extended $\rho$ would induce).
For arbitrary $g$ in $G^*$ and arbitrary $h$ in $G$ we use the abbreviation
$$e_{g h} := \lambda_g(e_h).$$
\begin{definition}
{\rm
If $G$ has left cancellation then a $G$-action $U$ on a $G$-Hilbert module ${\mathcal E}$
is said to have {\em transferred left cancellation} if
$U_{g}^* U_g U_h = U_h$ for all $g,h \in G$ for which $g h$ is defined.
}
\end{definition}
The last definition is understood to include $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebras
(which are special $G$-Hilbert modules).
By sloppy language we shall also say that a $G$-Hilbert module has transferred left cancellation
(rather than the $G$-action itself).
If $G$ is a semigroupoid then $\lambda$ has transferred left cancellation.
Indeed, assume $gh$ is defined and $x \in G$. Since $G$ is a semigroupoid and $gh$ is defined, $(gh)x$ is defined
if and only if $hx$ is defined. Thus $\lambda_{g}^* \lambda_g \lambda_h(e_x)= \lambda_h(e_x)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaTransferredILM}
A $G$-action $U$ has transferred left cancellation if and only if for all $g \in G^*$ and all $h \in G$ one has
$U_{g h} = U_{\rho_g(h)}$ whenever $\rho_g(h)$ is defined
(note that $gh \in G^*$ but $\rho_g(h) \in G$).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume the condition holds true. If $\rho_g(h)$ exists for $g,h \in G$ then $\rho_g^* \rho_g(h) = h$ (Lemma \ref{lemmaActionGstar}).
Consequently $U_h = U_{\rho_{g^* g}(h)} = U_{g^* g h}$ by assumption. Thus $U$ has transferred left cancellation.
Assume that $U$ has tranferred left cancellation and
by induction hypothesis on the length of $g$ that $U_{\rho_g(h)} = U_{g h}$, where $g \in G^*, h \in G$ and $\rho_g(h)$ is defined.
Suppose that $t \in G$ and $\rho_{t^* g}(h)$ is defined. Then $gh=\rho_{t t^* g} (h) = \rho_t(\rho_{t^* g}(h)) = \rho_t(x)$ for $x := \rho_{t^* g}(h)$.
Since $U$ has transferred left cancellation, $U_t^* U_t U_x=U_x$. Hence,
$U_{\rho_{t^* g}(h)} = U_{x} = U_{t^* t x}= U_{t^* g h}$. This proves the inductive step.
On the other hand, if $\rho_{tg}(h)$ is defined, then $U_{\rho_{tg}(h)}= U_{\rho_t (\rho_g(h))} = U_{t (\rho_g(h))}
=U_{t} U_{\rho_g(h)} = U_{t} U_{gh}=U_{tgh}$, proving the inductive step again.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition} \label{definitionLeftRegular}
{\rm
Suppose that $A$ is a $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra,
$G$ is associative with left cancellation, and $A$ has transferred left cancellation.
Let $\sigma:A \longrightarrow B(H)$ be a faithful nondegenerate representation (without $G$-action)
of $A$ on a Hilbert space $H$.
The {\em left reduced crossed product} $A \rtimes_{r} G$ is the $C^*$-algebra
induced by the {\em left regular} covariant representation $(\pi,u, H \otimes \ell^2(G))$ of $A$
given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pi(a) (\xi_h \otimes e_h) &=& \sigma \big (h^*(a) \big) \xi_h \otimes e_h,\\
u(g) (\xi_h \otimes e_h) &=& \xi_h \otimes \lambda_g(e_{h})
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $a \in A , \xi_h \in H$ and $g, h \in G$.
}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
The left regular representation (Definition \ref{definitionLeftRegular}) is indeed covariant.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We need to check Defintion \ref{definitionGstarEquivariance} and demonstrate only (\ref{equivariantRep3}).
Let $\hat \alpha$ denote the $G^*$-action on $A$.
By Lemma \ref{lemmaHilbertCstarGstar} (i) and Lemma \ref{lemmaTransferredILM} we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& u_g \pi(a) u_g^* (\xi \otimes e_h) \,\,=\,\, u_g \pi(a) (\xi \otimes e_{\rho_{g^*}(h)}) \,\,=\,\,
u_g\, \big(\sigma\big(\hat \alpha_{\rho_{g^*}(h)}^*(a) \big)\xi \otimes e_{\rho_{g^*}(h)} \big ) \\
&=& u_g\, \big(\sigma\big(\hat \alpha_{g^* h}^*(a) \big)\xi \otimes e_{\rho_{g^*}(h)} \big)
\,\,=\,\, \sigma\big(\hat \alpha_{h^* g}(a) \big)\xi \otimes e_{\rho_{g g^*}(h)}\\
&=& \sigma\big(\hat \alpha_{h^* g g^* g}(a) \big)\xi \otimes e_{\rho_{g g^*}(h)}
\,\,=\,\, \pi(g(a)) u_g u_g^* (\xi \otimes e_h)
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $g \in G^*$ and $h \in G$.
\end{proof}
Obviously, $u$ of Definition \ref{definitionLeftRegular} is the diagonal $G$-action $1 \otimes \lambda$.
We are going to show that the definition of $A \rtimes_r G$ is actually independent of $\sigma$.
We shall recall three lemmas which can all be found in Kasparov \cite{kasparov1981}, pages 522-523.
Only Lemma \ref{lemmakuerzetensor} is somewhat extended (cf. Lance \cite[Proposition 2.1]{lance}).
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmakuerzetensor}
Let $X$ be a Hilbert module, $A$ a $C^*$-algebra and
$\pi: A \longrightarrow {\mathcal L}(X)$ a non-degenerate homomorphism.
Then there is an isomorphism
$$\rho: A \otimes_{A} X \longrightarrow X : \rho(a \otimes x ) = \pi(a) x.$$
If $T \in {\mathcal L}(A)$ then $T \otimes 1 = \rho^{-1} \hat \pi(T) \rho$,
where $\hat \pi: {\mathcal L}(A) \longrightarrow {\mathcal L}(X)$ denotes the strictly continuous extension of $\pi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaActingOnSpaceTensor}
If $X$ and $H$ are Hilbert modules over $C^*$-algebras $B_1$ and $B_2$, respectively, and $B_1 \rightarrow {\mathcal L}(H)$ is an injective homomorphism
then $\mu: {\mathcal L}(X) \rightarrow {\mathcal L}(X \otimes_{B_1} H)$, $\mu(T) = T \otimes 1$
is an injective homomorphism.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaTensorSkewwithInterior}
If $E_1, \ldots, E_4$ are Hilbert $B_i$-modules and $B_1 \rightarrow {\mathcal L}(E_3), B_2 \rightarrow {\mathcal L}(E_4)$
are homomorphisms then
$$(E_1 \otimes E_2) \otimes_{B_1 \otimes B_2} (E_3 \otimes E_4) \cong (E_1 \otimes_{B_1} E_3) \otimes (E_2 \otimes_{B_2} E_4).$$
\end{lemma}
For a $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra $A$ let $A \otimes \ell^2(G)$ denote the skew tensor product of $G$-Hilbert modules.
We make it a $G$-Hilbert module over $A \otimes {\mathbb C} \cong A$ under the diagonal action
$1 \otimes \lambda$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaLeftRegActionHilbertModule}
Consider the setting of Definition \ref{definitionLeftRegular}.
There is an injective
$*$-homomorphism
$$\zeta:A \rtimes_r G \longrightarrow {\mathcal L}(A \otimes \ell^2(G))$$
induced by the covariant representation $\phi:A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G \longrightarrow {\mathcal L}(A \otimes \ell^2(G))$
given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi(a) (x_h \otimes e_h) &=& h^*(a)x_h \otimes e_h,\\
\phi(g) &=& 1 \otimes \lambda_g,
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $a, x_h \in A$ and $g,h \in G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\phi_r$ be the representation of $A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$ induced by the left regular representation
(Definition \ref{definitionLeftRegular}).
Let $\sigma:A \longrightarrow B(H)$ be a faithful and non-degenerate representation (without $G$-action) of $A$ on a Hilbert space $H$.
We aim to show that there is a commutative diagram
$$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G \ar[r]^\phi \ar[dr]_{\phi_r} & {\mathcal L} \big (A \otimes \ell^2(G) \big ) \ar[rr]^\mu \ar[d]^\kappa & & {\mathcal L} \big ( (A \otimes \ell^2(G)) \otimes_{A \otimes {\mathbb C}} (H \otimes {\mathbb C}) \big)
\ar[d]^{\mu_1} \\
& {\mathcal L} \big (H \otimes \ell^2(G) \big ) & & {\mathcal L} \big ((A \otimes_A H) \otimes (\ell^2(G) \otimes_{\mathbb C} {\mathbb C}) \big ) \ar[ll]^{\mu_2}
}
\end{xy}$$
Here, $\mu$ is the injective homomorphism of Lemma \ref{lemmaActingOnSpaceTensor},
and $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ denote the isomorphisms induced by the isomorphisms of
Lemma \ref{lemmaTensorSkewwithInterior} and Lemma \ref{lemmakuerzetensor}, respectively.
Define $\kappa := \mu_2 \mu_1 \mu$, which is injective.
We are going to analyse $\kappa (\phi (a \rtimes g))$.
We write an element $\xi \in H$ as $\sigma(a_0) \xi_0$ for $a_0 \in A$ and $\xi_0 \in H$ by Lemma \ref{lemmakuerzetensor}.
We shall write down, step by step, how $\phi(a \rtimes g)$ transforms under $\kappa$.
Let $g \in G^*, h \in G, a \in A_g,x_h \in A$ and $\xi \in H$.
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi \big(a \rtimes g \big) \big (x_h \otimes e_h \big ) &=& (gh)^*(a) x_h \otimes e_{g h}\\
\mu \phi \big(a \rtimes g \big) \big ( (x_h \otimes e_h) \otimes (\xi \otimes 1_{\mathbb C}) \big) &=& ((gh)^*(a) x_h \otimes e_{g h}) \otimes (\xi \otimes 1_{\mathbb C}) \\
\kappa \phi \big(a \rtimes g \big) \big ( \sigma(x_h) \xi \otimes e_h \big) &=& \sigma \big ( (gh)^*(a) \big) \sigma( x_h) \xi \otimes e_{g h}\\
\kappa \phi \big(a \rtimes g \big) \big ( \overline \xi \otimes e_h \big) &=& \sigma \big ( (gh)^*(a) \big) \overline \xi \otimes e_{g h}\\
&=& \phi_r \big(a \rtimes g \big) \big ( \overline \xi \otimes e_h \big)
\end{eqnarray*}
In the last step we have set $\overline \xi:=\sigma(x_h) \xi$ (Lemma \ref{lemmakuerzetensor}).
We have checked that $\phi_r = \kappa \phi$. This shows that $\overline{\phi(A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G)}$
is isomorphic to $A \rtimes_r G$, and we set $\zeta := \kappa^{-1}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} \label{corollaryLeftRegReprIndepenceRepPi}
The definition of the left reduced crossed product in Definition \ref{definitionLeftRegular} does not depend on $\sigma$.
\end{corollary}
For the rest of this section we consider the following assumptions.
Let $L: {\mathbb F}(G,A) \longrightarrow B(H \otimes \ell^2(G))$ be the left regular representation.
Then $L(G^*)$ is an inverse semigroup.
Suppose that the $G^*$-action on $A$ factors through $L(G^*)$ via an inverse semigroup homomorphism $\mu$.
$$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
G^* \ar[r]^{L} \ar[rd]_{\hat \alpha} & L(G^*) \ar[d]^\mu\\
& {\rm End} (A)
}
\end{xy}$$
(For instance, when the $G$-action on $A$ is trivial.)
Then $\mu$ defines a $L(G^*)$-action on $A$.
Suppose further that $L$ is injective on $A$.
\begin{lemma}
There is an isomorphism
\begin{eqnarray} \label{mapGamma}
\gamma: L \big( {\mathbb F}(G,A) \big) \longrightarrow
{\mathbb F} \big (L(G^*), A \big): \quad \gamma(L(a)) = a, \quad \gamma( L(g))=L(g),
\end{eqnarray}
where $a \in A$ and $g \in G^*$, which restricts to an isomorphism
\begin{eqnarray} \label{mapGammaRestrict}
L( A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G) \longrightarrow A \rtimes_{\rm alg} L(G^*).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that in ${\mathbb F}(L(G^*),A)$ we have $L(g) a = \mu_{L(g)} (a) L(g) = \hat \alpha_g(a) L(g)= g(a) L(g)$.
At first we shall show that $\gamma\circ L$ is a representation of ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$. To this end we need to check that
the relations (\ref{ident0})-(\ref{ident2}) are respected by $\gamma\circ L$.
We only show (\ref{ident2}),
$$\gamma L(g) \gamma L(a) (\gamma L(g))^* = L(g) a L(g)^* = g(a) L(g) L(g)^* = \gamma L(g(a)) \gamma L(g) (\gamma L(g))^*.$$
Since $L$ and $\gamma \circ L$ are homomorphisms, $\gamma$ is a homomorphism.
We need to show that there is an inverse map $\sigma$ for $\gamma$, where $\sigma(a) = L(a)$ and $\sigma(L(g))=L(g)$.
Again we have to check that the relations (\ref{ident0})-(\ref{ident2}) are respected by $\sigma$. For instance,
$$\sigma(L(g)) (\sigma(L(g)))^* \sigma(L(g)) = L(g) L(g)^* L(g) = L(g) = \sigma(L(g)),$$
since $L(g)$ is a partial isometry.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} \label{corollaryIsomorphRedInvSemiCrossed}
If the given $C^*$-norm on $L(A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G)$ is the maximal (covariant) one, then
\begin{eqnarray} \label{equivalRedInvSemi}
A \rtimes_r G \cong A \rtimes L(G^*).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $\gamma_0$ be the isomorphism (\ref{mapGammaRestrict}) and endow domain and range with the norms from $A \rtimes_r G$ and $A \rtimes L(G^*)$, respectively.
Since $\gamma_0^{-1}$ is the restriction of $\gamma^{-1}$, (\ref{mapGamma}), by Lemma \ref{lemmaBijectionCovRepF}
it is a covariant representation of $A \rtimes_{\rm alg} L(G^*)$. Thus $\gamma_0^{-1}$ is norm-decreasing.
On the other hand, $\gamma_0$ is a (covariant) representation of $L(A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G)$, which by assumption must decrease in norm.
Thus $\gamma_0$ is an isometry and extends continuously to (\ref{equivalRedInvSemi}).
\end{proof}
The last corollary may be useful to translate reduced crossed products to inverse semigroup crossed products, for which there exist more Baum--Connes theory (see for instance \cite{burgiKKrDiscrete} and \cite{burgiGreenJulg}).
For example,
some Toeplitz graph $C^*$-algebras for graphs $\Lambda$ are reduced $C^*$-algebras ${\mathbb C} \rtimes_r \Lambda^*$ (via the so so-called path space representation, see for instance \cite{simsThesis}).
By a Cuntz--Krieger uniqueness theorem (the $C^*$-norm on $L({\mathbb C} \rtimes_{\rm alg} \Lambda^*)$ is unique), Corollary \ref{corollaryIsomorphRedInvSemiCrossed} applies immediately.
\section{Representations of $\ell^1(G)$} \label{sectionReprL1}
Write $\ell^1(G,A)$ for the completion of $C_c(G^*,A)$
under the norm
$\|\sum_{g \in G^*} a_g g\|_{1} = \sum_{g \in G^*} \|a_g\|$.
For $a , b \in C_c(G^*,A)$ the estimate
$\|a b\|_1 \le \|a\|_1 \|b\|_1$ is easy.
\begin{lemma}
$\ell^1(G,A)$ is a Banach $*$-algebra.
\end{lemma}
A {\em representation} of $\ell^1(G,A)$ is a norm bounded $*$-homomorphism $\pi: \ell^1(G,A) \longrightarrow B(H)$, where $H$ is a Hilbert space.
\begin{proposition}
If $\ell^1(G,A)$ has an approximate unit then
a representation of $\ell^1(G,A)$ is realized by a covariant representation of $A$, and vice versa.
(It need not be a bijection, see \cite[Remark, p.271]{1061.46047}.)
Consequently, if $\ell^1(G,A)$ has an approximate unit then a representation of $A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$ extends to ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$ if and only if it is covariant if and only if it is bounded
in $\ell^1(G,A)$-norm.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We essentially follow Pedersen's book \cite{pedersen}, Proposition 7.6.4.
Let $\pi: \ell^1(G,A) \rightarrow B(H)$ be a representation on a Hilbert space $H$.
It is a direct sum of a non-degenerate representation and the null-representation.
We may ignore the null-part, which we can then add to the covariant representation of $A$ again, and vice versa, and assume
that $\pi$ is non-degenerate.
The left and right multiplications of elements $z \in A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$ by elements $a \in A , g \in G$ in the algebra ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$,
that is, $z \mapsto a z$ would be the operator given by left multiplication by $a$,
induce bounded linear maps (even centralizers) $L_a, L_g, R_a, R_g$ from $\ell^1(G,A)$ into itself.
Let $(y_i) \subseteq \ell^1(G,A)$ be a given approximate unit.
Since $\pi$ is non-degenerate, $\pi(\ell^1(G,A))H$ is dense in $H$.
Since for each $\eta =\pi(x) \xi$ ($x \in \ell^1(G,A), \xi \in H$) one has $\|\eta - \pi(y_i) \eta \| \le \|\pi(x - y_i x) \xi \|
\le \|x - y_i x\|_1 \|\xi\|
\rightarrow 0$ for $i \rightarrow \infty$, $\pi(y_i)$ converges strongly to the unit of $B(H)$.
Similarly, for all $a \in A$ and $x \in \ell^1(G,A)$
the Cauchy criterium
$\| \pi(a y_i - a y_j) \pi(x) \xi\| \le \varepsilon$
for all $i,j \ge i_0$ shows that $\pi(a y_i)=\pi(L_a(y_i))$ has a strong limit point $\sigma(a)$.
Hence $\pi(a x)= \lim_i \pi(a y_i x) = \lim_i \pi(ay_i) \pi(x)=\sigma(a) \pi(x)$.
Since $\|\pi(y_i a - a y_i) \pi(x) \xi\| \rightarrow 0$ for $i \rightarrow \infty$,
$\sigma(a) =\lim_i \pi(L_a(y_i)) =\lim_i \pi(R_a(y_i))$ (strong limits).
In the same manner we define $U_g = \lim_i \pi(L_g(y_i)) = \lim_i \pi(R_g(y_i))$ (strong limits),
and one has $\pi(g x)= U_g \pi(x)$ for $g \in G$.
Analogously we define $U_g^*$ for $g \in G$.
A direct check shows that $(\sigma,U,H)$ is a $G$-covariant representation of $A$.
For instance,
$$U_g \sigma(a) U_g^* \pi(x) = U_g \sigma(a) \pi(g^* x) = \pi(g a g^* x)
= \pi(g (a) g g^* x) = \sigma(g(a))U_g U_g^* \pi(x),$$
and replacing $x$ by $y_i$ and taking the limit yields (\ref{equivariantRep3}).
In particular we have $\pi(a_g g) = \sigma(a_g) U_g$, which extends by norm continuity to $\ell^1(G,A)$.
This shows that $\pi$ will be assigned to $(\sigma,U,H)$.
On the other hand, starting with a representation $(\sigma,U,H)$
we define a representation $\pi$ of $\ell^1(G,A)$ by $\pi(a_g g) = \sigma(a_g) U_g$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} \label{corollaryEll1}
If $\ell^1(G,A)$ has an approximate unit then $A \rtimes G$ (resp.
$A \rtimes_s G$) is the $C^*$-algebra generated by the universal
(resp. universal strong) representation of $\ell^1(G,A)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaInvSemigroupKhoshkam}
If $G$ is an inverse semigroup then $A \rtimes G$ coincides with Khoshkam and Skandalis' definition in \cite{1061.46047}, so is
the envelopping $C^*$-algebra of $\ell^1(G,A)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha$ be any bounded representation of $\ell^1(G,A)$ on Hilbert space. Then it factors through Khoshkam--Skandalis' crossed product $A \rtimes G$.
Any $C^*$-representation of $A \rtimes G$ is realized as a covariant representation of $A$ by \cite[Theorem 5.7.(b)]{1061.46047}, so the same must
be true for $\alpha$.
Hence, a $C^*$-representation of $\ell^1(G,A)$ is $G$-covariant.
But then, since every $G$-covariant $C^*$-representation of $A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$ is obviously bounded in $\ell^1(G,A)$-norm,
$A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$ and $\ell^1(G,A)$ have the same universal $G$-covariant representation (which induces the $C^*$-crossed products).
\end{proof}
\section{$KK^G$ for unital $G$}
\label{sectionCompareWithGroupsKK}
In this section we will compare Kasparov's equivariant $KK$-theory with semimultiplicative sets equivariant $KK$-theory
when $G$ happens to be a group.
We shall then also introduce a unital version of $KK^G$-theory for unital semimultiplicative sets $G$,
where we let the unit of $G$ act as the identity on Hilbert modules and $C^*$-algebras.
Recall that two cycles $({\mathcal E},T)$ and $({\mathcal E},T')$ in ${\mathbb E}^G(A,B)$ are {\em compact perturbations} of each
other if $a (T - T') \in {\mathcal K}({\mathcal E})$ for all $a \in A$, and that then the straight line segment
from $T$ to $T'$ is an operator homotopy; in particular
$({\mathcal E},T)$ and $({\mathcal E},T')$ are homotopic in the sense of $KK^G$-theory
(see \cite{burgiSemimultiKK}).
We will denote Kasparov's equivariant $KK$-theory for groups $G$ (\cite{kasparov1981,kasparov1988}) by $\widetilde{KK^G}(A,B)$.
\begin{proposition} \label{propositionGgroupKK}
Let $G$ be a group (or a unital semimultiplicative set, see Remark \ref{remarkUnitalKK}). Let $A$ and $B$ be Hilbert $C^*$-algebras where the unit of $G$ acts identically on $A$ and $B$, respectively. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
{KK^G} (A,B) &\cong& \widetilde{KK^G}(A,B) \oplus \widetilde{KK}(A,B).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof of this proposition (which had also been suspected by the author) was indicated by an unkonwn referee.
Let $({\mathcal E},T)$ be a cycle in ${\mathbb E}^G(A,B)$.
By Lemma \ref{IdemLemma} and Corollary \ref{corollaryHilbertactionInverses},
$U_e$ is a projection and a unit for all $U_g$, and $U_{g^{-1}}= U_g^*$, and so $U_g U_{g}^*= U_g^* U_g =U_e$ for all $g \in G$.
Hence, $KK^G(A,B)$ and $\widetilde{KK^G}(A,B)$ differ only by the fact that $\widetilde{KK^G}(A,B)$
is build up by cycles $({\mathcal E},T) \in \widetilde{{\mathbb E}^G}(A,B)$
where $U_e$ acts identically on ${\mathcal E}$.
Denote $u=U_e$. We aim to show that the map
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\Phi_{A,B}:{\mathbb E}^G(A,B) \longrightarrow \widetilde{{\mathbb E}^G}(A,B) \oplus \widetilde{{\mathbb E}}(A,B)\\
&&\Phi_{A,B} ({\mathcal E},T) = (u {\mathcal E}, uTu) \oplus ((1-u) {\mathcal E}, (1-u)T(1-u))
\end{eqnarray*}
induces an isomorphism in $KK$-theory.
Homotopic elements in ${\mathbb E}^G(A,B)$ become homotopic elements in the image of $\Phi_{A,B}$ via the map $\Phi_{A,B[0,1]}$
(because $U_e \otimes \alpha_e = U_e \otimes 1$ on ${\mathcal E} \otimes_{B[0,1]} B$).
The map $\Phi_{A,B}$ has an obvious canoncial inverse map $\Phi_{A,B}^{-1}$, which also respects homotopy.
Obviously we have $\Phi_{A,B} \Phi_{A,B}^{-1} =1$.
On the other hand,
$$\Phi_{A,B}^{-1} \Phi_{A,B}({\mathcal E},T)= ({\mathcal E}, uTu+(1-u)T(1-u))$$
is just a compact perturbation
of $({\mathcal E},T)$. Hence also $\Phi_{A,B}^{-1} \Phi_{A,B} \sim 1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{remarkUnitalKK}
{\rm The above revealed difference between Kasparov's theory and
ours seems natural as usually lacking an identity in $G$,
$G$-actions are allowed to act degenerate on $C^*$-algebras or
Hilbert modules. This is reflected in the $KK^G$-theory. If,
however, one considers unital $G$'s one can neutralize the
difference to Kasparov's theory by assuming that the unit $1_G$ of
$G$ always acts as the identity on Hilbert modules and Hilbert $C^*$-algebras. Then
the whole $KK^G$-theory of \cite{burgiSemimultiKK} goes through
under this modification (so one has also an associative Kasparov product). This is clear as we only have to
take care that all used constructions of $G$-Hilbert modules
respect the unitization, and these are the tensor products
and the direct sum where it is obvious. Furthermore, one has to
ensure that under modified $KK^G$-theory the class $1$ in
$KK^G({\mathbb C},{\mathbb C})$ associated to the cycle $({\mathbb C},0)$ (as used in Section
7 of \cite{burgiSemimultiKK}) exists; but this is also clear.
Actually, the proof of Proposition \ref{propositionGgroupKK} works (without essential modification)
for any unital semimultiplicative set $G$, that is, $KK^G$ is the
direct sum of the unital version of $KK^G$, where the unit of $G$
acts fully on Hilbert $C^*$-algebras and Hilbert bimodules, and
Kasparov's $\widetilde{KK}$.
}
\end{remark}
\section{Inversely generated semigroups} \label{sectionInvGenSemigroups}
\begin{definition} \label{definitionPartialIsometry}
{\rm
We call an element $g$ of an involutive semigroup $\overline G$ a {\em partial isometry} if it is invertible
with respect to the involution, that is, if $g g^* g = g$.
}
\end{definition}
Note that if $s$ is a partial isometry then $s^*$ is also one. Consequently, the set of partial isometries
of an involutive semigroup is self-adjoint.
\begin{definition}
{\rm
An {\em inversely generated semigroup} is an involutive semigroup $\overline G$
which is generated by its partial isometries.
In other words, for every $g \in \overline G$ there exist partial isometries $s_1,\ldots,s_n \in \overline G$
such that
$g = s_1 \ldots s_n$.
}
\end{definition}
The standard example for an inversely generated semigroup is the involutive semigroup $G^*$ for a semimultiplicative set $G$ (Definition \ref{simple_equivalences}).
(The set of partial isometries of $G^*$ might differ from $G$, since there could exist more partial isometries.)
\begin{definition}
{\rm
A {\em $*$-morphism} between involutive semigroups
is a map respecting the multiplication and the involution.
A {\em $*$-antimorphism} between involutive semigroups is an involution respecting
semigroup antimorphism.
}
\end{definition}
We shall write $G$ for the set of partial isometries of an inversely generated semigroup $\overline G$.
$G$ is a semimultiplicative set which usually is not associative.
(One can easily construct examples where $st \in G$ and $(st)u \in G$ are partial isometries, but $t u \notin G$ is not one; this contradicts the associativity condition.)
\begin{definition} \label{DefInvGenSemiAlg}
{\rm
A $\overline G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra is a semimultiplicative set $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra $A$
where the action maps $\alpha,\alpha^*:G \longrightarrow {\rm End} (A)$
extend
to a map $\overline \alpha: \overline G \longrightarrow {\rm End} (A)$
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline \alpha(g) &=& \alpha(g), \label{Haction1}\\
\overline \alpha(g^*) &=& \alpha^*(g), \label{Haction2}\\
\overline \alpha(h k) &=& \overline \alpha(h) \overline \alpha(k) \label{Haction3}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $g \in G$ and $h,k \in \overline G$. }
\end{definition}
Since $\overline \alpha$ maps into the partial isometries of $A$ which have commuting source and range projections (in the center of the multiplier algebra),
$\overline \alpha$ is actually a $*$-morphism.
\begin{definition} \label{DefInvGenSemiModule}
{\rm
A $\overline G$-Hilbert module is a Hilbert module which is endowed with a general semimultiplicative
set $G$-action $\alpha$ that extends to a map $\overline \alpha$ via the formulas (\ref{Haction1})-(\ref{Haction3}).
}
\end{definition}
Note that the $G$-action $\overline \alpha$ on a Hilbert module is usually not realized by partial isometries; only the partial isometries
of $\overline G$, that is the elements of $G$, go over to partial isometries
(because a semimultiplicative set $G$-action is always realized by partial isometries).
These partial isometries determine how we have to define the other elements of $\overline G$,
as they can be written as products of elements of $G$. These
products, however, need not be partial isometries on the Hilbert module.
We may equivalently reformulate Definition \ref{DefInvGenSemiAlg} (and similarly Definition \ref{DefInvGenSemiModule}) by saying that the $G^*$-action $\hat \alpha$ on $A$ factors through $\overline G$.
$$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
G^* \ar[r]^{\hat \alpha} \ar[d]^p &
A \\
\overline G \ar[ur]_{\overline \alpha} &
}
\end{xy}$$
Here, $p$ is the quotient $*$-morphism determined by $p(g)= g$ for all $g \in G$.
Indeed, if $\alpha$ allows an extension $\overline \alpha$ given by (\ref{Haction1})-(\ref{Haction3}) then
the above diagram commutes. On the other hand, if the above diagram exists, $\overline \alpha$ is an extension of $\alpha$
satisfying (\ref{Haction1})-(\ref{Haction3}).
Because of this fact we view a $\overline G$-Hilbert module also as a $G$-Hilbert module with the property that the induced $G^*$-map factors
through $\overline G$. We say sloppy that the $G$-Hilbert module factors through $\overline G$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaCycleCondGstar}
Identities (\ref{defCycleCondition}) hold also for all $g \in G^*$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We leave the inductive proof to the reader, and sketch only one identity modulo $I_A({\mathcal E})$;
note that $g({\mathcal K}({\mathcal E})), g^*({\mathcal K}({\mathcal E})) \subseteq {\mathcal K}({\mathcal E})$ for all $g \in G$. For $g \in G$ and some $h \in G^*$ (given by inductive hypothesis) we have
$$U_g U_h T U_h^* U_g^* \equiv U_g T U_h U_h^* U_g^* \equiv U_g T U_g^* U_g U_h U_h^* U_g^* \equiv T U_g U_h U_h^* U_g^*.$$
\end{proof}
A $G$-equivariant homomorphism $\pi:A \longrightarrow {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E})$ (Definition \ref{definitionGstarEquivariance}) is automatically $G^*$-equivariant by Lemma
\ref{lemmaHilbertCstarGstar} (ii). Thus it is also $\overline G$-equivariant when the appearing $G$-Hilbert module ${\mathcal E}$ and $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra $A$
factor through $\overline G$.
Such a similar fact can also be said for a cycle $({\mathcal E},T) \in {\mathbb E}^G(A,B)$.
By Lemma \ref{lemmaCycleCondGstar}, identites (\ref{defCycleCondition}) hold also for $g \in \overline G$ if
all Hilbert modules ${\mathcal E}, A$ and $B$ factor through $\overline G$.
The following definition seems thus natural.
\begin{definition} \label{defKKInvGenSemi}
{\rm We define $\overline G$-equivariant $KK$-theory in the same way as $KK^G$-theory but with the addition that all appearing $G$-Hilbert modules
and $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebras factor through $\overline G$.
}
\end{definition}
In other words, $KK^{\overline G}$-theory is build up by $\overline G$-Hilbert modules rather than by $G$-Hilbert modules as in $KK^G$-theory.
It is easy to see that the category of $\overline G$-Hilbert modules is stable under tensor products and direct sums.
Also, any Hilbert module is a $\overline G$-Hilbert module under the trivial $\overline G$-action.
We have thus checked
that all discussion and theorems
like the Kasparov product in \cite{burgiSemimultiKK} carry over from $KK^G$ to $KK^{\overline G}$
(compare with Remark \ref{remarkUnitalKK}).
We say a representation $\phi: {\mathbb F}(G,A) \longrightarrow B(H)$ factors through $\overline G$ if the restriction map $\phi|_{G^*}$ factors through $\overline G$. (Analogously and equivalently, the $G$-equivariant representation $(\phi|_A,\phi|_G,H)$ is said to factor through $H$).
We prefer it to view a crossed product of $A$ by $\overline G$
as a special crossed product of $A$ by $G$
and introduce the following definition.
\begin{definition} \label{defCrossedProductInvGenSemi}
{\rm
The full crossed product $A \rtimes \overline G$ is the norm closure of $\phi^{\overline G}(A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G)$, where
$\phi^{\overline G}$ denotes the universal representation of ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$ which factors through $\overline G$.
}
\end{definition}
\section{Hilbert bimodules over full crossed products}
\label{sectionDescent}
In the remainder of this paper we are going to prove the descent homomorphism.
In this and the remaining sections $H$ and $G$ denote discrete countable semimultiplicative sets.
We may either assume that
$H$ and $G$ have units $1_H$ and $1_G$ and treat everything in the unital world of $KK$-theory
(see Remark \ref{remarkUnitalKK}),
and define the product of $H$ and $G$ by $H \times G$;
or we consider the non-unital version, in this case defining the product of $H$ and $G$ as the
semimultiplicative set $H \sqcup G \sqcup H \times G$ with multiplications
$$h \cdot g := (h,g), \, h \cdot (h', g') := (h h' , g'),\, (g, h) \cdot(g', h') := (g g', h h')$$
and so on
for $h,h'\in H$ and $g,g' \in G$,
and denote this product, by sloppy but suggestive notation,
still as $H \times G$.
In any case, a morphism $H \times G \longrightarrow K$ is determined by its restriction to $H$ and $G$,
where $H$ and $G$ are identified with $H \times 1_G$ and $1_H \times G$, respectively, in the unital case.
For all $H \times G$-actions on Hilbert modules or $C^*$-algebras we
require that the induced $H^*$-actions and $G^*$-actions (in the
sense of Lemmas \ref{lemmaHilbertmoduleGstar} and
\ref{lemmaHilbertCstarGstar}) commute: the point is that $h^*$
may not commute with $g$ otherwise $(h \in H, g \in G$). This
requirement also affects the definition of $KK^{H \times G}$, and in
this sense the notion $KK^{H \times G}$ is suggestive but sloppy.
(See the discussion in Remark \ref{remarkUnitalKK} why we can
slightly adjust equivariant $KK$-theory: Actually we only need
stability under tensor products, direct sums, and the
existence of $1=({\mathbb C},0)$ in $KK^G({\mathbb C},{\mathbb C})$.)
Let $l \in \{\emptyset,s,r,i\}$ and $D$ a $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra.
Let $\phi_{D,G,l}$ be the representation of ${\mathbb F}(G,D)$ induced by the
universal $G$-covariant representation (in case that $l=\emptyset$), or the universal
strong $G$-covariant representation (when $l=s$), or the reduced representation of $D$
(when $l=r$).
The case $l=i$ requires that we are given an inversely generated semigroup denoted by $\overline{G}$ and $\overline H$, and
$G$ and $H$, respectively, denote their subsets of partial isometries.
In this case all appearing $G$-Hilbert modules and $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebras are supposed to factor
through $\overline G$ (and similarly so for $H$ and $G \times H$) in accordance to Definition \ref{defKKInvGenSemi}.
If $l=i$ then we need to work with $\overline{G}$-equivariant $KK$-theory, that is, $KK^{G \rtimes H}$ means then actually
$KK^{{\overline G} \rtimes {\overline H}}$ in this and subsequent sections.
Moreover, $\phi_{D,G,i}$ denotes the universal $\overline{G}$-factorizing $G$-covariant representation
of $D$, and $D \rtimes_i G$ will stand for $D \rtimes \overline{G}$
(Definition \ref{defCrossedProductInvGenSemi}).
We shall sometimes write $\phi_l$ rather than
$\phi_{D,G,l}$ if $D$ and $G$ are clear from the context.
Recall that
$$D \rtimes_l G \cong \overline{\phi_{D,G,l}(D \rtimes_{\rm alg} G)}.$$
We denote
$$G'=\{g , g^* \in G^*|\, g \in G\}.$$
If $l=r$ then we deal with the reduced crossed product, and in this case we assume that
$G$ is an associative semimultiplicative set with left cancellation, and all $G$-Hilbert modules
and $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebras have transferred left cancellation.
So in this sense we also have a modified $KK^G$-theory as we adapt it in the sense that it is build up by modules with left transferred cancellation (confer Remark \ref{remarkUnitalKK} why we can easily slightly adapt $KK$-theory).
However, we do not require cancellation for $H$ or its actions.
If $l=r$ then we assume that $B={\mathbb C}$ equipped with the trivial $G$-action.
We will assume that $G$ has a unit, partially because of
non-degenerateness concerns as in Lemma \ref{lemmaIsomorphE12}.
Nevertheless we shall sometimes try to avoid using a unit.
Assume that $A,B$ are $(H \times G)$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebras
and ${\mathcal E}$ is a $(H \times G)$-Hilbert $B$-module.
The $G$-action on ${\mathcal E}$ is denoted by $U$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaHHilbertCstar}
(i) $B \rtimes_l G$ is a $H \times G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra (where the $G$-action is trivial).
(ii)
Under a different $H \times G$-action denoted by $V$, $B \rtimes_l G$ is a $H \times G$-Hilbert
module over the $H \times G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra $B \rtimes_l G$.
This Hilbert module is denoted by $B \rtimes_l^{\rm Mod} G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) Let $\phi_l = \phi_{B, G,l}$.
We endow $B \rtimes_l G$ with the $H \times G$-Hilbert $C^*$-action
\begin{equation} \label{actionalphahg}
\alpha_{h \times g} \big( \phi_l(b_k k) \big) = \phi_l \big(h(b_k) k \big) =: \psi(b_k k)
\end{equation}
for $k \in G^{*}, b_k \in B_k$ and $h \times g \in (H \times G)'$.
(So the $G$-action is trivial.)
We claim that $\psi:{\mathbb F}(G,B) \longrightarrow B \rtimes_l G$ is a representation. We need to show that $(\psi|_B, \psi|_G)$ is $G$-covariant,
where $\psi(b)= \phi_l(h(b))$ and $\psi(g)= \phi_l(g)$.
Let us check (\ref{equivariantRep1}). In $\phi_l({\mathbb F}(G,B))$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \psi(g) \psi(g)^* \psi(b) = \phi_l(g) \phi_l(g)^* \phi_l(h(b)) = \phi_l(g g^* h(b) ) = \phi_l(g g^{*}( h(b)) g g^*)\\
&=& \phi_l(h(b) g g^*) = \psi(b) \psi(g) \psi(g)^*,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$g g^{*}(b) g g^* = b g g^*$ is identity (\ref{ident2}) (Lemma \ref{lemmaIsomFGA} (ii)).
In case that $l$ indicates the full or full strong crossed product,
the map $\alpha_{h \times g}$ extends to a well defined endomorphism of $B \rtimes_l G$ by Lemma
\ref{lemmaCovRepInducedMap}.
For the reduced crossed product we see the boundedness of $\alpha_{h \times g}$ by direct evaluation of the left regular representation of
Definition \ref{definitionLeftRegular}:
one computes
$$\Big\|\phi_r \Big(\sum_{k \in G^*} h(b_k ) k \Big )\xi \Big\| \le \Big \| \phi_r \Big(\sum_{k \in G^*} b_k k \Big ) \xi \Big\|$$
for all
$\xi \in H \otimes \ell^2(G)$.
It remains to check the identities of Definition \ref{definitionGHilbertModule}
to see that $\alpha$ is a $G \times H$-action on $B \rtimes_l G$. For instance, by Lemma \ref{lemmaHilbertCstarGstar} (iii) one has
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \big\langle \alpha_{h \times g} \, \phi_l(b_k k) , \phi_l(c_m m) \big\rangle \,\,=\,\, \phi_l \big(k^* \,h(b_k^*) c_m \, m\big)
\,\,=\,\, \phi_l \big(k^* \,h(b_k^*\, h^* (c_m)) \, m\big)\\
&=& \alpha_{h \times g}\,\big \langle \phi_l(b_k k) , \alpha_{h \times g}^* \, \phi_l(c_m m) \big) \big \rangle.
\end{eqnarray*}
(ii)
We make $B \rtimes_l G$ a Hilbert $B \rtimes_l G$-module $B \rtimes_l^{\rm Mod} G$ with inner product $\langle x,y\rangle = x^* y$
and
$(H \times G)$-Hilbert $B \rtimes_l G$-module action
\begin{equation} \label{descentVaction}
V_{h \times g} \big( \phi_l(b_k k) \big) = \phi_l \big(g \big(h(b_k) \big) g k \big )
\end{equation}
for all $k \in G^{*},b_k \in B_k$ and $h \times g \in (H \times G)'$.
Note that
\begin{equation} \label{descentVaction2}
V_{h \times g} \big(\phi_l(x) \big)= \phi_l(g) \, \alpha_h (\phi_l(x) )
\end{equation}
($x \in A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$),
which shows the boundedness of $V_{h \times g}$.
Then $V$ is an action, and we shall demonstrate only one rule:
$$\big \langle V_g \phi_l(x), \phi_l(y) \big \rangle = \phi_l(x^*) \phi_l(g^*) \phi_l(y) =
\big \langle \phi_l(x), V_g^* \phi_l(y) \big \rangle = \alpha_g \big \langle \phi_l(x), V_g^* \phi_l(y) \big \rangle.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaLeftMultiCross}
There is a $H \times G$-equivariant homomorphism $\tau:B \longrightarrow {\mathcal L}(B \rtimes_l^{\rm Mod} G)$
given by left multiplication, i.e.
$$\tau(b) \big(\phi_l(x)\big ) = \phi_l(b) \phi_l(x)$$
for $b \in B$ and $x \in B \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We only check (\ref{equivariantRep3})-(\ref{equivariantRep4}).
Let $k \in G^*, g \times h \in (G \times H)', b \in B$ and $c_k \in B_k$.
Then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& V_{g \times h} \, \tau(b) \, V_{g \times h}^* \,\, \phi_l(c_k k)
\,\, = \,\, V_{g \times h} \, \tau(b) \,\, \phi_l(g^*) \,\phi_l \big(h^{*}(c_k )k \big)\\
&=& \phi_l(g) \, \phi_l \big( h(b g^{*} h^{*}(c_k )) g^*k \big )
\,\,= \,\, \phi_l \big( g h(b g^{*} h^{*}(c_k )) g g^*k \big )\\
& =& \tau (gh(b) ) \, V_{h \times g} \, V_{h \times g}^* \,\, \phi_l(c_k k).
\end{eqnarray*}
Notice that here we used the requirement that the $G$- and $H$-actions (and their adjoint actions) commute.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
{\rm
Define a $H \times G$-Hilbert module over $B \rtimes_l G$ by
$${\mathcal E} \rtimes_l G = {\mathcal E} \otimes_B (B \rtimes_l^{\rm Mod} G)$$
(internal tensor product of $H \times G$-Hilbert modules),
where $B$ acts on $B \rtimes_l^{\rm Mod} G$ by left multiplication (Lemma \ref{lemmaLeftMultiCross}).
}
\end{definition}
By definition, ${\mathcal E} \rtimes_l G$ is a $H \times G$-Hilbert module
over the $H \times G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra $B \rtimes_l G$
under the diagonal action $U \otimes V$ (see \cite[Lemma 4]{burgiSemimultiKK}).
Here, $V$ denotes the $H \times G$-action on $B \rtimes_l G$,
see (\ref{descentVaction}).
Note that if $l= i$, then both $B \rtimes_i G$ and $B \rtimes_i^{\rm Mod} G$ factor through
$\overline H \times \overline G$ under their actions $\alpha$ and $V$ ((\ref{actionalphahg}) and (\ref{descentVaction2})), respectively.
Consequently the tensor product ${\mathcal E} \rtimes_i G$ factors through $\overline H \times \overline G$.
\begin{proposition} \label{lemmaTheta}
If $l$ indicates one of the full crossed products, i.e. $l \in \{\emptyset, s,i\}$, then
${\mathcal E} \rtimes_l G$ is a $H$-Hilbert $(A \rtimes_l G,B \rtimes_l G)$-bimodule.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
$A \rtimes_l G$ is a $H$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebra by Lemma \ref{lemmaHHilbertCstar}.
Let $U \otimes V$ be the diagonal $H \times G$-action
on ${\mathcal E} \otimes_B (B \rtimes_l^{\rm Mod} G)$.
Note that $U_g \otimes V_g$ is an adjoint-able operator as the $G$-action on
$B \rtimes_l G$ is trivial (see (\ref{actionalphahg})).
Let $\phi_l = \phi_{A,G,l}$.
We define a $*$-homomorphism
$\Theta_l: A \rtimes_l G \longrightarrow {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E} \rtimes_l G)$
by
\begin{equation} \label{ThetaAction}
\Theta_l( \phi_l(a_g g)) = (a_g \otimes 1) (U_g \otimes V_g),
\end{equation}
where $a_g \in A_g, g \in G^{*}$.
It is induced by the $G$-covariant representation $a \mapsto a \otimes 1$ and $g \mapsto U_g \otimes V_g$
(Lemma
\ref{lemmaCovRepInducedMap}),
because $U_g \otimes V_g$ is partial isometry in the $C^*$-algebra ${\mathcal L}({\mathcal E} \rtimes_l G) \subseteq B({\mathcal H})$
(${\mathcal H}$ a Hilbert space).
When $l=i$ then $\Theta_l$ is also well defined as $g \mapsto U_g \otimes V_g$ factors through $\overline G$
(see (\ref{descentVaction2})).
For the $H$-equivariance of $\Theta$ we compute
\begin{equation}
U_h \otimes V_h \,\,\Theta (\phi_l(a_g g))\,\, U_h^* \otimes V_h^* \,=\, \Theta\big(\phi_l\big(h(a_g) g \big)\big)\,\, U_h U_h^* \otimes V_h V_h^*.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\section{Hilbert bimodules over reduced crossed products}
The discussion in this section is only related
to the reduced crossed product, that is, when $l = r$. Recall that in this case
we only allow $B={\mathbb C}$ with the trivial $G$-action.
(Nevertheless we shall write $B$ rather than ${\mathbb C}$ in this section.)
Consequently, the operator $U_g$ ($g \in G$) on a $B$-Hilbert module ${\mathcal E}$ is
adjoint-able by (\ref{hilbmodrel3}). For the boundedness of the action
of $A \rtimes_r G$ on ${\mathcal E} \rtimes_r G$ in Proposition
\ref{lemmaThetaReduced} below we will need a standard intertwining
trick for covariant representations tensored by the left regular
representation, see for instance \cite{1097.46042}, Appendix A,
Lemma A.18.(ii).
Let ${\mathcal E} \otimes \ell^2(G)$ be the skew tensor product of $G$-Hilbert modules.
By Lemma \ref{lemmaTensorSkewwithInterior}
there is an isomorphism
\begin{equation} \label{congEBell2}
{\mathcal E} \otimes \ell^2(G) \cong ({\mathcal E} \otimes_B B) \otimes ({\mathbb C} \otimes_{\mathbb C} \ell^2(G))
\cong {\mathcal E} \otimes_B \big (B \otimes \ell^2(G) \big ).
\end{equation}
Define a partial isometry $W$ on ${\mathcal E} \otimes \ell^2(G)$
by
$$W(x_t \otimes e_t) = U_t(x_t) \otimes e_{t}$$
for all $t \in G$ and $x_t \in {\mathcal E}$ (Lemma \ref{characterizationlemmaPartIso}).
Let
\begin{equation} \label{MapGamma}
\Gamma:A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G \longrightarrow {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E} \otimes \ell^2(G))
\end{equation}
be induced by the covariant representation
\begin{equation} \label{reprGamma}
\Gamma(a)= (a \otimes 1), \qquad \Gamma(g) = U_g \otimes \lambda_g
\end{equation}
for all $a \in A,g \in G$.
Recall that we write
$$A \rtimes_\Gamma G = \overline{\Gamma(A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G)}.$$
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaWWcommutes}
$W W^*$ commutes with the $G$-action $U \otimes V$, with $A \otimes 1$ and with $A \rtimes_\Gamma G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
One checks that the projection $W W^*$ commutes with the adjoint-able partial isometry $U_g \otimes \lambda_g$ (and so with $U_g^* \otimes \lambda_g^*$) and $a \otimes 1$ for all $g \in G$ and $a \in A$.
(One uses $U_{\rho_g(t)} U_{\rho_g(t)}^* U_g = U_{g t t^* g^* g} = U_{g t (g^* g t)^*}= U_{g t t^*}$ by transferred left cancellation and
Lemma \ref{lemmaTransferredILM}.)
\end{proof}
\begin{definition} \label{definitionGnondegenerate}
{\rm
$G$ is called {\em non-degenerate} if for all Hilbert $(A,B)$-bimodules
and all $x \in A \rtimes_\Gamma G$,
$x W W^* = 0$ implies $x=0$.
}
\end{definition}
If $G$ is a groupoid then
$W W^*$ is an identity for $A \rtimes_\Gamma G$ and so $G$ is non-degenerate.
Indeed, every $y \in \Gamma(A \rtimes G)$ can be written as a product of elements of the form
$x=(a_g \otimes 1) (U_g \otimes \lambda_g) \in A \rtimes_\Gamma G$ for $g \in G'$.
Let $\eta:=\xi_t \otimes e_t \in {\mathcal E} \otimes \ell^2(G)$. Then
$$x W W^* \eta = a_g U_g U_t U_t^* \xi_t \otimes \lambda_g e_t = a_g U_g \xi_t \otimes \lambda_g e_t = x \eta$$
by Lemma \ref{corollaryHilbertactionInverses}.
Our motivating examples for reduced crossed products were semimultiplicative sets like directed graphs.
A prototype-example is $G={\mathbb N}_0$.
By showing in the next lemma that ${\mathbb N}_0$ is non-degenerate we would like to demonstrate that non-degenerateness
may not be a too restrictive condition.
\begin{lemma}
${\mathbb N}_0$ is non-degenerate.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ denote the ${\mathbb N}_0$-action on a Hilbert module ${\mathcal E}$ with transferred left cancellation.
We claim that every word $S_g$ for $g \in {\mathbb N}_0^*$ allows a representation as $S_g = S_n S_k^* = S_1^n (S_1^k)^*$ for $n,k \in {\mathbb N}_0$.
Indeed, $S_0$ is a unit for every word, as in particular $S_0$ is self-adjoint by Lemma \ref{IdemLemma}.
Also, $S_0 = S_1^* S_1 S_0 = S_1^* S_1$ by transferred left cancellation.
The claim then follows by induction on the length of a word.
Let $X \subseteq A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G \subseteq {\mathbb F}(G,A)$ denote the set of elements of the form $a = \sum_{n,k \in {\mathbb N}_0} a_{n,k} n k^*$
for $a_{n,k} \in A$ (recall identity (\ref{ginfa}) which holds in ${\mathbb F}(G,A)$).
By the above claim, $\Gamma(X) = \Gamma(A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G)$.
Write $p=W W^*$.
To check Definition \ref{definitionGnondegenerate}, assume that $T \in A \rtimes_\Gamma G$ satisfies $T p = 0$.
Then there is a sequence $T^i = \sum_{n,k \in {\mathbb N}_0} a_{n,k}^i n k^*$ in $X$ such that $\Gamma(T^i)$ converges in norm to $T$.
In ${\mathcal E} \otimes \ell^2({\mathbb N}_0)$ and by (\ref{reprGamma}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Gamma(T^i)(x_0 \otimes e_0)= \sum_{n,k \in {\mathbb N}_0} a_{n,k}^i S_{n k^*} (x_0) \otimes \lambda_{n k^*}(e_0) \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{n \in {\mathbb N}_0} a_{n,0}^i S_n x_0 \otimes e_n = \Gamma(T^i) p (x_0 \otimes e_0) \longrightarrow T p (x_0 \otimes e_0)=0
\label{someequ1}
\end{eqnarray}
when $i \longrightarrow \infty$, since $T p =0$, for all $x_0 \in {\mathcal E}$.
Similarly we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(T^i)(x_1 \otimes e_1) & =& \sum_{n \in {\mathbb N}_0} a_{n,0}^i S_n x_1 \otimes e_{n+1}
+ \sum_{n \in {\mathbb N}_0} a_{n,1}^i S_n (S_1^* x_1) \otimes e_n, \label{someeq7} \\
\Gamma(T^i)p(x_1 \otimes e_1) &=&
(1 \otimes \lambda)\sum_{n \in {\mathbb N}_0} a_{n,0}^i S_n (S_1 S_1^* x_1) \otimes e_{n} \label{someeq8}\\
&&+ \sum_{n \in {\mathbb N}_0} a_{n,1}^i S_n (S_1^* x_1) \otimes e_n
\longrightarrow 0 \label{someeq9}
\end{eqnarray}
The convergence is here because of $T p =0$.
Entering convergence (\ref{someequ1}) in convergence (\ref{someeq8})-(\ref{someeq9}) shows that
(\ref{someeq7}) converges to zero (using convergence (\ref{someequ1}) again).
One can proceed in this way further by considering $\Gamma(T_i)(x_2 \otimes e_2)$ and showing that it converges to zero, and so on.
In this way we get $T(x)= \lim_{i \rightarrow \infty}\Gamma(T_i)(x) = 0$ for all $x \in {\mathcal E} \odot \ell^2({\mathbb N}_0)$.
Hence $T=0$.
\end{proof}
We now come to the result this section is all about.
\begin{proposition} \label{lemmaThetaReduced}
${\mathcal E} \rtimes_r G$ is a $H$-Hilbert $(A \rtimes_r G,B \rtimes_r G)$-bimodule.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We want to define the action $\Theta_r$ of $A \rtimes_r G$ on ${\mathcal E} \rtimes_r G$ as in (\ref{ThetaAction}).
Thus we aim to define $\Theta_r$ on $\phi_r(A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G)$ by $\Theta_r \phi_r = \varphi$,
where
$\varphi: A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G \longrightarrow {\mathcal L}({\mathcal E} \rtimes_r G)$ is determined by
$$\varphi( a_g g) = (a_g \otimes 1) (U_g \otimes V_g) .$$
We have a commutative diagram
$$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G \ar[r]^\varphi \ar[rd]_\Gamma & {\mathcal L} \big ({\mathcal E} \otimes_B (B \rtimes_r G) ) \ar[rr]^\mu \ar[d]^f & &
{\mathcal L} \big ( {\mathcal E} \otimes_B (B \rtimes_r G) \otimes_{B \rtimes_r G} (B \otimes \ell^2(G) \big)
\ar[d]^{\mu_1} \\
& {\mathcal L} \big ({\mathcal E} \otimes \ell^2(G) \big )
& & {\mathcal L} \big ({\mathcal E} \otimes_B (B \otimes \ell^2(G) \big ) \ar[ll]^{\mu_2}
}
\end{xy}$$
Here, $B \rtimes_r G$ acts on $B \otimes \ell^2(G)$ by $\zeta$ of Lemma \ref{lemmaLeftRegActionHilbertModule},
$\mu$ is the injective map of Lemma \ref{lemmaActingOnSpaceTensor}, $\mu_1$ the isomorphism induced by the isomorphism of Lemma \ref{lemmakuerzetensor},
and $\mu_2$ the isomorphism induced by the isomorphism (\ref{congEBell2}).
It is important here that $G$ acts trivially on $B$. Hence, in the right bottom corner of the above diagram, $B$ acts on $B \otimes \ell^2(G)$
by left multipliciation (so acts only on $B$).
Let $f:= \mu_2 \mu_1 \mu$, which is injective.
A tedious computation (similar to that of Lemma \ref{lemmaLeftRegActionHilbertModule}) yields
$$f \big( \varphi(a_g g) \big) (x_t \otimes e_t) = a_g U_g x_t \otimes \lambda_g e_{t} = \Gamma(a_g g)$$
for $g \in G^*,t \in G,x_t \in {\mathcal E}$ and $a_g \in A_g$.
Hence $f \varphi = \Gamma$ on $A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$.
In order that $\Theta_r$ is evidently a well defined continuous map we need to show that
$$\|\Theta_r ( \phi_r(x)) \| = \|\varphi(x) \| = \|f (\varphi(x)) \| = \|\Gamma(x)\|
\le \|\phi_r(x)\|_{A \rtimes_r G}$$
for all $x \in A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$. Only the last inequality needs a discussion; the other identites are clear.
Since $G$ is non-degenerate (Definition \ref{definitionGnondegenerate}), the homomorphism
$$\nu : A \rtimes_\Gamma G \longrightarrow ( A \rtimes_\Gamma G) W W^*$$
given by
$\nu(x) = x W W^*$ (see Lemma \ref{lemmaWWcommutes}) is an
isometry.
Thus $\|W W^* \Gamma(x)\| = \|\Gamma(x)\|$ for all $x \in A \rtimes_{\rm alg} G$.
By Lemma \ref{lemmaTransferredILM} and the fact that $U$ has transferred left cancellation, we thus have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \Gamma(a_g g) W W^* (\xi_t \otimes e_t) \,= \,a_g U_g U_t U_t^* \xi_t \otimes \lambda_g(e_{t}) \,=\, a_g U_{\rho_g(t)} U_t^* \xi_t \otimes e_{\rho_g(t)}\\
&=& U_{\rho_g(t)} U_{\rho_g(t)}^* a_g U_{\rho_g(t)} U_t^* \xi_t \otimes e_{\rho_g(t)}
\,=\, U_{\rho_g(t)} \big ((\rho_g(t))^*(a_g) \big ) U_t^* \xi_t \otimes e_{\rho_g(t)}\\
&=& \big (W \phi_r(a_g g) W^* \big ) (\xi_t \otimes e_t)
\end{eqnarray*}
for $t \in G, g \in G^*, a_g \in A_g$ and $\xi_t \in {\mathcal E}$, and when $\rho_g(t)$ is defined.
(Note that ${\mathcal E}$ is actually a Hilbert space.)
This thus shows
$$\|\Gamma(x)\| = \|\Gamma(x) W W^*\| = \|W \phi_r(x) W^*\| \le \|\phi_r(x)\|.$$
\end{proof}
\section{The descent homomorphism} \label{sectionDescent3}
Let $B_1$ and $B_2$ be $H \times G$-Hilbert modules.
Let $({\mathcal E}_1,T_1) \in {\mathbb E}^G(A,B_1)$ and $({\mathcal E}_2,T_2) \in {\mathbb E}^G(B_1,B_2)$.
Write ${\mathcal E}_{12} = {\mathcal E}_1 \otimes_{B_1} {\mathcal E}_2$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaIsomorphE12}
There is an $H$-Hilbert module isomorphism
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathcal E}_{12} \rtimes_l G &\cong& ({\mathcal E}_1 \rtimes_l G) \otimes_{B_1 \rtimes_l G} ({\mathcal E}_2 \rtimes_l G).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In the category of $H$-Hilbert modules $B_2 \rtimes_l G$ and $B_2 \rtimes_l^{\rm Mod} G$ are identic, as they differ only in their $G$-action (see Lemma \ref{lemmaHHilbertCstar}).
The map $\varphi: B_1 \longrightarrow B_1 \rtimes_l G$ given by $\varphi(b)= b 1_{G}$
is a $H$-equivariant homomorphism of $H$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebras (Definition \ref{defGequiHilbertCstar}).
By
\cite[Lemma 14]{burgiSemimultiKK}
there is an isomorphism of $H$-Hilbert mdoules
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathcal E}_1 \otimes_{B_1} (B_1 \rtimes_l G) \otimes_{B_1 \rtimes_l G}
\big ( {\mathcal E}_2 \otimes_{B_2} (B_2 \rtimes_l G) \big)
&\cong& {\mathcal E}_1 \otimes_{B_1} {\mathcal E}_2 \otimes_{B_2} (B_2 \rtimes_l G).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaKasparovRemark210}
If $({\mathcal E}_{12},T_{12})$ is a Kasparov product then
$R= [T_1 \otimes 1, T_{12}]$ belongs to $Q_{A}({\mathcal E}_{12})$, further $R \ge 0$ modulo $I_{A} ({\mathcal E}_{12})$,
and the elements
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(R) - g(1) R &=& U_gR U_g^* - U_g U_g^* R, \label{GandR1}\\
g(1) R - R g(1) &=& U_g U_g^* R - R U_g U_g^* \label{GandR2}
\end{eqnarray*}
are in $I_{A}({\mathcal E}_{12})$ for all $g \in G'$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first two assertions follows from Remark below Definition 2.10 in \cite{kasparov1988},
applied to the trivial group $G= \{e\}$.
Let $a \in A, a'= g^*(a)$ and $T_1' = T_1 \otimes 1$.
For simplicity we compute only the case when $\partial a = 0$.
Modulo ${\mathcal K}({\mathcal E}_{12})$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&a g(T_{12} T_1') = a g( g^*(1) T_{12} T_1') = g( a' g^*(1) T_{12} T_1') \equiv g (a' T_{12} g^*(1) T_1')\\
&=& a g(T_{12}) g(T_1') \equiv a T_{12} g(1) g(T_1') \equiv T_{12} a g(T_1')\\
&=& T_{12} (k \otimes g(1)) + T_{12} T_1' a g(1),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $k= a g( T_1) - T_1 g(1) a \in {\mathcal K}({\mathcal E}_1)$. Similarly we compute
$$a g(T_1' T_{12}) = (k \otimes g(1)) T_{12} + T_1' T_{12} a g(1).$$
Hence
$$a g([T_1',T_{12}]) - [T_1',T_{12}] g(1) a \equiv [k \otimes g(1), T_{12}] \equiv 0$$
by \cite[Lemma 10.(1)]{burgiSemimultiKK}. Also one has $[ a,[T_1',T]]\equiv 0$ by this lemma.
A similar computation yields the last claim.
\end{proof}
The following lemma is a standard result for crossed products.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemmacrossedtensor}
If $D$ is a $C^*$-algebra with trivial $G$-action then
$(A \otimes_{\rm max} D) \rtimes G \cong (A \rtimes G) \otimes_{\rm max} D$
(also for the strong crossed product)
and
$(A \otimes_{\rm min} D) \rtimes_r G \cong (A \rtimes_r G) \otimes_{\rm min} D$
canonically.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem} \label{theoremMain}
Let $A$ and $B$ be $H \times G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebras and $l \in \{\emptyset,s,r,i\}$.
Assume that $G$ is unital.
For all appearing $G \times H$-actions on Hilbert modules and $C^*$-algebras
we require that the induced $H^*$-actions and $G^*$-actions commute.
If $l=r$ then we assume that $G$ is non-degenerate and associative and has left cancellation,
all $G$-Hilbert modules and $G$-Hilbert $C^*$-algebras have transferred left cancellation,
and $B= {\mathbb C}$ with the trivial $G$-action.
Then there exists a descent homomorphism
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& j^G_l : KK^{H \times G} (A,B) \longrightarrow KK^H (A \rtimes_l G, B \rtimes_l G)
\end{eqnarray*}
given by
$$j^G_l({\mathcal E},T) = ({\mathcal E} \rtimes_l G, T \otimes 1)$$
for all $({\mathcal E},T) \in {\mathbb E}^{H \times G} (A,B)$.
Moreover, the following two points hold true:
(a) If $x_1 \in KK^{H \times G}(A,B_1)$, $x_2 \in KK^{H \times G}(B_1,B_2)$
and the intersection product $x_1 \otimes_{B_1} x_2$ exists
then
$$j^G_l(x_1 \otimes_{B_1} x_2) = j^G_l(x_1) \otimes_{B_1 \rtimes_l G} j^G_l(x_2).$$
(b) If $A=B$ is $\sigma$-unital then $j^G_l(1_A)= 1_{A \rtimes_l G}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In our proof we essentially follow Kasparov \cite{kasparov1988}.
We define
compact operators
$\theta_{\xi,\eta} \in {\mathcal K}({\mathcal F})$ by $\theta_{\xi,\eta}(x) = \xi
\langle \eta,x\rangle$, where $\xi,\eta,x \in {\mathcal F}$ and ${\mathcal F}$ is any Hilbert module.
Write $Z$ for the diagonal $G$-Hilbert action $U \otimes V$ on ${\mathcal E} \otimes_B (B \rtimes_l^{\rm Mod} G)$.
Let $\phi_l = \phi_{B,G,l}$.
Let $(a_i)$ be an approximate unit in $B$.
Let $E \in {\mathcal E}$ and $F \in B \rtimes_l G$. Let $x,y \in G^*$.
Then one has (in ${\mathcal E} \otimes_B (B \rtimes_l^{\rm Mod} G)$)
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\theta_{U_{x y^*} (\xi) \otimes \phi_l(xy^{*}(a_i) x )\, ,\, \, \eta \otimes \phi_l (y y^{*}(a_i) y )} (E \otimes F)\\
&=& U_{x y^*} (\xi) \otimes \phi_l \big(xy^{*}(a_i) x \big) \,\,\big \langle \eta \otimes \phi_l \big(y y^{*}(a_i) y \big ), E \otimes F \big \rangle\\
&=& U_{x y^*} (\xi) \otimes \phi_l \big ( xy^{*}(a_i) x \big) \,\,{\phi_l \big(y y^{*}(a_i) y \big)}^* \,\,\phi_l \big(\langle \eta,E\rangle \big)\, F\\
&=& U_{x y^*} (\xi) \otimes \phi_l \big( xy^{*}(a_i) x \,\, y^* y y^{*}(a_i^*) y^* \,\,\langle \eta,E\rangle \big) F\\
&=& U_{x y^*} (\xi) \otimes \phi_l \big( xy^{*}(a_i)\,\, x y^{*}(a_i^*) \,\, x y^*(\langle \eta,E\rangle) \big) \, \phi_l(x y^*) F\\
&=& U_{x y^*} \big(\xi \, a_i\,\, a_i^* \, \langle \eta,E\rangle \big) \otimes \phi_l(x y^*) F\\
&=& U_{x y^*} \otimes V_{x y^*} \,\,\, \big (\theta_{\xi a_i a_i^*,\eta} \otimes 1\,\,\, \big(E \otimes F \big) \big ).
\end{eqnarray*}
Omitting here $E \otimes F$ and then taking the limit $i \rightarrow \infty$ yields
$$Z_{x y^*} \big({\mathcal K}({\mathcal E}) \otimes 1 \big) \subseteq {\mathcal K} \big({\mathcal E} \otimes_B(B \rtimes_l^{\rm Mod} G) \big).$$
For $x \in G'$ we have $Z_x= Z_x Z_x^* Z_x$, and since $Z_x ({\mathcal K}) \subseteq {\mathcal K}$, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{equZcompact}
Z_{x} \big({\mathcal K}({\mathcal E}) \otimes 1 \big) \subseteq {\mathcal K} \big({\mathcal E} \otimes_B(B \rtimes_l^{\rm Mod} G) \big).
\end{equation}
Let $\Theta$ be the action of $A \rtimes_l G$ on ${\mathcal E} \rtimes_l G$, see (\ref{ThetaAction}).
By (\ref{equZcompact})
it is straight forward to compute that
$$[\Theta\big(\phi_{l}(a_g g) \big) , T \otimes 1]
\in {\mathcal K}({\mathcal E} \rtimes_l G)$$
for all $g \in G'$, where $\phi_l$ denotes $\phi_{A,G,l}$ (use $a U_g = U_g U_g^* a U_g = U_g g(a)$). This result extends by induction to all $g$ in $G^{*}$ by using products:
write
$\Theta \big(\phi_l(a g h) \big)$ as
$$\Theta \big(\phi_l(a g h) \big) = \Theta \big (\phi_l(a^{1/2} g) \big) \Theta \big(\phi_l(g^{*}(a^{1/2}) h) \big)$$
for $g \in G^{*},h \in G'$ and positive $a \in A_{gh}$ by (\ref{ginfa}) and Lemma \ref{lemmaHilbertCstarGstar} (iii).
By similar computations one easily checks all other requirements showing that $({\mathcal E} \rtimes_l G, T \otimes 1)$
is a cycle.
The map $j^G$ is well defined, as a homotopy $({\mathcal F},S) \in {\mathbb E}^{H \times G} \big(A,B[0,1] \big)$
gives a homotopy $j^G({\mathcal F},S) \in {\mathbb E}^G \big(A \rtimes_l G, B[0,1] \rtimes_l G \big)$, as
\begin{eqnarray*}
B[0,1] \rtimes_l G &\cong& \big( B \rtimes_l G \big) \otimes C[0,1],\\
{\mathcal F} \otimes_{B[0,1]} \big(B[0,1] \rtimes_l G \big) \otimes_{B[0,1] \rtimes_l G} \big (B \rtimes_l G \big) &\cong&
{\mathcal F}_t \otimes_B \big ( B \rtimes_l G \big )
\end{eqnarray*}
for $0 \le t \le 1$, where the first isomorphism is by Lemma \ref{lemmacrossedtensor}
and the second isomorphism follows from Lemma \ref{lemmaTensorSkewwithInterior}.
To prove (a), let $x_1 = ({\mathcal E}_1,T_1)$, $x_2 =({\mathcal E}_2,T_2)$,
${\mathcal E}_{12} = {\mathcal E}_1 \otimes_{B_1} {\mathcal E}_2$
and $({\mathcal E}_{12},T_{12})$ a Kasparov product of $x_1$ and $x_2$.
We have to check that $j^G({\mathcal E}_{12}, T_{12})=({\mathcal E}_{12} \rtimes_l G, T_{12} \otimes 1)$ is a Kasparov product of
$j^G(x_1)=({\mathcal E}_1 \rtimes_l G, T_1 \otimes 1)$
and $j^G(x_2)= ({\mathcal E}_2 \rtimes_l G, T_2 \otimes 1)$.
For the definition of a {Kasparov
product} $({\mathcal E}_{12}, T_{12})$ of $({\mathcal E}_1,T_1)$ and
$({\mathcal E}_2,T_2)$ we shall use \cite[Definition 19]{burgiSemimultiKK} (cf. \cite{skandalis}).
It states that ${\mathcal E}_{12}={\mathcal E}_1 \otimes_{B_1} {\mathcal E}_2$, $T_1 \otimes 1$ is a $T_2$-connection on ${\mathcal E}_{12}$,
and $a [T_1 \otimes 1, T_{12}] a^* \ge 0$ in the quotient ${\mathcal L}({\mathcal E}_{12})/{\mathcal K}({\mathcal E}_{12})$ for all $a \in A$.
For the definition of a {$T_2$-connection
on ${\mathcal E}_{12}$} see \cite{skandalis}, or \cite[Definition
2.6]{kasparov1988}, or \cite[Definition 18]{burgiSemimultiKK}.
We use the isomorphism given in Lemma \ref{lemmaIsomorphE12}.
For the $H$-equivariant $*$-homomorphism
\begin{equation} \label{injectHomCrossUnitG}
f:B_2 \longrightarrow B_2 \rtimes_l G, \quad f(b) = b 1_G,
\end{equation}
$j^G({\mathcal E}_{12}, T_{12})= f_*(({\mathcal E}_{12}, T_{12}))$ is a cycle in ${\mathbb E}^H(A \rtimes_l G, B \rtimes_l G)$
by \cite[Definition 24]{burgiSemimultiKK}.
The $G$-action on ${\mathcal E}_{12}$ will be denoted by $U$.
The inclusion
\begin{eqnarray*} \label{equInclusKomp}
{\mathcal K}({\mathcal E}_2, {\mathcal E}_{1} \otimes_{B_1} {\mathcal E}_2) \otimes 1_{B_2 \rtimes_l G} &\subseteq &
{\mathcal K} \big({\mathcal E}_2 \otimes_{B_2} (B_2 \rtimes_l G), \,{\mathcal E}_{1} \otimes_{B_1} {\mathcal E}_2 \otimes_{B_2} (B_2 \rtimes_l G) \big),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $B_2$ acts by $f$,
is similarly proved as \cite[Lemma 15]{burgiSemimultiKK}.
We use it to check
\begin{eqnarray*}
\theta_\eta (T_2^t \otimes 1) - (-1)^{\partial \eta \cdot \partial T_2} (T_{12}^t \otimes 1) \theta_\eta
&\in& {\mathcal K}({\mathcal E}_2 \rtimes_l G, {\mathcal E}_{12} \rtimes_l G)
\end{eqnarray*}
for $\eta \in {\mathcal E}_1, t \in \{1,*\}$ and
$$\theta_\eta (\xi \otimes z) = \eta \otimes \xi \otimes z$$
for
$\xi \in {\mathcal E}_2, z \in B_2 \rtimes_l G$.
This shows that
$T_{12} \otimes 1$ is a $T_2 \otimes 1$-connection on ${\mathcal E}_{12} \rtimes_l G$.
By \cite[Lemma 15]{burgiSemimultiKK} and the homomorphism $f$ we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{compactsinput}
{\mathcal K}({\mathcal E}_{12}) \otimes 1 &\subseteq& {\mathcal K} ({\mathcal E}_{12} \rtimes_l G).
\end{eqnarray}
By Lemma \ref{lemmaKasparovRemark210} we have $R + k \ge 0$ for $R=[T_1 \otimes 1, T_{12}]$ and some $k \in I_A({\mathcal E}_{12})$.
Let $a \in A$ (actually $\pi(A) \otimes 1$!), $g \in G'$, and note that $a U_g = U_g U_g^* a U_g = U_g g^*(a)$
for $a \in A$ and $g \in G'$.
Using inclusion (\ref{compactsinput}),
Lemma \ref{lemmaKasparovRemark210},
and the fact that $U_g \otimes V_g$ is in ${\mathcal L}({\mathcal E}_{12} \rtimes_l G)$,
we have
the next computation in ${\mathcal E}_{12} \rtimes_l G = {\mathcal E}_{12} \otimes_{B_2} (B \rtimes_l^{\rm Mod} G)$
modulo ${\mathcal K} ({\mathcal E}_{12} \rtimes_l G)$ for $g \in G'$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& a (U_g \otimes V_g) (R \otimes 1) = U_g g^*(a) U_g^* U_g R\otimes V_g \equiv a U_g R U_g^* U_g \otimes V_g\\
& \equiv& a R U_g \otimes V_g = a (R \otimes 1) (U_g \otimes V_g).
\end{eqnarray*}
By induction on the length of a word in $G^*$ we see that this identity holds true also for all $g \in G^*$.
Let $a = \sum_g a_g g \in C_c(G,A)$. Let $\phi_l = \phi_{A,G,l}$.
By the last computation we have the following computation
in the quotient ${\mathcal L}({\mathcal E}_{12} \rtimes_l G)/{\mathcal K} ({\mathcal E}_{12} \rtimes_l G)$, where $\underline R := R + k \ge 0$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&(\Theta \otimes 1)(\phi_l(a))\, (R \otimes 1)\, (\Theta \otimes 1 )(\phi_l(a))^* \\
&=& \Big[ \Theta \otimes 1\, \Big(\phi_l \Big(\sum_{g \in G^*} a_g g \Big) \Big) \Big](R \otimes 1) \Big[\Theta \otimes 1 \,\Big (\phi_l \Big(\sum_{h \in G^*} a_h h \Big ) \Big) \Big]^*\\
&=& \sum_{g,h \in G^*} a_g U_g R U_h^* a_h^* \otimes V_g V_h^*
\,=\, \sum_{g,h \in G^*} U_g g^*(a_g) \underline R U_h^* a_h^* \otimes V_g V_h^*\\
&=& \sum_{g,h \in G^*} a_g \underline R^{1/2} U_g U_h^* \underline R^{1/2} a_h^* \otimes V_g V_h^* \,\ge \, 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
R \otimes 1 &=& [T_1 \otimes 1 \otimes 1, T_{12} \otimes 1].
\end{eqnarray*}
This shows that $({\mathcal E}_{12} \rtimes_l G, T_{12} \otimes 1)$ is a Kasparov product.
We have thus checked point (a).
Point (b) follows from $j_l^G(A,0) = (A \otimes_A (A \rtimes_l G),0) = (A \rtimes_l G,0)$ by using a map like in (\ref{injectHomCrossUnitG}).
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
Characteristic classes are important invariants in modern geometry and topology to investigate other
invariants. Classically characteristic classes with values in cohomology theory were
considered for real or complex vector bundles. The main feature of them
is that they are formulated as natural transformations from the
contravariant functor of vector bundles to the cohomology
theory. When it comes to the case of possibly singular
varieties, characteristic classes are considered in
homology theory, instead of cohomology theory and still
formulated as \emph{natural transformations from a
covariant functor $\mathcal F$ to a (suitable) homology
theory $H_*$, satisfying the normalization condition that for a smooth variety $X$ the value of a distinguished element $\Delta_X$ of $\mathcal F(X)$ is equal to the Poincar\'e dual of the corresponding characteristic cohomology class of the tangent bundle}:
$$\tau_{c\ell}: \mathcal F(-) \to H_*(-) \quad \text{such that for $X$ smooth} \quad \tau_{c\ell}(\Delta_X) = c\ell(TX) \cap[X].$$
Most important and well-studied theories of
characteristic homology classes of singular varieties are the following ones,
where we consider here for simplicity
only the category of complex algebraic varieties
and functoriality is
required only for proper morphisms.
Below, in (1) and (2) the homology theory $H_*(X)$ is either Chow groups $CH_*(X)$ or the even-degree Borel--Moore homology groups $H^{BM}_{2*}(X)$, whereas in (3) $X$ is assumed to be compact and thus the homology theory $H_*(X)$ is the usual even-degree homology group $H_{2*}(X)$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item MacPherson's Chern class \cite{MacPherson} $c^{Mac}_*: F(-) \to H_*(-)$ is the unique natural transformation from the covariant functor $F$ of constructible functions to the homology $H_*$,
satisfying the normalization condition that for a smooth variety $X$ the value of the characteristic function is the Poincar\'e dual of the total Chern class of the tangent bundle: $$c^{Mac}_*(1\hskip-3.5pt1_X) = c(TX) \cap [X].$$
\item Baum--Fulton--MacPherson's Todd class \cite{BFM} $td^{BFM}_*: G_0(X) \to H_*(X)\otimes \mathbb Q$ is the unique natural transformation from the covariant functor $G_0$ of Grothendieck groups of coherent sheaves to the rationalized homology $H_*\otimes \mathbb Q$,
satisfying the normalization condition that for a smooth variety $X$ the value of (the class of) the structure sheaf is the Poincar\'e dual of the total Todd class of the tangent bundle: $$td^{BFM}_*([\mathcal O_X]) = td(TX) \cap [X].$$
\item Goresky-- MacPherson's homology $L$-class \cite{GM}, which is extended as a natural transformation by Cappell-Shaneson \cite{CS} (also see \cite{Yokura-TAMS}), $L^{CS}_*: \Omega(X) \to H_*(X)\otimes \mathbb Q$ is a natural transformation from the covariant functor $\Omega$ of cobordism groups of self-dual constructible sheaf complexes to the rationalized homology theory $H_*\otimes \mathbb Q$,
satisfying the normalization condition that for a smooth variety $X$ the value of the
(class of the) shifted constant sheaf is the Poincar\'e dual of the total Hirzebruch--Thom's $L$-class of the tangent bundle: $$L^{CS}_*([\mathbb Q_X[\operatorname{dim} X]]) = L(TX) \cap [X].$$ Here $X$ is assumed to be compact.\\
\end{enumerate}
Recently these three theories $c^{Mac}_*, td^{BFM}_*$ and $L^{CS}_*$ are ``unified" by the motivic Hirzeruch class \cite{BSY} (see also \cite{SY}, \cite{Schuermann-MSRI} and \cite{Yokura-MSRI}) ${T_y}_*: K_0(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/X) \to H_*(X)\otimes \mathbb Q[y]$, which is the unique natural transformation such that for a smooth variety $X$ the value of the isomorphism class of the identity $X \xrightarrow {id_X} X$ is the Poincar\'e dual of the generalized Hirzebruch--Todd class $T_y(TX)$ of the tangent bundle: $${T_y}_*([X \xrightarrow {id_X} X]) = T_y(TX) \cap [X].$$
Here $K_0(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/X)$ is the relative Grothendieck group of the category $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}$ of complex algebraic varieties, i.e., the free abelian group generated by the isomorphism classes $[V \xrightarrow {h} X]$ of morphism $h \in hom_{\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}}(V, X)$ modulo the relations
\begin{itemize}
\item $[V_1 \xrightarrow {h_1} X] + [V_2 \xrightarrow {h_2} X] = [V_1 \sqcup V_2 \xrightarrow {h_1 + h_2} X],$ with $\sqcup$ the disjoint union, and
\item $[V \xrightarrow {h} X] = [V \setminus W \xrightarrow {h_{V \setminus W}} X] + [ W \xrightarrow {h_{W}} X]$ for $W \subset V$ a closed subvariety of $V$.
\end{itemize}
The generalized Hirzebruch--Todd class $T_y(E)$ of the complex vector bundle $E$ (see \cite{Hirzebruch, HBJ}) is defined to be
$$T_y(E) := \prod _{i=1}^{\operatorname {rank} E} \left (\frac {\alpha _i(1+y)}{1-e^{-\alpha _i(1+y)}} - \alpha _i y \right ) \in H^*(X) \otimes \mathbb Q[y],$$
where $\alpha _i$ is the Chern root of $E$, i.e., $\displaystyle c(E) = \prod_{i=1}^{\operatorname{rank} E} (1 + \alpha_i).$ Note that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $T_{-1}(E) =c(E)$ is the Chern class,
\item $T_{0}(E) =td(E)$ is the Todd class and
\item $T_{1}(E) =L(E)$ is the Thom--Hirzebruch $L$-class.\\
\end{enumerate}
The ``unification" means the existence of the following commutative diagrams of natural transformations:
$$\xymatrix{
K_0(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/X) \ar[dd]_{{T_{-1}}_*} \ar[dr]^{\, \,const} && K_0(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/X) \ar[dd]_{{T_{0}}_*} \ar[dr]^{\, \,coh} && K_0(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/X)\ar[dd]_{{T_{1}}_*} \ar[dr]^{\, \,sd} \\
& F(X) \ar[dl] ^{c^{Mac}_*\otimes \mathbb Q} && G_0(X) \ar[dl]^{td^{BFM}_*} && \Omega(X) \ar[dl]^{L^{CS}_*} \\
H_*(X)\otimes \mathbb Q, && H_*(X)\otimes \mathbb Q, && H_*(X)\otimes \mathbb Q. }
$$
Here $const:K_0(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/X) \to F(X)$ is defined by $const([V \xrightarrow {h} X]):= h_* 1\hskip-3.5pt1 _V$. The other two comparison transformations are characterized by $coh([V \xrightarrow {h} X]) = h_*\mathcal ([O_V])$ and $sd([V \xrightarrow {h} X]) = h_*([\mathbb Q_V[\operatorname{dim}V]])$ for $V$ smooth and $h$ proper.
${T_y}_*(X) := {T_y}_*([X \xrightarrow {id_X} X])$ is called the \emph{motivic Hirzebruch class of $X$}. For more details see \cite{BSY}.\\
Besides these characteristic classes formulated as natural
transformations, there are several important homology
classes which are usually not formulated or not captured as such natural transformations; for example: Chern-Mather class $c_*^M(X)$ (\cite{MacPherson}), Segre--Mather class $s_*^M(X)$ (\cite{Yokura-segre}), Fulton's canonical Chern class $c^F_*(X)$ (\cite{Fulton-book}), Fulton--Johnson's Chern class $c^{FJ}_*(X)$ (\cite{Fulton-Johnson, Fulton-book}), Milnor class $\mathcal M(X)$ (e.g., see \cite{Aluffi}, \cite{BLSS}, \cite{PP}, \cite{Yokura-milnor}, etc.), which is (up to sign) the difference of the MacPherson's Chern class and the Fulton--Johnson's Chern class, etc.
In \cite{Yokura-JS} we captured Fulton--Johnson's Chern class and the Milnor class $\mathcal M(X)$ as natural transformations, with the latter one as a special case of the Hirzebruch--Milnor class (also see \cite{CMSS}), using the motivic Hirzebruch class.
In this paper we generalize the approach and results of \cite{Yokura-JS} to a more general
abstract categorical context (cf. \cite{Yokura-RIMS}).\\
Let $\mathcal B$ be a category with a \emph{coproduct} $\sqcup$. Here we assume that a fixed coproduct
$X \sqcup Y$ of any two objects $X,Y\in ob(\mathcal B)$ has been choosen, as well as an
initial object $\emptyset$ in $\mathcal B$, so that we can view $(\mathcal B,\sqcup)$ as a
symmetric monoidal category with unit $\emptyset$.
Examples are the category $\mathcal{TOP}$ (resp., $\mathcal {TOP}_{lc}$) of (locally compact) topological spaces,
the category $\mathcal C^{\infty}$ of $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds,
or the category $\mathcal V_k$ of algebraic varieties (i.e., reduced separated schemes of finite type) over a base field $k$, with the coproduct $\sqcup$ given by the usual disjoint union.
Moreover, for $\mathcal B=\mathcal {TOP}_{lc}, \mathcal C^{\infty}$ or $\mathcal V_k$, we often consider them as categories only with respect to proper morphisms.
Let $\mathcal {AB}$ be the category of abelian groups with the coproduct $\sqcup$ given by the direct sum $\oplus$. Then a covariant functor $\mathcal H : \mathcal B \to \mathcal {AB}$ is called \emph{additive} (cf. \cite{Levine-Morel}), if it preserves the coproduct structure $\sqcup$, i.e., if we get the following isomorphism:
$$(i_X)_*\oplus (i_Y)_*: \mathcal H(X) \oplus \mathcal H(Y) \xrightarrow {\cong} \mathcal H(X \sqcup Y)$$
where $i_X: X \to X \sqcup Y$ and $i_Y:Y \to X \sqcup Y$ are the canonical injections. In particular, $\mathcal H(\emptyset) = \{0\}$. Examples of such an additive functor $\mathcal H$ are a generalized homology theory $H_*$ for $\mathcal B = \mathcal {TOP}$, the Borel--Moore homology theory
$H_*^{BM}$ for $\mathcal B = \mathcal {TOP}_{lc}$, the functor $G_0$ of Grothendieck groups of coherent sheaves or the Chow groups $CH_*$ for $\mathcal B = \mathcal V_k$, as well as the functor $F$ of constructible functions or $\Omega$ of cobordism groups of self-dual constructible sheaf complexes for $\mathcal B = \mathcal V_{\mathbb C}$.\\
Let $\mathcal C$ be a category of ``(topological) spaces with some additional structures \emph{stable} under
$\sqcup$", such as the category of (complex) algebraic varieties, the category of (compact) topological spaces, or the category of oriented smooth (i.e., $C^{\infty}$-) manifolds, etc.
More abstractly, $\mathcal C$ is a \emph{symmetric monoidal category} $(\mathcal C, \sqcup)$ together with
a strict monoidal forgetful functor
$\frak f: (\mathcal C, \sqcup) \to (\mathcal B, \sqcup)$. Then an \emph {additive invariant} on objects in $ob(\mathcal C)$ with values in the additive functor $\mathcal H$ is given by an element $\alpha(X) \in \mathcal H(\frak f(X))$ for all $X \in ob(\mathcal C)$ satisfying
$$\alpha(X \sqcup Y) = (i_{\frak f(X)})_* \alpha(X) + (i_{\frak f(Y)})_*\alpha(Y),$$
where $i_{\frak f(X)}$ and $i_{\frak f(Y)}$ are the corresponding canonical inclusions.
Note that the sum or difference $\alpha\pm \beta$ of two additive invariants with values in
$\mathcal H$ is again such an invariant.\\
\begin{ex}\label{singular}
Let $\mathcal B=\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}$ be the category of complex algebraic varieties and $\mathcal C$ be a full subcategory of $\mathcal B$ which is stable under disjoint union, isomorphisms and contains the initial object $\emptyset$ and the final object $pt$ (e.g., \emph{an admissible subcategory} in the sense of Levine--Morel \cite{Levine-Morel}), such as the category $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}^{sm}$ of smooth varieties, $\mathcal V^{lpd}_{\mathbb C}$ of locally pure dimensional varieties, $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}^{emb}$ of varieties embeddable into smooth varieties, or $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}^{lci}$ of local complete intersections. Then we have the following additive invariants, some of which are already mentioned above:
\begin{enumerate}
\item characteristic homology classes $c\ell_*(X) := c\ell(TX) \cap [X] \in H_*(X)\otimes R$ for $X \in ob(\mathcal V^{sm}_{\mathbb C})$ with $[X]$ the fundamental class and $TX$ the tangent bundle, or the corresponding virtual classes $c\ell_*(X)$ for $X \in ob(\mathcal V^{lci}_{\mathbb C})$, with $TX$ the virtual tangent bundle and $c\ell(TX)$ a characteristic cohomology class.
\item Fulton's canonical Chern class or Fulton--Johnson Chern class $c^F_*(X)$, $c^{FJ}_*(X)$ for $X \in ob(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}^{emb})$.
\item Mather-type characteristic homology classes $c\ell^{Ma}_*(X)$, such as Chern--Mather class and Segre--Mather class, or the local Euler obstruction $Eu_X \in F(X)$ as a constructible function for $X \in ob(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}^{lpd})$.
\item the (class of the) self-dual Intersection Homology complex $[\mathcal {IC}_X] \in \Omega (X)$ and for $X$ compact its
Goresky--MacPherson's $L$-homology class $L^{GM}(X) \in H_*(X)$ for
$X \in ob(\mathcal V^{lpd}_{\mathbb C})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{ex}
A \emph{categorification of the additive invariant $\alpha$} with values in the additive functor $\mathcal H$ is meant to be an associated \emph{natural transformation}
$$\tau_{\alpha}: \mathcal H_{\alpha} \to \mathcal H\circ \frak f$$
from a \emph{covariant functor} $\mathcal H_{\alpha}$ on the category $\mathcal C $, such that
$$\tau_{\alpha}(\delta_X) = \alpha(X)$$
for some \emph{distinguished element} $\delta_X \in \mathcal H_{\alpha}(X)$ and all $X \in ob(\mathcal C)$.\\
To construct such a covariant functor $\mathcal H_{\alpha}$, we introduce \emph{generalized relative Grothendieck groups}, using comma categories in a more abstract categorical context.
The construction of such a covariant functor is hinted by the definition of the relative Grothendieck group $ K_0(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/X)$ and more clearly by the
description of the oriented bordism group $\Omega^{SO}_*(X)$.
The oriented bordism group $\Omega^{SO}_m(X)$ of a topological space $X$
is defined to be the free abelian group generated by the isomorphism classes $[M \xrightarrow h X]$ of \emph{continuous maps} $M \xrightarrow h X$
from \emph{closed oriented smooth manifolds} $M$ of dimension $m$ to the given \emph{topological space} $X$, modulo the following relations
\begin{enumerate}
\item $[M \xrightarrow h X] + [M' \xrightarrow {h'} X] =
[M \sqcup M' \xrightarrow {h + h'} X]$,
\item if $M \xrightarrow h X$ and $M' \xrightarrow {h'} X$ are \emph{bordant},
then $[M \xrightarrow h X] = [M' \xrightarrow {h'} X].$
\end{enumerate}
Note that if $M \xrightarrow h X$ and $M' \xrightarrow {h'} X$ are isomorphic to each other, i.e., there exists an orientation preserving diffeomorphism $\phi: M \cong M'$ such that the following diagram commutes \emph{as topological spaces}:
$$\xymatrix{M \ar[dr]_ {h}\ar[rr]^ {\phi} && M' \ar[dl]^{h'}\\& X,}$$
then $M \xrightarrow h X$ and $M' \xrightarrow {h'} X$ are clearly bordant to each other. Hence we can say that the bordism group $\Omega^{SO}_m(X)$
is defined to be the free abelian group generated by isomorphism classes of continuous maps $M \xrightarrow h X$
from \emph{closed oriented smooth manifolds} $M$ of dimension $m$ to the given \emph{topological space} $X$, modulo the relations (1) and (2) above.
The bordism group $\Omega^{SO}_m(X)$ can also be described slightly differently as follows: the set of the bordism classes $[M \xrightarrow h X]$ can be turned into a commutative semi-group or monoid $\mathcal M(X)$ by the relation (1) above, with $0=[\emptyset \to X]$.
Then the Grothendieck group or the group completion of the monoid $\mathcal M(X)$ is nothing but the above bordism group $\Omega^{SO}_m(X)$. \\
In the definition of the bordism group two categories are involved:
\begin{itemize}
\item the category $\mathcal C^{\infty}_{co}$ of closed oriented $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds, i.e., compact oriented $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds without boundary,
\item the category $\mathcal {TOP}$ of topological spaces.
\end{itemize}
It should be emphasized that \emph{even though we consider such a finer category $\mathcal C^{\infty}_{co}$ for a source space $M$ the map $h:M \to X$ of course has to be considered in the crude category $\mathcal {TOP}$}.
The bordism group $\Omega^{SO}_*$ is a generalized homology theory, in particular $\Omega^{SO}_*$ is a covariant functor
$$\Omega^{SO}_*: \mathcal {TOP} \to \mathcal {AB},$$
where $\mathcal {AB}$ is the category of abelian groups.
Clearly we can consider this covariant functor on a different category finer than the category $\mathcal {TOP}$ of topological spaces, e.g., the category $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}$ of complex algebraic varieties. Namely we consider \emph{continuous} maps $h: M \to V$ from closed oriented manifolds $M$ to a complex algebraic variety $V$. Then we still get a covariant functor
$$\Omega^{SO}_*: \mathcal V_{\mathbb C} \to \mathcal {AB}.$$
In this set-up \emph{three different categories} $\mathcal C^{\infty}_{co}$, $\mathcal {TOP}$ and $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}$ are involved. More precisely, we have the following forgetful functors $\frak f_s: \mathcal C^{\infty}_{co} \to \mathcal {TOP}$ and $\frak f_t: \mathcal V_{\mathbb C} \to \mathcal {TOP}$ (here ``s" and ``t" mean ``source object" and ``target object):
$$\mathcal C^{\infty}_{co} \xrightarrow {\frak f_s} \mathcal {TOP} \xleftarrow {\frak f_t} \mathcal V_{\mathbb C}.$$
And the commutative triangle
$$\xymatrix{M \ar[dr]_ {h}\ar[rr]^ {\phi} && M' \ar[dl]^{h'}\\& V}$$
really means
$$\xymatrix{\frak f_s(M) \ar[dr]_ {h}\ar[rr]^ {\frak f_s(\phi)} && \frak f_s (M') \ar[dl]^{h'}\\& \frak f_t(V).}$$
Abstracting this situation, we deal in this paper with a more general situation of a cospan of categories
$$\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B \xleftarrow {T} \mathcal C_t,$$
where $\mathcal B$ is a category with (chosen) coproducts $\sqcup$, $(\mathcal C_s, \sqcup)$ is a \emph{symmetric monoidal category} with $S: \mathcal C_s \to \mathcal B$ a strict monoidal functor respecting the units
$\emptyset$, and $T: \mathcal C_t \to \mathcal B$ just a functor.
Two triples $(V, X, h), (V', X, h')$, where $V, V' \in ob(\mathcal C_s), X \in ob(\mathcal C_t)$, $h \in hom_{\mathcal B}(S(V), T(X))$ and $h' \in hom_{\mathcal B}(S(V'), T(X))$, are called \emph{isomorphic}, if there exists an isomorphism $\phi:V \xrightarrow {\cong} V' \in hom_{\mathcal C_s}(V, V')$ such that the following diagram commutes, just like as above:
$$\xymatrix{S(V) \ar[dr]_ {h}\ar[rr]^ {S(\phi)} && S(V') \ar[dl]^{h'}\\& T(X).}$$
Then the isomorphism classes $[(V, X, h)]$ of triples $(V, X, h)$ can be turned into a monoid $\mathcal M(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow S \mathcal B /T(X))$ by
$$[(V, X,h)] \sqcup [(V', X,h')] := [(V \sqcup V, X, h + h')],$$
with unit $0=[(\emptyset, X,h)]$.
The associated Grothendieck group is denoted by $K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow S \mathcal B /T(X))$ (respectively
$K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow S \mathcal B /X)$ in case $\mathcal C_t =B$ and $T=\operatorname{id}_{\mathcal C_t}$)
and called the \emph{canonical generalized $(S,T)$-relative Grothendieck group}. It is a covariant functor with respect to $X$ by composing $h$ with $T(f)$ for $f \in hom_{\mathcal C_t}(X, X')$.
\begin{rem}\label{dist}
In the following two cases, a \emph{distinguished element $\delta_X \in K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow S \mathcal B /T(X))$} is available:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $\delta_{S(V)} := [(V, S(V), \operatorname{id}_{S(V)})]$ for $X = S(V)$ in the case when $T= \operatorname{id}_{\mathcal C_t} :\mathcal C_t \to \mathcal C_t =\mathcal B$ is the identity functor.
\item[(ii)] $\delta_V:= [(V, V, \operatorname{id}_{S(V)})]$ for $X =V$ in the case when $\mathcal C_t = \mathcal C_s$ and $T = S$.\\
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}
When it comes to a categorification of an additive invariant $\alpha$ with values in an additive covariant functor $\mathcal H: \mathcal B \to \mathcal {AB}$, we sometimes need to consider a stronger notion of an isomorphism of triples $(V, X, h)$ (e.g. in the context with $V$ an ``oriented space"): Let $(V, X, h), (V', X, h')$ be two triples as above. Then they are called \emph{$\alpha$-isomorphic} if the following holds: they are isomorphic as above by an isomorphism
$\phi:V \xrightarrow {\cong} V' \in hom_{\mathcal C_s}(V, V')$ such that
$$(S(\phi))_*\alpha(V) = \alpha(V').$$
If this last equality holds for any isomorphism $\phi:V \xrightarrow {\cong} V' \in hom_{\mathcal C_s}(V, V')$, then $\alpha$ is also called an \emph{isomorphism invariant}.
So in this case there is no difference between $\alpha$-isomorphism classes and
isomorphism classes for such triples $(V, X, h)$.
The $\alpha$-isomorphism class of $(V, X, h)$ is denoted by $[(V, X, h)]_{\alpha}$ and
these can be turned as before into a monoid $\mathcal M_{\alpha}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow S \mathcal B /T(X))$,
since $\alpha$ is additive.
The associated generalized $(S,T)$-relative Grothendieck group is denoted by $K_{\alpha}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow S \mathcal B /T(X))$, respectively
$K_{\alpha}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow S \mathcal B /X)$ in case $\mathcal C_t =B$ and $T=\operatorname{id}_{\mathcal C_t}$.
If it is clear that we consider this group $K_{\alpha}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow S \mathcal B /T(X))$ from the context, we sometimes omit the suffix $\alpha$ from the notation, e.g. if $\alpha$ is an isomorphism invariant.
Similarly, if we consider $\mathcal B=\mathcal {TOP}_{lc}, \mathcal C^{\infty}$ or $\mathcal V_k$ only as categories with respect to proper morphisms,
then this is indicated by the notation $K^{prop}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow S \mathcal B /T(X)),
K^{prop}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow S \mathcal B /X)$ etc.
\begin{thm}(A ``categorification" of an additive invariant) \label{cat}
Let $\mathcal H: \mathcal B \to \mathcal {AB}$ be an additive functor on $\mathcal B$ with $T' = \mathcal H \circ T$. Then an additive invariant $\alpha$ on $ob(\mathcal C_s)$ with values in $\mathcal H$ induces a natural transformation on $\mathcal C_t$:
$$\tau_{\alpha}:K_{\alpha}\bigl(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow S \mathcal B/T(-) \bigr) \to T'(-); \, \tau_{\alpha}([(V, X, h)]_{\alpha}) := h_*(\alpha(V)).$$
Assume $T$ is full, and consider one of the cases (i) or (ii) as in Remark \ref{dist}. Then $\tau_{\alpha}$ is the unique natural transformation satisfying
$$\tau_{\alpha}([(V, S(V), \operatorname {id}_{S(V)})]_{\alpha}) = \alpha(V) \,\, \, \text {or} \, \, \, \tau_{\alpha}([(V, V, \operatorname {id}_{S(V)})]_{\alpha}) = \alpha(V).$$
\end{thm}
Let us illustrate this result by some examples.
\begin{ex}
Let $\mathcal {TOP}$ be the category of topological spaces and let $\mathcal C^{\infty}_{co}$ be the category of closed oriented $C^{\infty}$-manifolds, whose morphisms are just differentiable maps.
Consider the following cospan of these categories:
$$\mathcal C^{\infty}_{co} \xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal {TOP} \xleftarrow {id_{\mathcal {TOP}}} \mathcal {TOP},$$
where $\frak f: \mathcal C^{\infty}_{co} \to \mathcal {TOP}$ is the forgetful functor.
Then the fundamental class $[M]\in H_*(M)$ for $M\in ob(\mathcal C^{\infty}_{co})$ is an
additive invariant with values in the usual homology $H_*$.
More generally, let $c\ell(E)\in H^*(-;R)$ be a contravariant functorial characteristic class of (isomorphism classes of) oriented vector bundles $E$. Then also $$\alpha(M):=c\ell(TM)\cap [M]\in H_*(M;R)$$ is additive,
where we recover the fundamental class for $c\ell$ the unit $1\in H^*(-)$.
Assume $c\ell$ is normalized in the sense that $1=c\ell^0(E)\in H^0(-;R)$, so that
a diffeomorphism $\phi: M \xrightarrow {\cong} M'$ of such oriented manifolds
is an $\alpha$-isomorphism if and only if it is orientation preserving.
Then there exists a unique natural transformation
$$\tau_{c\ell}: K_{\alpha}(\mathcal C^{\infty}_{co} \xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal {TOP} /-) \to H_*(-;R)$$
such that for a closed oriented $C^{\infty}$-manifold $M$
$$\tau_{c\ell}([(M, \frak f(M), id_{\frak f(M)})]_{\alpha}) =c\ell(TM)\cap [M].$$
Let $\Omega^{SO}_*(X)$ be the oriented bordism group of a topological space $X$. Then we have
$$\Omega^{SO}_*(X) \cong K_{\alpha}(\mathcal C^{\infty}_{co} \xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal {TOP} /X) / \sim,$$
with $\sim$ the bordism relation. And $\tau_{c\ell}$ factorizes over $\Omega^{SO}_*(X)$
in the case when $c\ell$ is stable in the sense that $c\ell(E\oplus \mathbb R)=c\ell(E)$ for $\mathbb R$ the trivial
real line bundle.
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}
Let $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}$ be the category of complex algebraic varieties, with $\mathcal C$ the full subcategory $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}^{sm},\mathcal V^{lpd}_{\mathbb C}, \mathcal V_{\mathbb C}^{emb} $ or $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}^{lci}$ of
smooth, locally pure dimensional, embeddable or local complete intersection varieties, with $$\alpha(V):=c\ell_*(V)\in H_*(V)\otimes R$$ for $V\in ob(\mathcal C)$ a corresponding additive characteristic homology class as in Example \ref{singular}.
Here the homology theory $H_*(X)$ is either Chow groups $CH_*(X)$ or the even-degree Borel--Moore homology groups $H^{BM}_{2*}(X)$.
Then $\alpha$ is also an isomorphism invariant.
Consider the following cospan of categories, where we
consider only proper morphisms:
$$\mathcal C \xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal V_{\mathbb C} \xleftarrow {id_{\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}}} \mathcal V_{\mathbb C},$$
with $\frak f: \mathcal C \to \mathcal V_{\mathbb C}$ being the inclusion functor.
Then there exists a unique natural transformation
$$\tau_{c\ell}: K^{prop}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {\frak f}\mathcal V_{\mathbb C} /-) \to H_*(-)\otimes R,$$
such that for all $V\in ob(\mathcal C)$
$$\tau_{c\ell}([(V, \frak f(V), id_{\frak f(V)})]) =c\ell_*(V).$$
Moreover, there is a tautological surjective natural transformation
$$K^{prop}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal V_{\mathbb C} /-) \to K_0(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/-)$$
to the relative Grothendieck group $K_0(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/-)$ of complex algebraic varieties.
And for $\mathcal C=\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}^{sm}$ and
$$c\ell_*(V)=T_y(TV)\cap [V]=T_{y*}(V)
\quad \text{or} \quad c\ell_*(V)=c(TV)\cap [V]=c_*(V),$$
i.e., the Hirzebruch homology class or MacPherson's Chern class,
the transformations $\tau_{T_{y*}}$ and $\tau_{c_{*}}$ factorize over $K_0(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/-)$ by \cite{BSY}.
\end{ex}
In \S 2 we explain the general categorical background and prove Theorem \ref{cat}, whereas in
\S\S3-4 we apply it to many different geometric situations, e.g., for obtaining Riemann--Roch type theorems.
\section{Generalized relative Grothendieck groups}
\begin{defn}
Let $\mathcal C$ be a symmetric monoidal category equipped with monoidal structure $\oplus$ and the unit object $\emptyset$. The Grothedieck group $K(\mathcal C)$ is defined to be the free abelian group generated by the isomophism classes $[X]$ of objects $X \in ob(\mathcal C)$ modulo the relations
$$[X] + [Y] = [X \oplus Y], \quad \text{, with $0 = [\emptyset]$.}$$
\end{defn}
A functor $\Phi: \mathcal C_1 \to \mathcal C_2$ of two symmetric monoidal categories is a functor which preserves $\oplus$ in the relaxed sense that there are natural transformations:
$$\Phi(A) \oplus_{\mathcal C_2} \Phi(B) \to \Phi(A \oplus_{\mathcal C_1}B),$$
In some usage it requires an isomorphism
$$\Phi(A) \oplus_{\mathcal C_2} \Phi(B) \cong \Phi(A \oplus_{\mathcal C_1}B),$$
in which case it is called a \emph{strong} monoidal functor.
Here we also assume that $\Phi$ respects the units.
\begin{ex}
Let $\mathcal B$ be a category with a (chosen) \emph{coproduct} $\sqcup$ and
$\mathcal H : \mathcal B \to \mathcal {AB}$ be an additive covariant functor.
Then we have
$$\mathcal H_*(X \sqcup Y) \cong \mathcal H_*(X) \oplus \mathcal H_*(Y) \quad
\text{, with $\mathcal H_*(\emptyset)=\{0\}$.}$$
Examples of such an additive functor $\mathcal H$ are a generalized homology theory $H_*$ for $\mathcal B = \mathcal {TOP}$, the Borel--Moore homology theory
$H_*^{BM}$ for $\mathcal B = \mathcal {TOP}_{lc}$, the functor $G_0$ of Grothendieck groups of coherent sheaves or the Chow groups $CH_*$ for $\mathcal B = \mathcal V_k$, as well as the functor $F$ of constructible functions or $\Omega$ of cobordism groups of self-dual constructible sheaf complexes for $\mathcal B = \mathcal V_{\mathbb C}$.
\end{ex}
\begin{lem}
Let $\Phi: \mathcal C_1 \to \mathcal C_2$ be a strong monoidal functor of two symmetric monoidal categories.
Then the map
$$\Phi_*:K(\mathcal C_1) \to K(\mathcal C_2), \quad \Phi_*([X]):= [\Phi(X)]$$
is a well-defined group homomorphism. Namely, the Grothendieck group $K$ is a covariant functor from the category of such categories and functors to the category of abelian groups.
\end{lem}
Now we recall the notion of \emph{comma category} and \emph{fiber category} (e.g., see \cite{Maclane}):
\begin{defn}Let $\mathcal C_s$ (the suffix ``s" meaning \emph{source}), $\mathcal C_t$ (the suffix ``t" meaning \emph{target}) and $\mathcal B$ be categories, and let
$$\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B \xleftarrow {T} \mathcal C_t$$
be functors among them (which shall be called \emph{a cospan of categories}). The \emph{comma category}, denoted by $(S \downarrow T)$, is formed by
\begin{itemize}
\item the objects of $(S \downarrow T)$ are triples $(V, X, h)$ with $V \in ob(\mathcal C_s)$, $X \in ob(\mathcal C_t)$ and $h \in hom_{\mathcal B}(S(V), T(X))$,
\item the morphisms from $(V, X, h)$ to $(V', X', h')$ are pairs $(g_s,g_t)$ where $g_s: V \to V'$ is a morphism in $\mathcal C_s$ and $g_t: X \to X'$ is a morphism in $\mathcal C_t$ such that the following diagram commutes in the category $\mathcal B$:
$$\CD
S(V) @> S(g_s)>> S(V') \\
@V h VV @VV h' V\\
T(X) @>> T(g_t) > T(X'). \endCD
$$
\end{itemize}
\end{defn}
\begin{defn} Let $\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B \xleftarrow {T} \mathcal C_t$ be a cospan and let $(S \downarrow T)$ be the above comma category associated to the cospan. We define the canonical \emph{projection functors} as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\pi_t: (S \downarrow T) \to \mathcal C_t$ is defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item for an object $(V, X, h)$, $\pi_t((V, X, h)) := X,$
\item for a morphism $(g_s, g_t): (V, X, h) \to (V', X', h')$, $\pi_t((g_s, g_t)) := g_t.$
\end{itemize}
\item $\pi_s: (S \downarrow T) \to \mathcal C_s$ is defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item for an object $(V, X, h)$, $\pi_s((V, X, h)) := V,$
\item for a morphism $(g_s, g_t): (V, X, h) \to (V', X', h')$, $\pi_s((g_s, g_t)) := g_s.$
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
Namely \emph{a cospan of categories}\,\, $\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B \xleftarrow {T} \mathcal C_t$ induces \emph{a span of categories} \, \, $\mathcal C_s \xleftarrow {\pi_s} (S \downarrow T) \xrightarrow {\pi_t} \mathcal C_t.$
\begin{defn} Let $F: \mathcal C \to \mathcal{D}$ be a functor of two categories. Then, for an object $B \in ob(\mathcal{D})$ \emph{the fiber category} of $F$ over $B$, denoted by $F^{-1}(B)$, is defined to be the category consisting of
\begin{itemize}
\item the objects $X \in ob(\mathcal C)$ such that $F(X) = B$,
\item for such objects $X, X'$, morphisms $f:X \to X'$ such that $F(f) = id_B$.
\end{itemize}
In other words, more precisely, this category should be denoted by $F^{-1}(B, id_B)$.
\end{defn}
\begin{ex} As above, let us consider a cospan of categories and its associated span of categories:
$$\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B \xleftarrow {T} \mathcal C_t, \quad \quad \mathcal C_s \xleftarrow {\pi_s} (S \downarrow T) \xrightarrow {\pi_t} \mathcal C_t.$$
\begin{enumerate}
\item For an object $X \in \mathcal C_t$, the fiber category $\pi_t^{-1}(X)$ is nothing but the \emph{S-over category} $(S \downarrow T(X))$, whose objects are \emph{objects $S$-over $T(X)$}, i.e., the triple $(V, X, h)$, and for two triples $(V, X, h)$ and $(V', X, h')$ a morphism from $(V, X, h)$ to $(V', X, h')$ is $g_s \in hom_{\mathcal C_s}(V, V')$ such that the following triangle commutes:
$$\xymatrix{S(V) \ar[dr]_ {h}\ar[rr]^ {S(g_s)} && S(V') \ar[dl]^{h'}\\& T(X).}$$
\item Furthermore, if $\mathcal C_s = \mathcal B$ and $S = id_S$ is the identity functor, then the above \emph{S-over category} $(S \downarrow X)$ is the standard \emph{over category} $(\mathcal B \downarrow X)$, whose objects are objects over $X$, i.e., morphisms $h:V \to X$, and for two tmorphisms $h:V \to X$ and $h:V' \to X$ a morphism from $h:V \to X$ to $h:V' \to X$ is $g \in hom_{\mathcal B}(V, V')$ such that the following triangle commutes:
$$\xymatrix{V \ar[dr]_ {h}\ar[rr]^ {g} && V' \ar[dl]^{h'}\\& X.}$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{ex}
\begin{rem} For an object $V \in \mathcal C_s$, the fiber category $\pi_s^{-1}(S)$ is nothing but the \emph{T-under category} $(S(V) \downarrow T)$, whose objects are \emph{objects $T$-under $S(V)$}, i.e., the triple $(V, X, h)$, and for two triples $(V, X, h)$ and $(V, X', h')$ a morphism from $(V, X, h)$ to $(V, X', h')$ is $g_t \in hom_{\mathcal C_t}(X, X')$ such that the following triangle commutes:
$$\xymatrix{&S(V) \ar[dl]_ {h}\ar[dr]^ {h'}&\\
T(X) \ar[rr]_{T(g_t)} && T(X').}$$
Similarly, we can think of the \emph{T-under category} $(V \downarrow T)$ and the \emph{under category} $(V \downarrow \mathcal B)$, but we do not write them down here, since we do not use them below in the rest of the paper.
\end{rem}
\begin{pro} Let $\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B \xleftarrow {T} \mathcal C_t$ be a cospan of categories. Then a morphism $f \in hom_{\mathcal C_t} (X_1, X_2)$ gives rise to the functor between the corresponding fiber categories:
$$T(f)_*: \pi_t^{-1}(X_1) \to \pi_t^{-1}(X_2) ,$$
which is defined by
\begin{enumerate}
\item For an object $(V, X_1, h)$, $T(f)_*((V, X_1, h)) := (V, X_2, T(f) \circ h).$
\item For a morphism $(g_s, id_{X_1}): (V, X_1, h) \to (V', X_1, h')$ with $g_s \in hom_{\mathcal C_s}(V, V')$,
$$T(f)_*((g_s, id_{X_1})) := (g_s, id_{X_2}): (V, X_2, T(f) \circ h) \to (V', X_2, T(f) \circ h').$$
$$\xymatrix{S(V) \ar[dr]^ {h}\ar[rr]^ {g}\ar[dddr]_{T(f) \circ h} && S(V') \ar[dl]_{h'} \ar [dddl]^{T(f) \circ h'} \\
& T(X_1) \ar[dd]^(.25){T(f)}\\
&\\
&T(X_2)}$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{pro}
\begin{lem}\label{relK} Let $\mathcal B$ be a category with a \emph{coproduct} $\sqcup$,
with the coproduct of any two objects and an initial object chosen, and let
$(\mathcal C_s, \sqcup)$ be a symmetric monoidal category.
Let $\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B \xleftarrow {T} \mathcal C_t$ be a cospan of categories with $S: (\mathcal C_s , \sqcup)\to (\mathcal B, \sqcup)$ a strict monoidal functor and $T:\mathcal C_t \to \mathcal B$ just a functor. Then for each object $X \in ob(\mathcal C_t)$, the fiber category $\pi_t^{-1}(X)$, i.e. the $S$-over category $(S \downarrow T(X))$ becomes also a symmetric monoidal category with
$$(V, X, h) \sqcup (V', X, h') := (V \sqcup V', X, h + h').$$
\end{lem}
\begin{cor} Let the situation be as above. A morphism $f \in hom_{\mathcal C_t}(X_1, X_2)$ gives rise to the canonical group homomorphism
$$T(f)_* : K(\pi_t^{-1}(X_1) ) \to K(\pi_t^{-1}(X_2)),$$
and
$$K(\pi_t^{-1}(-)) : \mathcal C_t \to \mathcal {AB}$$
is a covariant functor from the category $\mathcal C_t$ to the category of abelian groups.
\end{cor}
After these simple observations, we can introduce the following notions:
\begin{defn}[\emph{Generalized relative Grothendieck groups with respect to a cospan of categories}] $ $ \\
Let $\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B \xleftarrow {T} \mathcal C_t$ be a cospan of categories
as in Lemma \ref{relK}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The Grothendieck group of the fiber category of the projection functor $\pi_t: (S \downarrow T) \to \mathcal C_t$ is denoted by
$$K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(X)): = K(\pi_t^{-1}(X)))$$
and called the \emph{generalized $(S,T)$-relative Grothendieck group of $X\in \mathcal C_t$}.
\item If $\mathcal C_t = \mathcal B$ and $T = id_{\mathcal B}$, then $K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(X))$ is simply denoted by $K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /X)$.
\item If $S = T= id_{\mathcal C_s} :\mathcal C_s \to \mathcal C_s$ is the identity functor, then the above $id_{\mathcal C}$-relative Grothendieck group $K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {id_{\mathcal C_s}}\mathcal C _s/X)$ is simply denoted by
$K(\mathcal C_s/X)$
and called the \emph{relative Grothendieck group of $X$} or the \emph{relative Grothendieck group of $\mathcal C_s$ over $X$}.
\end{enumerate}
All these relative Grothendieck groups are covariant functors from $\mathcal C_t$ to $\mathcal {AB}$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem} If $T(X)=pt$ is a terminal object in the category $\mathcal B$, then all the above relative Grothendieck groups are isomophic to the Grothendieck group $K(\mathcal C_s)$ of the
symmetric monoidal category $(\mathcal C_s,\sqcup)$:
$$K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(X)=pt) \cong K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /pt) \cong K(\mathcal C_s/pt) \cong K(\mathcal C_s).$$
\end{rem}
\begin{pro}\label{comma} Let $\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B \xleftarrow {T} \mathcal C_t$ be a cospan of categories as in Lemma \ref{relK},
$\Phi_b:\mathcal B \to \mathcal B'$ be a covariant functor preserving (chosen) coproducts and set $S':= \Phi_b \circ S$ and $T':=\Phi_b \circ T$. Then we get the canonical natural transformation from the functor $K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(-)): \mathcal C_t \to \mathcal {AB}$ to the functor $K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S'} \mathcal B' /T'(-)): \mathcal C_t \to \mathcal {AB}$:
$$\Phi_*: K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(-)) \to K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S'} \mathcal B' /T'(-)),$$
i.e., for a morphism $f \in hom_{\mathcal C_t}(X_1, X_2)$ the following diagram commutes in the category $\mathcal {AB}$:
$$\CD
K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(X_1))@> \Phi_* >> K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S'} \mathcal B' /T'(X_1)) \\
@V T(f)_* VV @VV T'(f)_*V \\
K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(X_2)) @>> \Phi_* >K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S'} \mathcal B' /T'(X_2)). \endCD
$$
Here $\Phi_*: K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(X)) \to K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S'} \mathcal B' /T'(X))$ is defined by
$$\Phi_*([(V, X, h)]:= [(V, X, \Phi_b(h))].$$
\end{pro}
\begin{proof} It suffices to show the commutativity $f_* \Phi_* = \Phi_* f_*$ in the square diagram above. First we observe the following morphisms:
$$\xymatrix{\hspace{4cm} S'(V) = \Phi_b(S(V)) \ar[d]^ {\Phi_b(h)} \hspace{2cm}\\
\hspace{4.2cm} T'(X_1) = \Phi_b(T(X_1)) \ar[d]^{T'(f)= \Phi_b(T(f))} \hspace{2cm}\\
\hspace{2.2cm} T'(X_2) =\Phi_b(T(X_2))} \hspace{2cm}$$
Then we get for $[(V, X_1, h)] \in K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(X_1))$:
\begin{align*}
T'(f)_*\Phi_*([(V, X_1, h)]) & = T'(f)_*([(V, X_1, \Phi_b(h))] \\
& = [(V, X_2, T'(f)\circ \Phi_b(h))] \\
& = [(V, X_2, \Phi_b(T(f) )\circ \Phi_b(h))] \\
& = [(V, X_2, \Phi_b(T(f) \circ h))] \\
& = \Phi_* ([(V, X_2, T(f) \circ h)]) \\
& = \Phi_* T(f)_* ([(V, X_1,h)]). \\
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
As explained in the introduction, when it comes to a categorification of an addtitive invariant $\alpha$ with values in an additive covariant functor $\mathcal H$, we need to consider \emph{$\alpha$-isomorphism class $[(V,X,h)]_{\alpha}$}. Then all the previous results hold even if we replace $[(V,X,h)]$ and $K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(-))$ with $[(V,X,h)]_{\alpha}$ and $K/{\alpha}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(-))$, respectively. And we get the following result:
\begin{thm}(A ``categorification" of an additive invariant) \label{main}
Let $\mathcal B$ be a category with a \emph{coproduct} $\sqcup$,
with the coproduct of any two objects and an initial object chosen, and let
$(\mathcal C_s, \sqcup)$ be a symmetric monoidal category. Consider a cospan of categories
$\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B \xleftarrow {T} \mathcal C_t$, with $S: (\mathcal C_s , \sqcup)\to (\mathcal B, \sqcup)$ a strict monoidal functor and $T:\mathcal C_t \to \mathcal B$ just a functor.
Let $\mathcal H: \mathcal B \to \mathcal {AB}$ be an additive functor on $\mathcal B$ with $T' = \mathcal H \circ T$. Then an additive invariant $\alpha$ on $Obj(\mathcal C_s)$ with values in $\mathcal H$ induces a natural transformation on $\mathcal C_t$:
$$\tau_{\alpha}:K_{\alpha}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow S \mathcal B/T(-)) \to T'(-); \, \tau_{\alpha}([(V, X, h)]_{\alpha}) := h_*(\alpha(V)).$$
Assume $T$ is full, and consider one of the cases (i) or (ii) as in Remark \ref{dist}. Then
$\tau_{\alpha}$ is the unique natural transformation satisfying
$$\tau_{\alpha}([V, S(V), \operatorname {id}_{S(V)}]_{\alpha}) = \alpha(V) \,\, \, \text {or} \, \, \, \tau_{\alpha}([V, V, \operatorname {id}_{S(V)}]_{\alpha}) = \alpha(V).$$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} Note that $\tau_{\alpha}$ is well-defined, since we consider $\alpha$-isomorphism
classes so that it does not depend on the chosen representative of the class $[(V,X,h)]_{\alpha}$. Then $\tau_{\alpha}$ becomes a group homomorphism by the definition of an additive invariant and the functoriality of $\mathcal H$:
\begin{align*}
\tau_{\alpha}\Bigl([(V, X, h)]_{\alpha} + [(V', X, h')]_{\alpha}\Bigr) & = \tau_{\alpha}([(V, X, h)]_{\alpha} \sqcup [(V', X, h')]_{\alpha}) \\
& = \tau_{\alpha}([(V \sqcup V', X, h + h')]_{\alpha}) \\
& = (h+h')_*(\alpha(V \sqcup V')) \\
& = (h+h')_*\Bigl( \left(i_{\frak f(V)} \right)_*\alpha(V) + \left(i_{\frak f(V')} \right)_*\alpha(V') \Bigr)\\
& = (h+h')_*(i_{\frak f(V)})_* (\alpha(V)) + (h+h')_*(i_{\frak f(V')})_*(\alpha(V'))\\
& = h_*(\alpha(V)) + h'_*(\alpha(V')) \\
& = \tau_{\alpha}([(V, X, h)]_{\alpha}) + \tau_{\alpha}([(V', X, h')]_{\alpha}),
\end{align*}
since $(h+h') \circ i_{\frak f(V)} =h$ and $(h+h') \circ i_{\frak f(V')} =h'$.
Finally assume $T$ is full so that there is a morphism $f\in hom_{\mathcal C_t}(S(V),X)$ in the case of (i), or
$f\in hom_{\mathcal C_t}(V,X)$ in the case of (ii), with $T(f)=h: S(V)\to T(X)$. Then
$$f_*([(V, S(V), id_{S(V)})]_{\alpha})=([(V, X, h)]_{\alpha}) \quad \text{or} \quad
f_*([(V, V, id_{S(V)})]_{\alpha})=([(V, X, h)]_{\alpha})\:,$$
which implies the uniqueness statement.
\end{proof}
\section {A categorification of an additive homology class}
In the rest of the paper we deal with $\mathcal B$ a category of spaces (with some possible extra structures), with the coproduct $\sqcup$ given by the usual disjoint union.
Examples are the category $\mathcal {TOP}_{(lc)}$ of (locally compact) topological spaces,
the category $\mathcal C_{(co)}^{\infty}$ of (closed oriented) $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds,
or the category $\mathcal V_k$ of algebraic varieties (i.e. reduced separated schemes of finite type) over a base field $k$.
And the additive covariant functor $\mathcal H : \mathcal B \to \mathcal {AB}$ is most of the time a suitable homology theory,
like usual homology $H_*(-;R)$ with coefficients in some commutative ring $R$ or a generalized homomolgy $H_*$, in case $\mathcal B= \mathcal {TOP}$.
Moreover, for $\mathcal B=\mathcal {TOP}_{lc}, \mathcal C^{\infty}$ or $\mathcal V_k$, we often consider them as categories only with respect to proper morphisms,
with $\mathcal H$ the (even degree) Borel-Moore homology $H^{BM}_{(2)*}(-;R)$ with coefficients in some commutative ring $R$ for $\mathcal B=\mathcal {TOP}_{lc}, \mathcal C^{\infty}$, or $\mathcal H=CH_*$ (resp. $CH_*\otimes R$) the Chow groups (with coefficients in $R$) for $\mathcal B=\mathcal V_k$.
Similarly, if we further restrict ourselfes
to projective morphisms in the algebraic context,
then $\mathcal H : \mathcal V_k \to \mathcal {AB}$ could also be a suitable Borel--Moore functor in the sense of \cite{Levine-Morel}.\\
The corresponding generalized relative Grothendieck groups only with respect to proper morphisms in $\mathcal B$
(and $\alpha$ a corresponding additive invariant) are then denoted by
$$K^{prop}_{(\alpha)}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(-)), K^{prop}_{(\alpha)}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /-) \quad \text{and} \quad K^{prop}_{(\alpha)}(\mathcal C_s /-).$$
Then one has a tautological group homomorphism (by just forgetting the properness condition)
$$ K^{prop}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(X)) \to K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(X)),$$
whose image is the subgroup of the generalized relative Grothendieck group $K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(X))$ generated by isomorphism classes
$[(V, X, h)]$
with $h:S(V) \to T(X)$ being a \emph {proper} map.
If we assume that $S(V)$ is compact (resp. complete in the algebraic context) for every $V\in ob(\mathcal C_s)$, then we have
$$K^{prop}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(X)) = K(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(X)).$$
Now our base category $\mathcal B$ of spaces is not only a symmetric monoidal category with respect to the disjoint union $\sqcup$ (with unit
the initial empty space $\emptyset$), but also with respect to the product of spaces $\times$ (with unit the terminal point space $\{pt\}$,
given by $Spec(k)$ in the algebraic context). Moreover, these structures are compatible in the sense that
$$(X\sqcup X')\times Y = (X\times Y) \sqcup (X'\times Y) \quad \text{and} \quad Y\times (X\sqcup X') = (Y\times X) \sqcup (Y\times X'),$$
with $\emptyset \times Y =\emptyset = Y\times \emptyset$. Similarly the class of proper (or projective) morphisms in $\mathcal B$ (in the algebraic context)
is stable under products $\times$. And we want to discuss the multiplicativity properties of our transformations
$$\tau_{\alpha}: K^{(prop)}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /-) \to \mathcal H$$
associated to an additive invariant on objects in $ob(\mathcal C_s)$ with values in a suitable additive functor $\mathcal H : \mathcal B \to \mathcal {AB}$ on the category $\mathcal B$, which may be functorial only with respect to proper (or projective) morphisms. Here we consider for simplicity only the most important case
that $\mathcal C_t =B$ and $T=\operatorname{id}_{\mathcal C_t}$.
Then it is easy see the following:
\begin{pro} \label{mult}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Assume that $\mathcal C_s$ is also a symmetric monoidal category with respect to a product $\times$, such that $S: \mathcal C=\mathcal C_s \to \mathcal B$ is strict monoidal with respect to $\sqcup$ as well as $\times$ (e.g. $S$ is the inclusion of a subcategory stable under $\sqcup$ and $\times$).
Then $K^{(prop)}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /X)$ has a functorial bilinear cross product structure:
$$ \times : K^{(prop)}(\mathcal C\xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /X) \times K^{(prop)}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /Y)\to K^{(prop)}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /X \times Y);$$
$$[(V, X, h)] \times [(W, Y, k)] := [(V \times W, X \times Y, h \times k)],$$
with $\times \circ (f_*\times g_*) = (f\times g)_*\circ \times$ for all (proper or projective) morphisms $f,g$ in $\mathcal B$.
\item Assume that the additive functor $\mathcal H : \mathcal B \to \mathcal {AB}$ is endowed with a bilinear cross poduct
$$\boxtimes: \mathcal H(X)\times \mathcal H(Y) \to \mathcal H(X\times Y)$$
such that $\boxtimes \circ (f_*\times g_*) = (f\times g)_*\circ \boxtimes$ for all (proper or projective) morphisms $f,g$ in $\mathcal B$.
Consider an additive invariant $\alpha$ on objects in $ob(\mathcal C)$ with values in $\mathcal H$, which is \emph{multiplicative} in the sense that
$$\alpha(V \times V') = \alpha(V)\boxtimes \alpha(V')\quad \text{for all $V,V'\in ob(\mathcal C)$}.$$
Then $K^{(prop)}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /-)$ also gets
a functorial bilinear cross product structure in the same way as before
and the associated natural transformation $\tau_{\alpha}: K^{(prop)}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C\xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /-) \to \mathcal H$
given in Theorem \ref{main}
commutes with the cross product, i.e., the following diagram commutes:
$$\begin{CD}
K^{(prop)}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B/X) \times K^{(prop)}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /Y ) @> \times >>
K^{(prop)}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /X \times Y ) \\
@V \tau_{\alpha} \times \tau_{\alpha} VV @VV \tau_{\alpha} V \\
\mathcal H(X) \times \mathcal H(Y) @>> \boxtimes > \mathcal H(X \times Y) \:.
\end{CD}
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof} We only need to prove the commutativity of the last diagram, which follows from
\begin{align*}
\tau_{\alpha} \left([(V, X, h)]_{\alpha} \times [(W, Y, k)]_{\alpha}\right) &=
\tau_{\alpha} \left([(V \times W, X \times Y, h \times k)]_{\alpha}\right)\\
&= ( h \times k)_*\left(\alpha(V \times W)\right)\\
&= ( h \times k)_*\left(\alpha(V) \boxtimes \alpha(W)\right)\\
&= h_*(\alpha(V))\boxtimes k_*(\alpha(W))\\
&= \tau_{\alpha} \left([(V, X, h)]_{\alpha}\right) \boxtimes
\tau_{\alpha} \left([(W, Y, k)]_{\alpha}\right).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Let us illustrate this result in some examples. First we consider the differential-topological context with $\mathcal B = \mathcal {TOP}_{lc}$ the category of locally compact topological spaces,
and $\mathcal C$ the category $\mathcal C_{(o)}^{\infty}$ or $\mathcal C^{\infty}_{\mathbb C}$ of all differentiable (oriented) or stable complex $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds, with $S: \mathcal C\to \mathcal B$ the forget functor.
Of course $S$ commutes with $\sqcup$ and $\times$ for $\mathcal C=\mathcal C^{\infty}$ the category
of $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds. Moreover, any such manifold $V$ has a fundamental class
$[V]\in H_*^{BM}(V;\mathbb Z_2)$ in Borel-Moore homology with $\mathbb Z_2$-coefficients.
And this fundamental class is additive and multiplicative:
$$[V\sqcup V']= [V]+[V'] \quad \text{and} \quad [V\times V'].$$
When it comes to an oriented (or a stable complex) $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifold $V$, then this has
a fundamental class $$[V]\in H_*^{BM}(V;\mathbb Z)$$ in Borel-Moore homology with $\mathbb Z$-coefficients.
And we view them as a category with the same morphisms as for the underlying
$\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds, i.e. with $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-maps between them (so that diffeomorphisms are the isomorphisms).
Then the disjoint union $V\sqcup V'$ or product $V\times V'$ of two oriented (or stable complex) $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds $V, V'$ can also be oriented (or given the structure of a
stable complex) $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifold. And there is a natural choice for this so that
the fundamental class $[-]$ becomes additive and multiplicative as before.
In this way we also get the symmetric monoidal structures $\sqcup$ and $\times$ on the category
of oriented (or a stable complex) $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds, with the forget functor $S$ to
$\mathcal {TOP}_{lc}$ (or also to $\mathcal C^{\infty}$) commuting with these structures.
Also note that
$$s_*[V\times V']= (-1)^{dim(V)\cdot dim(V')} [V'\times V]
\in H^{BM}_{dim(V)+dim(V')}(V'\times V;\mathbb Z)$$
for two \emph{connected} oriented manifolds $V,V'$ and $s: V\times V'\stackrel{\sim}{\to} V'\times V$ the symmetry isomorphism, since $H^{BM}_{*}(-;\mathbb Z)$ is \emph{graded-commutative} with respect to the usual cross product $\boxtimes$.
\begin{cor}\label{smooth-gen}
Let $\mathcal C$ be the category $\mathcal C^{\infty}_{(o)}$ or $\mathcal C^{\infty}_{\mathbb C}$ of all (oriented) or stable complex smooth manifolds.
Consider a contravariant functorial characteristic class
$$c\ell(E) \in H^*(-; \mathbb Z_2) \quad \text{or} \quad c\ell(E) \in H^{2*}(-;R)$$
of (isomorphism classes of) real (oriented) or complex vector bundles, which is
\emph{multiplicative and normalized}, i.e.:
$$c\ell(E \oplus F) = c\ell(E) \cup c\ell(F)\quad \text{and} \quad 1=c\ell^0(E)\in H^0(-;R).$$
For a smooth
(oriented or stable complex) manifold $V$, let
$$\alpha(V) := c\ell(TV) \cap [V]\in H_*^{BM}(-;R).$$
Then the invariant $\alpha$ is \emph{additive and multiplicative}.
By Theorem \ref{main},
there exists a unique natural transformation
$$\tau_{c\ell}: K^{prop}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal {TOP}_{lc} /-) \to H^{BM}_*(-;R)$$
such that for a smooth (oriented or stable complex) manifold $V$
$$\tau_{c\ell}([(V, V, id_{V})]_{\alpha}) = c\ell(TV) \cap [V].$$
And $\tau_{c\ell}$ is also multiplicative (by Proposition \ref{mult}), i.e.:
$$\tau_{c\ell}([(V, X, h)]_{\alpha} \times [(W, Y, k)]_{\alpha}) = \tau_{c\ell}([(V, X, h)]_{\alpha}) \boxtimes \tau_{c\ell}([(W, Y, k)]_{\alpha}).$$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The invariant $\alpha$ is additive by the functoriality of $c\ell$ and the projection formula
for the inclusions $i: V\to V\sqcup V'$ and $i': V'\to V\sqcup V'$:
\begin{align*}
\alpha(V\sqcup V')&= c\ell(T(V\sqcup V'))\cap [V\sqcup V']\\
&= c\ell(T(V\sqcup V'))\cap (i_*[V]+ i'_*[V'])\\
&=i_*\left(i^*c\ell(T(V\sqcup V'))\cap[V]\right) +
i'_*\left(i'^*c\ell(T(V\sqcup V'))\cap[V']\right)\\
&= i_*\left(c\ell(TV)\cap[V]\right) +
i'_*\left(c\ell(T V')\cap[V']\right)\\
&= i_*\alpha(V)+ i'_*\alpha(V').
\end{align*}
The invariant $\alpha$ is multiplicative by the functoriality and multiplicativity of $c\ell$:
\begin{align*}
\alpha(V\times V')&= c\ell(T(V\times V'))\cap [V\times V']\\
&=\left( c\ell(TV)\boxtimes c\ell(TV')\right) \cap \left([V]\boxtimes [V']\right)\\
&=\left( c\ell(TV)\cap [V]\right) \boxtimes \left( c\ell(TV')\cap [V']\right)\\
&=\alpha(V)\boxtimes \alpha(V').
\end{align*}
Note that in the third equality there is no sign appearing, since we only consider
even degree characteristic classes $c\ell$ in the context of oriented or stable complex
manifolds.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} \label{or-preserving}
In the context of oriented manifolds in the above corollary, $(V, X,h)$ and $(V', X, h)$ are $\alpha$-isomorphic if and only if the
isomorphism $\phi: V \to V'$ (with $h=h'\circ S(\phi)$) is orientation preserving. Indeed, if $\phi: V \to V'$ is orientation preserving,
then $S(\phi)_*[V] = [V']$ and $\phi^*TV' \simeq TV$ as oriented vector bundles. Hence we have
\begin{align*}
S(\phi)_*(\alpha(V)) & = S(\phi)_*(c\ell(TV) \cap [V]) \\
& = S(\phi)_*(S(\phi)^*c\ell(TV') \cap [V])\\
& = c\ell(TV') \cap S(\phi)_*[V] \,\, \, \,\text {(by the projection formula)}\\
& = c\ell(TV') \cap [V'] = \alpha(V').
\end{align*}
Hence $(V, X,h)$ and $(V', X, h)$ are $\alpha$-isomorphic. Conversely, if $(V, X,h)$ and $(V', X, h)$ are $\alpha$-isomorphic, then we have $S(\phi)_*(\alpha(V)) = \alpha(V')$, i.e., $S(\phi)_*(c\ell(TV) \cap [V]) = c\ell(TV') \cap [V']$. Since $c\ell$ is normalized, we have $c\ell = 1 + \cdots$, hence $c\ell(TV) \cap [V] = [V] + \text {lower dimensional classes}$. Therefore we have
$$S(\phi)_*[V] = [V'].$$
Hence $\phi:V \to V'$ is orientation preserving.
Similarly $\alpha$ is an isomorphism invariant in the context of unoriented manifolds.
In the context of stable complex manifolds, $\alpha$ is at least
invariant under a diffeomorphism $\phi: V\to V'$ of stable complex manifolds who preserves the stable almost complex structure (and therefore also the orientation) in the sense that $\phi^*TV' \simeq TV$ as stable complex vector bundles.
\end{rem}
If we consider in Corollary \ref{smooth-gen} all \emph{compact} (oriented) or stable complex smooth manifolds,
then we get similar results for any \emph{generalized homology theory} $\mathcal H_*$, which has a corresponding fundamental class
$[V]\in \mathcal H_*(V)$ for a compact (oriented) or stable complex smooth manifold $V$, e.g. for a complex oriented (co)homology theory
and $V$ a stable complex smooth manifold.\\
Let us now switch to some counterparts in the algebraic geometric context, with $\mathcal B=\mathcal V_k$ the category of algebraic varieties
(i.e. reduced separated schemes of finite type) over a base field $k$, and $S: \mathcal C\to \mathcal V_k$ the inclusion functor of a (full) subcategory
$\mathcal C$ stable under isomorphisms, disjoint union $\sqcup$ and product $\times$, with $\emptyset, Spec(k)\in ob(\mathcal C)$.
First we consider the subcategory $\mathcal C= \mathcal V_k^{sm}$ of smooth varieties. The proof of the following result is identical to that of
Corollary \ref{smooth-gen}.
\begin{cor} \label{cor-alg}
Consider the cospan of categories
$$\mathcal V_k^{sm} \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k \xleftarrow {id_{\mathcal V_k}} \mathcal V_k,$$
together with a contravariant functorial characteristic class
$$c\ell(E) \in CH^*(-)\otimes R\quad \text{or $\quad c\ell(E) \in H^{2*}(-;R)\:\:$ for $k=\mathbb C$}$$
of (isomorphism classes of) algebraic vector bundles, which is
\emph{multiplicative} in the sense that $$c\ell(E) = c\ell(E') \cup c\ell(E'')$$ for any short exact sequence
$0\to E'\to E\to E''\to 0$ of such vector bundles.
Here $CH^*(-)$ is the operational Chow cohomology group of
\cite{Fulton-book}. For a smooth algebraic manifold $V$, let
$$\alpha(V) := c\ell(TV) \cap [V]\in \mathcal H_*(-)\otimes R,$$
with $[V]$ the fundamental class of $V$ for $\mathcal H_*=CH_*$ the Chow group or
$H_{2*}^{BM}$ the even degree Borel-Moore homology in the case of $k=\mathbb C$.
Then the isomorphism invariant $\alpha$ is \emph{additive and multiplicative}.
By Theorem \ref{main},
there exists a unique natural transformation
$$\tau_{c\ell}: K^{prop}(\mathcal V_k^{sm} \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k /-) \to \mathcal H_*(-)\otimes R$$
such that for a smooth algebraic manifold $V$
$$\tau_{c\ell}([(V, V, id_{V})]) = c\ell(TV) \cap [V].$$
And $\tau_{c\ell}$ is also multiplicative (by Proposition \ref{mult}), i.e.:
$$\tau_{c\ell}([(V, X, h)] \times [(W, Y, k)]) = \tau_{c\ell}([(V, X, h)]) \boxtimes \tau_{c\ell}([(W, Y, k)]).$$
\end{cor}
\begin{rem} \label{rem-LM}
If we only consider projective morphisms and (pure dimensional) quasi-projective smooth varieties, then a similar result holds for
$\mathcal H_*$ an \emph{oriented Borel-Moore weak homology theory} in the sense of \cite{Levine-Morel} and
$c\ell$ a multiplicative characteristic class as in \cite[\S 4.1.8]{Levine-Morel},
which
is, for a line bundle $L$, given by a normalized power series in the first Chern class operator of $L$
with respect to $\mathcal H_*$:
$$c\ell(L)=f(\tilde{c}_1(L)), \quad \text{with $f(t)\in 1+t\cdot \mathcal H_*(pt)[[t]]$.}$$
Here the fundamental class of a quasi-projective smooth variety $V$ of pure dimension $d$ is defined as
$$[V]:=k^*1_{pt} \in \mathcal H_d(V) \quad \text{for $k: V\to pt$ the constant smooth morphism.}$$
\end{rem}
Next we consider the subcategory $ \mathcal C= \mathcal V^{(l)pd}_k$ of (locally) pure-dimensional algebraic varieties over $k$.
Let us first recall the universal property of the \emph{Nash blow-up}
$\nu: \widehat X \to X$ of a pure $d$-dimensional algebraic variety $X\in Obj(V^{pd}_k)$, with
$\widehat {TX}$ the \emph{tautological Nash tangent bundle} over $\widehat X$:
Let $\pi: \overline{X}\to X$ be a proper birational map with a surjection $\pi^*\Omega^1_X\to \overline{\Omega}$
to a locally free sheaf $\overline{\Omega}$ of rank $d$ on $\overline{X}$. Then the Nash blow-up
$\nu: \widehat X \to X$ is
universal in the sense that
$\pi: \overline{X}\to X$ factors through $\pi': \overline{X}\to \widehat X$,
with $\overline{\Omega}\simeq \pi'^*\widehat \Omega$, where the tautological Nash tangent bundle
$\widehat {TX}$ over $\widehat X$ corresponds to the dual of $\widehat \Omega$.
\begin{defn} Let $c\ell$ be a functorial characteristic class of algebraic vector bundles
as in Corollary \ref{cor-alg}. For a pure $d$-dimensional algebraic variety $X\in Obj(V^{pd}_k)$, the \emph{$c\ell$-Mather homology class}
$c\ell^{Ma}_*(X)\in \mathcal H_*(X)\otimes R$ is defined to be
$$c\ell^{Ma}_*(X):= \nu_*(c\ell(\widehat {TX}) \cap [\widehat X])=\pi_*(c\ell(\overline{TX}) \cap [\overline{X}]).$$
Here $\pi: \overline{X}\to X$ is any \emph{proper birational} map with a surjection $\pi^*\Omega^1_X\to \overline{\Omega}$
to a locally free sheaf $\overline{\Omega}$ of rank $d$ on $\overline{X}$, with the vector bundle $\overline{TX}$ corresponding to the dual of $\overline{\Omega}$. This definition is extended to a locally pure-dimensional variety $X\in Obj(V^{lpd}_k)$ by additivity over the connected components of $X$.
\end{defn}
Note that the second equality in the definition above follows from the projection formula by $\overline{TX}\simeq \pi'^*\widehat {TX}$
and $\pi'_*[\overline{X}]=[\widehat X]$, since $\pi': \overline{X}\to \widehat X$ is a proper birational map
see \cite[Example 4.2.9(b)]{Fulton-book}
in the case of the Chern-Mather class $c^{Ma}$ corresponding to
$c\ell=c$ the Chern class).
\begin{cor}\label{mather}
Consider the cospan of categories
$$\mathcal V_k^{(l)pd} \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k \xleftarrow {id_{\mathcal V_k}} \mathcal V_k,$$
together with a contravariant functorial characteristic class
$$c\ell(E) \in CH^*(-)\otimes R\quad \text{or $\quad c\ell(E) \in H^{2*}(-;R)\:\:$ for $k=\mathbb C$}$$
of (isomorphism classes of) algebraic vector bundles, which is
\emph{multiplicative}.
Here $CH^*(-)$ is the operational Chow cohomology group
\cite[Definition 17.3]{Fulton-book}. For a (locally) pure-dimensional algebraic variety $V$, let
$$\alpha(V) := c\ell^{Ma}_*(V)\in \mathcal H_*(V)\otimes R,$$
for $\mathcal H_*=CH_*$ the Chow group or
$H_{2*}^{BM}$ the even degree Borel-Moore homology in the case of $k=\mathbb C$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The isomorphism invariant $\alpha$ is \emph{additive and multiplicative}.
By Theorem \ref{main},
there exists a unique natural transformation
$$\tau_{c\ell^{Ma}_*}: K^{prop}(\mathcal V_k^{(l)pd} \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k /-) \to \mathcal H_*(-)\otimes R$$
such that for a (locally) pure-dimensional algebraic variety $V$
$$\tau_{c\ell^{Ma}_*}([(V, V, id_{V})]) = c\ell^{Ma}_*(V).$$
And $\tau_{c\ell^{Ma}_*}$ is also multiplicative (by Proposition \ref{mult}), i.e.:
$$\tau_{c\ell^{Ma}_*}([(V, X, h)] \times [(W, Y, k)]) = \tau_{c\ell^{Ma}_*}([(V, X, h)]) \boxtimes \tau_{c\ell^{Ma}_*}([(W, Y, k)]).$$
\item When $c\ell = c$ is the Chern class, then the following diagram commutes for $k$ of characteristic zero:
$$\xymatrix{K^{prop} (\mathcal V_k^{(l)pd} \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k/X) \ar[dr]_ {\tau_{c^{Ma}_*}}\ar[rr]^ {\mathcal{E}u} && F(X) \ar[dl]^{c_*^{Mac}}\\& \mathcal H_*(X)\:.}$$
Here the multiplicative natural transformation $\mathcal{E}u: K^{prop}(\mathcal V_k^{(l)pd} \xrightarrow {C} \mathcal V_k /X)\to F(X)$ to the group of constructible functions is defined by the isomorphism invariant $\alpha(V):=Eu_V$, where $Eu_V$ is the local Euler obstruction of the (locally) pure-dimensional variety $V$.
This invariant is also additive and multiplicative.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} (1) That the isomorphism invariant $\alpha(V) := c\ell^{Ma}_*(V)$ is additive follows from the fact,
that it commutes with restriction to open subsets (e.g. a connected component). For the multiplicativity we can then assume
that $V,V'$ are pure dimensional. Let $\pi: \overline{V}\to V$ be a proper birational map with a surjection $\pi^*\Omega^1_X\to \overline{\Omega}$
to a locally free sheaf $\overline{\Omega}$, and similarly for $V'$. Then $\pi\times \pi': \overline{V}\times \overline{V'}\to V\times V'$
is a proper birational map with a surjection
$$(\pi\times \pi')^*\Omega^1_{V\times V'}\simeq \pi^*\Omega^1_V\boxtimes \pi'^*\Omega^1_{V'}\to \overline{\Omega}\boxtimes \overline{\Omega'}$$
so that
\begin{align*}
c\ell^{Ma}_*(V\times V')&= (\pi\times \pi')_*\left( c\ell (\overline{TV}\boxtimes \overline{TV'})\cap [\overline{V}\times \overline{V'}] \right)\\
&= (\pi\times \pi')_*\left( (c\ell(\overline{TV})\cap [\overline{V}])\boxtimes ( c\ell(\overline{TV'})\cap [\overline{V'}]) \right)\\
&= \left( \pi_*(c\ell(\overline{TV})\cap [\overline{V}])\right) \boxtimes \left( \pi'_*(c\ell(\overline{TV'})\cap [\overline{V'}] )\right)\\
&= c\ell^{Ma}_*(V) \boxtimes c\ell^{Ma}_*(V').
\end{align*}
(2) follows from the construction \cite{MacPherson} of the Chern class transformation
$$c_*^{Mac}: F(X) \to H^{BM}_{2*}(X;\mathbb Z)$$
for the case $k=\mathbb C$.
MacPherson defined $c_*^{Mac}(Eu_V) = (i_V)_*c_*^{Ma}(V)$ for $i_V: V\to X$ the inclusion of a pure-dimensional subvariety,
with $Eu_V$ his famous local Euler obstruction. Namely, the ``constructible function" counterpart of the Chern--Mather homology class has to be the local Euler obstruction, which is one of his key observations. This is extended to locally pure-dimensional subvarieties by additivity over connected components,
e.g. the local Euler obstruction is then by definition the sum of the local Euler obstructions of all connected components.
The algebraic counterpart of the MacPherson Chern class transformation
$$c_*^{Mac}: F(X) \to CH_*(X)$$
for a base field $k$ of characteristic zero was constructed in \cite{Ke} (at least if $X$ is embeddable into a smooth variety.
The general case can be reduced to this using the method of Chow envelopes as in \cite[Chapter 18.3]{Fulton-book}).
Moreover, Kennedy also explained in \cite {Ke} that $Eu_V\in F(V)$ is a constructible function, where he used the algebraic definition
of the local Euler obstruction as in \cite[Example 4.2.9] {Fulton-book}(due to Gonzalez-Sprinberg and Verdier):
$$Eu_V(p)=\int_{\pi^{-1}(p)} c \left(\overline{TV}|_ {\pi^{-1}(p)} \right) \cap s \left(\pi^{-1}(p),\overline{V} \right),$$
with $\pi: \overline{V}\to V$ and $\overline{TV}$ are as in the definition of the $c\ell$-Mather homology classes.
Here $s\bigl(\pi^{-1}(p),\overline{V} \bigr)$ is the Segre class of the fiber $\pi^{-1}(p)$ in $\overline{V}$ in the sense of
\cite[Chapter 4.2]{Fulton-book}. Then the multiplicativity of $Eu_V$ follows as in (1) using \cite[Example 4.2.5]{Fulton-book}:
$$s \Bigl(\pi^{-1}(p)\times \pi'^{-1}(p'),\overline{V}\times \overline{V'} \Bigr)=s \bigl(\pi^{-1}(p),\overline{V} \bigr)\boxtimes s \bigl(\pi'^{-1}(p'),\overline{V'} \bigr).$$
Here the bilinear (functorial) cross product
$$\boxtimes: F(X)\times F(Y)\to F(X\times Y)$$
is just defined by $\beta\boxtimes \beta' ((p,p')):=\beta(p)\cdot \beta'(p')$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} Assume that the base field $k$ is of characteristic zero.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Using resolution of singularities one can show that for a given algebraic variety $X$ there are finitely many irreducible subvarieties $V$'s and integers $a_V$'s such that
$$1\hskip-3.5pt1_X = \sum_{V \subset X} a_V Eu_V \quad \text{, thus} \quad c_*^{Mac}(1\hskip-3.5pt1_X) = \sum_{V \subset X} a_V c_*^{Ma}(V).$$ Whether $X$ is singular or not, $c_*^{Mac}(X):=c_*^{Mac}(1\hskip-3.5pt1_X)$ is called MacPherson's Chern class or Chern--Schwarz--MacPherson class of $X$ (see \cite{BrSc, Ke, MacPherson, Schw1, Schw2}).
For $X$ complete, it follows from the naturality of the transformation $c_*^{Mac}$ with respect to the proper constant map
$X\to pt$, that the degree of the $0$-dimensional component of $c_0^{Mac}(X)$ is equal to the Euler--Poincar\'e characteristic:
$$\int_X c_0^{Mac}(X) = \chi(X).$$
\item Similarly, the degree of the $0$-dimensional component of the Chern--Mather class $c_*^{Ma}(X)$ for $X$ pure-dimensional and complete
is the Euler--Poincar\'e characteristic of $X$ weighted by the local Euler obstruction $Eu_X$:
$$\int_X c_0^{Ma}(X) = \chi(X;Eu_X).$$
For $X$ a connected \emph{complex affine} algebraic variety of pure dimension,
the \emph{global Euler obstruction $Eu(X)$} introduced and studied in \cite{STV} is a suitable ``localization'' of the $0$-dimensional component of the Chern--Mather class $c_*^{Ma}(X)$:
$$H_0(X;\mathbb Z)\simeq \mathbb Z \ni Eu(X)\mapsto c_0^{Ma}(X) \in H^{BM}_0(X;\mathbb Z) $$
under the natural map $H_0(X;\mathbb Z)\to H^{BM}_0(X;\mathbb Z) $.
\item The above ``$c\ell$-Mather class" transformation $\tau_{c\ell^{Ma}_*}: K^{prop}(\mathcal V_k^{(l)pd} \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k /-) \to \mathcal H_*(-)\otimes R$
could be considered as a very na\"\i ve theory of characteristic classes of possibly singular algebraic varieties (in any characteristic).
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}
So far we dealt with the covariance and multiplicativity of the functor $K_{(\alpha)}(\mathcal C_s \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal B /T(-))$. Next we discuss the contravariance
with respect to (suitable) ``smooth morphisms'', where we start with the algebraic geometric context with $\mathcal B=\mathcal V_k$ the category of algebraic varieties over $k$ and $S: \mathcal C\to \mathcal V_k$ the inclusion functor of the (full) subcategories $\mathcal C= \mathcal V_k^{sm}$ resp. $\mathcal V_k^{lci}$ of \emph{smooth} resp. \emph{local complete intersection} varieties.
Here $X$ is called a local complete intersection, if it has a regular closed embedding $i: X\to M$ into a smooth variety $M$
(i.e. the constant morphism $X\to pt$ is a local complete intersection morphism in the sense of \cite[Chapter 6.6]{Fulton-book}).
Then $X$ has an intrinsic virtual tangent bundle
$$TX:=i^*TM - N_XM \in K^0(X),$$
with $N_XM$ the normal bundle of the regular embedding $i: X\to M$, i.e. $TX\in K^0(X)$ doesn't depend on the choice of this embedding
(compare \cite[Appendix B.7.6]{Fulton-book}). Of course any smooth variety $M$ is local complete intersection, with $TM$ (the class of) the usual
tangent bundle $TM$ (just choose $i=id_M: M\to M$). Note that the (virtual) tangent bundle commutes with restriction to open subsets
(e.g. connected components). Similarly, if $f: X\to Y$ is a smooth morphism with $Y$ smooth (resp. a local complete intersection),
then also $X$ is smooth (resp. a local complete intersection), and in the smooth context we have a short exact sequence of vector bundles
\begin{equation}\label{eq-s1}
0\to T_f \to TX \to f^*TY\to 0.
\end{equation}
with $T_f$ the bundle of tangents to the fiber of the smooth morphism $f$. In particular
\begin{equation}\label{eq-s2}
TX = f^*TY + T_f \in K^0(X),
\end{equation}
and this equality in the Grothendieck group $K^0(-)$ of algebraic vector bundles even holds for a smooth morphism $f: X\to Y$ between local complete
intersections with $TX$ resp. $TY$ the corresponding virtual tangent bundle (compare e.g. with \cite[Proposition 7.1] {Fulton-Lang}as well as
\cite[Appendix B.7]{Fulton-book}). Finally, the class of smooth morphisms is stable under base-change, with $T_{f'}\simeq h'^*T_f$ for a fiber square as in the following
\begin{lem} \label{lemma} The functor $K^{prop}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k /-)$, with $\mathcal C= \mathcal V_k^{sm}$ (resp. $\mathcal V_k^{lci}$)
the subcategory of smooth (resp. local complete intersection) varieties,
becomes a contravariant functor for smooth morphisms on the category $\mathcal V_k$, where for a smooth morphism $f:X \to Y$ the pullback homomorphism
$$f^*: K^{prop}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k /Y)\to K^{prop}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k /X)$$
is defined by
$$f^*([(V, Y, h)]) := [V',X,h'],$$
using the fiber square
$$\CD
V'@> {f'} >> V\\
@V h' VV @VV h V\\
X@> {f} >> Y. \endCD
$$
\end{lem}
Of course here we also use the fact that taking such fiber squares commutes with disjoint unions in $V$ resp. $V'$.
\begin{thm}[Verdier-type Riemann--Roch] \label{Verdier-RR}
Consider the cospan of categories
$$\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k \xleftarrow {id_{\mathcal V_k}} \mathcal V_k,$$
with $\mathcal C= \mathcal V_k^{sm}$ (resp. $\mathcal V_k^{lci}$)
the subcategory of \emph{smooth} (resp. \emph{local complete intersection}) varieties.
Let $c\ell$ be a contravariant functorial characteristic class
$$c\ell(E) \in CH^*(-)\otimes R\quad \text{or $\quad c\ell(E) \in H^{2*}(-;R)\:\:$ for $k=\mathbb C$}$$
of (isomorphism classes of) algebraic vector bundles, which is
multiplicative (and normalized in case $\mathcal C= \mathcal V_k^{lci}$, so that it can also be defined on virtual vector bundles in $K^0(-)$).
For a smooth (resp. local complete intersection) variety $V$, let
$$\alpha(V) := c\ell(TV)\cap [V]\in \mathcal H_*(V)\otimes R$$
be the corresponding (virtual) characteristic homology class, with
$\mathcal H_*=CH_*$ the Chow group or
$H_{2*}^{BM}$ the even degree Borel-Moore homology in case $k=\mathbb C$.
The isomorphism invariant $\alpha$ is \emph{additive}, so that
by Theorem \ref{main}
there exists a unique natural transformation
$$\tau_{c\ell}: K^{prop}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {C} \mathcal V_k /-) \to \mathcal H_*(-)\otimes R,$$
such that for a smooth (resp. local complete intersection) algebraic variety $V$
$$\tau_{c\ell}([(V, V, id_{V})]) = c\ell(TV)\cap [V].$$
Then this natural transformation $\tau_{c\ell}$ satisfies the following Verdier-type Riemann--Roch formula: For a smooth morphism $f:X \to Y$ the following diagram commutes:
$$\CD
K^{prop}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal{V}_k /Y) @> {\tau_{c\ell}} >> \mathcal H_*(Y)\otimes R\\
@V f^* VV @VV c\ell(T_f) \cap f^* V\\
K^{prop}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal{V}_k /X) @>> {\tau_{c\ell}} > \mathcal H_*(X)\otimes R. \endCD
$$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} On one hand we have:
\begin{align*}
\tau_{c\ell}(f^*([(V, Y, h)])) & = \tau_{c\ell}([(V', X, h')]) \\
& = h'_*(c\ell(TV') \cap [V']).
\end{align*}
On the other hand we have
\begin{align*}
& c\ell(T_f) \cap f^*(\tau_{c\ell}([(V, Y, h)]) \\
& = c\ell(T_f) \cap f^* (h_* (c\ell (TV) \cap [V]))
\end{align*}
For a fiber square
$$\CD
V' @> f'>> V \\
@V h' VV @VV h V\\
X@>> f > Y \endCD$$
with $h:V \to Y$ proper and $f:X \to Y$ smooth,
we have the base change identity (see \cite[Proposition 1.7]{Fulton-book}):
$$f^*h_* = h'_*{f'}^*: \mathcal H_*(V)\otimes R \to \mathcal H_*(X)\otimes R \:.$$
Hence the above equality continues as follows:
\begin{align*}
& = c\ell(T_f) \cap h'_*{f'}^* (c\ell (TV) \cap [V]))\\
& = h'_* ({h'}^*c\ell(T_f) \cap {f'}^* (c\ell (TV) \cap [V])) \, \text {(by the projection formula)}\\
& = h'_* (c\ell(T_{f'}) \cap {f'}^* (c\ell (TV) \cap [V])) \, \text {(by $T_{f'}\simeq h'^*T_f$)}\\
& = h'_* \left (c\ell(T_{f'}) \cap (c\ell ({f'}^*TV) \cap {f'}^*[V]) \right ) \, \text {(by functoriality of $c\ell(-)\cap$)}\\
& = h'_* \left( (c\ell(T_{f'}) \cup c\ell ({f'}^*TV)) \cap [V']\right)\\
&= h'_* \left (c\ell(TV') \cap [V'] \right )
\end{align*}
by the multiplicativity of $c\ell$ and (\ref{eq-s1}) resp. (\ref{eq-s2}). Of course we also used the relation
$[V']={f'}^*[V]$ for the fundamental classes.
Therefore we get that
$$\tau_{c\ell}(f^*([(V, Y, h)])) = c\ell(T_f) \cap f^*(\tau_{c\ell}([(V, Y, h)]),$$
and the above diagram of the theorem commutes.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} \label{rem-LM2}
If we
consider only projective morphisms and (pure dimensional) quasi-projective local complete intersection (resp. smooth)
varieties, then a similar Verdier-type Riemann--Roch formula holds for
$\mathcal H_*$ an \emph{oriented Borel-Moore (weak) homology theory} in the sense of \cite{Levine-Morel} and
$c\ell$ a multiplicative characteristic class as in \cite[\S 7.4.1 resp. \S 4.1.8]{Levine-Morel},
which
is, for a line bundle $L$, given by a normalized power series in the first Chern class operator of $L$
with respect to $\mathcal H_*$:
$$c\ell(L)=f(\tilde{c}_1(L)), \quad \text{with $f(t)\in 1+t\cdot \mathcal H_*(pt)[[t]]$.}$$
Here the fundamental class of a quasi-projective local complete intersection (resp. smooth) variety $V$ of pure dimension $d$ is defined as
$$[V]:=k^*1_{pt} \in \mathcal H_d(V) \quad \text{for $k: V\to pt$ the constant local complete intersection (resp. smooth) morphism}$$
so that $[V']={f'}^*[V]$ for a smooth morphism $f': V'\to V$ by functoriality of $f'^*$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem} Assume that the base field $k$ is of characteristic zero.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The interesting thing about the motivic Hirzebruch class or MacPherson Chern class transformation
$${T_y}_*: K^{prop}(\mathcal V^{sm}_k\xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k /-) \to \mathcal H_*(-)\otimes \mathbb Q[y]
\quad \text{or} \quad
c^{Mac}_*: K^{prop}(\mathcal V^{sm}_k\xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k /-) \to \mathcal H_*(-)$$
is for example, that in the above discussions, the na\" \i ve relative Grothendieck group $K^{prop}(\mathcal V^{sm}_k\xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k /X)$ can be replaced by the much smaller and more interesting relative Grothendieck group $K_0(\mathcal V_k/X)$, by imposing one more \emph{ additivity relation}, as recalled in the introduction:
$$[V \xrightarrow h X] = [W \xrightarrow {h|_W} X] + [V \setminus W \xrightarrow {h|_{V \setminus W}} X],$$
with $W \subset V$ is a closed subvariety of $V$. So these two transformations factorize over the tautological surjective transformation
$$ K^{prop}(\mathcal V^{sm}_k\xrightarrow {S} \mathcal V_k /-) \to K_0(\mathcal V_k/-).$$
In particular the multiplicativity result of Corollary \ref{cor-alg} and the Verdier-type Riemann--Roch formula of Theorem \ref{Verdier-RR}
are true for the motivic Hirzebruch class and the MacPherson Chern class transformation (compare \cite{BSY}).
\item The corresponding Hirzebruch class $T_{y*}(X)=T_{y*}(id_X)$ and MacPherson Chern class $c_*^{Mac}(X)=c_*^{Mac}(id_X)$
of an algebraic variety $X$ is not only invariant under an isomorphism, but also under a proper \emph{(geometric) bijection}:
$$f_*\left(T_{y*}(X)\right)=T_{y*}(Y) \quad \text{and} \quad f_*\left(c_*^{Mac}(X)\right)=c_*^{Mac}(Y)$$
for a proper morphism $f: X\to Y$ such that the induced map $f: X(\bar{k}) \to Y(\bar{k})$ is a bijection of sets (with $\bar{k}$ an algebraic closure of $k$),
since then $f_*([id_X])=[id_Y]$ by Noetherian induction using additivity and generic smoothness of $f$.
Of course for MacPherson's Chern class $c_*^{Mac}(X)=c_*^{Mac}(1\hskip-3.5pt1_X)$
this also follows from $f_*1\hskip-3.5pt1_X=1\hskip-3.5pt1_Y\in F(Y)$ for a proper (geometric) bijection $f: X\to Y$.
Similarly, Baum--Fulton--MacPherson's Todd class $td^{BFM}_*(X)=td^{BFM}_*([\mathcal O_X])$ is invariant under a such a proper (geometric) bijection
(for $k$ of any characteristic),
since $f_*[\mathcal O_X]=[\mathcal O_Y]\in G_0(Y)$. Finally,
Goresky--MacPherson's or Cappell--Shaneson's homology $L$-class $L_*(X)=L_*^{CS}([\mathcal {IC}_X])$ of a (locally) pure-dimensional compact complex algebraic variety $X$ is not only invariant under a proper bijection, but more generally under taking the normalization of $X$.
\end{enumerate} \end{rem}
Let us finish this section with a counterpart in the differential-topological context, with $\mathcal B=\mathcal C^{\infty}$ the category
of $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds and $S: \mathcal C\to \mathcal C^{\infty}$ the forget functor from the
the category $\mathcal C = \mathcal C_{(o)}^{\infty}$ or $\mathcal C^{\infty}_{\mathbb C}$ of all differentiable (oriented) or stable complex $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds.
\begin{lem} \label{lemma2} The functor $K^{prop}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal C^{\infty}/-)$ for $\mathcal C = \mathcal C_{(o)}^{\infty}$ or $\mathcal C^{\infty}_{\mathbb C}$
becomes a contravariant functor for a ((complex) oriented) submersion $f:X \to Y$ of $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds.
Here the pullback homomorphism
$$f^*: K^{prop}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal C^{\infty} /Y)\to K^{prop}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {C} \mathcal C^{\infty}/X)$$
is defined by
$$f^*([(V, Y, h)]) := [V',X,h'],$$
using the fiber square
$$\CD
V'@> {f'} >> V\\
@V h' VV @VV h V\\
X@> {f} >> Y, \endCD
$$
with $TV'$ oriented (or given a stable complex structure) by the short exact sequence
$$ 0\to T_{f'} \to TV' \to f'^*TV\to 0,$$
if $TV$ and the bundle of tangents to the fibers $T_f$ (and therefore also $T_{f'}\simeq h'^*T_f$)
are oriented (or stable complex).
\end{lem}
Then the proof of the following result is identical to that in the algebraic geometric context:
\begin{thm}[Verdier-type Riemann--Roch for smooth manifolds] \label{Verdier-RR-smooth}
Consider the cospan of categories
$$\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal C^{\infty} \xleftarrow {id_{\mathcal C^{\infty}}} \mathcal C^{\infty},$$
with $\mathcal C = \mathcal C_{(o)}^{\infty}$ or $\mathcal C^{\infty}_{\mathbb C}$ the category of all differentiable (oriented) or stable complex $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds.
Let $c\ell$ be a contravariant functorial multiplicative and normalized characteristic class
$$c\ell(E) \in H^*(-;\mathbb Z_2)\quad \text{or} \quad c\ell(E) \in H^{2*}(-;R)$$
of (isomorphism classes of) real (oriented) or complex vector bundles.
For a smooth (oriented or stable complex) manifold $V$, let
$$\alpha(V) := c\ell(TV)\cap [V]\in H^{BM}_*(V;R).$$
The invariant $\alpha$ is \emph{additive}, so that
by Theorem \ref{main}
there exists a unique natural transformation
$$\tau_{c\ell}: K^{prop}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal C^{\infty}/-) \to H^{BM}_*(-;R),$$
such that for a smooth (oriented or stable complex) manifold $V$
$$\tau_{c\ell}([(V, V, id_{V})]) = c\ell(TV)\cap [V].$$
Then this natural transformation $\tau_{c\ell}$ satisfies the following Verdier-type Riemann--Roch formula: For a ((complex) oriented) submersion
$f:X \to Y$ of $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds, the following diagram commutes:
$$\CD
K^{prop}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal C^{\infty}/Y) @> {\tau_{c\ell}} >> H^{BM}_*(Y;R)\\
@V f^* VV @VV c\ell(T_f) \cap f^* V\\
K^{prop}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal C^{\infty}/X) @>> {\tau_{c\ell}} > H^{BM}_*(X;R). \endCD
$$
\end{thm}
\section{Examples}
In this last section we discuss some results, questions and problems related to some very specific examples,
which also fit with our natural transformations associated to some additive (homology) invariants.
\subsection{The case of the fundamental class}
Let us first consider taking the fundamental class $[-]\in H^{BM}_*(-;R)$ for $R=\mathbb Z_2$ (or $R=\mathbb Z$) on the category $\mathcal C^{\infty}_{(o)}$ of (oriented) $C^{\infty}$-manifolds. The fundamental class $\alpha:=[-]$ is certainly an additive and multiplicative homology class and by Corollary \ref{smooth-gen} we have a unique natural transformation
$$\tau_{[-]}: K^{prop}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal {TOP}_{lc} /-) \to H^{BM}_*(-;R)$$
such that $\tau_{[-]}([(V, V, id_{V})]) = [V]$
for a smooth (oriented) manifold $V$. Here an $\alpha$-isomorphism $\phi: V\to V'$ is just an (orientation preserving) diffeomeorphism
by Remark \ref{or-preserving}.
Of course such an additive (and multiplicative) fundamental homology class $\alpha:=[-]$ is
also available on bigger categories of spaces, like the categories $\mathcal C^{0}_{(o)}$ of (oriented) topological manifolds, or
$\mathcal C^{\text{pseudo}}_{(o)}$ the category of (oriented) triangulated or topological pseudo-manifolds, whose morphisms are by definition just
continuous maps of the underlying topological spaces (so that an isomorphism is nothing but a homeomorphism).
If we restrict ourselfes to compact spaces (as classically often done), then these fundamental classes live in usual homology
$H_*(-;R)$ for $R=\mathbb Z_2$ (or $R=\mathbb Z$ in the oriented context).
Moreover such an additive and multiplicative fundamental class $\alpha=[-]\in H_*(-;R)$ is also available for the category
$\mathcal C^{\text{Poincar\'e}}_{(o)}$ of finite (oriented) Poincar\'e complexes, i.e., topological spaces $V$ (like homology-manifolds) which satisfy Poincar\'e duality
$$\cap [V]: H^*(V;R)\stackrel{\sim}{\to} H_*(V;R)$$
for a suitable fundamental class $[V]\in H_*(V;R)$ . So we can turn these categories $\mathcal C$ as before into symmetric monoidal categories with respect to disjoint unions $\sqcup$
(and also products $\times$) such that the forgetful functor $\frak f: \mathcal C\to \mathcal {TOP}_{lc}$ is strictly monoidal.
Moreover, an $\alpha$-isomorphism $\phi: V\to V'$ in this context is just an (orientation preserving) homeomorphism.\\
Then the classical \emph{Steenrod's realization problem} can be reinterpreted as the problem of asking for the surjectivity of the group homomorphism $\tau_{[-]}: K_{\alpha}(\mathcal C \xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal {TOP} /X) \to H_*(X;R)$ for a topological space $X$.
Here the following results are well known (see \cite{Rudyak2, Sullivan2}).
\begin{thm}\label{rudyak}
\begin{enumerate}
\item (\cite{Thom} and \cite[Chapter IV, Theorem 7.33]{Rudyak})
$$\tau_{[-]}: K(\mathcal C^{\infty}_c \xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal {TOP} /X) \to H_*(X;\mathbb Z_2)$$
is surjective, i.e. every $\mathbb Z_2$-homology class can be realized by a compact smooth manifold.
\item (\cite{Thom} and \cite[Chapter IV, Theorem 7.37]{Rudyak}) The following composed map is surjective:
$$\tau_{[-]}: K_{\alpha}(\mathcal C^{\infty}_{co} \xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal {TOP} /X) \to H_*(X;\mathbb Z) \stackrel{proj.}{\to}
\bigoplus _{0 \leq i \leq 6} H_i(X;\mathbb Z),$$
i.e. every $\mathbb Z$-homology class in degree $i\leq 6$ can be realized by a compact oriented smooth manifold.
\item (\cite{Levitt}) The following composed map is surjective:
$$\tau_{[-]}: K_{\alpha}(\mathcal C^{\text{Poincar\'e}}_{co} \xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal {TOP} /X) \to H_*(X;\mathbb Z) \stackrel{proj.}{\to}
\bigoplus _{i \not =3 } H_i(X;\mathbb Z),$$
i.e. every $\mathbb Z$-homology class in degree $i\neq 3$ can be realized by a finite oriented Poincar\'e complex.
\item (\cite{Sullivan} and \cite[Chapter VIII, Example 1.25(a)]{Rudyak})
$$\tau_{[-]}: K_{\alpha}(\mathcal C^{\text{pseudo}}_{co} \xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal {TOP} /X) \to H_*(X;\mathbb Z)$$
is surjective, i.e. every $\mathbb Z$-homology class can be realized by a compact oriented pseudo-manifold.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\subsection{The case of the Stiefel--Whitney class}
Let $V$ be a differentiable manifold and let $c\ell_*(V) \in H^{BM}_*(V, \mathbb Z_2)$ be the Poincar\'e dual $c\ell(TV) \cap [V]$ of a
multiplicative and normalized functorial characteristic class $c\ell(E)\in H^*(-, \mathbb Z_2)$ of (isomorphism classes of) real vector bundles.
$\alpha(V):=c\ell_*(V)$ is clearly an additive (and multiplicative) homology class,
and we have by Corollary \ref{smooth-gen}
a unique natural transformation
$$\tau_{c\ell_*}: K^{prop}(\mathcal C^{\infty} \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal {TOP}_{lc} /-) \to H^{BM}_*(-;\mathbb Z_2)$$
such that $\tau_{c\ell_*}([(V, V, id_{V})]) = c\ell_*(V)$
for a smooth manifold $V$.
In particular the Stiefel--Whitney class $c\ell=w$ is a typical one. \\
If we restrict ourselves to the category $\mathcal V_{\mathbb R}$ of real algebraic varieties and let $\mathcal V^{sm}_{\mathbb R}$ be its full subcategory of smooth real algebraic varieties, then we have a more geometric ``realization" of the natural transformation $w_*$ on the category $\mathcal V_{\mathbb R}$
through \emph{$\mathbb Z_2$-valued semi-algebraic constructible functions}:
$$\xymatrix{K^{prop} (\mathcal V^{sm}_{\mathbb R} \xrightarrow {\iota} \mathcal {V_{\mathbb R}} /X) \ar[dr]_ {w_*}\ar[rr]^ {const} && F(X;\mathbb Z_2) \ar[dl]^{w_*}\\&
H^{BM}_*(X, \mathbb Z_2)\:.}$$
Here the multiplicative natural transformation $const$ is defined by the isomorphism invariant $\alpha(V):=1_V$, which is additive and multiplicative.
The Stiefel-Whitney class transformation
$w_*: F(X;\mathbb Z_2)\to H^{BM}_*(X, \mathbb Z_2)$ was first constructed by Sullivan \cite{Sullivan} in the pl-context.
For a new approach in the semi-algebraic (or subanalytic) context through the theory of ``conormal or characteristic cycles''
see \cite{FMc}.
\begin{rem}\label{Thom-Whitney} For a compact topological manifold $V$, Thom constructed a Whitney class using a relation with Steenrod squares \cite{Thom-7} (see \cite {MacPherson2}). Let us denote this Thom-Whitney class in homology by $w_*^{Th}(V) \in H_*(V;\mathbb Z_2)$,
which for a compact smooth manifold $V$ agrees with the Stiefel-Whitney class $w_*(V)$ above.
Then also $\alpha(V):= w_*^{Th}(V)$ is an additive (and multiplicative) invariant, so that we have a natural transformation
$$\tau_{w_*}^{Th}: K(\mathcal C^{0}_c \xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal {TOP} /-) \to H_*(-;\mathbb Z_2)$$
defined by
$$\tau_{w_*}^{Th}([(V, X, h)]) = h_*w_*^{Th}(V).$$
If we consider the above Whitney class transformation
$$w_*: K(\mathcal C^{\infty}_c \xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal {TOP}/-) \to H_*(-;\mathbb Z_2)$$
for compact smooth $C^{\infty}$-manifolds, then this is surjective by Theorem \ref{rudyak}(i), since $w_*(V)=[V]+ \dots$
equals the fundamental class plus lower order terms. So a natural problem is to find
for a given compact topological manifold $X$ a class $\beta \in K(\mathcal C^{\infty}_c\xrightarrow {\frak f} \mathcal {TOP}/X)$ such that
$$w_*(\beta) = w_*^{Th}(X).$$
\end{rem}
\subsection{The case of the Pontryagin and L-class}
Let $V$ be an oriented differentiable manifold and let $c\ell_*(V) \in H^{BM}_{2*}(V,\mathbb Q)$ be the Poincar\'e dual $c\ell(TV) \cap [V]$ of a
multiplicative and normalized functorial characteristic class $c\ell(E)\in H^{2*}(-, \mathbb Q)$ of (isomorphism classes of) oriented real vector bundles.
$\alpha(V):=c\ell_*(V)$ is clearly an additive (and multiplicative) homology class,
and by Corollary \ref{smooth-gen} we have
a unique natural transformation
$$\tau_{c\ell_*}: K^{prop}_{\alpha}(\mathcal C^{\infty}_o \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal {TOP}_{lc} /-) \to H^{BM}_{2*}(-;\mathbb Q)$$
such that $\tau_{c\ell_*}([(V, V, id_{V})]) = c\ell_*(V)$
for a smooth oriented manifold $V$.
In particular the Pontryagin class $c\ell=p$ and the Hirzebruch-Thom $L$-class $c\ell=L$ are typical ones. \\
If we restrict ourselves to the category $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C,c}$ of compact complex algebraic varieties
and let $\mathcal V^{sm}_{\mathbb C,c}$ be its full subcategory of compact smooth complex algebraic varieties, then we have a more geometric ``realization" of the natural transformation $L_*$ on the category $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C,c}$
through
\emph{Cappell--Shaneson--Youssin's cobordism groups $\Omega_*(X)$}(see \cite{CS}, \cite{Youssin}) and the motivic relative Grothendieck
group as mentioned in the introduction (compare with \cite{BSY} for more details):
$$\begin{CD}
K(\mathcal V^{sm}_{\mathbb C,c} \xrightarrow {\iota} \mathcal V_{\mathbb C,c}/X) @> taut >> K_0(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/X) \\
@V L_* VV @VV sd V \\
H_{2*}(X, \mathbb Q) @<< L^{CS}_* < \Omega(X) .
\end{CD}$$
Here the (composed) multiplicative natural transformation
$$sd: K(\mathcal V^{sm}_{\mathbb C,c} \xrightarrow {\iota} \mathcal V_{\mathbb C,c}/X) \to \Omega(X)$$
is defined by the isomorphism invariant $\alpha(V):=[\mathbb Q_V[dim\;V]]\in \Omega(V)$, which is additive and multiplicative.
\begin{rem} For a compact triangulated $\mathbb Q$-homology manifold $V$, Thom constructed in \cite{Thom-8}
an $L$-class in $H^{2*}(V;\mathbb Q) \simeq H_{2*}(V;\mathbb Q)$
using a relation with the signature (see \cite {MacPherson2, Sullivan2}), so that for a compact oriented smooth manifold
it agrees with the usual $L$-class $L(TV)$ of the tangent bundle by the famous \emph{Hirzebruch signature theorem}.
Through the development of \emph{Intersection (co)homology}, this approach was further extended (by e.g. Goresky-MacPherson \cite{GM} and
Cappell-Shaneson \cite{CS})
to more general singular spaces
like compact (locally) pure-dimensional complex algebraic varieties. But then one has to view this class as a
homology $L$-class in $H_{2*}(V;\mathbb Q)$. Nevertheless, in Thom's original approach for a compact triangulated $\mathbb Q$-homology manifold $V$ only,
one can use Poincar\'e duality to view this as a cohomology class in $H^{2*}(V;\mathbb Q)$. Using the cup-product structure on cohomology,
he was then able to define also a Pontryagin class $p(V)\in H^{2*}(V;\mathbb Q)$ so that for a compact oriented smooth manifold
it agrees with the usual Pontryagin class $p(TV)$ of the tangent bundle.
Let us call the corresponding homology classes the Thom--Pontryagin and Thom $L$-class, denoted by
$$p_*^{Th}(X), L^{Th}_*(X) \in H_{2*}(X;\mathbb Q).$$
If we consider the above Pontryagin- or $L$-class transformation for $c\ell=p$ or $L$ in the context of compact oriented smooth manifolds
$$\tau_{c\ell_*}: K_{\alpha}(\mathcal C^{\infty}_{co} \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal {TOP} /-) \to H_{2*}(-;\mathbb Q),$$
then for a given compact triangulated $\mathbb Q$-homology manifold $X$ it is a very interesting problem to find a class
$\beta \in K(\mathcal C^{\infty}_{co} \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal {TOP} /X)$ such that
$$p_*(\beta) = p_*^{Th}(X) \quad \text{or} \quad L_*(\beta)=L^{Th}_*(X).$$
Note that the rationalized group homomorphism $\tau_{c\ell_*}\otimes \mathbb Q$ is surjective by \cite{Thom} (compare \cite[Chapter IV, Theorem 7.36]{Rudyak}),
since $c\ell_*(V)=[V]+ \dots$
equals the fundamental class plus lower order terms.
\end{rem}
\subsection {The case of the Chern class}
Let $V$ be a stable complex differentiable manifold and let $c\ell_*(V) \in H^{BM}_{2*}(V,R)$ be the Poincar\'e dual $c\ell(TV) \cap [V]$ of a
multiplicative and normalized functorial characteristic class $c\ell(E)\in H^{2*}(-, R)$ of (isomorphism classes of) complex vector bundles.
$\alpha(V):=c\ell_*(V)$ is clearly an additive (and multiplicative) homology class,
and we have by Corollary \ref{smooth-gen}
a unique natural transformation
$$\tau_{c\ell_*}: K^{prop}(\mathcal C^{\infty}_{\mathbb C} \xrightarrow {S} \mathcal {TOP}_{lc} /-) \to H^{BM}_{2*}(-;R)$$
such that $\tau_{c\ell_*}([(V, V, id_{V})]) = c\ell_*(V)$
for a smooth stable complex manifold $V$.
In particular the Chern class $c\ell=c$ is a typical one. \\
If we restrict ourselves to the category $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}$ of complex algebraic varieties
and let $\mathcal V^{sm}_{\mathbb C}$ be its full subcategory of smooth complex algebraic varieties, then we have a more geometric ``realization" of the natural transformation $c_*$ on the category $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}$
through constructible functions
and the motivic relative Grothendieck
group as mentioned in the introduction
see \cite{BSY} for more details):
$$\begin{CD}
K^{prop}(\mathcal V^{sm}_{\mathbb C} \xrightarrow {\iota} \mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/X) @> taut >> K_0(\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/X) \\
@V c_* VV @VV const V \\
H^{BM}_{2*}(X, \mathbb Z) @<< c^{Mac}_* < F(X) .
\end{CD}$$
Here the (composed) multiplicative natural transformation
$$const: K^{prop}(\mathcal V^{sm}_{\mathbb C} \xrightarrow {\iota} \mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/X) \to F(X)$$
is defined by the isomorphism invariant $\alpha(V):=1\hskip-3.5pt1_V\in F(V)$, which is additive and multiplicative.
\subsection {The case of Chern classes of other types}
Let $\mathcal V^{emb}_{\mathbb C}$ be the subcategory of (complex) algebraic varieties embeddable into smooth varieties and let $c_*^{FJ}(X)$ resp., $c_*^{FJ}(X)$ be Fulton--Johnson's Chern class resp., Fulton's canonical class defined for such an embeddable (complex) algebraic variety:
$c_*^{FJ}(X)$ (\cite[Example 4.2.6 (c)]{Fulton-book}) is defined by
$$c_*^{FJ}(X):= c(TM|_X) \cap s(\mathcal N_XM),$$
where $TM$ is the tangent bundle of $M$ and $s(\mathcal N_XM)$ is the Segre class of the conormal sheaf $\mathcal N_XM$ of $X$ in $M$ \cite[\S 4.2]{Fulton-book}. Fulton's canonical class $c_*^F(X)$ (\cite[Example 4.2.6 (a)]{Fulton-book}) is defined by
$$c_*^F(X) := c(TM|_X) \cap s(X,M),$$
where $s(X,M)$ is the relative Segre class \cite[\S 4.2]{Fulton-book}.
For a local complete intersection variety $X$ we also have a normal bundle $N_XM$ in $M$, from which we can define the virtual tangent bundle $T_X$ of $X$
(as in \S 3) by
$$T_X := TM|_X - N_XM \in K^0(X).$$
As shown in \cite[Example 4.2.6]{Fulton-book}, for a local complete intersection variety $X$ in a non-singular variety $M$, these two Chern classes are both equal to the virtual Chern class
$$c_*^{FJ}(X) = c_*^F(X) = c(T_X) \cap [X].$$
Moreover, both isomorphism invariants $\alpha(V):=c_*^{FJ}(V)$ and $c_*^{F}(V)$ are additive for $V\in ob(\mathcal V^{emb}_{\mathbb C})$, so
that there
exists unique natural transformations on the category $\mathcal V_{\mathbb C}$:
$$\tau_{c_*^F}, \tau_{c_*^{FJ}} : K^{prop}(\mathcal V^{emb}_{\mathbb C} \xrightarrow {\iota} \mathcal V_{\mathbb C}/-) \to H^{BM}_{2*}(-; \mathbb Z),$$
such that
$$\tau_{c_*^F}([V \xrightarrow{\operatorname{id}_V} V]) = c_*^F(V) \quad \text{resp.} \quad \tau_{c_*^{FJ}} ([V \xrightarrow{\operatorname{id}_V} V]) = c_*^{FJ}(V)$$
for $V \in ob(\mathcal V^{emb}_{\mathbb C})$.
Finally, using Chow groups $CH_*(X)$ as a corresponding homology theory, all of this remains true over any base field $k$ (instead of working over
$\mathbb C$ with Borel-Moore homology), with the invariant $\alpha(V)=c_*^F(V)$ for $V \in ob(\mathcal V^{emb}_k)$ also multiplicative
(as follows from \cite[Example 4.2.5]{Fulton-book}).\\
\noindent
{\bf Acknowlwdgements.} We would like to thank Paolo Aluffi and Markus Banagl for useful discussions, and also Yuli B. Rudyak for providing the precise reference for Theorem \ref{rudyak}.
Finally we would like to thank L\^e D\~ung Tr\'ang for useful suggestions and the referee for his/her careful reading and valuable suggestions and comments.
|
\section{Introduction}
Since Stein introduced his method for normal approximation in 1972, much has been developed for normal approximation in one dimension for dependent random variables for both smooth and non-smooth functions. A typical non-smooth function is the indicator of a half line. Three approaches have been developed to deal with non-smooth functions: the induction approach popularized by \cite{Bo84}, the recursive approach of \cite{Ra03} and the concentration inequality approach developed by \cite{Ch86}, \cite{Ch98}, \cite{ChSh01} and \cite{ChSh04}.
Although Stein's method has been extended to multivariate normal approximation (see, for example, \cite{Ba90}, \cite{Go91}, \cite{GoRi96}, \cite{ChMe08}, \cite{ReRo09}), relatively few results have been obtained for non-smooth functions, typically for indicators of convex sets in finite dimensional Euclidean spaces. In general, it is much harder to obtain optimal bounds for non-smooth functions than for smooth functions. As far as we know, results for non-smooth functions are those of \cite{Go91}, \cite{RiRo96} and \cite{BhHo10}, which is an exposition of G\"otze's result. While the result of \cite{RiRo96} is for bounded locally dependent random vectors, those of \cite{Go91} and of \cite{BhHo10} are for independent random vectors with finite third moments. The approach of \cite{Go91} and of \cite{BhHo10} is by induction.
In this paper, we extend the concentration inequality approach to the multivariate setting. We prove that for $W=\sum_{i=1}^n X_i$ being a sum of independent random vectors, standardized so that ${\mathbb{E}} W=0$, ${\mathbb{E}} W W^T=I_{k\times k}$,
\besn{
{\mathbb{P}}(W^{(i)}\in A^{4\gamma+\epsilon}\backslash A^{4\gamma})\le 4.1 k^{1/2}\epsilon+39k^{1/2}\gamma
}
and with $|\cdot|$ denoting the Euclidean norm of a vector,
\besn{
{\mathbb{P}}(W\in A^{4\gamma+|X_i|}\backslash A^{4\gamma})\le 4.1 k^{1/2}{\mathbb{E}} |X_i|+39k^{1/2}\gamma
}
where $A$ is a convex set in $\mathbb{R}^k$, $A^\epsilon=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^k: d(x, A)\le \epsilon\}$ for $\epsilon>0$, $W^{(i)}=W-X_i$ and $\gamma=\sum_{i=1}^n{\mathbb{E}} |X_i|^3$. Using these concentration inequalities, we prove a normal approximation theorem for $W$ with an error bound of the order $k^{1/2}\gamma$. This dependence of $k^{1/2}$ on the dimension is better than $k^{5/2}$ and $k^{3/2}$ obtained by \cite{BhHo10} and $k$ as stated in \cite{Go91}.
Our concentration inequality approach provides a new way of dealing with dependent random vectors, for example, those under local dependence, for which the induction approach is not likely to be applicable.
Comparing our result with those assuming finite third moments and using other methods in the literature, only the result of \cite{Be03} gives a bound depending on $k^{1/4}$, which is better than $k^{1/2}$. But his result is for i.i.d. random vectors. Other results for i.i.d. random vectors, for example, by \cite{Na76}, \cite{Se80} and \cite{Sa81} depend on $k$.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we develop techniques for the concentration inequality approach in the multivariate setting. In section 3, we use the concentration inequality approach to prove a multivariate normal approximation theorem for sums of independent random vectors. In section 4, we prove the technical lemmas in Section 2.
Throughout the paper, let $|\cdot|$ denote the Euclidean norm of vectors, and let $||\cdot||$ denote the operator norm of matrices. Let $\partial_j f$ denote the first partial derivative of $f$ along the coordinate $j$. For a positive integer $k$, $[k]=\{1,2,\ldots,k\}$. Finally, let $I_{k\times k}$ denote the $k$ by $k$ identity matrix.
\section{Concentration inequalities}
As a powerful tool of proving distributional approximations along with error bounds, the theory of Stein's method has been extensively developed in the literature for random variables with all kinds of dependence structure. While it works well for smooth function distances, it requires much more efforts to obtain optimal bounds for non-smooth function distances such as the Kolmogorov distance. To overcome this difficulty, we consider the probability for some random variable $W$ taking values in a small interval $[a, b]$. A bound on ${\rm P}(W\in [a, b])$ is called a concentration inequality. Now if $W$ is a $k$-dimensional random vector and $Z$ is a $k$-dimensional standard Gaussian random vector, the non-smooth function distance between $\mathcal{L}(W)$ and $\mathcal{L}(Z)$ usually means $\sup_{A\in \mathcal{A}} |{\rm P}(W\in A)-{\rm P}(Z\in A)|$ where $\mathcal{A}$ denotes the set of all convex sets in $\mathbb{R}^k$. A concentration inequality in this setting would be a bound on ${\rm P}(W\in A^\epsilon\backslash A)$ where $A^\epsilon=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^k: d(x, A)\le \epsilon\}$ where $d(x, A)=\inf_{y\in A} |x-y|$.
For a given convex set $A\subset \mathbb{R}^k$, $\epsilon>0$, we define $f=f(A,\epsilon)=(f_1, f_2, \ldots, f_k)^T: \mathbb{R}^k\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^k$ as follows. For $x\in \bar{A}$ where $\bar{A}$ is the closure of $A$, $f(x)=0$. For $x\in A^{\epsilon}\backslash \bar{A}$, find $x_0$ the nearist point in $\bar{A}$ from $x$, and define $f(x)=x-x_0$. For $x\in \mathbb{R}^k\backslash A^{\epsilon}$, find $x_0$ the nearist point in $\bar{A}$ from $x$, and $x_1$ the intersection of $\{x_0+t(x-x_0): t\in [0,1]\}$ and $\partial A^{\epsilon}$, the boundary of $A^\epsilon$, and define $f(x)=x_1-x_0=f(x_1)$. We have the following four lemmas regarding to the properties of the above defined $f$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem1}
We have
\besn{\label{lem1-1}
|f|\le \epsilon.
}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{lem3}
For all $\xi,\eta \in \mathbb{R}^k$,
\besn{\label{lem1-2}
\xi \cdot (f(\eta+\xi)-f(\eta)) \ge 0.
}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{lem2}
For every $i\in [k]$ and any fixed $x_1,\ldots, x_{i-1},x_{i+1},\ldots, x_n$, $f_i$ is absolutely continuous in $x_i$ and
\besn{
\partial_i f_i(x) \ge 0\quad \text{a.e.} .
}
\end{lem}
For $x\in (A^{\epsilon})^o \backslash \bar{A}$, where $A^o$ is the interior of $A$, we have a shaper lower bound for $\partial_i f_i(x)$. Let $\theta=(\theta_1,\theta_2,\ldots,\theta_k)^T$ be the angles between $x-x_0$ and the axes.
\begin{lem}\label{lem4}
For all $i\in [k]$, $x\in (A^{\epsilon})^o \backslash \bar{A}$,
\besn{\label{lem1-3}
\partial_i f_i(x) \ge \cos ^2 \theta_i \quad \text{a.e.}.
}
\end{lem}
We defer the proofs of the lemmas to Section 4. To obtain a concentration inequality for a random vector $W$ of interest, we apply the above defined function $f$ in the Stein identity for $W$. We consider the following two cases: multivariate Gaussian vectors and sums of independent random vectors.
\subsection{Multivariate normal distribution}
\begin{prop}\label{p1}
Let $Z=(Z_1,Z_2,\ldots,Z_k)^T$ be a $k$-dimensional standard
Gaussian random vector. Then for any convex set $A$ in $\mathbb{R}^k$ and
$\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2\ge 0$,
\besn{\label{p1-1}
{\mathbb{P}} (Z\in A^{\epsilon_1}\backslash A^{-\epsilon_2})\le k^{1/2}(\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2)
}
where $A^\epsilon=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^k: d(x, A)\le \epsilon\}$ and $A^{-\epsilon}=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^k: B(x,\epsilon)\subset A\}$ where $B(x, \epsilon)$ is the $k$-dimensional ball centered in $x$ with radius $\epsilon$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
From the joint independence among $\{Z_1,Z_2,\ldots,Z_k\}$ and the
integration by parts formula, we have the following $k$ functional
identities for $Z$.
\besn{
{\mathbb{E}} Z_1f_1(Z)&={\mathbb{E}} \partial_1 f_1(Z), \\
&\cdots \\
{\mathbb{E}} Z_kf_k(Z)&={\mathbb{E}} \partial_k f_k(Z).
}
Using the function $f=f(A, \epsilon)$ defined at the beginning of this section where $A$ is a convex set in $\mathbb{R}^k$ and $\epsilon>0$ and summing up the above $k$ equations, we have
\ben{\label{p1.0}
\sum_{j=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} Z_jf_j(Z)=\sum_{j=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} \partial_j f_j(Z).
}
By Lemma \ref{lem1}, LHS of \eqref{p1.0}$\le k^{1/2} \epsilon$. By Lemma \ref{lem2} and Lemma \ref{lem4},
\besn{
\text{RHS of}\ \eqref{p1.0}&\ge \sum_{j=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} \partial_j f_j(Z) I(Z\in (A^\epsilon)^o \backslash \overline{A}) \\
&\ge {\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j=1}^k \cos^2 \theta_j I(Z\in (A^\epsilon)^o \backslash \overline{A})={\mathbb{P}} (Z\in (A^\epsilon)^o \backslash \overline{A}).
}
Therefore,
\besn{\label{p1-2}
{\mathbb{P}}(Z\in A^\epsilon\backslash A)\le k^{1/2} \epsilon.
}
The bound (\ref{p1-1}) can be deduced from the above inequality by the arguments in Section 1.3 of \cite{BhRa86} sketched as follows.
Without loss of generality, assume $A^o \ne \emptyset$. First suppose $A$ is bounded. Given any $\delta>0$, we may choose $x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_n \in \partial A$ such that $\partial A \subset \{x_1,\ldots, x_n\}^\delta$. Let $P$ be the convex hull of $\{x_1,\ldots, x_n\}$. By taking $\delta$ small enough, $P^o\ne \emptyset$. For some positive integer $m$, $P$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray*}} %\beq=\begin{eqnarray*
P=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^k: u_j \cdot x\le d_j, 1\le j\le m\}
\end{eqnarray*}} %\eeq=\end{eqnarray*
where $u_j$'s are distinct unit vectors and $d_j$'s are real numbers. For each real $a$, define
\begin{eqnarray*}} %\beq=\begin{eqnarray*
P_a=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^k: u_j \cdot x\le d_j+a, 1\le j\le m\}.
\end{eqnarray*}} %\eeq=\end{eqnarray*
Then from the fact that $P\subset A \subset P^\delta$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}} %\beq=\begin{eqnarray*
A^{\epsilon_1}\backslash A^{-\epsilon_2} \subset (P^\delta)^{\epsilon_1}\backslash P_{-\epsilon_2}\subset P_{\epsilon_1+\delta}\backslash P_{-\epsilon_2}.
\end{eqnarray*}} %\eeq=\end{eqnarray*
Therefore,
\besn{\label{p1-3}
{\mathbb{P}} (Z\in A^{\epsilon_1}\backslash A^{-\epsilon_2}) \le {\mathbb{P}}(Z\in P_{\epsilon_1+\delta}\backslash P_{\epsilon_2})=\int_{-\epsilon_2}^{\epsilon_1+\delta} \int_{\partial P_a} \phi d\lambda_{k-1}da
}
where $\phi$ is the density of standard $k$-dimensional normal distribution and $\lambda_{k-1}$ is the Lebesgue measure in $\mathbb{R}^{k-1}$. We used Lemma 3.9 in \cite{BhRa86} in the last equality. From the arguments leading to (3.35) in \cite{BhRa86},
\begin{eqnarray*}} %\beq=\begin{eqnarray*
|{\mathbb{P}}(Z\in (P_a)^\epsilon \backslash P_a)-\epsilon \int_{\partial P_a} \phi d\lambda_{k-1} |\le o(\epsilon).
\end{eqnarray*}} %\eeq=\end{eqnarray*
The above inequality and (\ref{p1-2}) result in
\begin{eqnarray*}} %\beq=\begin{eqnarray*
\int_{\partial P_a} \phi d\lambda_{k-1} \le k^{1/2}.
\end{eqnarray*}} %\eeq=\end{eqnarray*
Therefore, from (\ref{p1-3}),
\begin{eqnarray*}} %\beq=\begin{eqnarray*
{\mathbb{P}}(Z\in A^{\epsilon_1}\backslash A^{-\epsilon_2})\le k^{1/2} (\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2+\delta).
\end{eqnarray*}} %\eeq=\end{eqnarray*
The bound (\ref{p1-1}) is proved by letting $\delta\rightarrow 0$. If $A$ is unbounded, consider $A_r=A\cap B(0,r)$ and let $r\rightarrow \infty$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
It is known that ${\mathbb{P}} (Z \in A^{\epsilon_1} \backslash A^{-\epsilon_2})\le 4k^{1/4} (\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2)$, which is of optimal order in $k$ (see \cite{Ba93} and \cite{Be03}). It is not clear how we can obtain $k^{1/4}$ in the bound by our approach.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Sum of independent random vectors}
\begin{prop}\label{p3}
Let $k$-dimensional random vector $W$ be
\[
W=(W_1,\ldots, W_k)^T=\sum_{i=1}^n X_i=\sum_{i=1}^n (X_{i1},X_{i2},\ldots,X_{ik})^T
\]
where $\{X_i: i\in [n]\}$ are independent random vectors such that ${\mathbb{E}} X_i=0$ and ${\mathbb{E}} WW^T= I_{k\times k}$. Then, for any convex set $A$ in $\mathbb{R}^k$,
\besn{\label{p3-1}
{\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^{4\gamma+\epsilon}\backslash A^{4\gamma})\le 4.1k^{1/2}\epsilon+39k^{1/2}\gamma
}
and
\besn{\label{p3-2}
{\mathbb{P}} (W\in A^{4\gamma+|X_i|}\backslash A^{4\gamma})\le 4.1k^{1/2}{\mathbb{E}} |X_i|+39k^{1/2}\gamma
}
for any $\epsilon>0$ and $i\in [n]$ where $W^{(i)}=W-X_i$ and $\gamma=\sum_{i=1}^n \gamma_i=\sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb{E}} |X_i|^3$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} With out loss of generality, assume $\gamma$ is finite.
In this proof, let $\sum_{j'\ne j''}$ denote $\sum_{j'=1}^n \sum_{j''\le n, j''\ne j'}$, and for a fixed $i$, let $\sum_{j\ne i}$ denote $\sum_{j\le n, j\ne i}$. We use $f=f(A, \epsilon+8\gamma)$ defined at the beginning of this section in the following Stein identity for $W^{(i)}$.
\besn{\label{60}
{\mathbb{E}} W^{(i)} \cdot f(W^{(i)}) =\sum_{j\ne i} {\mathbb{E}} X_j \cdot (f(W^{(i)})-f(W^{(i)}-X_j)).
}
Because $|f|\le \epsilon+8\gamma$, LHS of (\ref{60}) $\le k^{1/2} (\epsilon+8\gamma)$.
From Lemma \ref{lem3},
\bes{
&\text{RHS of (\ref{60})}\nonumber \\
&\ge \sum_{j\ne i} {\mathbb{E}} X_{j} \cdot (f(W^{(i)})-f(W^{(i)}-X_j))I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma}) \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{j\ne i} {\mathbb{E}} \big\{ \sum_{j'=1}^k (-X_j \cdot h_{jj'}) ( f(W^{(i)}-X_j) \cdot h_{jj'} -f(W^{(i)})\cdot h_{jj'} ) \big\} \nonumber \\
&\kern6em \times I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma) I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\nonumber
}
where we used the orthonormal basis $\{h_{j1},\ldots, h_{jk}\}$ for each $j\ne i$ defined as follows. For each $W^{(i)}=w^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma}$ and $X_j=x_j$, define an orthonormal basis $\{h_{j1},\ldots, h_{jk}\}$ such that $h_{j1}$ and $w^{(i)}-w_0^{(i)}$ are parallel and $h_{j2}$ and $-x_j-(-x_j\cdot h_{j1})h_{j1}$ are parallel ($0$-vector is parallel to any vector). Recall that $w_0^{(i)}$ is the nearist point in $\bar{A}$ from $w^{(i)}$. Then,
\bes{
&\text{RHS of (\ref{60})} \\
&\ge \sum_{j\ne i} {\mathbb{E}} \biggl\{ (-X_j \cdot h_{j1})(f(W^{(i)}+(-X_j \cdot h_{j1}) h_{j1})\cdot h_{j1}-f(W^{(i)}) \cdot h_{j1}) \\
&\qquad+ (-X_j\cdot h_{j1}) (f(W^{(i)}-X_j)\cdot h_{j1}-f(W^{(i)}+(-X_j\cdot h_{j1})h_{j1})\cdot h_{j1}) \\
&\qquad+ (-X_j \cdot h_{j2}) (f(W^{(i)}+(-X_1\cdot h_{j1}) h_{j1})\cdot h_{j2}-f(W^{(i)}) \cdot h_{j2}) \\
&\qquad +(-X_j\cdot h_{j2} ) (f(W^{(i)}-X_j)\cdot h_{j2}-f(W^{(i)}+(-X_j\cdot h_{j1})h_{j1})\cdot h_{j2}) \biggr\} \\
&\kern6em \times I(|X_1|\le 4\gamma) I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma}).
}
If $w^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma}, |x_j|\le 4\gamma$, then we have
\besn{\label{e1}
f(w^{(i)}+(-x_j\cdot h_{j1})h_{j1})\cdot h_{j1}-f(w^{(i)})\cdot h_{j1}=-x_j\cdot h_{j1},
}
\besn{\label{e2}
f(w^{(i)}+(-x_j\cdot h_{j1} )h_{j1})\cdot h_{j2}-f(w^{(i)})\cdot h_{j2}=0
}
and
\besn{\label{e3}
&(-x_j\cdot h_{j2})(f(w^{(i)}-x_j)\cdot h_{j2}-f(w^{(i)}+(-x_j\cdot h_{j1})h_{j1})\cdot h_{j2}) \\
&\ge (f(w^{(i)}-x_j)\cdot h_{j1}-f(w^{(i)}+(-x_j\cdot h_{j1})h_{j1})\cdot h_{j1})^2.
}
Equations (\ref{e1}) and (\ref{e2}) follow from $f(w^{(i)}+(-x_j\cdot h_{j1})h_{j1})=f(w^{(i)})+(-x_j\cdot h_{j1})h_{j1}$. For (\ref{e3}), consider the plane $p$ parallel to $h_{j1}, h_{j2}$ and containing $w^{(i)}$. Let $l$ be the line parallel to $h_{j2}$ and containing $w^{(i)}_0$. The line $l$ divides $p$ into two parts $p_1, p_2$ where $p_1$ is closed and $p_2$ is open and contains $W^{(i)}$. Draw a circle on $p$ with diameter $[w^{(i)}_0, w^{(i)}-x_j]$. Then $(w^{(i)}-x_j)'$, the projection of $(w^{(i)}-x_j)_0$ on $p$, must be inside the circle (or on the perimeter) and on $p_1$ because of the convexity of $A$. Let $(w^{(i)}-x_j)''$ be the projection of $w^{(i)}-x_j$ on $l$, and let $(w^{(i)}-x_j)'''$ be the projection of $(w^{(i)}-x_j)'$ on $l$. Then, \eqref{e3} follows from
\bes{
|((w^{(i)}-x_j)''-w^{(i)}_0)((w^{(i)}-x_j)'''-w^{(i)}_0)|\ge |(w^{(i)}-x_j)'-(w^{(i)}-x_j)'''|^2,
}
which is a consequence of the fact that the angle between $(W^{(i)}-X_j)''-(W^{(i)}-X_j)'$and $W^{(i)}_0-(W^{(i)}-X_j)'$ is greater than or equal to $\pi/2$. Using $ab\ge -a^2-b^2/4$,
\besn{\label{e4}
&(-x_j\cdot h_{j1})(f(w^{(i)}-x_j)\cdot h_{j1}-f(w^{(i)}+(-x_j\cdot h_{j1})h_{j1})\cdot h_{j1})\\
&\ge -\frac{(-x_j\cdot h_{j1})^2}{4}-(f(w^{(i)}-x_j)\cdot h_{j1} -f(w^{(i)}+(-x_j\cdot h_{j1})h_{j1})\cdot h_{j1})^2.
}
Apply \eqref{e1}-\eqref{e4}, we obtain a lower bound of RHS of (\ref{60}) as
\besn{\label{56}
\text{RHS of (\ref{60})} \ge \frac{3}{4} \sum_{j\ne i}{\mathbb{E}} (-X_j\cdot h_{j1})^2 I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma) I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma}).
}
In other words, we have
\besn{
\text{RHS of (\ref{60})}
&\ge \frac{3}{4}\sum_{j\ne i} {\mathbb{E}} (X_j \cdot \xi(W^{(i)}))^2I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma) I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma} )\\
&=R
}
where $\xi(W^{(i)})=(W^{(i)}_0-W^{(i)})/|W^{(i)}_0-W^{(i)}|$ for $W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma}$ and $W^{(i)}_0$ is the nearist point in $\bar{A}$ from $W^{(i)}$. We may define $\xi(W^{(i)})$ to be $e_1$, where $\{e_1,\ldots, e_k\}$ are the original orthonormal basis when $W^{(i)}\notin A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma}$, since it does not affect the value of $R$. We now obtain a lower bound of $R$.
\bes{
&R\\
&=\frac{3}{4}\sum_{j\ne i} {\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j'=1}^k X_{jj'}^2 \xi(W^{(i)})_{j'}^2 I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma}) \\
&\quad+\frac{3}{4}\sum_{j\ne i} {\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j'\ne j''} X_{jj'}X_{jj''} \xi(W^{(i)})_{j'}\xi(W^{(i)})_{j''} I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma}) \\
&=R_1+R_2.
}
For $R_1$,
\bes{
&R_1\\
&= \frac{3}{4} \sum_{j'=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\xi(W^{i})_{j'}^2 \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}^2 I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)\\
&=\frac{3}{4} \sum_{j'=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\xi(W^{(i)})_{j'}^2 [\sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}^2 I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)\\
&\kern18em-{\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}^2 I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)]\\
&\quad+\frac{3}{4} \sum_{j'=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\xi(W^{i})_{j'}^2 {\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}^2 I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)\\
&= R_{1,1}+R_{1,2}.
}
Using the inequality
\besn{\label{61}
ab\le \gamma a^2+\frac{b^2}{4\gamma},
}
\bes{
|R_{1,1}|&\le \frac{3}{4}\sum_{j'=1}^k\biggl\{\gamma {\mathbb{E}} \xi(W^{(i)})_{j'}^4 +\frac{1}{4\gamma}{\mathbb{E}} \Bigl[ \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}^2 I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)\\
&\kern15em-{\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}^2 I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma) \Bigr]^2\biggr\} \\
&= \frac{3}{4}\big\{ \gamma \sum_{j'=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} \xi(W^{(i)})_{j'}^4 +\frac{1}{4\gamma} \sum_{j'=1}^k {\rm Var}(\sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}^2 I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)) \big\} \\
&\le \frac{3}{4} \big\{ \gamma \sum_{j'=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} \xi(W^{(i)})_{j'}^4+ \frac{1}{4\gamma}\sum_{j'=1}^k \sum_{j\ne i} {\mathbb{E}} X_{jj'}^4 I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma) \big\}.
}
For $R_{1,2}$,
\bes{
R_{1,2}&=\frac{3}{4} \sum_{j'=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\xi(W^{i})_{j'}^2 [{\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}^2-{\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}^2 I(|X_j|> 4\gamma)]\\
&\ge \frac{3}{4} \sum_{j'=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\xi(W^{(i)})_{j'}^2(1-{\mathbb{E}} X_{ij'}^2)\nonumber \\
&\quad -\frac{3}{4}\sum_{j'=1}^k{\mathbb{E}} I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\xi(W^{(i)})_{j'}^2 {\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i} \frac{|X_j|^3}{4\gamma}\\
&\ge (1-\gamma^{2/3})\frac{3}{4}{\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})-\frac{3}{16} {\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})
}
where we used the facts that ${\mathbb{E}} |X_i|^2\le \gamma^{2/3}$ and $|\xi(W^{(i)})|=1$ in the last inequality.
\bes{
R_2&=\frac{3}{4}\sum_{j\ne i} {\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j'\ne j''} X_{jj'}X_{jj''} \xi(W^{(i)})_{j'}\xi(W^{(i)})_{j''} I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\\
&=\frac{3}{4}\sum_{j'\ne j''}{\mathbb{E}} I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\xi(W^{(i)})_{j'}\xi(W^{(i)})_{j''}\nonumber \\
&\qquad \times(\sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}X_{jj''}I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)-{\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}X_{jj''}I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma))\\
&\quad+\frac{3}{4}\sum_{j'\ne j''}{\mathbb{E}} I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\xi(W^{(i)})_{j'}\xi(W^{(i)})_{j''}{\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}X_{jj''}I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)\\
&=R_{2,1}+R_{2,2}
}
For $R_{2,1}$, using the inequality (\ref{61}),
\bes{
|R_{2,1}|&\le \frac{3}{4} {\mathbb{E}} I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\sum_{j'\ne j''}|\xi(W^{(i)})_{j'} \xi(W^{(i)})_{j''}|\nonumber \\
&\quad\times |\sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}X_{jj''}I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)-{\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}X_{jj''}I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)|\nonumber \\
&\le \frac{3}{4}{\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j'\ne j''} \biggl\{ \gamma [\xi(W^{(i)})_{j'} \xi(W^{(i)})_{j''}]^2\nonumber \\
&\quad+\frac{(\sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}X_{jj''}I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)-{\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}X_{jj''}I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma))^2}{4\gamma} \biggr\}\nonumber \\
&\le \frac{3\gamma}{4} \sum_{j'\ne j''} {\mathbb{E}} [\xi(W^{i})_{j'} \xi(W^{i})_{j''}]^2 +\frac{3}{4} \times \frac{1}{4\gamma}\sum_{j\ne i}\sum_{j'\ne j''} {\mathbb{E}} (X_{jj'}X_{jj''})^2I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma).
}
From the bounds on $|R_{1,1}|$ and $|R_{2,1}|$,
\bes{
|R_{1,1}|+|R_{2,1}|\le \frac{3\gamma}{4}+\frac{3}{16\gamma}{\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i}|X_j|^4 I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma)\le \frac{3\gamma}{2}.
}
A lower bound of $R_{2,2}$ can be obtained as follows. Let $\widetilde{W^{(i)}}$ be an independent copy of $W^{(i)}$.
\bes{
&R_{2,2}\\
&=\frac{3}{4}\sum_{j'\ne j''}{\mathbb{E}} I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\xi(W^{(i)})_{j'}\xi(W^{(i)})_{j''}\nonumber \\
&\quad \times [{\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}X_{jj''}-{\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i}X_{jj'}X_{jj''}I(|X_j|> 4\gamma)]\\
&\ge -\frac{3}{4}{\mathbb{E}} |X_i|^2 {\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\\
&\quad-\frac{3}{4}{\mathbb{E}} I(W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\sum_{j'\ne j''} |\xi(W^{(i)})_{j'} \xi(W^{(i)})_{j''}|\sum_{j\ne i} {\mathbb{E}} |X_{jj'} X_{jj''}|I(|X_j|> 4\gamma)\\
&\ge -\frac{3}{4} \gamma^{2/3} {\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\nonumber \\
&\quad -\frac{3}{4}\sum_{j\ne i} \sum_{j'\ne j''} {\mathbb{E}} I(\widetilde{W^{(i)}}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})|X_{jj'} \xi(\widetilde{W^{(i)}})_{j'}| |X_{jj''} \xi(\widetilde{W^{(i)}})_{j''}|I(|X_j|>4\gamma)\\
&\ge -\frac{3}{4} \gamma^{2/3} {\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})-\frac{3}{4}{\mathbb{E}} I(\widetilde{W^{(i)}}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})\sum_{j\ne i} |X_j|^2 I(|X_j|>4\gamma)\\
&\ge -\frac{3}{4} \gamma^{2/3} {\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})-\frac{3}{16} {\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})
}
where we used the facts that ${\mathbb{E}} \sum_{j\ne i} X_{jj'}X_{jj''}=-{\mathbb{E}} X_{ij'}X_{ij''}$ for $j'\ne j''$ and $\sum_{j'=1}^k |X_{jj'}\xi(\widetilde{W^{(i)}})_{j'}|\le |X_j|$.
Therefore,
\bes{
&\text{RHS of (\ref{60})} \\
&\ge (1-\gamma^{2/3})\frac{3}{4}{\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})-\frac{3}{16}{\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})-\frac{3\gamma}{2} \\
&\quad -\frac{3}{4} \gamma^{2/3}{\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma})-\frac{3}{16}{\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon+4\gamma} \backslash A^{4\gamma}).
}
Recall that $\text{LHS of (\ref{60})}\le k^{1/2}(\epsilon+8\gamma)$, we have
\besn{\label{63}
&(\frac{3}{8}-\frac{3}{2}\gamma^{2/3}) {\mathbb{P}} (W^{(i)}\in A^\epsilon\backslash A) \\
&\le k^{1/2}\epsilon+8k^{1/2} \gamma +\frac{3}{2} \gamma.
}
When $\gamma>1/39$, (\ref{p3-1}) is true. When $\gamma \le 1/39$, (\ref{p3-1}) is obtained by solving (\ref{63}).
To prove (\ref{p3-2}), let $f^{X_i}=f(A, |X_i|+8\gamma)$ be defined at the beginning of this section. Consider the following Stein identity,
\ben{
{\mathbb{E}} W^{(i)}\cdot f^{X_i} (W) =\sum_{j\ne i} {\mathbb{E}} X_j \cdot (f^{X_i}(W)-f^{X_i}(W-X_j)).
}
We have
\bes{
&{\mathbb{E}} |W^{(i)}|(|X_i|+8\gamma)\\
&\ge \sum_{j\ne i }{\mathbb{E}} X_j \cdot (f^{X_i}(W)-f^{X_i}(W-X_j)) I(W\in A^{4\gamma+|X_i|}\backslash A^{4\gamma}) I(|X_j|\le 4\gamma).
}
The bound (\ref{p3-2}) can be proved by applying the same argument leading to (\ref{p3-1}).
\end{proof}
\section{Multivariate normal approximation}
In this section, we prove a multivariate normal approximation result (Theorem \ref{t2}) by applying the concentration inequality approach in Stein's method.
A multivariate version of the Stein equation was given in \cite{Go91} as well as in \cite{Ba90} as follows.
\ben{\label{Stein equation}
\triangle f(w)- w\cdot \nabla f(w) = h(w) -{\mathbb{E}} h(Z)
}
where $h$ is a test function and $Z$ is a standard $k$-dimensional Gaussian random vector.
If the test function $h$ is smooth enough, the above equation can be solved and one of its solution can be expressed as
\ben{\label{f epsilon}
f(w)=-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^1 \frac{1}{1-s} \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} [h(\sqrt{1-s}w+\sqrt{s}z)-{\mathbb{E}} h(Z)]\phi(z)dz ds
}
where $\phi(z)$ is the density function of the $k$-dimensional standard normal distribution at $z\in \mathbb{R}^k$. When $\nabla h$ is Lipschiz, the second derivatives of $f$ can be calculated as
\besn{\label{Df}
\partial_{jj'}f(w)&=-\frac{1}{2}\int_{\epsilon^2}^1 \frac{1}{s} \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} h(\sqrt{1-s}w+\sqrt{s}z) \partial_{jj'}\phi(z) dzds \\
&\quad+\frac{1}{2} \int_0^{\epsilon^2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} \partial_{j'} h(\sqrt{1-s}w+\sqrt{s}z) \partial_j \phi(z) dz ds
}
For each test function $h=I_A$ where $A$ is a convex set in $\mathbb{R}^k$, a smoothed version of it was introduced by \cite{Be03}
\ben{\label{h epsilon}
h_\epsilon (w) = \psi(\frac{d(w, A)}{\epsilon})
}
where $\epsilon>0$ and function $\psi$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}} %\beqn=\begin{eqnarray
\psi(x)=
\begin{cases}
1, & x<0\\
1-2x^2, & 0\le x<\frac{1}{2}\\
2(1-x)^2, & \frac{1}{2} \le x <1\\
0, & 1\le x.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}} %\eeqn=\end{eqnarray
The next lemma was proved in \cite{Be03}.
\begin{lem}
The above defined function $h_\epsilon$ satisfies:
\ben{\label{h epsilon-1}
h_\epsilon(w)=1\ \text{for} \ w\in A,\quad h_\epsilon(w)=0 \ \text{for}\ w\in \mathbb{R}^k\backslash A^\epsilon, \quad 0\le h_\epsilon \le 1,
}
and
\ben{\label{h epsilon-2}
|\nabla h_\epsilon (w)|\le \frac{2}{\epsilon},\quad |\nabla h_\epsilon (w_1)-\nabla h_\epsilon (w_2)|\le \frac{8|w_1-w_2|}{\epsilon^2}.
}
\end{lem}
For a convex set $A$ and $\gamma\ge 0$, defining $g_{1,\epsilon}=h_\epsilon$ for $h=I_{A^{4\gamma}}$, we have
\bes{
{\mathbb{P}}(W\in A)-{\mathbb{P}}(Z\in A) &\le {\mathbb{P}}(W\in A^{4\gamma})-{\mathbb{P}}(Z\in A)\\
&\le {\mathbb{E}} g_{1,\epsilon} (W) -{\mathbb{E}} g_{1,\epsilon} (Z) +{\mathbb{E}} g_{1,\epsilon}(Z)-{\mathbb{P}}(Z\in A)\\
&\le {\mathbb{E}} g_{1,\epsilon} (W)- {\mathbb{E}} g_{1,\epsilon} (Z)+{\mathbb{P}}(Z\in A^{4\gamma+\epsilon}\backslash A)\\
&\le {\mathbb{E}} g_{1,\epsilon} (W)- {\mathbb{E}} g_{1,\epsilon} (Z)+ k^{1/2} (4\gamma+\epsilon)
}
where we used (\ref{p1-1}). If $A^{-\epsilon-4\gamma}=\emptyset$,
\be{
{\mathbb{P}}(W\in A)-{\mathbb{P}}(Z\in A) \ge -{\mathbb{P}}(Z\in A\backslash A^{-\epsilon-4\gamma})\ge -k^{1/2}(4\gamma+\epsilon).
}
If not, defining $g_{2,\epsilon}=h_\epsilon$ for $h=I_{(A^{-\epsilon-4\gamma})^{4\gamma}}$, we have
\bes{
{\mathbb{P}}(W\in A)-{\mathbb{P}}(Z\in A) &\ge {\mathbb{E}} g_{2,\epsilon} (W) -{\mathbb{E}} g_{2,\epsilon} (Z) +{\mathbb{E}} g_{2,\epsilon}(Z)-{\mathbb{P}}(Z\in A)\\
&\ge {\mathbb{E}} g_{2,\epsilon} (W) -{\mathbb{E}} g_{2,\epsilon} (Z)-{\mathbb{P}}(Z\in A\backslash A^{-\epsilon-4\gamma})\\
&\ge {\mathbb{E}} g_{2,\epsilon} (W) -{\mathbb{E}} g_{2,\epsilon} (Z)-k^{1/2}(4\gamma+\epsilon).
}
Therefore, we have the following smoothing lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{smooth lem}
For any $k$-dimensional random vector $W$,
\ben{\label{smooth ineq-2}
\sup_{A\in \mathcal{A}}|{\mathbb{P}} (W\in A)-{\mathbb{P}} (Z\in A)| \le \sup_{h=I_{A^{4\gamma}}: A\in\mathcal{A}}|{\mathbb{E}} h_\epsilon(W)-{\mathbb{E}} h_\epsilon(Z)|+k^{1/2}(\epsilon+4\gamma)
}
where $Z$ is a standard $k$-dimensional Gaussian random vector, $\mathcal{A}$ is the set of all the convex sets in $\mathbb{R}^k$, $\epsilon>0$, $\gamma\ge 0$ and $h_\epsilon$ is defined as in (\ref{h epsilon}).
\end{lem}
The following lemma from \cite{Be03} will be used in this section.
\begin{lem}\label{lem6}
For a $k$-dimensional vector $x$,
\ben{\label{l3.3-1}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^k} |\sum_{j=1}^k x_j \partial_j \phi(z)| dz\le \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}|x|,
}
\ben{\label{l3.3-2}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^k} |\sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k x_j x_{j'} x_{j''} \partial_{jj'j''} \phi(z)|dz \le 2\frac{1+4 e^{-3/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}|x|^3.
}
\end{lem}
Using the same argument as in \cite{Be03} when proving Lemma \ref{lem6}, we obtain the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{l3.4}
For $k$-dimensional vectors $u,v$, we have
\ben{\label{l3.4-1}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^k} |\sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k u_j v_{j'} v_{j''} \partial_{jj'j''} \phi(z)| dz \le 2(1+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}})|u||v|^2.
}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is straightforward to verify that
\besn{\label{l3.4-2}
&\sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k u_j v_{j'} v_{j''} \partial_{jj'j''} \phi(z) \\
&= (|v|^2 (u\cdot z)+2 (u\cdot v)(v\cdot z)-(u\cdot z)(v\cdot z)^2) \phi(z).
}
From (\ref{l3.4-2}), we only need to consider the projection of $z$ in the two-dimensional space spanned by vectors $u,v$. Therefore, the constant obtained is dimension free and the rough upper bound \eqref{l3.4-1} is calculated as follows. Let $Z_1, Z_2$ be two independent $1$-dimensional standard Gaussian variables, then
\bes{
&\int_{\mathbb{R}^k} |\sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k u_j v_{j'} v_{j''} \partial_{jj'j''} \phi(z)| dz\\
&\le |u||v|^2 ({\mathbb{E}} |3Z_1-Z_1^3|+ {\mathbb{E}}| Z_2 (1-Z_1^2)|)\le 2(1+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}})|u||v|^2.
}
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{t2}
Let $k$-dimensional random vector $W$ be
\[
W=(W_1,\ldots, W_k)^T=\sum_{i=1}^n X_i=\sum_{i=1}^n (X_{i1},X_{i2},\ldots,X_{ik})^T
\]
where $\{X_i: i\in [n]\}$ are independent such that ${\mathbb{E}} X_i=0$ for each $i$ and ${\mathbb{E}} W W^T=I_{k\times k}$. Then,
\ben{\label{t2-1}
\sup_{A\in \mathcal{A}}|{\mathbb{P}} (W\in A)-{\mathbb{P}} (Z\in A)|\le 115 k^{1/2} \gamma
}
where $\mathcal{A}$ is the set of all the convex sets in $\mathbb{R}^k$, $Z$ is a standard $k$-dimensional Gaussian vector and $\gamma=\sum_{i=1}^n \gamma_i=\sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb{E}} |X_i|^3$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} Without loss of generality, assume $\gamma$ is finite.
Let $f_\epsilon$ be the solution to the Stein equation (\ref{Stein equation}) with test function $h_\epsilon$ defined in (\ref{h epsilon}) where $h=I_{A^{4\gamma}}$ for some $A\in \mathcal{A}$. With $W^{(i)}=W-X_i$, we have
\besn{
& {\mathbb{E}} \triangle f_\epsilon (W)-{\mathbb{E}} W\cdot \nabla f_\epsilon (W) \\
&={\mathbb{E}} \triangle f_\epsilon(W)-\sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb{E}} X_i \cdot (\nabla f_\epsilon(W)-\nabla f_\epsilon (W^{(i)})) \\
&={\mathbb{E}} \triangle f_\epsilon (W)-\sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb{E}} X_i\cdot (\text{Hess} f_\epsilon(W^{(i)})X_i) \\
&\quad -\sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb{E}} X_i\cdot(\nabla f_\epsilon (W)-\nabla f_\epsilon (W^{(i)})-\text{Hess} f_\epsilon (W^{(i)})X_i) \\
&=R_1-R_2
}
where
\ben{
R_1=\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j,j'=1}^k{\mathbb{E}} X_{ij}X_{ij'}{\mathbb{E}} [\partial_{jj'}f_\epsilon (W)-\partial_{jj'}f_\epsilon(W^{(i)})]
}
and
\ben{
R_2=\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j,j'=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} X_{ij}X_{ij'}[\partial_{jj'}f_\epsilon (W^{(i)}+UX_i)-\partial_{jj'}f_\epsilon(W^{(i)})]
}
where $U$ is an independent uniform random variable in $[0,1]$. From (\ref{Df}), $R_2$ can be expressed as
\bes{
R_2&=\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j,j'=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} X_{ij}X_{ij'}\int_{\epsilon^2}^1(-\frac{1}{2s})\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}\bigl[h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}W^{(i)}+\sqrt{1-s}UX_i+\sqrt{s}z)\nonumber \\
&\kern9em -h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}W^{(i)}+\sqrt{s}z)\bigr]\partial_{jj'}\phi(z)dzds\\
&+\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j,j'=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} X_{ij}X_{ij'}\int_{0}^{\epsilon^2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{s}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}\bigl[\partial_{j'} h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}W^{(i)}+\sqrt{1-s}UX_i+\sqrt{s}z)\nonumber \\
&\kern9em -\partial_{j'} h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}W^{(i)}+\sqrt{s}z)\bigr]\partial_{j}\phi(z)dzds\\
&=R_{2,1}+R_{2,2}.
}
Introducing another independent uniform random variable $U'$ in $[0,1]$ and using the integration by parts formula,
\bes{
R_{2,1}&=\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} UX_{ij}X_{ij'}X_{ij''}\int_{\epsilon^2}^1\frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2s^{3/2}}\nonumber \\
&\quad \times \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}W^{(i)}+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i+\sqrt{s}z)\partial_{jj'j''}\phi(z)dzds
}
and
\bes{
&R_{2,2}\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} UX_{ij}X_{ij'}X_{ij''}\int_{0}^{\epsilon^2}\frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2\sqrt{s}} \\
&\quad \times\int_{\mathbb{R}^k} \partial_{j'j''} h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}W^{(i)}+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i+\sqrt{s}z)\partial_{j}\phi(z)dzds \\
&=\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} UX_{ij}\int_0^{\epsilon^2} \frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2\sqrt{s}} \\
&\quad \times \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} ( \sum_{j'=1}^k X_{ij'}\partial_{j'} \nabla h_\epsilon (\sqrt{1-s}W^{(1)}+\sqrt{1-s} UU'X_i+\sqrt{s}z) \cdot X_i) \partial_j \phi(z) dz ds.
}
We first use the concentration inequality in Proposition \ref{p3} to bound $R_{2,2}$. Define any linear transform of a set to be the image of the linear transform of all the elements in the set. Notice that by (\ref{h epsilon-2}) and Proposition \ref{p3},
\bes{
&|{\mathbb{E}} ^{U,U',X_i}(\sum_{j'=1}^k X_{ij'} \partial_{j'}\nabla h_\epsilon (\sqrt{1-s}W^{(i)}+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)\cdot X_i)|\nonumber \\
&\le \frac{8}{\epsilon^2} |X_i|^2 {\mathbb{E}} ^{U,U'X_i}I(\sqrt{1-s}W^{(i)}\in A^{\epsilon}\backslash A-(\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i))\nonumber \\
&\le |X_i|^2 (32.8k^{1/2}\frac{1}{\epsilon\sqrt{1-s}}+312k^{1/2}\frac{\gamma}{\epsilon^2}).\nonumber
}
Therefore,
\besn{\label{R22}
|R_{2,2}|&\le \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb{E}} |X_i|^2 \int_0^{\epsilon^2} \frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2\sqrt{s}}(32.8k^{1/2}\frac{1}{\epsilon\sqrt{1-s}}+312k^{1/2}\frac{\gamma}{\epsilon^2}) \\
&\times\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}|\sum_{j=1}^k X_{ij} \partial_j\phi(z) |dzds \\
&\le \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\gamma(16.4k^{1/2}+156k^{1/2}\frac{\gamma}{\epsilon})
}
where we used Lemma \ref{lem6}.
Next, we make use of the concentration inequality in Proposition \ref{p3} to bound $R_{2,1}$ by a quantity involving $\gamma$, $\epsilon$ and $\sup_{A\in \mathcal{A}}|{\mathbb{P}} (W\in A)-{\mathbb{P}} (Z\in A)|$. Write $R_{2,1}=R_{2,1}'+R_{2,1}''$ by separating the sum over $i$ into two parts according to $\gamma_i \le 8\gamma^3$ or else. Write $R_{2,1}'=R_{2,1,1}'+R_{2,1,2}'$ by subtracting a term with $W^{(i)}$ replaced by an independent $k$-dimensional standard Gaussian vector $Z$ and adding the same term, i.e.,
\bes{
&R_{2,1,1}'\\
&=\sum_{i: \gamma_i\le 8\gamma^3} \sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} UX_{ij}X_{ij'}X_{ij''}\int_{\epsilon^2}^1 \frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2s^{3/2}} \\
&\quad \times \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} [h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}W^{(i)}+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)\nonumber \\
&\kern4em \quad -h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}Z+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)]\partial_{jj'j''}\phi(z)dzds
}
and
\bes{
R_{2,1,2}'&=\sum_{i: \gamma_i\le 8\gamma^3} \sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} UX_{ij}X_{ij'}X_{ij''}\int_{\epsilon^2}^1 \frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2s^{3/2}}\nonumber \\
&\quad \times \int_{\mathbb{R}^k}
h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}Z+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)\partial_{jj'j''}\phi(z)dzds.\nonumber
}
By introducing an independent copy $\widetilde{X}_i$ of $X_i$, $\widetilde{W}=W^{(i)}+\widetilde{X}_i$ has the same distribution as $W$ and is independent of $X_i$. We have
\bes{
&{\mathbb{E}} ^{U,U',X_i} \bigl\{ h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}W^{(i)}+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)\\
&\kern4em -h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}Z+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i) \bigr\} \\
&\le {\mathbb{E}} ^{U,U',X_i} \Bigl\{ I(W^{(i)} \in \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-s}}(A^{4\gamma+\epsilon}-\sqrt{s}z-\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i))\\
&\kern5em - I(Z \in \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-s}}(A^{4\gamma}-\sqrt{s}z-\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)) \Bigr\}\\
&\le {\mathbb{E}} ^{U,U',X_i} \biggl\{ I \bigl[W^{(i)}+\widetilde{X}_i\in \bigl( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-s}}(A^{4\gamma+\epsilon}-\sqrt{s}z-\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i) \bigr)^{|\widetilde{X}_i|}\\
&\kern12em \backslash \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-s}}(A^{4\gamma+\epsilon}-\sqrt{s}z-\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i) \bigr]\\
&\kern6em + I(Z\in \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-s}}(A^{4\gamma+\epsilon}-\sqrt{s}z-\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i) \\
&\kern13em \backslash \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-s}}(A^{4\gamma}-\sqrt{s}z-\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i))\\
&\kern6em +I(\widetilde{W} \in \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-s}}(A^{4\gamma+\epsilon}-\sqrt{s}z-\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)) \\
&\kern6em -I(Z\in \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-s}}(A^{4\gamma+\epsilon}-\sqrt{s}z-\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)) \biggr\}.
}
Let $\delta_\gamma$ denote the supreme of $\sup_{A\in \mathcal{A}}|{\mathbb{P}} (W\in A)-{\mathbb{P}} (Z\in A)|$ over all $W$ such that $W$ can be expressed as sum of $n$ independent mean $0$ random vectors such that ${\rm Cov}(W, W)=I_{k\times k}$ and the sum of absolute third moments of the summands is bounded by $\gamma$. Using the concentration inequalities in Proposition \ref{p1} and Proposition \ref{p3}, we have
\besn{\label{applicationofsecondconcentrationinequality}
&{\mathbb{E}} ^{U,U',X_i}[h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}W^{(i)}+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i) \\
&\quad-h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}Z+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)] \\
&\le 4.1 k^{1/2} {\mathbb{E}} |\widetilde{X}_i|+39 k^{1/2}\gamma +k^{1/2}\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{1-s}}+\delta_\gamma.
}
After proving a lower bound in same way as proving the upper bound, we can use Lemma \ref{lem6} to bound $R_{2,1,1}'$ by
\bes{
|R_{2,1,1}'|\le \frac{1+4e^{-3/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}(47.2k^{1/2}\frac{\gamma}{\epsilon}+k^{1/2}+\frac{\delta_\gamma}{\epsilon}) \sum_{i: \gamma_i\le 8\gamma^3} {\mathbb{E}} |X_i|^3.
}
For $R_{2,1,2}'$, using the integration by parts formula and noticing that $\sqrt{1-s}Z+\sqrt{s}\widetilde{Z}$ has the same distribution as $Z$ where $\widetilde{Z}$ is an independent copy of standard normal $Z$,
\bes{
&{\mathbb{E}}^{X_i} \int_{\epsilon^2}^1 \frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2s^{3/2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^k} h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}Z+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)\partial_{jj'j''}\phi(z)dzds\nonumber \\
&= -{\mathbb{E}}^{X_i} \int_{\epsilon^2}^1 \frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}\partial_{jj'j''} h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}Z+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)\phi(z)dzds\nonumber \\
&=\int_{\epsilon^2}^1 \frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} h_\epsilon(z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i) \partial_{jj'j''}\phi(z)dzds.
}
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{lem6},
\ben{\label{R212'}
|R_{2,1,2}'|\le \frac{1+4e^{-3/2}}{3\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{i:\gamma_i\le 8\gamma^3} {\mathbb{E}} |X_i|^3.
}
We remark that in the above calculation we used the third derivatives of $h_\epsilon$ which does not exist. However, we can smooth $h_\epsilon$ first then use limiting arguments to show that the final equality holds even if $h_\epsilon$ does not have third derivatives. Now we turn to bounding $|R_{2,1}''|$ where
\bes{
R_{2,1}''&=\sum_{i: \gamma_i>8\gamma^3} \sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} UX_{ij}X_{ij'}X_{ij''}\int_{\epsilon^2}^1\frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2s^{3/2}}\nonumber \\
&\quad \times \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}W^{(i)}+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i+\sqrt{s}z)\partial_{jj'j''}\phi(z)dzds.
}
For each $X_i$ such that $\gamma_i >8\gamma^3$, define $N_i$ to be the positive square root of the inverse of the matrix $I_{k\times k}-{\rm Cov} (X_i, X_i)$. Then we have the following bound on the operator norm of $N_i$.
\besn{\label{Ni}
||N_i||&=\sqrt{||(I_{k\times k}-{\rm Cov} (X_i, X_i))^{-1}||}\le (\frac{1}{1-||{\rm Cov} (X_i, X_i)||})^{1/2} \\
&= (\frac{1}{1-\sup_{|u|=1} u'{\rm Cov}(X_i, X_i) u})^{1/2} = (\frac{1}{1-\sup_{|u|=1}E(u'X_i)^2})^{1/2} \\
&\le (\frac{1}{1-E|X_i|^2})^{1/2} \le (\frac{1}{1-\gamma_i^{2/3}})^{1/2}.
}
Note that
\besn{
N_iW^{(i)}=\sum_{i': i'\ne i} N_i X_{i'}
}
is a sum of $n$ independent random vectors (with one $0$-vector) with
\besn{
{\mathbb{E}} N_i X_{i'}=0, \quad {\rm Cov} (N_iW^{(i)}, N_i W^{(i)})=I_{k\times k}
}
and
\besn{
\sum_{i': i'\ne i} {\mathbb{E}} |N_i X_{i'}|^3&\le \frac{\gamma-\gamma_i}{(1-\gamma_i^{2/3})^{3/2}}
\le \frac{\gamma-\gamma_i}{(1-\gamma_i^{2/3})^{2}}\le \frac{\gamma-\gamma_i}{1-2\gamma_i ^{2/3}}\le \gamma
}
where we used the fact that $\gamma_i >8\gamma^3$ in the last inequality. Therefore, $N_iW^{(i)}$ can be regarded as a standardized sum of $n$ independent random vectors with sum of absolute third moments of the summands less than $\gamma$. We write $R_{2,1}''$ into two parts as
\bes{
&R_{2,1,1}''\\
&=\sum_{i: \gamma_i>8\gamma^3}\sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} UX_{ij}X_{ij'}X_{ij''}\int_{\epsilon^2}^1 \frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2s^{3/2}} \\
&\qquad \times \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} [h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}N_i^{-1} (N_iW^{(i)})+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i) \\
&\kern5em -h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}N_i^{-1} Z+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)]\partial_{jj'j''}\phi(z)dzds
}
and
\bes{
R_{2,1,2}''&=\sum_{i: \gamma_i>8\gamma^3}\sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} UX_{ij}X_{ij'}X_{ij''}\int_{\epsilon^2}^1 \frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2s^{3/2}}\nonumber \\
&\quad \times \int_{\mathbb{R}^k}
h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}N_i^{-1}Z+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)\partial_{jj'j''}\phi(z)dzds.
}
From
\bes{
&{\mathbb{E}}^{U,U',X_i} [h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}N_i^{-1} (N_iW^{(i)})+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i) \\
&\kern4em -h_\epsilon(\sqrt{1-s}N_i^{-1} Z+\sqrt{s}z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)]\\
&\le {\mathbb{E}}^{U,U',X_i} [I(N_iW^{(i)} \in \frac{N_i}{\sqrt{1-s}}(A^{4\gamma+\epsilon}-\sqrt{s}z-\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i))\\
&\kern6em -I(Z \in \frac{N_i}{\sqrt{1-s}}(A^{4\gamma}-\sqrt{s}z-\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i))]\\
&\le \delta_\gamma+k^{1/2}\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{1-s}} ||N_i||
}
and a similar lower bound, we have
\be{
|R_{2,1,1}''| \le \sum_{i:\gamma_i>8\gamma^3} \frac{1+4e^{-3/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} {\mathbb{E}} |X_i|^3 (\frac{\delta_\gamma}{\epsilon}+k^{1/2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\gamma^{2/3}}}).
}
Therefore,
\ben{\label{R211}
|R_{2,1,1}|\le \frac{1+4e^{-3/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \gamma(\frac{\delta_\gamma}{\epsilon}+k^{1/2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\gamma^{2/3}}}+47.2 k^{1/2}\frac{\gamma}{\epsilon}).
}
Using a similar argument leading to (\ref{R212'}), $R_{2,1,2}''$ can be written as
\besn{
R_{2,1,2}'' &=\sum_{i:\gamma_i>8\gamma^3} \sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} U X_{ij} X_{ij'}X_{ij''} \int_{\epsilon^2}^1 \frac{\sqrt{1-s}}{2} \\
&\quad \times \int_{\mathbb{R}^k}h_\epsilon (Z+\sqrt{1-s}UU'X_i)\partial_{jj'j''}\phi_{\Sigma_i^s}(z) dz
}
where $\Sigma_i^s =I_{k\times k}-(1-s){\rm Cov} (X_i, X_i)$ and $\phi_{\Sigma_i^s}$ is the density function of $N(0,\Sigma_i^s)$.
\ignore{
$|N|$ denotes the determinant of matrix $N$.
$$\phi_{\Sigma}(z)=|\Sigma^{-1/2}|\phi(\Sigma^{-1/2}z)$$
$$|\sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k u_j u_{j'} u_{j''} \partial_{jj'j''}\phi_{\Sigma}(z)|=|N||\sum_{i,i',i''=1}^k (Nu)_i (Nu)_{i'} (Nu)_{i''} \phi_{ii'i''}(Nz)|$$
}
From
\bes{
& \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} |\sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k X_{ij} X_{ij'}X_{ij''} \partial_{jj'j''}\phi_{\Sigma_i^s}(z) |dz\\
&= \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} |\sum_{j,j',j''=1}^k (N_i^s X_i)_j (N_i^s X_i)_{j'} (N_i^s X_i)_{j''} \partial_{jj'j''} \phi(z) |dz
}
where $N_i^s$ is the positive square root of the inverse of $\Sigma_i^s$,
\ben{
|R_{2,1,2}''|\le \sum_{i:\gamma_i>8\gamma^3} {\mathbb{E}} |X_i|^3 \frac{1+4e^{-3/2}}{3\sqrt{2\pi}} (\frac{1}{1-\gamma^{2/3}})^{3/2}.
}
We used the fact that $||N_i^s||\le (\frac{1}{1-\gamma^{2/3}})^{1/2}$, which can be proved as in (\ref{Ni}), in the above inequality. Therefore,
\ben{\label{R212}
|R_{2,1,2}|\le \frac{1+4e^{-3/2}}{3\sqrt{2\pi}}\gamma (\frac{1}{1-\gamma^{2/3}})^{3/2}.
}
Observing that $R_1$ can be written as
\bes{
R_1=\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j,j'=1}^k {\mathbb{E}} \widetilde{X}_{ij} \widetilde{X}_{ij'} [\partial_{jj'}f_\epsilon (W)-\partial_{jj'}f_\epsilon(W^{(i)})]
}
where $\widetilde{X}_i$ is an independent copy of $X_i$, we can bound it similarly as for $R_2$ as follows.
\ben{\label{R12}
|R_{1,2}|\le 2\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \gamma(16.4k^{1/2}+156k^{1/2}\frac{\gamma}{\epsilon}),
}
\ben{\label{R111}
|R_{1,1,1}|\le 2(1+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}})\gamma (\frac{\delta_\gamma}{\epsilon}+k^{1/2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\gamma^{2/3}}}+47.2 k^{1/2}\frac{\gamma}{\epsilon}),
}
\ben{\label{R112}
|R_{1,1,2}|\le \frac{2}{3}(1+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}})\gamma (\frac{1}{1-\gamma^{2/3}})^{3/2}.
}
Note that the constants are different from those of $R_2$ because we use (\ref{l3.4-1}) instead of (\ref{l3.3-2}) and an extra $2$ comes from the fact that there is no $U$ in $R_1$.
From the bounds (\ref{R111}), (\ref{R112}), (\ref{R12}), (\ref{R211}), (\ref{R212}), (\ref{R22}) and the smoothing inequality (\ref{smooth ineq-2}), with $c_0=2(1+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}) +\frac{1+4e^{-3/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}$,
\bes{
(1-\frac{\gamma c_0}{\epsilon}) \delta_\gamma&\le (49.2\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}+\frac{c_0}{\sqrt{1-\gamma^{2/3}}}+\frac{c_0}{3(1-\gamma^{2/3})^{3/2}})k^{1/2}\gamma \\
&\quad +(468\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}+47.2c_0)k^{1/2} \frac{\gamma^2}{\epsilon}+k^{1/2} (4\gamma+\epsilon).
}
Let $\epsilon=33\gamma$, and without loss of generality let $\gamma\le 1/115$. The bound (\ref{t2-1}) is proved by solving the above inequality.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs of lemmas}
We prove Lemma \ref{lem1} to \ref{lem4} in this section.
\textbf{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem1}.}
The lemma is true by observing that for $x\in \mathbb{R}^k\backslash A^{\epsilon}$, $x_0$ must be the nearest point of $x_1$ in $\bar{A}$ where $x_0, x_1$ as defined above Lemma \ref{lem1}.
\textbf{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem3}.}
Because $x_0$, the nearist point in $\bar{A}$ from $x$, depends on $x$, the validity of (\ref{lem1-2}) is not obvious. We consider the following three cases. All the other cases can be reduced to these cases.
Case 1: $\eta \in \bar{A}$, $\eta +\xi\in \bar{A}$.
Case 2: $\eta \in A^{\epsilon}\backslash \bar{A}$, $\eta +\xi\in A^{\epsilon}\backslash \bar{A}$.
Case 3: $\eta \in \mathbb{R}^k\backslash A^{\epsilon}$, $\eta +\xi\in \mathbb{R}^k\backslash A^{\epsilon}$.
In case 1, since $f(\eta )=f(\eta +\xi)=0$, (\ref{lem1-2}) is satisfied.
From the facts that (\ref{lem1-2}) is equivalent to
\ben{
(-\xi) \cdot (f(\eta+\xi+(-\xi))-f(\eta+\xi)) \ge 0
}
and
\ben{\label{lem2-0}
\xi\cdot (\eta-\eta_0)>0\quad \text{implies}\quad (-\xi) \cdot ((\eta+\xi)-(\eta+\xi)_0 ) <0,
}
which can be proved using a similar argument as in the next paragraph, we only need to consider the following situation in case 2.
\ignore{
If $\xi\cdot (\eta-\eta_0)=0$. Let $p_1$ be the $(k-1)$-dimensional hyperplane orthogonal to $\eta-\eta_0$ and containing $\eta_0$. Let $p_2$ be the $(k-1)$-dimensional hyperplane orthogonal to $\xi$ and containing $\eta+\xi$. The hyperplane $p_1$ divides $\mathbb{R}^k$ into two parts $s_1, s_2$, where $s_2$ is open and contains $\eta$; the hyperplane $p_2$ divides $\mathbb{R}^k$ into two parts $s_3, s_4$ where $s_3$ is closed and contains $\eta$. Then $(\eta+\xi)_0\in s_1\cap s_3$, which implies (\ref{lem1-2}).
If $\xi\cdot (\eta-\eta_0)>0$. Let $p_1$ be the plane parallel to $\eta-\eta_0$, $\xi$ and containing $\eta$. Let $(\eta+\xi)'$ be on $p_1$ such that $(\eta+\xi)'-(\eta+\xi)$ is parallel to $\eta-\eta_0$ and $(\eta+\xi)'-\eta_0$ is parallel to $\xi$. Let $p_2$ be the $(k-1)$-dimensional hyperplane orthogonal to $\xi$ and containing $(\eta+\xi)'$. Then $(\eta+\xi)_0$ must be on the same side of $p_2$ as $\eta_0$, which implies (\ref{lem1-2}).
}
Assume $\xi\cdot (\eta-\eta_0)\le 0$. Let $p_1$ be the plane containing points $\eta_0, \eta, \eta+\xi$. Let the point $(\eta+\xi)'$ be on $p_1$ such that $(\eta+\xi)'-(\eta+\xi)$ is parallel to $\eta_0-\eta$ and $(\eta+\xi)'-\eta_0$ is parallel to $\xi$. Let $p_2$ be the $(k-1)$-dimensional hyperplane orthogonal to $\xi$ and containing $(\eta+\xi)'$. The hyperplane $p_2$ divides $\mathbb{R}^k$ into two parts $s_1, s_2$ where $s_1$ is closed and contains $\eta$. If $(\eta+\xi)_0$, the nearest point in $\bar{A}$ from $\eta+\xi$, is in $s_1$, (\ref{lem1-2}) is satisfied. If not, let $(\eta+\xi)''$ be the projection of $(\eta+\xi)_0$ on $p_1$. Then the angle between $\eta_0-(\eta+\xi)''$ and $\eta+\xi-(\eta+\xi)''$ is less than $\pi/2$. This means that the angle between $\eta_0-(\eta+\xi)_0$ and $\eta+\xi-(\eta+\xi)_0$ is less than $\pi/2$, which contradicts with the fact that $(\eta+\xi)_0$ is the nearest point in $\bar{A}$ from $\eta+\xi$.
The validity of (\ref{lem1-2}) in case 3 can be proved similarly.
\ignore{
Next we consider Case 3. Only one situation is not trivial, that is, when $\xi\cdot (\eta-\eta_0)>0$. Let $p_1$ be the plane parallel to $\eta-\eta_0$, $\xi$ and containing $\eta$. Let $(\eta+\xi)'$ be on $p_1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}} %\beq=\begin{eqnarray*
(\eta+\xi)-(\eta+\xi)'=[\epsilon+(m_1+m_2)\delta] \frac{\eta-\eta_0}{|\eta-\eta_0|}.
\end{eqnarray*}} %\eeq=\end{eqnarray*
Let $(\eta+\xi)'''$ be in the same line as $(\eta+\xi), (\eta+\xi)'$ such that $(\eta+\xi)'''-\eta_0$ is orthogonal to $\eta-\eta_0$. Let $p_2$ be the $(k-1)$-dimensional hyperplane orthogonal to $\xi$ and containing $(\eta+\xi)'$. Define $(\eta+\xi)''$ to be the intersection of $p_2$ and the line $\{(\eta+\xi)_0+t [(\eta+\xi)-(\eta+\xi)_0]: 0 <t <1\}$. Then, if $|(\eta+\xi)-(\eta+\xi)''| \le \epsilon+ (m_1+m_2)\delta$, (\ref{lem1-2}) is satisfied. If $|(\eta+\xi)-(\eta+\xi)''| > \epsilon+ (m_1+m_2)\delta$, then the angle between $(\eta+\xi)_0-(\eta+\xi)$ and $\eta_0-(\eta+\xi)$ is bigger than the angle between $(\eta+\xi)'''-(\eta+\xi)$ and $\eta_0-(\eta+\xi)$. Also note that the angle between $(\eta+\xi)_0-\eta_0$ and $(\eta+\xi)-\eta_0$ is bigger than the angle between $(\eta+\xi)'''-\eta_0$ and $(\eta+\xi)-\eta_0$. Therefore, the angle between $\eta_0-(\eta+\xi)_0$ and $(\eta+\xi)-(\eta+\xi)_0$ is smaller than $\pi/2$, which contradicts with the fact that $(\eta+\xi)_0$ is the nearist point. Therefore, the lemma is proved.
}
\textbf{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem2}.}
We first prove $f_i$ is $1$-Lipschitz in direction $i$. From (\ref{lem2-0}), we only need to prove
\ben{\label{lem3-0}
|f_i (x+he_i) -f_i(x)| \le h, \quad h>0
}
in the following two cases.
Case 1: $x, x+he_i \in A^{\epsilon }\backslash \bar{A}$ and $e_i \cdot (x-x_0) \le 0$.
Case 2: $x, x+he_i \notin A^{\epsilon }$ and $e_i \cdot (x-x_0) \le 0$.
For case 1, let $p_1$ be the plane parallel to $x-x_0$, $e_i$ and containing $x$. Let $(x+he_i)'$ be on $p_1$ such that $(x+he_i)'-(x+he_i)$ is parallel to $x-x_0$ and $(x+he_i)'-x_0$ is parallel to $e_i$.
Let $p_2$ be the $(k-1)$-dimensional hyperplane orthogonal to $e_i$ and containing $(x+he_i)'$, and let $p_3$ be the $(k-1)$-dimensional hyperplane orthogonal to $x-x_0$ and containing $x_0$.
Let $(x+he_i)''$ be the projection of $x+he_i$ on $p_3$ and, let $x'$ be the intersection of the line $\{x_0+t(x-x_0): t\in\mathbb{R}\}$ with $p_2$. Then, $(x+h e_i)_0'$, the projection of $(x+he_i)_0$ on $p_1$, must be within the trapezoid $\{x_0, x', (x+he_i)', (x+he_i)''\}$ (including the boundary), which implies $h\ge f_i(x+h e_i) -f_i (x) \ge 0$. Therefore, (\ref{lem3-0}) is satisfied. Case 2 is similar.
Since $f_i$ is $1$-Lipschitz in direction $i$, $\partial_i f_i$ exist a.e.. From Lemma \ref{lem3},
\be{
\frac{f_i(x+he_i)-f_i(x)}{h}=\frac{(he_i)\cdot (f(x+he_i)-f(x))}{h^2} \ge 0, \forall
\ h\in \mathbb{R}, h\ne 0.
}
Therefore,
\be{
\partial_i f_i (x)=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{f_i(x+he_i)-f_i(x)}{h} \ge 0 \quad \text{a.e.}
}
\textbf{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem4}.} If $\theta_i=0$, $f_i(x)=x-x_0=x_i-x_{0i}$. Note that $x_0$ does not change by moving $x$ a little in the direction of $e_i$. So $\partial_i f_i (x)=1=\cos ^2 \theta_i$.
If $\theta_i=\pi/2$, Lemma \ref{lem4} follows from Lemma \ref{lem2}.
If $0< \theta_i< \pi/2$ and $h>0$ small enough such that $x+he_i\in (A^{\epsilon})^o \backslash \bar{A}$. Let $p_1$ be the $(k-1)$-dimensional hyperplane orthogonal to $x-x_0$ which contains $x_0$. Let $(x+he_i)'$ be the projection of $x+he_i$ on $p_1$. Let $p_2$ be the $(k-1)$-dimensional hyperplane orthogonal to $x_0-(x+he_i)'$ which contains $(x+he_i)'$. The hyperplane $p_1$ divides $\mathbb{R}^k$ into two parts $s_1, s_2$ where $s_2$ is open and contains $x$; the hyperplane $p_2$ divides $\mathbb{R}^k$ into two parts $s_3, s_4$ where $s_3$ is closed and contains $x$.
By observing
\be{
(x+he_i-(x+he_i)')\cdot e_i =f_i(x) +\cos ^2 \theta_i h
}
and $(x+he_i)_0$ must be in $s_1\cap s_3$, we have,
\be{
f_i(x+he_i)\ge (x+he_i-(x+he_i)')\cdot e_i=f_i(x)+\cos ^2 \theta_i h.
}
This implies
\ben{\label{3.1}
\frac{f_i(x+he_i)-f_i(x)}{h} \ge \cos^2 \theta_i.
}
Therefore,
\be{
\lim_{h\rightarrow 0^{+}} \frac{f_i(x+he_i)-f_i(x)}{h} \ge \cos ^2 \theta_i \quad \text{a.e.}
}
So $\partial_i f_i(x)\ge \cos^2 \theta_i$ a.e. .
For the other possible choices of $\theta_i$, the arguments are similar. This completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem4}.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work is based on part of the Ph.D. thesis of the second author. The second author is thankful to the first author for his guidance and helpful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
Recent developments in the nanofabrication of semiconductor
devices have given a thrust to the study of quantum mechanical
systems with position dependent effective mass. The spatial
dependence on the effective mass of the particle arises due to its
interaction with an ensemble of particles within the device, as
the particle propagates from left to right. This so-called
position-dependent effective mass (pdem) formalism becomes an
essential ingredient in describing the electronic and transport
properties of quantum wells and quantum dots, impurities in
crystals, He-clusters, quantum liquids, semiconductor
heterostructures, etc.
\cite{pdm1,pdm2,pdm3,pdm4,pdm5,harrison,bastard,levy-leblond}.
When two such materials (having pdem) with different bandgaps are
placed adjacent to each other to form a heterojunction, the
effective mass approximation is valid within each material. If,
for example, a thin layer of a narrower (wider) bandgap material
is sandwiched between two layers of a wider (narrower) bandgap
material, they form a double heterojunction. If the intermediate
layer is sufficiently thin for quantum properties to be exhibited,
then the alignment is called a single quantum well (barrier). A
typical quantum well structure may be composed of a semiconductor
thin film, embedded between two semi-infinite semiconductor
materials, say $GaAs/Al_{x}Ga_{1-x}As$, where $x$ denotes the mole
fraction. As the mole fraction varies along the $z$-axis, so does
the effective mass of the charge carrier (electron or hole). To
have a complete understanding of such a quantum system, quantum
mechanics requires knowledge of both bound and scattering states.
Various attempts have been made over the years to study the
scattering states in such position-dependent effective mass
systems
\cite{pra75,pra83,pra59,scatt-pdm,koc-koca,paranjpe,jha,jpa43}. In
two of the recent works \cite{prb83,prb82}, the authors studied
the effect of hard wall confinement and lateral dimensions on low
temperature transport properties of long diffuse channels in
$InSb/In_{1-x}Al_x Sb$ heterostructures \cite{prb83}, and resonant
inelastic x-ray scattering in $LaAlO_3/SrTiO_3$ heterostructures
\cite{prb82}. In another work, ballistic carrier emission was
studied with $GaAs/Al_{x}Ga_{1-x}As$ as a model system
\cite{prb81}. In one of the relatively earlier works, the authors
considered the simple model of a square potential well, with the
effective mass varying with position inside the well
\cite{koc-koca}. However, as the additional term introduced by the
changing mass is small compared with the original potential $V_0$
and does not change the shape of the potential significantly, this
term was neglected while finding the solutions.
In the present work our aim is to obtain the exact analytical
solutions for the scattering states of a particle inside a single
quantum well/barrier. It may be mentioned that exact analytical
solutions play an important role in conceptual understanding of
physics. They provide a valuable platform for checking and
improving approximate models and numerical results. Herein lies
the motivation for obtaining exact analytical solutions of wave
equations with pdem, especially because of the wide range of
applications of these solutions in various areas of material
science and condensed matter \cite{alhaidari}. In the double
heterojunction considered here, we assume the intermediate layer
to be a potential well / barrier of the form
\begin{equation}\label{pot-form}
V = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
& & \displaystyle V(z)
\qquad \ \ , \ \ \ a_1 < z < a_2 \\
& & \displaystyle V_{01} = V(a_1) \ , \ \ \ - \infty < z < a_1 \\
& & \displaystyle V_{02} = V(a_2) \ , \ \ \ a_2 < z < \infty
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $a_1$ and $a_2$ represent the heterojunctions. The mass of
the charge carrier is assumed to be spatially varying inside the
potential well / barrier $a_1 < z < a_2$, but constant outside,
viz,
\begin{equation}\label{mass-form}
m = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
& & \displaystyle m(z)
\qquad \ \ , \ \ \ a_1 < z < a_2 \\
& & \displaystyle m_1 = m(a_1) \ , \ \ \ - \infty < z < a_1 \\
& & \displaystyle m_2 = m(a_2) \ , \ \ \ a_2 < z < \infty
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Thus both the potential $V(z)$ and mass $m(z)$ are real functions
of the configuration space coordinates, and are taken to be
continuous throughout the semiconductor device. The work done in
refs. \cite{jha, alhaidari} deserve special mention here. In ref.
\cite{jha} approximate analytical solutions were derived for any
arbitrary potential and arbitrary mass function, whereas in ref.
\cite{alhaidari}, some special forms of the mass function were
considered for oscillator, Coulomb and Morse potentials to produce
exact analytical results. However, our study differs significantly
from both these works --- the mass functions considered in our
case, as well as the approach used, are different from refs.
\cite{jha} and \cite{alhaidari}; the present article not only
gives exact analytic results but also plots the transmission and
reflection coefficients. More importantly, unlike
\cite{jha,alhaidari}, this work deals with a double
heterojunction.
\vs{.2cm}
The article is organized as follows : For the sake of
completeness, the position-dependent-mass Schr\"{o}dinger equation
is introduced in Section II, and the method of obtaining the
solutions is discussed. A couple of explicit models are studied in
Section III. To give a better insight into the physical nature of
the problem, the potential and mass functions are plotted as a
function of $z$ (in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) along with the scattering
solutions (in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4). The transmission and reflection
coefficients are also calculated and the same are plotted as a
function of the energy of the particle, in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6
respectively. Section IV is kept for Conclusions and Discussions.
\section{Theory}
\noindent We start with the basic one dimensional time independent
Schr\"{o}dinger equation associated with a particle endowed with
pdem in the intermediate region within the heterojunctions :
\begin{equation}\label{H-em}
\displaystyle H_{EM} (z) \psi (z) \equiv \left[ T_{EM} (z) + V(z) \right]
\psi (z) = E \psi (z)
\end{equation}
where the kinetic energy term $T_{EM}$ is given by
\cite{pdm4,harrison}
\begin{equation}\label{T-em}
\begin{array}{lcl}
T_{EM} &=& \displaystyle \frac{1}{4} \left( m^{\alpha} p
m^{\beta} p m ^{\gamma} + m^{\gamma} p
m^{\beta} p m ^{\alpha} \right) \\ \\
&=& \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} p \left( \frac{1}{m}
\right) p
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with $ p = \displaystyle - i \hbar \frac{d}{dz} $ being the
momentum operator, and the ambiguity parameters $\alpha \ , \
\beta \ , \ \gamma $ obeying the von Roos constraint \cite{pdm4}
\begin{equation}\label{abg}
\alpha + \beta + \gamma = -1
\end{equation}
There is neither a unique nor a universal choice for the ambiguity
parameters, and several suggestions exist in literature --- e.g. $
\alpha = \gamma = 0 \ , \ \beta = -1$ \cite{benDaniel-Duke}, $
\alpha = \gamma = - 1/2 \ , \ \beta = 0$ \cite{z-k}, $ \alpha =
\gamma = - 1/4 \ , \ \beta = - 1/2$ \cite{m-m}, $ \beta = \gamma =
- 1/2 \ , \ \alpha = 0$ \cite{l-k}, etc. However, for continuity
conditions at the abrupt interfaces, one should consider $ \alpha
= \gamma$, or else one gets the unphysical result of the wave
function vanishing at the heterojunctions; additionally the ground
state energy also diverges \cite{marrow, thomsen}. We shall
restrict ourselves to the BenDaniel-Duke choice for the ambiguity
parameters, viz., $ \alpha = \gamma = 0 \ , \ \beta = -1 $.
Incidentally, this particular choice consistently produces the
best fit to experimental results \cite{proceed}. Furthermore, we
shall work in units $\hbar = c = 1$, and use prime to denote
differentiation w.r.t. $z$. Thus, inside the potential
well/barrier $a_1 < z < a_2$, the Hamiltonian for the particle
with pdem reduces to \cite{plastino}
\begin{equation}\label{h-in}
H = \displaystyle - \frac{1}{2m(z)} \frac{d^2}{dz^2} - \left(
\frac{1}{2m(z)} \right) ^{\prime} \frac{d}{dz} + V(z)
\end{equation}
whereas, outside the well/barrier, $ z < a_1 $ and $ z > a_2 $,
the particle obeys the conventional Schr\"{o}dinger equation :
\begin{equation}\label{sch-out}
\displaystyle \left\{ - \frac{1}{2m_{1,2}} \frac{d^2}{dz^2} +
V_{01,02}
\right\} \psi (z) = E \psi (z)
\end{equation}
having plane wave solutions. In case we consider a wave incident
from left, the solutions in the two regions are
\begin{equation}\label{psi-out}
\begin{array}{lcl}
\psi _L (z) &=& \displaystyle e^{i k_1 z} + R e^{-ik_1 z} \ , \ - \infty <
z < a_1 \\ \\
\psi _R (z) &=& T e^{i k_2 z} \ , \ \qquad \qquad a_2 <
z < \infty \\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $R$ and $T$ denote the reflection and transmission
amplitudes, and
\begin{equation}\label{k}
k_{1,2} = \displaystyle \sqrt{ 2 m_{1,2} \left( E - V_{01,02} \right) }
\end{equation}
\vs{.1cm}
\noindent To find the solution in the region $a_1 < z < a_2$, we
make use of the following transformations \cite{br-pr}
\begin{equation}\label{psi-z}
\psi _{in} = \displaystyle \left\{ 2 m(z) \right\} ^{1/4} \phi
\ , \ \rho = \displaystyle \int \sqrt{2 m(z)} dz
\end{equation}
which reduce the Schr\"{o}dinger equation for position-dependent
mass, to one for constant mass, viz.,
\begin{equation}\label{schro-const-m}
\displaystyle - \frac{d^2 \phi }{d \rho ^2} + \left\{
\widetilde{V} (\rho) - E \right\} \phi = 0
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{v-tilde}
\widetilde{V} (\rho) = \displaystyle V(z) + \frac{7}{32} \frac{m^{\prime
\ 2}}{m^3} - \frac{m^{\prime \prime}}{8 m^2}
\end{equation}
We are interested in studying the scattering states of a particle
in a double heterojunction, formed by dissimilar materials, where
the mass of the particle varies with position inside the well /
barrier. Such heterojunctions can be described by a material
potential which derives from the difference in bandgaps
\cite{harrison}. Crystal potential of multiple heterojunction can
also be described in this manner. For this purpose, we look for
some definite practical forms of $V(z)$ and $m(z)$ which will give
exact analytical solutions of (\ref{schro-const-m}). We illustrate
this with the help of a couple of explicit models in the next
section.
\section{Explicit models}
\subsection{Case 1 : Potential well with position dependent mass}
\noindent The one dimensional finite square well is one of the
simplest confinement potentials. In the first example, we consider
the region between the abrupt heterojunctions ($-a_0 < z < a_0$)
to be a symmetric potential well (more realistic than the square
well) with the following ansatz ($\mu$ being some constant)
\begin{equation}\label{pot-1}
V(z) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
& & \displaystyle - \ \frac{\mu ^2 }{1 + z^2}
\ \ , \ -a_0 < z < a_0 \ , \\ \\
& & \displaystyle - \frac{\mu ^2 }{1 + a_0^2} \ = \
V_0 \ , \\
& & \ \ - \infty < z < -a_0 \ , \ a_0 < z < \infty
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
This particular model resembles the profile of a diffused quantum
well, with the advantage of exact analytical solutions. In case
the real situation is slightly different from this model, one can
apply approximation methods like perturbation theory, etc.,
to obtain the solutions. \\
Let the mass of the particle be
\begin{equation}\label{mass-1}
m(z) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
& & \displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2 \left(1 + z^2 \right)}
\ \ \ , \ -a_0 < z < a_0 \ , \\ \\
& & \displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2 \left(1 + a_0^2 \right)} = m_0 \
, \\
& & \ \ - \infty < z < -a_0 \ , \ a_0 < z < \infty \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\beta$ is some constant parameter. For the spatial mass
dependence given by eq. (\ref{mass-1}), eq. (\ref{psi-z})
transforms the coordinate $z$ to
\begin{equation}\label{rho}
\rho = \beta \sinh ^{-1} z
\end{equation}
so that after some straightforward algebra $\widetilde{V} (\rho)$
in eq. (\ref{v-tilde}) reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{v-sech}
\widetilde{V} (\rho) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{4 \beta ^2} - \left( \mu ^2 -
\frac{1}{4 \beta ^2} \right) {\rm{sech}} ^2 \frac{\rho}{\beta}
\end{equation}
Thus equation (\ref{schro-const-m}) can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{schro-rho}
\displaystyle \frac{d^2 \phi}{d \rho ^2} + \left \{ \kappa ^2 +
\lambda ( \lambda - 1 ) {\rm{sech}} ^2
\frac{\rho}{\beta} \right\} \phi = 0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{k}
{\rm{where}} \qquad \displaystyle \kappa ^2 = E - \frac{1}{4 \beta ^2}
\end{equation}
and the parameter $\lambda$ depends on the constants $\mu$ and
$\beta$, through the equation
\begin{equation}\label{lambda}
\lambda ( \lambda - 1 ) = \displaystyle \mu ^2 -
\frac{1}{4 \beta ^2}
\end{equation}
For existence of bound states $ \lambda
> 1 $; hence, $ \mid \mu \mid \ >
\displaystyle \frac{1}{2 \beta} $. This gives the permissible
values of $ \lambda $ as
\begin{equation}\label{lambda}
\lambda = \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}
\sqrt{ \displaystyle 1 + 4 \mu ^2 - \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}
\end{equation}
{\begin{figure}[hp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{well-mass-pot.eps}}
\label*{}\caption{\small {Colour online : Plot showing $m(z)$ and
$V(z)$ w.r.t. $z$ }}
\end{center}
\end{figure}}
\noindent For a better understanding of the mass dependence and
the potential in the semiconductor device, we plot $m(z)$ and
$V(z) $ as a function of $z$ in Fig. 1, for a suitable set of
parameter values, viz., $\beta = 4 , \ \mu = 3, \ a_0 = 2 $.
\noindent Let us introduce a new variable
\begin{equation}\label{y}
y = \displaystyle \cosh ^2 \frac{\rho}{\beta}
\end{equation}
and write the solutions of (\ref{schro-rho}) as
\begin{equation}\label{phi-u}
\phi = \displaystyle y^{\frac{ \lambda}{2}} \ u(y)
\end{equation}
In terms of the new variable $y$, equation (\ref{schro-rho})
reduces to the hypergeometric equation
\begin{equation}\label{y-u}
\begin{array}{lll}
& & \displaystyle y(1-y) \frac{d^2 u}{dy^2} + \left\{ \left(
\lambda + \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} \right)
- \left( \lambda + 1
\right) y \right\} \displaystyle \frac{du}{dy} \\
& & - \ \displaystyle \frac{1}{4} \left\{
\lambda ^2 + \kappa ^2 \beta^2 \right\} u = 0
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with complete solution \cite{flugge}
\begin{equation}\label{u-hypergeometric}
\begin{array}{lll}
u &=& \displaystyle P \ _2F_1 \left( a,b,\frac{1}{2}; 1-y
\right) + \displaystyle Q (1-y)^{1/2} \cdot \\
& & \displaystyle _2F_1 \left( a+\frac{1}{2},b + \frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}; 1-y
\right)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $P$ and $Q$ are constants, and the parameters $a$ and $b$
are as defined below :
\begin{equation}\label{ab}
a = \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} \left( \lambda + i \kappa \beta \right)
\ \ , \ \ b = \displaystyle \frac{1}{2}
\left( \lambda - i \kappa \beta \right)
\end{equation}
Thus for the even solution $Q = 0$, whereas for the odd solution
$P = 0$. After some straightforward algebra, the final solution to
the position-dependent mass Schr\"{o}dinger equation (\ref{H-em}),
within the potential well $ -a_0 < z < a_0$, is obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{psi-in}
\begin{array}{lll}
\psi _{in} (z) &=& \displaystyle \left( \frac{\beta ^2}{2 (1+z^2)} \right)
^{1/4} \left( 1+z^2 \right) ^{\lambda /2} \cdot \\ \\
& & \displaystyle \left\{
P \ _2F_1 \left( a,b,\frac{1}{2}; -z^2
\right) \right. \\
& & \left. + \ i Q z \
_2F_1 \displaystyle \left( a + \frac{1}{2},b + \frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}; -z^2
\right) \right\}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
whereas outside the well ($z < -a_0 \ , \ z > a_0 $), the
solutions are given by eq (\ref{psi-out}), with $ k_1 = k_2$.
{\begin{figure}[hp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics{well-psi.eps}}
\label*{}\caption{\small {Colour online : A plot of Re $ \psi (z)$
vs $z$; Dashed (red) lines show the abrupt heterojunctions }}
\end{center}
\end{figure}}
\noindent For scattering states, $ \kappa ^2$ should be positive,
implying $ E > \displaystyle \frac{1}{4 \beta ^2} $. Now, because
of the spatial dependence of the mass function, the boundary
conditions need to be modified ---
\\ the functions $\displaystyle \psi (z) $ and $\displaystyle
\frac{1}{m(z)} \frac{d \psi (z)}{dz} $ should be continuous at
each heterojunction $\pm a_0$ \cite{benDaniel-Duke,boundary}.
These conditions enable us to evaluate the reflection and
transmission amplitudes $R$ and $T$ respectively.
\noindent The complete solutions for the scattering states in the
entire region $ - \infty < z < \infty $ are plotted in Fig. 2, for
the same set of parameter values as in Fig. 1, viz., $\beta =4 \ ,
\ \mu = 3 \ , \ a_0 = 2 \ , \ E=40 $. The solutions show a
definite nonlinear character inside the well ($-a_0 < z < a_0
$), where the particle mass $m$ is a function of its position $z$.
Thus the effect of the position-dependent mass potential well (in
this particular model) is to introduce a non linear component in
the otherwise plane wave solutions.
\subsection{Case 2 : Potential barrier with position dependent mass}
\noindent As the second example, we consider the region within the
double heterojunction ($a_1 < z < a_2$) to be represented by an
{\it inverted} Morse potential (barrier)
\cite{morse-barrier,zafar-PLA,zafar-PRA} :
\begin{equation}\label{pot-morse}
V(z) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
& & \displaystyle V_0 \ e^{\alpha z} \left( 2 - e^{
\alpha z } \right) \qquad \qquad , \ a_1 < z < a_2 \\
& & \displaystyle V_0 \ e^{ \alpha a_1} \left( 2 - e^{
\alpha a_1 } \right) = V_{01} \ , \ - \infty < z < a_1 \\
& & \displaystyle V_0 \ e^{ \alpha a_2} \left( 2 - e^{
\alpha a_2 } \right) = V_{02} \ , \ a_2 < z < \infty
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
with positive $V_0$. The transmission coefficient of a potential
barrier has wide applications in nuclear fission, heavy-ion
fusion, tunnelling in solids \cite{zafar-PRA}, etc; hence we shall
calculate both the transmission as well as reflection coefficients
and plot them as a function of the energy of the particle. The
Morse barrier potential is particularly useful in investigating
the anharmonicities of the vibrational spectra in molecular and
nuclear physics \cite{zafar-PLA}. For the mass function of the
particle, we consider
\begin{equation}\label{mass-morse}
m(z) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
& & \displaystyle m_0 \alpha ^2 e^{- 2 \alpha z} \qquad \qquad , \ a_1 < z < a_2 \\
& & \displaystyle m_0 \alpha ^2 e^{- 2 \alpha a_1} = m_{01} \ , \ - \infty < z < a_1 \\
& & \displaystyle m_0 \alpha ^2 e^{- 2 \alpha a_2} = m_{02} \ , \ a_2 < z < \infty
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
{\begin{figure}[hp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics{morse-mass-pot.eps}}
\label*{}\caption{\small {Colour online : Plot showing $m(z)$ and
$V(z)$ w.r.t. $z$ , The dashed lines show the abrupt
heterojunctions}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}}
\noindent In Fig. 3, we show the plot of $m(z)$ and $V(z) $ for
this particular model, for a suitable set of parameter values,
viz., $m_0 = 0.4 , \ V_0 = 5 , \ E = 33 $, with the
heterojunctions at $a_1 = -0.8 \ , \ a_2 = 0.8 $.
\noindent For the spatial mass dependence given by eq.
(\ref{mass-morse}), eq. (\ref{psi-z}) transforms the coordinate
$z$ to
\begin{equation}\label{rho}
\rho = \displaystyle - \sqrt{2 m_0} e^{- \alpha z}
\end{equation}
so that after some straightforward algebra $\widetilde{V} (\rho)$
in eq. (\ref{v-tilde}) reduces to the simple form
\begin{equation}\label{v-tilde-morse}
\tilde{V} _{\rho} = \displaystyle -
\frac{2 V_0 \sqrt{2 m_0} }{\rho} - \frac{ 2 m_0 V_0 -
3/4}{\rho ^2}
\end{equation}
Thus the Schr\"{o}dinger equation for constant mass
(\ref{schro-const-m}) takes the final form
\begin{equation}\label{schro-morse}
\displaystyle \frac{d^2 \phi}{d \rho ^2} + \left\{ \kappa ^2 +
\frac{2 m_0 V_0 - 3/4}{\rho ^2} + \frac{2 V_0 \sqrt{2
m_0}}{\rho} \right\} \phi = 0
\end{equation}
with $\kappa ^2 = E$. To solve equation (\ref{schro-morse}) given
above, let us introduce a new variable
\begin{equation}\label{y-morse}
y = \displaystyle - 2 i \kappa \rho = \displaystyle i \kappa
2 \sqrt{2 m_0} e^{- \alpha z}
\end{equation}
in terms of which equation (\ref{schro-morse}) gets simplified to
the form of a Whittaker differential equation \cite{handbook}
\begin{equation}\label{whittaker-eq}
\displaystyle \frac{d^2 \phi}{d y^2} + \left\{ - \frac{1}{4} +
\frac{\lambda _1 ^2 + 1/4}{y^2} + \frac{i \lambda _2}{y} \right\} \phi = 0
\end{equation}
with \begin{equation}\label{lambda-12}
\lambda _1 ^2 = \displaystyle 2 m_0 V_0 - 1 \qquad ,
\qquad \lambda _2 = \displaystyle \frac{V_0 \sqrt{2 m_0}}{\kappa}
\end{equation}
The solutions of eq (\ref{whittaker-eq}) are given as
\cite{handbook}
\begin{equation}\label{morse-sol}
\phi = \displaystyle e^{ \pm y/2} y^{ \pm i \lambda _1} M
\left( a^{\pm}, b^{\pm};y \right)
\end{equation}
where $\displaystyle M
\left( a^{\pm}, b^{\pm};y \right) $ are the Whittaker
functions and
\begin{equation}\label{apm-bpm}
\displaystyle a^{\pm} = \frac{1}{2} \pm i \lambda _1 - i
\lambda _2 \qquad , \qquad b^{\pm} = 1 \pm 2 i \lambda _1
\end{equation}
\noindent Thus for the entire semiconductor device, the complete
solution for the scattering states in the different regions are
given by
\begin{equation}\label{morse-sol}
\begin{array}{lcl}
\psi _L &=& \displaystyle e^{i k_1 z} + R e^{-ik_1 z} \ \ , \ - \infty <
z < a_1 \\ \\
\psi_{in} &=& \displaystyle \left( 2 m_0 \right) ^{1/4}
\sqrt{\alpha} e^{\frac{- \alpha z }{2}} \left\{ P_1 e^{\frac{y}{2}}
y ^{i \lambda _1} M \left(
a^+ , b^+ ;y \right) \right.\\
& & \displaystyle \left. + \ P_2 e^{- \frac{y}{2}}
y ^{- i \lambda _1} M \left(
a^- , b^- ; y \right) \right\} \ , \ a_1 < z < a_2 \\ \\
\psi _R &=& T e^{i k_2 z} \ \ \ \ , \ a_2 <
z < \infty \\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where the constants $P_1, P_2$ and the reflection and transmission
amplitudes $R$ and $T$ respectively, are determined by matching
the boundary conditions (for pdem systems) at the heterojunctions,
and $y$ and $\rho$ are as defined above.
\noindent The complete solutions for the entire region $ - \infty
< z < \infty $ are plotted in Fig. 4, for a suitable set of
parameter values, viz., $m_0 = 0.4 , \ V_0 = 5 , \ E = 33 , \ a_1
= - 1.5 , \ a_2 = 1.5 $. The solutions show a definite nonlinear
character inside the barrier ($a_1 < z < a_2 $), where the
particle mass is dependent on its position. Thus the effect of the
position-dependent mass barrier (similar to that of the position
dependent potential well in the previous example) is to introduce
a non linear component in the plane wave solutions.
{\begin{figure}[hp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.55}{\includegraphics{morse-psi.eps}}
\label*{}\caption{\small {Colour online : A plot of Re $ \psi (z)$
vs $z$; Dashed (red) lines show the abrupt heterojunctions }}
\end{center}
\end{figure}}
\section{Conclusions and Discussions}
\noindent To conclude, we obtained the exact analytical solutions
for the scattering states of a particle (electron or hole) inside
a semiconductor device with a double heterojunction, when the mass
of the particle is assumed to be dependent on its position inside
the heterojunctions, but constant outside. We studied two explicit
models in this work
--- one a pdem diffused potential well, the other
a pdem potential barrier (Morse barrier). In each case it is
observed that the effect of the spatial dependence on the particle
mass is to introduce a non linear component in the otherwise plane
wave solutions.
{\begin{figure}[hp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics{morse-T.eps}}
\label*{}\caption{\small {Plot of $|T|^2$ vs $E$ }}
\end{center}
\end{figure}}
\pagebreak
{\begin{figure}[hp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics{morse-R.eps}}
\label*{}\caption{\small {Plot of $|R|^2$ vs $E$ }}
\end{center}
\end{figure}}
We also calculated the transmission and reflection coefficients,
$|T|^2$ and $|R|^2$ respectively, for the potentials studied here.
These are plotted in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 respectively, as a function
of the energy $E$ for the pdem particle in a Morse barrier. As the
energy increases, the transmission coefficient also increases,
finally reaching unity, whereas the reflection coefficient follows
the reverse trend and goes to zero. This observation is similar to
that in ref. \cite{bianchi}, where the authors show that the
transmission coefficient for the one-dimensional scattering
problem with pdem normally tends to unity as energy goes to
infinity, provided the mass is a continuous function of position.
This simple, yet straightforward approach is just a way of
understanding basic physics of the electronic properties of a
semiconductor device, comprising of a double heterojunction, where
the intermediate layer is sufficiently thin for quantum properties
to be exhibited. It is expected that the observations made in this
work will provide some useful insight in studies related to
electron transport in semiconductor heterostructures, i.e. in the
physical properties of such materials. Actual materials are made
up of a large number of atomic potentials. Nevertheless, the
crystal potential may be approximated by a single potential ---
the global average of the individual potentials, and this approach
would still be valid. However, for extremely thin intermediate
layer, the individual potentials may become significant enough for
this approximation to break down. This calls for a more rigorous
approach, and we propose to take up its study in the near future.
\section{Acknowledgement}
The author thanks P. Roy for some very fruitful discussions.
Financial assistance for the work was provided for by the Dept. of
Science and Technology, Govt. of India, through its grant
SR/WOS-A/PS-06/2008. Thanks are also due to the unknown referee
for some useful comments.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The purpose of this paper is to revisit the problem of electroweak precision tests in strong electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) models.
Remember that EWSB scenarios can be roughly classified into models with or without a Higgs boson, by which we mean one or more scalar particle with a significant coupling to $WW$, so that it plays a dominant role in unitarizing the longitudinal $WW$ scattering.
Models with a Higgs boson are often called \emph{weakly coupled}, because they can be extrapolated up to energies $\Lambda_{UV}\gg\Lambda_{EW}\sim4\pi v$ ($v=246$ GeV is the EWSB scale). For example, for low energy SUSY models one can have $\Lambda_{UV} \sim \Lambda_{GUT}$, while for models of composite pseudo-goldstone Higgs boson one typically expects ${\Lambda_{UV}}/{\Lambda_{EW}}= O(3\div5)$ \cite{SILH,extended}.
On the other hand, \emph{strongly coupled} models, in which $\Lambda_{UV}\sim\Lambda_{EW}$, are usually assumed to give rise not to a Higgs boson, but to a sequence of vector resonances $V$ with masses $M_V= O(\Lambda_{EW})$. As is well known, vector exchanges are also able to unitarize $W_L W_L$ scattering \cite{Bagger,Chivukula-unit,us}. This unitarization remains imperfect, since unitarity violations are postponed to a scale which is only a few times higher than $M_V$. Still, this possibility is very interesting. The unitarization condition fixes the $V$ coupling to $W_L W_L$ in terms of its mass, and gives rise to a predictive framework. In particular, the $V\rightarrow W_L W_L$ decay width can be calculated and is found relatively narrow ($\Gamma_V/\Gamma_H=O(0.1)$ relative to the Higgs boson width for the same mass).
Historically, the first strongly coupled EWSB model was Technicolor \cite{WS}. In Technicolor, EWSB sector originates from an asymptotically free gauge theory in the UV, with a rapid confinement and chiral symmetry breaking in the IR, very much like in QCD.
However, other types of UV dynamics may also lead to strong EWSB. One possibility is that the UV theory stays close to a strongly interacting conformal fixed point over a wide range of energies, losing any connection to the weakly coupled description in the deep UV (if there was any) \cite{Holdom,Luty}. In this case, thinking in terms of gauge degrees of freedom may be misleading. One may try instead to use the language of Conformal Field Theory \cite{R,V,DDV}. Conformal language is also indispensable in the context of strong EWSB models in warped extra dimensions \cite{RS}.
The defining feature of strong EWSB models is thus the presence of strong interactions and composite resonances at $\Lambda_{EW}$, and not the nature of fundamental degrees of freedom out of which these resonances are built. It is then interesting to know if the electroweak precision observables can be computed in terms of resonance masses and couplings. This is the question that we attempt to answer here.
The paper is structured as follows. We begin in section \ref{sec:brief} with a brief reminder of the electroweak precision test (EWPT) formalism.
In section \ref{sec:VMD} we introduce an effective lagrangian for the strong EWSB sector. In addition to the usual goldstones, it contains the spin-1 vector and axial resonances. They transform nonlinearly under the $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ global symmetry, as is appropriate for the composite particles. Their couplings are fixed by the assumption that the UV behavior of various amplitudes ($\pi\pi$ scattering, pion formfactor) is improved by tree-level resonance exchanges. This framework, called Vector Meson Dominance (VMD), is experimentally known to work well in QCD \cite{Ecker0}, and we adopt it here.
In section \ref{sec:S} we discuss the $S$ parameter. In sections \ref{sec:PT}, \ref{sec:SVMD} we review the Peskin-Takeuchi dispersion relation and use it to compute $S$ in our model. Most of the discussion here is not new. Our explanation why the chiral log contribution is expected to be cutoff at $\Lambda\sim M_V$ in VMD models may be not without interest.
In section \ref{sec:UVtail} we discuss the Weinberg sum rules. We explain why the second sum rule cannot be expected to converge in models of strong EWSB which resolve the flavor problem via large Higgs anomalous dimension (Walking or Conformal Technicolor). This fact has been suspected before, but can now be shown rigorously, using recent results about the UV conformal structure of such models.
In section \ref{sec:T} we discuss the $T$ parameter. In section \ref{sec:gold} we justify the prescription relating $T$ to the pion wavefunction renormalization in the Landau gauge. In section \ref{sec:TUV} we address (the absence of) the UV sensitivity. We point out that custodial symmetry in the IR is not an automatic consequence of the UV fixed point custodial invariance: it could be broken by scalars which are singlets of $SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y$ but not of $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$. Demanding that all such dangerous scalars be irrelevant is an extra condition on viable Conformal Technicolor models.
In section \ref{sec:TVMD} we proceed to compute the one-loop $O(g'^2)$ contribution to the $T$ parameter from goldstones and resonances, in our VMD model. Our discussion here completes and generalizes that of Ref.~\cite{us}. In particular, we consider the full list of cubic vector-axial-goldstone couplings relevant for this computation. Two of these can be fixed by demanding that they regulate the formfactors of spin-1 resonances, thus reducing the UV sensitivity of $T$ from quadratic to logarithmic. The third coupling is a free parameter.
Finally, in section \ref{sec:vs} we present numerical results showing how our VMD model compares with the electroweak precision data, and identify preferred regions of the parameter space. We conclude in section \ref{sec:concl}. Appendices \ref{sec:eps13exp},\ref{sec:piAV},\ref{sec:Tbulky} collect technical details related to the electroweak fit and to the $T$ parameter computation.
\section{Brief Reminder of Electroweak Precision Analysis}
\label{sec:brief}
Corrections to the electroweak precision observables can occur via the weak boson self-energies (\emph{oblique}, or \emph{universal} corrections), or in fermion-weak boson vertices. In this paper we will be concerned only with the oblique corrections. In general, the vertex corrections are more model-dependent, since they require a discussion of how fermions couple to the EWSB sector. Sometimes large vertex corrections are invoked to improve the electroweak fit \cite{Cacciapaglia:2004rb}, but that's not the road we would like to explore here. Rather, we would like to see if a satisfactory fit can be obtained in the absence of significant vertex corrections.
Let us call a EWSB model \emph{heavy}, if all new particles/resonances have masses $ \gg M_Z$ (including the Standard Model Higgs boson if it exists). In this paper we will be mostly dealing with such models.
In heavy EWSB models, electroweak precision tests are convenient to perform in terms of the three $\epsilon$ parameters \cite{barbieri:epsilons}.
On the one hand, the $\epsilon$'s are linearly related to the precision observables $\Delta \rho$, $\Delta k$, and $\Delta r_\text{w}$ by universal coefficients dependent only on $s_W$, the sine of the Weinberg angle. The latter observables describe genuine electroweak corrections beyond the running of $\alpha_{\rm EM}$. Here we will need only $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_3$, determined experimentally as\footnote{This determination assumes that the $\epsilon_2$ parameter does not deviate significantly from its SM value. This is justifiable in heavy EWSB models, where one expects $\Delta \epsilon_2\ll\Delta\epsilon_1$. Analogously, the variations of the $Y$ and $W$ parameters, constrained by LEP2 data \cite{LEP2}, are also expected to be negligible in our models.} (Appendix~\ref{sec:eps13exp})
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_1 =(6.0\pm0.7)\,10^{-3}\,,\qquad \epsilon_3 =(5.7 \pm 0.8)\,10^{-3}\,,
\label{eq:eps13exp}
\end{equation}
with $85 \%$ correlation. On the other hand, the same $\epsilon$'s can be computed in terms of the gauge boson self-energies \cite{barbieri:epsilons}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\epsilon_1 &= e_1 + \delta\epsilon_1,\qquad e_1 = \frac{\Pi_{33}(0)-\Pi_{+-}(0)}{M_W^2}\,, \\
\epsilon_3 &= e_3 + \delta \epsilon_3,\qquad e_3 = \frac{c_W}{s_W}\Pi'_{3B}(0)\,,\label{eq:eps13}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\Pi_{ij}$ are the formfactors appearing in the gauge boson vacuum polarization amplitudes:
\begin{equation}
\Pi_{ij,\mu\nu}(q)=-i\eta_{\mu\nu} \Pi_{ij}(q^2)+ q_\mu q_\nu \text{ terms}\,.
\end{equation}
The terms $\delta \epsilon_{1,3}$ in (\ref{eq:eps13}) involve combinations of gauge boson self-energies which are higher order in the $q^2$ expansion. We will not need their precise form, which can be found in \cite{barbieri:epsilons}. In heavy models, $\delta \epsilon_{1,3}$ are dominated by $W,Z$ loops and are not sensitive to heavy new particles. Still, it is useful to remember about their presence in (\ref{eq:eps13}). In particular, this helps to clarify issues related to the gauge invariance of $\epsilon_{1,3}$.
For the Standard Model (SM), comparison of theory and experiment points to a relatively light Higgs boson. This well known fact is demonstrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:e13SM}.
For a heavy Higgs, the $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_3$ have a logarithmic dependence on $M_H$:
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_1^{\rm SM} \approx -\frac{3 g'^2}{32 \pi^2}\log \frac{M_H}{M_Z}+\text{const},\qquad
\epsilon_3^{\rm SM} \approx \frac{g^2}{96 \pi^2}\log \frac{M_H}{M_Z}+\text{const}',
\label{eq:asympteps}
\end{equation}
up to $O(M_Z^2/M_H^2)$ corrections. These logarithms come from $e_1$ and $e_3$, while $\delta \epsilon_{1,3}$ go to a constant in the heavy Higgs limit.
The curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:e13SM} has been traced using the full one-loop formulas from \cite{Novikov}; the fact that it deviates from a straight line in the light Higgs region shows that the asymptotic expressions (\ref{eq:asympteps}) are not accurate there.
For any other model, electroweak precision analysis is simplified by focussing on the deviations of $\epsilon_{1,3}$ from their values in the SM for a reference value of the Higgs mass. These deviations are known as the $T$ and $S$ parameters\footnote{$\hat{T}=\alpha T$, $\hat{S}=\frac{\alpha}{4 s_W^2}S$ compared to the normalization of \cite{Peskin}.}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat{T} &=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_1^{\rm SM} \approx e_1-e_1^{\rm SM}\,, \\
\hat{S} &=\epsilon_3-\epsilon_3^{\rm SM} \approx e_3-e_3^{\rm SM}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the approximations are valid if the model is heavy and $M_H^{\text{ref}}\gg M_Z$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{ellipse}
\caption{Experimental contours (68,95 and 99\% CL) for $\epsilon_{1,3}$, as well as their dependence on the Higgs mass in the SM ($M_H=115, 200, 500, 1000$ GeV). The top mass is set at the current central value $M_t=173.3$ GeV.}
\label{fig:e13SM}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Strong EWSB and Vector Meson Dominance}
\label{sec:VMD}
We assume as usual that the strong EWSB sector has a custodial $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ global symmetry.
The corresponding symmetry currents are $J_L^{a\mu}$ and $J_R^{a\mu}$, and we will also use their vector and axial combinations $J_{V,A}^\mu=J_L^{\mu}\pm J_R^{\mu}$. For simplicity, we assume that the strong sector preserves parity, under which $J_L^{\mu}\leftrightarrow J_R^{\mu}$, $J_A^{\mu} \to -J_A^{\mu}$.\footnote{See \cite{Falkowski} for a recent discussion of strong EWSB without parity.}
The SM gauge group partly gauges the global symmetry of the EWSB sector. In the standard convention, $SU(2)_W$ gauges $J_L^{\mu}$, while $U(1)_Y$ gauges $J_R^{3\mu}$.
Finally, by assumption, the global symmetry of the EWSB sector is broken spontaneously to the diagonal subgroup $SU(2)_{L+R}$. This triggers EWSB as it gives rise to three goldstone bosons $\pi^a$, eventually eaten by the $W$ and $Z$.\footnote{Notice that larger global symmetries of the strong sector, containing $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ as a subgroup, can be also considered. Such non-minimal models will contain extra (pseudo)-goldstone bosons in addition to the longitudinal $W$ and $Z$. In particular, a light composite Higgs boson can emerge as one of these pseudo-goldstones; see \cite{Ratt-recent} for a recent discussion.}
An effective low-energy description of this minimal EWSB sector is provided by the chiral Lagrangian:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}=\frac{v^{2}}{4}\langle D_{\mu}U(D^{\mu}%
U)^{\dagger}\rangle~, \label{eq:L2}%
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
& U=e^{i2\hat{\pi}/v},\qquad\hat{\pi}=T^{a}\pi^{a}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
\frac{\pi^{0}}{\sqrt{2}} & \pi^{+}\nonumber\\
\pi^{-} & -\frac{\pi^{0}}{\sqrt{2}}%
\end{array}
\right] ~,\qquad T^{a}=\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{a},\nonumber\\
& D_{\mu}U=\partial_{\mu}U-i\hat{B}_{\mu}U+iU\hat{W}_{\mu}~,\qquad\hat
{W}_{\mu}=gT^{a}W_{\mu}^{a}~,\qquad\hat{B}_{\mu}=g^{\prime}T^{3}B_{\mu}~,
\label{def}%
\end{align}
and $\langle\rangle$ denotes the trace of a $2\times2$ matrix. The invariant
kinetic and mass terms for the SM fermions and gauge boson are left understood. Under
$SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}$,
\begin{equation}
U\rightarrow g_{R}Ug_{L}^{\dagger}~.\nonumber
\end{equation}
The chiral Lagrangian is applicable at energies below any resonances. Such resonances can however be added to the model. For example, Higgs boson $h$ can be introduced via \cite{Bagger}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}h)^2-\frac{M_H^2}{2}h^2+\frac12 hv\left\langle (D_\mu U)(D^\mu U)^\dagger\right\rangle\,.
\end{equation}
The last term describes the $h\pi \pi$ coupling, crucial for the unitarization of $\pi \pi$ (or $W_L W_L$) scattering. It also dominates the heavy Higgs decay width:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_H\approx\Gamma(H\rightarrow \pi\pi)=\frac{M_H^3}{8\pi v^2} \ \ \ (M_H \gg M_Z)\,.
\label{eq:wH}
\end{equation}
In this paper, we are interested in models of strong EWSB, which are usually not expected to contain Higgs-like scalars. Instead, they may contain heavy spin-1 resonances (analogs of the $\rho$ and $a$ mesons in QCD).
From QCD literature \cite{Ecker}, there are several known, equivalent methods to couple such resonances to the chiral Lagrangian.
Here we will use a description by means of antisymmetric tensors transforming in the adjoint representation of $SU(2)_{L+R}$ (and nonlinearly under
$SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}$). Using antisymmetric tensors is a matter of convenience: up to field redefinitions, addition of local terms, and appropriate matching conditions for the coupling constants, equivalent results could be obtained with other formalisms.
However, the issue of convenience should not be underestimated. There are at least three reasons why the antisymmetric tensor formalism looks better than the alternatives\footnote{A disadvantage of the antisymmetric tensor formalism is that the current automated collider physics tools do not deal with antisymmetric tensors. For this reason collider studies of Higgsless models are usually performed in the other two formalisms \cite{Bar1,Falkowski}.} \cite{Ecker}:
\begin{itemize}
\item
It allows a unified treatment of states of positive and negative parity. The $J^P=1^+$ states could be introduced as gauge fields of $SU(2)_{L+R}$, in an approach known as ``hidden local symmetry"; however there is no simple natural way to do the same for the axials.\footnote{Axial spin-1 states can be introduced via the 4-site model \cite{4-site}. An equivalent construction which allows to introduce both vectors and axials as gauge fields was discussed recently in \cite{Redi}.}
\item
If vector fields in the adjoint of $SU(2)_{L+R}$ are used instead of antisymmetric tensors, extra local terms have to be added to the lagrangian to soften the UV behavior of various formfactors. In the antisymmetric tensor formalism these terms are accounted for automatically, due to a local term in the propagator (see below).
\item
Finally, using antisymmetric tensors avoids mixing of the spin-1 axial fields with the derivatives of the
goldstones.
\end{itemize}
One more reason will be mentioned in note \ref{note:4th}; see section \ref{sec:S} below. For a fair comparison, we must admit that the ``hidden local symmetry'' formalism has an advantage in that it allows to reach a weak coupling limit.\footnote{This was exploited recently in \cite{Panico:2011pw,Contino}.} However, this advantage would not be decisive for us, since we will be dealing here with theories which are on the verge of becoming non-perturbative.
We thus consider two sets of vector states of opposite parity, $V^{\mu\nu}$ and $A^{\mu\nu}$, both transforming in the adjoint representation of
$SU(2)_{L+R}$:
\begin{equation}
R^{\mu\nu}\rightarrow hR^{\mu\nu}h^{\dagger}~,\qquad R^{\mu\nu}=V^{\mu\nu
},\ A^{\mu\nu}~. \label{eq:Rtr}%
\end{equation}
We will be mostly considering the minimal situation when there is just one prominent resonance of each type, but it's trivial to generalize to several $V$'s and $A$'s. To describe the transformation properties of these fields under the full $SU(2)_{L}\times
SU(2)_{R}$, one introduces the little matrix $u$ \cite{coleman} via%
\begin{equation}
U=u^{2}~.\nonumber
\end{equation}
This matrix parametrizes the $SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}/SU(2)_{L+R}$ coset and
transforms as%
\begin{equation}
u\rightarrow g_{R}uh^{\dagger}=hug_{L}^{\dagger}~,\nonumber
\end{equation}
where $h=h(u,g_{L},g_{R})$ is uniquely determined by this equation. The
general transformation of $R^{\mu\nu}$ is then given by the same Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rtr}) with $h$ so defined. For $g_{L}=g_{R}$ we have $h=g_{L}=g_{R}$
independent of $u$, and we recover the linear $SU(2)_{L+R}$ transformation. This is the usual theory of nonlinear realizations \cite{coleman}.
The kinetic Lagrangian for heavy spin-1 fields has the form~\cite{Ecker0,Ecker}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{2}\langle\nabla_{\mu}%
R^{\mu\nu}\nabla^{\sigma}R_{\sigma\nu}\rangle+\frac{1}{4}M_{R}^{2}\langle
R^{\mu\nu}R_{\mu\nu}\rangle~,
\label{eq:lagr}
\end{equation}
where the covariant derivative
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\mu}R=\partial_{\mu}R+[\Gamma_{\mu},R],\qquad\Gamma_{\mu}=\frac{1}%
{2}\left[ u^{\dagger}(\partial_{\mu}-i\hat{B}_{\mu})u+u(\partial_{\mu}%
-i\hat{W}_{\mu})u^{\dagger}\right] ,\quad\Gamma_{\mu}^{\dagger}=-\Gamma_{\mu
},
\end{equation}
ensures that $\nabla_{\mu}R$ transforms as $R$ under the global $SU(2)_{L}%
\times SU(2)_{R}$ and under the SM gauge group.
We then have the following two-derivative $SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}$ and parity invariant Lagrangian
describing the couplings of spin-1 fields to the
goldstones and SM gauge fields:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{int}}=\frac{i G_V}{2\sqrt{2}}\langle V^{\mu\nu}[u_{\mu
},u_{\nu}]\rangle+\frac{F_V}{2\sqrt{2}}\langle V^{\mu\nu}(u\hat{W}^{\mu\nu
}u^{\dagger}+u^{\dagger}\hat{B}^{\mu\nu}u)\rangle+\frac{F_A}{2\sqrt{2}}%
\langle A^{\mu\nu}(u\hat{W}^{\mu\nu}u^{\dagger}-u^{\dagger}\hat{B}%
^{\mu\nu}u)\rangle~, \label{eq:LV}%
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
u_{\mu}=iu^{\dagger}D_{\mu}Uu^{\dagger}=u_{\mu}^{\dagger},~\qquad u_{\mu
}\rightarrow hu_{\mu}h^{\dagger}~.
\end{equation}
Parameters $G_{V},F_{V,A}$ have dimension of mass and by
Naive Dimensional Analysis (NDA) we expect them to be $O(v)$.
Phenomenology taking into account tree-level exchanges of $V$ and $A$ resonances in the goldstone scattering amplitudes and in their coupling to the SM gauge fields is known as Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) \cite{Ecker0,Ecker}. We will now review a few of its features important for the EWSB, following \cite{us}.
Parameter $G_V$ measures the strength of the $V\pi\pi$ coupling. The basic elastic $\pi\pi$ scattering amplitude has the form \cite{Bagger,us}
\beq
\mathcal{A}= \frac
{s}{v^{2}} - \frac{G^{2}_{V}}{v^{4}} \left[ 3 s + M_{V}^{2} \left( \frac{s-u
}{t-M_{V}^{2}} + \frac{s-t}{u-M_{V}^{2}}\right) \right] ~, \label{eq:App}%
\eeq
where the first term comes from the chiral Lagrangian, while the second one is due to the $V$ exchange. It is derived by using the heavy vector propagator \cite{Ecker0,Ecker}
\begin{gather}
\Delta^{ab}_{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}\equiv \langle R^a_{\mu\nu}(k) R^b_{\rho\sigma}(-k)\rangle
=\delta^{ab}\Delta_{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}\qquad (R_{\mu\nu}=R^a_{\mu\nu}T^a) \nn \\
\Delta_{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}=-\frac{2i}{M_R^2}\left [
\frac{g_{\mu\rho} k_\nu k_\sigma-g_{\mu\sigma} k_\nu k_\rho-(\mu\leftrightarrow \nu)}
{k^{2}-M_R^{2}}
+(g_{\mu\sigma}g_{\nu\rho}-g_{\mu\rho}g_{\nu\sigma})\right],
\label{eq:Rprop}%
\end{gather}%
Notice the second, contact, term. This term appears automatically when deriving the propagator from the Lagrangian \reef{eq:lagr}. Its presence is important for ensuring the good UV behavior of the amplitude \reef{eq:App}. When using the description by nonlinearly realized \emph{vectors}, the contact term is absent and the amplitude grows as $s^2$. This growth should then be cancelled by adding a $\langle [u_\mu,u_\nu]^2\rangle$ term to the Lagrangian.
When using the antisymmetric tensor description, as we are doing here, one assumes that there is no extra $\langle [u_\mu,u_\nu]^2\rangle$ term with a significant coefficient, so that Eq.~\reef{eq:App} is a good approximation for the $\pi\pi$ scattering amplitude up to energies $\sim 2 M_V$.
We now discuss consistency of Eq.~\reef{eq:App} with elastic unitarity. As is well known, the first term in the amplitude (pure chiral Lagrangian contribution) would violate unitarity in the $a_{l=0}^{I=0}$ partial wave at around 1.7 TeV \cite{Lee}. The $O(G_V^2)$ term helps to postpone unitarity violation to higher energies. This \emph{partial unitarity restoration} is most efficient for $G_V$ somewhat above the value
\beq
G_V^{\star}=v/\sqrt{3}\,,
\label{eq:GV}
\eeq
canceling the linear growth in $s$.\footnote{Recently, Ref.~\cite{Contino} discussed a more general criterion called ``partial UV completion" which determines (order of magnitude of) resonance couplings by saying that the resonance exchange should change the amplitude by $O(1)$ (rather than unitarize it). This approach is interesting to explore in the context of composite Higgs models, as in \cite{Contino}, where the amplitude grows more gently and there is no need to save it from violating unitarity right away. In Higgsless models the amplitude growth is more abrupt and there seems to be little room for a more general definition.}
Taking this mechanism at face value, unitarity of elastic $\pi\pi$ scattering can be preserved up to as high as 6(10) TeV for $M_V=2(1)$ TeV. Eventually, unitarity is violated by the logarithmically growing terms in $a_0^0(s)$. However, even before this, opening of inelastic channels like $\pi\pi\to VV$ has to be taken into account \cite{Papucci, Bar1,Falkowski}. Because of this, we will trust the amplitude \reef{eq:App} and the resulting partial unitarity restoration at most up to $\sim 2 M_V$.
Parameter $G_V$ also controls the width of the $V$ resonance:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_V=\Gamma(V\rightarrow \pi\pi)=\frac{G_V^2M_V^3}{48\pi v^4}\,.
\label{eq:GammaV}
\end{equation}
Interestingly, for $G_V\approx \bar G_V$ this width is an order of magnitude smaller than the Higgs boson width for the same mass, Eq.~\reef{eq:wH}. In this respect, vectors seem to be more efficient (albeit imperfect) unitarizers than scalars \cite{us}.
We next discuss parameter $F_V$, which measures the strength of $V$-gauge mixing. Among other things, this coupling controls the high $q^2$ behavior of the goldstone formfactor (see Fig.~\ref{formfactor}):
\begin{equation}
\langle\pi(p^{\prime})|J_V^{\mu}(q)|\pi(p)\rangle={\mathcal F}(q^{2})%
(p+p^{\prime})^{\mu}\,,\qquad {\mathcal F}(q^2)=1-\frac{F_VG_V}{v^2}\frac{q^2}{q^2-M_V^2}\,.
\label{eq:formfactor}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{formfactor}
\caption{Goldstone formfactor in Vector Meson Dominance.}
\label{formfactor}
\end{figure}
If goldstones are composite objects, the formfactor is expected to go to zero at large $q^2$, which happens for
\beq
F_V G_V=v^2\,,\qquad {\mathcal F}(q^2)\to -\frac{M_V^2}{q^2-M_V^2}\,.
\label{eq:FVGV}
\eeq
Assuming that there is only one prominent resonance in the vector channel, relations \reef{eq:GV} and \reef{eq:FVGV} allow to determine both $G_V$ and $F_V$. These determinations, although approximate, are a step beyond NDA. We may be emboldened to take this step because, applied in QCD, this method gives the $\rho\pi\pi$ coupling and $\rho$-photon mixing in pretty good agreement with experiment \cite{Ecker0,Ecker,us}.\footnote{See also \cite{Pich} for a recent discussion of elastic unitarity in QCD pion scattering.}
The role of couplings $F_{V,A}$ for the $S$ parameter will be discussed in the next section.
\section{$S$ parameter}
\label{sec:S}
Starting with \cite{Peskin}, most of the discussion of the electroweak precision tests in strong EWSB models has focused on the $S$ parameter. Here we review the necessary facts in some detail.
\subsection{Peskin-Takeuchi formula}
\label{sec:PT}
Consider the global symmetry current two point functions, which in the momentum space can be written as
\begin{equation}
\int d^4x \ e^{-iqx}\left\langle 0\right|T(J^{a\mu}_V(x)J^{b\nu}_V(0))\left|0\right\rangle = -i\left(\eta^{\mu\nu}-\frac{q^\mu q^\nu}{q^2}\right)\Pi_{VV}(q^2)\delta^{ab}\,,
\end{equation}
and analogously for $AA$. Separating the goldstone pole in the axial channel, we write
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Pi_{AA}(q^2) &=v^2+q^2\widetilde{\Pi}_{AA}(q^2)\,, \\
\Pi_{VV}(q^2) &=q^2 \widetilde{\Pi}_{VV}(q^2)\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Now, the $S$ parameter is related to the kinetic mixing of $W_3^\mu$ and $B^\mu$.
Since these couple to the currents $J^{3\mu}_{L,R}=\frac12(J^{3\mu}_{V}\pm J^{3\mu}_{A})$,
it is tempting to identify
\begin{equation}
e_3\stackrel{\text{?}}{=}g^2\,\Pi'_{LR}(0)=\frac{g^2}{4}\left[\widetilde{\Pi}_{VV}(0)-\widetilde{\Pi}_{AA}(0)\right]\,. \label{eq:e3}
\end{equation}
This equation cannot be exactly true since it treats gauge fields as nondynamical. Since the $W$ and $Z$ boson do propagate, their loops contribute to $e_3$, which is not captured by Eq.\ (\ref{eq:e3}).
However, this equation does capture the part of $e_3$ which comes from the presence of new degrees of freedom residing in the EWSB sector.
For a precise statement, consider the dispersion relation:
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{\Pi}_{VV}(q^2)=\int_0^\infty ds \ \frac{\rho_V(s)}{s-q^2+i\epsilon}, \ \ \rho_V(s)=\frac{1}{\pi}\text{Im}\, \widetilde{\Pi}_{VV}(s)\,, \label{eq:pivv}
\end{equation}
and analogously for $AA$.
Then Eq.\ (\ref{eq:e3}) can be rewritten as a spectral density integral:
\begin{equation}
e_3\stackrel{\text{?}}{=}\frac{g^2}{4} \int_0^\infty \frac{ds}{s}\left[\rho_V(s)-\rho_A(s)\right]\,.
\end{equation}
Whatever the EWSB model, there is one intermediate state which always contributes to this integral. This is the two goldstone state $\pi \pi$ in the vector channel
\begin{equation}
\rho_V\supset \rho_{\pi\pi}(s)=\frac{1}{48\pi^2}\,.
\end{equation}
For the SM Higgs sector, this is in fact the full $\rho_V$ at one loop.
Since $\rho_{\pi\pi}$ is constant in $s$, it gives a log-divergent contribution
\beq
e_3(\pi\pi) = {g^2 \over 96\pi^2}\log {\Lambda \over \mu}\,.
\label{eq:e3pipi}
\eeq
The IR part of the divergence will be cutoff at $\mu \sim M_Z$, since at these energies goldstones start mixing significantly with the $W$ and $Z$.
The precise way in which this happens is not important for us. What is important however, is that this mixing and the resulting cancellation of the IR divergence is insensitive to high scales: it happens in precisely the same way in whatever heavy EWSB theory. Thus this effect will cancel in the $S$ parameter difference $e_3-e_3^{\rm SM}$ ($M_H\gg M_Z$), which frees us from having to compute it.
We finally arrive at the correct result:
\begin{equation}
\hat{S}=\frac{g^2}{4}\int_{\mu^2}^{\infty}\frac{ds}{s}\left[\left(\rho_V-\rho_A\right)-\left(\rho_V^{\rm SM}-\rho_A^{\rm SM}\right)\right]\,. \label{eq:Shat}
\end{equation}
The lower limit of integration must belong to the interval $M_Z^2\ll\mu^2\ll M_H^2$.
It should also be much below whatever resonances of the strong EWSB model. Under these conditions, only $\pi\pi$ state matters for $s\sim\mu^2$. Its contribution will cancel among $\rho_V$ and $\rho_V^{\rm SM}$, and the integral will be independent of $\mu^2$.
The SM part of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Shat}) can be fully evaluated. The UV divergence from $\rho_V=\rho_{\pi\pi}$ is canceled at $\Lambda \sim M_H$ by
\begin{equation}
\rho_A=\rho_{\pi h}=\frac{1}{48\pi^2}\left(1-\frac{M_H^2}{s}\right)^3\theta(s-M_H^2)\,.
\end{equation}
Evaluating also the finite term for completeness, we find an expression for the $S$ parameter in terms of the strong sector data:
\begin{equation}
\hat{S}=\frac{g^2}{4}\int_{\mu^2}^{\infty}\frac{ds}{s}\left[\rho_V(s)-\rho_A(s)\right] -\frac{g^2}{96\pi^2}\left( \log \frac{M^{\text{ref}}_H}{\mu}+\frac{11}{12}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
Notice that the Higgs mass dependence is consistent with Eq.\ (\ref{eq:asympteps}).
This formula was originally derived and used in \cite{Peskin} to estimate the $S$ parameter in QCD-like Technicolor models, as a function of the numbers of technicolors and technifermions $N_\text{TC}$ and $N_\text{TF}$. The point is that in QCD, the spectral densities $\rho_{V,A}$ can be extracted from experiment (measurements of hadroproduction in $e^+e^-$ collisions and $\tau$ decays). One can directly use these experimental densities to compute the $S$ parameter for $N_\text{TC}=3$ and $N_\text{TF}=2$, when Technicolor dynamics matches QCD. For other values of $N_\text{TC}$ and $N_\text{TF}$, Ref.~\cite{Peskin} argued that a reasonable estimate can still be obtained by rescaling the QCD densities appropriately.
\subsection{$S$ parameter and Vector Meson Dominance}
\label{sec:SVMD}
Our approach to computing $S$ will be different from \cite{Peskin} in two aspects. First, we will model spectral densities using the Vector Meson Dominance setup from section \ref{sec:VMD}, rather than taking the experimental QCD densities as a starting point. Second, we will allow for theories whose UV structure deviates significantly from QCD, as Walking or Conformal Technicolor, so that the approach of \cite{Peskin} is not applicable. In practice, this will mean that we will not enforce the second Weinberg sum rule; see section \ref{sec:UVtail}.
Consider then the VMD Lagrangian \reef{eq:LV}. Neglecting for the moment the $G_V$ coupling, the leading order spectral densities are given by
\begin{gather}
\rho_V(s)=F_V^2 \delta(s-M_V^2)+\rho_{\pi\pi},\qquad \rho_A(s)=F_A^2 \delta(s-M_A^2)\,.
\label{eq:GV=0}
\end{gather}
Here we are including the $\pi\pi$ state and the composite vectors in the zero width approximation. The resonances give a finite contribution\footnote{\label{note:4th}Notice that the vector and axial contributions are separately positive-definite as they should be according to the Peskin-Takeuchi formula. This is a nice feature of the antisymmetric tensor formalism. In the ``hidden local symmetry'' formalism there is an operator involving the vector resonance, $\text{Tr}(\rho_{\mu\nu} f^+_{\mu\nu})$ in the notation of Ref.~\cite{Contino}, which gives a non sign-definite contribution to $S$. In our opinion, this means that this operator always comes accompanied by a contact counterterm $\text{Tr}(f^+_{\mu\nu})^2$ so that the total $\Delta S>0$.}
\beq
e_3(\text{res})=\frac{g^2}{4}\left({F_V^2 \over M_V^2}-{F_A^2 \over M_A^2}\right)\,,
\eeq
to which we must add the UV divergent contribution \reef{eq:e3pipi} from $\rho_{\pi\pi}$.
This log-divergence is however an artifact of neglecting $G_V$. The point is that the $\pi\pi$ spectral density is suppressed at $s\gg M_V$ by the destructive interference with the $V$ exchange diagram. This is the same mechanism which regulates the goldstone formfactor \reef{eq:formfactor}. Assuming the relation \reef{eq:FVGV}, the modified spectral density is
\beq
\tilde\rho_{\pi\pi}(s) = {1\over 48\pi^2}\left|{\mathcal F}(s)\right|^2= {1\over 48\pi^2}{M_V^4\over (s-M^2_V)^2+\Gamma_V^2M_V^2}.
\label{eq:pipimod}
\eeq
Notice that we took into account the finite width effect in the $V$ propagator, which was not necessary in the formfactor \reef{eq:formfactor} where $q^2$ is spacelike.
Indeed, another consequence of having $G_V$ nonzero is that $V$ decays into $\pi\pi$, with a width given in Eq.~\reef{eq:GammaV}.
Since $V$ is no longer an asymptotic state, its pole contribution should not be added separately to the spectral density. Rather, this contribution is now described by the Breit-Wigner peak in $\tilde\rho_{\pi\pi}$. In particular, the integrated strength of this peak is exactly the same as of the delta function in \reef{eq:GV=0}. We conclude that Eq.~\reef{eq:pipimod} represents the full vector spectral density at $G_V\ne0$:
\beq
\rho_V(s)=\tilde\rho_{\pi\pi}(s)\qquad(G_V\ne0)\,.
\eeq
The dispersion integral is easy to evaluate in the approximation $\Gamma_V\ll M_V$, which remains reasonable for $M_V$ as high as 2 TeV. We find
\beq
e_3=\frac{g^2}{4}\left({F_V^2 \over M_V^2}-{F_A^2 \over M_A^2}\right)+{g^2 \over 96\pi^2}\left(\log {M_V \over \mu}+
O(1)\right)\,.
\eeq
Since $\tilde\rho_{\pi\pi}(s)$ goes to zero rapidly for $s\gg M_V$, it is at this scale that the UV logarithmic divergence is cut off. The finite correction to the logarithm could be easily evaluated, but we prefer not to show it explicitly. Unlike the general conclusion that the log-divergence is cutoff at $\Lambda\sim M_V$, this finite term would not be a robust prediction of this model. For example, it would change if we assumed an $s$-dependent width in the $V$ propagator.
Subtracting a reference SM contribution, we finally obtain the $S$ parameter:
\beq
\hat S=\frac{g^2}{4}\left({F_V^2 \over M_V^2}-{F_A^2 \over M_A^2}\right)+{g^2 \over 96\pi^2}\left(\log {M_V \over M^{\text{ref}}_H}+O(1)\right)\,.
\label{eq:SVMD}
\eeq
The logarithm can be set to zero by choosing the reference mass $M_H^{\text{ref}}=M_V$, and we will be left with the resonance contribution $\pm$ uncertainty of the order $g^2/96\pi^2\sim 0.5\times10^{-3}$.
We have based our discussion of the $S$ parameter on the dispersion relation. However, the goldstone contribution \reef{eq:e3pipi} is also simple to compute from the Feynman diagram
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{sdiagram1}\raisebox{16pt}{\ .}
\end{center}
In the diagrammatic approach, adding $V$ exchanges amounts to including diagrams:
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{sdiagram2a}\raisebox{16pt}{\ ,}
\qquad
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{sdiagram2b} \raisebox{16pt}{\ .}
\end{center}
In this language, it would not be immediately clear how the $V$ exchanges help with canceling the $\log\Lambda$ dependence. In fact, it may seem that they make the situation worse because the added diagrams contain power-like divergences. The resolution of the paradox lies in the fact that since these divergences are contained in the subdiagrams
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{renormalizationfv}\raisebox{16pt}{\ ,}
\qquad
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{renormalizationvpropagator}\raisebox{16pt}{\ ,}
\end{center}
they have to be interpreted as renormalization of $F_V$ and of the vector propagator.\footnote{\label{k0}Such a renormalization was discussed in \cite{Kamenik}. The residual quadratic divergences in Ref.~\cite{Kamenik} are related with contributions of the intermediate states other than $\pi\pi$, to be discussed below.}
Computing via the dispersion relation allows us not to deal with these issues. Renormalization is performed ``on the go", and we get a finite result in terms of renormalized parameters.
We will now comment on contributions of other intermediate states to the spectral densities. The $\pi V$ and $\pi A$ two particle states contribute to $\rho_A$ and $\rho_V$, respectively. In the large~$s$ limit these contributions are given by
\beq
\frac 1{24}\left (\frac{F_V-2G_V}{M_V}\right)^2\frac{s}{16\pi^2 v^2}\qquad \text{and}\qquad\frac 1{24}\left (\frac{F_A}{M_A}\right)^2\frac{s}{16\pi^2 v^2}\,,
\eeq
respectively, giving a quadratically divergent contribution to $S$. The origin of this is a bad UV behavior of the $\pi A$ and $\pi V$ formfactors, which will also cause a quadratic divergence in $T$ as we will see in section \ref{sec:TVMD} below. There, we will add two extra couplings $\kappa_A$ and $\kappa_V$ to the VMD Lagrangian, which will regulate the formfactors and will replace
\beq
F_V-2G_V\to F_V-2G_V+2\kappa_V F_A,\qquad F_A\to F_A+2\kappa_A F_V
\eeq
in the spectral densities given above. In section \ref{sec:TVMD} we will fix the new couplings so that the quadratic divergence in $S$ (and simultaneously in $T$) vanishes. What remains is a logarithmically divergent $\Delta S$ which, we checked, is negligible in practice compared to the terms present in \reef{sec:SVMD}, if cut off at $\Lambda\sim 2 M_V$. (On the contrary, the contribution to $T$ will remain important even after cutting off the quadratic divergence.)
The $AV$ intermediate state appears in the spectral density $\rho_A$ as a result of the new couplings $\kappa_{A,V}$. For $s\gg M_V+M_A$ we have
\beq
\Delta \rho_A=\frac{s^2}{1536 \pi^2}\left(\frac{\kappa_A}{M_A^2}+\frac{\kappa_V}{M_V^2}\right)^2+O(s)\,,
\eeq
giving a \emph{quartically} divergent contribution in $S$.\footnote{In agreement with an observation made in \cite{Kamenik}.} However, this contribution remains reasonably small if cut off at $\Lambda\sim 2M_V$, due to phase space suppression. In a more realistic setup, the $AV$ formfactor would be softened giving an even smaller $\Delta S$.
Finally, the $VV$ and $AA$ intermediate states contribute to $\rho_V$. The relevant couplings are contained in the kinetic Lagrangian of the heavy spin-1 resonances \cite{Kamenik}.\footnote{\label{k1}We are grateful to J.~Kamenik and O.~Cata for pointing out our omission to discuss these intermediate states in the first version of the paper.} The corresponding spectral density is:
\beq
\Delta \rho_V(s) = \frac{1}{96 (4\pi)^2}\sum_{R=V,A} \left ( \frac s {M_R^2}+\frac 32\right)\left(1-\frac {4M_R^2}{s}\right)^{3/2}
\theta(s-4M_R^2)\,.
\eeq
Because of phase space, the contribution from $VV$ starts above $2M_V$, which is where our cutoff lies, so we do not include it.
The contribution from $AA$ should be included if $A$ is lighter than $V$, and it gives a quadratically divergent $\Delta S$:
\beq
\Delta S \sim \frac{g^2}{96\pi^2} \left(\frac{\Lambda}{8 M_A}\right)^2,\qquad \Lambda\sim 2 M_V.
\eeq
This is subdominant to the Goldstone loop contribution in \reef{eq:SVMD}, as long as the $M_V\lesssim 4 M_A$. The latter condition will be satisfied in most of the parameter space considered below in section \ref{sec:vs}.
To summarize, we find it reasonable to neglect contributions from other intermediate states to the $S$ parameter, and will keep only those giving rise to Eq.~\reef{sec:SVMD}.
\subsection{UV tail and Weinberg sum rules}
\label{sec:UVtail}
In this section, we collect several general remarks about the UV tail of the spectral densities entering the Peskin-Takeuchi formula. This can be inferred by considering the OPE of the $SU(2)_L$ and $SU(2)_R$ currents:
\beq
J^{a\mu}_{L}(x)J^{\dot{a}\nu}_{R}(0)\sim \left(\eta^{\mu\nu}\partial^2-\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}\right){(x^2)^{\Delta_\Phi/2-2}}\,\Phi^{a\dot{a}}(0)\,.
\label{eq:OPE}
\eeq
The scalar $\Phi^{a\dot{a}}$ is the lowest dimension scalar transforming in the bi-adjoint of $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$.
As we will see below, the dimension $\Delta_\Phi$ will control the UV behavior of the dispersive integral.
If the UV theory is weakly coupled, operator $\Phi$ and its dimension can be found explicitly. For example:
\beq
\begin{split}
\text{Technicolor:}\quad\Phi &= \left(\bar{\psi}P_LT^a\psi\right)\left(\bar{\psi}P_RT^{\dot a}\psi\right)\qquad (\Delta_\Phi=6)\,, \\
\text{SM:}\quad\Phi &= \text{tr} \left[\mathbb {H}T^a_L\mathbb{H}^{\dagger}T^{\dot{a}}_R\right]\qquad (\Delta_\Phi=2),
\end{split} \label{eq:Phi's}
\eeq
where $\mathbb H$ is the SM Higgs field in the matrix bi-doublet notation. For a strongly coupled UV theory, like Walking \cite{Holdom} or Conformal \cite{Luty} Technicolor, the dimension of $\Phi$ is in general unknown, except for the lower bound $\Delta_\Phi>1$ as a consequence of unitarity.
Interestingly, under the special assumption made in Conformal Technicolor (scalar bi-doublet of dimension close to 1), one can also derive an \textit{upper} bound
\beq
\Delta_\Phi\lesssim 2+2.85(\Delta_H-1)<4\qquad\text{(Conformal Technicolor)}\,.
\label{eq:CTCbound}
\eeq
See \cite{V,DDV} for the actual bound, and \cite{R} for the theory behind.
Coming back to the OPE \reef{eq:OPE}, it determines the UV asymptotics of the LR self-energy:
\beq
\Pi_{LR}(q^2)\sim {(-q^2)^{1-\Delta_\Phi/2}}{\left\langle \Phi\right\rangle},\label{eq:OPE2}
\eeq
times a factor of $\log(-q^2)$ if $\Delta_\Phi$ is an even integer. The VEV of $\Phi$ is nonzero since conformal symmetry, and the global symmetry, are broken in the IR; by dimensional analysis:\footnote{We are not trying to keep track of factors of $\pi$.}
\beq
\left\langle \Phi\right\rangle \sim (\Lambda_{EW})^{\Delta_\Phi}\,.
\eeq
The sign of $\left\langle \Phi\right\rangle$ is undetermined in general, except for Technicolor/Walking Technicolor theories based on a vector-like gauge theory in the UV. For such theories Witten \cite{W} has shown that $\Pi_{LR}>0$ in the Euclidean $q^2\rightarrow-q_E^2$, $q_E^2>0$. Thus necessarily $\left\langle \Phi\right\rangle>0$ in this case \cite{Sundrum}.
From Eq.~(\ref{eq:OPE2}), we conclude:
\beq
\rho_V(s)-\rho_A(s)\sim s^{-\Delta_\Phi/2}\qquad(s \gg \Lambda_{EW}^2)\,.
\eeq
This implies that the Peskin-Takeuchi formula always converges in the UV. Another way to see this absence of the UV sensitivity is to notice that the operator
\beq
\mathcal{O}=W_{\mu\nu}^aB_{\mu\nu}\,\Phi^{a3} ,
\eeq
interpolating the $S$ parameter effective operator $\langle U\hat{W}_{\mu\nu}U^{\dagger}\hat{B}_{\mu\nu}\rangle$, is always irrelevant since $\Delta_\Phi>1$.
Finally, we discuss the first and second Weinberg sum rules \cite{Weinberg}
\beq
\begin{split}
& \int_0^\infty ds \left[ \rho_V(s)-\rho_A(s)\right]=v^2\qquad(\Delta_\Phi > 2)\,,\\
& \int_0^\infty ds\, s\left[ \rho_V(s)-\rho_A(s)\right]=0\qquad(\Delta_\Phi >4)\,,
\end{split}
\eeq
which follow by expanding the dispersion relations \reef{eq:pivv} at $q^2\rightarrow \infty$ and setting the coefficients to zero. This is legitimate as long as $\Pi_{LR}(q^2)$ decays fast enough, which happens for $\Delta_\Phi$ above indicated values.
For example, none of the two sum rules hold for the SM ($\Delta_\Phi=2$) while both of them would be valid for Technicolor ($\Delta_\Phi=6$).
Most of the Walking Technicolor literature assumes that the fermion bilinear dimension gets close to 2 in the walking regime. Then if operator dimensions are assumed to factorize (unjustified approximation), the four-fermion operator $\Phi$ as in \reef{eq:Phi's} will have dimension close to 4. The second Weinberg sum rule then gets an important log-divergent contribution from the walking regime, cut off at the scale where the theory transitions to the weakly coupled UV gauge theory. One can try to model this transition and estimate the resulting contribution \cite{Appel}.
For Conformal Technicolor models, we can rely on the rigorous bound \reef{eq:CTCbound} which implies that $\Delta_\Phi < 4$ in the interesting range of $\Delta_H$. This means that the second Weinberg sum rule will have a \emph{powerlike} divergence, and cannot be used.\footnote{If the model transitions to a weakly coupled gauge theory in the deep UV, the divergent contribution will be cut off at the transition scale and cancelled by a threshold correction of the opposite sign, leaving a finite remainder which seems impossible to predict with current technology.}
Applied to the VMD spectral densities \reef{eq:GV=0}, the Weinberg sum rules would imply
\beq
\begin{split}
&F_V^2-F_A^2=v^2+O\left({M_V^2}/{48\pi^2}\right)\,, \label{eq:W1}\\
&F_V^2M_V^2-F_A^2M_A^2=O\left({M_V^4}/{48\pi^2}\right)\,,
\end{split}
\eeq
where $O\left(...\right) $ represent the contribution from $\pi\pi$, negligible for $M_V\lesssim 2$ TeV.
These equations have to be taken with a grain of salt. They can be easily disturbed by presence of multiple resonances or, as we have seen, the original sum rule could be simply invalid. This is especially true of the second equation, strongly tilted into the heavy part of the spectrum.
When comparing with the data in section \ref{sec:vs}, we will require that the VMD spectrum satisfy the first Weinberg sum rule. The second sum rule will not be imposed; it will turn out to hold only in a small region of the full parameter space, which will be different from the region preferred by the EWPT.
\section{$T$ parameter}
\label{sec:T}
In the SM, the $T$ parameter at one loop gets important contributions $O(y_t^2)$ and $O(g'^2)$, since these are the two largest couplings breaking the custodial symmetry.
In strong EWSB, the $O(y_t^2)$ contribution may get modified because of top quark compositeness or other effects \cite{SILH,Luty2}, and there is an extensive literature trying to keep track of these modifications in explicit models \cite{Santiago,extended, extended1,Pomarol,Duccio,Chivukula-top}.
On the other hand, the $O(g'^2)$ contribution is typically included in the analysis by just keeping the chiral logarithm. There is only a handful of papers which discuss the role of resonances for the $T$ parameter \cite{Chivukula-long,Chivukula,Abe:2008hb,us,Kamenik}. This can be contrasted to the $S$ parameter, where it is standard to keep both the chiral log and the contribution of resonances. In this paper, we will follow \cite{us} and try to investigate the resonance contribution to $T$.
\subsection{$T$ parameter and goldstone wavefunction renormalization}
\label{sec:gold}
At leading order in $g'$, the $T$ parameter can be determined from the EWSB sector data by means of the equation:
\beq
\left.\left\langle J^3_L(q)J^3_L(-q)\right\rangle-\left\langle J^+_L(q)J^-_L(-q)\right\rangle \right|_{q\rightarrow 0} = -i \left(\eta^{\mu\nu}-\frac{q^\mu q^\nu}{q^2}\right)\frac{v^2}{4}e_1\,. \label{eq:e1def}
\eeq
Since the SM gauge fields couple to the EWSB sector by\footnote{Here \ldots\ stands for terms quadratic in gauge fields, needed to have full gauge invariance to $O\left(g^2,g'^2\right)$.}
\beq
\Delta\mathcal{L}=gW^a_\mu J^{a\mu}_L+g'B_\mu J^{3\mu}_R+\ldots,\nonumber
\eeq
it is clear that Eq.\ \reef{eq:e1def} is consistent with the definition of $e_1$ in section \ref{sec:brief}.
Since $g$ does not break the custodial symmetry, we can set it to zero and view $SU(2)_W$ gauge fields as non-dynamical. However, $B_\mu$ does propagate, and this makes the study of $T$ more difficult than that of $S$, where all gauge dynamics could be switched off.
One complication in interpreting and applying Eq.\ \reef{eq:e1def} is caused by the fact that the propagating $B_\mu$ mixes with $\pi^3$ (except in the Landau gauge; see below), shifting the massless pole in the $\left\langle J^3_L J^3_L\right\rangle$ correlator. One simple and effective way to prevent this from happening is to impose an IR cutoff which turns off $B^\mu$ modes below some energy $\mu$. This eliminates $B^\mu$-$\pi^3$ mixing at zero momentum and, simultaneously, regulates the IR logarithmic divergence present in $e_1$ (see below). The introduced $\mu$ dependence will cancel when subtracting $e_1^{\rm SM}$, just as it happened for the $S$ parameter.
The L/R current expansion starts with
\beq
J_{L,R}^a=\frac{v}{2}\partial_\mu\pi^a\pm\frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{abc}\pi^b\partial_\mu \pi^c + \ldots ,
\eeq
where \ldots\ contains higher-order terms as well as terms involving other fields. E.g.~in the SM
\beq
J_{L,R}^a \supset \pm \frac{1}{2}h\,\partial_\mu \pi^a\qquad\text{(SM)}\,.
\label{eq:JLSM}
\eeq
At $O(g'^2)$, goldstone contributions to the current-current correlators in Eq.\ \reef{eq:e1def} are given by three types of diagrams ($\otimes= J_L$, dashed lines = goldstones, wavy lines = $B_\mu$):
\begin{equation}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{tparam1}
\qquad\qquad
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{tparam2}
\qquad\qquad
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{tparam3}
\label{eq:JLJL}
\end{equation}
In the Landau gauge, the kinetic $B^\mu$-$\pi^3$ mixing vanishes, and only diagrams of the first type survive. In the $q\rightarrow 0$ limit, these diagrams can be interpreted as corrections to the goldstone wavefunction renormalizations $Z$.
We thus arrive at a very useful relation \cite{Longhitano,Georgi,Barbieri-Cargese,Barbieri-2loop,Barbieri-book}:
\beq
e_1=\delta Z_+-\delta Z_3|_{\text{Landau gauge}}\qquad\text{(one loop)}\,.
\label{eq:Longhitano}
\eeq
Notice however that, in principle, we could compute $e_1$ also in other gauges, as long as we include all diagrams in Eq.\ \reef{eq:JLJL}.\footnote{Alternatively one can renormalize the chiral Lagrangian while working in the background field gauge, which is necessary to preserve the chiral symmetry \cite{Chivukula}.}
In a generic heavy model, we have
\beq
\delta Z_+ = -\frac{3 g'^2}{32 \pi^2}\log \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\,,
\eeq
while in the SM we also have, from the diagram with the Higgs boson and $B_\mu$ circulating in the loop,
\beq
\delta Z_3 = -\frac{3 g'^2}{32 \pi^2}\log \frac{\Lambda}{M_H}\qquad\text{(SM)}\,.
\eeq
From here we can verify the $e_1^{\rm SM}$ behavior given in \reef{eq:asympteps} and obtain the well-known goldstone contribution to the $T$ parameter in a heavy model without Higgs:
\beq
\hat T = -\frac{3 g'^2}{32 \pi^2}\log \frac{\Lambda}{M^{\text{ref}}_H}\qquad\text{(Higgsless; from goldstones)}\,.
\label{eq:Tgold}
\eeq
\subsection{Resonance contribution and UV sensitivity}
\label{sec:TUV}
Eq.~\reef{eq:Tgold} brings out several questions. At what scale is the logarithmic divergence cut off? Can it be cut off by the resonances, as it happened for the $S$ parameter? Can we estimate the finite contribution from the resonances, as we did for $S$?
In the low energy effective theory, the resonance contribution to the $T$ parameter can be estimated by adding to the chiral Lagrangian an effective operator
\beq
\frac{g'^2}{16 \pi^2v^2} \langle U (D_\mu U)^\dagger T^3\rangle^2\,,
\label{eq:TNDAop}
\eeq
where we indicated the coefficient of the size expected from NDA. The logic is that such an operator can be generated by integrating out the resonances. The resulting order of magnitude estimate for $T$ is
\beq
T_{\text{res}} = O(g'^2/16 \pi^2)\,,
\label{eq:TNDA}
\eeq
which looks formally subleading to the logarithmically enhanced goldstone contribution \reef{eq:Tgold}. Still, it is interesting to ask whether the resonance contribution may become numerically large; this will be discussed in the next section in the context of VMD.
The above discussion presupposes that the $T$ parameter is not sensitive to the deep UV scales, where the EWSB sector is assumed to sit at a conformal fixed point. This, however, is not automatic, even if the UV fixed point is custodially-symmetric. We have to impose an additional assumption that the UV theory should not contain any relevant scalar operator $\Xi$ which is singlet under $SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y$ but not under the full $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ group. For example, the $T_L=0$, $T_R^3=0$ component of a $(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{n})\oplus (\mathbf{n},\mathbf{1})$ representation of $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ could be such a scalar ($\mathbf{n}$ must be odd to have a $T_R^3=0$ component).
If a relevant $\Xi$ were present in the theory, it could be generated when the EWSB theory is coupled to the SM. The coefficient of this operator would then grow in the IR. If $\Xi$ were strongly relevant, this would bring back the hierarchy problem. If $\Xi$ were weakly relevant, then a large hierarchy could in principle be obtained. However, the IR theory in this case would be custodial-symmetry violating, predicting an unacceptably large value of the $T$ parameter.
In weakly coupled UV theories, the lowest dimension operators with the $\Xi$ quantum numbers are ($\mathbf{n}=\mathbf{3}$ in both cases):
\beq
\begin{split}
\text{Technicolor:}\quad\Xi &= \left(\bar{\psi}P_L\psi\right)\left(\bar{\psi}P_RT^{\dot a}\psi\right)\qquad (\Delta_\Xi=6)\,, \\
\text{SM:}\quad\Xi &= |H^\dagger D_\mu H|^2 \qquad (\Delta_\Xi=6)\,,
\end{split} \nonumber
\eeq
and are irrelevant, so that the $T$ parameter is not UV sensitive. But in a general theory this may not be true. The requirement that no relevant $\Xi$ be present should be added to the list of conditions on a viable Conformal Technicolor model. At present it is not known if this is a serious constraint. The existing studies of Conformal Technicolor viability \cite{R,V,DDV} were based on the OPE of a $(\mathbf{2},\mathbf{2})$ with itself, which does not contain a scalar with the $\Xi$ quantum numbers.
\subsection{$T$ parameter and Vector Meson Dominance}
\label{sec:TVMD}
We now come to the question of computing the resonance contribution to the $T$ parameter. One may wonder if such a computation could be done starting from a dispersion representation, as was done for $S$. Eq.~\reef{eq:e1def} shows that the $T$ parameter is naturally related to the \emph{four point} function of two left and two right currents, which indicates that finding such a representation is more complicated than for $S$, where the relevant object was a two point function. Interestingly, there exists a simple dispersion relation for the electromagnetic pion mass difference in QCD \cite{Das}. In particular, in that case current four point functions can be reduced to two point functions using PCAC and current algebra. Since the $T$ parameter is related to the pion wavefunction difference via Eq.~\reef{eq:Longhitano}, it is tempting to think that a simple dispersion relation may exist here as well.
Still, at present we do not know any such dispersion relation for the $T$ parameter.\footnote{See however \cite{Nutbrown:1970im} for old work on dispersion relations for current four point functions.} For this reason we will evaluate $T$ by using a diagrammatic approach, starting from the VMD Lagrangian introduced in section \ref{sec:VMD}. Eq.~\reef{eq:Longhitano} says that we must compute goldstone wavefunction renormalizations due to $B_\mu$ exchange in the Landau gauge. Only $\delta Z_+$ is nonzero; it is given by the two diagrams
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{old-diags}(a)
\qquad\raisebox{2em}{$+$}\qquad
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{old-diags2}(b)
\end{center}
The blobs in diagram (a) stand for the $\pi\pi B_\mu$ vertex softened by the $V$ exchange diagram, as in Fig.~\ref{formfactor}.
This vertex is an off-shell continuation of the pion formfactor but is actually given by the same formula, modulo $O(q^\mu)$ terms not contributing in the Landau gauge:
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{formfactor1}\qquad\raisebox{2em}{$\displaystyle=\frac{g'}{2}\epsilon^{ab3}\left(1-\frac{F_V G_V}{v^2}\frac{q^2}{q^2-M_V^2}\right)\left(p+p'\right)^\mu+O(q^\mu)$\,.}
\end{center}
Diagram (a) contribution to $\delta Z_+$ is then given by
\beq
\delta Z_+\text{(a)}=-\frac{3g'^2}{32\pi^2}\left[\left(1-\frac{F_V G_V}{v^2}\right)^2 \log\frac{\Lambda}{M_V}+\log\frac{M_V}{\mu}-\frac{F_V^2 G_V^2}{2v^4} \right]+O(M_V^2/\Lambda^2)\,.
\label{eq:3a}
\eeq
where we regulate the IR divergence as in section \ref{sec:gold}. This formula is easy to understand: the structure of IR and UV log-divergent terms is dictated by the low and high energy limits of the pion formfactor. Under condition \reef{eq:FVGV}, the formfactor asymptotes to zero and the UV divergence disappears.
On the other hand, diagram (b) gives a contribution which is, generically, quadratically divergent:\footnote{\label{k15}This is factor 2 bigger than the quadratic divergence reported in \cite{us} and \cite{Kamenik}. This should be due to an inconsistent normalization of the heavy vector propagator used in those works.}
\beq
\delta Z_+\text{(b)}=\frac{3g'^2}{8}\left[\frac{\left(F_V-2G_V\right)^2}{M_V^2}+\frac{F_A^2}{M_A^2}\right]\frac{\Lambda^2}{16\pi v^2}+\ldots
\label{eq:Tquad}
\eeq
This quadratic divergence is due to the $O(k^0)$ part of the heavy vector propagator. This most singular part happens to be transverse, as can be seen by rewriting the propagator as:
\begin{gather}
\Delta_{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}=-2i\frac{g_{\mu\rho}g_{\nu\sigma}-g_{\nu\rho}%
g_{\mu\sigma}+M_R^{-2} P_{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}}{k^{2}-M_R^{2}}\,,\label{eq:Rprop1}
\\
P_{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}=-g_{\mu\rho}g_{\nu\sigma}k^2+g_{\mu\rho} k_\nu k_\sigma-g_{\mu\sigma} k_\nu k_\rho-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu),\qquad k^\mu P_{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}=0\,.\nn
\end{gather}
This in turn means that, for extracting quadratic divergence, it is sufficient to compute the $\pi V B$ and $\pi A B$ vertices modulo $ O(\partial_\mu V^{\mu\nu}, \partial_\mu A^{\mu\nu})$. Expanding \reef{eq:LV} and integrating by parts when necessary, the corresponding cubic couplings are given by:
\beq
\frac{F_V-2G_V}{\sqrt{2} v} \langle V^{\mu\nu} [\partial_\mu \hat\pi,\hat B_\nu]\rangle+\frac{F_A}{\sqrt{2} v} \langle A^{\mu\nu} [\partial_\mu \hat\pi,\hat B_\nu]\rangle + O(\partial_\mu V^{\mu\nu}, \partial_\mu A^{\mu\nu})\,.
\label{eq:piAV}
\eeq
This explains the coefficients in \reef{eq:Tquad}.
One can take two points of view with respect to the quadratic divergence. The first one would be to consider only those values of parameters for which the $\Lambda^2$ term vanishes. In this case, diagram (b) contributes with a negative logarithmic term:
\beq
\delta Z_+\text{(b)}|_{F_V=2G_V,F_A=0}=
-\frac{3g'^2}{32\pi^2}\frac{G_V^2}{v^2}\log \frac{\Lambda}{M_V} +O(1)
\label{eq:3blog}
\eeq
This situation is realized e.g.~in the well-known three-site model which has $G_V=v/2$, $F_V=v$. The $T$-parameter in the three-site model has been studied in \cite{Chivukula-long,Chivukula}; the sum of Eq.~\reef{eq:3a} and \reef{eq:3blog} agrees with their result.\footnote{\label{k2}An extra log-divergent term claimed in \cite{Kamenik} is in fact an error. We thank J.~Kamenik for discussions.}
The second point of view would be to accept that in general $F_V\ne 2 G_V$, $F_A\ne 0$. The quadratic divergence then is a potentially physical effect, providing a positive contribution to $T$, which may perhaps improve the electroweak fit \cite{us}. However, to assess its importance it is interesting to know a mechanism by which it may be cut off. As one possible mechanism, Ref.~\cite{us} has proposed to add to the Lagrangian two extra parity-invariant terms:
\beq
i\kappa_{A}\langle A^{\mu\nu}[\nabla_{\rho}V^{\rho
\nu},u_{\mu}]\rangle+i\kappa_{V}\langle V^{\mu\nu}[\nabla_{\rho}A^{\rho\nu
},u_{\mu}]\rangle\,. \label{eq:L2V}%
\eeq
The effect of these terms on the $T$ parameter is to replace diagram (b) by
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{old-diags3}(b$'$)
\end{center}
Here the blobs stand for formfactors: the sum of the direct coupling present already in diagram (b), and the coupling where $B_\mu$ first mixes with $V(A)$ which then couples to $\pi A$ ($\pi V$) via \reef{eq:L2V}.
The formula for the quadratic divergence is now modified to
\beq
\delta Z_+\text{(b$'$)}=\frac{3g'^2}{8}\left[\frac{\left(F_V-2G_V+2\kappa_VF_A\right)^2}{M_V^2}+\frac{(F_A+2\kappa_AF_V)^2}{M_A^2}\right]\frac{\Lambda^2}{16\pi v^2}+\ldots
\label{eq:b'quad}
\eeq
This can be understood as follows. What matters for the quadratic divergence is the formfactor behavior at large $B_\mu$ momenta. In this case, the vector meson with which $B_\mu$ mixes can be integrated out. This gives cubic couplings as in \reef{eq:piAV} with $F_V-2G_V$ and $F_A$ shifted as in \reef{eq:b'quad}.
In what follows we will assume that the couplings $\kappa_{A,V}$ are such that the formfactors approach zero at large $B_\mu$ momenta:\footnote{There is a sign discrepancy with App.\ A of \cite{us}.}
\beq
F_V-2G_V+2\kappa_VF_A=0,\qquad F_A+2\kappa_AF_V=0\,,\label{eq:kappaVA}
\eeq
making the $\Lambda^2$ term vanish.
With the quadratic divergence cancelled, one can go ahead and compute the logarithmic and finite terms. The formula is given in Appendix \ref{sec:Tbulky} and the results for comparison with the electroweak precision data will be reported in the next section.
We would now like to include other cubic $\pi AV$ couplings. Up to integration by parts, there are four other terms that one can write down, differing from \reef{eq:L2V} by the order in which indices are contracted:
\begin{gather}
\mathscr{O}_1=\left\langle \nabla_{\rho}A^{\mu\nu}\left[V^{\mu\nu},u^{\rho}\right]\right\rangle\,,\quad \mathscr{O}_2=\left\langle V^{\mu\nu}\left[A^{\mu\nu},\nabla_{\rho}u^{\rho}\right]\right\rangle\,,\nn\\
\mathscr{O}_3=\left\langle A^{\mu\nu}[V^{\rho\nu},\nabla_{\rho} u_{\mu}]\right\rangle\,,
\quad \mathscr{O}_4=\left\langle V^{\mu\nu}[A^{\rho\nu},\nabla_{\rho} u_{\mu}]\right\rangle\,.
\label{eq:newops}
\end{gather}
The effect of these couplings on the $T$ parameter is discussed in detail in Appendix \ref{sec:piAV}. For various reasons only the first of these operators turns out to give a nonzero contribution to $T$. This contribution is only logarithmically divergent; its numerical importance will also be studied in the next section.
\section{Theory vs Data}
\label{sec:vs}
We will now make a numerical comparison of the Vector Meson Dominance model with the electroweak precision data.
The first step is to impose the constraint of elastic unitarity in $\pi\pi$ scattering, discussed in section \ref{sec:VMD}. We choose to impose that the $a^0_0$ partial wave remain less than 1 up to the energy $2M_V$. Other partial waves give weaker constraints. For each $M_V$, we obtain a range of allowed $G_V$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:GVMV}. We vary $M_V$ from 1.2 to 2.6 TeV. For larger $M_V$ it becomes impossible to maintain unitarity for whatever value of $G_V$, while smaller values of $M_V$ would give too large $S$ parameter (see below). We see that the $G_V$ preferred by this argument are indeed somewhat bigger than $v/\sqrt{3}$ from \reef{eq:GV}. The central value is not far from $G_V=v/\sqrt{2}$, which would be chosen if we imposed the pion formfactor constraint \reef{eq:FVGV} together with the $F_V=2G_V$ relation.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{gvmv}
\caption{The shaded region gives a constraint on $G_V$ from imposing elastic unitarity in the $\pi\pi$ scattering amplitude up to the energy of $2M_V$.
The $v/\sqrt{2}$ and $v/\sqrt{3}$ lines are given for comparison.}
\label{fig:GVMV}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We note that Ref.~\cite{us} used a fixed 3 TeV cutoff. We find an $M_V$ dependent cutoff, like the one used here, more reasonable, since the resonance $V$ better be able to cure the ills of the theory without further help in a significant range of energies, for the logic of Vector Meson Dominance to make sense.
For each $G_V$ from the allowed range, we will fix $F_V$ via Eq. \reef{eq:FVGV} to have a well-behaved pion formfactor, Eq.~\reef{eq:FVGV}. We then fix $F_A$ using the first Weinberg sum rule \reef{eq:W1}, neglecting the $\pi\pi$ contribution in the RHS. For reasons explained in section \ref{sec:UVtail}, we do not impose the second Weinberg sum rule. If we were to impose it, the resulting value of $M_A$ would give a large positive $S$ parameter, excluding the model.
We can now compute the $S$ parameter using Eq.~\reef{eq:SVMD} as a function of $M_V$, $M_A$ (we will neglect the $O(g^2/96\pi^2)$ error term in that formula). For each $M_V$, there is a range of $M_A$ for which the computed value of the $S$ parameter gives a point in the horizontal projection of the experimental $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_3$ ellipse.
These ranges of $M_A$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:MAMV} as a function of $M_V$. The two allowed regions in that figure correspond to choosing the minimal and the maximal allowed $G_V$ for each $M_V$. For intermediate $G_V$ the allowed region changes smoothly between the shown extreme cases. We see that lower values of $M_A$ become allowed when we increase $G_V$.
This can be explained as follows. A larger $G_V$ gives a smaller $F_V$ via \reef{eq:FVGV}, which in turn produces a smaller $F_A$ from the first Weinberg sum rule. Hence smaller $M_A$ is possible without conflict with the $S$ parameter.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{mamv}
\caption{Constraint on $M_A$, $M_V$ from the $S$ parameter; see the text for an explanation.}
\label{fig:MAMV}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Demanding that the second Weinberg sum rule be also satisfied would restrict the allowed parameter space of Fig.~\ref{fig:MAMV} to a tiny region near the maximal allowed masses: $M_V\sim 2.6$ TeV, $M_A\sim 4$ TeV. As we will see below, this region is not the one preferred by the EWPT. We are led to assume that the second Weinberg does not hold. As discussed in section \ref{sec:UVtail}, this assumption is actually a necessity in models of strong EWSB based on the Conformal Technicolor idea.
Notice that we do not impose the constraint that the $S$ parameter be positive, since such an inequality has never been rigorously proved (see however \cite{Agashe} for a discussion in the context of holographic models).
Finally, we compute the $T$ parameter as explained in section \ref{sec:TVMD}. It gets contributions from diagram (a), Eq.~\reef{eq:3a}, and diagram (b$'$) whose value is reported in Appendix \ref{sec:Tbulky}. Figs.~\ref{fig:zero}, \ref{fig:phalf}, \ref{fig:mhalf}
then show the position of the model in the $\epsilon_3,\epsilon_1$ plane as a function of various free parameters.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:zero}, we analyze the case when only the operators \reef{eq:L2V} are added to the Lagrangian \reef{eq:LV} in order to cancel the quadratic sensitivity of the $T$ parameter to the cutoff. The couplings of these operators are thus fixed from Eq.~\reef{eq:kappaVA}. We choose four representative values $M_V=$1.2, 1.6, 2, 2.4 TeV. For each value of $M_V$, we vary $G_V$ from the minimal to maximal values allowed by Figs.~\ref{fig:GVMV}. For each $M_V,G_V$ we then vary $M_A$ from the minimal to maximal value allowed by the $S$ parameter constraint (represented in Fig.~\ref{fig:MAMV} for the extreme values of $G_V$).
The position of the model then varies within the shaded (light green) curved rectangular region. The $T$ parameter increases with increasing $G_V$, while the $S$ parameter increases with increasing $M_A$. The horizontal (vertical) curvy lines within the shaded region correspond to varying $G_V$ ($M_A$) in steps of 20\% within the allowed intervals. Finally, to guide the eye, for each $M_V$ the blue curve traces the Higgs mass dependence in the SM, terminating at $M_H=M_V$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{lambdazero}
\caption{$\lambda=0$.}
\label{fig:zero}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Figs.~\ref{fig:phalf} and \ref{fig:mhalf} we do the same, but adding the coupling $+i\lambda \mathscr{O}_1$ to the Lagrangian.
As mentioned in section \ref{sec:TVMD} and shown in Appendix \ref{sec:piAV}, the operator $\mathscr{O}_1$ is the only one among extra possible cubic couplings from Eq.~\reef{eq:newops} which affects the $T$ parameter. Moreover, its contribution is at most logarithmically divergent. We choose $\lambda=\pm 0.5$ in these two figures, which is of the same order of magnitude as the couplings $\kappa_{V,A}$ typically required to cancel the quadratic sensitivity of the $T$ parameter.
In all the three plots we chose the cutoff $\Lambda=2M_V$ to evaluate the logarithmically divergent terms in the $T$ parameter. We have also neglected the terms $O(M_R^2/\Lambda^2)$. We checked that these terms are numerically small. We also checked that increasing the cutoff up to $\Lambda=3M_V$ does not change these plots significantly.
On the basis of these plots, we can now summarize the compatibility of our model with the experimental constraints. For $\lambda=0$, the agreement with the data can be obtained only in a small region of the parameter space, namely for low values of $M_V\sim 1.2$ TeV, for $G_V$ close to the maximal values allowed by the elastic unitarity constraint (Fig.~\ref{fig:zero}).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{lambdaphalf}
\caption{$\lambda=+0.5$.}
\label{fig:phalf}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Proceeding to the case when the operator $\mathscr{O}_1$ is turned on, we see that for positive $\lambda=0.5$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:phalf}) the fit is even worse that for $\lambda=0$. On the other hand, for negative $\lambda=-0.5$ the situation looks quite a bit better (Fig.~\ref{fig:mhalf}). Smaller $M_V\lesssim 1.5$ TeV are still preferred, but now the EWPT consistency holds in a reasonably wide range of $M_A$ and $G_V$.
To summarize, we see that these models can be rendered compatible with the EWPT, provide that $V$ and $A$ are not too heavy, and especially if the extra $\pi A V$ coupling $\lambda$ is given a moderately negative value.
We would like to recall here the original idea of Ref.~\cite{us}: that after adding the operators \reef{eq:L2V} and canceling the quadratic divergence in $T$, there would remain uncanceled finite $\Delta T>0$ which could improve the electroweak fit. Indeed, our formulas for $T$ in Appendix~\ref{sec:Tbulky} contain finite terms whose origin can be traced back to the quadratic divergence \reef{eq:Tquad}. However, these terms remain subdominant in the region of parameter space allowed by all the other constraints that we impose. Basically, this happens because the mass hierarchy between $A$ and $V$ is never sufficiently large for these terms to dominate. Thus, the idea of Ref.~\cite{us} is not realized in our framework, although our basic conclusion that the resonances can provide a positive $\Delta T$ is the same.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{lambdamhalf}
\caption{$\lambda=-0.5$.}
\label{fig:mhalf}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:concl}
In this paper, we have considered a generic low energy description of Higgsless scenarios of strong EWSB.
We considered one vector ($V$) and one axial ($A$) spin-1 resonance and assumed Vector Meson Dominance, i.e.~that tree level exchanges of these resonances cure the UV behavior of various formfactors, of the current two point functions, and of the elastic $W_LW_L$ scattering up to the cutoff $\Lambda \sim 2 M_V$.
By requiring unitarity up to this scale, we fixed the value of $G_V$ in terms of $M_V$.
Assuming the good UV behavior of the pion formfactor allowed us then to fix $F_V$ in terms of $G_V$.
The first Weinberg sum rule gave then the coupling $F_A$. Anticipating the usual conflict of QCD-like scenarios with the EWPT, we assumed that the second Weinberg sum rule is not satisfied, leaving the masses unconstrained. This is also to be expected if the UV structure of the model is of Conformal Technicolor type.
We then computed the electroweak precision observables, using the Peskin-Takeuchi dispersive relation for the $S$ and a Feynman diagram approach for the $T$.
We saw that the $T$ parameter features quadratic divergences, and
used the mechanism proposed in \cite{us} to cancel them, introducing two new cubic $\pi A V$ couplings. These quadratic divergences then leave a physical effect, as the finite terms remaining after the cancellation contain a piece of the same structure but with the cutoff replaced by $M_A$ or $M_V$. It was assumed in \cite{us} that, for this reason, keeping only those terms may be a good approximation. However, in our more restrictive framework this is not the case, since the allowed region for $M_A$ and $M_V$ does not allow large mass hierarchies.
On top of the operators of \cite{us}, we found a third cubic $\pi A V$ operator also contributing to the $T$ parameter, albeit only logarithmically.
Unfortunately we were not able to predict the corresponding coupling $\lambda$, and used an order-of-magnitude estimates to see its influence on the numerical result.
Despite this little drawback, this operator turns out to be very interesting for comparison with the data. Indeed, without it, consistency with the EWPT is possible only in a tiny corner of the parameter space where our formula for the $T$ begins to be less accurate (for $M_V \sim 1\div 1.2$ TeV and $M_A \sim 200 \div 300$ GeV). However, for negative values of $\lambda$ we can get a good fit, with values of $M_A$ less close to the electroweak scale.
The main conclusion is thus the same as of \cite{us}: that this kind of strong EWSB scenarios can be made compatible with the EWPT using the positive $\Delta T$ from resonances. However, the inner workings of how we achieve the consistency are different.
We are sharply aware of the fact that to arrive at this conclusion we had to make a number of simplifying assumptions whose accuracy may be difficult to assess. First, we assumed that the one-loop approximation for the $T$ parameter is accurate or at least gives an idea of the expected size of the effect. Second, to reduce the number of parameters and to obtain a predictive framework, we assumed that just one generation of resonances (one vector and one axial) is important for saturating the various VMD sum rules. We hope that the noble goal of exploring the difficult world of strongly coupled models partly justifies our choice of imperfect means, for lack of better ones.
{\bf Note added.} One month after this work was posted to arXiv, the LHC experiments announced first evidence for a Higgs-boson-like particle near 125 GeV. While the working assumption of our work was that a Higgs boson does not exist, some of the lessons that we learned here will be also useful for computing electroweak precision observables in composite Higgs models, and in particular for putting on more solid grounds the estimates of $T$ and $S$ made in Ref.~\cite{extended}.
\newpage
\begin{center}
{\bf Acknowledgements}
\end{center}
We are grateful to Roberto Contino and Riccardo Rattazzi for useful discussions. We thank J.~Kamenik and O.~Cata for discussions related to resolving discrepancies with their paper \cite{Kamenik} (see notes \ref{k0},\ref{k1},\ref{k2}), and to M.~Frandsen for bringing \cite{Appel} to our attention.
This work was supported in part by the European Program ``Unification in the LHC Era",
contract PITN-GA-2009-237920 (UNILHC) and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY05-51164. S.~R. is grateful to KITP, Santa Barbara, for hospitality.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The jet fragmentation and hadronisation processes through which
coloured partons become bound in colour-neutral hadrons cannot be
described within the framework of perturbative QCD (pQCD). Several
approaches have been developed which attempt to build a bridge between
the fixed-order partonic cross sections and the observed hadrons. Two of the
most successful and widely used approaches are the Lund string
model~\cite{prep:97:31} and the fragmentation functions
(FFs)~\cite{np:b160:301,zfp:c11:293,np:b421:473,np:b193:381,np:b194:445}.
The Lund string model, relying on a large number of parameters,
is interfaced to leading-logarithm parton-shower Monte Carlo
models. The FFs are parameterisations of the hadronisation process
within the standard framework of leading-twist collinear QCD
factorisation, in a similar way to that of the parton distribution
functions (PDFs), and are convoluted with the predicted partonic cross
sections.
Extensive studies of the fragmentation properties of the hadronic
final state have been performed in
$e^+e^-$~\cite{prep:294:1,epj:c35:2004,pr:d41:2675,epj:c5:585,pl:b459:397,epj:c18:203,pl:b643:147,prep:399:71,pr:d37:1,zfp:c72:191,epj:c16:407,zfp:c47:187,pl:b311:408},
$pp$~\cite{prl:98:252001,prl:91:241803,prl:97:152302,pr:c75:064901},
$p\bar p$~\cite{pr:d72:052001}
and deep inelastic $ep$ scattering\footnote{Here and in the following,
the term ``electron'' and the symbol ``$e$'' denote generically both
the electron ($e^-$) and the positron ($e^+$), unless otherwise
stated.}
(DIS)~\cite{zfp:c67:93,pl:b414:428,epj:c11:251,jhep:1006:009,pl:b654:148,np:b445:3,np:b504:125,pl:b681:125,epj:c61:185}
data and have provided information about the fragmentation and
hadronisation processes. The measurements provided tests of pQCD and
showed that scaling violations are observed. In addition, the
comparison of the measurements in different reactions indicated an
approximately universal behaviour of quark fragmentation.
In a previous publication~\cite{jhep:1006:009}, the ZEUS Collaboration
presented high-precision measurements of inclusive charged-hadron
production. Next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD calculations, based on
different FFs obtained from
fits~\cite{pr:d62:054001,prl:85:5288,pr:d75:034018} to $e^+e^-$ data, from
fits~\cite{np:b803:42} to $e^+e^-$, $pp$ and $p\bar p$ data and from
fits~\cite{pr:d75:114010,pr:d76:074033} to $e^+e^-$, $pp$ and $ep$ data,
were compared to the measurements. The predictions based on the
different FFs are similar and fail to provide a good description of
the measurements over the full range of applicability of the
calculations.
The parameterisations~\cite{pr:d75:114010,np:b734:50,epj:c61:603} of the
FFs for strange hadrons, such as $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$, are so far largely
unconstrained. The $ep$ data presented in this paper have the
potential to constrain these FFs over a wide kinematic range.
In this paper, the scaled momentum distributions for $K_S^0$ and
$\Lambda$ hadrons\footnote{Here and in the following, the notation
$\Lambda$ includes both the particle and its antiparticle unless
otherwise stated.} are presented for the first time in DIS. The
scaled momentum is defined as $x_p=2P^{\rm Breit}/\sqrt{Q^2}$, where
$P^{\rm Breit}$ is the particle momentum in the Breit frame and
$Q^2$ is the photon virtuality. The Breit
frame~\cite{bookfeynam:1972,zfp:c2:237} is the frame in which the
exchanged virtual boson is purely space-like, with 3-momentum ${\bf
q}=(0,0,-Q)$, providing a maximal separation between the products
of the beam fragmentation and the hard interaction. The measurements
were performed in the current region of the Breit frame, which is
equivalent to one hemisphere in $e^+e^-$ annihilations, as functions of
$Q^2$ and $x_p$. Next-to-leading-order predictions, based on different
FFs, and leading-logarithm parton-shower Monte Carlo calculations,
interfaced with the Lund string fragmentation model, were compared to
the measurements.
\section{Theoretical framework}
\label{theory}
In lowest-order QCD, three processes contribute to the DIS cross
section, namely the Born ($V^{*} q\rightarrow q$, with $V^*=\gamma^*, Z^*$),
the boson-gluon-fusion ($V^{*} g\rightarrow q\bar q$) and
QCD-Compton-scattering ($V^{*} q \rightarrow qg$) processes.
The cross section for the production of an observed hadron, $H$, in the
final state in DIS can be expressed in QCD, using the factorisation
theorem, as
$$\sigma(ep\rightarrow e+H+X)=\sum_{j,j^{\prime}=q,\bar q,g}
f_{j/p}(x,Q)\otimes \hat\sigma_{jj^{\prime}}(x,Q,z)\otimes F_{H/j^{\prime}}(z,Q),$$
where the sum runs over all possible initial (final)-state partons $j$
($j^{\prime}$), $f_{j/p}$ are the proton PDFs, which give the
probability of finding a parton $j$ with momentum fraction $x$ in the
proton, $\hat\sigma_{jj^{\prime}}$ is the partonic cross section,
which includes the matrix elements for the three processes mentioned
above, and $F_{H/j^{\prime}}$ are the FFs, which give the probability
that a hadron $H$ with momentum fraction $z$ originates from parton
$j^{\prime}$. The scaled momentum variable $x_p$ is an estimator of
$z$. As for the PDFs, the FFs include contributions from quark,
anti-quark and gluon fragmentation. Absolute predictions for the FFs
cannot be calculated; however, the dependence of the FFs on the scale
$Q$ is calculable in pQCD and governed by renormalisation group equations,
similar as for the PDFs.
The range of applicability of the FFs is limited to medium to large
values of $z$, since the assumption of massless hadrons leads to a
strong singular behaviour for $z\rightarrow 0$. At small $z$, finite
mass corrections are important. However, the inclusion of small-$z$ mass
corrections is not compatible with the factorisation theorem and thus
the FFs with mass corrections cannot be used with fixed-order
calculations. A possible solution is to introduce {\it a posteriori}
mass-correction factors to take this effect into
account~\cite{np:b803:42}.
A large improvement in the precision of the ingredients of the
calculations has been achieved in the last few years. Matrix elements
up to NLO accuracy are available for many processes; for DIS, this
corresponds to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$. Parton distribution functions have
become increasingly more precise, largely due to the high-precision
HERA data. On the other hand, FFs, though increasing in
accuracy~\cite{pr:d62:054001,prl:85:5288,pr:d75:034018,np:b803:42,pr:d75:114010,pr:d76:074033,np:b734:50,epj:c61:603},
still lack the precision of the proton PDFs.
The data most widely used to extract the FFs comes from $e^+e^-$
annihilations into charged
hadrons~\cite{prep:294:1,epj:c35:2004,pr:d41:2675,epj:c5:585,pl:b459:397,epj:c18:203,pl:b643:147,prep:399:71,pr:d37:1,zfp:c72:191,epj:c16:407,zfp:c47:187,pl:b311:408}.
These data are very precise and the predicted cross sections do not
depend on PDFs. However, they do not provide information on how to
disentangle quark and anti-quark contributions to the FFs and the
gluon fragmentation remains largely unconstrained. In addition, the $e^+e^-$
data have poor statistics at large $z$, leading to large uncertainties
in this region of phase space. Several parameterisations of the FFs
exist~\cite{pr:d62:054001,prl:85:5288,pr:d75:034018}.
In the last few years, new one-particle inclusive measurements coming
from both $pp$
collisions~\cite{prl:98:252001,prl:91:241803,prl:97:152302,pr:c75:064901}
and DIS~\cite{Hillenbrand:phd:2005} became available. The inclusion of
these data in the extraction of the FFs yields a much more complete picture
of the fragmentation process and provides a direct handle on quark,
anti-quark and gluon contributions. A global QCD analysis of $e^+e^-$,
$pp$ and DIS data is now available for several
hadrons~\cite{pr:d75:114010,pr:d76:074033}. This global FF set agrees
with the previous extractions, based on $e^+e^-$ data alone, in the
regions of phase space which are also well constrained by $e^+e^-$ data
alone.
\section{Experimental set-up}
A detailed description of the ZEUS detector can be found
elsewhere~\cite{pl:b293:465,zeus:1993:bluebook}. A brief outline of
the components most relevant for this analysis is given below.
Charged particles were tracked in the central tracking detector
(CTD)~\cite{nim:a279:290,npps:b32:181,nim:a338:254}, the microvertex
detector (MVD)~\cite{nim:a581:656} and the straw tube tracker
(STT)~\cite{nim:a535:191}. The CTD and MVD operated in a magnetic
field of $1.43$ T provided by a thin superconducting solenoid. The CTD
consisted of $72$~cylindrical drift-chamber layers, organised in nine
superlayers covering the polar-angle\footnote{The ZEUS coordinate system
is a right-handed Cartesian system, with the $Z$ axis pointing in
the proton beam direction, referred to as the ``forward direction'',
and the $X$ axis pointing towards the centre of HERA. The
coordinate origin is at the nominal interaction point.} region
\mbox{$15^\circ<\theta<164^\circ$}.
The MVD silicon tracker consisted of a barrel (BMVD) and a forward
(FMVD) section. The BMVD contained three layers and provided
polar-angle coverage for tracks from $30^{\circ}$ to
$150^{\circ}$. The four-layer FMVD extended the polar-angle coverage
in the forward region to $7^{\circ}$. After alignment, the single-hit
resolution of the MVD was 24 $\mu$m. The transverse distance of
closest approach (DCA) to the nominal vertex in $X–Y$ was measured to
have a resolution, averaged over the azimuthal angle, of
($46\oplus 122/p_T$) $\mu$m, with $p_T$ in GeV. The STT covered the
polar-angle region $5^\circ<\theta<25^\circ$. For CTD-MVD tracks
that pass through all nine CTD superlayers, the momentum resolution
was $\sigma(p_T)/p_T=0.0029p_T\oplus 0.0081\oplus 0.0012/p_T$,
with $p_T$ in GeV.
The high-resolution uranium--scintillator calorimeter
(CAL)~\cite{nim:a309:77,nim:a309:101,nim:a321:356,nim:a336:23}
covered $99.7\%$ of the total solid angle and consisted of three parts:
the forward (FCAL), the barrel (BCAL) and the rear (RCAL) calorimeters.
Each part was subdivided transversely into towers and longitudinally
into one electromagnetic section (EMC) and either one (in RCAL) or two
(in BCAL and FCAL) hadronic sections (HAC). The smallest subdivision
of the calorimeter was called a cell. Under test-beam conditions, the
CAL single-particle relative energy resolutions were
$\sigma(E)/E=0.18/\sqrt E$ for electrons and
$\sigma(E)/E=0.35/\sqrt E$ for hadrons, with $E$ in GeV.
The energy of the scattered electron was corrected for energy loss
in the material between the interaction point and the calorimeter
using the small-angle rear tracking
detector~\cite{epj:c21:443,nim:a401:63} and the
presampler~\cite{epj:c21:443,nim:a382:419}.
The luminosity was measured using the Bethe-Heitler reaction
$ep\rightarrow e\gamma p$ by the luminosity
detector~\cite{desy-92-066,zfp:c63:391,acpp:b32:2025} which
consisted of two independent systems. In the first system, the photons
were detected by a lead--scintillator calorimeter placed in the HERA
tunnel 107 m from the interaction point in the lepton-beam
direction. The second system was a magnetic spectrometer
arrangement~\cite{nim:a565:572}, which measured electron-positron
pairs from converted photons. The fractional uncertainty on the
measured luminosity was $1.8\%$.
\section{Event selection}
\label{eventsel}
The data used in this analysis were collected during the running
period 2005--2007, when HERA operated with protons of energy
$E_p=920$~GeV and electrons of energy $E_e=27.5$~GeV, and correspond
to an integrated luminosity of $330$~pb$^{-1}$. The criteria to select DIS
events are described below.
A three-level trigger system~\cite{zeus:1993:bluebook,proc:chep:1992:222}
was used to select events online. It relied on the presence of an energy
deposition in the CAL compatible with that of a scattered electron.
At the third level, an identified electron~\cite{nim:a365:508} with
an energy larger than $4{\,\text{Ge}\eVdist\text{V\/}}$ was required.
Offline, the kinematic variables $Q^2$, inelasticity, $y$, and the Bjorken
scaling variable, $x$, as well as the boost vector to the Breit frame
were reconstructed using the double-angle (DA)
method~\cite{proc:hera:1991:23}, which uses the angles of the
scattered electron and of the hadronic system.
Deep inelastic scattering events were selected by the following
requirements:
\begin{itemize}
\item $E_e^{\prime}>10$ GeV, where $E_e^{\prime}$ is the
scattered-electron energy; this ensures a reconstruction
efficiency above $95\%$ and a purity of the scattered electron of
$\approx 100\%$;
\item $y_e\leq 0.95$, where $y_e$ is the inelasticity estimated from
the energy and angle of the scattered electron; this excludes events
with spurious electrons in the forward region, which are produced
predominantly by photoproduction;
\item $y_{\rm JB}\geq 0.04$, where $y_{\rm JB}$ is the inelasticity
estimated using the Jacquet-Blondel
method \cite{proc:epfacility:1979:391}; this rejects events for
which the DA method gives a poor reconstruction;
\item $35<\delta<60$ GeV, where $\delta=\sum(E_i-P_{Z_i})$
and $E_i$ is the energy of the $i$-th CAL cell, $P_{Z_i}$ is the
momentum along the $Z$ axis and the sum runs over all CAL cells;
this removes the phase space where photoproduction background and
events with initial-state radiation are expected;
\item $|Z_{\rm vtx}|<50$~cm, where $Z_{\rm vtx}$ is the $Z$ component
of the position of the primary vertex; this reduces
background from events not originating from $ep$ collisions;
\item $|X|>12$ and $|Y|>12$ cm, where $X$ and $Y$ are the impact
positions of the scattered electron on the RCAL, to avoid the
low-acceptance region adjacent to the rear beampipe;
\item the analysis was restricted to events with $10<Q^2<40000$~GeV$^2$\
and $0.001<x<0.75$.
\end{itemize}
These requirements selected a sample of $2.16\cdot 10^7$ DIS data events.
\section{{\boldmath $K_S^0$} and {\boldmath $\Lambda$} selection and
reconstruction}
\label{klsel}
The strange hadrons $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$ were identified via the
charged-decay channels, $K_S^0\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-$ and
$\Lambda\rightarrow p\pi^-$ ($\bar\Lambda\rightarrow\bar p\pi^+$).
The candidates were reconstructed using two
oppositely charged tracks associated with a displaced secondary
vertex. In the case of the $K_S^0$, the mass of the pion was assigned
to both tracks. For the $\Lambda$, the mass of the proton was assigned
to the track with the largest momentum, whereas the mass of the pion was
assigned to the other track, since the proton always has a larger
momentum than the pion for $\Lambda$ baryons with momentum larger than
$0.3$~GeV.
All tracks were required to be in the region of high CTD acceptance,
$|\eta^{\rm track}|<1.75$, where $\eta=-\ln(\tan\theta/2)$ is the
pseudorapidity in the laboratory frame and $\theta$ is the polar angle
with respect to the proton beam direction. The tracks had to pass
through at least three CTD superlayers and were required to have
transverse momenta $P_T^{\rm track}>150$~MeV.
The analysis was restricted to the current region of the Breit frame
by boosting the tracks to this frame and requiring $P_Z^{\rm
Breit}<0$, where $P_Z^{\rm Breit}$ is the longitudinal momentum of
the track in the Breit frame. The combined four-vector momentum of
the two tracks in the Breit frame, $P^{\rm Breit}$, was used to
reconstruct $x_p$.
Additional selection criteria, similar to those used in a previous
analysis~\cite{pl:b652:1}, were applied to the selected candidates to
maximise the purity of the sample with a minimum loss of
statistics. These requirements were:
\begin{itemize}
\item $dca<2$ cm, where $dca$ is the distance of
closest approach of the two tracks forming the candidate;
\item $\chi^2/dof<5$ for the $\chi^2$ of the secondary vertex fit;
\item $M(e^+e^-)>60$~MeV, to eliminate background from photon
conversion;
\item $M(p\pi)>1121$~MeV ($M(\pi^+\pi^-)<475$~MeV), to eliminate
$\Lambda$ ($K_S^0$) background from the $K_S^0$ ($\Lambda$) sample;
\item $\theta_{2D}<0.03$~rad, where $\theta_{2D}$ is the
collinearity angle in the $XY$ plane between
the $K_S^0\ (\Lambda)$-candidate momentum vector and the vector
defined by the interaction point and the $K_S^0\ (\Lambda)$ decay vertex;
\item $\theta_{3D}<0.04$~rad, where $\theta_{3D}$ is the
collinearity angle between the $K_S^0\ (\Lambda)$-candidate
three-momentum vector and the vector defined by the interaction
point and the $K_S^0\ (\Lambda)$ decay vertex;
\item $L_{XY}>0.5\ (1)$ cm, where $L_{XY}$ is the distance between the
$K_S^0\ (\Lambda)$-candidate decay vertex and the primary vertex in
the transverse plane;
\item $P_T^{\rm PA}>(<)\ 0.11$ GeV, where $P_T^{\rm PA}$ is the
projection of the pion momentum onto a plane perpendicular
to the $K_S^0$ ($\Lambda$) momentum direction (the Podolanski-Armenteros
variable~\cite{phm:43:13}).
\end{itemize}
Figures~\ref{figk} and \ref{figl} show the $dca$, $\theta_{2D}$,
$\theta_{3D}$ and $L_{XY}$ distributions for data and Monte Carlo (see
Section~\ref{mc}) for $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$ candidates, respectively. The
description of the data by the Monte Carlo simulation is adequate.
Figure~\ref{fig1} shows the $M(\pi^+\pi^-)$ and $M(p\pi)$
distributions after these requirements. A small amount of background
is observed. The fit shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1} is for illustration only.
The number of $K_S^0$ ($\Lambda$) candidates in each bin of $x_p$ and
$Q^2$ was estimated by counting the entries in the signal region,
$472-522$ ($1107.0-1124.5$) MeV, and subtracting the number of expected
background entries. The latter was determined from a linear fit to the
sideband regions $403-422$ and $572-597$ ($1086.0-1098.2$ and
$1133.2-1144.4$) MeV, also indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
There were $806\; 505$ ($165\; 875$) $K_S^0$ ($\Lambda$)
candidates in the data sample. In the current region of the Breit
frame, there were $238\; 153$ $K_S^0$ and $40\; 728$ $\Lambda$
candidates. A Monte Carlo study showed that $6\%$ of the selected
$\Lambda$ candidates come from higher-baryon decays.
\section{Monte Carlo simulation}
\label{mc}
Samples of Monte Carlo (MC) events were produced to determine the
response of the detector and to correct the data to the hadron
level. The MC samples were also used to compute predictions to be
compared to the measurements.
The generated events were passed through the {\sc
Geant}~3.21-based~\cite{tech:cern-dd-ee-84-1} ZEUS detector- and
trigger-simulation programs~\cite{zeus:1993:bluebook}. They were
reconstructed and analysed by the same program chain as used for the
data. Particles with lifetime longer than $3\cdot 10^{-11}$~s, such
as $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$, were treated as stable at generator level and
their decays were simulated by {\sc Geant}.
Neutral current DIS events were generated using the program {\sc
Lepto}~6.5.1~\cite{cpc:101:108}. Radiative effects were estimated
using the {\sc Heracles}~4.6.6~\cite{cpc:69:155,spi:www:heracles}
program with the {\sc Djangoh}~1.6~\cite{cpc:81:381,spi:www:djangoh11}
interface to {\sc Lepto}. {\sc Heracles} includes QED corrections for
initial- and final-state radiation, vertex and propagator terms, and
two-boson exchange. The QCD cascade was simulated using the
colour-dipole
model (CDM)~\cite{pl:b165:147,pl:b175:453,np:b306:746,zfp:c43:625},
including the leading-order QCD diagrams as implemented in
{\sc Ariadne}~4.12~\cite{cpc:71:15,zfp:c65:285} and, alternatively,
with the MEPS model of {\sc Lepto}. Fragmentation into hadrons was
performed using the Lund string model~\cite{prep:97:31}, as implemented in
{\sc Jetset}~7.41~\cite{cpc:82:74,cpc:135:238,cpc:39:347,cpc:43:367}.
The default parameter setting from the
DELPHI/EMC~\cite{zfp:c35:417,pl:b311:408} tune was used for the
hadronisation. The CTEQ5D~\cite{epj:c12:375} proton PDFs were used for
these simulations.
\section{Corrections and systematic uncertainties}
\label{cor}
The measured scaled momentum distributions were corrected to the
hadron level and to the QED Born level. The correction factors were
calculated bin-by-bin using the MC samples described in
Section~\ref{mc}. The correction factors take into account: ({\em i})
the event-selection efficiency for the cuts listed in
Section~\ref{eventsel}, but for the $Q^2$ and $x$ requirements; ({\em
ii}) the efficiency to identify the $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$ decays, as
specified in Section~\ref{klsel}; ({\em iii}) the migrations between
bins due to detector resolution, which affects in particular the
transformation to the Breit frame; ({\em iv}) the relevant branching
ratios; and ({\em v}) the extrapolation to the full phase space. The
factors calculated in the measured $(x_p, Q^2)$ bins varied from
$0.05\ (0.05)$ to $0.18\ (0.11)$ for $K_S^0\ (\Lambda)$ candidates, and
reached $\approx 0.25$ for candidates with momentum in the range
$1-1.5$ GeV and $-1<\eta<1$; the lowest values were found for high
$Q^2$ and $x_p$ values. Bins with an acceptance smaller than $0.05$
were not used in the analysis. The QED correction factors were
computed using the Monte Carlo samples; they are below $5\%$ for
$Q^2<100$~GeV$^2$\ and increase to a maximum of $20\%$ at the highest
values of $Q^2$.
The total systematic uncertainties on the scaled momentum distributions
are larger than the statistical uncertainties in most bins. The
statistical uncertainties themselves vary significantly over the
kinematic range. For $K_S^0$ ($\Lambda$), they are at the $1\ (4)\%$
level at low $Q^2$ and between $10$ to $90\%$ ($20$ to $70\%$) over
the $x_p$ range at large $Q^2$. Many of the systematic
uncertainties were observed to scale with the statistical
uncertainty. In the following list, typical values of the
uncertainties on the scaled momentum distribution are given separately
for $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$, either as percentages of the statistical
uncertainty or as absolute values:
\begin{itemize}
\item imperfections in the simulation causing uncertainties on
DIS event reconstruction and selection resulted in uncertainties of
$^{+40}_{-30}\%$ and $^{+50}_{-40}\%$ of the statistical uncertainties.
This was evaluated by modifying the selection cuts within the
experimental resolutions. At low $Q^2$, the variation of the cut
on $y_{\rm JB}$ from $0.04$ to $0.07$ resulted in large
uncertainties exceeding these typical values;
\item an uncertainty of $-2\%$ in the overall tracking efficiency
resulted in absolute uncertainties of $+4\%$ and $+4\%$;
\item detector-alignment uncertainties affecting the calculation of
the boost vector to the Breit frame resulted in uncertainties of
$^{+30}_{-25}\%$ and $^{+20}_{-15}\%$ of the statistical uncertainties.
This was evaluated by varying separately the simulated polar angle of the
scattered electron and of the hadrons by $\pm 2$~mrad;
\item uncertainties on the $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$ selection
efficiency resulted in uncertainties of $^{+80}_{-60}\%$ and
$^{+60}_{-60}\%$ of the statistical uncertainties. This was
evaluated by varying the cuts listed in Section~\ref{klsel}: the
dominant effects were due to modifications of the cuts on $\theta_{2D}$ to
0.015 and 0.06 and $\theta_{3D}$ to 0.02 and 0.08;
\item assumptions concerning the details of the simulation of the
hadronic final state resulted in absolute uncertainties of
$^{+4}_{-3}\%$ and $^{+10}_{-15}\%$. At large $Q^2$, these
uncertainties were larger and exceeded $^{+15}_{-80}\%$ and
$^{+50}_{-25}\%$. This was estimated by using MEPS instead of
CDM in the calculation of the correction factors;
\item background-subtraction uncertainties resulted in absolute
uncertainties of $^{+2}_{-2}\%$ and $^{+3}_{-4}\%$. At large $Q^2$, the
uncertainties exceeded these typical values and were as high as $\pm
35\%$ for both $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$. This was evaluated by varying
the size of the background window by $\pm 40\%$ and changing the
background fit function from first to second order.
\end{itemize}
The systematic uncertainties were added in quadrature for each
bin. The total systematic uncertainty is dominated by the uncertainty
in the simulation of the hadronic final state. At low $Q^2$, the
overall tracking efficiency also contributes significantly. At high
$Q^2$, the uncertainties related to the $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$ selection
are important.
\section{NLO QCD calculations}
\label{nlo}
Next-to-leading-order QCD calculations, which combine the full NLO
matrix elements with the proton PDFs and FFs as explained in
Section~\ref{theory}, were compared to the measurements. For the
comparison, the observable $x_p$ is assumed to be equal to the
variable $z$. For each bin in $x_p$ and $Q^2$, a prediction was
derived by numerical integration over the multiplicities
$d^2m(H)/dzdQ^2$, with $m(H)$ the number of $H$ per DIS event. Two
sets of calculations based on different parameterisations of the FFs
were used. The first set was obtained from fits to $e^+e^-$ data and
based on the program {\sc Cyclops}~\cite{pl:b406:178}, called ``AKK+{\sc
Cyclops}''~\cite{pr:d75:034018,np:b803:42}. The second set was
obtained from a global fit to $e^+e^-$, $pp$ and $ep$ data, called
``DSS''~\cite{pr:d75:114010}. It was used only for $K_S^0$ predictions.
The AKK+{\sc Cyclops} calculations were performed using $Q$ as the
factorisation and renormalisation scales; the number of active quark
flavours was set to $n_f=5$; the proton PDFs were parameterised
using the CTEQ6M sets~\cite{jhep:0207:012} and $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ was
set to 226~MeV. The calculations were done assuming massless particles.
Hadron-mass effects~\cite{prl:95:232002} for $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$ were
included as correction factors~\cite{np:b803:42}. The influence on the
shapes of the calculated scaled momentum distributions due to the mass
effects is expected at small values of $x_p$ and $Q^2$, as explained
in Section~\ref{theory}.
In the DSS calculations, the scaled momentum distributions were
obtained by convoluting the NLO DSS set of FFs together with the MRST
NLO~\cite{pl:b531:216} PDFs and appropriate NLO coefficient
functions. For these calculations, $K_S^0$-mass corrections were not
included. The predictions were computed as ratios for each bin, such
that a later combination of bins is not possible~\cite{pc}.
The uncertainty from terms beyond NLO was estimated by varying the
renormalisation scale by factors 0.5 and 2. The uncertainties from FFs
could not be evaluated so far; it is to a certain extent represented
by the differences in the predictions of AKK+CYCLOPS and DSS. In
addition, it should be noted that the DSS FFs were extracted from
data at low $Q^2$ and that the fits are thus almost unconstrained at
high $Q^2$~\cite{pr:d75:114010}.
\section{Results}
\label{results}
Scaled momentum distributions, $(1/N)(n(H)/\Delta x_p)$, with $n(H)$
the number of $H$ ($K_S^0$ or $\Lambda$), $N$ the number of DIS
events in a given $Q^2$ bin and $\Delta x_p$ the width of the $x_p$ bin,
were measured in the current region of the Breit frame. The
distributions are presented as functions of $Q^2$ and $x_p$ in
the kinematic region of $10<Q^2<40000$~GeV$^2$\ and $0.001<x<0.75$.
Figure~\ref{fig2} shows the scaled momentum distributions for $K_S^0$ as
functions of $Q^2$ in different regions of $x_p$. The results are also
presented in Table~\ref{tab1}. The data show clear scaling
violation. This behaviour is expected on the basis of the QCD
description of the parton evolution with increasing $Q$: the phase
space for soft gluon radiation increases, leading to a rise of the
number of soft particles with small $x_p$.
The predictions from the CDM and MEPS models, based on
leading-logarithmic matrix elements plus parton shower and the Lund
fragmentation model, as described in Section~\ref{mc}, are compared to
the measurements in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. They describe the shapes of the
distributions fairly well while overestimating the overall production
of $K_S^0$ by $10$ to $20\%$.
The NLO QCD calculations, based on full NLO matrix elements and the
fragmentation-function approach described in Sections~\ref{theory} and
\ref{nlo}, are also compared to the measurements in Fig.~\ref{fig2} for
$x_p>0.1$. For $z<0.1$, the calculations become singular.
The AKK+{\sc Cyclops} calculations, based on FFs extracted from $e^+e^-$
data alone, fail to describe the measurements. These calculations
predict a much too high $K_S^0$ rate but for $x_p>0.6$. These
discrepancies might come from the fact that the FFs used in these
predictions have a poorly constrained gluon contribution, which is
dominant at low $x_p$.
The DSS calculations, based on FFs extracted from a global analysis,
give a good description of the measurements for $x_p>0.3$ and
$10<Q^2<40000$~GeV$^2$. The prediction for this region of phase space
is mainly constrained by $pp$ data, which sufficiently constrain the
FFs at high $x_p$. At lower $x_p$, the DSS calculations fail to
describe the data. This can be explained
by the fact that the DSS fit in this region of phase space is mostly
unconstrained by the available data. Thus, the measurements presented
in this paper will help to improve significantly such global fits in
this region of phase space.
Figure~\ref{fig3} and Table~\ref{tab3} show the scaled momentum
distributions for $K_S^0$ as functions of $x_p$ in two regions of
$Q^2$. The predictions of CDM and MEPS give a good description of the
data. In both regions of $Q^2$, both NLO calculations predict
too-steep spectra. At low $Q^2$, this effect is especially pronounced.
Figures~\ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5} show the scaled momentum
distributions for $\Lambda$. The results are also presented in
Tables~\ref{tab4} and \ref{tab6}. Scaling violations are clearly
observed. The predictions of CDM and MEPS give a reasonable
description of the measurements, but overestimate the overall
$\Lambda$ rate by $\approx 20\%$. The AKK+{\sc Cyclops} NLO
calculations fail to describe the measurements. As seen in
Fig.~\ref{fig5}, the predicted spectra in $x_p$ are, as in the case of
$K_S^0$, significantly too steep.
ZEUS has previously published measurements of scaled momentum
distributions for inclusive charged particles in
DIS~\cite{jhep:1006:009}. These measurements are dominated by the
contribution from charged pions. Figure~\ref{fig6} shows
the scaled momentum distributions presented in this paper together
with those from the inclusive charged particles analysis in the kinematic
region of $0.1<x_p<0.4$ as functions of $Q^2$. For $Q^2>100$~GeV$^2$, all
distributions show a plateau. At lower $Q^2$, and especially at low
$x_p$, sizeable mass effects are expected. This is clearly
visible. For $0.1<x_p<0.2$, the value of $(1/N)(n(H)/\Delta x_p)$
drops to $10\ (20)\%$ of its maximum value for $\Lambda\ (K_S^0)$,
while for inclusive charged particles, the $(1/N)(n(H)/\Delta x_p)$
value is still $40\%$ of the plateau value at the lowest $Q^2$
accessible.
\section{Summary and conclusions}
Scaled momentum distributions for $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$ hadrons
were measured for the first time in $ep$ DIS. The distributions were
measured in the $Q^2$ range from 10 to 40000~GeV$^2$\ and
$0.001<x<0.75$. Scaling violations were clearly observed for both the
$K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$ hadrons.
Next-to-leading-order QCD calculations, based on different
parameterisations of the FFs, were compared to the measurements. The
predictions based on FFs extracted from $e^+e^-$ data alone fail to
describe the measurements. Those predictions based on a global analysis
which include $e^+e^-$, $pp$ and $ep$ data give an improved description
of the measurements. However, they predict a too high production rate
of $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$ hadrons at low $x_p$ and $Q^2$. The
measurements presented in this paper have the potential to constrain
significantly the FFs for the strange hadrons $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$.
\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent {\Large\bf Acknowledgements}
\vspace{0.3cm}
We thank the DESY Directorate for their strong support and
encouragement. The remarkable achievements of the HERA machine group
were essential for the successful completion of this work and are
greatly appreciated. We are grateful for the support of the DESY
computing and network services. The design, construction and
installation of the ZEUS detector have been made possible owing to the
ingenuity and effort of many people who are not listed as authors.
We would like to thank S. Albino, R. Sassot and collaborators
for providing their calculations. Special thanks are due to R. Sassot
for very useful discussions.
\newpage
\providecommand{\etal}{et al.\xspace}
\providecommand{\coll}{Collaboration}
\catcode`\@=11
\def\@bibitem#1{%
\ifmc@bstsupport
\mc@iftail{#1}%
{;\newline\ignorespaces}%
{\ifmc@first\else.\fi\orig@bibitem{#1}}
\mc@firstfalse
\else
\mc@iftail{#1}%
{\ignorespaces}%
{\orig@bibitem{#1}}%
\fi}%
\catcode`\@=12
\begin{mcbibliography}{10}
\bibitem{prep:97:31}
B. Andersson \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Rep.{} 97~(1983)~31\relax
\relax
\bibitem{np:b160:301}
G. Altarelli \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Phys.{} B~160~(1979)~301\relax
\relax
\bibitem{zfp:c11:293}
W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio,
\newblock Z.\ Phys.{} C~11~(1982)~293\relax
\relax
\bibitem{np:b421:473}
P. Nason and B.R. Webber,
\newblock Nucl.\ Phys.{} B~421~(1994)~473\relax
\relax
\bibitem{np:b193:381}
J.C. Collins and D.E. Soper,
\newblock Nucl.\ Phys.{} B~193~(1981)~381.
\newblock Erratum in Nucl.~Phys.~B~213~(1983)~545\relax
\relax
\bibitem{np:b194:445}
J.C. Collins and D.E. Soper,
\newblock Nucl.\ Phys.{} B~194~(1982)~445\relax
\relax
\bibitem{prep:294:1}
\colab{ALEPH}, R. Barate \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Rep.{} 294~(1998)~1\relax
\relax
\bibitem{epj:c35:2004}
\colab{ALEPH}, A. Heister \etal,
\newblock Eur.\ Phys.\ J.{} C~35~(2004)~457\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pr:d41:2675}
\colab{AMY}, Y.K. Li \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.{} D~41~(1990)~2675\relax
\relax
\bibitem{epj:c5:585}
\colab{DELPHI}, P. Abreu \etal,
\newblock Eur.\ Phys.\ J.{} C~5~(1998)~585\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pl:b459:397}
\colab{DELPHI}, P. Abreu \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Lett.{} B~459~(1999)~397\relax
\relax
\bibitem{epj:c18:203}
\colab{DELPHI}, P. Abreu \etal,
\newblock Eur.\ Phys.\ J.{} C~18~(2000)~203\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pl:b643:147}
\colab{DELPHI}, J. Abdallah \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Lett.{} B~643~(2006)~147\relax
\relax
\bibitem{prep:399:71}
\colab{L3}, P. Achard \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Rep.{} 399~(2004)~71\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pr:d37:1}
\colab{MARK II}, A. Petersen \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.{} D~37~(1988)~1\relax
\relax
\bibitem{zfp:c72:191}
\colab{OPAL}, G. Alexander \etal,
\newblock Z.\ Phys.{} C~72~(1996)~191\relax
\relax
\bibitem{epj:c16:407}
\colab{OPAL}, G. Abbiendi \etal,
\newblock Eur.\ Phys.\ J.{} C~16~(2000)~407\relax
\relax
\bibitem{zfp:c47:187}
\colab{TASSO}, W. Braunschweig \etal,
\newblock Z.\ Phys.{} C~47~(1990)~187\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pl:b311:408}
\colab{DELPHI}, P. Abreu \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Lett.{} B~311~(1993)~408\relax
\relax
\bibitem{prl:98:252001}
\colab{BRAHMS}, I. Arsene \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.{} 98~(2007)~252001\relax
\relax
\bibitem{prl:91:241803}
\colab{PHENIX}, S.S. Adler \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.{} 91~(2003)~241803\relax
\relax
\bibitem{prl:97:152302}
\colab{STAR}, J. Adams \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.{} 97~(2006)~152302\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pr:c75:064901}
\colab{STAR}, B.I. Abelev \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.{} C~75~(2007)~064901\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pr:d72:052001}
\colab{CDF}, D.E. Acosta \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.{} D 72~(2005)~052001\relax
\relax
\bibitem{zfp:c67:93}
\colab{ZEUS}, M. Derrick \etal,
\newblock Z.\ Phys.{} C~67~(1995)~93\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pl:b414:428}
\colab{ZEUS}, J. Breitweg \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Lett.{} B~414~(1997)~428\relax
\relax
\bibitem{epj:c11:251}
\colab{ZEUS}, J. Breitweg \etal,
\newblock Eur.\ Phys.\ J.{} C~11~(1999)~251\relax
\relax
\bibitem{jhep:1006:009}
\colab{ZEUS}, H. Abramowicz \etal,
\newblock JHEP{} 1006~(2010)~009\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pl:b654:148}
\colab{H1}, F.D. Aaron \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Lett.{} B~654~(2007)~148\relax
\relax
\bibitem{np:b445:3}
\colab{H1}, S. Aid \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Phys.{} B~445~(1995)~3\relax
\relax
\bibitem{np:b504:125}
\colab{H1}, C. Adloff \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Phys.{} B~504~(1997)~3\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pl:b681:125}
\colab{H1}, F.D. Aaron \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Lett.{} B~681~(2009)~125\relax
\relax
\bibitem{epj:c61:185}
\colab{H1}, F.D. Aaron \etal,
\newblock Eur.\ Phys.\ J.{} C~61~(2009)~185\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pr:d62:054001}
S. Kretzer,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.{} D~62~(2000)~054001\relax
\relax
\bibitem{prl:85:5288}
B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer and B. P\"otter,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.{} 85~(2000)~5288\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pr:d75:034018}
S. Albino \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.{} D~75~(2007)~034018\relax
\relax
\bibitem{np:b803:42}
S. Albino, B.A. Kniehl and G. Kramer,
\newblock Nucl.\ Phys.{} B~803~(2008)~42\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pr:d75:114010}
D. de Florian, R. Sassot and M. Stratmann,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.{} D~75~(2007)~114010\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pr:d76:074033}
D. de Florian, R. Sassot and M. Stratmann,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.{} D~76~(2007)~074033\relax
\relax
\bibitem{np:b734:50}
S. Albino, B.A. Kniehl and G. Kramer,
\newblock Nucl.\ Phys.{} B~734~(2006)~50\relax
\relax
\bibitem{epj:c61:603}
F. Arleo,
\newblock Eur.\ Phys.\ J.{} C~61~(2009)~603\relax
\relax
\bibitem{bookfeynam:1972}
R.P.~Feynman,
\newblock {\em Photon-Hadron Interactions}.
\newblock Benjamin, New York, (1972)\relax
\relax
\bibitem{zfp:c2:237}
K.H. Streng, T.F. Walsh and P.M. Zerwas,
\newblock Z.\ Phys.{} C~2~(1979)~237\relax
\relax
\bibitem{Hillenbrand:phd:2005}
A.~Hillenbrand.
\newblock Ph.D.\ Thesis, Erlangen University, Report
\mbox{DESY-THESIS-2005-035}, 2005 (ISSN 1435-8085)\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pl:b293:465}
\colab{ZEUS}, M.~Derrick \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Lett.{} B~293~(1992)~465\relax
\relax
\bibitem{zeus:1993:bluebook}
\colab{ZEUS}, U.~Holm~(ed.),
\newblock {\em The {ZEUS} Detector}.
\newblock Status Report (unpublished), DESY (1993),
\newblock available on
\texttt{http://www-zeus.desy.de/bluebook/bluebook.html}\relax
\relax
\bibitem{nim:a279:290}
N.~Harnew \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.{} A~279~(1989)~290\relax
\relax
\bibitem{npps:b32:181}
B.~Foster \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.{} B~32~(1993)~181\relax
\relax
\bibitem{nim:a338:254}
B.~Foster \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.{} A~338~(1994)~254\relax
\relax
\bibitem{nim:a581:656}
A. Polini \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.{} A~581~(2007)~656\relax
\relax
\bibitem{nim:a535:191}
S. Fourletov \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.{} A~535~(2004)~191\relax
\relax
\bibitem{nim:a309:77}
M.~Derrick \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.{} A~309~(1991)~77\relax
\relax
\bibitem{nim:a309:101}
A.~Andresen \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.{} A~309~(1991)~101\relax
\relax
\bibitem{nim:a321:356}
A.~Caldwell \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.{} A~321~(1992)~356\relax
\relax
\bibitem{nim:a336:23}
A.~Bernstein \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.{} A~336~(1993)~23\relax
\relax
\bibitem{epj:c21:443}
\colab{ZEUS}, S.~Chekanov \etal,
\newblock Eur.\ Phys.\ J.{} C~21~(2001)~443\relax
\relax
\bibitem{nim:a401:63}
A. Bamberger \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.{} A~401~(1997)~63\relax
\relax
\bibitem{nim:a382:419}
A. Bamberger \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.{} A~382~(1996)~419\relax
\relax
\bibitem{desy-92-066}
J.~Andruszk\'ow \etal,
\newblock Preprint \mbox{DESY-92-066}, DESY, 1992\relax
\relax
\bibitem{zfp:c63:391}
\colab{ZEUS}, M.~Derrick \etal,
\newblock Z.\ Phys.{} C~63~(1994)~391\relax
\relax
\bibitem{acpp:b32:2025}
J.~Andruszk\'ow \etal,
\newblock Acta Phys.\ Pol.{} B~32~(2001)~2025\relax
\relax
\bibitem{nim:a565:572}
M.~Helbich \etal,
\newblock Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.{} A~565~(2006)~572\relax
\relax
\bibitem{proc:chep:1992:222}
W.H.~Smith, K.~Tokushuku and L.W.~Wiggers,
\newblock {\em Proc.\ Computing in High-Energy Physics (CHEP), Annecy, France,
Sept.~1992}, C.~Verkerk and W.~Wojcik~(eds.), p.~222.
\newblock CERN, Geneva, Switzerland (1992).
\newblock Also in preprint \mbox{DESY 92-150B}\relax
\relax
\bibitem{nim:a365:508}
H.~Abramowicz, A.~Caldwell and R.~Sinkus,
\newblock Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.{} A~365~(1995)~508\relax
\relax
\bibitem{proc:hera:1991:23}
S.~Bentvelsen, J.~Engelen and P.~Kooijman,
\newblock {\em Proc. of the Workshop on Physics at {HERA}}, W.~Buchm\"uller and
G.~Ingelman~(eds.), Vol.~1, p.~23.
\newblock Hamburg, Germany, DESY (1992)\relax
\relax
\bibitem{proc:epfacility:1979:391}
F.~Jacquet and A.~Blondel,
\newblock {\em Proc. of the Study for an $ep$ Facility for {Europe}},
U.~Amaldi~(ed.), p.~391.
\newblock Hamburg, Germany (1979).
\newblock Also in preprint \mbox{DESY 79/48}\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pl:b652:1}
\colab{ZEUS}, S.~Chekanov \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Lett.{} B~652~(2007)~1\relax
\relax
\bibitem{phm:43:13}
J. Podolanski and R. Armenteros,
\newblock Phil.\ Mag.{} 43~(1954)~13\relax
\relax
\bibitem{tech:cern-dd-ee-84-1}
R.~Brun et al.,
\newblock {\em {\sc geant3}},
\newblock Technical Report CERN-DD/EE/84-1, CERN, 1987\relax
\relax
\bibitem{cpc:101:108}
G. Ingelman, A. Edin and J. Rathsman,
\newblock Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm.{} 101~(1997)~108\relax
\relax
\bibitem{cpc:69:155}
A. Kwiatkowski, H. Spiesberger and H.-J. M\"ohring,
\newblock Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm.{} 69~(1992)~155\relax
\relax
\bibitem{spi:www:heracles}
H.~Spiesberger,
\newblock {\em An Event Generator for $ep$ Interactions at {HERA} Including
Radiative Processes (Version 4.6)}, 1996,
\newblock available on \texttt{http://www.desy.de/\til
hspiesb/heracles.html}\relax
\relax
\bibitem{cpc:81:381}
K. Charchu\l a, G.A. Schuler and H. Spiesberger,
\newblock Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm.{} 81~(1994)~381\relax
\relax
\bibitem{spi:www:djangoh11}
H.~Spiesberger,
\newblock {\em {\sc heracles} and {\sc djangoh}: Event Generation for $ep$
Interactions at {HERA} Including Radiative Processes}, 1998,
\newblock available on \texttt{http://wwwthep.physik.uni-mainz.de/\til
hspiesb/djangoh/djangoh.html}\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pl:b165:147}
Y. Azimov \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Lett.{} B~165~(1985)~147\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pl:b175:453}
G. Gustafson,
\newblock Phys.\ Lett.{} B~175~(1986)~453\relax
\relax
\bibitem{np:b306:746}
G. Gustafson and U. Pettersson,
\newblock Nucl.\ Phys.{} B~306~(1988)~746\relax
\relax
\bibitem{zfp:c43:625}
B. Andersson \etal,
\newblock Z.\ Phys.{} C~43~(1989)~625\relax
\relax
\bibitem{cpc:71:15}
L. L\"onnblad,
\newblock Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm.{} 71~(1992)~15\relax
\relax
\bibitem{zfp:c65:285}
L. L\"onnblad,
\newblock Z.\ Phys.{} C~65~(1995)~285\relax
\relax
\bibitem{cpc:82:74}
T. Sj\"ostrand,
\newblock Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm.{} 82~(1994)~74\relax
\relax
\bibitem{cpc:135:238}
T. Sj\"ostrand \etal,
\newblock Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm.{} 135~(2001)~238\relax
\relax
\bibitem{cpc:39:347}
T. Sj\"ostrand,
\newblock Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm.{} 39~(1986)~347\relax
\relax
\bibitem{cpc:43:367}
T. Sj\"ostrand and M. Bengtsson,
\newblock Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm.{} 43~(1987)~367\relax
\relax
\bibitem{zfp:c35:417}
\colab{EMC}, M. Arneodo \etal,
\newblock Z.\ Phys.{} C~35~(1987)~417\relax
\relax
\bibitem{epj:c12:375}
H.L.~Lai \etal,
\newblock Eur.\ Phys.\ J.{} C~12~(2000)~375\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pl:b406:178}
D. Graudenz,
\newblock Phys.\ Lett.{} B~406~(1997)~178\relax
\relax
\bibitem{jhep:0207:012}
J. Pumplin \etal,
\newblock JHEP{} 0207~(2002)~012\relax
\relax
\bibitem{prl:95:232002}
S. Albino \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.{} 95~(2005)~232002\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pl:b531:216}
A.D. Martin \etal,
\newblock Phys.\ Lett.{} B~531~(2002)~216\relax
\relax
\bibitem{pc}
R. Sassot, private communication\relax
\relax
\end{mcbibliography}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|} \hline
& & & \\
$Q^2$ (GeV$^2$) & 0.0 $< x_p <$ 0.1 & 0.1 $< x_p <$ 0.2 & 0.2 $< x_p <$ 0.3 \\
& & & \\
\hline
\hline
& & & \\
10 - 40 & 0.031$\pm0.001^{+0.002}_{-0.001}$ & 0.125$\pm0.001^{+0.008}_{-0.003}$ & 0.144$\pm0.001^{+0.009}_{-0.013}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
40 - 160 & 0.171$\pm0.002^{+0.009}_{-0.006}$ & 0.392$\pm0.003^{+0.018}_{-0.010}$ & 0.283$\pm0.002^{+0.013}_{-0.006}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
160 - 640 & 0.551$\pm0.010^{+0.025}_{-0.018}$ & 0.612$\pm0.010^{+0.028}_{-0.017}$ & 0.306$\pm0.007^{+0.014}_{-0.009}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
640 - 2560 & 1.141$\pm0.038^{+0.087}_{-0.037}$ & 0.618$\pm0.030^{+0.1130}_{-0.016}$ & 0.309$\pm0.029^{+0.047}_{-0.011}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
2560 - 10240 & 1.878$\pm0.168^{+0.095}_{-0.147}$ & 0.834$\pm0.217^{+0.065}_{-0.278}$ & 0.115$\pm0.062^{+0.066}_{-0.054}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
\hline
& & & \\
$Q^2$ (GeV$^2$) & 0.3 $< x_p <$ 0.4 & 0.4 $< x_p <$ 0.6 & 0.6 $< x_p <$ 1.0 \\
& & & \\
\hline
\hline
& & & \\
10 - 40 & 0.1112$\pm0.0008^{+0.0074}_{-0.0130}$ & 0.0130$\pm0.0004^{+0.0041}_{-0.0013}$ & 0.0132$\pm0.0001^{+0.0007}_{-0.0004}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
40 - 160 & 0.1571$\pm0.0019^{+0.0082}_{-0.0033}$ & 0.0671$\pm0.0009^{+0.0038}_{-0.0014}$ & 0.0109$\pm0.0003^{+0.0006}_{-0.0002}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
160 - 640 & 0.1585$\pm0.0060^{+0.0118}_{-0.0051}$ & 0.0548$\pm0.0027^{+0.0050}_{-0.0014}$ & 0.0073$\pm0.0008^{+0.0005}_{-0.0011}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
640 - 2560 & 0.1053$\pm0.0217^{+0.0319}_{-0.0214}$ & 0.0558$\pm0.0141^{+0.0176}_{-0.0028}$ & 0.0029$\pm0.0022^{+0.0014}_{-0.0030}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption
{\it The measured scaled momentum distributions $(1/N)(n(K_S^0)/\Delta x_p)$
as functions of $Q^2$ in different regions of $x_p$. The statistical
and systematic uncertainties are also shown.}
\label{tab1}
\end{table}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|} \hline
& & \\
$x_p$ & $10<Q^2<100$~GeV$^2$ & $100<Q^2<40000$~GeV$^2$ \\
& & \\
\hline
\hline
& & \\
0.0 - 0.1 & 0.0488$\pm0.0006^{+0.0024}_{-0.0012}$ & 0.4841$\pm0.0063^{+0.0233}_{-0.0117}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.1 - 0.2 & 0.1618$\pm0.0009^{+0.0094}_{-0.0041}$ & 0.5740$\pm0.0061^{+0.0263}_{-0.0132}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.2 - 0.3 & 0.1648$\pm0.0009^{+0.0098}_{-0.0035}$ & 0.3140$\pm0.0048^{+0.0142}_{-0.0082}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.3 - 0.4 & 0.1183$\pm0.0007^{+0.0077}_{-0.0026}$ & 0.1588$\pm0.0037^{+0.01213}_{-0.0045}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.4 - 0.5 & 0.0751$\pm0.0006^{+0.0055}_{-0.0015}$ & 0.0760$\pm0.0027^{+0.0073}_{-0.0017}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.5 - 0.6 & 0.0452$\pm0.0004^{+0.0031}_{-0.0010}$ & 0.0408$\pm0.0022^{+0.0037}_{-0.0011}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.6 - 0.7 & 0.0260$\pm0.0003^{+0.0017}_{-0.0006}$ & 0.0182$\pm0.0015^{+0.0011}_{-0.0009}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.7 - 0.8 & 0.0150$\pm0.0002^{+0.0009}_{-0.0003}$ & 0.0101$\pm0.0012^{+0.0008}_{-0.0016}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.8 - 0.9 & 0.0073$\pm0.0001^{+0.0005}_{-0.0003}$ & 0.0034$\pm0.0007^{+0.0007}_{-0.0001}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.9 - 1.0 & 0.0032$\pm0.0001^{+0.0002}_{-0.0006}$ & 0.0020$\pm0.0006^{+0.0008}_{-0.0001}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption
{\it
The measured scaled momentum distributions $(1/N)(n(K_S^0)/\Delta x_p)$
as functions of $x_p$ in different regions of $Q^2$. Other details as
in the caption to Table~\ref{tab1}.
}
\label{tab3}
\end{table}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|} \hline
& & & \\
$Q^2$ (GeV$^2$) & 0.0 $< x_p <$ 0.1 & 0.1 $< x_p <$ 0.2 & 0.2 $< x_p <$ 0.3 \\
& & & \\
\hline
\hline
& & & \\
10 - 40 & 0.0025$\pm0.0002^{+0.0003}_{-0.0002}$ & 0.0122$\pm0.0004^{+0.0010}_{-0.0008}$ & 0.0189$\pm0.0005^{+0.0015}_{-0.0014}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
40 - 160 & 0.0189$\pm0.0014^{+0.0012}_{-0.0007}$ & 0.0650$\pm0.0021^{+0.0030}_{-0.0039}$ & 0.0656$\pm0.0018^{+0.0037}_{-0.0036}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
160 - 640 & 0.0995$\pm0.0095^{+0.0085}_{-0.0073}$ & 0.1666$\pm0.0099^{+0.0091}_{-0.0163}$ & 0.0960$\pm0.0066^{+0.0074}_{-0.0038}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
640 - 2560& 0.2313$\pm0.0427^{+0.0593}_{-0.0567}$ & 0.1966$\pm0.0414^{+0.0124}_{-0.0303}$ & 0.1038$\pm0.0346^{+0.0132}_{-0.0090}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
2560 - 10240 & 0.7416$\pm0.4386^{+0.0577}_{-0.3574}$ & 0.1962$\pm0.1268^{+0.0393}_{-0.1395}$ & \\
& & & \\
\hline
\hline
& & & \\
$Q^2$ (GeV$^2$) & 0.3 $< x_p <$ 0.4 & 0.4 $< x_p <$ 0.6 & 0.6 $< x_p <$ 1.0 \\
& & & \\
\hline
\hline
& & & \\
10 - 40 & 0.0184$\pm0.0004^{+0.0011}_{-0.0013}$ & 0.0106$\pm0.0002^{+0.0006}_{-0.0004}$ & 0.0021$\pm0.0001^{+0.0001}_{-0.0001}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
40 - 160 & 0.0453$\pm0.0015^{+0.0028}_{-0.0031}$ & 0.0198$\pm0.0007^{+0.0011}_{-0.0010}$ & 0.0020$\pm0.0002^{+0.0003}_{-0.0001}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
160 - 640 & 0.0641$\pm0.0074^{+0.0034}_{-0.0149}$ & 0.0139$\pm0.0025^{+0.0089}_{-0.0031}$ & 0.0041$\pm0.0009^{+0.0003}_{-0.0008}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
640 - 2560 & 0.0653$\pm0.0436^{+0.0119}_{-0.0244}$ & & \\
& & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption
{\it
The measured scaled momentum distributions $(1/N)(n(\Lambda)/\Delta x_p)$
as functions of $Q^2$ in different regions of $x_p$. Other details as
in the caption to Table.~\ref{tab1}.
}
\label{tab4}
\end{table}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|} \hline
& & \\
$x_p$ & $10<Q^2<100$~GeV$^2$ & $100<Q^2<40000$~GeV$^2$ \\
& & \\
\hline
\hline
& & \\
0.0 - 0.1 & 0.00437$\pm0.00034^{+0.00046}_{-0.00017}$ & 0.08307$\pm0.00638^{+0.00626}_{-0.00826}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.1 - 0.2 & 0.01822$\pm0.00059^{+0.00106}_{-0.00109}$ & 0.13904$\pm0.00466^{+0.00677}_{-0.01515}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.2 - 0.3 & 0.02456$\pm0.00059^{+0.00163}_{-0.00118}$ & 0.09489$\pm0.00275^{+0.00541}_{-0.00646}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.3 - 0.4 & 0.02173$\pm0.00049^{+0.00109}_{-0.00138}$ & 0.056013$\pm0.00188^{+0.00323}_{-0.00353}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.4 - 0.5 & 0.01387$\pm0.00035^{+0.00088}_{-0.00030}$ & 0.02950$\pm0.00135^{+0.00181}_{-0.00310}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.5 - 0.6 & 0.00913$\pm0.00026^{+0.00054}_{-0.00043}$ & 0.014640$\pm0.00095^{+0.00091}_{-0.00048}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.6 - 0.7 & 0.00483$\pm0.00018^{+0.00028}_{-0.00027}$ & 0.00534$\pm0.00051^{+0.00068}_{-0.00034}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.7 - 0.8 & 0.00245$\pm0.00011^{+0.00015}_{-0.00024}$ & 0.00178$\pm0.00028^{+0.00032}_{-0.00049}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.8 - 0.9 & 0.00096$\pm0.00006^{+0.0011}_{-0.00009}$ & 0.00056$\pm0.00019^{+0.00006}_{-0.00018}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
0.9 - 1.0 & 0.00038$\pm0.00004^{+0.00003}_{-0.00013}$ & 0.00032$\pm0.00013^{+0.00009}_{-0.00023}$ \\
& & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption
{\it
The measured scaled momentum distributions $(1/N)(n(\Lambda)/\Delta x_p)$
as functions of $x_p$ in different regions of $Q^2$. Other details as
in the caption to Table.~\ref{tab1}.
}
\label{tab6}
\end{table}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[p]
\vfill
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.0cm}
\begin{picture} (18.0,15.0)
\put (0.0,0.0){\centerline{\epsfig{figure=./ DESY-11-205_7.eps,width=15cm}}}
\put (6.0,12.5){{\bf (a)}}
\put (13.0,12.5){{\bf (b)}}
\put (6.0,6.0){{\bf (c)}}
\put (13.0,6.0){{\bf (d)}}
\end{picture}
\caption
{\it
The normalised (a) $dca$, (b) $\theta_{2D}$, (c) $\theta_{3D}$ and (d)
$L_{XY}$ distributions for data (dots) and Monte Carlo (histograms)
for $K_S^0$ candidates.
}
\label{figk}
\vfill
\end{figure}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[p]
\vfill
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.0cm}
\begin{picture} (18.0,15.0)
\put (0.0,0.0){\centerline{\epsfig{figure=./ DESY-11-205_8.eps,width=15cm}}}
\put (6.0,12.5){{\bf (a)}}
\put (13.0,12.5){{\bf (b)}}
\put (6.0,6.0){{\bf (c)}}
\put (13.0,6.0){{\bf (d)}}
\end{picture}
\caption
{\it
The normalised (a) $dca$, (b) $\theta_{2D}$, (c) $\theta_{3D}$ and (d)
$L_{XY}$ distributions for data (dots) and Monte Carlo (histograms)
for $\Lambda$ candidates.
}
\label{figl}
\vfill
\end{figure}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[p]
\vfill
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.0cm}
\begin{picture} (18.0,15.0)
\put (0.0,0.0){\centerline{\epsfig{figure=./ DESY-11-205_1.eps,width=12cm}}}
\put (12.0,10.0){{\bf (a)}}
\put (12.0,4.5){{\bf (b)}}
\end{picture}
\caption
{\it
(a) The $\pi^+\pi^-$ invariant-mass distribution for
$K_S^0$ candidates (dots). (b) The $p\pi^-/\bar p\pi^+$ invariant-mass
distribution for $\Lambda/\bar\Lambda$ candidates
(dots). In both (a) and (b), the solid line represents an indicative fit
by two Gaussians and a (a) linear and (b) quadratic background function.
The solid vertical lines indicate the signal window used in the
analysis. The dashed lines indicate the two sideband regions used for
the background subtraction in each kinematic bin.
}
\label{fig1}
\vfill
\end{figure}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[p]
\vfill
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.0cm}
\begin{picture} (18.0,18.0)
\put (0.0,0.0){\centerline{\epsfig{figure=./ DESY-11-205_2.eps,width=14cm}}}
\end{picture}
\caption
{\it
The measured scaled momentum distributions $(1/N)(n(K_S^0)/\Delta x_p)$
as functions of $Q^2$ in different regions of $x_p$ (dots). The inner
error bars represent the statistical uncertainty. The outer error bars
show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in
quadrature. In some bins, the error bars on the data points are
smaller than the marker size and are therefore not visible. For
comparison, the NLO predictions of AKK+{\sc Cyclops} (dark-shaded
band) and DSS (light-shaded band) are also presented. The bands
represent the theoretical uncertainty. The predictions from CDM (solid
lines) and MEPS (dashed lines) are also shown.
}
\label{fig2}
\vfill
\end{figure}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[p]
\vfill
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.0cm}
\begin{picture} (18.0,18.0)
\put (0.0,0.0){\centerline{\epsfig{figure=./ DESY-11-205_3.eps,width=14cm}}}
\end{picture}
\caption
{\it
The measured scaled momentum distributions $(1/N)(n(K_S^0)/\Delta x_p)$
as functions of $x_p$ in different regions of $Q^2$ (dots). Other
details as in the caption to Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
}
\label{fig3}
\vfill
\end{figure}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[p]
\vfill
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.0cm}
\begin{picture} (18.0,18.0)
\put (0.0,0.0){\centerline{\epsfig{figure=./ DESY-11-205_4.eps,width=14cm}}}
\end{picture}
\caption
{\it
The measured scaled momentum distributions $(1/N)(n(\Lambda)/\Delta x_p)$
as functions of $Q^2$ in different regions of $x_p$ (dots). Other
details as in the caption to Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
}
\label{fig4}
\vfill
\end{figure}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[p]
\vfill
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.0cm}
\begin{picture} (18.0,18.0)
\put (0.0,0.0){\centerline{\epsfig{figure=./ DESY-11-205_5.eps,width=14cm}}}
\end{picture}
\caption
{\it
The measured scaled momentum distributions $(1/N)(n(\Lambda)/\Delta x_p)$
as functions of $x_p$ in different regions of $Q^2$ (dots). Other
details as in the caption to Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
}
\label{fig5}
\vfill
\end{figure}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[p]
\vfill
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.0cm}
\begin{picture} (18.0,18.0)
\put (0.0,0.0){\centerline{\epsfig{figure=./ DESY-11-205_6.eps,width=14cm}}}
\end{picture}
\caption
{\it
The measured scaled momentum distributions $(1/N)(n(H)/\Delta x_p)$
for $H=K_S^0$ (dots), $\Lambda$ (triangles) and light charged particles
(squares) as functions of $Q^2$ in different regions of $x_p$. Other
details as in the caption to Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
}
\label{fig6}
\vfill
\end{figure}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we mainly consider sets $P=\{p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_N\}$
of points in the plane, where $p_i=(x_i,y_i)$.
We always assume that no two of the $x$-coordinates
coincide, and unless stated otherwise, we also
assume that the $p_i$ are numbered so that
$x_1<x_2<\cdots<x_N$ (the same also applies to
subsets of $P$, which we will enumerate in the order
of increasing $x$-coordinates).
\heading{Two theorems of Erd\H{o}s and Szekeres. }
Among simple results in combinatorics, only few can compete
with the following one in beauty and usefulness:
\begin{theorem}[Erd\H{o}s--Szekeres on monotone
subsequences \cite{es-cpg-35}]\label{t:es1}
For every positive integer $n$,
among every $N=(n-1)^2+1$ points $p_1,\ldots,p_N\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ as above,
one can always choose a \emph{monotone subset}
of at least $n$ points, i.e.,
indices $i_1<i_2<\cdots<i_n$ such that
either $y_{i_1}\le y_{i_2}\le \cdots\le y_{i_n}$
or $y_{i_1}\ge y_{i_2}\ge \cdots\ge y_{i_n}$.
\end{theorem}
See, for example, Steele \cite{steele-surv} for a collection
of six nice proofs and some applications.
\iffull
For many purposes, it is more natural to view the above
theorem as a purely combinatorial result about permutations,
but here we prefer the geometric formulation (which is
also similar to the one in the original Erd\H{o}s--Szekeres
paper).
\fi
Another result of the same paper of Erd\H{o}s and Szekeres
is the following well-known gem in discrete
geometry:\iffull\footnote{Somewhat
unfortunately, the name Erd\H{o}s--Szekeres theorem
refers to Theorem~\ref{t:es1} in some sources
and to Theorem~\ref{t:es2} or similar statements in other sources.}\fi
\begin{theorem}[Erd\H{o}s--Szekeres on convex/concave
configurations \cite{es-cpg-35}]\label{t:es2}
For every positive integer $n$,
among every $N={2n-4\choose n-2}+1\approx 4^n/\sqrt n$
points $p_1,\ldots,p_N\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ as above,
one can always choose a \emph{convex configuration}
or a \emph{concave configuration}
of $n$ points, i.e.,
indices $i_1<i_2<\cdots<i_n$ such that
the slopes of the segments
$p_{i_j}p_{i_{j+1}}$, $j=1,2,\ldots,n-1$,
are either monotone nondecreasing or monotone nonincreasing.
\end{theorem}
See, e.g., \cite{MorrisSoltan,Mat-dg} for proofs and surveys
of developments around this result.
\heading{$k$-general position.}
To simplify our forthcoming discussion, at some places it
will be convenient to assume that the considered
point sets are in a ``sufficiently general'' position. Namely,
we define a set $P$ to be in \emph{$k$-general position} if
no $k+1$ points of $P$ lie on the graph of a polynomial of
degree at most $k-1$. In particular,
$1$-general position requires that no two $y$-coordinates
coincide, and $2$-general position means
the usual general position, i.e., no three points collinear.
\heading{$k$th-order monotone subsets. }
Here we propose a view of Theorems~\ref{t:es1} and~\ref{t:es2}
as the first two members in an infinite sequence of
Ramsey-type results about planar point sets.\footnote{There is also
a (trivial) 0th member, namely, the statement that in every $P$,
at least half of the points either have all $y$-coordinates
nonnegative or have
or all $y$-coordinates nonpositive.}
In Theorem~\ref{t:es1}, monotonicity of a subset
is a property of \emph{pairs} of points of the subset,
and actually, it suffices to look at pairs of consecutive points.
Similarly, convexity or concavity of a configuration
in Theorem~\ref{t:es2} is a property
of triples, and again it is enough to look at consecutive triples.
In the former case, we are considering
the slope of the segment determined by a pair of points,
which can be thought of as the first derivative.
In the latter case, a triple
is convex iff its points lie on the graph of a smooth convex function,
i.e., one with nonnegative second derivative everywhere.
With this point of view, it is natural to define
a $(k+1)$-tuple $K\subseteq P$ to be \emph{positive}
if it lies on the graph of a function whose $k$-th derivative
(exists and) is everywhere nonnegative, and similarly
for a \emph{negative} $(k+1)$-tuple (in Section~\ref{s:defs},
we will provide several other, equivalent characterizations
of these properties).
Then we say that an arbitrary subset $S\subseteq P$ is
\emph{$k$th-order monotone} if
its $(k+1)$-tuples are all positive or all negative.
First-order monotonicity is obviously equivalent to monotonicity
as in Theorem~\ref{t:es1}, and second-order monotonicity
is equivalent to convexity/concavity as in Theorem~\ref{t:es2}.
We will also see (Lemma~\ref{l:trans}) that, to certify
$k$th-order monotonicity, it is enough to consider
all $(k+1)$-tuples of \emph{consecutive} points.
Let us remark that
every $(k+1)$-tuple $K$ is positive or negative,
and moreover, if $K$ is in $k$-general position, it
cannot be both positive and negative
(Corollary~\ref{c:posneg}).
We will write $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits(K)=+1$
if $K$ is positive and $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits(K)=-1$
if $K$ is negative.
\heading{Ramsey's theorem, quantitative bounds,
and transitive colorings. } Using the just mentioned
facts, one can immediately derive a Ramsey-type theorem
for $k$th-order monotone subsets from
Ramsey's theorem.
\begin{prop}\label{p:kmonot}
For every $k$ and $n$ there exists $N$ such
that every $N$-point planar set in $k$-general position contains
an $n$-point $k$th-order monotone subset.
\end{prop}
\heading{Proof. }
We recall Ramsey's theorem (for two colors; see, e.g.,
Graham, Rothschild, and Spencer \cite{grs-rt-90}):
for every $\ell$ and $n$ there exists $N$
such that for every coloring of the set ${X\choose \ell}$
of all $\ell$-element subsets of an $N$-element set $X$
there exists an $n$-element \emph{homogeneous} set $Y\subseteq X$,
i.e., a subset in which all $\ell$-tuples have the same color.
The smallest $N$ for which the claim holds is usually
denoted by $\rams_\ell(n)$.
In our case, we set $X=P$ and color each $(k+1)$-tuple $K\subseteq P$
with the color $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits(K)\in\{\pm 1\}$.
Then homogeneous
subsets are exactly $k$th-order monotone subsets.
\ProofEndBox\smallskip
\medskip
Let us denote by $\ES_k(n)$ the smallest value of
$N$ for which the claim in this proposition holds.
We have $\ES_1(n)\le (n-1)^2+1$ and
$\ES_2(n)\le {2n-4\choose n-2}+1$ according to
Theorems~\ref{t:es1} and~\ref{t:es2}, respectively;
moreover, these inequalities actually hold with
equality~\cite{es-cpg-35}. Our main goal
is to estimate the order of magnitude of $\ES_k(n)$ for
$k\ge 3$.
The above proof gives $\ES_k(n)\le \rams_{k+1}(n)$.
However, for $k=1$, and most likely for all $k$, the order
of magnitude of $\rams_{k+1}(n)$ is much larger than that of $\ES_k(n)$.
Indeed, considering $k$ fixed and $n$ large,
the best known lower and upper bounds of $\rams_{k+1}(n)$ are
of the form\footnote{We employ the usual asymptotic notation
for comparing functions: $f(n)=O(g(n))$ means that
$|f(n)|\le C|g(n)|$ for some $C$ and all $n$, where $C$ may depend
on parameters declared as constants (in our case on $k$);
$f(n)=\Omega(g(n))$ is equivalent to $g(n)=O(f(n))$;
and $f(n)=\Theta(g(n))$ means that both $f(n)=O(g(n))$
and $f(n)=\Omega(g(n))$.}
$\rams_2(n)=2^{\Theta(n)}$ and, for $k\ge 2$,
\iffull
$$
\twr_k(\Omega(n^2))\le \rams_{k+1}(n) \le \twr_{k+1}(O(n)),
$$
\else
$\twr_k(\Omega(n^2))\le \rams_{k+1}(n) \le \twr_{k+1}(O(n))$,
\fi
where the tower function $\twr_k(x)$ is defined by $\twr_1(x) = x$
and $\twr_{i+1} (x) = 2^{\twr_i (x)}$. It is widely believed
that the upper bound is essentially the truth. This belief
is supported by known bounds for more than two colors,
where the lower bound for $(k+1)$-tuples is also a tower
of height $k+1$; see Conlon, Fox, and
Sudakov \cite{conlon-al} for a recent improvement
and more detailed overview of the known bounds.
The coloring of the $(k+1)$-tuples in the above proof
of Proposition~\ref{p:kmonot} is not arbitrary. In particular,
it has a property we call \emph{transitivity} (see Lemma~\ref{l:trans}).
Transitive
colorings were introduced earlier in the recent preprint
Fox et al.~\cite[Section~6]{FoxPachSudSuk}, under the same name.
To define a transitive coloring in general, we need to consider
a hypergraph whose vertex set is linearly ordered;
w.l.o.g. we can identify it with the set $[N]:=\{1,2,\ldots,N\}$.
A coloring $c\:{[N]\choose \ell}\to [m]$ is \emph{transitive}
if, for every $i_1,\ldots,i_{\ell+1}\in [N]$,
$i_1<\cdots<i_{\ell+1}$, whenever the $\ell$-tuples $\{i_1,\ldots,i_\ell\}$
and $\{i_2,\ldots,i_{\ell+1}\}$ have the same color, then
\emph{all} $\ell$-element subsets of $\{i_1,\ldots,i_{\ell+1}\}$ have
the same color. Let $\trrams_\ell(n)$ denote the Ramsey
number for transitive colorings, i.e., the smallest $N$
such that any transitive coloring of the complete $\ell$-uniform
hypergraph on $[N]$ contains an $n$-element homogeneous subset.
We have the following bound.\footnote{By inspecting the proof of
the next theorem, it is easy to verify that the transitivity condition
is not used in full strength---it suffices to assume only that
the subsets obtained by omitting one of $i_2$, $i_3$ have the same color.}
\begin{theorem}\label{t:ub}
For $k=1,2$, we have $\trrams_{k+1}(n)=\ES_k(n)$,
and for every fixed $k\ge 3$,
$$
\ES_k(n)\le \trrams_{k+1}(n)\le \twr_{k}(O(n)).
$$
\end{theorem}
We note that Fox et al.~\cite{FoxPachSudSuk} proved
the slightly weaker upper bound $\trrams_{k+1}(n)\le \twr_{k}(O(n\log n))$.
\iffull
The proof of Theorem~\ref{t:ub} is given in Section~\ref{s:ub}.
\fi
The inequality $\ES_k(n)\le \trrams_{k+1}(n)$ is clear
(since every $N$-point set in $k$-general position
provides a transitive coloring of $[N]\choose k+1$).
The upper bounds for $\trrams_2(n)$
and $\trrams_3(n)$ follow by translating the proofs
of Theorem~\ref{t:es1} and~\ref{t:es2} to the setting
of transitive colorings almost word by word, and
they are contained in \cite{FoxPachSudSuk}.
The upper bound on $\trrams_{k+1}(n)$
is then obtained by induction on $k$, with $k=3$ as the base case,
\iffull
following one of the usual proofs of Ramsey's theorem.
\else
following the proof of Ramsey's theorem due to Erd\H{o}s
and Rado \cite{erdRado}. We only need to check that
if $\chi$ is a transitive coloring of ${[N]\choose k+1}$,
then the coloring $\chi^*$ of ${[N-1]\choose k}$
given by $\chi^*(K)=\chi(K\cup \{N\})$ is transitive as well.
We omit the details in this extended abstract.
\fi
\heading{A set with no large third-order monotone subsets.}
For $k\le 2$, the numbers $\ES_k(n)$ (and thus $\trrams_{k+1}(n)$)
are known exactly. Our perhaps most interesting result is
an asymptotically matching lower bound for $\ES_3(n)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:lb} For all $n\ge 2$
we have $\trrams_{4}(2n+1)\ge \ES_3(2n+1)\ge 2^{2^{n-1}}+1$.
Consequently, $\ES_3(n)=2^{2^{\Theta(n)}}$.
\end{theorem}
The proof is given in Section~\ref{s:lb}.
A Ramsey function with known doubly exponential growth seems to be
rare in geometric Ramsey-type problems (a notable example
is a result of Valtr~\cite{Valtr04opencaps}).
\heading{Order types. } Here we
change the setting from the plane to ${\mathbb{R}}^d$
and we consider an ordered sequence $P=(p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_N)$
in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. This time we do \emph{not} assume the first
coordinates to be increasing.
For simplicity, we
assume $P$ to be in general position, which now means that no
$d+1$ points of $P$ lie on a common hyperplane.
We recall that \emph{order type} of $P$
specifies the orientation of every $(d+1)$-tuple of points of $P$,
and it this way, it describes purely combinatorially many of the geometric
properties of $P$. More formally, the order type of $P$
is the mapping $\chi\:{[N]\choose d+1}\to\{-1,+1\}$,
where for a $(d+1)$-tuple $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_{d+1}\}$,
$i_1<i_2<\cdots<i_{d+1}$, $\chi(I):=\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits\det
M(p_{i_1},p_{i_2},\ldots,p_{i_{d+1}})$, where
$M(q_1,\ldots,q_{d+1})$ is the $(d+1)\times (d+1)$ matrix whose $j$th column
is $(1,q_j)$, i.e., $1$ followed by the vector of the $d$ coordinates of
$q_j$.
See, e.g.,
Goodman and Pollack \cite{gp-asotd-93} or \cite{Mat-dg}
for more background about order types.
From Ramsey's theorem for $(d+1)$-tuples, we can immediately
derive a Ramsey-type result for order types:
for every $d$ and $n$ there exists $N$ such that every
$N$-point sequence contains an $n$-point subsequence
in which all the $(d+1)$-tuples have the same orientation
(we call such a subsequence \emph{order-type homogeneous}).
Let us write $\OT_d(n)$ for the smallest such~$N$.
In Section~\ref{s:order} we first observe that, by simple
and probably well known considerations,
$\OT_1(n)=(n-1)^2+1$ and $\OT_2(n)=2^{\Theta(n)}$.
For $d\ge 3$, the best upper bound for $\OT_d(n)$ we are aware
of is the one from the Ramsey argument above,
i.e., $\OT_d(n)\le\rams_{d+1}(n)\le \twr_{d+1}(O(n))$.
In particular, for $\OT_3(n)$ this upper bound is triply
exponential; in Section~\ref{s:order} we prove
a doubly exponential lower bound.
\begin{prop}\label{p:ES<OT}
For all $d$ and $n$, $\OT_d(n)\ge \ES_d(n)$.
In particular, $\OT_3(n)=2^{2^{\Omega(n)}}$.
\end{prop}
\heading{A Ramsey-type result for hyperplanes. } Let us consider a
finite set $H$
of hyperplanes in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ in general position (every $d$ intersecting
at a single point). Let us say that $H$ is \emph{one-sided} if
$V(H)$, the vertex set of the arrangement of $H$,
lies completely on one side of the coordinate
hyperplane $x_d=0$.
Let $\OSH_d(n)$ be the smallest $N$ such that every set $H$ of
$N$ hyperplanes in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ in general position contains a one-sided
subset of $n$ hyperplanes. Ramsey's theorem for $d$-tuples immediately
gives $\OSH_d(n)\le\rams_d(n)$ (a $d$-tuple gets color $+1$ if its intersection
has a positive last coordinate, and color $-1$ otherwise).
Matou\v{s}ek and Welzl \cite{mw-gscpt-92} observed that, actually,
$\OSH_2(n)=\ES_1(n)=(n-1)^2+1$, and applied this in a range-searching
algorithm.
Recently Dujmovi\'c and Langerman \cite{DujLang} used the existence
of $\OSH_d(n)$ (essentially Lemma~9 in the arXiv version of their paper)
to prove several interesting results, such as a ham-sandwich
and centerpoint theorems for hyperplanes.
\iffull
In Section~\ref{s:order}
we show \else
We show \fi
that lower bounds for $k$th-order monotone subsets
in the plane can be translated into lower bounds
for~$\OSH_d$\iffull\else; the proof is omitted in this extended
abstract\fi.
\begin{prop}\label{p:onesided} We have $\OSH_d(n)\ge \ES_{d-1}(n)$,
and in particular, $\OSH_3(n)=2^{\Omega(n)}$ and\footnote{An exponential
lower bound for $\OSH_3$
was known to the authors of \cite{mw-gscpt-92},
and perhaps to others as well, but as far as we know, it hasn't
appeared in print.}
$\OSH_4(n)=2^{2^{\Omega(n)}}$.
\end{prop}
\iffull
The lower bounds for $\OSH_d(n)$ can also be translated into lower
bounds in the theorems of Dujmovi\'c and Langerman. For example,
in their ham-sandwich theorem, we have $d$ collections $H_1,\ldots,H_d$
of hyperplanes in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, each of size $N$, and we want a hyperplane
$g$ such that in each $H_i$, we can find disjoint subsets $A_i,B_i$ of $n$
hyperplanes each such $V(A_i)$ lies on one side of $g$ and
$V(B_i)$ on the other side.
To derive a lower bound for
the smallest necessary $N$, we fix $d$ affinely independent points
$p_1,\ldots,p_d$ in the $x_d=0$ hyperplane, and a set $H$ of $N$ hyperplanes
in general position with no one-sided subset of size~$n$.
We let $H_i$ be an affinely transformed copy of $H$
such that all of $V(H_i)$ lies very close to~$p_i$.
Then every potential ham-sandwich hyperplane $g$ for these $H_i$ has to be
almost parallel to the $x_d=0$ hyperplane, and thus there cannot
be $A_i,B_i$ of size~$n$ for all $i$.
\fi
\heading{The work of Fox et al. } While preparing
a draft of the present paper, we learned about a recent preprint
of Fox, Pach, Sudakov, and Suk \cite{FoxPachSudSuk}.
They investigated various combinatorial and geometric
problems inspired by Theorems~\ref{t:es1} and~\ref{t:es2},
and as was mentioned above, among others, they
introduced transitive colorings,\footnote{With still another geometric
source of such colorings besides the Erd\H{o}s--Szekeres
theorems, namely, noncrossing convex bodies in the plane}
but mainly they studied a related but different
Ramsey-type quantity:
let $N_\ell(q,n)$ be the smallest integer $N$ such that,
for every coloring of ${[N]\choose \ell}$ with $q$ colors,
there exists an $n$-element $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_n\}\subseteq [N]$,
$i_1<\cdots<i_n$,
inducing a \emph{monochromatic monotone path},
i.e., such that all the $\ell$-tuples
of the form $\{i_j,i_{j+1},\ldots,i_{j+\ell-1}\}$, $j=1,2,\ldots,n-\ell+1$,
have the same color.
They note that $\trrams_\ell(n)\le N_\ell(2,n)$, and they
obtained the following bounds for $N_\ell(2,n)$:
$N_2(2,n)=\ES_1(n)$, $N_3(2,n)=\ES_2(n)$, and for every fixed $k\ge 3$,
\iffull
$$
\twr_{k}(\Omega(n))\le N_{k+1} (2, n)\le \twr_{k}(O(n\log n)).
$$
\else
$twr_{k}(\Omega(n))\le N_{k+1} (2, n)\le \twr_{k}(O(n\log n))$.
\fi
As we mentioned after Theorem~\ref{t:ub}, this also yields
an upper bound for $\trrams_{k+1}(n)$
only slightly weaker than the one in that theorem.
\heading{Open problems. }
\begin{enumerate}
\item
We have obtained reasonably tight bounds
for $\ES_3(n)$, but the gaps
are much more significant for $\ES_k(n)$ with $k\ge 4$.
According to the cases $k=1,2,3$, one may guess that
$\ES_k(n)$ is of order $\twr_k(\Theta(n))$,
and thus that stronger lower bounds are needed,
but a possibility of a better upper bound shouldn't also be overlooked.
This question looks both interesting
and challenging.
\item
A perhaps more manageable task might
be a better lower bound for $\trrams_k(n)$, $k\ge 4$.
A natural approach would be to imitate the Stepping-Up Lemma
used for lower bounds for the Ramsey numbers $\rams_k(n)$
(see, e.g., \cite{conlon-al}). But
so far we have not succeeded in this, since
even if we start with a transitive coloring of $k$-tuples,
we could not guarantee transitivity for
the coloring of $(k+1)$-tuples.
\item
As for order-type homogeneous sequences, for $\OT_3(n)$
we have the lower bound of $2^{2^{\Omega(n)}}$, but upper bound
only $\twr_4(O(n))$ directly from Ramsey's theorem. It seems that the
colorings given by the order type are not transitive in
any reasonable sense, and we have no good guess of which
of the upper and lower bounds should be closer to the truth.
Similar comments apply to the problem with one-sided subsets
of planes in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ (concerning $\OSH_3(n)$), and the higher-dimensional
cases are even more widely open.
\iffull
\item
Another interesting question is whether $n\log n$ can be
replaced by $n$ in the upper bound for the quantity $N_\ell(2,n)$
considered by Fox et al.~\cite{FoxPachSudSuk}.
\fi
\item
In our definition of $k$th-order positivity, every $(k+1)$-tuple
of points should lie on the graph of a function with a nonnegative
$k$th derivative, and different functions can be used for different
$(k+1)$-tuples. In an earlier version of this paper,
we conjectured that, assuming $k$-general position,
a single function should suffice for all $(k+1)$-tuples;
in other words, that every $k$th-order monotone
finite set finite set in $k$-general position
lies on a graph of a $k$-times differentiable function $f\:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ whose
$k$th derivative is everywhere nonnegative or everywhere
nonpositive.
However, Rote \cite{Rote} disproved this
for $k=3$ (while the cases $k=1,2$ do hold, as is not hard
to check). With his kind permission, we reproduce his
example at the end of Section~\ref{s:defs}.
Naturally, this opens up interesting new questions: How can one characterize
point sets lying on the graph of a function whose $k$th derivative
is positive everywhere? Is there a Ramsey-type theorem for such sets,
and if yes, how large is the corresponding Ramsey function?
\end{enumerate}
\section{On the definition of \boldmath $k$th-order monotonicity}
\label{s:defs}
Here we provide several equivalent characterizations
of $k$th-order monotonicity of planar point sets
and some of their properties. First we recall several known
results.
\heading{Divided differences and Newton's interpolation. }
Let $p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_{k+1}$ be points in the plane, $p_i=(x_i,y_i)$,
where the $x_i$ are all distinct
(but not necessarily increasing). We recall that the
\emph{$k$th divided difference} $\divdiff_k(p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_{k+1})$
is defined recursively as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\divdiff_0(p_1)&:=&y_1\\
\divdiff_k(p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_{k+1})&:=&
\frac{\divdiff_{k-1}(p_2,p_3,\ldots,p_{k+1})-
\divdiff_{k-1}(p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_{k})}{x_{k+1}-x_1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For example, $\divdiff_1(p_1,p_2)$ equals the slope of the
line $p_1p_2$. In general, the $k$th divided difference
is related to the $k$th derivative as follows
(see, e.g., \cite[Eq.~1.33]{phillips}; note
that the case $k=1$ is the Mean Value Theorem):
\begin{lemma}[Cauchy]\label{l:cauchy}
Let the points $p_1,\ldots,p_{k+1}$,
$a:=x_1<x_2<\cdots<b:=x_{k+1}$, lie on the graph of a function
$f$ such that the $k$th derivative $f^{(k)}$ exists
everywhere on the interval $(a,b)$.
Then there exists $\xi\in (a,b)$ such that
$$
\divdiff_k(p_1,\ldots,p_{k+1})=\frac{f^{(k)}(\xi)}{k!}.
$$
\end{lemma}
We will also need the following result
(see, e.g., \cite[Eq.~1.11--1.19]{phillips}).
\begin{lemma}[Newton's interpolation]\label{l:newton}
Let $p_1,\ldots,p_{k+1}\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be points with distinct
$x$-coordinates (here we need not assume that the $x$-coordinates
are increasing). Then the unique
polynomial $f$ of degree at most $k$ whose graph contains
$p_1,\ldots,p_{k+1}$ is given by
$$
f(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{k+1} \biggl(\divdiff(p_1, \ldots, p_{i})
\prod_{j=1}^{i-1} (x - x_j)
\biggr)
$$
In particular, the coefficient of $x^k$ is
$\divdiff(p_1, \ldots, p_{k+1})$, and it equals
$f^{(k)}(x)/k!$ (which is a constant function).
\end{lemma}
\iffull
We recall that a $(k+1)$-tuple $K=\{p_1,\ldots,p_{k+1}\}$
was defined to be positive if it
is contained
in the graph of a function having a nonnegative $k$th derivative
everywhere. We obtain the following equivalent characterization:
\fi
\begin{corol}\label{c:posneg}
A $(k+1)$-tuple $K=\{p_1,\ldots,p_{k+1}\}$
is positive iff $\divdiff_k(p_1,\ldots,p_{k+1})\ge 0$
(and similarly for a negative $(k+1)$-tuple).
If $K$ is in $k$-general position, we have
$\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits K=\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits \divdiff_k(p_1,\ldots,p_{k+1})$.
\end{corol}
\heading{Proof. } If $K$ is contained in the graph of $f$
with $f^{(k)}\ge 0$ everywhere, then $\divdiff_k(p_1,\ldots,p_{k+1})\ge 0$
by Lemma~\ref{l:cauchy}.
Conversely, if $\divdiff_k(p_1,\ldots,p_{k+1})\ge 0$,
then by Lemma~\ref{l:newton}, the unique polynomial
of degree at most $k$ whose graph contains
$K$ is the required function with nonnegative
$k$th derivative.
If, moreover, $K$ is in $k$-general position, then
$\divdiff_k(p_1,\ldots,p_{k+1})\ne 0$, and
so $K$ cannot be both $k$th-order positive
and $k$th-order negative by Lemma~\ref{l:cauchy}.
\ProofEndBox\smallskip
We will also need the following criterion for the sign
of a $(k+1)$-tuple\iffull\else; the proof is
easy using Lemma~\ref{l:newton} and we omit it\fi.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:signs}
Let $K=\{p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_{k+1}\}$ be a $(k+1)$-tuple of points
in $k$-general position, $x_1<\cdots<x_{k+1}$,
let $i\in[k+1]$,
and let $f_i$ be the (unique) polynomial of degree at most $k-1$
whose graph passes through
the points of $K\setminus\{p_i\}$. Then $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits K=(-1)^{k-i}$
if $p_i$ lies below the graph of $f_i$,
and $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits K=(-1)^{k+1-i}$ if $p_i$ lies above the graph.
\end{lemma}
\long\def\proofA{Let $f$ be the polynomial of degree
at most $k$ passing through all of $K$.
We use Newton's interpolation (Lemma~\ref{l:newton}),
but with the points reordered so that $p_i$ comes last,
and we get that
$
f(x)=f_i(x)+\divdiff_k(p_1,\ldots,p_{i-1},p_{i+1},\ldots,p_{k+1},p_i)
\prod_{j\in[k+1]\setminus\{i\}} (x-x_j).
$
Using this with $x=x_i$, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits (y_i-f_i(x_i))&=&\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits(f(x_i)-f_i(x_i))\\
&=&
\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits \divdiff_k(p_1,\ldots,p_{i-1},p_{i+1},\ldots,p_{k+1},p_i)
\cdot \mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits \prod_{j\in[k+1]\setminus\{i\}} (x_i-x_j).
\end{eqnarray*}
Divided differences are invariant under
permutations of the points (as can be seen, e.g., from
Lemma~\ref{l:newton}, since the interpolating polynomial
does not depend on the order of the points), and so
$\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits \divdiff_k(p_1,\ldots,p_{i-1},p_{i+1},\ldots,p_{k+1},p_i)=
\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits K$. Finally, the product
$\prod_{j\in[k+1]\setminus\{i\}} (x_i-x_j)$ has
$k+1-i$ negative factors, thus its sign is $(-1)^{k+1-i}$,
and the lemma follows.
\ProofEndBox\smallskip}
\iffull\proofA \fi
It remains to prove transitivity.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:trans} Let $P=\{p_1,\ldots,p_N\}$
be a point set in $k$-general position. Then the $2$-coloring
of $(k+1)$-tuples $K\in {P\choose k+1}$ by their sign
is transitive.
\end{lemma}
\heading{Proof. } We consider a $(k+2)$-tuple
$L=\{p_1,\ldots,p_{k+2}\}$ with $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits\{p_1,\ldots,p_{k+1}\}=
\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits \{p_2,\ldots,p_{k+2}\}=+1$, and we fix $i\in\{2,\ldots,{k+1}\}$.
Let $f_{i,k+2}$ be the polynomial of degree at most $k-1$
passing through $L\setminus \{p_i,p_{k+2}\}$, and similarly
for $f_{1,k+2}$. Our goal is to show that $f_{i,k+2}(x_{k+2})<y_{k+2}$,
since this gives $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits(L\setminus\{p_i\})=+1$ by
Lemma~\ref{l:signs}.
Since $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits(L\setminus\{p_1\})=+1$, we have
$f_{1,k+2}(x_{k+2})<y_{k+2}$ (Lemma~\ref{l:signs} again),
and so it suffices to prove $f_{i,k+2}(x_{k+2})<f_{1,k+2}(x_{k+2})$.
Let us consider the polynomial $g:=f_{1,k+2}-f_{i,k+2}$;
as explained above, our goal is proving $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits g(x_{k+2})=+1$.
To this end, we first determine $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits g(x_1)$:
We have $f_{i,k+2}(x_1)=y_1$ and
$\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits(y_1-f_{1,k+2}(x_1))=(-1)^{k}$
(using $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits(L\setminus\{p_1\})=+1$ and Lemma~\ref{l:signs}).
Hence $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits g(x_1)=(-1)^{k-1}$.
Next, we observe that $g$
is a polynomial of degree at most $k-1$, and it vanishes
at $x_2,\ldots,x_{i-1},x_{i+1},\ldots,x_{k+1}$. These are $k-1$
distinct values; thus, they include all roots of $g$,
and each of them is a simple root. Consequently,
$g$ changes sign $(k-1)$-times between $x_1$ and~$x_{k+2}$.
Hence, finally, $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits g(x_{k+2})=(-1)^{k-1}\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits g(x_1)=+1$
as claimed.
\ProofEndBox\smallskip
\begin{sloppypar}
\heading{Rote's example. } Fig.~\ref{f:roteex} shows a 6-point
set $P=\{p_1,\ldots,p_6\}$ in 3-general position (no four points
on a parabola). It is easy to check 3rd-order positivity
using Lemma~\ref{l:signs}:
By transitivity, it suffices to look at $4$-tuples of consecutive
points. For $p_1,\ldots,p_4$ we use the parabola through
$p_1,p_2,p_3$ (which actually degenerates to the $x$-axis);
for $p_2,\ldots,p_5$ we use the dashed parabola through $p_2,p_3,p_4$
(which is very close
to the $x$-axis in the relevant region); and for
$p_3,\ldots,p_6$, the parabola through $p_4,p_5,p_6$ (drawn full).
\end{sloppypar}
\labfig{roteex}{Rote's example: a 6-point 3rd-order positive set
in 3-general position that does not lie on the graph
of any function with nonnegative 3rd derivative.}
It remains to check that $P$ does not lie on
the graph of a function $f$ with $f^{(3)}\ge 0$ everywhere.
Assuming for contradiction that there is such an $f$,
we consider the point $q:=(x_0,f(x_0))$,
where $x_0$ is such that the full parabola is below the $x$-axis
at $x_0$. For the $4$-tuple $\{p_1,p_2,p_3,q\}$ to be positive,
$q$ has to lie above the $x$-axis, but the $4$-tuple
$\{q,p_4,p_5,p_6\}$ is positive only if $q$ lies below the
parabola through $p_4,p_5,p_6$---a contradiction.
\long\def\proofB{
As we mentioned
in the remark following that theorem, it suffices to
establish the case $k\ge 3$.
Thus, we want to prove that $\trrams_{k+1}(n)\le \twr_{k}(C_k n)$
for all $n$ and for every $k\ge 3$, with suitable constants $C_k$
depending on $k$. As the base of the induction we use
$\trrams_3(n)\le 4^n$, which, as was remarked earlier,
follows by imitating the proof of Theorem~\ref{t:es2}.
Thus, let $k\ge 3$ be fixed, let $n$ be given, and
let us set $M:=\trrams_k(n)$. We will prove that
\begin{equation}\label{e:recur}
\trrams_{k+1}(n)\le N:=2^{M^{k}}.
\end{equation}
Theorem~\ref{t:ub} then follows from this recurrence and
from the fact that $2^{\twr_{k-1}(n)^k}\le \twr_{k}(k n)$
for $k\ge 3$, which is easy to check.
To prove (\ref{e:recur}), we follow an inductive proofs
of Ramsey's theorem going back to Erd\H{o}s and Rado
\cite{erdRado}.
Let $\chi\:{[N]\choose k+1}\to\{1,2\}$ be an arbitrary transitive
2-coloring. We set $A_{k-1}:=\{1,2,\ldots,k-1\}$ and $X_{k-1}:=
[N]\setminus A_{k-1}$.
For $i=k,k+1,\ldots,M$ we will inductively construct
sets $A_i,X_i\subseteq [N]$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $A_i<X_i$ (i.e., all elements
of $A_i$ precede all elements of $X_i$);
\item[(ii)] $|A_i|=i$ and $|X_i|\ge |X_{i-1}|/2^{M^{k-1}}$; and
\item[(iii)] the color of a $(k+1)$-tuple whose first $k$ elements
all belong to $A_i$ does not depend on its last element;
in other words, for $K\in {A_i\choose k}$ and $x,y\in A_i\cup X_i$
with $K<\{x,y\}$, we have $\chi(K\cup\{x\})=\chi(K\cup\{y\})$.
\end{enumerate}
For the inductive step, suppose that $A_{i}$ and $X_i$ have already
been constructed. We let $x_i$ be the smallest element of $X_i$,
we set $A_{i+1}:=A_i\cup\{x_i\}$, and we write $X'_i:=X_i\setminus\{x_i\}$.
Let us call two elements $x,y\in X'_i$
\emph{equivalent} if we have, for every $K\in {A_{i-1}\choose k-1}$,
$\chi(K\cup\{x_i,x\})=\chi(K\cup\{x_i,y\})$.
There are ${i\choose k-1}$ possible choices of $K$,
and hence there are at most $2^{i\choose k-1}< 2^{M^{k-1}}$
equivalence classes.
We choose $X_{i+1}\subseteq X'_i$
as the largest equivalence class. Then (i), (iii) obviously hold
for $A_{i+1}$ and $X_{i+1}$, and we have
$|X_{i+1}|\ge (|X_i|-1)/(2^{M^{k-1}}-1)\ge |X_i|/2^{M^{k-1}}$
(since $i\le M$ and thus we have $|X_{i}|\ge N/(2^{M^k-1})^{i-1}=
2^{M^{k}-(i-1)M^{k-1}}\ge 2^{M^{k-1}}$).
This finishes the inductive construction
of $A_i$ and~$X_i$.
In this way, we construct the sets $A:=A_M$ and $X_M$
(note that $|X_M|\ge 1$ by (ii)). Let $x$ be the first element
of $X_M$, and let us define a 2-coloring
$\chi^*\:{A\choose k}\to\{1,2\}$ of the $k$-tuples of $A$
by $\chi^*(K):=\chi(K\cup\{x\})$.
We claim that, crucially, $\chi^*$ is transitive (which is not
entirely obvious). So we consider elements $a_1<a_2<\cdots<a_{k+1}$
of $A$, and we suppose that $\chi^*(\{a_1,\ldots,a_k\})=
\chi^*(\{a_2,\ldots,a_{k+1}\})=:c$. We want to show that
$\chi^*(\{a_1,\ldots,a_{k+1}\}\setminus\{a_i\})=c$ for every
$i=2,3,\ldots,k$.
We have $c=\chi^*(\{a_1,\ldots,a_k\})=\chi(\{a_1,\ldots,a_k,x\})=
\chi(\{a_1,\ldots,a_{k+1}\})$ (by definition and by the independence
of $\chi$ of the last element), and $c=\chi^*(\{a_2,\ldots,a_{k+1}\})=
\chi(\{a_2,\ldots,a_{k+1},x\})$. Next we use the transitivity
of $\chi$ on the $(k+2)$-tuple $(a_1,\ldots,a_{k+1},x)$,
obtaining $\chi(\{a_1,\ldots,a_{k+1},x\}\setminus\{a_i\})=c=
\chi^*(\{a_1,\ldots,a_{k+1}\}\setminus\{a_i\})$ as needed.
Now we can apply the inductive hypothesis to $A$, which yields
an $n$-element subset of $A$ homogeneous w.r.t.~$\chi^*$,
and this subset is homogeneous w.r.t.~$\chi$ as well, finishing
the proof of Theorem~\ref{t:ub}.
\ProofEndBox\smallskip
}
\iffull
\section{Upper bounds on the Ramsey numbers for transitive
colorings}\label{s:ub}
In this section we prove Theorem~\ref{t:ub}. \proofB
\fi
\section{\boldmath A lower bound for $\ES_3$}\label{s:lb}
Here we prove Theorem~\ref{t:lb},
a lower bound for $\ES_3(2n+1)$.
We proceed by induction on~$n$;
the goal is to construct a set $P_n$ of $N:=2^{2^{n-1}}$ points
with no $(2n+1)$-point third-order monotone subset.
The induction starts for $n=2$ with an arbitrary
$P_2$ of size $2^{2^1}=4$.
In the inductive step, given $P_n$, we will construct $P_{n+1}$
so that $|P_{n+1}|=|P_n|^2$; then the bound on the size
of $P_n$ clearly holds.
We may assume that $P=P_n$ is in $3$-general position (this can always
be achieved by a small perturbation). By an affine transformation
we also make sure that $P\subset [1,2]\times [0,1]$;
or actually, $P\subset [1,1.9]\times [0,1]$ so that there is
some room for perturbation.
Moreover, there is a small $\delta>0$ such that if $P'$
is obtained from $P$ by moving each point arbitrarily by
at most $\delta$, then $P'$ is still in $3$-general position,
the order of the points of $P'$ along the $x$-axis is the same
as that for $P$,
and the sign of every $4$-tuple in $P'$ is the same as the
sign of the corresponding $4$-tuple in~$P$.
\heading{The construction.} The construction of $P_{n+1}$ from
$P=P_n$ as above proceeds in the following steps.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We choose a sufficiently large number $A=A(P)$
(the requirements on it will be specified later), and
we set $\eps:=1/A^2$.
\item For every point $p\in P$, let $Q_p$ be the image of $P$ under the
affine map that sends the square $[1,2]\times[0,1]$ to the axis-parallel
rectangle of width $\eps$, height $\eps^2$, and with the lower left
corner at $p$; see Fig.~\ref{f:constr}.
\item Let $\psi_p(x)=Ax^2+C_p$
be a quadratic function, where $A$ is as above and
$C_p$ is chosen so that $\psi_p(x(p))=0$
(where $x(p)$ is the $x$-coordinate of $p$).
Let $\breve{Q}_p$ be the set
obtained by ``adding $\psi_p$ to $Q_p$'', i.e., by
shifting each point $(x,y)\in Q_p$ vertically upwards by $\psi_p(x)$.
We set $P_{n+1}:=\bigcup_{p\in P} \breve{Q}_p$. We call the
$\breve{Q}_p$ the \emph{clusters} of~$P_{n+1}$.
\end{enumerate}
\labfig{constr}{A schematic illustration of the construction of $P_{n+1}$.}
First we check that each cluster $\breve{Q}_p$ lies close
to~$p$\iffull\else; we omit the (straightforward) proof\fi.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:Zp-close}
Each $\breve{Q}_p$ is contained in an $O(\sqrt\eps\,)$-neighborhood of~$p$.
\end{lemma}
\iffull
\heading{Proof.} Writing $p=(x_0,y_0)$,
the set $Q_p$ obviously lies in the $2\eps$-neighborhood of $p$,
and the maximum
amount by which a point of $Q_p$ was translated upwards
is at most
$$
\psi_p(x_0+\eps)=A\left((x_0+\eps)^2-x_0^2\right)=A(2x_0\eps+\eps^2)=
O(\sqrt\eps\,).
$$
\ProofEndBox\smallskip
\fi
Here is a key property of the construction.
\begin{lemma}[Slope lemma]\label{l:slope}
Let $\lambda$ be a parabola passing through three points of $P_{n+1}$
that belong to three different clusters, or a line passing through two points
of different clusters.
Let $\mu$ be a parabola passing through three points of a single
cluster $\breve{Q}_p$,
or a line passing through two such points. Then the maximum
slope (first derivative) of $\lambda$ on the interval $[1,2]$ is smaller than
the minimum slope of $\mu$ on $[1,2]$,
provided that $A$
was chosen sufficiently large.
\end{lemma}
\heading{Proof. } Clearly, the maximum slope of any such $\lambda$
can be bounded from above by some finite number
depending only on $P$ but not on~$A$. Thus, it suffices to show
that, with $A$ large, for every $\mu$ as in the lemma,
the minimum slope is bounded from below by~$A$.
First let us assume that $\mu$ is a parabola passing through three
points of $\breve{Q}_p$, where $p=(x_0,y_0)$, let $\tilde \mu$
be the parabola passing through the corresponding three points
of $P$, and let the equation of $\tilde\mu$ be $y=ax^2+bx+c$.
By the construction of $\breve{Q}_p$, the affine map transforming $P$
to $Q_p$ sends a point with coordinates $(x,y)$ to the point
$(\eps(x-1)+x_0,\eps^2 y+y_0)$. Calculation shows that
the image of $\tilde\mu$ under this affine map has
the equation $y=a x^2+(2 a \eps + b \eps - 2 a x_0)x+
c'$, where the value of the absolute term $c'$ need not be calculated
since it doesn't matter. Hence the
minimum slope of this curve
on $[1,2]$ is bounded from below by $-(8|a|+4|a|\eps+2|b|\eps+8|a|)$.
Finally, $\mu$ is obtained by adding $\psi_p(x)=Ax^2+C_p$ to this curve,
and the minimum slope of $\psi_p$ on $[1,2]$ is at least~$2A$.
Next, let $\mu$ be a line passing through two points $q,r\in \breve{Q}_p$.
Let us choose another point $s\in \breve{Q}_p$ and consider the parabola
$\mu'$ through $q,r,s$. By the Mean Value Theorem, the slope
of $\mu$ equals the slope of $\mu'$ at some point between
$q$ and $r$, and the latter is at least~$A$ by the above.
The lemma is proved.
\ProofEndBox\smallskip
\medskip
Let $K=\{p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4\}\subseteq P_{n+1}$ be a 4-tuple,
$p_i=(x_i,y_i)$,
$x_1<\cdots<x_4$. We assign a \emph{type} to $K$, which
is an ordered partition of $4$ given by the distribution
of $K$ among the clusters; for example,
$K$ has type $1+1+2$ if the first point $p_1$ lies
in some $\breve{Q}_p$, $p_2$ lies in $\breve{Q}_{p'}$ for $p'\ne p$,
and $p_3,p_4\in \breve{Q}_{p''}$, $p''\ne p,p'$.
The next lemma shows that the sign $K$ is determined by its
type. We provide a complete classification, although we will not
use all of the types in the subsequent proof.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:type-signs}
Let $K=\{p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4\}\subseteq P_{n+1}$ be a $4$-tuple.
If $K$ is
of type $1+1+1+1$ or $4$, then the sign of $K$ is the same
as that of the corresponding $4$-tuple in $P$.
Otherwise, the
sign of $K$ is determined by its type as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\ite
for types $3+1$ and $1+3$ it is $-1$;
\ite
for types $1+1+2$ and $2+1+1$ it is $+1$;
\ite
for type $1+2+1$ it is $-1$; and
\ite
for type $2+2$ it is $+1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\heading{Proof. } Since the transformation that converts $P$
into $\breve{Q}_p$ preserves the types of $4$-tuples, the statement
for type 4 is clear. The statement for type $1+1+1+1$
follows since, by Lemma~\ref{l:Zp-close}, $K$ is obtained by
a sufficiently small perturbation of the corresponding $4$-tuple in~$P$
(this gives one of the lower bounds on $A$, since
we need the bound in Lemma~\ref{l:Zp-close} to be smaller
than the $\delta$ considered at the beginning of
our description of the construction).
The statements for the remaining types are obtained by simple
application of the slope lemma
(Lemma~\ref{l:slope}) together with Lemma~\ref{l:signs}.
Namely, for type $3+1$, we get that the parabola through $p_1,p_2,p_3$
lies above $p_4$ (by comparing its slope to the slope of the line
$p_3p_4$); see Fig.~\ref{f:slopes}.
For type $1+3$ we similarly get that $p_1$ lies above the parabola
through $p_2,p_3,p_4$, and so the sign is $-1$ in both of these cases.
\labfig{slopes}{Determining the signs of $4$-tuples by type.}
For type $1+1+2$, the segment $p_3p_4$ is steeper than the parabola
through $p_1p_2p_3$, and so the sign is $+1$. Similarly for type
$2+1+1$ we get that $p_1$ lies below the parabola through $p_2,p_3,p_4$,
which again gives sign $+1$. For type $1+2+1$, $p_3$ lies above
the parabola through $p_1,p_2,p_4$, giving sign $-1$.
Finally, for type $2+2$, the segment $p_1p_2$ is steeper than
$p_2p_3$, thus the parabola through $p_1,p_2,p_3$ is concave,
and hence its slope at $p_3$ and after it is no larger than
the slope of the segment $p_2p_3$. Thus, $p_4$ lies above this
parabola and the sign is $+1$ as claimed.
\ProofEndBox\smallskip
\heading{Finishing the proof of Theorem~\ref{t:lb}. }
It remains to show that $P_{n+1}$ contains no $(2n+3)$-point
third-order monotone subset.
For contradiction, suppose that $M\subseteq P_{n+1}$
is such a $(2n+3)$-point subset. Let $2n+3=
n_1+n_2+\cdots+n_s$ be the type of $M$ (i.e., $M$ has
$n_i\ge 1$ points in the $i$th leftmost cluster it intersects).
By the inductive assumption we have $s\le 2n$ and $n_i\le 2n$
for all $i$.
Let $n_a=\max_i n_i$ and $n_b=\max_{i\ne a} n_i$ be the two
largest among the $n_i$.
For convenience, let us assume $a<b$;
the case $a>b$ is handled symmetrically.
We distinguish three cases.
First, if $n_a\ge 3$ and $n_b\ge 2$, then we can select
4-tuples of types $3+1$ and $2+2$ from the corresponding two clusters,
which have different signs, and so $M$ is not homogeneous.
Second, if $n_a\ge 3$ and $n_b=1$, then we have at least three $n_i$
equal to 1 (since $n_a\le 2n$), and at least two of them lie
on the same side of the cluster corresponding to $n_a$,
say to the right of it. Then we can select 4-tuples of
types $3+1$ and $2+1+1$, again of opposite signs.
Third, if $n_a=2$, then there are at least two other clusters
of size 2. From these three 2-element clusters, we can select
4-tuples of types 2+2 and 1+2+1, again of opposite signs.
This exhausts all possibilities ($n_a=1$ cannot happen,
because $s\le 2n$), and Theorem~\ref{t:lb} is proved.
\ProofEndBox\smallskip
\section{Order types and one-sided sets of hyperplanes}
\label{s:order}
First we substantiate the two claims made above Proposition~\ref{p:ES<OT},
concerning $\OT_1$ and $\OT_2$.
For $d=1$, an order-type homogeneous sequence in ${\mathbb{R}}^1$ is just a
monotone sequence of real numbers, so $\OT_1(n)=(n-1)^2+1$
by Theorem~\ref{t:es1}.
In a similar spirit, it is easy to check that
a planar order-type homogeneous sequence
corresponds to the vertices of a convex $n$-gon,
enumerated in a clockwise or counterclockwise
order. Thus, $\OT_2(n)\ge \ES_2(\lceil n/2\rceil)=
2^{\Omega(n)}$. On the other hand,
given any $N$-point sequence, we can first select
a subsequence of $\lceil \sqrt N\,\rceil$ points with
increasing or decreasing $x$-coordinates, and then we
select a convex or concave
configuration from it. Thus, by Theorem~\ref{t:es2},
we have $\OT_2(n)=2^{O(n)}$.
\heading{Proof of Proposition~\ref{p:ES<OT}. }
For a point $p=(x,y)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, we define
the point $\tilde p:=(x,x^2,\ldots,x^{d-1},y)\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$.
To prove that $\ES_d(n)\le \OT_d(n)$, we consider
a set $P=\{p_1,\ldots,p_N\}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ in $d$-general position,
$p_i=(x_i,y_i)$,
where $N=\ES_d(n)-1$ and
$x_1<\cdots<x_N$,
with no $d$th-order monotone subset of $n$ points.
It suffices to prove
that the sequence $\tilde P:=(\tilde p_1,\tilde p_2,\ldots,\tilde p_N)$
has no $n$-point order-type homogeneous subsequence. This follows
from the next lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:vanderm}
For every $(d+1)$-tuple $(p_1,\ldots,p_{d+1})$ of points in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$,
$x_1<\cdots<x_{d+1}$, we have
$\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits(\{p_1,\ldots,p_{d+1}\})=
\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits \det M(\tilde p_1,\tilde p_2,\ldots,\tilde p_{d+1})$,
where $M(q_1,\ldots,q_{d+1})$ is the matrix from the definition of
order type above Proposition~\ref{p:ES<OT}.
\end{lemma}
\heading{Proof. } By Lemma~\ref{l:newton}
and Corollary~\ref{c:posneg}, the sign
of $\{p_1,\ldots,p_{d+1}\}$
equals the sign of the coefficient $a_d$ of the
unique polynomial $f(x)=\sum_{j=0}^d a_j x^j$ of degree at most $d$
whose graph passes through the points $p_1,\ldots,p_{d+1}$.
The vector $a=(a_0,\ldots,a_d)$ can be expressed
as the solution of the linear system $Va=y$, where $y=(y_1,\ldots,y_{d+1})$
and $V$ is the \emph{Vandermonde matrix} with $v_{ij}=x_i^{j-1}$,
$i,j=1,2,\ldots,d+1$. By Cramer's rule, we obtain
$$a_d=\frac{\det W}{\det V},
$$
where $W$ stands for the matrix $V$ with the last column
replaced with the vector $y$. As is well known,
$\det V=\prod_{1\le i<j\le d+1}(x_j-x_i)$, and since
$x_1<\cdots<x_{d+1}$, we have $\det V>0$.
Thus, $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits a_d=\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits \det W$. Finally, we have
$$
W=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
1&x_1&x_1^2&\ldots&x_1^{d-1}&y_1\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots\\
1&x_{d+1}&x_{d+1}^2&\ldots&x_{d+1}^{d-1}&y_{d+1}
\end{array}
\right)=M(\tilde p_1,\tilde p_2,\ldots,\tilde p_{d+1})^T.
$$
The lemma follows, and Proposition~\ref{p:ES<OT} is proved.
\ProofEndBox\smallskip
\long\def\proofC{
\heading{Proof of Proposition~\ref{p:onesided}. }
The proof is very similar to the
\iffull previous one.
\else
proof of Proposition~\ref{p:ES<OT}.
\fi
This time we start with
a set $P=\{p_1,\ldots,p_N\}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ in $(d-1)$-general position,
$p_i=(x_i,y_i)$,
where $N=\ES_{d-1}(n)-1$ and
$x_1<\cdots<x_N$, with no $(d-1)$th-order monotone
subset of $n$ points. We define a collection $H=\{h_1,\ldots,h_N\}$
of $N$ hyperplanes in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, where $h_i$ is given by
$$
h_i=\biggl\{(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_d)\in{\mathbb{R}}^d:\sum_{j=1}^d x_i^{j-1} \xi_j=y_i\biggr\}.
$$
The intersection point $\xi=(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_d)$
of, say, $h_1,\ldots,h_d$ is the solution of the linear system
$V\xi=y$, where $V$ is the $d\times d$ Vandermonde matrix this time,
$v_{ij}=x_i^{j-1}$. Cramer's rule then gives that the $d$th coordinate $\xi_d$,
whose sign we are interested in, equals $(\det W)/(\det V)$,
where $W$ is obtained from $V$ by replacing the last column with~$y$.
As we saw in the proof of Proposition~\ref{p:ES<OT}, $(\det W)/(\det V)$
also expresses the leading coefficient in the polynomial
of degree $d-1$ passing through $p_1,\ldots,p_d$, and thus its sign
equals $\mathop {\rm sgn}\nolimits \divdiff_{d-1}(p_1,\ldots,p_d)$. It follows that
one-sided subsets of $H$ precisely correspond to $(d-1)$st-order monotone
subsets in $P$, and the proposition is proved.
\ProofEndBox\smallskip
}
\iffull\proofC\fi
\iffull\section*{Acknowledgment}\else \heading{Acknowledgment. }\fi
We would like to thank J\'anos Pach for kindly discussing some of the
results of Fox et al.~\cite{FoxPachSudSuk} with us. We also thank
G\"unter Rote for informing us about about his refutation of our
conjecture and for permission to present it in this paper.
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
The two-dimensional $Q$-state Potts model \cite{Potts52} is one of the
most well-studied models in the realm of statistical physics. It can
be addressed on the lattice using traditional approaches \cite{Wu82}
(duality, series expansions, exact transformations) and algebraic
techniques \cite{Martin} (Temperley-Lieb algebra, quantum groups). In
some cases it can be exactly solved using quantum inverse scattering
methods \cite{Baxter82}. When $0 \le Q \le 4$ it gives rise to a
critical theory in the continuum limit, which can in turn be
investigated by the methods of field theory \cite{JJreview} (Coulomb
gas, conformal field theory) or probability theory \cite{BBreview}
(Stochastic Loewner Evolution). Despite of this well-equipped toolbox
and sixty years of constant investigations, the Potts model remains at
the forefront of current research, most recently in the context of
logarithmic conformal field theory \cite{Vasseur1,Vasseur2}.
The partition function of the Potts model reads
\begin{equation}
Z = \sum_{\sigma} \prod_{(ij) \in E}
\exp \left( K \delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j} \right) \,,
\label{Potts}
\end{equation}
where $K$ is the coupling between spins $\sigma_i = 1,2,\ldots,Q$
along the edges $E$ of some lattice ${\cal L}$. The Kronecker delta
function $\delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j}$ equals 1 if $\sigma_i =
\sigma_j$, and 0 otherwise. The precise choice of ${\cal L}$ does not
affect universal critical properties, so for convenience we choose the
square lattice. The transition line---which gives rise to a critical
theory for $0 \le Q \le 4$---is then given by the selfduality
criterion ${\rm e}^K = 1 + \sqrt{Q}$.
There are two obvious ways to rewrite the local Boltzmann weights:
\begin{equation}
\exp \left( K \delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j} \right) = \left \lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
w \left[(1 - \delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j})w^{-1} + \delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j} \right] \,, \quad &
w = {\rm e}^K \,, \\
1 + v \delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j} \,, &
v = {\rm e}^K-1 \,,
\end{array} \right.
\label{Boltzmann}
\end{equation}
where we have used that $\delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j} = 0$ or $1$.
The partition function (\ref{Potts}) is obtained by expanding
a product of such factors; each term in the expansion corresponds
to choosing, for each $(ij) \in E$, either the first or the
second term in (\ref{Boltzmann}).
Consider first the expansion in powers of $w^{-1}$. Each factor of
$w^{-1}$ comes with the term $(1-\delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j})$ that
forces the spins $\sigma_i$ and $\sigma_j$ to take different values;
there is thus a piece of domain wall (DW) on the edge $(ij)^*$ dual to
$(ij)$. Making this choice for each $(ij) \in E$ defines a DW
configuration on the dual lattice ${\cal L}^*$. This DW configuration
defines a graph $G$ (not necessarily connected), the faces of which
are the clusters of aligned spins. Since we do not specify the colour
of each of these clusters, a DW configuration has to be weighted by
the chromatic polynomial $\chi_{G^*}(Q)$ of the dual graph $G^*$.
Initially $\chi_{G^*}(Q)$ is defined as the number of colourings of
the vertices of the graph $G^*$, using colours $\{1,2,\ldots,Q\}$,
with the constraint that neighbouring vertices have different colours.
This is indeed a polynomial in $Q$ for any $G$, and so can be
evaluated for any real $Q$ (but $\chi_{G^*}(Q)$ is integer only when
$Q$ is integer). The partition function (\ref{Potts}) can thus be
written as a sum over all possible DW configurations
\begin{equation}
Z_{\rm spin} = w^N \sum_{G} \, w^{-{\rm length}(G)}
\, \chi_{G^*}(Q) \,,
\label{PottsDW}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of spins, and ${\rm length}(G)$ denotes the
total length of the domain walls.
Alternatively we may consider the expansion in powers of $v$. The set
of edges $(ij) \in E$ for which the term $v
\delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j}$ is chosen defines a graph $H$, the
connected components of which are known as Fortuin-Kasteleyn (FK)
clusters \cite{FK72}. Since spins belonging to the same FK cluster are
obviously aligned, we can perform the sum over $\{\sigma_i\}$ in
(\ref{Potts}) to obtain
\begin{equation}
Z_{\rm FK} = \sum_{H} Q^{{\rm \sharp clusters}(H)} v^{{\rm \sharp edges}(H)} \,.
\label{PottsFK}
\end{equation}
We stress that spins belonging to different FK clusters can still be
aligned (with probability $1/Q$), even if the two clusters are
adjacent on the lattice.
Despite of the fact that $Z_{\rm spin} = Z_{\rm FK} = Z$ exactly, the
different geometrical degrees of freedom ($G$ resp.\ $H$) underlying
the spin and FK formulations give rise to different critical exponents
in the continuum limit for $0 \le Q \le 4$. In both cases it is
possible to build $Z$ from a transfer matrix that acts on respectively
the FK \cite{Blote82} and spin \cite{Dubail10} degrees of
freedom. The transfer matrix is an essential ingredient in both
analytical and numerical studies, and it gives access to the rich
algebraic structures underlying the Potts model. In the FK case this
structure is the Temperley-Lieb algebra \cite{Martin}, whereas the
particular partition algebra that emerges in the spin case
\cite{Dubail10} still awaits a complete study.
Critical exponents corresponding to FK clusters were first derived by
Coulomb gas techniques (see e.g.\ \cite{JJreview}) and have
subsequently been confirmed by the rigorous methods of SLE (see e.g.\
\cite{BBreview}). In particular the probability that $\ell$ distinct
FK clusters propagate between small neighbourhoods of two distant
points defines a critical exponent that can be found in the Kac table
of CFT as $h_{0,\ell}$ in the bulk case, and as $h_{1,1+2\ell}$ in the
boundary case \cite{DS_NPB87}. The spin case turns out to be richer,
since one needs in addition to specify the respective colours of the
propagating spin clusters. A pair of adjacent clusters having
different (resp.\ identical) colours give rise to a thin (resp.\ a
thick) DW. The exponents corresponding to $\ell_1$ thin DW and
$\ell_2$ thick DW can be identified as $h_{\ell_1-\ell_2,2\ell_1}$ in
the bulk case and as $h_{1+2(\ell_1-\ell_2),1+4\ell_1}$ in the
boundary case \cite{Dubail10}. At present this result is based on
(substantial) numerical evidence, supported by analytical arguments
for the special case $\ell_1 = 0$.
The purpose of this paper is to study the {\em joint} properties of FK
and spin clusters, by simultaneously keeping track of the geometrical
degrees of freedom $G$ and $H$ appearing in
(\ref{PottsDW})--(\ref{PottsFK}). The corresponding geometrical
observables are defined precisely in section~\ref{sec:obs}. We show
that making certain physical assumptions---and insisting on recovering
the results for FK \cite{DS_NPB87} and spin \cite{Dubail10} clusters
as special cases---leads to a conjecture for the scaling dimensions of
joint observables in the general case. This conjecture generalises
all the preceeding results and gives access to new information on the
interaction between FK and spin clusters. All the scaling dimensions
fit into the Kac table $h_{r,s}$ with integer indices $r$ and $s$.
This result constitutes a further step in the programme \cite{CBL} of
classifying non-unitary boundary conditions in two-dimensional
geometrical models.
In section~\ref{sec:TM} we define a transfer matrix that contains
complete information about these joint spin-FK observables. It
formally acts on three coupled partition algebras. We study its
spectrum numerically in section~\ref{sec:diag}, finding strong support
for our general conjecture for the scaling dimensions of geometrical
observables. In section~\ref{sec:MC} we further corroborate the
conjecture by studying the most relevant among the new exponents by
Monte Carlo simulations. We discuss our findings in
section~\ref{sec:disc}.
\section{Joint spin and FK observables}
\label{sec:obs}
We begin by reviewing the definition of observables in the spin
representation of the Potts model \cite{Dubail10}. For the purposes of
this discussion it suffices to consider two-point correlation
functions. We then ask how the probability, that a certain number
$\ell$ of spin clusters---each corresponding to a given value of the
spin $\sigma_i$---connect a small (in units of the lattice spacing)
neighbourhood $A$ to another small neighbourhood $B$, decays when the
distance $x$ between $A$ and $B$ increases. It is convenient to
specify the two-point function by just giving the $\ell$ colour labels
$\sigma_i$. By the $S_Q$ permutation symmetry only the relative
colours matter. For instance, with $\ell=4$ the labels $1123$ and
$2241$ specify the same correlation function.
Alternatively one may think of this question in terms of the DW that
separate pairs of adjacent (when moving along the rim of $A$ or $B$)
spin clusters. Each DW can be either {\em thin} or {\em thick},
depending on whether the two adjacent clusters have different or
identical colours. The reason for this nomenclature is that adjacent
spin clusters with different colours can touch (in which case the
corresponding DW has a width of one lattice spacing), whereas if the
colours are identical they cannot (since then there would be no
separating DW). In other words, the width of a thick DW is at least
two lattice spacings. The results of \cite{Dubail10} show that this
distinction is important, since it survives in the continuum limit
and gives rise to different critical exponents.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{fig1.eps}
\caption{Schematic example of excitations considered in this paper, with three spin clusters
carrying different coulours propagating along the imaginary time direction. The shaded regions represent
propagating FK clusters living inside the spin clusters.
Using the notations~(\ref{gen_label}), this excitation corresponds to $1^2 2^1 3^0$.}
\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
An obvious but important consequence of (\ref{Boltzmann}) is that if
two points belong to the same FK cluster, it implies that they also
belong to the same spin cluster. The opposite implication is however
not true. This means that FK clusters live ``inside'' spin clusters,
and in particular a given spin cluster can contain several distinct FK
clusters. This suggests introducing a more general two-point function
where each propagating spin cluster contains a given non-negative
number of propagating FK clusters. We describe this by a label
\begin{equation}
\sigma_1^{\alpha_1} \sigma_2^{\alpha_2} \ldots \sigma_{\ell}^{\alpha_\ell} \,,
\label{gen_label}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_k$ is the colour of $k$'th spin cluster, and $\alpha_k =
0,1,2,\ldots$ is the number of FK clusters living inside the $k$'th
spin cluster. An example of such an excitation is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
\subsection{Result for bulk and boundary critical exponents}
Two different geometries are of interest. In the bulk case, the
neighbourhoods $A$ and $B$ are at arbitrary, but widely separated,
locations in the infinite plane. This is conformally equivalent to an
infinitely long cylinder---a strip with periodic boundary
conditions---with $A$ and $B$ situated at the two extremities. In the
boundary case, the geometry is that of the upper half plane, with $A$
being at the origin and $B$ far away from the real axis. It suffices
to consider free boundary conditions on the real axis, since the work
of \cite{Dubail10} has already demonstrated that fixed or mixed
boundary conditions on the positive real axis can be accommodated by
fusing the operator that inserts the propagating (spin and FK)
clusters with an appropriate boundary condition changing operator at
the origin.
The results for the critical exponents can be stated in terms of
the Kac parametrisation of CFT
\begin{equation}
h_{r,s} = \frac{\left( r-s \, \kappa/4 \right)^2 -
\left( 1 - \kappa/4 \right)^2}{\kappa} \,,
\label{Kac}
\end{equation}
where $2 \le \kappa \le 4$ parameterises the number of states $Q \in
[0,4]$ via
\begin{equation}
Q = 4\left( \cos \frac{\kappa \,\pi}{4} \right)^2 \,.
\end{equation}
In the bulk case (geometry of the plane) the critical exponent
corresponding to the two-point function defined above is denoted $h(Q)
= h(Q; \sigma_1^{\alpha_1} \sigma_2^{\alpha_2} \ldots
\sigma_{\ell}^{\alpha_\ell})$, and the correlation function (or
probability) of the prescribed event decays like $P \propto x^{-4
h(Q)}$ for $x \gg 1$. Equivalently, on a long cylinder of size $L
\times M$ with $M \gg L$, periodic boundary conditions in the
$L$-direction, and $A$ and $B$ identified with the opposite ends of
the cylinder, the decay is exponential: $P \propto {\rm e}^{- 4 \pi
(M/L) \, h(Q)}$. In the boundary case (geometry of the half plane)
the critical exponent for free boundary conditions is denoted
$\widetilde{h}(Q)$.
We can write the bulk and boundary exponents in a unified way as
\begin{eqnarray}
h(Q) &=& h_{q_1,q_2} \,, \label{conj_bulk} \\
\widetilde{h}(Q) &=& h_{1+2q_1,1+2q_2} \label{conj_boundary} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the right-hand side refers to (\ref{Kac}) and we have defined a
``charge'' $(q_1,q_2)$. The result of \cite{DS_NPB87} is then that
$\ell$ propagating FK clusters correspond to
\begin{equation}
(q_1,q_2) = (0,\ell) \,, \qquad \qquad \ \ \ \mbox{for FK clusters.}
\label{res_FK}
\end{equation}
In the case of spin clusters with $\ell_1$ thin DW and $\ell_2$ thick
DW the result of \cite{Dubail10} is that
\begin{equation}
(q_1,q_2) = (\ell_1-\ell_2,2\ell_1) \,, \qquad \mbox{for spin clusters.}
\label{res_spin}
\end{equation}
These results strongly suggest that the costs for creating an
excitation consisting of several types of interfaces simply add up at
the level of the charge $(q_1,q_2)$. This is a well-known situation in
the Coulomb gas (CG) formalism. But note that whereas the result
(\ref{res_FK}) for FK clusters indeed admits a CG derivation
\cite{DS_NPB87} no such argument has yet been established for the spin
cluster result (\ref{res_spin}). Admitting the additivity of charges,
we can nevertheless read off the following rules from (\ref{res_spin})
\begin{equation}
(q_1,q_2) = \left \lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
(1,2) \quad & \mbox{for a thin DW} \,, \\
(-1,0) & \mbox{for a thick DW} \,.
\end{array} \right.
\label{rules_spin}
\end{equation}
We now argue that two additional rules are needed for dealing with the
insertion of FK clusters inside a given spin cluster. Indeed, when a
single FK cluster is inserted ($\alpha_i = 1$) we create a pair of
interfaces separating the hull of the FK cluster from the hull of the
surrounding spin cluster. The insertion of each subsequent FK cluster
(when $\alpha_i > 1$) will in addition create an interface separating
the FK cluster from the one preceeding it. To match (\ref{res_FK}) we
clearly need $(q_1,q_2) = (0,1)$ in the latter case. To deal with the
former, we note that using our conventions, a configuration with just
$\ell$ FK clusters can either be labelled $1^\ell$ (if each FK cluster
has the same colour) or $1^1 2^1 \ldots \ell^1$ (if each FK cluster
has a different colour). In either case, additivity of charges and
consistency with (\ref{res_FK}) requires the correct rule to be
\begin{equation}
(q_1,q_2) = \left \lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
(-1,-1) \quad & \mbox{for the first FK in a given spin cluster} \,, \\
(0,1) & \mbox{for each subsequent FK in that cluster} \,.
\end{array} \right.
\label{rules_FK}
\end{equation}
The main result of this paper is the following conjecture:
\begin{itemize}
\item Consider the excitation labelled as in (\ref{gen_label}).
Compute the corresponding charge $(q_1,q_2)$ by adding up the
contributions from the $\sigma_k$, using rules (\ref{rules_spin}),
and those of the $\alpha_k$, using rules (\ref{rules_FK}). Then the
bulk and boundary critical exponents are given by
(\ref{conj_bulk})--(\ref{conj_boundary}).
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Remarks on the first spin cluster}
The reader will have noticed that the nature (thin or thick) of the DW
are determined by the relative colours of two spin clusters. It
therefore remains to discuss carefully how to account for the first
one of the spin clusters making up the excitation.
In the bulk case, when only a single spin cluster is present
($\ell=1$), it will almost surely wrap around the periodic direction
(i.e., separate the neighbourhoods $A$ and $B$). Our results do {\em
not} apply to this case. Indeed, it is well known that the critical
exponent in this case is the magnetic exponent $h_{1/2,0}$ (resp.\
$h_{0,\alpha_1}$) for a spin cluster with $\alpha_1=0$ (resp.\
$\alpha_1 \ge 1$) propagating FK clusters, cf.~(\ref{res_FK}). If, on
the other hand, we impose the additional constraint that the spin
cluster must not wrap around the periodic direction, our results {\em
do} apply. The constraint then amounts to the presence of one {\em
thick} DW that separates the spin cluster from itself.
In the boundary case, our results always apply, provided that the
first spin cluster is counted as a {\em thin} DW. This makes intuitive
sense, since the free boundary conditions permit the spin cluster to
touch the boundary, just as in the case of two spins clusters with
different colours.
\subsection{Possible values of the exponents $h_{r,s}$}
\label{sec:poss_val}
It is obvious that all excitations of the type (\ref{gen_label}) will lead
to charges $(q_1,q_2)$, where $q_1$ and $q_2$ take integer (positive
{\em or} negative) values. We now wish to clarify precisely which
values $(q_1,q_2) \in \mathbb{Z}^2$ can be obtained through the
joint spin-FK observables.
The spin part of the excitation is described by the numbers $(\ell_1,\ell_2)$
of thin and thick DWs, as in (\ref{res_spin}). We first discuss the boundary
case, for which the allowed values are $\ell_1 \ge 1$ (since the first DW
is thin) and $\ell_2 \ge 0$. Using rules (\ref{rules_spin})--(\ref{rules_FK})
one can then deduce the possible values of the charge $(q_1,q_2)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item For $q_1 \ge 1$, we have the constraint $q_2 \ge 2 q_1$. Indeed,
the excitation with $(\ell_1,\ell_2) = (q_1,0)$ and no FK clusters gives
the charge $(q_1,2 q_1)$, while the one with $(\ell_1,\ell_2) = (q_1+1,0)$
and a single FK cluster on one of the spin clusters gives the charge
$(q_1,2q_1+1)$. Any higher value of $q_2$ can be attained by placing
additional FK clusters on the same spin cluster.
\item For even $q_1 \le 0$, we have the constraint $q_2 \ge \frac{q_1+2}{2}$.
Indeed, the excitation with $(\ell_1,\ell_2) = (1,-\frac{q_1}{2})$ and one FK cluster
on each one of the spin clusters corresponds to $q_2 = \frac{q_1+2}{2}$,
while any higher value can be obtained by adding further FK clusters.
\item For odd $q_1 \le 0$, we have the constraint $q_2 \ge \frac{q_1+3}{2}$.
Indeed, the excitation with $(\ell_1,\ell_2) = (1,-\frac{q_1-1}{2})$ and one FK
cluster on each of the spin clusters except the first one saturates the inequality
on $q_2$, whose value can be increased by the addition of more FK clusters.
\end{itemize}
The discussion of the bulk case is similar, except that the allowed values of
$(\ell_1,\ell_2)$ are $\ell_1,\ell_2 \ge 0$ with $\ell_1 \neq 1$ (because of
the periodic boundary conditions), and of course $(\ell_1,\ell_2) \neq (0,0)$ in order
to have a non-trivial excitation. The leads only to a very minor modification
of the constraints on the charge $(q_1,q_2)$ derived in the boundary case:
For $q_1 < 0$ we have now $q_2 \ge \lceil \frac{q_1}{2} \rceil$.
In conclusion, the spin-FK observables described in this paper make it
possible to produce (say, in the bulk case) all the Kac table exponents
$h_{r,s}$ with integer indices $(r,s)$ above or below both of the lines
$s=2r$ and $s=r/2$.%
\footnote{That is, up to discretisation effects due to the fact that $(r,s)$ are
integers---see above for precise statements.}
The two cones in between these lines are not accessible by the spin-FK observables.
\section{Transfer matrix construction}
\label{sec:TM}
We now describe a transfer matrix whose spectrum contains all of the
excitations discussed in section~\ref{sec:obs}.
First recall that a {\em partition} ${\cal P}$ of a set $X$ is a set
of nonempty subsets of $X$ such that every element $i \in X$ is in
exactly one of these subsets. The elements of ${\cal P}$ (i.e., the
nonempty subset of $X$) are called {\em blocks}. A block containing
precisely one element of $X$ is called a {\em singleton}. A partition
${\cal P}_a$ is said to be a {\em refinement} of ${\cal P}_b$, and we
write ${\cal P}_a \preceq {\cal P}_b$, provided that each block in
${\cal P}_a$ is a subset of some block in ${\cal P}_b$. This defines a
partial order of the partitions of $X$.
We shall need a few simple operators acting on ${\cal P}$. We denote
the identity operator by $I$. For $i,j \in X$ the {\em join operator}
$J_{ij}$ acts as $I$ if $i$ and $j$ belong to the same block; if not,
it amalgamates the block containing $i$ with the block containing $j$
so as to form a single block. The {\em detach operator} $D_i$ acts by
detaching $i$ from its block, i.e., by transforming it into a new singleton
block $\{i\}$.
If we associate a Potts spin $\sigma_i$ with each $i \in X$ we can
finally define the {\em indicator operator} as $\Delta_{ij} =
\delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j} \cdot I$.
In the representation theory of the Temperley-Lieb algebra, $D_i$ is
usually defined in a slightly different manner. Namely, $D_i$ acts as
$\widetilde{Q} \cdot I$ if $i$ is a singleton (i.e., it gives a Boltzmann weight
$\widetilde{Q}$); otherwise it transforms $i$ into a singleton (with a
Boltzmann weight $1$). Then, setting
$e_{2i-1} = \widetilde{Q}^{-1/2} D_i$ and $e_{2i} = \widetilde{Q}^{1/2} J_{i,i+1}$,
the $e_k$ provide a representation of the Temperley-Lieb algebra \cite{Martin}
corresponding to the $\widetilde{Q}$-state Potts model. In our construction
of the transfer matrix we shall account for $Q$ in a different manner, which
is why we have set $\widetilde{Q}=1$ above.
\subsection{States and elementary transfer matrices}
The states of the Potts model in the spin-FK representation are
given by a triplet of partitions $({\cal P}_1,{\cal P}_2,{\cal P}_3)$
of the set $X$ of vertices within a row of the lattice ${\cal L}$.
The first partition ${\cal P}_1$ is arbitrary (not necessarily planar)
and describes the spin colours: we have $\sigma_i = \sigma_j$ if and
only if $i,j$ belong to the same block in ${\cal P}_1$. The second
partition ${\cal P}_2$ is planar and describes the connectivity of
spin clusters. We have ${\cal P}_2 \preceq {\cal P}_1$, since spins in
the same spin cluster have equal colours. The third partition ${\cal
P}_3$ is again planar and describes the connectivity of FK
clusters. We have ${\cal P}_3 \preceq {\cal P}_2$, since spins in the
same FK cluster are also in the same spin cluster.
We represent graphically the transfer matrix as
\begin{equation}
\vspace*{1.5cm}\includegraphics[height=1.5cm]{fig_T.eps}
\label{Tpic}
\end{equation}
The elementary transfer matrix $T_{\rm h}$ that adds a horizontal edge between
vertices $i$ and $j$ acts in ${\cal P}_1 \otimes {\cal P}_2 \otimes
{\cal P}_3$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
T_{\rm h} = 1 \cdot (I-\Delta_{ij}) \otimes I \otimes I +
({\rm e}^K - 1) \cdot \Delta_{ij} \otimes J_{ij} \otimes J_{ij} +
1 \cdot \Delta_{ij} \otimes J_{ij} \otimes I \,,
\label{Th}
\end{equation}
where the number before the dot ($\cdot$) is the Boltzmann weight.
The first term corresponds to the two spins $\sigma_i$ and $\sigma_j$
being different, in which case $i,j$ can neither be in the same spin
cluster, nor in the same FK cluster. The second term corresponds to
$i,j$ being in the same FK cluster, hence also in the same spin
cluster. Finally, the third term corresponds to $i,j$ having the same
spin without being in the same FK cluster; in this case the spin
clusters must be joined up since $i,j$ are neighbours on the lattice.
We can similarly define the elementary transfer matrix $T_{\rm v}$
that adds a vertical edge edge to the lattice, by propagating the
vertex $i$ to a new vertex $i'$. It acts in ${\cal P}_1 \otimes {\cal
P}_2 \otimes {\cal P}_3$ like
\begin{equation}
T_{\rm v} = 1 \cdot (I-\Delta_{ii'}) \otimes D_i \otimes D_i +
({\rm e}^K - 1) \cdot \Delta_{ii'} \otimes I \otimes I +
1 \cdot \Delta_{ii'} \otimes I \otimes D_i \,,
\label{Tv}
\end{equation}
and each term has the same interpretation as in $T_{\rm h}$. Since $T$
builds up the partition function $Z$, it must also account for the summation
$\sum_{\sigma}$ over the spin varibles, {\it cf.}~(\ref{Potts}). The easiest
convention is to let the action of $T_{\rm v}$ be accompanied by a sum over
$\sigma_{i'}$. This sum is dealt with in the same way as in
\cite{Dubail10}. Namely, let $\Sigma$ denote the set of spin values
$\{\sigma_i\}$ being used in a given state, so that the number of
elements $|\Sigma|$ is just the number of blocks in ${\cal
P}_1$. After summing over $\sigma_{i'}$, the second and third terms
in (\ref{Tv}) each correspond to a single non-zero contribution. The
first term gives $|\Sigma|-1$ contributions where $\sigma_{i'} \neq
\sigma_i$, but $\sigma_{i'} \in \Sigma$. The remaining contributions,
where $\sigma_{i'} \neq \sigma_i$ and $\sigma_{i'} \notin \Sigma$ can
be regrouped (using the overall $S_Q$ symmetry) as a single
contribution, with Boltzmann weight $Q-|\Sigma|$, in which $\{i'\}$
becomes a singleton in ${\cal P}'_1$. It is precisely because of this
regrouping that it now makes sense to promote $Q$ to an arbitrary
real variable \cite{Dubail10}.
The complete row-to-row transfer matrix $T$ for a system of size $L$,
shown graphically in~(\ref{Tpic}),
is then obtained as the product of the elementary transfer
matrices corresponding to all horizontal and vertical edges in a row:
\begin{equation}
T = \left( \prod_{i=1}^L T_{\rm v}^{(i)} \right) \times
\left( \prod_{i=1}^{L'} T_{\rm h}^{(i,i+1)} \right) \,,
\end{equation}
where $L' = L-1$ in the boundary case (strip geometry) and $L'=L$ with
indices $i$ considered modulo $L$ in the bulk case (cylinder geometry).
Several remarks are in order:
\begin{enumerate}
\item When representing ${\cal P}_1$ one can replace the actual spin
values $\sigma_i$ by colour labels $c_i$ defined such that $c_i =
c_j$ if and only if $\sigma_i = \sigma_j$. Using the $S_Q$ symmetry
these colour labels can be brought into a standard form, thus
reducing the number of basis states. Details of this construction
are given in \cite{Dubail10}.
\item For a system of size $L$, at most $L$ different colour labels
are used. Therefore the number of basis states depends only on $L$,
and not on $Q$. In particular the state space is finite.
\item The three partition algebras ${\cal P}_1$, ${\cal P}_2$ and
${\cal P}_3$ are coupled by virtue of (\ref{Th})--(\ref{Tv}). It is
an interesting problem, beyond the scope of this paper, to analyse
in details this situation from a representation theoretical point of
view.
\item If one neglects the information on FK clusters contained in
${\cal P}_3$, the second and third terms in (\ref{Th})--(\ref{Tv})
can be resummed, and one recovers the construction of
\cite{Dubail10}.
\item If one neglects the information on spin clusters contained in
${\cal P}_2$, the first and third terms in (\ref{Th})--(\ref{Tv}) can be
resummed. The result is then independent of ${\cal P}_1$ and reproduces the
well-known Temperley-Lieb representation \cite{Martin}.
\item In the above construction we have accounted for $Q$ in the partition
algebra ${\cal P}_1$. Therefore, the detach operators $D_i$ acting on
${\cal P}_2$ and ${\cal P}_3$ have parameter $\widetilde{Q} = 1$. In
particular, the FK clusters described by ${\cal P}_3$ can be thought of
as percolation ($\widetilde{Q}=1$) clusters inside the spin clusters
described by ${\cal P}_1$ and ${\cal P}_2$. Leaving $\widetilde{Q}$ as
a free parameter would amount to studying FK clusters of a second
$\widetilde{Q}$-state Potts model defined on top of the spin clusters of
the original $Q$-state Potts model. This appears to be an interesting
way of coupling a pair of $(Q,\widetilde{Q})$-state Potts models---and
we intend to report further on this elsewhere.
\end{enumerate}
The leading eigenvalue $\Lambda_0$ of the transfer matrix $T$ gives
the ground state free energy $f_0 = -\frac{1}{L} \log \Lambda_0$. This
$f_0$ coincides precisely with that of the usual FK transfer matrix
\cite{Blote82}, even when $Q$ is non-integer. Its finite-size
corrections possess a universal $L^{-2}$ term whose coefficient
determines the central charge of the corresponding CFT
\cite{CardyBloteNightingale}.
\subsection{Correlation functions}
To obtain the two-point correlation defined in section~\ref{sec:obs}
we need a variant transfer matrix $T'$ which imposes the propagation
of the defect labelled as in (\ref{gen_label}) along the (imaginary) time
direction of the cylinder (or strip). From its leading eigenvalue
$\Lambda'_0$ one can determine the energy gap $\Delta f = -\frac{1}{L}
\log(\Lambda'_0 / \Lambda_0)$ whose finite-size scaling in turn
determines the critical exponents $h(Q)$ and $\widetilde{h}(Q)$
\cite{CardyBloteNightingale,JJreview}.
To construct $T'$ we modify the basis states ${\cal P}_1 \otimes {\cal
P}_2 \otimes {\cal P}_3$ by {\em marking} some of the blocks in the
partitions ${\cal P}_2$ and ${\cal P}_3$. First, we mark $\ell$ blocks
in ${\cal P}_2$ whose spin colours in ${\cal P}_1$ coincide with the
choice of $\{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\ldots,\sigma_\ell\}$ in
(\ref{gen_label}). Second, let ${\cal P}_3$ be a refinement of ${\cal
P}_2$ such that the $k$'th marked block in ${\cal P}_2$ is refined
into at least $\alpha_k$ blocks in ${\cal P}_3$, of which precisely
$\alpha_k$ are marked.
In order to conserve the marked clusters in the transfer matrix
evolution, none of the marked clusters must be ``left behind'', and
two distinct marked clusters must not be allowed to link up. Imposing
these rules in a precise way is tantamount to defining a modified
action of the join and detach operators, $J_{ij}$ and $D_i$, on the
marked basis states. Namely, $J_{ij}$ is modified to give a zero
Boltzmann weight if $i,j$ are in distinct marked blocks (this prevents
a marked block from disappearing), and $D_i$ is modified to give a
zero Boltzmann weight if $\{i\}$ is a marked singleton block (this
prevents marked blocks from being ``left behind''). Finally, when
$J_{ij}$ joins a marked and an unmarked block, the result is a
marked block.
The full state space corresponding to the excitation (\ref{gen_label})
is generated by letting $T'$ act a sufficient number of times on a
suitable initial basis state. This initial state is such that the
$k$'th marked block in ${\cal P}_2$ consists of $\alpha_k$ consecutive
points $\{i_k,i_k+1,\ldots,i_k+\alpha_k-1\}$ in a row of the
lattice. In the refining partition ${\cal P}_3$ each of these
$\alpha_k$ points is a marked singleton. Finally, those of the $L$
points which are not marked in this construction of the initial state
are taken as singletons, both in ${\cal P}_2$ and in ${\cal P}_3$.
In summary, the modified transfer matrix $T'$ keeps enough
information, both about the mutual colouring of the sites and about
the connectivity of spin and FK clusters, to give the correct
Boltzmann weights to the different configurations, even for
non-integer $Q$, and to follow the time evolution of the excitation
defined by (\ref{gen_label}).
\section{Exact diagonalisation results}
\label{sec:diag}
We have numerically diagonalised the transfer matrix in the spin-DW
representation for cylinders (resp.\ strips) of width up to $L=8$
(resp.\ $L=9$) spins. We
verified that the leading eigenvalue $\Lambda_0$ in the ground state
sector coincides with that of the FK transfer matrix, including for
non-integer $Q$. As to the excitations $\Lambda'_0$, we explored
systematically all possible colouring combinations (\ref{gen_label})
for up to $\ell=3$ marked spin clusters with different choices for the
number of FK clusters $\alpha_k$, for a variety of values of the
parameter $\kappa$.
Finite-size approximations of the critical exponents $h(L)$ and
$\widetilde{h}(L)$ were extracted from the leading eigenvalue in each
sector, using standard CFT results
\cite{CardyBloteNightingale,JJreview}, and fitting both for the
universal corrections in $L^{-2}$ and the non-universal $L^{-4}$ term.
These approximations were further extrapolated to the $L \to \infty$
limit by fitting them to first and second order polynomials in
$L^{-1}$, gradually excluding data points corresponding to the
smallest $L$. Error bars were obtained by carefully comparing the
consistency of the various extrapolations.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r|rrrr}
$p=\frac{\kappa}{4-\kappa}$ & $1^1 2^0$ & $1^2 2^0$ & $1^1 1^0$ & $1^1 2^0 3^0$ \\ \hline
$2$ & 3.0000(1) & 5.01(1) & --- & 3.99(1) \\
$3$ & 5.005(5) & 8.05(5) & 9.03(2) & 7.03(3) \\
$4$ & 6.97(2) & 11.02(3) & 11.2(1) & 9.95(5) \\
$5$ & 8.85(10) & 13.9(1) & 13.4(3) & 12.7(3) \\[0.1cm]
Exact & $2p-1$ & $3p-1$ & $2p+3$ & $3p-2$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{tab1}
Bulk critical exponents corresponding to four different sector
labels (\ref{gen_label}), as functions of the parameter
$p = \frac{\kappa}{4-\kappa}$.
The conjectured exponents read
$h_{1,3}$ for sector $1^1 2^0$,
$h_{1,4}$ for sector $1^2 2^0$,
$h_{3,1}$ for sector $1^1 1^0$,
and $h_{2,5}$ for sector $1^1 2^0 3^0$.
The table entries
give the value of $|\rho|$, when (\ref{Kac}) is rewritten as
$h_{r,s} = (\rho^2-1)/(4p(p+1))$, with error bars shown in parentheses.}
\end{table}
Representative final results for the bulk case (periodic boundary
conditions) are shown in Table~\ref{tab1}. Corresponding results for
the boundary case (free boundary conditions) are given in
Table~\ref{tab2}. In all cases the agreement with the conjecture
made in section~\ref{sec:obs} is very good.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r|rrrr}
$p=\frac{\kappa}{4-\kappa}$ & $1^1 2^0$ & $1^2 2^0$ & $1^1 1^0$ & $1^1 2^0 3^0$ \\ \hline
$2$ & 5.001(2) & 9.00(1) & 9.01(2) & 7.002(4) \\
$3$ & 9.01(1) & 15.0(1) & 13.02(2) & 13.05(8) \\
$4$ & 12.92(5) & 20.98(2) & 17.02(3) & 18.85(10) \\
$5$ & 16.7(2) & 26.7(2) & 21.05(10) & 24.5(3) \\[0.1cm]
Exact & $4p-3$ & $6p-3$ & $4p+1$ & $6p-5$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{tab2}
Boundary critical exponents with free boundary conditions, corresponding to
four different sector
labels (\ref{gen_label}), as functions of the parameter
$p = \frac{\kappa}{4-\kappa}$.
The conjectured exponents read
$h_{3,7}$ for sector $1^1 2^0$,
$h_{3,9}$ for sector $1^2 2^0$,
$h_{-1,3}$ for sector $1^1 1^0$,
and $h_{5,11}$ for sector $1^1 2^0 3^0$.
The table entries
give the value of $|\rho|$, when (\ref{Kac}) is rewritten as
$h_{r,s} = (\rho^2-1)/(4p(p+1))$, with error bars shown in parentheses.}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=4.8cm]{fig2a.eps}
\label{fig2a}
}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=4.8cm]{fig2b.eps}
\label{fig2b}
}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=4.8cm]{fig2c.eps}
\label{fig2c}
}
\label{fig2}
\caption{Various critical curves in the $3$-state Potts model.
The three pictures show the same configuration with different
geometrical features emphasised. (a) Spin cluster configuration.
There is a non-trivial ({\it i.e.} non-homotopic to a point) red
cluster wrapping along one periodic boundary condition, but not
the other one. One of
its boundaries is shown in red, and contributes to the fractal
dimension $d_{\rm spin}=2-2 h_{1,0}$. (b) Same spin configuration,
but this time the FK clusters and their corresponding boundaries
are shown. The non-trivial red cluster is broken into
smaller FK clusters, one of them remaining non-trivial.
One of the two boundaries of the percolating
FK cluster is shown in yellow and has a fractal
dimension $d_{\rm FK}=2-2 h_{0,1}$ in the continuum limit. (c)
Superposition of the previous red and yellow interfaces. Their intersection,
shown in orange, corresponds to the set of points where the FK cluster
touches the hull of its surrounding spin cluster. Its fractal dimension
is $d_{2,1}=2-2 h_{2,1}$.}
\end{figure}
\section{Monte Carlo simulations}
\label{sec:MC}
Although we the result of section~\ref{sec:obs} apply to a general
excitation (\ref{gen_label}), only a few of the resulting scaling
dimensions $h_{r,s}$ are relevant (i.e., $0 \le h_{r,s} < 1$) for some
$Q$ in the interval $0 \le Q \le 4$. Moreover, some of the excitations
are relevant only in a part of the interval, where there are not
``enough colours'' to realise the choice of different $\sigma_k$ used
in (\ref{gen_label}). An example of this situation is the bulk
operator $1^1 2^0 3^0$ with scaling dimension $h_{2,5}$, which is
relevant only for $0 \le Q \le 2$, meaning that $Q$ is not large
enough to accommodate the three different spin colours defining the
excitation.
These remarks become important if we want to measure the fractal
dimension corresponding to a given excitation in a Monte Carlo
simulation. For convenience we restrict the discussion to bulk
critical exponents. Among the excitations which involve both spin and
FK degrees of freedom, it appears that only two are relevant and
physical (in the above sense). The first of these is $1^1$ with
wrapping around the periodic direction disallowed. It describes the
insertion of a spin cluster with one FK cluster inside it. The charge
is $(q_1,q_2) = (-1,0) + (-1,-1)$ from
(\ref{rules_spin})--(\ref{rules_FK}) leading to the scaling dimension
$h_{-2,-1} = h_{2,1}$ by application of (\ref{conj_bulk}). The corresponding
codimension
\begin{equation}
d_{2,1} = 2 - 2 h_{2,1} = 3 - \frac{6}{\kappa}
\end{equation}
is thus the fractal dimension of the set of points where the FK cluster
touches the hull of its surrounding spin cluster. We have $0 \le
d_{2,1} \le 2$ for all $0 \le Q \le 4$. An example of a geometrical curve
corresponding to the dimension $d_{2,1}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2c}.
The second excitation of interest is $1^1 2^0$. The charge is now
$(q_1,q_2) = 2 \times (1,2) + (-1,-1)$ from
(\ref{rules_spin})--(\ref{rules_FK}), and the corresponding scaling
dimension reads $h_{1,3}$ by (\ref{conj_bulk}). The fractal dimension
\begin{equation}
d_{1,3} = 2 - 2 h_{1,3} = 4 - \kappa
\end{equation}
describes the same set of points as above, but with the additional
constraint that a second spin cluster (the $2^0$ part of the label)
adjacent to the one whose hull is being touched by its internal FK
cluster (the $1^1$ part of the label) must now also propagate all the
way to infinity. Note that $d_{1,3}$ and $d_{2,1}$ should
coincide for the Ising model ($Q=2$) and indeed we find $d_{1,3}=d_{2,1}=1$
in this case.
We checked numerically these fractal dimensions using Monte Carlo
(MC) methods. Efficient MC algorithms for the non-integer $Q$-state Potts
model are already available. We chose here to work with the Chayes--Machta
algorithm~\cite{Chayes_Machta} that works for $Q \in \left[ 1,4 \right]$.
This algorithm is easy to implement and allows one to keep track of both FK and
spin clusters, even for non-integer $Q$~\cite{Zatelepin_Shchur}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{fig3.eps}
\caption{Fractal dimensions $d_{\rm FK}$, $d_{\rm spin}$,
$d_{2,1}$ and $d_{1,3}$ (see text for details) as
functions of $Q$. The small circles with their error bars are
obtained from Monte Carlo simulations, while solid lines represent the CFT
prediction.}
\label{fig3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The elementary step of the algorithm reads:
\begin{itemize}
\item Find all the FK clusters in the configuration.
\item Independently label the clusters as active or
inactive with respective probability $\frac{1}{Q}$
and $\frac{Q-1}{Q}$. Sites belonging to an active
clusters are said to be active.
\item Erase all bonds. Independently add bonds
between pairs of active sites with probability $p_c=1-\mathrm{e}^{-K}=\frac{\sqrt{Q}}{1+\sqrt{Q}}$ .
The resulting clusters are the new FK clusters.
\end{itemize}
Active sites correspond to spins in a given colour $Q_0$, so that
the spin clusters of this colour can be obtained by performing the
bond-adding step of Chayes--Machta at zero temperature, {\it i.e.} by
replacing $p_c$ by $p_0=1$. The
clusters and their boundaries are then detected in a standard way.
Since the fractal dimensions we wish to measure
are bulk properties, we work with an $L \times L$ lattice with periodic boundary
conditions. We perform the statistics on non-trivial
clusters wrapping once around one of the periodic boundaries.
The fractal dimensions $d_{\rm F}$ are then obtained by measuring the mean
value $\ell$ of the curve length as a function of $L=32, 64, \dots, 800$; using
the relation $\ell \sim A L^{d_{\rm F}}$.
This algorithm allowed us to recover as a check the well-known
fractal dimensions of the interfaces of the FK and
spin clusters, which read respectively $d_{\rm FK}=2-2 h_{0,1}$
and $d_{\rm spin}=2-2 h_{1,0}$. The dimension $d_{2,1}=2-2 h_{2,1}$
of the set of points where the FK cluster
touches the hull of its surrounding spin cluster can be measured
without much more complication for $Q>1$.
To evaluate the dimension $d_{1,3}=2-2 h_{1,3}$, we restrict
the set of points considered when measuring $d_{2,1}$ to the points
whose adjacent spin cluster also wraps around the periodic
boundary condition. As the Chayes--Machta for non-integer $Q$
only keeps track of one spin cluster, we were able to measure
$d_{1,3}$ only for $Q$ integer. Note also that $d_{1,3}$
makes sense physically only for $Q \geq 2$.
Results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}. The agreement with our predictions
is very good. The small deviations we observe when $Q$ becomes close
to $Q=4$ are expected, as logarithmic corrections are known to occur
in this case.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:disc}
We have defined geometrical observables that keep track of both FK and spin
clusters for any real $Q \in \left[ 0,4\right]$. We conjecture that such
observables are conformally invariant and we provide exact formulas for the bulk
and boundary critical exponents. Our results are supported by extensive
transfer matrix and Monte Carlo computations.
It is quite remarkable that all the exponents are of the Kac form $h_{r,s}$;
an analytical understanding of those results would probably shed some light on this
rather intriging point.
We note also that we now have enough observables to cover all the Kac table $h_{r,s}$
for any integer choice of $(r,s)$, except in the two cones delimited by the straight
lines $s=2r$ and $s=r/2$ (see section~\ref{sec:poss_val}).
This remark is particulary important in
the context of Logarithmic CFT (LCFT), where including more involved geometrical
observables in the theory might yield some possibly unknown, interesting
logarithmic features. In particular, our transfer matrix $T$ at logarithmic points
should have a much more complicated structure that the ones considered so far in lattice
regularisations of LCFTs (see {\it e.g.} \cite{Vasseur1,Vasseur2}).
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Hubert Saleur for stimulating discussions and collaboration on
related work.
This work was supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (grant
ANR-10-BLAN-0414: DIME).
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
``{\emph{Divergent series are the invention of the devil, and it is shameful to
base on them any demonstration whatsoever.}}'' Niels Hendrik Abel's 1828
statement~\cite{Boyd99thedevil's} suggests that asymptotic analysis, which
commonly leads to divergent series, should not be applied to problems of
physical interest. Asymptotics, however, has become an invaluable tool for
physicists seeking approximate analytic solutions. Multiple-scale analysis,
which includes boundary-layer theory and WKB theory, allows us to understand
diverse problems, such as semiclassical quantum theory, airplane wing design and
turbines~\cite{Bender}. In the context of general relativity, asymptotic
(post-Newtonian) series~\cite{Yunes:2008tw,Zhang:2011vh} constitute the basis of
the filters used in current gravitational wave detectors to extract signals from
the noise.
Resonances are a common occurrence in physical phenomena. In a traditional
oscillatory system, a resonance is a point in frequency space where the system
stores and transfers energy between kinetic and potential modes, allowing a
small driving force to generate large amplitude oscillations. Resonant phenomena
can occur in many vibrational or wave-like systems and include electromagnetic
resonances, nuclear magnetic resonance, electron spin resonance, and so on. In
the realm of general relativity, black holes can sometimes be treated as
resonators, as they relax after being perturbed (see, for example,
\cite{Berti:2009kk}).
In the context of general-relativistic orbital mechanics, {\it resonance} has
recently been adopted to represent a slightly different phenomenon, namely, the
enhancement of gravitational-wave energy dissipation due to the lack of
cancellation of oscillatory modes that for generic inspirals average out
\cite{Flanagan:2010cd,Gair:2010iv}. This is particularly relevant for extreme
mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs), in which a small compact object, such as a
stellar-mass black hole or a neutron star, orbits around a supermassive black
hole \cite{2007CQGra..24..113A}. In such a two-body system the smaller object
slowly spirals inwards due to gravitational-wave energy-momentum losses, on a
radiation-reaction timescale much longer than the orbital one. This inspiral is
usually modeled by computing an orbit-average of the gravitational-wave energy
flux. This procedure discards terms proportional to odd-powers of sines or
cosines of the sum of the orbital phases
\cite{Poisson:1993vp,Hughes:1999bq,Hughes:2001jr,Pound:2007th}. For orbital
configurations or points in frequency space at which the sum of the orbital
frequencies vanishes, the orbit-averaged energy flux is not equal to the limit
of the orbit-averaged fluxes for nearby, nonresonant orbits. This is because
harmonics of the frequency that vanish on resonance contribute to the secular
component of the change in the orbital elements on resonance
~\cite{Flanagan:2010cd,Gair:2010iv}, but average to zero for off-resonance
orbits. Unlike traditional oscillators, however, there is no {\emph{external}}
driving force in the EMRI case; the emitted gravitational waves drive the
inspiral themselves and the resonance is caused by the orbital frequencies
becoming commensurate, that is, some linear combination of the three frequencies
with integer coefficients vanishes at resonance.
A secularly growing radiation-reaction force can leave strong imprints on the
orbital motion, even if this secular growth is active for a very short time.
These imprints can then propagate into the gravitational waves emitted and could
have important consequences for gravitational-wave detection. Unlike conventional telescopes operating in the electromagnetic spectrum, current gravitational-wave detectors will not observe
signals above the average noise. Instead, signals are expected to be buried deep
in the noise, and will be extracted using filters based on the
expected signals. Although EMRIs are not expected to be detected with current
ground-based gravitational wave detectors, they are a key target for future
space-based detectors for which accurate EMRI filters will be needed. It is
therefore important to understand how EMRI resonances can affect the emitted
gravitational waves.
\subsection*{Resonances in Extreme Mass-Ratio Inspirals}
The extreme-mass-ratio (typically $10^{-6}$ -- $10^{-5}$) ensures that over
short timescales the orbit of the smaller object in an EMRI system is
approximately geodesic. It is therefore appropriate to use an
``osculating-element'' formulation in which the EMRI is identified by a sequence
of geodesics~\cite{Pound:2007th,Gair:2010iv}. Geodesics in a Kerr background are
uniquely characterized by three constants of the motion, energy $E$,
$z$-component of angular momentum $L_z$, and {\it Carter constant} $Q$, and four
initial phases that specify the coordinates of the object at a particular time.
The position and velocity of an object uniquely identifies a geodesic. Since the
evolution of the orbit is governed by a second-order differential equation, the
values of these seven geodesic parameters at each point on the inspiral provide
an alternative parametrization of the inspiral. The time-evolution of the
geodesic constants of the motion is
\be
\frac{dJ_{\nu}}{dt}=\epsilon{\cal{F}}^{\rm SF}_\nu(q,J)+{\cal{O}}(\epsilon^2)\,,
\label{J-eq}
\ee
where $J_{\nu}=(E,L_z,Q)$ is a vector of these constants,
while $\epsilon$ is the mass ratio, $q$ is an angle phase variable, and ${\cal{F
}}^{\rm SF}_\nu$ is the ``self-force''. The rate of change of $J_\nu$ can then be
used to construct the rate of change of the orbital frequencies in a similar
form.
For any given geodesic, the self-force can be expanded in a Fourier series in terms of the fundamental
orbital frequencies. These frequencies can be mapped to
the geodesic constants of the motion. A geodesic resonance occurs when the ratio
of the frequencies of the radial and vertical motion is a rational number. The third frequency, that of meridional motion, is not relevant for resonances due to the axisymmetry for the background Kerr spacetime. Henceforth, we only consider the dependence of the self-force on
the two frequencies that can lead to a resonance.
Let us then expand the self-force in a two-frequency Fourier series, where one
of the frequencies ($\omega$) approaches zero while the other ($f$) remains
finite:
\be
\frac{d\omega}{dt}=\epsilon\sum_{\ell,n}G_{\ell n}\cos\left[\left(\ell\omega+nf
\right)t\right]+H_{\ell n}\sin\left[\left(\ell\omega+nf\right)t\right]\,,
\label{w-eq}
\ee
where $G_{\ell n}$ and $H_{\ell n}$ are time-independent Fourier coefficients
that depend on the orbital parameters. Clearly, when $\ell\omega+nf\neq0$, the
cosine and sine terms average out for sufficiently long integration times.
However, at resonance, where $\ell\omega=-nf$ (which in this case we take to be
$n=\omega=0$), the cosine function goes to unity, leaving a sum of secular
(zero-frequency) Fourier coefficients.
Let us now further assume that the Fourier coefficients $(G_{\ell n}, H_{\ell n}
)$ vary smoothly as the resonance is approached, such that they can be expanded
as their on-resonance values plus a correction of ${\cal{O}}(\epsilon^{1/2})$.
Such corrections can always be made small by choosing a sufficiently small
$\epsilon$, independent of the magnitude of $\omega$. Similarly, corrections
from other terms of ${\cal{O}}(\epsilon)$ on the right side of \eqref{J-eq} can
be ignored.
We are now left with a number of rapidly oscillating terms (those with $\ell
\omega+nf\neq 0$) and also terms that slowly oscillate away from resonance and
then vanish at resonance. The rapidly oscillating terms are less important
because they average to zero on a short timescale. Changing variables to $y
\equiv\omega/\sqrt{\epsilon}$ and $x\equiv\sqrt{\epsilon} t$, we find that
Eq.~\eqref{w-eq} becomes
\be
\frac{dy}{dx}=\sum_{\ell n}G_{\ell n}\cos\left(\ell xy+\frac{nfx}{\sqrt{\epsilon
}}\right)+H_{\ell n}\sin\left(\ell xy+\frac{n f x}{\sqrt{\epsilon}}\right)\,.
\label{probdef}
\ee
Expanding the sum for the first few $(\ell,n)$ modes and rescaling by $\tilde{y}
=y/\sqrt{G_{00}}$, $\tilde{x}=\sqrt{G_{00}} x$, we then have
\be
y'=1+k\cos\left(x\,y\right)\,,
\label{diffeq}
\ee
where we have dropped the tildes, prime denotes differentiation with respect to
$x$, and, in principle, the parameter $k\equiv G_{01}/G_{00}$ is known. In most
scenarios $k\ll 1$, but there could be orbits for which $k={\cal{O}}(1)$.
In deriving \eqref{diffeq}, we have made several approximations: (a) we have
ignored the rapidly oscillating $\epsilon^{-1/2}$ terms, and thus considered
only the $n=0$ modes; (b) we have ignored a phase constant induced by the $H_{10
}$ term; (c) we have considered only the $\ell=1$ mode because these are the
dominant ones and are on resonance for the longest time. Assumption (a) is
justified, given that the rapidly oscillating components tend to average out
over a sufficiently long integration time. The relaxation of assumptions (b) and
(c) will be addressed more carefully in Sec.~\ref{gen-res}.
In addition to the approximations described above, \eqref{diffeq} also makes the
critical assumption that the self-force can be expanded as a Fourier series in
the frequency with argument $(\ell\omega+nf) t$ and that the coefficients of
this expansion are continuous at resonance. An alternative way to write the same
equation off resonance would be as an expansion in the phase with argument $\ell
\phi+n\psi$, where $(\phi,\psi)$ are angle variables. For a geodesic, the time derivatives of
$(\phi,\psi)$ are the frequencies $(\phi',\psi')\equiv(\omega,f)$, but if one
regards these phase angles as fundamental and assumes that the coefficients of
that expansion are continuous at resonance, one ends up with a slightly
different differential equation:
\be
\phi''=1+k\cos{\phi}\,,
\label{diffeq2}
\ee
which admits the first integral
\be
\frac{1}{2}\left(\phi'\right)^2=\phi+k\sin{\phi}+\phi'(0)\,,
\ee
where $\phi'(0)$ is an integration constant.
Equations~\eqref{diffeq} and~\eqref{diffeq2} give two alternative descriptions
of an EMRI resonance, but they are not equivalent. To make this clear, we
rewrite \eqref{diffeq2} in terms of $y$:
\be
y'=1+k\cos\left(\int y dx\right)\,.
\label{diffeq3}
\ee
This equation is equivalent to \eqref{diffeq} only in the limit $x y'\ll 1$. In
this paper we seek solutions to these two differential equations in the limit $x\to
+\infty$. The equations are deceptively simple (they are just ordinary differential equations) but due to the nonlinearity, finding exact solutions is impossible.
This paper describes the solution to both the ``frequency-resonance''
differential equation \eqref{diffeq} and the ``phase-resonance'' differential
equation \eqref{diffeq2} and is organised as follows: The leading-order behavior
of the solution at late times ($x\to\infty$) for both frequency and phase
resonances are calculated in Sec.~\ref{sec:LO}. The higher-order behavior in $k$
of these solutions is given in Sec.~\ref{higher-order}. Section~\ref{transition}
describes the qualitative change in behavior as $k$ transitions from $k>1$ to
$k<1$. Section~\ref{gen-res} discusses generalisations of the resonance equations and explains
how the solutions are modified. Section~\ref{conclusions} gives some conclusions
and describes possible future work.
\section{Leading-Order Asymptotic Behavior for Large $x$}
\label{sec:LO}
Equations~\eqref{diffeq} and~\eqref{diffeq3} describe simple models of nonlinear
resonant behavior and similar versions of these equations have been studied
before. In fact, equations of the form $y'=f(\alpha x+\beta y)$ or $y'=f(y/x)$
have solutions in quadrature. However, equations of the form $y'=f(xy)$ cannot
be solved exactly. Instead, one relies on asymptotic techniques to understand
their behavior.
The prototypical equation to study with these tools is \cite{Bender}
\be
y'=\cos{xy}\,,
\label{simpler-ODE}
\ee
whose asymptotic expansion in the limit $x\to+\infty$ is
\be
y(x)\sim\frac{a}{x}\qquad(x\to+\infty),
\ee
where $a=(n+1/2)\pi$ and $n$ is an integer. For a slowly varying solution, as
$x\to+\infty$, $y'\ll 1$, which implies that $\cos{xy}\ll 1$ and thus $xy=a\sim
(n+1/2)\pi$. In fact, one can show that corrections to this asymptotic solution
scale with powers of $(1/x)^{m}$ for $m>1$~\cite{Bender}. Similar techniques can
be used to show that the solution to equation $y'=\tan{2xy}$ also behaves as
$y\sim(2n+1)\pi/x$ as $x\to+\infty$ \cite{Bender:2009jg,Bender:2009wx}.
\subsection{Frequency Resonances}
\label{lead-order-sec}
Let us first consider the case $k>1$ of \eqref{diffeq}. For slowly varying
solutions $y'\ll 1$, $1+k\cos{xy}\ll 1$ and then
\be
y\sim\frac{\arccos(-1/k)}{x}\,\qquad{\rm{as}}\quad x\to\infty,k>1.
\ee
When $k<1$, the above solution does not exist and more subtle asymptotic
techniques must be used.
Next, we consider the $k<1$ case. The form of \eqref{diffeq} suggests that $y
\sim y_{c}\equiv ax$ as $x\to+\infty$. Let us then try this ansatz, which when
inserted in \eqref{diffeq} gives
\be
a=1+\cos(ax^2)\,.
\ee
Clearly, the $y_c$ ansatz is not a proper solution. We can understand this by
averaging the cosine term over all $x$
\be
a=1+\left<\cos(a x^2)\right>\,,
\ee
where the angle brackets stand for averaging. The Fresnel cosine
function is defined via the integral
\be
C(x)\equiv\left(\frac{2 a}{\pi}\right)^{1/2}\int_0^x \cos(a x'^2)dx'\,.
\label{fresCdef}
\ee
and as $x\to+\infty$, $C(x)\sim1/2+\sin(\pi x^2/2)/(\pi x)$. At very large $x$ then,
\be
\int\cos(a x^2)dx\sim\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{2\pi}{a}\right)^{1/2}+\frac{\sin(a
x^2)}{2 a x}\,.
\ee
Note, however, that the second term still depends on $x$, so
our ansatz $y_{c}$ is still not a valid solution.
These considerations motivate the improved ansatz $y\sim y_1$ as $x\to+\infty$,
where
\be
y_1\equiv(1+c)x+b+\frac{a_1}{x} \sin[(1+c)x^2 + bx]\,
\label{freqLOansatz}
\ee
with constants $a_{1}$, $b$, $c$ to be determined. Inserting this ansatz into
\eqref{diffeq}, we obtain
\ba
\label{preliminary-step}
&&c+2(1+c)a_1\cos[(1+c)x^2+bx]+{\cal{O}}\left(x^{-1}\right)\\ \nonumber &\sim&
k\cos[(1+c)x^2+bx]\,\cos\{a_1 \sin[(1+c)x^2 + bx)]\}\nonumber\\ \nonumber
&-& k \sin[(1+c)x^2 + bx] \sin\{a_1 \sin[(1+c)x^2 + bx]\}\,,
\ea
where we have expanded the cosine function with standard trigonometric
identities. Comparing terms of the left and right sides of this equation, we see
that $a_1={\cal{O}}(k)$.
Let us now require that $k\ll1$. Since the sine and cosine functions are bounded
by unity and since $a_1={\cal{O}}(k)\ll1$, we know that $a_1\sin[(1+c)x^2+bx]
\ll1$ for all $x$, and we can therefore expand the cosine and sine
functions on the righthand side of \eqref{preliminary-step}. Performing the
expansion, we find that \eqref{preliminary-step} becomes
\begin{align}
\label{preliminary-step2}
c+2(1+c)a_1\cos[(1+c&)x^2 + bx]\sim k\cos[(1+c)x^2+bx]\nonumber \\
&- a_1 k \sin^{2}[(1+c)x^2 + bx]
\end{align}
to ${\cal{O}}(x^{-1},k^3)$ from which we infer that $a_1 \sim k/[2(1+c)]$. We
are then left with
\be
\label{preliminary-step3}
c\sim - \frac{a_1 k}{2} \left\{1 - \cos[2 (1+c)x^2 + bx] \right\}\,,
\ee
which implies that $c\sim-ka_{1}/2$, and thus, $c\sim-k^{2}/4$. Substituting
this back into $a_1$, we find that $a_1\sim k/2$. The second term of
\eqref{preliminary-step3} is not included in $c$ because it must be canceled by
terms of ${\cal{O}}(k^2)$ in $y$, which we have neglected here. Our solution to
(4) then becomes
\be
y_1=b+\left(1-\frac{k^2}{4}\right)x+\frac{k}{2x}\sin\left[\left(1-\frac{k^{2}}
{4} \right)x^2 + bx \right]\,, \label{first-order-y}
\ee
with remainders of ${\cal{O}}(x^{-1},k^{3})$, and where $b$ remains undetermined
and depends on the initial conditions. We have solved \eqref{diffeq} numerically
in the range $k\in(0,0.5)$ and $x\in(0,10^{3})$ and verified that indeed
\eqref{first-order-y} is a good approximation to the numerical solution, as we
show in Sec.~\ref{higher-order}.
The frequency evolution described by \eqref{first-order-y} is particularly
interesting. At late times, the behavior of the frequency is dominated by the
term linearly proportional to $x$, with all others becoming subdominant. The
slope of the frequency, however, is dependent on $k$. That is, as the
physical system goes through a resonance, it acquires a slope correction that
depends on the properties of the resonance (that is, on $k$), a {\emph{resonant
memory}} of sorts. If present in EMRIs, this resonant memory could have a large
impact on the gravitational wave phase as the system traverses a resonance.
\subsubsection{Matched Asymptotic Expansion}
\label{matched-asy}
The constant $b$ is fixed by the initial condition imposed at $x=0$, which
requires that a solution be valid in the $x\ll1$ limit. Recall that the solution
found in \eqref{first-order-y} is valid in the $x\gg1$ limit and that it
diverges as $x\to0$. Let us now look for a solution valid for $kx\ll1$, with $k
\ll1$, by using the ansatz
\be
\bar{y}(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty k^n\bar{y}_n(x)\,,\qquad{\rm{as}}\quad kx\ll1,k\ll 1\,,
\ee
where $\bar{y}_n(x)$ are undetermined functions independent of k. We could have
expanded $\bar{y}$ in $k(kx)^n$ instead of in $k^n$, but this would lead to more
complicated differential equations, although the solutions would be the same.
Here, we choose initial conditions $y_n(0)=0$ for all $n$, but the extension to
more general initial conditions is trivial.
The zeroth-order solution ($n=0$) satisfies
\be
\bar{y}'_0(x)=1\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad\bar{y}_0(x)=x\,.
\ee
The first-order solution ($n=1$) satisfies
\be
\bar{y}_1'(x)=\cos(x^2)\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad\bar{y}_1(x)=\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}
C\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \, x\right)\,.
\ee
To next order in $k$, we substitute the solutions found thus far into the
differential equation
\be
\cos x^2+k \bar{y}_2' =\cos\left(x^2+k x \bar{y}_1(x)+k^2 x \bar{y}_2(x)\right).
\ee
We can expand the cosine using the assumption $kx\ll1$ to find that
\be
\bar{y}_2'(x)=-x\sin(x^2)\bar{y}_1\,,
\ee
which then leads to the solution
\be
\bar{y}_2(x)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{{\pi}}{2}}\cos(x^2)C\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{\pi
}}\right)-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{8}C\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}x\right)-\frac{x}{4}.
\ee
Similarly, the equation satisfied by the third-order term in the expansion is
\be
\bar{y}_3'(x)=-\frac{x^2}{2}\cos(x^2)\bar{y}_1^2(x)-x\sin(x^2)\bar{y}_2(x)\,,
\ee
but this cannot be explicitly integrated. Putting together all the pieces found
so far, we get
\begin{align}
\bar{y} &= x+k\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}C\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}x\right)\nonumber\\
&+ k^{2}\left[\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\cos(x^{2}) C(\frac{x}{\sqrt{\pi}})
-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{8}C\left(\frac{2 x}{\sqrt{\pi}}\right)-\frac{x}{4} \right]\,.
\label{first-order-y-inner}
\end{align}
Let us now asymptotically match this solution to the one found in
\eqref{first-order-y}. For such a procedure to be valid, a buffer zone must
exist where both solutions are simultaneously valid. Since \eqref{first-order-y}
was found by assuming $x\gg1$, while \eqref{first-order-y-inner} assumes that
$kx\ll 1$, this implies that a buffer zone does exist with extension $1\ll x\ll
k^{-1}$. Asymptotic matching requires that we asymptotically expand
\eqref{first-order-y} in $k x \ll 1$ and \eqref{first-order-y-inner} in $x\gg1$,
and then set these two expansions equal order by order. To leading order, we
find that
\be
x+\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi}}{4} k \sim x + b\,,
\ee
with remainders of relative ${\cal{O}}(1/x,kx)$. This immediately leads to
\be
b \sim \frac{\sqrt{2 \pi}}{4} k.
\ee
\subsection{Phase Resonances}
\label{phase-res-lead-order}
Let us first consider the solution to the phase resonance equation, \eqref{diffeq2}, in the $k>1$ case. A constant
solution as $x\gg1$ exists provided $\phi''=\phi'=0$, which is satisfied if
\ba
\phi &\sim& \arccos(-1/k)\,, \nonumber \\
\phi'(0) &\sim& \arccos(1/k)- \sqrt{k^{2} - 1} - \pi\,.
\ea
The first condition is the same one that $xy$ had to satisfy in the frequency resonance
case, but the second condition now imposes a constraint on the initial
conditions. If one chooses the initial conditions $\phi(0)=\phi'(0)=0$, the
second constraint leads to
\be
\sqrt{k^2-1}=2n\pi-\arccos(-1/k)\qquad\mbox{for}\;\;n\in\mathbb{Z}^+
\label{algebraic-equation}
\ee
where $\arccos(x)$ is the principal value of the inverse cosine, taking values
in the range $[0,\pi]$. Expanding for $k\gg1$ we find the approximate solution
\be
k_{\rm th}=-\frac{\pi}{4}\left(1-n\pi\right)+\frac{1}{4}\left[\pi^{2}-8n\pi^2
+16 n^2 \pi^2-8\right]\,.
\label{kthreshold}
\ee
Evaluating this expression for the first few values of $n=1,2,\ldots$, we find
that $k_{\rm th}\sim4.60378,\,10.9499,\,\ldots$, which are to be compared with
the exact numerical solutions to \eqref{algebraic-equation}, which are $k_{\rm th}=
4.60334,\,10.9499,\,\ldots$. We see that the error in the above asymptotic
expansion goes roughly as $1/k^5$.
Let us now consider the solution to \eqref{diffeq2} in the $k<1$ case. As
before, we concentrate on perturbative solutions in $k\ll1$. The zeroth-order
solution is found by setting $k=0$ in \eqref{diffeq2}: $\phi\sim\phi_0\equiv x^2
/2$. The first-order solution in $k$ can be found by postulating that
\be
\phi\sim\phi_0(x)+\phi_1(x)\,.
\ee
Inserting this into \eqref{diffeq2} we have
\be
\phi_{1}''=k\cos\left( \frac{1}{2} x^{2} + \phi_{1} \right)\,.
\ee
We assume that $\phi_1$ is subdominant relative to $\phi_{0}$, and so we
approximate the argument of the cosine as $x^2/2$. We can then solve exactly for
$\phi_{1}$ to find that
\be
\phi_{1} = k \left[ x \sqrt{\pi} C\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{\pi}}\right) - \sin\left(\frac{x^{2}}{2} \right) \right]\,,
\ee
where $C(x)$ is the Fresnel cosine function defined in~(\ref{fresCdef}).
We can now compare this solution to the one obtained for frequency resonances.
Differentiating and taking the $x\gg 1$ limit, we find that
\be
\phi' \sim x+\frac{\sqrt{\pi} k}{2} + {\cal{O}}(x^{-1})\,.
\ee
Notice that as $x\to\infty$ this agrees with \eqref{first-order-y} in functional
form, but not in slope. That is, as the system goes through a phase resonance,
the slope is not corrected by $k$. We will find in Sec.~\ref{higher-order} that
this remains true as one calculates the solution to higher order in $k$.
Therefore, although frequency resonances seem to induce a memory, phase
resonances do not.
\section{Higher-Order Asymptotic Behavior for $x \gg 1$ and $k \ll 1$}
\label{higher-order}
In this section we consider higher-order solutions in the $x\gg 1$ limit for
both phase and frequency resonances, and then compare these to numerical
solutions.
\subsection{Frequency Resonances}
In order to obtain a higher-order solution, we must construct an ansatz that
eliminates the $x$-dependent part of the right side of
\eqref{preliminary-step3}. We thus pose the ansatz $y\sim y_{\rm asy}=y_1+y_2$,
where $y_{1}$ is given in \eqref{first-order-y}, while $y_{2}$ is
\be
y_2 \equiv \frac{a_{2}}{x} \sin\{2[(1+c)x^2+bx]\}\,.
\ee
Inserting this ansatz into \eqref{diffeq}, we find that
\ba
&& c + 2 (1+c) a_1 C_{1} + 4 (1 + c) a_{2}C_{2} + {\cal{O}}(x^{-1})\nonumber \\
&\sim& k \cos[(1 + c) x^{2} + bx] \cos(a_{1} S_{1} + a_{2} S_{2})\nonumber \\
&-& k \sin[(1 + c) x^{2} + bx] \sin(a_{1} S_{1} + a_{2} S_{2})\,,
\ea
where we use the notation
\begin{align}
S_{n} &\equiv \sin\{n[(1+c) x^2 +b x]\}\,, \nonumber \\
C_{n} &\equiv \cos\{n[(1+c)x^2 + b x]\}\,.
\end{align}
As before, we note that $S_{n}$ and $C_{n}$ are bounded by unity, and since $a_1
={\cal{O}}(k)$ we expect that $a_{2} = {\cal{O}}(k^{2})$ or smaller. This
suggests that we can expand the cosine on the right side of the above equation
as in Sec.~\ref{lead-order-sec} to obtain
\be
c+(1+c)\left(2a_1C_1+4a_2C_2\right)\sim-\frac{a_1k}{2}\left(1+C_2\right)+kC_1\,,
\ee
to ${\cal{O}}(x^{-1},k^3)$. We see then that our previous solution still holds:
$c=-ka_1^2/2$ and $2(1+c)a_1=k$, implying that $c\sim-k^2/4$. We also see that
$4(1+c)a_2=a_1k/2$, which implies that $a_2=k^2/[16(1+c)^2]$ or simply that
$a_2\sim k^2/16$ when expanding in $k\ll1$. The second-order
solution therefore becomes
\be
y_2\equiv\frac{k^2}{16x}\sin\left[2\left(1-\frac{k^2}{4}\right)x^2+2bx\right]\,.
\ee
We can obtain the next-order solution by constructing the ansatz $y\sim y_{\rm
asy}=y_1+y_2+y_3$, where $y_3\equiv\frac{a_3}{x}S_{3}$ and where we assume that
$a_3={\cal{O}}(k^3)$. Inserting this into \eqref{diffeq}, we get
\ba
&&c+2(1+c)a_1C_1+4a_2(1+c)C_2+6a_3(1+c)C_3\nonumber \\
&\sim& k C_1\cos(a_1 S_1 +a_2 S_2 +a_3 S_3) \nonumber \\
&-& k S_{1} \sin(a_{1} S_{1} + a_{2} S_{2} + a_{3} S_{3})\,.
\ea
Expanding the above equations in $a_{1} \ll 1$ and $a_{3} \ll 1$, we find that
\ba
&&c+2(1+c)a_1C_1+4a_2(1+c)C_2+6a_3(1+c)C_3\nonumber \\
&\sim& -\frac{ka_1}{2}+\left(k-\frac{ka_2}{2}-\frac{ka_1^2}{8}\right)C_1
+\frac{k a_{1}}{2} C_{2}\nonumber \\
&+& \left(\frac{k a_{1}^{2}}{8} + \frac{k a_{2}}{2} \right) C_{3}\,.
\ea
Matching cosine coefficients, this leads to the following system of equations:
\ba
c &\sim& - \frac{k a_{1}}{2}\,, \nonumber \\
2a_1(1+c)&\sim& k\left(1-\frac{a_2}{2}-\frac{a_1^2}{8}\right)\,,\nonumber \\
4 a_{2} (1 + c ) &\sim& k \frac{a_{1}}{2}\,, \nonumber \\
6 a_3 (1+c) &\sim& k \left(\frac{a_{1}^{2}}{8} + \frac{a_{2}}{2} \right)\,,
\ea
which we can solve as an expansion in $k$ to find that
\ba
a_{1} &\sim& \frac{k}{2}\,, \qquad a_{2} \sim \frac{k^{2}}{16}\,, \nonumber \\
a_{3} &\sim& \frac{k^{3}}{96}\,, \qquad c\sim-\frac{k^2}{4}-\frac{3}{64} k^4\,.
\ea
Therefore, our solution to third order becomes
\ba
y_{\rm asy} &=& b + \left(1- \frac{k^{2}}{4} -\frac{3}{64}k^4 \right)x \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{k}{2} \frac{1}{x} \sin\left[\left(1- \frac{k^{2}}{4}-\frac{3}{64}
k^{4}\right)x^2 + bx \right]\nonumber \\
&+& \frac{k^{2}}{16}\frac{1}{x} \sin\left[2\left(1-\frac{k^{2}}{4}-\frac{3}{64}
k^{4}\right)x^2+ 2bx \right] \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{k^{3}}{96}\frac{1}{x}\sin\left[3 \left(1 -\frac{k^{2}}{4}-\frac{3}{64}
k^{4}\right) x^{2} + 3 b x \right]\,.
\label{full-asy-sol}
\ea
Notice that this higher-order solution retains the resonant memory computed in
the previous section (that is, the $k^2$ correction to the linear-in-$x$ term,
which is dominant at late times).
This procedure can be generalized to arbitrary high order in $k\ll1$. To leading
order in $1/x$, we make the ansatz $y\sim y_{(1)}$, where
\be
y_{(1)}\equiv(1+c)x+b+\frac{k}{x} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n^{(1)} S_n + b_n^{(1)}
C_n + O\left(\frac{1}{x^2}\right)\,,
\label{hi-order-ansatz}
\ee
where $(a_n^{(1)},b_n^{(1)},b,c)$ are constant coefficients that depend on $k$.
We can expand $(a_n^{(1)},b_n^{(1)})$ as an expansion in $k$, that is,
$a_n^{(1)}=\sum_m a_{nm}^{(1)} k^m$, and solve for these coefficients by
equating the coefficients of the $S_n$'s and $C_n$'s at different orders in $k$.
Because the derivative of \eqref{hi-order-ansatz} is
\be
y'_{(1)} = 1 + c + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{2 n (1 + c) k}{x}\left(a_n^{(1)}
C_n - b_n^{(1)} S_n\right) + O\left(\frac{1}{x^2}\right)\,.
\ee
we can evaluate \eqref{diffeq} to obtain
\ba
y'_{(1)} &=& 1 + k \; C_{1}\cos\left[k \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n^{(1)} S_n +
b_n^{(1)} C_n\right] \nonumber \\
&-& k \; S_{1}\sin\left[k\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n^{(1)}S_n+b_n^{(1)}C_n\right]\,.
\ea
The generic sine and cosine Taylor expansion formula allows us to rewrite the
above equation as
\ba
y'_{(1)} &=& 1+k\;C_1\sum_{\ell=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{\ell}k^{2\ell}}{(2 \ell)!}
\left[\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n^{(1)}S_n+b_n^{(1)} C_n\right]^{2\ell}\nonumber \\
&-& k \; S_{1}\sum_{\ell=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{\ell+1}k^{2\ell+1}}{(2\ell+1)!}
\left[\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n^{(1)} S_n + b_n^{(1)} C_n\right]^{2\ell + 1}\,.
\ea
At this point, no further progress can be achieved because one needs to evaluate
the $(2\ell+1)$st and the $(2\ell)$th power of an infinite series, which is not
easy to do in closed form. This is why it is more convenient to expand the first
few terms in the series, as done earlier in this section.
We can generalize the previous procedure to higher order in $x$.
Postulate the ansatz $y \sim y_{(1)} + y_{(2)}$, where
\be
y_{(2)} \sim \frac{k}{x^2} \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n^{(2)} S_n + b_n^{(2)} C_n .
\ee
The derivative of $y$ is then simply
\ba
y' &=& 1+c+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{2n(1+c)k}{x}\left(a_n^{(1)}C_n-b_n^{(1)}
S_n\right) \\ \nonumber
&-& k \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left[\frac{2 n (1 + c) b_{n}^{(1)} + a_{n}^{(1)}}{x^{2}}\right]S_{n}
\\ \nonumber \nonumber
&+& k \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left[\frac{2 n (1 + c) a_{n}^{(1)} - b_{n}^{(1)}}{x^{2}}\right]C_{n}
+ O\left(\frac{1}{x^3}\right)\,,
\ea
while the right side of \eqref{diffeq} implies that
\ba
y' &=&1+k \; C_1\cos\left[k\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(a_n^{(1)}S_n+b_n^{(1)}
C_n\right)\right]\nonumber \\
&-& k \; S_{1}\sin\left[k \sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(a_n^{(1)}S_n+b_n^{(1)}C_n
\right)\right] \\ \nonumber
&-& \frac{k^{2}}{x} C_{1}\sin\left[k \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(a_n^{(1)} S_n
+ b_n^{(1)} C_n\right)\right] \\ \nonumber
&\times& \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(a_n^{(2)} S_n + b_n^{(2)} C_n\right)
\nonumber \\ \nonumber &+& \frac{k^{2}}{x} S_{1}
\cos\left[k\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(a_n^{(1)} S_n + b_n^{(1)} C_n \right)\right]
\\ \nonumber
&\times& \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(a_n^{(2)} S_n + b_n^{(2)} C_n\right)\,.
\ea
One could now expand these equations in $k \ll 1$ and equate coefficients to get
equations for the $a_n^{(2)}$'s and $b_n^{(2)}$'s. Following this scheme, one
can find the subdominant terms in the asymptotic expansion of the solution as
series in $1/x$.
\subsection{Phase Resonances}
Let us now concentrate on higher-order solutions to the phase-resonance equation
in the $k<1$ case. We thus postulate the ansatz $\phi\sim\phi_{\rm asy}$, where
\be
\phi_{\rm asy} = \phi_{0}(x) + \phi_{1}(x) + \phi_{2}(x)\,,
\label{AsySolPhase}
\ee
where we recall that $\phi_0=x^2/2$, and we rewrite $\phi_1$ as
\be
\phi_1=k\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}x+k\left\{\sqrt{\pi}x\left[C\left(\frac{x}{
\sqrt{\pi}}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\right]-\sin\left(\frac{x^2}{2}\right)\right\}\,.
\label{psi1sol}
\ee
We have factored out the unbounded-in-$x$ part of $\phi_1$ and the second term
is now bounded for all $x$ and tends to $0$ as $x\to\infty$. This ensures that the term in curly brackets is small for
sufficiently small $k$ as $x\to\infty$. We can then see that $\phi_2$ must
satisfy the differential equation
\be
\phi_2''\sim k\cos\left(\phi_0+\phi_{1} \right)\,.
\ee
where we seek solutions accurate to $O(k^2)$ and, as in
Sec.~\ref{phase-res-lead-order}, we neglect the $\phi_2$ term in the source.
Inserting $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ and using the fact that the bracketed term in
(\ref{psi1sol}) is everywhere small to expand the cosine, we find that
\begin{align}
\phi_2'' &= k\cos\left(\frac{x^2}{2} + k\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}x\right)\nonumber \\
&- k^2 \sin\left(\frac{x^2}{2} + k\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}x\right)\nonumber \\
&\times \left\{\sqrt{\pi} x \left[ C\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{\pi}}\right) -\frac{1}
{2}\right] - \sin\left(\frac{x^2}{2}\right)\right\}.
\end{align}
Integrating this equation twice, imposing the condition that $\phi_2(0)=\phi_2'
(0)=0$, and ignoring terms explicitly proportional to $k^3$ or higher, we obtain
\begin{align}
\phi_{\rm asy} &= \frac{x^{2}}{2}
+ k\sqrt{\pi} x \left[\frac{1}{2} - C\left(\frac{k}{2}\right) + k\frac{(\sqrt{2}-1)}{2\sqrt{2}}\right]
+\frac{\pi}{8}k^2 \nonumber \\
&+ k\left\{\sqrt{\pi}\left(x+\frac{\sqrt{\pi} k}{2}\right) \left[C\left(\frac{x}
{\sqrt{\pi}}+\frac{k}{2}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\right] \right.\nonumber \\
&-\left.\sin\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(x+k\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}\right)^2\right]
\right\}\nonumber \\
&+k^2\left\{-x \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \left[C\left(\frac{\sqrt{2} x}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\right) - \frac{1}{2}\right] + \frac{1}{2}\sin(x^2) \right.\nonumber \\
& \left. +\frac{\pi}{2} \left[C\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{\pi}}\right)\right]^2 -
\frac{\pi}{2} C\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{\pi}}\right) +\frac{\pi}{8} \right\}\,.
\label{psi2}
\end{align}
The slope of this solution for large $x$ gives the $k$-correction to the
gradient
\be
\phi_{\rm asy}' \sim x + \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2} k \left[1-\frac{k}{\sqrt{2}} +
{\cal{O}}(k^{2}) \right].
\ee
Notice that although the constant is $k$-corrected, the linear-in-$x$ term is
not, showing again that phase resonances do not acquire a resonant memory
imprint.
We proceed to higher order, and by analogy we write down the solution for
$\phi_2(x)$ as the sum of the part on the first line of (\ref{psi2}) that grows
linearly with $x$ and a part that is bounded for all $x$ and has a convergent
integral on the range $[0,\infty]$. Schematically, this takes the form
\be
\phi_{1} + \phi_2=-\frac{\pi}{8}k^2+\left(\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}k -
\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2\sqrt{2}} k^2\right) x + k \Phi_1(x) + k^2\Phi_2(x),
\ee
where $k\Phi_1(x)$ is the term on the second and third lines of \eqref{psi2},
while $k^2\Phi_2(x)$ is the term on the fourth and fifth lines. Notice that $k
\Phi_1(x)$ does contain terms of $O(k^2)$. We now seek the next order solution,
$\phi_3$, that solves the equation
\be
\phi_3''=k\cos\left(\frac{1}{2}x^2 + \phi_1 + \phi_2\right)\,,
\ee
where again we have neglected $\phi_{3}$ in the source term. Inserting the
solution known so far and expanding the cosine, keeping terms up to $O(k^3)$, we
find that
\begin{align}
\phi_3''&=k\cos\left[\frac{1}{2} x^2 + \left(\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}k -
\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2\sqrt{2}} k^2\right) x+\frac{\pi}{8}k^2\right] \nonumber\\
&-\frac{k^3}{2}\cos\left(\frac{1}{2}x^2\right) \Phi_1^2 \nonumber \\
&-k^2\sin\left(\frac{1}{2}x^2+\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2} k x\right) \Phi_1\nonumber\\
&-k^3 \sin\left(\frac{1}{2} x^2\right) \Phi_2\,.
\label{d2psi3}
\end{align}
Note that in each term we have eliminated terms in the arguments of the cosine
and sine that are lower order than $k^{3-n}$, where $n$ is the order of the $k$
prefactor to the term. By integrating these terms over the range $[0,\infty]$,
we can derive the $O(k^3)$ correction to the asymptotic gradient. We find the
contributions to the $O(k^3)$ term in the gradient from each line of
(\ref{d2psi3}) are $\sqrt{\pi}/2\sqrt{2}$, $-0.06202$, $0$, and $\sqrt{\pi}(1-2
\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3})/8-0.07844$ respectively. The final form for the asymptotic
gradient is then
\be
\phi_{\rm asy}'\sim\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}k-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2\sqrt{2}}k^2+
0.46484 k^3 \cdots .
\ee
\subsection{Comparison to Numerical Results}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[height=8.5cm,clip=true,angle=-90]{FreqDiff}
\includegraphics[height=8.5cm,clip=true,angle=-90]{PhaseDiff}
\caption{\label{fig:Diffs} Left: Difference between the numerical solution,
$y$, to the frequency resonance equation and the asymptotic expansion in \eqref{full-asy-sol} to all computed orders
in $k$ (solid line) and to linear order in $k$ (dotted lines) as a function of
$x$. Right: Same difference as left-panel but for the solution, $\phi$, to the phase resonance equation. Observe that in both cases the full solution does much better than the ${\cal{O}}(k)$
truncation.}
\end{figure*}
The left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:Diffs} shows the difference between the
numerical solution for $y$ and the asymptotic expansion in \eqref{full-asy-sol}
to all computed orders in $k$ (solid line) and to linear order in $k$ (dotted
lines). In all plots we have chosen $b$ to be that found in
Sec.~\ref{matched-asy}. As expected, the solid lines are much closer to zero
than the dotted ones. Moreover, notice that the asymptotic solutions found in
the limit $x\gg1$ are already quite good (better than $1\%$ relative to the
numerical solution) below $x<10$.
The right-panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:Diffs} shows the same type of difference as
the left-panel, but for the phase solution. As before, observe that the full
solution agrees with the numerical solution much better than its truncated
version. Unlike the $y_{\rm asy}$ solution, the $\phi_{\rm asy}$ is globally
valid, as we did not restrict attention to the $x \gg 1$ limit, and this can be clearly seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:Diffs}. It is also apparent that, as expected, in both cases the smaller $k$ is, the better the asymptotic solution.
Although the previous figures establish that the asymptotic solutions are indeed
accurate representations of the numerical ones, they do not compare the $y$ and
$\phi$ solutions to each other. Figure~\ref{fig:NumDiff} shows the difference
between $y$ and $d\phi/dx$ computed numerically in both cases. As predicted by
the asymptotic solutions, the difference is approximately $k^{2} x/2$ (the
dotted lines) in the $x \gg 1$ limit.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=8.5cm,clip=true,angle=-90]{NumDiff}
\caption{\label{fig:NumDiff} Difference between the numerical solution for $y$
and the $x$-derivative of the numerical solution for $\phi$. For comparison, we
also plot the asymptotic slopes $k^{2} x/2$.}
\end{figure}
\section{Asymptotic transition at $k=1$}
\label{transition}
As described in the previous sections, both the $y$ and $\phi$ solutions
experience a transition as $k \to 1$. In this section we discuss this
transition in more detail using hyper-asymptotic tools.
\subsection{Frequency Resonances}
Let us try to understand the fundamental change in the asymptotic behavior of
the $y$ solution as $k$ transitions from $k>1$ to $k<1$ from above. To do so, we
must find the most important term as $k$ approaches $1$ to {\it all} orders in
powers of $1/x$. Then, we must sum the series and identify the singularity at
$k=1$.
Assuming that $k>1$, we know that the behavior of $y(x)$ in (\ref{diffeq}) as
$x\to\infty$ is described by a series in inverse odd powers of $x$:
\begin{equation}
y\sim\frac{a}{x}+\frac{b}{x^3}+\frac{c}{x^5}+\frac{d}{x^7}+\cdots
\qquad x\to\infty,
\label{e2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\cos(a)=-\frac{1}{k}.
\label{e3}
\end{equation}
As discussed earlier, as $k\to1^+$, $a\to(2n+1)\pi$, and thus $\sin a$
approaches $0$. To higher order in $1/x$, one easily finds that
\ba
b&=&\frac{a}{k\sin(a)}\,, \label{e4}
\\ c&=&\frac{6a\sin(a)k+a^2}{2k^3[\sin(a)]^3}\,. \label{e11}
\ea
Thus, when $\sin(a)$ is small, the most singular part of $c$ is
\begin{equation}
c\sim\frac{a^2}{2k^3[\sin(a)]^3}.
\label{e12}
\end{equation}
Similarly, the most singular part of $d,\,e,\,f,\,\ldots$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
d &\sim& \frac{a^3}{2k^5[\sin(a)]^5},\qquad
e \sim \frac{5a^4}{8k^7[\sin(a)]^7},\nonumber\\
f &\sim& \frac{7a^5}{8k^9[\sin(a)]^9},\qquad
g \sim \frac{21a^6}{16k^{11}[\sin(a)]^{11}},\nonumber\\
h &\sim& \frac{33a^7}{16k^{13}[\sin(a)]^{13}}\,.
\label{e13}
\end{eqnarray}
The numerical coefficients, $1$, $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{5}{8}$, $\ldots$, are given by a very simple formula:
\begin{equation}
F(n)=\frac{(2n)!}{n!(n+1)!2^n}\qquad(n=0,\,1,\,2,\,3,\,...).
\label{e14}
\end{equation}
Therefore, if we sum the most singular terms as $k\to1^{+}$ to all orders in
powers of $1/x$, we find that
\begin{equation}
y(x)\sim\frac{a}{x}+\frac{a}{kx^3\sin(a)}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty F(n)\left[\frac{a}{x^2k^2[\sin(a)]^2}\right]^n.
\label{e15}
\end{equation}
{}From the Taylor expansion
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{z}-\frac{\sqrt{1-2z}}{z}=1+\frac{1}{2}z+\frac{1}{2}z^2+\frac{5}{8}z^3
+\ldots=\sum_{n=0}^\infty F(n)z^n
\label{e16}
\end{equation}
one finds that
\begin{equation}
y(x)\sim\frac{1}{x}\left[a+k\sin(a)-k\sin(a)\sqrt{1-\frac{2a}{x^2(k^2-1)}}
\,\,\right],
\label{e17}
\end{equation}
where we have used the identity $k^2[\sin(a)]^2=k^2-1$. This shows that there
is a square-root-branch-cut singularity where the asymptotic behavior goes
complex as $k\to1^{+}$.
In addition to this branch-cut singularity, one can also show that the
higher-order terms in $1/x$ bunch up into families as $x\to\infty$, with each
pair of families separated by an unstable separatrix curve. As shown earlier, as
$k\to1^+$, the leading-order slope of the solution $a\to(2n+1)\pi$ and $\sin a$
approaches $0$. There are, however, many solutions for $a$ in (\ref{e3}) as $k
\to 1^{+}$: the first lies just below $\pi$ (but above $\pi/2$); the second lies
just above $\pi$; the third and fourth lie just below and just above $3\pi$,
and so on.
Consider {\emph {two different solutions}}, $y_1(x)$ and $y_2(x)$ corresponding
to {\emph {one}} of the infinite number of possible values of $a$ and define
\begin{equation}
Y(x)\equiv y_1(x)-y_2(x).
\label{e5}
\end{equation}
Observe that $Y(x)$ satisfies the differential equation
\begin{equation}
Y'(x)=k\cos\left[xy_1(x)\right]-k\cos\left[xy_2(x)\right].
\label{e6}
\end{equation}
Using the identity
\begin{equation}
\cos\alpha-\cos\beta=-2\sin\left(\frac{\alpha+\beta}{2}\right)
\sin\left(\frac{\alpha-\beta}{2}\right),
\label{e7}
\end{equation}
we can rewrite (\ref{e6}) as
\begin{equation}
Y'(x)\sim-2k(\sin a)\sin\left[\frac{xY(x)}{2}\right],
\label{e8}
\end{equation}
for large $x$.
Let us now make the assumption that $y_1(x)$ and $y_2(x)$ approach one another
as $x$ gets large, so that $Y(x)$ is small when $x>>1$. Then, this differential
equation becomes
\begin{equation}
Y'(x)\sim x(\tan a)\,Y(x),
\label{e9}
\end{equation}
whose solution is
\begin{equation}
Y(x)\sim C \; e^{\frac{1}{2} x^{2} \tan a }.
\label{e10}
\end{equation}
Note that this solution is {\it growing} exponentially if $\tan a$ is positive,
and thus the assumption that $Y(x)$ is small as $x\to\infty$ is not valid.
This is the unstable (separatrix) case. However, if $\tan a$ is negative, then
we have the stable case, and we have shown that the family of solutions
corresponding to this case all bunch together {\emph{exponentially fast}}.
Note that there is an alternation between stable and unstable behavior:
Stable behavior occurs only for the values of $a$ that are just {\emph{below}}
$(2n+1)\pi$ for $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, that is, $\pi$, $3\pi$, $5\pi$, and so on,
while unstable behavior occurs for the values of $a$ just above $(2n+1)\pi$.
\subsection{Phase Resonances}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=6cm,clip=true,angle=-90]{EffPotFigure}
\includegraphics[width=6cm,clip=true,angle=-90]{EffPotFigurek1_1}
\caption{\label{phieffpot}Effective potential for the phase resonance
equation, as defined by Eq.~(\ref{effpotdef}). The left panel shows the
potential for four different values of $k$, while the right panel shows a
close up of the region $2 \leq \phi \leq 4$ when $k=1.1$. Each horizontal line
corresponds to a particular choice of the constant $E$. Motion can only exist
where $E > V(\phi;k)$, as indicated by the solid parts of the lines shown.}
\end{figure*}
The phase solutions also show a fundamental qualitative change of behavior as
$k$ transitions from $k>1$ to $k<1$. Because the phase differential equation,
\eqref{diffeq2}, admits a first integral of the motion, the analysis is simpler
than in the frequency case and it does not require a hyper-asymptotic analysis.
This is best understood if we consider the first-order form of \eqref{diffeq2},
which we rewrite here as
\be
\frac{1}{2}(\phi')^2 = E - V(\phi ; k)\,,
\label{effpotdef}
\ee
where $V(\phi ; k) = -\phi - k \sin\phi$ and $E = \phi'(0)$. The potential is
shown for representative values of $k$ in the left panel of
Figure~\ref{phieffpot}. Motion can only exist in regions where $E>V(\phi)$. The
initial conditions $\phi(0)=\phi'(0)=0$ correspond to $E=0$. For $k<1$, the
effective potential has no turning points and for any initial conditions the
motion will be unbounded with $\phi\rightarrow+\infty$. When $k>1$, the
potential does have turning points. The right panel of Figure~\ref{phieffpot}
shows a close-up of the potential for $k=1.1$ in the vicinity of the turning
points. For $E > -3.11303$, the motion is unbounded as in the $k < 1$ case.
However, for $-3.11303>E>-3.17015$, the motion intersects the potential twice,
and it can be oscillatory for suitable initial values of $\phi$, or unbounded if
$\phi(0)$ is sufficiently large. For $E < -3.17015$, the motion is again only
unbounded for sufficiently large $\phi(0)$.
These specifications for $E$ and $\phi(0)$ place restrictions on the initial
conditions, which are inconsistent with the conditions we want to impose. For
the conditions $\phi(0)=\phi'(0)=0$, the motion is unbounded for $k\lesssim
4.60334$, the critical value computed in \eqref{kthreshold}. When $k\approx
4.60334$, the potential intersects the $E=0$ axis a second time. The motion will
asymptotically approach the limiting value $\phi_\infty\approx 4.49341$. For $k
\gtrsim 4.60334$, the motion is oscillatory. At the next limiting solution for
$k$, $k\approx10.9499$, the effective potential has another intersection with
the $E=0$ axis. However, this region is inaccessible to motion with these
initial conditions and the motion is still oscillatory. Starting the motion with
$\phi'(0)=0$ and $5.73224\lesssim\phi(0)\lesssim 10.9041$ would generate a
solution that asymptotically approaches the next limiting value $\phi_\infty
\approx10.9041$.
At the threshold value $k\approx4.60334$, two solutions $\phi_1(x)$, $\phi_2(x)$
with $0>E_1\neq E_2<0$ will oscillate with different frequencies, and we
therefore expect the difference $\phi_1(x)-\phi_2(x)$ to be oscillatory. If
$E_1<0<E_2$, one solution will be unbounded and therefore the difference will
grow like $x^2/2$. For $0<E_1\neq E_2>0$, both solutions are unbounded, and we
expect the difference to grow linearly with $x$.
\section{Generalized Resonances}
\label{gen-res}
Section~\ref{intro} derived certain equations [Eqs.~\eqref{diffeq} and
\eqref{diffeq2}] that are representative of phase and frequency resonances in
EMRIs, but in doing so we made two important simplifying assumptions: (b) we
ignored the sine term in the sum given in Eq.~(\ref{probdef}) and (c) we ignored
higher-$\ell$ terms in this same sum. In this section we relax these two
assumptions and discuss how the solutions are modified.
Let us first relax assumption (b). If the sine term is included, \eqref{diffeq}
and \eqref{diffeq2} can be written as
\be
\frac{{\rm d}y}{{\rm d}x} = 1 + k \cos(xy + \delta\phi), \qquad \frac{{\rm d}^2
\phi}{{\rm d}x^2} = 1 + k \cos(\phi + \delta \phi)\,,
\ee
where $\delta \phi$ is a constant. We can repeat the analysis of the frequency
evolution equation with the modification introduced above by making the ansatz
\be
y_1 \equiv (1+c)x + b + \frac{a_1}{x} \sin[(1+c)x^2 + bx + \delta \phi]
\ee
in place of (\ref{freqLOansatz}). The analysis proceeds exactly as before, but
with the arguments of the various cosine and sine terms modified via $(1+c)x^2+
bx\to (1+c)x^2+bx+\delta\phi$. The asymptotic slope, $(1+c)$, is unchanged as a
function of $k$. The solution for $b$ will be modified, however, because the
expansion for $kx\ll1$ described in Sec.~\ref{matched-asy} is modified. In
particular
\begin{align}
\bar{y}_0(x) &=x\,,
\nonumber \\
\bar{y}_1(x) &=\cos(\delta \phi) \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} C\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}
}x\right)-\sin(\delta\phi)\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}S\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}x
\right)\nonumber \\
\bar{y}_2(x) &= \frac{1}{2} \bar{y}_1 - \frac{x}{4} - \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{8}
\left[ \cos(\delta \phi) C\left( \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}x\right) \right.\nonumber\\
& \left. - \sin(\delta \phi) S\left( \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}x\right)\right]\,,
\end{align}
in which $S(\cdot)$ denotes the Fresnel sine function, defined by a similar equation to Eq.~(\ref{fresCdef}), but with the cosine replace by a sine. After asymptotic
matching, we then find that $b\to\sqrt{\pi}(k/2)\cos({\pi/4+\delta\phi})$.
In the phase-resonance case, the addition of the $\delta\phi$ to the equation of
motion is equivalent to solving the original problem with a modified initial
condition: $\phi(0)=\delta \phi$ and $\phi'(0)=0$. However, the solution to the
modified equation with the standard initial condition $\phi(0)=0$ can also be
found straightforwardly using the method described in this paper. In that case,
the zeroth-order-in-$k$ solution is unchanged, $\phi_0=x^2/2$, but the
first-order-in-$k$ correction, $\phi_1$, is modified to
\ba
\phi_1&=&k\sqrt{\pi} x \left[ \cos(\delta \phi) C\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\right)-\sin(\delta \phi) S\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{\pi}}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
&& -k\sin\left(\frac{x^2}{2}+\delta \phi\right) + k\sin(\delta \phi)
\ea
from which we see that the asymptotic correction to the gradient is modified to
$k\sqrt{\pi/2}\cos(\delta \phi+\pi/4)$. Continuing to the next order in $k$,
we obtain for the asymptotic gradient
\begin{align}
\frac{{\rm d}\phi}{{\rm d}x} &\sim 1 + k\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \cos\left(\delta
\phi+\frac{\pi}{4}\right) \nonumber \\
&-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{4}\, k^2\left[1+(2-\sqrt{2})\cos\left(2 \delta\phi
+\frac{\pi}{4}\right)\right]\,
\end{align}
for $x\gg1$. We note that the leading-order-in-$k$ correction to the asymptotic
gradient in the phase equation and the leading-order correction to $b$ in the
frequency equation can be made to vanish for $\delta\phi=\pi/4$. However, even
with this choice, the next-to-leading-order correction does not vanish, and so
although the effect of the resonance can be suppressed for certain
values of $\delta\phi$, it cannot be eliminated.
Let us now relax assumption (c); that is, let us include higher $\ell$ modes in
the resonant differential equations. Consider first an evolution equation
of the form
\be
\frac{{\rm d}y}{{\rm d}x} = 1 + k \cos(\ell \,xy)\,,
\ee
where $n$ is some integer. By writing $Y=\sqrt{\ell}y$, $X=\sqrt{\ell} x$, we can
rewrite this equation as
\be
\frac{{\rm d}Y}{{\rm d}X} = 1 + k \cos(XY),
\ee
reducing it to the same form that we considered before. We note in
particular that since the solution to this equation behaves as $Y \sim (1+c)
X$ for $x \gg 1$, this implies that $y \sim (1+c) x$ and hence the value of $c$ is unchanged as a function of $k$. The value of $b$ would be modified, however.
In the phase case, if we modify the equation to
\be
\frac{{\rm d}^2\phi}{{\rm d}x^2} = 1 + k \cos(\ell \, \phi)\,
\ee
with $n$ again an integer, the substitution $\Phi=\ell\phi$, $X=\sqrt{\ell} x$ gives
\be
\frac{{\rm d}^2\Phi}{{\rm d}X^2}= 1 + k \cos(\Phi).
\ee
Using the solution to this equation that we found earlier, we find that $\Phi
\approx X^2/2 + \alpha(k) X + \cdots$ and we deduce that
\be
\phi \approx \frac{1}{2} x^2 + \frac{\alpha(k)}{\sqrt{\ell}} X + \cdots\,.
\ee
Clearly then, higher-$\ell$ modes in the sum of \eqref{probdef} are suppressed
by a factor of $1/\sqrt{\ell}$.
Let us now consider the case where we have more than one term on the righthand side of the
evolution equation. In the frequency resonance case, we would have an equation like
\be
\frac{{\rm d}y}{{\rm d}x}=1+k_1\cos(xy)+k_\ell\cos(\ell\,xy).
\ee
To solve this equation, we can proceed as before, making an ansatz of the form
\begin{align}
y_1 &\equiv (1+c)x + b + \frac{a^{(1)}_1}{x} \sin[(1+c)x^2 + bx ] \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{a^{(\ell)}_1}{x} \sin[\ell ((1+c)x^2 + bx)].
\end{align}
Inserting this into the differential equation, we find the same source terms
involving $\sin^2(\cdot)$ that we found earlier, one from each mode. We also
find various cross source terms, but these do not contribute to the
zero-frequency part of the solution because they are products of oscillatory
functions with unequal frequencies. We deduce then that the solution for $c$ at
leading order is the sum of the solutions treating each of the modes
individually. At the next order, cross terms will come in that may be important,
but these will be subdominant and further exploration of these is beyond the
scope of this paper.
In the case of the phase equation we would have
\be
\frac{{\rm d}^2\phi}{{\rm d}x^2}=1+k_1\cos(\phi)+k_\ell\cos(\ell\phi).
\ee
The linear-in-$k$ term in the solution of this equation can readily be seen to
be the sum of the linear-in-$k$ solutions to the equation with only one of the
cosine terms on the righthand side. Cross terms again come in at higher order, but
by the preceding argument the size of the corrections from the $k_\ell$ term are
suppressed relative to the dominant mode by factors of $1/\sqrt{\ell}$.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{conclusions}
We have studied the behavior of the solution to two differential
equations that describe the gravitational-wave phase and frequency evolution
during an EMRI that experiences a resonant transition. We have found two general
differential equations that might describe this behavior: one based on the assumption that the coefficients of a Fourier expansion of the self-force in frequency are continuous at a resonance, and the other based on the assumption that it is the Fourier phase coefficients that are continuous at resonance. We have solved both differential equations at late times using asymptotic methods.
Depending on the strength of the resonance (controlled by the parameter $k$),
both resonant equations lead to solutions with qualitative different behavior:
Weak resonances ($k<1$) lead to linear temporal growth of the frequency and
quadratic growth of the orbital phase; strong resonances ($k>1$) lead to linear
temporal decay of the frequency function, leading to a constant-phase offset at
late times.
Even though the differential equations for phase and frequency resonances might
both describe the evolution of an EMRI through a resonance, we have found that the
evolution depends on which differential equation one assumes. That is,
at late times and in the weak resonance case, the evolution of the frequency in the phase and frequency resonant cases possess different asymptotic slopes. The difference in slope depends on the value of $k$,
with the frequency evolution acquiring a $k$-dependent memory in the frequency resonant case that is absent for phase resonances. Further work is required to explore which of the two equations is in fact most applicable to the
EMRI resonance problem.
We also studied the transition between weak and strong resonances. We found that
at the transition point $k=1$, there is a square-root branch cut in the solution to the
frequency resonance equation. Close to this point, we proved that frequency solutions
bunch up into families that decay as $1/x$ exponentially fast. In fact, there is
an alternation between stable (bunching up of solutions) and unstable behavior,
depending on the branch of solutions considered.
Future work should concentrate on exploring which of these equations is applicable to EMRI evolutions in practice and what the implications are for the construction of waveform template models of EMRI signals. The existence of a memory effect in the frequency resonances is particularly interesting and would have a profound impact on our ability to detect EMRI signals.
An approximate post-Newtonian prescription for the self-force on resonance has been suggested~\cite{Flanagan:2010cd} and would provide a suitable framework in which to explore these questions further. Whichever of the two equations applies to the problem that motivated this work, the results described in this paper provide important insights into the behaviour of the solutions to these differential equations and predictions for the change in the frequency and phase of the evolution as the orbit passes through a resonance. These results will be invaluable for constructing approximate models to describe the evolution of EMRI orbits.
\acknowledgments
CMB is supported by grants from the Leverhulme Foundation and the
U.S.~Department of Energy. JG's work is supported by the Royal Society. NY
acknowledges support from NASA grant NNX11AI49G, under sub-award 00001944 and
NASA through the Einstein Postdoctoral Fellowship Award Number PF0-110080 issued
by the Chandra X-ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of NASA under contract NAS8-03060.
JG thanks the MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and NY thanks the Yukawa
Institute for Theoretical Physics for their hospitality while this paper was
being finished. We also thank Scott Hughes for useful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is well-accepted in the scientific community that \emph{geometry} plays
an important role in characterizing and understanding both classical and
quantum physics. As a matter of fact, it has been an old dream to reduce the
fundamental laws of physics to geometry since Einstein's formulation of
general relativity. In particular, it is a remarkable achievement that all
the building blocks of quantum field theory can be formulated in terms of
geometric concepts such as vector bundles, connections, curvatures,
covariant derivatives and spinors \cite{frankel}. More recently, Marmo and
coworkers have pointed out the potential usefulness of a geometrical
formulation of quantum theory to investigate the entanglement and
separability for quantum states describing composite systems \cite{marmo}.
In 1985, Campbell showed that geometry can be introduced into probability
calculus as follows \cite{campbell}: for a fixed probability distribution,
define the inner product of two random variables to be the expectation of
the product of these variables. Differential geometry emerges when we
consider varying the probability distribution, either directly or through
changing parameters on which the distribution depends. Within such a
geometric framework, the sets of probability distributions are viewed as
differentiable manifolds, the random variables appear as vectors and the
expectation values of random variables are replaced with inner products in
tangent spaces to such manifolds of probabilities. In 1995, Braunstein and
Caves extended Campbell's ideas to the quantum framework \cite{sam}.
Here, inspired by Marmo and following the lead of Braunstein and Caves, we
explore the possibility of the conceptual usefulness of differential
geometric tools in quantifying the effect of depolarizing channels on
quantum states by comparing the geometries of the interior of the undeformed
and deformed Bloch spheres related to density operators on a two-dimensional
Hilbert space.
\section{Differential geometry of density operators}
For a more detailed presentation of this preliminary material, we refer to
\cite{sam, fuchs}. Consider the quantum analogue $\mathcal{M}_{\vec{\rho}}$
of the probability simplex, the space of density operators $\vec{\rho}$
written as vectors in $\mathcal{L}\left( \mathcal{H}\right) $, the linear
space of all linear operators on a $n$-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}
$
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_{\vec{\rho}}\overset{\text{def}}{=}\left\{ \vec{\rho}\in
\mathcal{L}\left( \mathcal{H}\right) :\vec{\rho}\overset{\text{def}}{=
\sum_{i\text{, }j=1}^{n}\rho ^{ij}\vec{e}_{ij}\text{, }\vec{\rho}=\vec{\rho
^{\dagger }\text{, tr}\left( \vec{\rho}\right) =1\text{, }\vec{\rho}\text{
\geq 0\right\} \text{.}
\end{equation
The space $\mathcal{M}_{\vec{\rho}}$ is an $\left( n^{2}-1\right)
-dimensional \emph{real} manifold with complicated boundary. An arbitrary
linear operator vector $\vec{V}$ on $\mathcal{H}$ can be decomposed in terms
of an operator vector basis $\vec{e}_{ij}\overset{\text{def}}{=}\left\vert
i\right\rangle \left\langle j\right\vert $ with $i$, $j=1$,..., $n$ as
follows
\begin{equation}
\vec{V}=\sum_{i\text{, }j=1}^{n}\left\langle i|\vec{V}|j\right\rangle \vec{e
_{ij}\text{ }=\sum_{i\text{, }j=1}^{n}V^{ij}\vec{e}_{ij}\text{ .}
\end{equation
The tangent space at $\vec{\rho}$ is an $\left( n^{2}-1\right) $-dimensional
\emph{real} vector space of traceless Hermitian operators $\vec{T}$
\begin{equation}
\vec{T}=\sum_{i\text{, }j=1}^{n}T^{ij}\vec{e}_{ij}\text{, tr}\left( \vec{T
\right) =0\text{.}
\end{equation
The action of $1$-forms $\tilde{F}$ expanded in terms of the dual basis
\tilde{\omega}^{ji}\overset{\text{def}}{=}\left\vert i\right\rangle
\left\langle j\right\vert $
\begin{equation}
\tilde{F}\overset{\text{def}}{=}\sum_{i\text{, }j=1}^{n}F_{ij}\tilde{\omega
^{ji}\text{,}
\end{equation
on density operators $\vec{\rho}$ is defined as follows
\begin{equation}
\tilde{F}\left( \vec{\rho}\right) \equiv \left\langle \tilde{F}\text{, }\vec
\rho}\right\rangle =\sum_{i\text{, }j\text{, }l\text{, }k=1}^{n}F_{ij}\rho
^{lk}\left\langle \tilde{\omega}^{ji}\text{, }\vec{e}_{lk}\right\rangle
=\sum_{i\text{, }j\text{, }l\text{, }k=1}^{n}F_{ij}\rho ^{lk}\delta
_{l}^{j}\delta _{k}^{i}=\sum_{i\text{, }j=1}^{n}F_{ij}\rho ^{ji}=\text{tr
\left( \tilde{F}\vec{\rho}\right) \equiv \left\langle \tilde{F}\right\rangle
\text{.}
\end{equation
Therefore, an Hermitian $1$-form $\tilde{F}=\tilde{F}^{\dagger }$ is an
ordinary quantum observable with $\left\langle \tilde{F}\text{, }\vec{\rho
\right\rangle =\left\langle \tilde{F}\right\rangle $. A metric structure
\mathbf{g}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( \cdot \text{, }\cdot \right) $ on the manifold
$\mathcal{M}_{\vec{\rho}}$ can be introduced by defining the metric's action
on a pair of $1$-forms $\tilde{A}$ and $\tilde{B}$ as follows
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{g}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( \tilde{A}\text{, }\tilde{B}\right) \overset
\text{def}}{=}\left\langle \frac{\tilde{A}\tilde{B}+\tilde{B}\tilde{A}}{2
\right\rangle =\text{tr}\left[ \left( \frac{\tilde{A}\tilde{B}+\tilde{B
\tilde{A}}{2}\right) \vec{\rho}\right] =\text{tr}\left[ \frac{\tilde{A}}{2
\left( \vec{\rho}\tilde{B}+\tilde{B}\vec{\rho}\right) \right] =\left\langle
\tilde{A}\text{, }\mathcal{R}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( \tilde{B}\right)
\right\rangle \text{,}
\end{equation
where $\mathcal{R}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( \tilde{B}\right) $ is the raising
operator mapping $1$-forms (lower covariant components) to vectors (upper
contravariant components),
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( \tilde{B}\right) \overset{\text{def}}{=}\frac
\vec{\rho}\tilde{B}+\tilde{B}\vec{\rho}}{2}\text{.}
\end{equation
Such a metric is formulated in terms of statistical correlations of quantum
observables. Using the lowering operator $\mathcal{L}_{\vec{\rho}}\left(
\vec{A}\right) $ that maps vectors to $1$-forms
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( \vec{A}\right) =\mathcal{R}_{\vec{\rho
}^{-1}\left( \vec{A}\right) \text{,}
\end{equation
we can also define the action of the metric tensor $g_{\vec{\rho}}\left(
\cdot \text{, }\cdot \right) $ on a pair of vectors $\vec{A}$ and $\vec{B}$
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{g}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( \vec{A}\text{, }\vec{B}\right) \overset{\text
def}}{=}\left\langle \mathcal{L}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( \vec{A}\right) \text{,
\vec{B}\right\rangle =\text{tr}\left[ \vec{B}\mathcal{L}_{\vec{\rho}}\left(
\vec{A}\right) \right] \text{.}
\end{equation
The quantum line element $ds^{2}=\mathbf{g}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( d\vec{\rho
\text{, }d\vec{\rho}\right) $ with $d\vec{\rho}$ given by
\begin{equation}
d\vec{\rho}=\sum_{j=1}^{n}dp^{j}\left\vert j\right\rangle \left\langle
j\right\vert +id\theta \sum_{m\text{,}\ l=1}^{n}\left( p^{m}-p^{l}\right)
h_{lm}\left\vert l\right\rangle \left\langle m\right\vert \text{,}
\end{equation
and with $e^{id\theta h}$ an infinitesimal unitary transformation on the
orthonormal basis that diagonalizes $\vec{\rho}$, read
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=\mathbf{g}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( d\vec{\rho}\text{, }d\vec{\rho}\right)
\overset{\text{def}}{=}\text{Tr}\left[ d\vec{\rho}\mathcal{L}_{\vec{\rho
}\left( d\vec{\rho}\right) \right] =\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{\left( dp^{k}\right)
^{2}}{p^{k}}+2d\theta ^{2}\sum_{j\neq k}\frac{\left( p^{j}-p^{k}\right) ^{2
}{\left( p^{j}+p^{k}\right) }\left\vert h_{jk}\right\vert ^{2}\text{.}
\label{qle}
\end{equation
Notice that the above quantum line element is identical to the
distinguishability metric for density operators obtained in \cite{samPRL} by
optimizing over all generalized quantum measurements for distinguishing
among neighboring quantum states.
\section{Depolarized density operators: the conventional approach}
The two-dimensional depolarizing channel is an error model which can be
described as follows \cite{preskill}: this channel, with probability $1-p$,
passes a qubit without altering its state; with probability $p$, an error of
the Pauli-type occurs (application of one among the equally likely Pauli
errors $\sigma _{1}$, $\sigma _{2}$, $\sigma _{3}$). In terms of the Kraus
operator-sum decomposition of the depolarizing channel, it turns out that an
arbitrary initial density operator $\rho $ of the qubit is mapped into
\begin{equation}
\rho \rightarrow \rho ^{\prime }=\left( 1-p\right) \rho +\frac{p}{3}\left(
\sigma _{1}\rho \sigma _{1}+\sigma _{2}\rho \sigma _{2}+\sigma _{3}\rho
\sigma _{3}\right) \text{.}
\end{equation
An alternative manner to characterize the action of a depolarizing channel
on quantum states can be described by assuming that the initial state is one
of the following four mutually orthogonal maximally entangled two-qubits
states
\begin{equation}
\left\vert \psi ^{\pm }\right\rangle \overset{\text{def}}{=}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2
}\left[ \left\vert 01\right\rangle _{AB}\pm \left\vert 10\right\rangle _{AB
\right] \text{ and, }\left\vert \phi ^{\pm }\right\rangle _{AB}\overset
\text{def}}{=}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[ \left\vert 00\right\rangle _{AB}\pm
\left\vert 11\right\rangle _{AB}\right] \text{.}
\end{equation
For instance, take into consideration $\left\vert \phi ^{+}\right\rangle
_{AB}$ and consider the action of the depolarizing channel on the first
qubit
\begin{equation}
\rho _{\phi ^{+}}\overset{\text{def}}{=}\left\vert \phi ^{+}\right\rangle
\left\langle \phi ^{+}\right\vert \rightarrow \rho _{\phi ^{+}}^{\prime }
\frac{4}{3}p\left( \frac{1}{4}I^{AB}\right) +\left( 1-\frac{4}{3}p\right)
\rho _{\phi ^{+}}\text{.} \label{rel}
\end{equation
Observe that $I^{AB}$ is the identity operator on the Hilbert space
\mathcal{H}_{A}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{B}$ and equals $I_{AB}=\rho _{\phi
^{+}}+\rho _{\phi ^{-}}+\rho _{\psi ^{+}}+\rho _{\psi ^{-}}$,with $\rho
_{\psi ^{\pm }}\overset{\text{def}}{=}\left\vert \psi ^{\pm }\right\rangle
\left\langle \psi ^{\pm }\right\vert $, $\rho _{\phi ^{\pm }}\overset{\text
def}}{=}\left\vert \phi ^{\pm }\right\rangle \left\langle \phi ^{\pm
}\right\vert $. From (\ref{rel}), it follows that a depolarizing error
occurs with probability $\frac{4}{3}p$ and the error completely \emph
randomizes }the state $\left\vert \phi ^{+}\right\rangle _{AB}$ provided
that $p\leq \frac{3}{4}$. The transformed density matrix $\rho _{\phi
^{+}}^{\prime }$ becomes maximally random ($\rho _{\phi ^{+}}^{\prime }
\frac{1}{4}I_{AB}$) in the limiting case of $p=\frac{3}{4}$.
An additional manner to characterize depolarizing errors on density
operators is that of considering its action on the Bloch sphere
representation of an arbitrary initial density operator $\rho $ of the qubit
\begin{equation}
\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left( I+\mathbf{P\cdot \sigma }\right) \text{,}
\end{equation
where $\mathbf{P}\overset{\text{def}}{\mathbf{=}}$Tr$\left( \mathbf{\sigma
\rho \right) $ is the Bloch polarization vector. For $\left\Vert \mathbf{P
\right\Vert =1$ the density matrices describe a pure state whereas for
\left\Vert \mathbf{P}\right\Vert <1$ one has a mixed state. Thus, the
density matrix $\rho $ is uniquely determined by a point of the unit sphere
0\leq \left\Vert \mathbf{P}\right\Vert \leq 1$ (unit $3$-ball). For
depolarizing errors, the Bloch sphere \emph{contracts uniformly} under the
action of the depolarizing channel since the spin polarization of the qubit
\mathbf{P}$ is reduced by a factor $\left( 1-\frac{4}{3}p\right) $ where $p$
denotes the error probability
\begin{equation}
\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left( I+\mathbf{P\cdot \sigma }\right) \rightarrow \rho
^{\prime }=\frac{1}{2}\left( I+\mathbf{P}^{\prime }\mathbf{\cdot \sigma
\right) \text{ with }\mathbf{P}^{\prime }=\left( 1-\frac{4}{3}p\right)
\mathbf{P}\text{.} \label{p1}
\end{equation
In summary, the two main features that characterize the action of the
depolarizing channel on density operators is the\emph{\ randomization} of
maximally entangled quantum states (Eq. (\ref{rel})) and the \emph{uniform
contraction} of the deformed Bloch sphere (Eq. (\ref{p1})). In which manner
do these features emerge in a Riemannian geometric characterization of
depolarizing channels? We attempt to provide an answer to this question in
the next Section.
\section{Depolarized density operators: the geometric approach}
Returning to the formalism introduced in Section II, it follows that an
arbitrary density operator$\vec{\rho}$ reads
\begin{equation}
\vec{\rho}=\frac{1}{2}\left[ \vec{I}+\mathbf{P\cdot }\boldsymbol{\vec{\sigma
}\right] =\frac{1}{2}\left[ \vec{I}+\left\Vert \mathbf{P}\right\Vert \mathbf
n\cdot }\boldsymbol{\vec{\sigma}}\right] \text{,} \label{uno}
\end{equation
where the Bloch vector $\mathbf{P}$ and the Pauli (operator) vector
\boldsymbol{\vec{\sigma}}$ are
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{P}\overset{\text{def}}{\mathbf{=}}\sum_{k=1}^{3}P^{k}\mathbf{e
_{k}=\left\Vert \mathbf{P}\right\Vert \mathbf{n}\text{ and, }\boldsymbol
\vec{\sigma}}\overset{\text{def}}{\mathbf{=}}\sum_{k=1}^{3}\vec{\sigma}^{k
\mathbf{e}_{k}\text{, }
\end{equation
respectively and where $\mathbf{e}_{k}$ are unit orthonormal vectors
spanning
\mathbb{R}
^{3}$. Recall that the infinitesimal quantum line element $ds^{2}$ is given
by
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=\mathbf{g}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( d\vec{\rho}\text{, }d\vec{\rho}\right)
\text{Tr}\left[ d\vec{\rho}\mathcal{L}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( d\vec{\rho}\right)
\right] \text{,} \label{unoo}
\end{equation
where $\mathbf{g}_{\vec{\rho}}$ denotes the metric tensor at point $\vec{\rh
}$. Denoting $\left\Vert \mathbf{P}\right\Vert \overset{\text{def}}{=}m$,
from (\ref{uno}) $d\vec{\rho}$ reads
\begin{equation}
d\vec{\rho}=\frac{1}{2}d\left( m\mathbf{n\cdot }\boldsymbol{\vec{\sigma}
\right) =\frac{1}{2}\left( dm\mathbf{n\cdot }\boldsymbol{\vec{\sigma}+}m
\mathbf{n\cdot }\boldsymbol{\vec{\sigma}}\right) =\frac{1}{2}\left( d
\mathbf{n}\boldsymbol{+}md\mathbf{n}\right) \mathbf{\cdot }\boldsymbol{\vec
\sigma}}\text{,} \label{due}
\end{equation
while $\mathcal{L}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( d\vec{\rho}\right) $ becomes
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( d\vec{\rho}\right) =\mathcal{L}_{\vec{\rho
}\left( \frac{1}{2}\left( dm\mathbf{n}\boldsymbol{+}md\mathbf{n}\right)
\mathbf{\cdot }\boldsymbol{\vec{\sigma}}\right) =\frac{dm}{2}\mathcal{L}_
\vec{\rho}}\left( \mathbf{n\cdot }\boldsymbol{\vec{\sigma}}\right)
\boldsymbol{+}\frac{m}{2}\mathcal{L}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( d\mathbf{n\cdot
\boldsymbol{\vec{\sigma}}\right) \text{.} \label{tre1}
\end{equation
After some algebra, it follows tha
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( \mathbf{n\cdot }\boldsymbol{\vec{\sigma}
\right) =\frac{2\left( -m\tilde{I}+\mathbf{n\cdot }\boldsymbol{\tilde{\sigma
}\right) }{1-m^{2}}\text{ and, }\mathcal{L}_{\vec{\rho}}\left( d\mathbf
n\cdot }\boldsymbol{\vec{\sigma}}\right) =2d\mathbf{n\cdot }\boldsymbol
\tilde{\sigma}}\text{,} \label{tre2}
\end{equation
with $\boldsymbol{\tilde{\sigma}}\overset{\text{def}}{\boldsymbol{=}}\left(
\tilde{\sigma}_{1}\text{, }\tilde{\sigma}_{2}\text{, }\tilde{\sigma
_{3}\right) $. Using (\ref{due}), (\ref{tre1}) and (\ref{tre2}) and noticing
tha
\begin{equation}
dm\mathbf{n+}m\left( 1-m^{2}\right) d\mathbf{\mathbf{n}}=\left(
1-m^{2}\right) d\boldsymbol{P+}\left( \mathbf{P\cdot }d\boldsymbol{P}\right)
\mathbf{P}\text{,}
\end{equation
the line element $ds^{2}$ in (\ref{unoo}) become
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=d\boldsymbol{P}\mathbf{\cdot }d\boldsymbol{P+}\frac{\left( \mathbf
P\cdot }d\boldsymbol{P}\right) ^{2}}{1-m^{2}}\text{.} \label{p2}
\end{equation
We now recall that if a distance between density matrices expresses
statistical distinguishability then the distance must decrease under \emph
randomization} (coarse-graining) \cite{petz}. Therefore, we may wonder
whether or not depolarizing errors make quantum states less distinguishable
by reducing their relative statistical distance. Indeed, from (\ref{p1}) and
(\ref{p2}) it follows tha
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=d\boldsymbol{P}\mathbf{\cdot }d\boldsymbol{P+}\frac{1}{1-m^{2}}\left(
\mathbf{P\cdot }d\boldsymbol{P}\right) ^{2}\rightarrow ds^{\prime 2}=
\boldsymbol{P}^{\prime }\mathbf{\cdot }d\boldsymbol{P}^{\prime }\boldsymbol{
}\frac{1}{1-m^{\prime 2}}\left( \mathbf{P}^{\prime }\mathbf{\cdot }
\boldsymbol{P}^{\prime }\right) ^{2}\text{,} \label{55}
\end{equation
where $ds^{\prime 2}$ reads
\begin{equation}
ds^{\prime 2}=\left( 1-\frac{4}{3}p\right) ^{2}d\boldsymbol{P}\mathbf{\cdot
d\boldsymbol{P}+\frac{\left( 1-\frac{4}{3}p\right) ^{4}}{\left[ 1-\left( 1
\frac{4}{3}p\right) ^{2}m^{2}\right] }\left( \mathbf{P\cdot }d\boldsymbol{P
\right) ^{2}\text{.} \label{551}
\end{equation
Comparing (\ref{55}) and (\ref{551}), we observe tha
\begin{equation}
\left( 1-\frac{4}{3}p\right) ^{2}\leq 1\text{ and, }\frac{\left( 1-\frac{4}{
}p\right) ^{4}}{\left[ 1-\left( 1-\frac{4}{3}p\right) ^{2}m^{2}\right] }\leq
\frac{1}{1-m^{2}}\text{,}
\end{equation
since $p\geq 0$ and $0$ $\leq m\leq 1$, respectively. Thus
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}\overset{\text{def}}{=}\left[ ds^{2}\right] _{\text{undeformed
}\rightarrow ds^{\prime 2}\overset{\text{def}}{=}\left[ ds^{2}\right] _
\text{depolarized}}\leq \left[ ds^{2}\right] _{\text{undeformed}}\text{.}
\label{ONE}
\end{equation
Depolarizing errors randomize quantum states rendering them less
distinguishable by decreasing their relative statistical distance.
Furthermore, introducing a fourth coordinate $P^{0}$,
\begin{equation}
P^{0}\overset{\text{def}}{=}\sqrt{1-\left\Vert \mathbf{P}\right\Vert ^{2}}
\sqrt{1-m^{2}}\text{,}
\end{equation
we get
\begin{equation}
dP^{0}=\frac{m^{2}dm^{2}}{1-m^{2}}=\frac{\left( \mathbf{P\cdot }d\boldsymbol
P}\right) ^{2}}{1-m^{2}}\text{.} \label{pp}
\end{equation
Thus, the interior of the Bloch sphere is a $3$-unit sphere $\mathcal{S}^{3}
, a three-dimensional sphere of unit radius in a four-dimensional Euclidean
space
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}^{3}\overset{\text{def}}{=}\left\{ P^{\mu }=\left( P^{0}\text{,
P^{1}\text{, }P^{2}\text{, }P^{3}\right) \in
\mathbb{R}
^{4}:P^{\mu }P_{\mu }=1\right\} \text{,}
\end{equation
and the geometry on such surface is induced by the line four-dimensional
flat Euclidean line elemen
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=dP^{\mu }dP_{\mu }=\left( dP^{0}\right) ^{2}+\left( dP^{1}\right)
^{2}+\left( dP^{2}\right) ^{2}+\left( dP^{3}\right) ^{2}\text{.}
\end{equation
The geodesic paths for the line element $ds^{2}$ parametrized in terms of
the arc-length $s$ are given by
\begin{equation}
P^{\mu }=P^{\mu }\left( s\right) =a^{\mu }\cos s+b^{\mu }\sin s\text{,}
\label{pmu}
\end{equation
where $a^{\mu }$ and $b^{\mu }$ are mutually orthogonal unit $4-$vectors
\begin{equation}
a^{\mu }a_{\mu }=b^{\nu }b_{\nu }=1\text{ and, }a^{\mu }b_{\mu }=b^{\nu
}a_{\nu }=0\text{.}
\end{equation
Trajectories in (\ref{pmu}) are great circles, circles that have the same
center and radius as the sphere. It is straightforward to show that the
geodesics $P^{^{\prime }\mu }$ on $\mathcal{S}_{\text{deformed}}^{3}$
parametrized in terms of the arc-length $s$ are given by
\begin{equation}
P^{\prime 0}\left( s\right) =\sqrt{1-\left( 1-\frac{4}{3}p\right) ^{2}\left[
1-\left( P^{0}\left( s\right) \right) ^{2}\right] }\text{ and }P^{\prime
k}\left( s\right) =\left( 1-\frac{4}{3}p\right) P^{k}\left( s\right) \text{,}
\label{TWO}
\end{equation
for $k=1$, $2$, $3$. Thus, the three "spacial" components of the four-vector
$P^{^{\prime }\mu }$ are simply the uniformly contracted versions of the
geodesic paths on $\mathcal{S}_{\text{undeformed}}^{3}$ where $1-\frac{4}{3
p $ denotes the contraction factor.
\section{Comparisons with other quantum distinguishability metrics}
For the sake of completeness, we point out that in the classical information
geometric setting there is essentially one classical statistical distance
quantifying the distinguishability between two probability distributions.
Indeed, the classical Fisher information metric \cite{campbell2} is the only
(except for an overall multiplicative constant) monotone Riemannian metric
with the property of having its line element reduced under Markov morphisms
(stochastic maps). In the quantum setting, Riemannian metrics are considered
on the space of density matrices. The requirement that the distance between
density matrices expresses quantum statistical distinguishability implies
that this distance must decrease under coarse-graining (stochastic maps)
\cite{petz}. Unlike the classical case, it turns out that there are
infinitely many Riemannian metrics satisfying this requirement \cite{petz2}.
In what follows, we clarify the connections between the quantum line element
we used in Section IV and other common metrics of use in the quantum
framework.
\subsection{The Fubini-Study metric}
The Fubini-Study infinitesimal line element $ds_{\text{FS}}^{2}$ is given by
\cite{provost}
\begin{equation}
ds_{\text{FS}}^{2}=\left\Vert d\psi \right\Vert ^{2}-\left\vert \left\langle
\psi |d\psi \right\rangle \right\vert ^{2}=1-\left\vert \left\langle \psi
^{\prime }|\psi \right\rangle \right\vert ^{2}\text{,}
\end{equation
where $\left\vert \psi \right\rangle $ and $\left\vert \psi ^{\prime
}\right\rangle $ are neighboring normalized pure states expanded in an
orthonormal basis $\left\{ \left\vert k\right\rangle \right\} $ with $k\in
\left\{ 1\text{,..., }N\right\} $
\begin{equation}
\left\vert \psi \right\rangle =\sum_{k=1}^{N}\sqrt{p_{k}}e^{i\phi
_{k}}\left\vert k\right\rangle \text{ and, }\left\vert \psi ^{\prime
}\right\rangle =\sum_{k=1}^{N}\sqrt{p_{k}+dp_{k}}e^{i\left( \phi _{k}+d\phi
_{k}\right) }\left\vert k\right\rangle \text{,}
\end{equation
respectively. Observe that up to the second order Taylor expansion,
\left\vert \psi ^{\prime }\right\rangle $ read
\begin{equation}
\left\vert \psi ^{\prime }\right\rangle =\sum_{k=1}^{N}\left[ \sqrt{p_{k}
\left( 1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{dp_{k}}{p_{k}}-\frac{1}{8}\frac{dp_{k}^{2}}
p_{k}^{2}}\right) e^{i\phi _{k}}\left( 1+id\phi _{k}-\frac{1}{2}d\phi
_{k}^{2}\right) \right] \left\vert k\right\rangle \text{.} \label{ff}
\end{equation
Upon use of the normalization constraint and its differential form,
\sum_{k=1}^{N}p_{k}=1\text{ and }\sum_{k=1}^{N}dp_{k}=0$ respectively,
\left\langle \psi ^{\prime }|\psi \right\rangle $ become
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \psi ^{\prime }|\psi \right\rangle =1-\frac{1}{8}\sum_{k=1}^{N
\frac{dp_{k}^{2}}{p_{k}}-i\sum_{k=1}^{N}p_{k}d\phi _{k}-\frac{i}{2
\sum_{k=1}^{N}dp_{k}d\phi _{k}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{N}p_{k}d\phi _{k}^{2
\text{.}
\end{equation
It is straightforward to compute $\left\vert \left\langle \psi ^{\prime
}|\psi \right\rangle \right\vert ^{2}$ and to arrive at the Fubini-Study
infinitesimal line element
\begin{equation}
ds_{\text{FS}}^{2}=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{k=1}^{N}\frac{dp_{k}^{2}}{p_{k}
+\sum_{k=1}^{N}p_{k}d\phi _{k}^{2}-\left( \sum_{k=1}^{N}p_{k}d\phi
_{k}\right) ^{2}\text{.} \label{cac}
\end{equation
It is also $ds_{\text{FS}}^{2}=\left\langle d\psi _{\perp }|d\psi _{\perp
}\right\rangle $, where $\left\vert d\psi _{\perp }\right\rangle \overset
\text{def}}{=}\left\vert d\psi \right\rangle -\left\langle \psi |d\psi
\right\rangle \left\vert \psi \right\rangle $ is the projection of
\left\vert d\psi \right\rangle $ orthogonal to $\left\vert \psi
\right\rangle $ with $\left\vert d\psi \right\rangle \overset{\text{def}}{=
\left\vert \psi ^{\prime }\right\rangle -\left\vert \psi \right\rangle $.
Then, for pure states $\rho =\left\vert \psi \right\rangle \left\langle \psi
\right\vert $ and $d\rho =\left\vert \psi \right\rangle \left\langle d\psi
_{\perp }\right\vert +\left\vert d\psi _{\perp }\right\rangle \left\langle
\psi \right\vert $, Eq.(\ref{qle}) reduces to
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=2\text{tr}\left( d\rho ^{2}\right) =4\left\langle d\psi _{\perp
}|d\psi _{\perp }\right\rangle \text{,}
\end{equation
which is, except for an overall \emph{real} constant, the Fubini-Study
metric (\ref{cac}).
In conclusion, due to the fact that the Fubini-Study metric quantifies
distinguishability of pure states only, it is not a useful metric for a
geometric characterization of depolarizing channels.
\subsection{The Bures metric}
For a detailed presentation concerning the computation of the Bures metric
for two-dimensional density matrices, we refer to \cite{hubner}. Consider
two density matrices $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$
\begin{equation}
\rho_{1}=\frac{1}{2}I+\mathbf{x}_{1}\mathbf{\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma} }\text{
and, }\rho_{2}=\frac{1}{2}I+\mathbf{x}_{2}\mathbf{\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}
\text{,} \label{choice}
\end{equation}
with $\mathbf{x}_{i}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ and $\boldsymbol{\sigma} =\left(
\sigma_{x}\text{, }\sigma_{y}\text{, }\sigma_{z}\right) $. By definition,
\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$ must have positive eigenvalues and this implies
that the magnitude of $\mathbf{x}_{k}$ with $k=1$, $2$ is less than or equal
to one-half. We stress that the operator-representation (\ref{choice})
differs from Eq.(\ref{uno}) we used in our analysis (in that case, the
magnitude of $\mathbf{x}_{k}$ was less or equal to one).
For the sake of reasoning, consider two unphysical (tr$\rho _{k}\neq 1$)
density matrices given by, $\rho _{1}=\alpha _{1}I+\mathbf{x}_{1}\mathbf
\cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma }}\text{ and, }\rho _{2}=\alpha _{2}I+\mathbf{x}_{2
\mathbf{\cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma }}$, where $\alpha _{k}^{2}\overset{\text
def}}{=}\mathbf{x}_{k}^{2}+b_{k}^{2}\text{ ad, }b_{k}\overset{\text{def}}{=
\sqrt{\det \rho _{k}}$. Then, the Bures distance between $\rho _{1}$ and
\rho _{2}$ reads \cite{hubner}
\begin{equation}
d_{\text{Bures}}^{2}\left( \rho _{1}\text{, }\rho _{2}\right) =2\left(
\alpha _{1}+\alpha _{2}\right) -2^{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{\alpha _{1}\alpha _{2}
\mathbf{x}_{1}\cdot \mathbf{x}_{2}+b_{1}b_{2}}\text{.} \label{bures}
\end{equation
To connect the Bures distance in (\ref{bures}) to our quantum line element
\ref{p2}), we have to take into consideration two density $\rho _{1}$ and
\rho _{2}$ matrices infinitesimally near to each other. Assume
\begin{equation}
\rho _{1}=\frac{1}{2}I+\mathbf{x\cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma }}\text{ and }\rho
_{2}=\rho _{1}+d\rho \text{.} \label{given}
\end{equation
with $d\rho \overset{\text{def}}{=}\mathbf{dx\cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma }}$.
Then, it turns out that the second order expansion of the Bures distance Eq.
\ref{bures}) with $\rho _{1}$ and $\rho _{2}$ given in Eq.(\ref{given})
reads $ds_{\text{Bures}}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}\left[ \left( d\rho \right)
^{2}\right] +\left( d\sqrt{\det \rho }\right) ^{2}$, that is
\begin{equation}
ds_{\text{Bures}}^{2}=\mathbf{dx\cdot dx+}dbdb\mathbf{=dx\cdot dx+}\frac
\left( \mathbf{x\cdot dx}\right) ^{2}}{\frac{1}{4}-\mathbf{x}^{2}}\text{,}
\label{dsB}
\end{equation
where the four coordinates $\mathbf{x}$ and $b$ satisfy the normalization
condition $\mathbf{x}^{2}+b^{2}=1/4$. Here they come further differences
with our analysis carried out in Section IV: our four coordinates are
normalized to one. Furthermore, while the set of two-dimensional normalized
density matrices equipped with the Bures metric is isometric to one closed
half of the three-sphere with radius $\frac{1}{2}$, with our quantum line
metric (\ref{p2}) the set of density matrices is isometric to one closed
half of the three-sphere with radius $1$.
It is straightforward to check that regardless of the chosen metric (our
metric (\ref{p2}) or that of Bures (\ref{dsB})), the geometric
characterization of the depolarizing channel does not change in its
substance. Loosely speaking, the only basic difference is that in the Bures
case, we consider deformation properties on a sphere of radius $\frac{1}{2}$
instead of $1$. In summary, it can be shown that
\begin{equation}
\left[ ds_{\text{Bures}}^{2}\right] _{\text{depolarized}}\leq \left[ ds_
\text{Bures}}^{2}\right] _{\text{not-deformed}}\Leftrightarrow \mathbf{x
^{2}\leq \frac{1}{4}\left[ 1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\frac{4}{3}p\right) ^{2}
\right] \text{,} \label{bineq}
\end{equation
which is true since the magnitude of $\mathbf{x}$ is less or equal to
one-half and where $p\in \left[ 0\text{, }1\right] $ denotes the error
probability.
\section{Final Remarks}
Relying on the possibility of introducing a Riemannian geometric structure
on the space of density operators based on the statistical concept of
distinguishability, we investigated the conceptual usefulness of
differential geometric tools in quantifying the effect of a noisy
depolarizing channel on quantum states by comparing the geometries of the
interior of the undeformed and depolarized Bloch spheres related to density
operators on a two-dimensional Hilbert space. In particular, we have pointed
out that the two main features that characterize the action of the
depolarizing channel on density operators, namely the\emph{\ randomization}
of maximally entangled quantum states (Eq. (\ref{rel})) and the \emph
uniform contraction} of the deformed Bloch sphere (Eq. (\ref{p1})) can be
both quantified in differential geometric terms. Randomization emerges
geometrically through a smaller infinitesimal quantum line element on the
deformed Bloch sphere (Eq. (\ref{ONE})) while the uniform contraction
manifests itself via a deformed set of geodesics where the spacial
components of the deformed four-Bloch vector are simply the contracted
versions of the undeformed Bloch vector components (Eq. (\ref{TWO})).
In agreement with \cite{manko}, we believe that this preliminary analysis
deserves further investigation especially in regard to a possible
differential geometric quantification of quantum randomness in measurement
theory related to a physical characterization of the Kraus operator-sum
decomposition of arbitrary quantum noisy communication channels.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The Authors thank Giuseppe Marmo for his kind hospitality and for very
enlightening discussions during their short visit at the Universit\`{a} di
Napoli "Federico II".
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
The voter model~\cite{Liggett85} describes the evolution toward consensus in
a population of $N$ agents, each of which can be in one of two possible
opinion states. In an update event, a randomly-selected voter adopts the
state of a randomly-selected neighbor. As a result of repeated update
events, a finite population necessarily reaches consensus in a time $T_N$
that scales as a power law in $N$ (with a logarithmic correction in two
dimensions)~\cite{Liggett85,K92}. Because of its simplicity and its natural
connection to opinion dynamics, the voter model has been extensively
investigated (see, e.g.,~\cite{CFL90,KRB10}). The connection with social
phenomena has also motivated efforts to extend the voter model to incorporate
various aspects of social reality, such as, among others,
stubbornness/contrarianism~\cite{G04,GF07,MPR07,YAOSS11}, multiple
states~\cite{VR04,VMR09}, internal dissonance~\cite{PSS07}, individual
heterogeneity~\cite{MGR10}, environmental
heterogeneity~\cite{SR05,SES05a,SES05b,SAR08}, vacillation~\cite{LR07}, and
non-linear interactions~\cite{LR08,CMP09}. These studies have uncovered many
new phenomena that are still being actively explored.
Our investigation was initially motivated by recent social experiments of
Centola~\cite{C10}, who studied the spread of a specific behavior in a
controlled online network where {\em reinforcement\/} played a crucial role.
Reinforcement means that an individual adopts a particular state only after
receiving multiple prompts to adopt this behavior from socially-connected
neighbors. These experiments found that social reinforcement played a
decisive role in determining how a new behavior is adopted~\cite{C10}.
Previous research that has a connection with this type of reinforcement
mechanism include the q-voter model~\cite{CMP09}, where multiple same-opinion
neighbors initiate change, the naming game, and the AB model~\cite{CBL09}.
An example that is perhaps most closely connected to reinforcement arises in
the noise-reduced voter model~\cite{DC07}, where a voter keeps a running
total of inputs towards changing opinions, but actually changes opinions only
when this counter reaches a predefined threshold. A similar notion of
reinforcement arises in a model of fad and innovation dynamics~\cite{KRV11}
and in a model of contagion spread~\cite{MWGP11}. The use of multiple
discrete opinions is not the only option for incorporating varying opinion
strength. Previous models have used a continuous range of opinions
quantifying the tendency for an agent to change its opinion.~\cite{M12} For
example, in the bounded confidence model, an agent can possesses an opinion
in a continuous range, with the spatial distance between points representing
the difference in those opinions.~\cite{FLPR05}
In this paper, we study how reinforcement affects the dynamics of the voter
model. In our\emph{confident voter model\/}, we assume that agents possess
some modicum of intrinsic confidence in their beliefs and, unlike the classic
voter model, need multiple prompts before changing their opinion state. We
investigate a simple realization of this confident voting in which each
opinion state is further demarcated into two substates of different
confidence levels. The basic variables are thus the opinion of each voter
and the confidence level with which this opinion is held. For concreteness,
we label the two opinion states as plus (P) and minus (M). Thus the possible
states of an agent are $P_0$ and $P_1$ for confident and unsure plus agents,
respectively, and correspondingly $M_0$ and $M_1$ for minus agents
(Fig.~\ref{model}). The new feature of confident voting is that a confident
agent does not change opinion by interacting with an agent of a different
opinion. Instead such an agent changes from being confident to being unsure
of his opinion. On the other hand, an unsure agent changes opinion by
interacting with any agent of the other opinion, as in the classic voter
model.
We define two variants of confident voting that accord with common anecdotal
experience (Fig.~\ref{model}). In the \emph{marginal\/} version, an unsure
agent that changes opinion still remains unsure. Such an agent is often
labelled a ``flip-flopper'', a routinely-invoked moniker by American
politicians to characterize political opponents. Figuratively, an agent who
switches opinion remains ambivalent about the new opinion state and can
switch back. In the \emph{extremal\/} version, an unsure agent becomes
confident after an opinion change. Such an agent ``sees the light'' and
therefore becomes fully committed to the new opinion state. This behavior is
typified by Paul the Apostle, who switched from being dedicated to finding
and persecuting early Christians to embracing Christianity after experiencing
a vision of Jesus.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics*[width=0.75\textwidth]{transitions}}
\caption{\small Illustration of the states and possible transitions in the:
(a) marginal, and (b) extremal versions of the confident voter model.
Dashed arrows indicate possible confidence level changes (biased toward
higher confidence), while solid arrows indicate possible opinion change
events.}
\label{model}
\end{figure}
\section{MEAN-FIELD DESCRIPTION}
\label{MF}
The basic variables are the densities of the four types of agents. We use
$P_0, P_1, M_0, M_1$ to denote both the agent types and their densities. In
the mean-field description, a pair of agents is randomly selected, and the
state of one the two agents, chosen equiprobably, changes according to the
voter-like dynamics illustrated in Fig.~\ref{model}. We now outline the time
evolution for the two variations of the confident voter model.
\subsection{Marginal Version}
For writing the rate equations, we first enumerate the possible outcomes when
a pair of agents interact:
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep -0.5ex
\item[]\qquad $M_1P_1$ $\to $ $M_1M_1$ or $P_1P_1$;\qquad\qquad\qquad
$M_0P_0$\,\, $\to$ $M_0P_1$\, or $M_1P_0$;
\item[]\qquad $P_0\,P_1$\, $\to $ $P_0\,P_1$\,\,\, or $P_0P_0$;\qquad\qquad\qquad
$M_0M_1$ $\to $ $M_0M_1$ or $M_0M_0$;
\item[]\qquad $M_1P_0$ $\to$ $M_1P_1$\,\, or $P_0P_1$;\qquad\qquad\qquad
$M_0P_1$\,\,\, $\to$ $M_1P_1$ \,or $M_0M_1$.
\end{itemize}
That is, the interaction between two unsure agents of opposite opinions
($M_1P_1$) leads to no \emph{net\/} density change, as in the classic voter
model. However, when two confident agents of different opinions meet
($M_0\,P_0$), one of the agents becomes unsure. The next two lines
account for interactions between agents of the same opinion but different
confidence levels. We assume that an unsure agent exerts no influence on
a confident agent by virtue of the latter being confident, while a confident
agent is persuasive and converts an unsure agent to confident. Finally,
the last line accounts for an unsure agent changing opinion upon
interacting with a confident agent of a different opinion.
The corresponding rate equations are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{REM}
\dot P_0&= -(M_0+M_1)P_0+P_0P_1 \equiv -MP_0+P_0P_1\,,\\\nonumber
\dot P_1&= ~~MP_0-P_0P_1+(M_1P_0-M_0P_1)\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with parallel equations for $M_0$ and $M_1$ that are obtained by
interchanging $M\leftrightarrow P$ in Eq.~(\ref{REM}). The rate equation for
the total density of plus agents is
\begin{equation*}
\dot P =M_1P_0-M_0P_1,
\end{equation*}
and from the complementary equation for $\dot M$, it is evident that the
total density of agents is conserved, $\dot P+\dot M=0$.
\subsection{Extremal Version}
For the extremal version, we again enumerate the possible outcomes when a
pair of agents interact. These are:
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep -0.5ex
\item[]\qquad $M_1\,P_1$ \, $\to\, $ $P_0P_1$ or $M_0M_1$;
\qquad\qquad\qquad $M_0\,P_0$ \, $\to$ $M_0P_1$ \, or $M_1P_0$;
\item[]\qquad $P_0\,P_1$\,\,\,\,\, $\to $ $P_0P_1$ \,or $P_0P_0$;
\qquad\qquad\qquad \,\,$M_0\,M_1$ \, $\to $ $M_0M_1$ \,or $M_0M_0$;
\item[]\qquad $M_1\,P_0$ \, $\to$ $M_1P_1$ or $P_0P_0$;
\qquad\qquad\qquad \,\,$M_0\,P_1$ \,\, $\to$ $M_1P_1$ \,\,or $M_0M_0$.
\end{itemize}
The point of departure, compared to the marginal version, is that a voter is
now confident in its new opinion state upon changing opinion. The rate
equations corresponding to these steps are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{REE}
\dot P_0&= -M_0P_0+ M_1P_1+P_0P_1\,,\\\nonumber
\dot P_1&= ~~ M_0P_0-M_1P_1-P_0P_1+(M_1P_0\!-\!M_0P_1)\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with parallel equations for $M_0$ and $M_1$. The rate equation for the total
density of plus agents is the same as that for the marginal version, so that
again the total density of agents is manifestly conserved.
\subsection{Time Evolution}
For both variants of the confident voter model, the time evolution is
dominated by the presence of a saddle point that corresponds not to
consensus, but a balance between plus and minus agents. For nearly-symmetric
initial conditions, the densities of the different species are initially
attracted to this unstable fixed point, but eventually flow to a stable fixed
point that corresponds to consensus. However when the initial condition is
perfectly symmetric between plus and minus agents, then the population is
driven to a mixed state that corresponds to the symmetric saddle point
(Fig.~\ref{non-symm}).
\subsubsection{Symmetric System}
It is instructive to first study the initial conditions $M_0(0)=P_0(0)=1/2$
and $M_1(0)=P_1(0)=0$. The rate equations (\ref{REM}) for the marginal
version of confident voting now reduce to $\dot P_0=-\dot P_1=-P_0^2$, with
solution
\begin{eqnarray}
P_0(t)&=P_0(0)/[1+P_0(0)t]\,,\\\nonumber
P_1(t)&=\frac{1}{2}-P_0(t)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus in an initially symmetric system, confident voters are slowly
eliminated because there is no mechanism for their replenishment, and all
that remains asymptotically are equal densities of unsure voters.
For the extremal version of confident voting, the rate equations (\ref{REE})
reduce to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{dotP0}
\dot P_0&=-\dot P_1=P_0^2+\frac{1}{2}P_0-\frac{1}{4}\\\nonumber
&= -(P_0-\lambda_+)(P_0-\lambda_-)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\lambda_\pm=\frac{1}{4}(-1\pm\sqrt{5})\approx 0.309, -0.809$. Because
the quadratic polynomial on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{dotP0}) is
positive for $P_0<\lambda_+$ and negative for $P_0>\lambda_+$, the fixed
point at $\lambda_+$ is stable. Thus $P_0(t)$ approaches $\lambda_+$
exponentially in time. We solve for $P_0$ by a partial fraction expansion to
give
\begin{equation}
\frac{P_0(t)-\lambda_+}{P_0(t)-\lambda_-} =
\frac{P_0(0)-\lambda_+}{P_0(0)-\lambda_-}\,\,
e^{-(\lambda_+-\lambda_-)t}~,
\end{equation}
which indeed gives an exponential approach to the final state of
$P_0=\frac{1}{2}-P_1=\lambda_+$. Thus all four voting states are represented
in the long-time limit.
\subsubsection{Non-Symmetric System}
If the initial condition is slightly non-symmetric, then numerical
integrations of the rate equations clearly show that the evolution of the
densities turns out to be controlled by two distinct time scales --- a fast
time scale that is $\mathcal{O}(1)$ and a longer time scale that is
$\mathcal{O}(\ln N)$, where $N$ is the population size. To incorporate $N$
in the rate equations, we interpret these equations as describing the
dynamics of voters that live on a complete graph of $N\gg1$ sites, so that
every agent interacts equiprobably with any other agent. In this framework,
consensus on the complete graph should be viewed as the density of a single
species being equal to $1-\frac{1}{N}$ in the rate equations. Similarly, an
initial small deviation $\epsilon=\frac{1}{N}$ from the symmetric initial
conditions in the rate equations (i.e., $P_0(0)=\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon$ and
$M_0(0)=\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon$, with $\epsilon=\frac{1}{N}$), should be
interpreted as the departure from a symmetric state by a single particle on a
complete graph of $N$ sites.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics*[width=0.425\textwidth]{marginalOffSym}\quad\qquad\includegraphics*[width=0.425\textwidth]{extremalOffSym}}
\caption{\small Evolution of the densities for the: (left) marginal and
(right) extremal models with the near-symmetric initial condition
$P_0=0.50001$, $M_0=0.49999$, and $P_1=M_1=0$.}
\label{non-symm}
\end{figure}
In the marginal model (Fig.~\ref{non-symm}(a)), the system begins to approach
the point $M_1=P_1=\frac{1}{2}$ algebraically in time, as discussed above.
For a slightly asymmetric initial condition, the densities remain close to
this unstable fixed point for a time that numerical integration shows is of
order $\ln N$. Ultimately, the system is driven to the fixed point that
corresponds to the initial majority opinion. For the extremal model,
qualitatively similar behavior occurs, except that in the initial stages of
evolution the system is quickly driven towards the fixed point at
$P_0=M_0=\lambda_+$ and $P_1=\frac{1}{2}-\lambda_+$. This fixed point is a
saddle node, with one stable and two unstable directions
(Fig.~\ref{non-symm}(b)). Thus for nearly-symmetric initial conditions, the
densities remain close to this fixed point for a time of the order $\ln N$,
after which the densities are suddenly driven to one of the two stable fixed
points, either $M_0=1$ or $P_0=1$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics*[width=0.4\textwidth]{tetra-marginal}\qquad\qquad\includegraphics*[width=0.4\textwidth]{tetra-extremal}}
\caption{\small Composition tetrahedron for the: (a) marginal and (b)
extremal models. Shown in (a) are the consensus fixed points (dots), the
unstable fixed line (thick), and the symmetry line $P_0=M_0$, $P_1=M_1$
(dashed arrow) that terminates in a symmetric fixed point (circle). Shown
in (b) are the unstable (circle) and stable (dots) fixed points. For both
cases, two representative flows that start from nearly symmetric initial
conditions are shown.}
\label{tetra-marginal}
\end{figure}
The full state space is the composition tetrahedron, which consists of the
intersection of the set $\{P_0,P_1,M_0,M_1|P_i,M_i\leq 1\}$ with the
normalization constraint plane $P_0+P_1+M_0+M_1=1$
(Fig.~\ref{tetra-marginal}). Each corner corresponds to a pure system that
is entirely comprised of the labeled species. For the marginal version,
there are only two stable fixed points at $P_0=1$ and $M_0=1$, corresponding
to consensus of either confident plus voters or confident minus voters.
There is also a fixed line, defined by $P_1+M_1=1$, where the population
consists only of unsure agents. This fixed line is locally unstable
except at the point $P_1=M_1=\frac{1}{2}$. Thus if the system starts along
the symmetry line defined by $P_0=M_0$ and $P_1=M_1$, the system flows to the
final state of $P_1=M_1=\frac{1}{2}$. However, near-symmetric initial states
execute a sharp U-turn and eventually flow to one of the consensus fixed
points $P_0=1$ or $M_0=1$, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{tetra-marginal}.
For the extremal version, qualitatively similar dynamics arises, except that
instead of a fixed line, there is an unstable fixed point at
$P_0=M_0=\lambda_+$ and $P_1=M_1=\frac{1}{2}-\lambda_+$. Nearly symmetric
initial states first flow to this unstable fixed point and remain in the
vicinity of this point for a time scale that is of order $\ln N$, after which
the densities quickly flow to the consensus fixed points, either $M_0=1$ or
$P_0=1$.
\section{CONFIDENT VOTING ON LATTICES}
We now investigate confident voting dynamics when voters are situated on the
sites of a finite-dimensional lattice of linear dimension $L$ (with $N=L^d$),
with periodic boundary conditions. For the classic lattice voter model, it
was found that the consensus time $T_N$ asymptotically scales as $N^2$ in one
dimension $d=1$, as $N\ln N$ for $d=2$, and as $N$ for
$d>2$~\cite{Liggett85,K92}. The presence of the logarithmic factor for $d=2$
and the lack of dimension dependence for $d>2$ shows that the critical
dimension $d_c=2$ for the classic voter model.
The confident voter model has quite different dynamics because the
magnetization is not conserved, except in the symmetric limit $P_0=M_0$ and
$P_1=M_1$, whereas the average magnetization is conserved in the classic
voter model~\cite{Liggett85,K92}. Here the magnetization is defined as the
difference in the densities of plus and minus voters of any kind. The
absence of this conservation law leads to an effective surface tension
between domains of plus and minus voters~\cite{DC07}. Consequently confident
voting is closer in character to the kinetic Ising model with single-spin
flip dynamics at low temperatures rather than to the classic voter model.
\subsection{One Dimension}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics*[width=0.8\textwidth]{1dwall}
\caption{\small First three evolution steps of an interface between a $P_0$
and $M_0$ domain. Voters that change their state are shown green. After
one more step, a sharp domain wall that is translated by $\pm 1$ lattice
spacing is re-established. }
\label{1dwall}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the simplest case of one dimension, the agents organize at long times into
domains that are in a single state and the evolution is determined by the
motion of the interface between two dissimilar domains. Thus we consider the
evolution of a single interface between two semi-infinite domains --- for
example, one in state $P_0$ and the other in state $M_0$. By enumerating all
possible ways that the voters at the interface can evolve
(Fig.~\ref{1dwall}), we find that the domain wall moves one site to the left
or to the right equiprobably after four time steps. Thus isolated interfaces
between domains undergo a random walk, but with the domain wall hopping at
one-fourth the rate of a symmetric nearest-neighbor random walk.
Similarly, we determine the fate of two adjacent diffusing domain walls by
studying the evolution of a single voter in state $M_0$ in a sea of $P_0$
voters. By again enumerating the possible ways these two adjoining
interfaces evolve, we find that the domain walls annihilate with probability
$1/2$ and move apart by one lattice spacing with probability $1/2$.
Additionally, we verified that the distribution of survival times for a
single confident voter in a sea of opposite-opinion voters scales as
$S(t)\equiv t^{-1/2}$, as in the classic voter model. We also studied the
analogous single-defect initial condition for unsure voters. In all such
cases, the long-time behavior is essentially the same as in the classic voter
model, albeit with an overall slower time scale. Finally, we confirmed that
the time to reach consensus starting from an arbitrary initial state scales
quadratically with $N$. Thus the one-dimensional confident voter model at
long times exhibits the same evolution as the classic voter model, but with a
rescaled time.
\subsection{Two Dimensions}
In our simulations of confident voting in two dimensions, we typically start
a population with exactly one-half of the voters in the confident plus state and
one-half in the confident minus state, with their locations randomly distributed.
Periodic boundary conditions are always employed. For both the marginal and the
extremal versions of confident voting, $T_N$ appears to grow algebraically in
$N$, with an exponent that is visually close to $\frac{3}{2}$ (Fig.~\ref{T2d}).
However, the local two-point slopes in the plot of $\ln T_N$ versus $\ln N$
are slowly and non-monotonically varying with $N$ so that it is difficult to
make a precise estimate of the exponent value.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics*[width=0.425\textwidth]{TvsN}\qquad\includegraphics*[width=0.425\textwidth]{combinedSlopes}}
\caption{\small (left) Average consensus time $T_N$ on the square lattice as
a function of $N$. For both models, the initial number of confident plus
and minus voters are equal and randomly-distributed in space. The number
of realizations for the largest system size is $40,000$. (right) Local
two-point exponent for the consensus time for the marginal and extremal
models. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainty.}
\label{T2d}
\end{figure}
We argue that this slow approach to asymptotic behavior arises because there
are two different routes by which consensus is achieved. For random initial
conditions, most realizations reach consensus by domain coarsening, a process
that ends with the formation of a large single-opinion droplet that engulfs
the system. However, for a substantial fraction of realizations (roughly
38\% for the extremal model and 42\% for the marginal model), voters first
segregate into alternating stripe-like enclaves of plus and minus voters
(Fig.~\ref{statePics}). This feature is akin to what occurs in the
two-dimensional Ising model with zero-temperature Glauber dynamics, where
roughly one-third of all realizations fall into a stripe state (which happens
to be infinitely long lived at zero temperature~\cite{SKR01a,SKR01b,BKR09}).
A similar condensation into stripe states also occurs in the majority vote
model~\cite{CR05}, the $AB$ model, the naming game~\cite{CBL09}, and now the
confident voter model. It is striking that this symmetry breaking occurs in
a wide range of non-equilibrium systems for which the underlying dynamics is
symmetric in $x$ and $y$. It is an open challenge to understand why this
symmetry breaking occurs.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics*[width=0.25\textwidth]{stripe}\qquad\qquad\qquad\includegraphics*[width=0.25\textwidth]{island}}
\caption{\small Typical configurations of the extremal version of the
confident voter model on a $30 \times 30$ square lattice that reach either
a stripe state (left) or an island state (right). Black and white pixels
correspond to unsure plus and minus agents; these form a sharp interface
between domains of confident agents. }
\label{statePics}
\end{figure}
The existence of these two distinct modes of evolution is reflected in the
probability distribution of consensus times $P(T_N)$ (Fig.~\ref{distT2d}).
Starting from the random but symmetrical initial condition, the distribution
$P(T_N)$ first has a sharp peak at a characteristic time that scales linearly
with $N$, and then a distinct exponential tail whose characteristic decay
time scales as $N^{3/2}$. The shorter time scale corresponds to the subset
of realizations that reach consensus by conventional coarsening. For these
realizations, the length scale $\ell$ of the coarsening grows as $\sqrt{t}$.
When this coarsening scale reaches $L$, consensus is achieved. The consensus
time is thus given by $\ell=L=\sqrt{t}$; since $N\propto L^2$, we have
$T_N\simeq N$. The longer time scale stems from the subset of realizations
that fall into a stripe state before consensus is eventually reached.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{Tdist2}}
\caption{\small Consensus time distribution for a $64 \times 64$
system on a double logarithmic scale. The initial condition is the same
as in Fig.~\ref{T2d} and the data are based on 750,000 realizations. }
\label{distT2d}
\end{figure}
To help understand the quantitative nature of the approach to consensus via
the two different routes of coarsening and stripe states, we studied the
confident voter model with the initial conditions of: (i) a large circular
single-opinion island and (ii) a stripe state (Fig.~\ref{T2d-combined}). For
the former, the initial condition is a circular region of radius $r$ that
contains agents in state $M_0$, surrounded by agents in state $P_0$. For the
latter, agents in state $P_0$ occupy the top half of the system, while the
bottom half is occupied of agents in state $M_0$. For these two initial
conditions, the consensus time $T_N$ grows as $N$ and as $N^{3/2}$,
respectively (Fig.~\ref{T2d-combined}). In the latter case, the approach to
asymptotic behavior is both non-monotonic and extremely slow
(Fig.~\ref{T2d-combined}); we do not understand the mechanism responsible for
these anomalies. These limiting behaviors account for the two time scales
that arise in the distribution of consensus times for a system with a random,
symmetric initial condition.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics*[width=0.425\textwidth]{Tcombined}\qquad\includegraphics*[width=0.425\textwidth]{localSlope}}
\caption{\small (left) Average consensus time for the extremal model on the
square lattice as a function of the population size for: (i) island and
(ii) stripe initial configurations. For the stripe initial condition, the
data for the largest system size is based on 13,000 realizations. The
stripe-state data has been vertically displaced for clarity. (right) The
local two-point exponent for $T_N$ for an initial stripe state. The error
bars indicate the statistical uncertainty.}
\label{T2d-combined}
\end{figure}
Although the confident voter model has an appreciable probability of falling
into a stripe state, such a state is not stable because the interface between
the domains can diffuse. When the two interfaces of a stripe diffuse by a
distance that is of the order of their separation, one stripe is cut in two
and resulting droplet geometry quickly evolves to consensus. We estimate the
time for two such interfaces to meet by following essentially the same
argument as that developed for the majority vote model~\cite{CR05}. For a
flat interface, every site on the interface can change its opinion. Such an
opinion change moves the local position of the interface by $\pm 1$. For a
smooth interface of length $L$, there will therefore be of the order of
$L\pm\sqrt{L}$ opinion change events of plus to minus and vice versa. Thus
the net change in the number of agents of a given opinion is of the order of
$\pm\sqrt{L}$. Consequently, the average position of the interface moves by
$\sqrt{L}/L=1/\sqrt{L}$. Correspondingly the diffusion coefficient $D_L$ of
the interface scales as $1/L$. The time for two such interfaces that are
separated by a distance of the order of $L$ to meet therefore scales as
$L^2/D_L\sim L^3\sim N^{3/2}$.
In a $d$-dimensional system, the analog of two-stripe state is a two-slab
state with a $(d-1)$-dimensional interface separating the slabs. Now the
same argument as that give above leads to $N^{(d+1)/d}$ as the time scale for
two initially flat interfaces to meet. According to this approach, the
consensus time scales linearly with $N$ in the limit of $d\to\infty$, a limit
that one normally associates with the mean-field limit. However, the rate
equation approach gives a consensus time that grows as $\ln N$. We do not
know how to resolve this dichotomy.
\section{Summary}
We introduced the notion of individual confidence in the context of the voter
model. Our model is based on recent social experiments that point to the
importance of multiple reinforcing inputs as an important influence for
adopting a new opinion or behavior~\cite{C10}. We studied two variants of
confident voting in which an agent who has just switched opinion will be
either have confidence in the new opinion --- the extremal model --- or be
unsure of the new opinion --- the marginal model. In the mean-field limit, a
nearly symmetric system quickly evolves to an intermediate metastable state
before finally reaching a consensus in one of the confident opinion states.
This intermediate state is reached in a time of the order of one, while the
time to reach consensus scales as $\ln N$.
On a two-dimensional lattice, a substantial fraction of all realizations of a
random initial condition reach a long-lived stripe state before ultimate
consensus is reached. This phenomenon appears ubiquitously in related
opinion and spin-dynamics models~\cite{CR05,SKR01a,SKR01b,BKR09}) and an
understanding of what underlies this dynamical symmetry-breaking is still
lacking. An important consequence of the stripe states is that there are two
independent times that describe the approach to consensus. The shorter time,
which scales linearly with $N$, corresponds to realizations that reach
consensus by domain coarsening. The longer time corresponds to realizations
that get stuck in a metastable stripe state before ultimately reaching
consensus.
An unexpected feature of confident voting is that the behavior in two
dimensions, where the consensus time $T_N$ varies as a power law in $N$, is
drastically different than that of the mean-field limit, where $T_N$ varies
logarithmically with $N$. In contrast, in the classic voter model, $T_N\sim
N\ln N$ in two dimensions, whereas the mean-field behavior is $T_N\sim N$.
This dichotomy suggests that confident voting on the complete graph does not
correspond to the limiting behavior of confident voting on a high-dimensional
hypercubic lattice. Moreover the argument that $T_N$ on a $d$-dimensional
hypercubic lattice scales as $N^{(d+1)/d}$ suggests that the upper critical
dimension for confident voting is infinite.
\ack We gratefully acknowledge financial support from NSF Grant No.\ DMR-0906504.
\def\hskip .11em plus .33em minus .07em{\hskip .11em plus .33em minus .07em}
|
\section{Introduction}
In a RTS, players need to gather resources to build structures and military units and defeat their opponents. To that end, they often have \textit{worker units} than can gather resources needed to build \textit{workers}, \textit{buildings}, \textit{military units} and \textit{research upgrades}. Resources may have different uses, for instance in StarCraft: minerals are used for everything, whereas gas is only required for advanced buildings or military units, and technology upgrades. The military units can be of different types, any combinations of ranged, casters, contact attack, zone attacks, big, small, slow, fast, invisible, flying... Units can have attacks and defenses that counter each others as in rock-paper-scissors. Buildings and research upgrades define technology trees (precisely: directed acyclic graphs). Tech trees are tied to strategic planning, because they put constraints on which units types can be produced, when and in which numbers, which spells are available and how the player spends her resources.
Most real-time strategy (RTS) games AI are either not challenging or not fun to play against. They are not challenging because they do not adapt well dynamically to different strategies (long term goals and army composition) and tactics (army moves) that a human can perform. They are not fun to play against because they cheat economically, gathering resources faster, and/or in the intelligence war, bypassing the fog of war. We believe that creating AI that adapt to the strategies of the human player would make RTS games AI much more interesting to play against.
We worked on StarCraft: Brood War, which is a canonical RTS game, as Chess is to board games. It had been around since 1998, it has sold 10 millions licenses and was the best competitive RTS for more than a decade. There are 3 factions (Protoss, Terran and Zerg) that are totally different in terms of units, tech trees and thus gameplay styles. StarCraft and most RTS games provide a tool to record game logs into \textit{replays} that can be re-simulated by the game engine and watched to improve strategies and tactics. All high level players use this feature heavily either to improve their play or study opponents style. Observing replays allows players to see what happened under the fog of war, so that they can understand timing of technologies and attacks and find clues/evidences leading to infer the strategy as well as weak points (either strategic or tactical). We used this replay feature to extract players actions and learn the probabilities of tech trees to happen at a given time.
In our model, we used the buildings part of tech trees because buildings can be more easily viewed than units when fog of war is enforced, and our main focus was our StarCraft bot implementation (see Figure~\ref{bbq_dataflow}), but nothing hinders us to use units and upgrades as well in a setting without fog of war (commentary assistant or game AI that cheat).
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{starcraft_bbq.pdf}}
\caption{Data flow of the free software StarCraft robotic player \textsc{BroodwarBotQ}. In this paper, we only deal with the upper left part (in a dotted line).}
\label{bbq_dataflow}
\end{figure}
\section{Background}
\subsection{Related Works}
This work was encouraged by the reading of \citeauthor{weber} \shortcite{weber} Data Mining Approach to Strategy Prediction and the fact that they provided their dataset. They tried and evaluated several machine learning algorithms on replays that were labeled with strategies (supervised learning)
There are related works in the domains of opponent modeling \cite{HsiehS08,SchaddBS07,OBRecog}. The main methods used to these ends are case-based reasoning (CBR) and planning or plan recognition \cite{LTW,CBR_Planning,OntanonCBR,HTNPlanning,Ramirez}. There are precedent works of Bayesian plan recognition \cite{BMPR}, even in games with \cite{BayesianRecog} using dynamic Bayesian networks to recognize a user's plan in a multi-player dungeon adventure. Also, \citeauthor{Chung05} \shortcite{Chung05} describe a Monte-Carlo plan selection algorithm applied to Open RTS.
\citeauthor{LTW} \shortcite{LTW} used CBR to perform dynamic plan retrieval extracted from domain knowledge in Wargus (Warcraft II clone). \citeauthor{CBR_Planning} \shortcite{CBR_Planning} base their real-time case-based planning (CBP) system on a plan dependency graph which is learned from human demonstration. In \cite{OntanonCBR,PlanRetrieval}, they use CBR and expert demonstrations on Wargus.
They improve the speed of CPB by using a decision tree to select relevant features. \citeauthor{HsiehS08} \shortcite{HsiehS08} based their work on CBR and \citeauthor{LTW} \shortcite{LTW} and used StarCraft replays to construct states and building sequences. Strategies are choices of building construction order in their model.
\citeauthor{SchaddBS07} \shortcite{SchaddBS07} describe opponent modeling through hierarchically structured models of the opponent behaviour and they applied their work to the Spring RTS (Total Annihilation clone). \citeauthor{HTNPlanning} \shortcite{HTNPlanning} use hierarchical task networks (HTN) to model strategies in a first person shooter with the goal to use HTN planners. \citeauthor{OBRecog} \shortcite{OBRecog} improve the probabilistic hostile agent task tracker (PHATT \cite{PHATT}, a simulated HMM for plan recognition) by encoding strategies as HTN.
The work described in this paper can be classified as probabilistic plan recognition. Strictly speaking, we present model-based machine learning used for prediction of plans, while our model is not limited to prediction. The plans are build trees directly learned from the replays (unsupervised learning).
\subsection{Bayesian Programming}
Probability is used as an alternative to classical logic and we transform incompleteness (in the experiences, the perceptions or the model) into uncertainty \cite{Jaynes}. We introduce Bayesian programs (BP), a formalism that can be used to describe entirely any kind of Bayesian model, subsuming Bayesian networks and Bayesian maps, equivalent to probabilistic factor graphs \cite{Diard03}. There are mainly two parts in a BP, the \textbf{description} of how to compute the joint distribution, and the \textbf{question(s)} that it will be asked.
The description consists in explaining the relevant \textit{variables} $\{X^1,\dots,X^n\}$ and explain their dependencies by \textit{decomposing} the joint distribution $P(X^1\dots X^n | \delta, \pi)$ with existing preliminary knowledge $\pi$ and data $\delta$. The \textit{forms} of each term of the product specify how to compute their distributions: either parametric forms (laws or probability tables, with free parameters that can be learned from data $\delta$) or recursive questions to other Bayesian programs.
Answering a question is computing the distribution $P(Searched | Known)$, with $Searched$ and $Known$ two disjoint subsets of the variables.
$P(Searched | Known) $
$$ = \frac{\sum_{Free}P(Searched,\ Free,\ Known)}{P(Known)}$$ $$ = \frac{1}{Z}\times \sum_{Free} P(Searched,\ Free,\ Known)$$
General Bayesian inference is practically intractable, but conditional independence hypotheses and constraints (stated in the description) often simplify the model. Also, there are different well-known approximation techniques, for instance Monte Carlo methods
and variational Bayes \cite{Beal}. In this paper, we will use only simple enough models that allow complete inference to be computed in real-time.
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
BP
\begin{cases}
Desc.
\begin{cases}
Spec. (\pi)
\begin{cases}
Variables\\
Decomposition\\
Forms\ (Parametric\ or\ Program)
\end{cases}\\
Identification\ (based\ on\ \delta)
\end{cases}\\
Question
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
For the use of Bayesian programming in sensory-motor systems, see \cite{PRDMSMS}. For its use in cognitive modeling, see \cite{Colas10}. For its first use in video games (first person shooter gameplay, Unreal Tournament), see \cite{LeHy04}.
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Build/Tech Tree Prediction Model}
The outline of the model is that it infers the distribution on (probabilities for each of) our opponent's build tree from observations, which tend to be very partial due to the fog of war. From what is common (conditionally of observations) and the hierarchical structure of a build tree, it diminishes or raises their probabilities.
Our predictive model is a Bayesian program, it can be seen as the ``Bayesian network'' represented in Figure~\ref{BNPrediction}. It is a generative model and this is of great help to deal with the parts of the observations' space where we do not have too much data (RTS games tend to diverge from one another as the number of possible actions grow exponentially). Indeed, we can model our uncertainty by putting a large standard deviation on too rare observations and generative models tend to converge with fewer observations than discriminative ones \cite{Jordan}. Here is the description of our Bayesian program:
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{BTPrediction.pdf}}
\caption{Graphical representation of the build tree prediction Bayesian model}
\label{BNPrediction}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Variables}
\begin{itemize}
\item $BuildTree \in \{\emptyset, \{building_1\}, \{building_2\}, \{building_1\wedge building_2\}, \dots\}$: all the possible building trees for the given race. For instance $\{pylon, gate\}$ and $\{pylon, gate, core\}$ are two different $BuildTrees$.
\item Observations: $O_{i \in \llbracket 1\dots N \rrbracket} \in \{0, 1\}$, $O_k$ is $1/true$ if we have seen (observed) the $k$th building (it can have been destroyed, it will stay ``seen'').
\item $\lambda \in \{0, 1\}$: coherence variable (restraining $BuildTree$ to possible values with regard to $O_{1:N}$)
\item $Time$: $T \in \llbracket 1\dots P \rrbracket$, time in the game (1 second resolution).
\end{itemize}
At first, we generated all the possible (according to the game rules) $BuildTree$ values (in StarCraft, between $\approx 500$ and $1600$ depending on the race without the same building twice). We observed that a lot of possible $BuildTree$ values are too absurd to be performed in a competitive match and were never seen during the learning. So, we restricted $BuildTree$ to have its value in all the build trees encountered in our replays dataset and we added multiple instances of the basic unit producing buildings (gateway, barracks), expansions and supply buildings (depot, pylon, ``overlord'' as a building).
This way, there are 810 build trees for Terran, 346 for Protoss and 261 for Zerg (learned from $\approx 3000$ replays for each race).
\subsubsection{Decomposition}
The joint distribution of our model is the following:
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & P(T, BuildTree, O_1 \dots O_N, \lambda) = \\
& & P(T | BuildTree).P(BuildTree)\\
& & P(\lambda | BuildTree, O_{1:N}).P(O_{1:N})
\end{eqnarray*}
This can also be see as Figure~\ref{BNPrediction}.
\subsubsection{Forms}
\begin{itemize}
\item $P(BuildTree)$ is the prior distribution on the build trees. It can either be learned from the labeled replays (histograms) or set to the uniform distribution, as we did.
\item $P(O_{1:N})$ is unspecified, we put the uniform distribution (we could use a prior over the most frequent observations).
\item $P(\lambda | BuildTree, O_{1:N})$ is a functional Dirac that restricts $BuildTree$ values to the ones than can co-exist with the observations.
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & P(\lambda = 1 | buildTree, o_{1:N}) \\
& = & 1\ \mathrm{if\ } buildTree \ \mathrm{can\ exist\ with\ } o_{1:N} \\
& = & 0\ \mathrm{else}
\end{eqnarray*}
A $BuildTree$ value ($buildTree$) is compatible with the observations if it covers them fully. For instance, $BuildTree=\{pylon, gate, core\}$ is compatible with $o_{\#core} = 1$ but it is not compatible with $o_{\#forge} = 1$. In other words, $buildTree$ is incompatible with $o_{1:N}$ \textit{iff} $\{o_{1:N} \backslash \{o_{1:N} \wedge buildTree\}\} \neq \emptyset$.
\item $P(T | BuildTree)$ are ``bell shape'' distributions (discretized normal distributions). There is one bell shape over $Time$ per $buildTree$. The parameters of these discrete Gaussian distributions are learned from the replays.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Identification (learning)}
The learning of the $P(T | BuildTree)$ bell shapes parameters takes into account the uncertainty of the $buildTrees$ for which we have few observations. Indeed, the normal distribution $P(T|buildTree)$ begins with a high $\sigma^2$, and \textbf{not} a ``Dirac'' with $\mu$ on the seen $T$ value and $sigma=0$. This accounts for the fact that the first(s) observation(s) may be outlier(s). This learning process is independent on the order of the stream of examples, seeing point A and then B or B and then A in the learning phase produces the same result.
\subsubsection{Questions}
The question that we will ask in all the benchmarks is:
\begin{eqnarray*}
& P(BuildTree|T=t, O_{1:N}=o_{1:N}, \lambda = 1) \\
& \propto P(t|BuildTree).P(BuildTree)\\
& P(\lambda | BuildTree, o_{1:N}).P(o_{1:N})\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that if we see $P(BuildTree, Time)$ as a plan, asking $P(BuildTree | Time)$ for ourselves boils down to use our ``plan recognition'' mode as a planning algorithm, which could provide good approximations of the optimal goal set \cite{Ramirez}, or build orders.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{techtree_inference_color2.png}}
\caption{Evolution of $P(BuildTree|Observations...)$ in Time (seen/observed buildings on the x-axis). Only $BuildTrees$ with a probability $> 0.01$ are shown.}
\label{ttinf}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
All the results presented in this section represents the nine match-ups (races combinations) in 1 versus 1 (duel) of StarCraft. We worked with a data-set of 8806 replays ($\approx$ 1000 per match-up) of highly skilled human players and we performed cross-validation with 9/10th of the dataset used for learning and the remaining 1/10th of the dataset used for evaluation. Performance wise, the learning part (with $\approx$ 1000 replays) takes around $0.1$ second on a 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo CPU (and it is serializable). Each inference (question) step takes around $0.01$ second. The memory footprint is around 3 Mb on a 64 bits machine
\begin{table*}[ht]
\caption{Summarization of the main results/metrics, one full results set for 10\% noise}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|cc|cc|cc|cc|}
\hline
& measure & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$d$ for $k=0$} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$k$ for $d=1$} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$k$ for $d=2$} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$k$ for $d=3$} \\
noise & & \begin{scriptsize}$d(best,real)$\end{scriptsize}
& \begin{scriptsize}$d(bt,real)*P(bt)$\end{scriptsize}
& \begin{scriptsize}best\end{scriptsize}
& \begin{scriptsize}``mean''\end{scriptsize}
& \begin{scriptsize}best\end{scriptsize}
& \begin{scriptsize}``mean''\end{scriptsize}
& \begin{scriptsize}best\end{scriptsize}
& \begin{scriptsize}``mean''\end{scriptsize} \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{3mm}{\begin{sideways}\parbox{3mm}{0\%\ \ }\end{sideways}}
& average & 0.535 & 0.870 & 1.193 & 3.991 & 2.760 & 5.249 & 3.642 & 6.122\\
& min & 0.313 & 0.574 & 0.861 & 2.8 & 2.239 & 3.97 & 3.13 & 4.88\\
& max & 1.051 & 1.296 & 2.176 & 5.334 & 3.681 & 6.683 & 4.496 & 7.334\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{3mm}{\begin{sideways}\parbox{3mm}{10\%\ \ }\end{sideways}}
& PvP & 0.397 & 0.646 & 1.061 & 2.795 & 2.204 & 3.877 & 2.897 & 4.693\\
& PvT & 0.341 & 0.654 & 0.991 & 2.911 & 2.017 & 4.053 & 2.929 & 5.079\\
& PvZ & 0.516 & 0.910 & 0.882 & 3.361 & 2.276 & 4.489 & 3.053 & 5.308\\
& TvP & 0.608 & 0.978 & 0.797 & 4.202 & 2.212 & 5.171 & 3.060 & 5.959\\
& TvT & 1.043 & 1.310 & 0.983 & 4.75 & 3.45 & 5.85 & 3.833 & 6.45\\
& TvZ & 0.890 & 1.250 & 1.882 & 4.815 & 3.327 & 5.873 & 4.134 & 6.546\\
& ZvP & 0.521 & 0.933 & 0.89 & 3.82 & 2.48 & 4.93 & 3.16 & 5.54\\
& ZvT & 0.486 & 0.834 & 0.765 & 3.156 & 2.260 & 4.373 & 3.139 & 5.173\\
& ZvZ & 0.399 & 0.694 & 0.9 & 2.52 & 2.12 & 3.53 & 2.71 & 4.38\\
& average & 0.578 & 0.912 & 1.017 & 3.592 & 2.483 & 4.683 & 3.213 & 5.459\\
& min & 0.341 & 0.646 & 0.765 & 2.52 & 2.017 & 3.53 & 2.71 & 4.38\\
& max & 1.043 & 1.310 & 1.882 & 4.815 & 3.45 & 5.873 & 4.134 & 6.546\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{3mm}{\begin{sideways}\parbox{3mm}{20\%\ \ }\end{sideways}}
& average & 0.610 & 0.949 & 0.900 & 3.263 & 2.256 & 4.213 & 2.866 & 4.873\\
& min & 0.381 & 0.683 & 0.686 & 2.3 & 1.858 & 3.25 & 2.44 & 3.91\\
& max & 1.062 & 1.330 & 1.697 & 4.394 & 3.133 & 5.336 & 3.697 & 5.899\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{3mm}{\begin{sideways}\parbox{3mm}{30\%\ \ }\end{sideways}}
& average & 0.670 & 1.003 & 0.747 & 2.902 & 2.055 & 3.801 & 2.534 & 4.375\\
& min & 0.431 & 0.749 & 0.555 & 2.03 & 1.7 & 3 & 2.22 & 3.58\\
& max & 1.131 & 1.392 & 1.394 & 3.933 & 2.638 & 4.722 & 3.176 & 5.268\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{3mm}{\begin{sideways}\parbox{3mm}{40\%\ \ }\end{sideways}}
& aerage & 0.740 & 1.068 & 0.611 & 2.529 & 1.883 & 3.357 & 2.20 & 3.827\\
& min & 0.488 & 0.820 & 0.44 & 1.65 & 1.535 & 2.61 & 1.94 & 3.09\\
& max & 1.257 & 1.497 & 1.201 & 3.5 & 2.516 & 4.226 & 2.773 & 4.672\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{3mm}{\begin{sideways}\parbox{3mm}{50\%\ \ }\end{sideways}}
& average & 0.816 & 1.145 & 0.493 & 2.078 & 1.696 & 2.860 & 1.972 & 3.242\\
& min & 0.534 & 0.864 & 0.363 & 1.33 & 1.444 & 2.24 & 1.653 & 2.61\\
& max & 1.354 & 1.581 & 1 & 2.890 & 2.4 & 3.613 & 2.516 & 3.941\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{3mm}{\begin{sideways}\parbox{3mm}{60\%\ \ }\end{sideways}}
& average & 0.925 & 1.232 & 0.400 & 1.738 & 1.531 & 2.449 & 1.724 & 2.732\\
& min & 0.586 & 0.918 & 0.22 & 1.08 & 1.262 & 1.98 & 1.448 & 2.22\\
& max & 1.414 & 1.707 & 0.840 & 2.483 & 2 & 3.100 & 2.083 & 3.327\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{3mm}{\begin{sideways}\parbox{3mm}{70\%\ \ }\end{sideways}}
& verage & 1.038 & 1.314 & 0.277 & 1.291 & 1.342 & 2.039 & 1.470 & 2.270\\
& min & 0.633 & 0.994 & 0.16 & 0.79 & 1.101 & 1.653 & 1.244 & 1.83\\
& max & 1.683 & 1.871 & 0.537 & 1.85 & 1.7 & 2.512 & 1.85 & 2.714\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{3mm}{\begin{sideways}\parbox{3mm}{80\%\ \ }\end{sideways}}
& average & 1.134 & 1.367 & 0.156 & 0.890 & 1.144 & 1.689 & 1.283 & 1.831\\
& min & 0.665 & 1.027 & 0.06 & 0.56 & 0.929 & 1.408 & 1.106 & 1.66\\
& max & 1.876 & 1.999 & 0.333 & 1.216 & 1.4 & 2.033 & 1.5 & 2.176\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{all_results}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Predictive Power}
The predictive power of our model is measured by the $k>0$ next buildings for which we have ``good enough'' prediction of future build trees in:
$$ P(BuildTree^{t+k} | T=t, O_{1:N}=o_{1:N}, \lambda = 1)$$
``Good enough'' is measured by a distance $d$ to the actual build tree of the opponent that we tolerate. We used a set distance: $d(bt_1, bt_2) = \mathrm{card}(bt_1 \Delta bt_2) = \mathrm{card}((bt_1\bigcup bt_2) \backslash (bt_1\bigcap bt_2))$. One less or more building in the prediction is at a distance of $1$ from the actual build tree, the same buildings except for one difference is at a distance of $2$ (that would be $1$ is we used tree edit distance with substitution). We call $d(best,real)=$``best'' the distance between the most probable build tree and the one that actually happened. We call $d(bt,real)*P(bt)$=``mean'' the marginalized distance between what was inferred balanced (variable $bt$) by the probability of inferences ($P(bt)$). Note that this distance is always over \textbf{all} the build tree (and not only the next inference). This distance was taken into account only after the fourth (4th) building so that the first buildings would not penalize the prediction metric (the first building can not be predicted 4 buildings in advance).
We used $d=1,2,3$, with $d=1$ we have a very strong sense of what the opponent is doing or will be doing, with $d=3$, we may miss one key building or have switched a tech path. We can see in Table~\ref{all_results} that with $d=1$ and without noise, our model predict in average more than one building in advance what the opponent will build next if we use only its best prediction, and almost \textbf{four} buildings in advance if we marginalize over all the predictions. Of course, if we accept more error, the predictive power (number of buildings ahead that our model is capable to predict) increases, up to $6.12$ for $d=3$ without noise.
\subsection{Robustness to Noise}
The robustness of our algorithm is measured by the quality of the predictions of the build trees for $k=0$ (reconstruction) or $k>0$ (prediction) with missing observations in:
$$ P(BuildTree^{t+k} | T=t, O_{1:N}=partial(o_{1:N}), \lambda = 1)$$
The ``reconstructive'' power (infer what has not been seen) ensues from the learning of our parameters from real data: even in the set of build trees that are possible, with regard to the game rules, only a few will be probable at a given time and/or with some key structures. Abiding by probability theory gives us consistency with regard to concurrent build tree.
This ``reconstructive'' power of our model is shown in Table~\ref{all_results} with $d$ (distance to actual building tree) for increasing noise at fixed $k=0$.
Figure~\ref{noise} displays first (on top) the evolution of the error rate (distance to actual building) with increasing random noise (from 0\% to 80\%, no missing observations to 8 missing observations over 10). We consider that having an average distance to the actual build tree a little over $1$ for 80\% missing observations is a success. We think that this robustness is due to $P(T|BuildTree)$ being precise with the amount of data that we used. Secondly, Figure~\ref{noise} displays (at the bottom) the evolution of the predictive power (number of buildings ahead from the build tree that it can predict) with the same increase of noise.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{error_noise2.png}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{predictive_power_noise2.png}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Evolution of our metrics with increasing noise, from 0 to 80\%. The top graphic shows the increase in distance between the predicted build tree, both most probable (``best'') and marginal (``mean'') and the actual one. The bottom graphic shows the decrease in predictive power: numbers of buildings ahead ($k$) for which our model predict a build tree closer than a fixed distance/error ($d$).}
\label{noise}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\section{Conclusions}
\subsection{Discussion and Perspectives}
Developing beforehand a RTS game AI that specifically deals with whatever strategies the players will come up is very hard. And even if game developers were willing to patch their AI afterwards, it would require a really modular design and a lot of work to treat each strategy. With our model, the AI can adapt to the evolutions in play by learning its parameters from the replay, it can dynamically adapt during the games by asking $P(BuilTree|Observations, Time, \lambda=1)$ and even $P(TechTree|Observations, Time, \lambda=1)$ if we add units and technology upgrades to buildings. This would allow for the bot to dynamically choose/change build orders and strategies.
This work can be extended by have a model for the two players (the bot/AI and the opponent):
$$P(BuildTree_{bot}, BuildTree_{op}, Obs_{op,1:N}, Time, \lambda)$$
So that we could ask this (new) model: $$P(BuildTree_{bot} | obs_{op, 1:N}, time, \lambda=1)$$
This would allow for simple and dynamic build tree adaptation to the opponent strategy (dynamic re-planning), by the inference path:
\begin{eqnarray*}
& P(BuildTree_{bot} | obs_{op, 1:N}, time, \lambda=1)\\
& \propto \sum_{BuildTree_{op}} P(BuildTree_{bot} | BuildTree_{op}) \ \mathrm{(learned)} \\
& \times P(BuildTree_{op}).P(o_{op, 1:N}) \ \mathrm{(priors)} \\
& \times P(\lambda | BuildTree_{op}, o_{op, 1:N}) \ \mathrm{(consistency)} \\
& \times P(time|BuildTree_{op}) \ \mathrm{(learned)}
\end{eqnarray*}
That way, one can ask ``what build/tech tree should I go for against what I see from my opponent'', which tacitly seeks the distribution on $BuildTree_{op}$ to break the complexity of the possible combinations of $Obs_{1:N}$. It is possible to \textit{not} marginalize over $BuildTree_{op}$, but consider only the most probable(s) $BuildTree_{op}$, for computing efficiency. A filter on $BuildTree_{bot}$ (as simple as $P(BuildTree_{bot}^t | BuildTree_{bot}^{t-1}$) can and should be added to prevent switching build orders or strategies too often.
The Bayesian model presented in this paper for opponent build tree prediction can be used in two main ways:
\begin{itemize}
\item as the corner stone of adaptive (to the opponent's dynamic strategies) RTS game AI:
\begin{itemize}
\item without noise in the case of built-in game AI (cheat).
\item with noise in the case of RTS AI tournaments (as AIIDE's) of matches against human players.
\end{itemize}
\item as a commentary assistant (null noise, prediction of tech trees), showing the probabilities of possible strategies as Poker commentary software do.
\end{itemize}
Finally, a hard problem is detecting the ``fake'' builds of very highly skilled players. Indeed, some pro-gamers have build orders which purposes are to fool the opponent into thinking that they are performing opening A while they are doing B. For instance they could ``take early gas'' leading the opponent to think they are going to do tech units, not gather gas and perform an early rush instead.
\subsection{Conclusion}
We presented a probabilistic model computing the distribution over build (or tech) trees of the opponent in a RTS game. The main contributions (with regard to \citeauthor{weber}) are the ability to deal with {\em partial} observations and {\em unsupervised} learning. This model yields high quality prediction results (up to $4$ buildings ahead with a total build tree distance less than $1$, see Table~\ref{all_results}) and shows a strong robustness to noise with a predictive power of $3$ buildings ahead with a build tree distance less than $1$ under 30\% random noise (a quality that we need for real setup/competitive games). It can be used in production thanks to its low computational (CPU) and memory footprint. Our implementation is free software and can be found online\footnote{\url{https://github.com/SnippyHolloW/OpeningTech/}}. We will use this model (or an upgraded version of it) in our StarCraft AI competition entry bot as it enables it to deal with the incomplete knowledge gathered from scouting.
\bibliographystyle{aaai}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Interference alignment (IA) is a concept that was introduced in the
seminal paper \cite{CAD:08}. The wording ``interference'' and ``alignment''
refers to the fact that
according to the strategy, the interfering signals should be confined
to a subspace disjoint from the subspace of the desired signals, -
when transmitting over MIMO channels. This MIMO channel
may result from using multiple-antennas or using so-called symbol
extended channels (e.g., using multiple carriers). However, in
this paper we will
only consider the case of MIMO channels achieved using multiple antennas.
In order to investigate the usefulness of IA in practice, we are herein
analyzing the results of a real-world implementation of IA.
Experimentation with IA was pioneered in \cite{GOL:09,AYA:10} and \cite{GAR:11}.
In the paper \cite{GOL:09} considers a variant of IA with co-operation also
among the receivers. This is different from the scenario herein and will
not be discussed further. The paper \cite{AYA:09} simulations
using measured channels is performed.
In this paper we are concerned with the difference
between the performance calculated in this manner and the results
that are observed when actually transmitting over the channel.
The paper \cite{GAR:11} does transmit over actual channels. Moreover,
\cite{GAR:11} also presents end-to-end error-vector measurements (EVM)
which is a very relevant representation of the quality of the end-to-end
channel, including
the impact of real-world hardware such as non-linearities, phase-noise,
and inter-symbol interference.
The EVM quantifies the quality of the transmission channel
seen from the view-point of the modulator and de-modulator
which operate over the virtual SISO channels created by
transmit beamformers and receive combiners.
This paper uses an OFDM modulation with higher bandwidth and higher
modulation order than \cite{GAR:11} does. We further include
a high-performance LDPC code and reduce the time between frames
from five seconds used in \cite{GAR:11} to a tenth of a second.
In addition, we also consider several positions of the mobile-stations
including many non line-of-sight positions thus exposing IA to a more diverse
set of channels.
Parallel to the development of IA, the concept of coordinated multi-point
transmission (CoMP) has also emerged with interest from 3GPP standardization.
This approach is similar to IA
but assumes that the signals from multiple base-stations have
a common phase-reference and that all base-stations know the information
to be transmitted to every mobile-station which is not the case in IA.
However, both IA and CoMP require information about the channel
between all transmitting base-stations and all receiving mobile-stations.
Pioneering experimentation with CoMP is found in
\cite{JUN:10,DON:11,HOL:11}.
The paper \cite{JUN:10} presented the performance from trials
using a setup with two LTE base- and mobile-stations.
Solutions for acquiring the necessary channel state information
at the base- and mobile-stations are described.
The paper \cite{DON:11} presents similar measurements.
While the papers \cite{JUN:10} and \cite{DON:11} present absolute
(impressive) numbers of throughput the papers lack any specific comparison
between the measurements results and theory.
The paper \cite{HOL:11} looks into the difference between
``estimated'' and ``measured'' SINR, but provides very little detail on
their analysis.
In this paper we also implement a form of CoMP. We compare it with IA and
with the well-known base-line schemes
of single-user SIMO and MIMO.
We further use three base-stations and mobile-stations
while the above cited papers use two.
Most importantly, we provided a detailed analysis of the difference
between performance that would have been obtained when performing
a typical simulation
of the scenario at hand and the performance actually obtained.
This difference (``the delta'') can be used to extrapolate the real-world
performance in more complex scenarios and provide useful insight into
the factors that come into play in the real world.
\section{Testbed Setup}
Our testbed consists of six nodes, of which three take the role
of base-stations and three take the role of mobile-stations.
We consider the downlink but one could also interpret the
results as uplink although it is less natural.
All nodes have two vertically polarized dipole antennas spaced
20cm apart or 1.6 wavelengths at our 2490MHz carrier frequency.
This carrier frequency is unoccupied in the building where the
measurements were conducted.
The base-station transmitters consist of USRP N210 motherboards with XVRC2450
daughterboards, see \url{www.ettus.com}.
The output signal is connected to a ZRL-2400LN amplifier
to obtain a +15dBm output power with good linearity.
The receivers consist of custom boards assembled by using amplifiers,
filters and mixers from mini-circuits, see \url{www.minicircuits.com}.
The receiver noise figure is around 10-11dB.
During measurements very close to the base-stations an additional
10dB attenuator was inserted between the antennas and the
receiver boards in order to avoid saturation.
The boards were tuned
using attenuators to make the noise variance approach a
nominal value $\sigma^2_{\text{nominal}}$. The actual noise variance
varies up to one decibel from $\sigma^2_{\text{nominal}}$.
The value $\sigma^2_{\text{nominal}}$ is known by all nodes.
The analog output signal from the receiver boards are digitized
at an intermediate frequency of 70MHz
by USRP N210/2 boards equipped with basic daughterboards.
A photograph of a receiver-node is shown in Fig. \ref{setup1}.
The sample-clocks of all six nodes are locked to a common 10MHz
reference and a common one pulse-per-second
clock using long cables.
This simplifies the implementation
and gives a synchronization similar to that of a e.g. an
LTE system where all mobile-stations derive the timing
from common control channels.
However, the oscillators of the
three receiver nodes in our system are {\em not} locked to the reference
and thus there are small frequency offsets and resulting phase
rotations among the three receiver nodes and the
transmitters.
The base-band processing and system control is implemented
on two PCs, one for all the base-station nodes and one for all the
mobile-station nodes (the USRPs are connected with long Ethernet cables
to the PCs, each having seven Ethernet connections in all).
The processing for each node runs in a separate thread.
The feedback from the mobile-station PC to the base-station
PC is achieved with an Ethernet cable between the two PCs.
\begin{figure}
\begin{psfrags}
\psfrag{u2}[b][b][0.5]{signal generator}
\psfrag{a}[b][b][0.5]{antennas}
\psfrag{u}[b][b][0.5]{USRP}
\psfrag{r}[b][b][0.5]{Receiver modules}
\psfrag{d}[t][b][0.5]{Local oscillator generator}
\psfrag{v}[b][t][0.5]{DC generator}
\psfrag{s}[l][bl][0.5]{Cables (10MHz, PPS, Ethernet, power)}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth, height=0.25\textheight ]%
{setup1.eps}}
\end{psfrags}
\caption{A receiver node }
\label{setup1}
\end{figure}
\section{Air Interface and Signal Processing}
The air interface is based on an OFDM modulation with 38 subcarriers,
with 312.5kHz subcarrier spacing and a cyclic prefix of 0.48$\mu$s.
The modulation applied on each subcarrier is 16QAM. The data is encoded
in blocks of 1140 bits with a rate of 0.75 using an LDPC code.
Two coding blocks are transmitted per frame.
The frame-structure is indicated in Fig. \ref{frame}.
During the time indicated as ``payload'', modulated symbol streams
are transmitted from all base-stations using individual
precoders (i.e., beamformers). In the section marked ``demodulation reference
pilots'', all subcarriers are occupied by known reference symbols
which have been processed by the same precoder
as the corresponding stream.
The demodulation reference pilots are transmitted for one stream at a time
thereby avoiding any interference.
In the area marked "CSI'', channel state information pilots are transmitted.
This means that a pilot symbol is transmitted from each of the six
antennas in the system sequentially without interference.
The mobile-stations estimate their channels independently for each
subcarrier and feed back the impulse responses to one of the
base-stations which then has ``global'' channel state information.
This (master) base-station calculates the beamformers and informs the other
base-stations of the result. The beamformers are calculated
according to the ``max-SINR'' approach described in \cite{GOM:08}.
The total power of all streams is normalized to +15dBm.
This approach is followed both in the IA and CoMP cases.
The difference being that all streams emanate from a single
six-antenna base-station in the CoMP case and three distinct
two-antenna base-stations in the IA case.
\begin{figure}
\begin{psfrags}
\psfrag{0}[b][b][0.5]{$0$}
\psfrag{1}[b][b][0.5]{$1$}
\psfrag{9}[b][bl][0.5]{$9$}
\psfrag{10}[b][bl][0.5]{$10$}
\psfrag{11}[b][bl][0.5]{$11$}
\psfrag{19}[b][bl][0.5]{$19$}
\psfrag{5}[b][bl][0.5]{$5$}
\psfrag{n}[b][b][0.5][90]{$n_{\text{s}}-1$}
\psfrag{p1}[b][b][0.5]{Payload data}
\psfrag{p2}[b][b][0.5]{Payload data}
\psfrag{d}[b][b][0.5]{Demodulation pilots}
\psfrag{c}[b][b][0.5]{CSI pilots}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth, height=0.1\textheight ]%
{frame.eps}
}
\end{psfrags}
\caption{The frame-structure}
\label{frame}
\end{figure}
The master base-station calculates a receiving vector (combiner) for
each mobile-station. This vector is not used by the receiver.
Instead the receiver uses an MMSE vector calculated based on the
demodulation pilot symbols of the desired and interfering streams
and the nominal noise power.
The overhead of the CSI pilots is substantial. However, the
frame is only 0.1ms long.
The payload of the frame could
be made much longer without the need for additional pilots
(assuming moderate mobility) - and thereby
reduce the overhead in relative terms.
For this reason we will ignore the overheads when calculating throughput.
In the reference cases SIMO and MIMO, - no closed-form beamforming is used.
In fact, no beamforming is used at all. The SIMO and MIMO cases
exist in two variants ``TDMA'' and ``All-ON''. In the TDMA
case only one base-station is transmitting at a time
while all base-stations are active all the time in the All-ON mode.
Thus the total number of streams in the system is one in the TDMA-SIMO case,
two in the TDMA-MIMO case, three in the All-SIMO case and six
in the All-MIMO case. In the IA and CoMP cases, there are three
streams in the system. This is the maximum number of streams for IA -
while CoMP could utilize more and thereby potentially improve performance.
\section{Measurement Campaign}
The measurements were made in 116 batches.
In each batch, all the schemes were run sequentially with
one second delay between the schemes. Each scheme was run
with five frames inter-spaced 0.1seconds.
The statistics from the first of these five frames is not used since
the base-stations have not yet received any feedback information
from the mobile-stations. The personnel involved in the measurements
were standing still during the batches in order
not to outdate the channel
state information at the transmitter and give all schemes as
similar channels as possible.
The measurement environment can be classified as indoor office,
see Fig. \ref{setup2}.
The three base-stations were distributed as shown in the floor-map
of Fig. \ref{map}. The power
of the base-stations were 15dBm . The three mobile-stations were
fixed during the batches but moved moved
between the batches. The mobile-stations were
mostly located within the circle sorrounding it's associated
base-station in Fig. \ref{map}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{psfrags}
\psfrag{ta}[l][b][0.5]{Transmitter antennas of BS \#1}
\psfrag{ms1}[l][b][0.5]{Mobile-station \#1}
\psfrag{ms2}[b][b][0.5]{Mobile-station \#2}
\psfrag{bs2}[b][b][0.5]{Base-station \#2}
\psfrag{bs1}[b][b][0.5]{Base-station \#1}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth, height=0.17\textheight ]%
{setup2.eps}}
\end{psfrags}
\caption{The measurement environment and some equipment}
\label{setup2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{psfrags}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth, height=0.35\textheight ]%
{map6_with_circles.eps}}
\end{psfrags}
\caption{Map of the measurement environment. The positions of the base-stations
are marked BS1, BS2 and BS3. The three circles indicate the areas within
which MS1, MS2 and MS3 roamed around during the measurements.}
\label{map}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
In this section we present the measurement results from the
described in the previous section. We first note that the
raw signal to thermal noise ratio (i.e. without any spatial processing
and averaged over all subcarriers)
was in the range of 32dB to 61dB. Thus the thermal noise
is almost negligable.
\subsection{Raw Results}
The transmitted data is generated from a random number generator -
the seed of which is calculated from the start time of the batch.
The mobile-stations are thus able to calculate the bit and
frame-error rates (FER). The frame
error rate is listed for all the implemented schemes
in Table \ref{FERtable}.
The reader may note that CoMP is performing significantly better
than IA in the part of the table under ``All data''.
In this part of the data the mobile-station may
not be connected to the strongest base-station.
Thus a substantial performance improvement
can be achieved by simply handing over the mobile-station to the
strongest base-station. In order to clean the results from this
effect, the results in Table \ref{FERtable} are divided into two parts:
one where all batches are used and one where only data for mobile-stations
connected to the strongest base-station are used.%
\footnote{ For CoMP we use the same selection of measurements as for
the other schemes in order to make the results directly comparable.
}%
All the remaining results will consider the ``Best-BS'' case.
In Table \ref{FERtable} we have also plotted the throughput
defined as $n_{\text{s}}(1-\text{FER})$ where $n_{\text{s}}$
is the number of streams in the system.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.87}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{All data} &
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Best BS} \\ \hline
Method & FER & c-FER & FER & c-FER & rate & c-rate \\ \hline
IA & 0.31 & 0.04 & 0.21 & 0.02 & 2.36 & 2.95 \\ \hline
CoMP & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.06 & 0.01 & 2.81 & 2.97 \\ \hline
TDMA-MIMO & 0.08 & 0.01 & 0.04 & 0.00 & 1.93 & 2.00 \\ \hline
TDMA-SIMO & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 \\ \hline
All-MIMO & 0.99 & 0.92 & 0.98 & 0.87 & 0.13 & 0.78 \\ \hline
All-SIMO & 0.76 & 0.55 & 0.61 & 0.31 & 1.18 & 2.07 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\caption{FER: Raw frame error rate, c-FER: frame error rate
of coded bits, rate: average number of correct frames times
the number of streams, c-rate: as rate but with coded bits,
All-data: all batches are used, Best-BS only batches where the
MS is connected to the strongest BS.}
\label{FERtable}
\end{table}
From Table \ref{FERtable} we conclude that the performance
of CoMP is better than IA for uncoded transmissions.
For coded transmissions both IA and CoMP exhibit a
FER very near zero.
The reference schemes SIMO and MIMO are all worse than IA and CoMP, -
and reach only 70\% of their rate.
\subsection{Comparison: Measurements against Theory}
An important aspect of experimentation is to verify the models
used for system simulations. This is important since we are unable
to experimentally investigate every relevant scenario - of propagation
environment, user distribution, traffic loads, algorithm parameters
and so on. Therefore we focus on quantifying the difference between
the performance we would have predicted for the scenario at hand
and the performance we actually obtained. The result of this
analysis in illustrated in Fig. \ref{SINDR_IA},
\ref{SINDR_COMP} and \ref{SINDR_SIMO} for the
IA, COMP and TDMA-SIMO cases, respectively.
The details of this analysis is described below.
\subsubsection{EVM and Performance Modelling}
We start-off with the performance that may be
predicted given the measurements from the CSI pilots only.
Based on these measurements we calculate the beamforming vectors
of our beamforming strategy according to \cite{GOM:08}
and obtain ``post-processed'' signal to interference and noise
ratios (SINR-post) at the output of the receiver combining
(i.e., the quality of the equvivalent SISO channels formed
by transmit beamformer and receive combiners).%
\footnote{Every bit from each A/D converter collected during the
measurement is stored and made available for post-processing.
We are therefore able to perform the post-processing described in this
section.}%
The SINR-post factor is finally obtained as an average over the subcarriers
calculated as
\begin{equation}
\text{SINR-post} = \frac{\sum_i S_i}{\sum_i I_i + \sigma^2_{\text{nominal}}},
\label{eq_av}
\end{equation}
where $S_i$,$I_i$ and $\sigma^2_{\text{nominal}}$ are the signal, interference
and nominal noise power on the $i$th subcarrier in a certain frame
(the noise power is assumed identical on all subcarriers).
The CDF of the resulting SINR-post is plotted in Fig.
\ref{SINDR_IA}-\ref{SINDR_SIMO} and is marked with the legend ``ideal''.
The above calculation neglected the channel estimation errors
and the fact that the channel may change
between frames. In other words, it is non-causal as the channel state
information used in the calculation of the beamformers is actually not
available until after the time the frame has been transmitted.
As a next step we therefore replace the channel state used
in the transmit beamformers with channel state available
in the previous frame. The result is also shown in
Fig. \ref{SINDR_IA}-\ref{SINDR_SIMO} and marked with ``causal''.
Is this the real quality of the channel as seen by the
mobile-station? - no it's not.
The real quality of the channel seen from the view-point
of the SISO modem (which is transmitting over the
equivalent SISO channel created by transmitter precoding
and receiver combining)
is best represented by the error vector magnitude.
The error vector is defined as the difference between
the receive constellation points and the true constellation
points as illustrated in Fig. \ref{CONST_IA}.
The error vector magnitude is defined as root of the variance of the
error vector, normalized by the power of the constellation
positions. To compare this value with the
previously calculated
SINR values we form the following EVM based SINDR
estimate
\begin{equation}
\text{SINDR}_{\text{EVM}} = \sum_{i} p_i \text{EVM}_i^{-2},
\label{SINRevm}
\end{equation}
where $p_i$ is the power of the virtual SISO channel on subcarrier
$i$ and $\text{EVM}_i$ is the EVM of the corresponding subcarrier.
We use this power-weighted EVM value as it corresponds better to
the average SINR value defined in (\ref{eq_av}) than a straight
average. Note that we have used the acronym SINDR in
(\ref{SINRevm}). This acronym denotes ``signal to noise, interference
and distortion ratio'' in order to emphasize that the
$\text{SINDR}_{\text{EVM}}$ measure will include also the dirty-RF
impairments caused by phase-noise and non-linearities i.e.
the ``distortions''.
The curves labelled ``EVM-model'' in Fig. \ref{SINDR_IA}-\ref{SINDR_SIMO}
are obtained
by using the same non-causal channel matrices as ``ideal''.
However, this model includes also the error model used
in \cite{ZET:10a} and a common phase error.
In \cite{ZET:10a} a Gaussian noise term is added
to each transmitter and receiver antenna branch.
The power of this modeled noise is set to 34dB below the desired
signal in the transmitter and 40dB below in the receiver.
These values have been estimated from the SISO
measurements and from the data-sheet of the MAX2829
circuit, \url{http://www.maxim-ic.com/datasheet/index.mvp/id/4532},
used in the XCVR2450 daughterboard.
Note that this error will affect both the payload symbols
and the training.
In addition to the model of \cite{ZET:10a} we also introduce
a so-called common phase rotation, see \cite{COR:98}.
This is a phase-error which (despite it's name) will
be independent between all our six transmitter branches
(since each has its own local oscillator).
This phase error will be introduced as a random rotation
of the phase of the six transmitter branches which is
re-randomized between frames. The phase is set to Gaussian with standard
deviation of 0.6 degrees, again based on the data-sheet of the
MAX2820 circuit.
\subsubsection{Discussion}
From Fig. \ref{SINDR_IA}-\ref{SINDR_SIMO} we conclude that
our EVM-model is able to bridge most of the gap between the
``ideal'' and ``EVM model'' results. This indicates that most of the
degradation between the ``ideal'' and ``causal'' curves
are not due to the propagation channel evolution during the
consecutive time-slots but due to dirty-RF effects.
However, there is still some difference between the
``EVM model'' and the actual EVM measurements.
Part of this difference could be due to channel evolution,
but not all of it. Since there is also a mismatch
in the SIMO case.
A detailed studied of the actual performance of the hardware
could help reducing the gap further.
Finally, we ask the reader to notice the extremely high
performance of the CoMP scheme in the ``ideal'' case
(far superior over the IA ``ideal'' case) .
However, this performance advantage diminishes into
a more modest advantage in reality.
This implies that CoMP is very susceptible to any
kind of non-idealness.
Sensitivity of CoMP to common phase rotation was also recently
studied in \cite{Bjornson2011a}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{psfrags}
\psfrag{a}[lt][r][0.5]{$\text{SINR-post}$ ideal}
\psfrag{b}[lt][r][0.5]{$\text{SINR-post}$ causal}
\psfrag{c}[lt][r][0.5]{$\text{SINDR}_{\text{EVM}}$ measured}
\psfrag{d}[lt][r][0.5]{$\text{SINDR}_{\text{EVM}}$ model}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth, height=0.25\textheight ]%
{SINDR_IA.eps}}
\caption{Interference-alignment: Distribution of signal to interference, noise, and distortion
ratio (SINDR) based on different models and measurements}
\label{SINDR_IA}
\end{psfrags}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{psfrags}
\psfrag{a}[lt][r][0.5]{$\text{SINR-post}$ ideal}
\psfrag{b}[lt][r][0.5]{$\text{SINR-post}$ causal}
\psfrag{c}[lt][r][0.5]{$\text{SINDR}_{\text{EVM}}$ measured}
\psfrag{d}[lt][r][0.5]{$\text{SINDR}_{\text{EVM}}$ model}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth, height=0.25\textheight ]%
{SINDR_COMP.eps}}
\caption{Coordinated Multi-Point: Distribution of signal to interference, noise, and distortion ratio (SINDR) based on different models and measurements}
\label{SINDR_COMP}
\end{psfrags}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{psfrags}
\psfrag{a}[lt][r][0.5]{$\text{SINR-post}$ ideal}
\psfrag{b}[lt][r][0.5]{$\text{SINR-post}$ causal}
\psfrag{c}[lt][r][0.5]{$\text{SINDR}_{\text{EVM}}$ measured}
\psfrag{d}[lt][r][0.5]{$\text{SINDR}_{\text{EVM}}$ model}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth, height=0.25\textheight ]%
{SINDR_SIMO.eps}}
\caption{TDMA SIMO: Distribution of signal to interference, noise, and distortion ratio (SINDR) based on different models and measurements}
\label{SINDR_SIMO}
\end{psfrags}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{psfrags}
\centerline{
\scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics*[1.5in,1.5in][8.7in,6.5in]%
{EVM2.eps}}}
\caption{Illustration of error vector}
\label{CONST_IA}
\end{psfrags}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
We have implemented interference alignment (IA) and coordinated multi-point
(CoMP) on a wireless testbed. We observe an performance improvement
over reference schemes such as SIMO and MIMO. However, the gains
are much smaller than what could be theoretically calculated
on the basis from our channel estimates. The reason being that
dirty-RF effects come into play and substantially degrade
the performance. We are able to model the dirty-RF effects reasonably
well with simple models but there is still room for improvement.
The performance of CoMP is the highest of the implemented schemes.
However, the performance advantage is not as great as predicted
by theory. Both CoMP and IA perform better than the reference
schemes of single-user SIMO and MIMO.
|
\section{Introduction}
In the last ten years statistical mechanics has made great advances \cite{albert2002statistical,Caldarelli:2007,Latora_review,Barrat:2008,Newman:2010,Dorogovtsev:2009} in the understanding of the dynamics and the characteristic structural properties of complex networks. These findings shed light on the universal organization principles beyond a large variety of biological, social, communication and technological systems.
Recently, large attention as been addressed to spatial networks \cite{barthelemy2010spatial} in which the links are determined by the ``similarity'' or proximity of the nodes in the physical or hidden space in which the networks are embedded.
Spatial networks \cite{barthelemy2010spatial} are found in communication \cite{krioukov2008efficient}, transportation\cite{bianconi2009assessing,Havlin} and even social networks \cite{Boguna}.
The role of space in complex networks significantly affects the dynamical properties of the graphs changing their navigability properties \cite{Kleinberg,krioukov2008efficient}, the critical behavior of the Ising model \cite{Bianconi_Ising} or the epidemic spreading \cite{barthelemy2010spatial}.
However, the similarity between two nodes might also correspond to a modular organization of the network \cite{Santo}. The general networks models that consider a modular structure are block-models \cite{Airoldi} and multifractal models \cite{Vicsek} that are intrinsically static models of modular networks. Nevertheless several networks are simultaneously growing and developing a modular structure.
For example, the World Wide Web contains pages falling into different classes with widely different features (personal pages, thematic websites, news, blogs, search engines, social networks\ldots) and links between any two pages are influenced by their qualities as well as by the specific classes to which they belong.
Moreover many molecular networks, as for example protein-protein interaction networks, transcription networks and coexpression networks are scale-free \cite{Barabasioltvai} and growing but have in addition a relevant modular structure. In coexpression networks there is a good correspondence between network modules and biological functions as characterized by Gene Ontology or pathway enrichment analyses \cite{stuart2003gene}. Connectivity between and within modules depends on tissue and species \cite{yang2011association} and should be taken into account in realistic models of coexpression networks.
In light of these results it is necessary to understand how similarity, spatial embedding, modular structure or other features might change the nowadays classic description of growing networks following preferential attachment \cite{Barabasi1999emergence}. In this mechanism, new nodes are added at constant rate and connected to existing nodes of the network. The probability $\Pi(i)$ that a new node connects to a node $i$
is proportional to the degree $k_i$ of the node $i$, i.e. $\Pi(i)\propto k_i$. Preferential attachment mechanism has been directly measured for many complex networks and remains a successful explanation for their scale-free degree distribution. Nevertheless, pure preferential attachment, as implemented in the Barab\'asi-Albert (BA) model \cite{Barabasi1999emergence}, has some drawbacks: for example, it generates a clustering coefficient that is small compared with the ones observed in real networks and follows a "first-mover-advantage" mechanisms to the extent that older nodes are systematically associated with larger degree. Several rules for network growth giving rise to an effective preferential attachment mechanism have been studied to overcome these limitations (see reviews in \cite{albert2002statistical,newman,krapivsky2000connectivity}).
Shortly after the seminal paper by Barab\'asi and Albert \cite{Barabasi1999emergence}, it was recognized that heterogeneity between nodes is an important ingredient for more realistic models, destroying the age-degree correlation present in the BA model. The first proposal in this direction was the addition of node quality or ``fitness'' to the BA model \cite{bianconi2001competition,bianconi2001bose}. This model by Bianconi and Barab\'asi paved the way for the study of a wider class of models with other node features such as position in space \cite{manna2002modulated,xulvi2002evolving,barthelemy2003crossover,santiago2007emergence,santiago2008extended}. Some properties of preferential attachment networks on metric spaces, such as the degree and link length distributions, were derived analytically by two of the authors \cite{ferretti2011}. The result is that both fitness \cite{bianconi2001competition} and space \cite{ferretti2011} give rise to networks with multi-scaling in the degree distribution (i.e., a sum of power laws).
In this paper we provide a general analysis of growing networks with both preferential attachment and {features}. The preferential attachment probability from a new node to node $i$ is proportional to the degree $k_i$ of the node multiplied by a generic positive function of the {features}\ $h$ of the new node and $h_i$ of the node $i$:
\begin{equation}
\Pi(i)\propto \sigma(h_i,h)k_i
\end{equation}
The {features}\ can have different interpretations: they can represent spatial embedding of the network, or discrete features of the nodes defining a modular structure of the network, or they can represent fitness describing the higher ability of some nodes to acquire new links. The space of feature and the connection function $\sigma(h_i,h)$ are fixed and do not coevolve with the network.
We give a full account of the model determining the degree distribution, clustering and assortativity. We derive the general expression for the asymptotic degree distribution in the rate equation approach. The form of this distribution is a convolution of power-laws depending on an "effective fitness" of the node, which is determined by the similarity matrix through a self-consistent equation.
We also discuss the conditions under which the rate equation approach breaks down and the fate of the network in these cases.
We derive the general expression for the asymptotic clustering coefficient, showing that clustering always decreases as an inverse power of the network size and therefore disappears in the thermodynamic limit. Assortativity in node degree and {features}\ are also studied in these networks, both numerically and analytically. Node degree correlations are negative as in the BA model: disassortativity increases with the heterogeneity of the nodes and decreases slowly with the network size.
Finally we allow for several variations on the model, including addition and rewiring of links, and show that the results are robust with respect to these variations as long as the connections are assigned through preferential attachment.
\section{Degree distribution of growing networks with {features}}
\label{costruzione}
\subsection{The model}\label{sectionmodel}
We present a general class of models for networks with preferential attachment and {features}. In these models, each node has a {feature}\ $h$ randomly chosen from a set $S$ with probability $p(h)$. We call $h_i$ and $k_i$ the {feature}\ and degree of the $i$th node. At each time step, a node with $m$ links is added to the network. These links are connected to existing nodes with probability
\begin{equation}
\Pi(i)=\frac{\sigma(h_i,h)k_i}{\sum_{j
\sigma(h_j,h)k_j}\label{prefattachrule}
\end{equation}
where $h$ corresponds to the {feature}\ of the new node and $\sigma(h',h)$ is a (positive) connection function from $h$ to $h'$. Such a model is therefore completely defined by the functions $p(h)$ and $\sigma(h',h)$.
In modular or community models, denoting by $N_c$ the number of communities, $h$ is an integer number in $1\ldots N_c$ while $p(1)\ldotsp(N_c)$ denote the relative sizes of the different communities. In the fitness model, $h$ is the quality of the nodes, that is, a real positive number. In spatial models, $h$ is the spatial position of the node; for example, in models on a plane, $h=(x,y)$ and $p(x,y)$ is the node density.
\subsection{Degree distribution}
We derive the degree distribution through the rate equation approach introduced by Krapivsky, Redner and Leyvraz \cite{krapivsky2000connectivity}, modified as in \cite{ferretti2011}. The equation for $N_k(h)$, which is the average number of nodes with {feature}\ $h$ and degree $k$, is
\begin{align}
N_k(h,t+1)&=N_k(h,t)+\delta_{k,m}p(h)-m\cdot \\
\cdot & \sum_{l\inS} \frac{\sigma(h,l)(k N_k(h,t)-(k-1)N_{k-1}(h,t))}{\sum_{j\inS} \sigma(j,l)\sum_{k'=m}^\infty{k'} N_{k'}(j,t)} p(l) \label{neq} \nonumber
\end{align}
where the $\delta_{k,m}$ term in the left hand side accounts for the birth of new nodes. If the {features}\ are continuous, the number of nodes is substituted with the number density in the equation above, and the sums over the {features}\ with integrals.
More generally, if $S$
is not a finite set, $p(h)$ denotes a probability measure over $S$ and the sum $\sum_{h\inS}p(h)f(h)$ should be read as $\int_S p(h)f(h)$, while $N_k(h,t)$ for fixed $t$ is a finite measure over $S$.
We assume a linear scaling with time for the quantity
\begin{equation}
{\sum_{l\inS} \sigma(l,h)\sum_{k'=m}^\infty{k'}N_{k'}(l,t) }=mC(h)t+o(t)\label{linearscaling}
\end{equation}
where we neglect finite-size corrections contained in the $o(t)$ term, which depend on the initial nodes of the network \cite{cuenda2011simple}. Then we can define $n_k(h,t)=N_k(h,t)/t$ and rewrite it as
\begin{align}
n_k(h,t+1)&\left(1+\frac{1}{t}\right)=n_k(h,t)+\frac{\delta_{k,m}p(h)}{t}+\label{eqn}\\ -&\frac{q(h)}{t}(k n_k(h,t)-(k-1)n_{k-1}(h,t))\nonumber
\end{align}
where $q(h)$ plays the same role as the (average) fitness of the node \cite{bianconi2001competition,bianconi2001bose} and is defined as
\begin{equation}
q(h)=\sum_{l\inS} \frac{\sigma(h,l) }{C(l)}p(l)\label{qdef}
\end{equation}
where $C(h)$ is determined by solving asymptotically the above equation (\ref{eqn}), obtaining
\begin{align}
{n_k(h)}&=\frac{p(h)}{q(h)}\frac{\Gamma(m+q(h)^{-1})\Gamma(k)}{\Gamma(k+1+q(h)^{-1})\Gamma(m)}\nonumber \\
&\simeq \frac{p(h)}{q(h)m}\left(\frac{k}{m}\right)^{-(1+q(h)^{-1})}\label{nkeq}
\end{align}
and substituting in the definition of $C(h)$ to obtain
\begin{equation}
C(h)=\sum_{l\inS} \sigma(l,h)\frac{p(l)}{1-q(l)}\label{ceq}
\end{equation}
We can join (\ref{qdef}) and (\ref{ceq}) in a single functional equation for $q(h)$:
\begin{equation}
q(h)=\sum_{l\inS} \frac{\sigma(h,l) p(l)}{\sum_{j\inS} \sigma(j,l)\frac{p(j)}{1-q(j)}}\label{qeq}
\end{equation}
From the point of view of the degree distribution, this class of models is equivalent to the fitness model of Bianconi and Barab\'asi \cite{bianconi2001competition,bianconi2001bose}, but in this case the fitness distribution is determined by $p(h)$ and $\sigma(h,l)$ through equation (\ref{qeq}). The resulting degree distribution is
\begin{equation}
n_k=\sum_{h\inS} n_k(h)\simeq\sum_{h\inS}\frac{p(h)}{q(h)m}\left(\frac{k}{m}\right)^{-(1+q(h)^{-1})} \label{distrk}
\end{equation}
so the distribution is a sum of power laws similarly to the fitness model, and for a regular distribution of $h$ and $q(h)$ it typically reduces to a power law with logarithmic corrections \cite{bianconi2001competition}.
Actually, the fitness model itself is a particular example of such a model with a {feature}\ $h=\eta\in [0,1]$ distributed as $\rho(\eta)$ and a connection probability $\sigma(h,l)=h=\eta$. Then the equation (\ref{qeq}) reduces to
\begin{equation}
q(\eta)= \int_0^1 dy\ \frac{\eta }{\int_0^1 dz\ \frac{\rho(z)}{1-q(z)}z}\rho(y)= \frac{\eta }{\int_0^1 dz\ \frac{\rho(z)}{1-q(z)}z}\equiv \frac{\eta}{C}
\end{equation}
where $C$ depends on the whole distribution of $\eta$ and is determined by the usual consistency equation
\begin{equation}
1= {\int_0^1 dz\ \frac{\rho(z)}{C/z-1}}
\end{equation}
therefore the model reduces to the fitness model with $q(\eta)=\eta/C$. Also the spatial network models discussed in \cite{manna2002modulated,xulvi2002evolving,yook2002modeling,barthelemy2003crossover,santiago2007emergence,ferretti2011} are special cases of the above model, with the position playing the role of {feature}.
Note that since the sum of all node degrees $\sum_ik_i(t)$ should be equal to twice the total number of links $mt$, and since its mean is given by $\langle\sum_ik_i(t)\rangle=\sum_hmp(h)t/(1-q(h))$,
$q(h)$ should satisfy an additional identity
\begin{equation}
\sum_{h\inS} \frac{p(h)}{1-q(h)}=2\label{qid2}
\end{equation}
However, this identity is not new but can be derived from (\ref{qdef}) and (\ref{ceq}) by substituting the definition of $C(h)$ in the numerator of the identity $1=\sum_hp(h)C(h)/C(h)$ and rearranging.
Interestingly, many simple models are based on ``symmetric'' {features}, that is, all the values of the {features}\ are equivalent. In other terms, there is a group of bijective transformations $T_\alpha$ from $S$ to itself such that the distribution and connection function are invariant (that is, $p(T_\alpha(h))=p(h)$ and $\sigma(T_\alpha(h),T_\alpha(h'))=\sigma(h,h')$) and moreover the action of the group is transitive (that is, for every pair $h,h'$ there is a transformation $T_\beta$ mapping $h$ in $h'$, $T_\beta(h)=h'$). We denote these models as homogeneous models. In this case, if all the sums in the above equations are convergent, the symmetry implies $q(T(h))=q(h)$ and transitivity implies that all $q$ are the same, then from equation (\ref{qid2}) we obtain immediately $q=1/2$. This means that all homogeneous models have the same degree distribution $n_k\sim k^{-3}$ of the Barab\'asi-Albert model. We will see some examples in section \ref{examples}.
We can actually extend the argument to a slightly more general condition, following \cite{jordan2010}: if the quantities $\sum_{l\inS} p(l)\sigma(l,h)$ and $\sum_{l\inS} p(l)\sigma(h,l)$ are equal and independent of $h$, then the degree distribution is the same of the BA model.
For non-homogeneous models, the equations (\ref{qeq}) often need to be solved numerically. For discrete features, a solution can be obtained by root-finding methods. For continuous features, an effective way to solve this kind of equations was presented in \cite{ferretti2011}.
\subsection{Examples}\label{examples}
\subsubsection{Bipartite networks}
A bipartite network is usually composed by two classes of nodes ($h=1,2$) with links connecting only nodes of different classes. To build a scale-free bipartite network, we choose $\sigma_{(1,1)}=\sigma_{(2,2)}=0$. We assume that a node can belong to class $1$ or $2$ with probabilities $p_1$, $p_2$ (with $p_1+p_2=1$). Note that in this model the non-zero terms of the connection function can be redefined as $\sigma_{(1,2)}=\sigma_{(2,1)}=1$, so the function is actually symmetric.
The qualities of the two classes from equation (\ref{qeq}) are then
\begin{equation}
q_1=p_2\quad,\quad q_2=p_1
\end{equation} and the degree distribution is given by $n_k=\frac{p_1}{m(1-p_1)}\left(\frac{k}{m}\right)^{-(2-p_1)/(1-p_1)}+\frac{(1-p_1)}{mp_1}\left(\frac{k}{m}\right)^{-(1+p_1)/p_1}$. Note that if $p_1=p_2=1/2$, the model is actually homogeneous and $n_k\sim k^{-3}$ as expected from our general arguments.
Similar models have been applied to the human sexual networks, which have a bipartite heterosexual component \cite{ergun2002human}.
\subsubsection{A network with asymmetric connection function}
Another simple but interesting example can be obtained by assuming two kinds of nodes, ``central'' and ``periferic'' (with probabilities $p_C$ and $p_P=1-p_C$) such that two periferic nodes are never connected (i.e. the
connection function satisfies $\sigma_{(P,P)}=0$). The other terms of the connection function can be always redefined as $\sigma_{(C,C)}=\sigma_{(C,P)}=1$ so its only parameter is $\bar{\sigma}\equiv\sigma_{(P,C)}\in[0,+\infty]$. This parameter controls the asymmetry of the connection function.
The relevant solution of equation (\ref{qeq}) with this connection function is
\begin{align}
q_C &= 1-\frac{2(1-\bar{\sigma})p_C}{1+p_C-3\bar{\sigma}+\sqrt{(1+p_C-3\bar{\sigma})^2+8\bar{\sigma}(1-\bar{\sigma})}} \\
q_P & =\bar{\sigma}\cdot\frac{p_C-1-\bar{\sigma}+\sqrt{(1+p_C-3\bar{\sigma})^2+8\bar{\sigma}(1-\bar{\sigma})}}{1+p_C-3\bar{\sigma}+\sqrt{(1+p_C-3\bar{\sigma})^2+8\bar{\sigma}(1-\bar{\sigma})}}
\end{align}
In the limit $\bar{\sigma}\rightarrow\infty$, the model reduces to a bipartite network and the solution to $q_C=1-p_C$, $q_P=p_C$ as expected.
\subsubsection{Community structure}
\label{commstruct}
To model scale-free networks with community structure \cite{girvan2002community}, a simple possibility is to label each community by a {feature}\ $h_c$ and choose a connection function with $\sigma(h_c,h_c)>\sigma(h_c,h_{c'})$. In the simplest model, all
communities have the same size and connect randomly to the other communities, with some preference for self-connections. (The corresponding connection function is $\sigma(h_c,h_{c})=1$ for all $h_c$, while $\sigma(h_c,h_{c'})=\bar{\sigma}$ for all pairs $h_c\neq h_{c'}$.) In this case the model is actually homogeneous and has the same degree distribution as the BA model, independently on the number of communities and the value of $\bar{\sigma}$.
\subsubsection{Hierarchical structure and navigable networks}
Navigable networks are often based on a hierarchical structure \cite{newmanwatts}, with a connection probability that depends on the distance on a tree representing the hierarchical levels and the nodes. Scale-free navigable networks can be easily built by choosing a symmetric connection function depending only on the distances on the tree. (Note that these models are actually spatial models, since a tree is an ultrametric space.)
Even if there is a lot of interesting structure in these networks, the degree distribution follows the simple multi-scaling behaviour in equation (\ref{distrk}). In particular, the simplest cases of binary or n-ary trees (or more general trees where the length and the number of branches splitting from a single branch depend only on the level), with nodes located at the top of the terminal branches, have the usual degree distribution $n_k\sim k^{-3}$, since these trees are homogeneous spaces.
\subsubsection{Modular structure with fitness}
As a final example, we discuss a model with both modular structure and fitness. This model can be considered a simplified model of the WWW. We assume that each page is assigned to some category $n$ according to type, content and functionality. Each category could have a different relative size $\pi_n$ and a distribution of page fitness $\rho_n(\eta)$. Moreover, the relative importance of different categories for a page of category $q$ is given by the weights $w_{n,q}$, with $\sum_q w_{n,q}=1$. (For a page of category $n$, the weights $w_{n,q}$ affect its probability of being linked by pages from other categories.) The network evolves as follows: at each time, a new node is added to the network and assigned to the $n$th category with probability $\pi_n$, then its fitness is randomly extracted from $\rho_n(\eta)$. The node is connected to the existing nodes according to a probability proportional to the fitness $\eta$, the weight $w$ and the degree $k$ of the nodes
\begin{equation}
\Pi(i)=\frac{ \eta_i w_{n_i,n} k_i}{\sum_j \eta_j w_{n_j,n} k_j}
\end{equation}
so the model dynamics follows equation (\ref{prefattachrule}) with $h=(n, \eta)$, $\sigma(h_i,h)=\eta_i w_{n_i,n}$ and $p(h)=\pi_n \rho_n(\eta)$. Similar models appear in a natural way in the study of many systems. In this model, beyond the fitness, the dynamics of a node is influenced by the relative size of its category $\pi_n$ as well as by the weights $w_{n,q}$ and the sizes of other categories $\pi_q$. In the WWW example, there are millions of blogs but only a few search engines, and there is a good probability that a blog links a search page; this explains the different connectivity and degree distribution of these categories.
The node qualities for this model from equation (\ref{qeq}) are equivalent to a modified fitness model
$q(\eta,n)={\eta}/{\gamma_n}$, where the coefficients $\gamma_n$ solve the nonlinear equations
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\gamma_n}=\sum_m w_{n,m}\pi_m\left(\sum_l w_{l,m}\pi_l\int d\eta \frac{\rho_l(\eta)}{\eta^{-1}-\gamma_l^{-1}}\right)^{-1}
\end{equation}
Simulation results are in very good agreement with the numerical solution of these equations, as shown in Figure \ref{fig_modfitness}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./fig_q_fitness.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Node qualities as a function of fitness in a model with hierarchical modules A,B,C and fitness. Continuous lines represent the theoretical predictions. The hierarchy is A$<$B$<$C and nodes in each module can connect only to nodes in the same or higher modules with equal probabilities. The fitness distributions are $\rho_A(\eta)=U_{(1/2,1)}(\eta)$, $\rho_B(\eta)=U_{(0,1)}(\eta)$ and $\rho_C(\eta)=2\eta$. Simulated networks have size $N=10^7$ and initial node degree $m=5$. Qualities are measured as $\hat{q}=\log\left(\left\langle k(t)\right\rangle/\left\langle k(t/2)\right\rangle\right)/\log 2$ as detailed in \cite{ferretti2011}. }
\label{fig_modfitness}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Breakdown of the rate equation approach}
If the space $S$ of {features}\ has a finite number of elements, the approach presented here gives rise to a finite number of nonlinear equations (\ref{qdef}),(\ref{ceq}) in the variables $q(h),C(h)$. If these equations admit a single solution, as we expect, then the degree distribution follows equation (\ref{distrk}).
If the number of {features}\ is infinite, equations (\ref{qdef}),(\ref{ceq}) could involve divergent sums (or integrals). In particular, there are two situation where the rate equations break down:
(i) the sums of the connection function are divergent, that is, the connection function is not measurable, or (ii) all sums converge but there is no solution to the selfconsistency equations. We discuss these two scenarios in the next sections.
\subsubsection{Heterogeneit
-driven attachment}
If the sums of the connection function are divergent, links attach preferentially to some nodes not chosen on the basis of preferential attachment but belonging to the sets of {features}\ with divergent sums of the connection function. This can give rise to exponential tails or condensation or other behaviour, depending on form of the connection function. As an example, spatial models with a divergent connection function near $d=0$ show a behaviour similar to nearest-neighbour attachment and consequently an exponential tail \cite{manna2002modulated,ferretti2011}. Another example is given by networks on a flat space of dimension $D$ with uniform node density and a connection function $\sigma(x,x')$ that is an inverse power law in the distance between the node and a point $\hat{x}$, for example $\sigma(x,x')= d(x,\hat{x})^{-k}$ with $k>D$. In this case the divergence is localized around $\hat{x}$, prompting condensation on the nodes closer to $\hat{x}$ since these nodes get most of the new connections.
\subsubsection{Bose-Einstein condensation}
Even if all the sums of the connection function are convergent, it is still possible to find cases where the equations for $q(h)$ do not admit solutions. In fitness models, the lack of solution of the self-consistent equations is a signal of Bose-Einstein condensation of links \cite{bianconi2001bose} on the nodes of highest fitness.
In more general models, condensation occurs on nodes close to a {feature}\ $h_c$ determined as follows. Each $h\inS$ corresponds to an element of the set $M$ of measures $\mu_h(h')=\sigma(h,h')p(h')$. Conversely, given a Radon metric on $M$, each point in its closure $\bar{M}$ can be mapped to a {feature}\ belonging to an ``extended'' space $\bar{S}$. The Radon metric on $\bar{M}$ induces a metric on $\bar{S}$, which can therefore be thought of as the closure of $S$: the elements of $\bar{S}$ are ``limit points'' of $S$ and are the candidates for condensation. In particular, the location $h_c$ of the condensate can be found by considering the addition of a single node with variable $\bar{h}\in \bar{S}$ to the network and maximizing its asymptotic link share $n_{\bar{h}}$
\begin{equation}
h_c=\argmax_{\bar{h}\in \bar{S}} n_{\bar{h}}
\end{equation}
As a simple example, in the fitness model with $S=[0,\eta_{max})$, the set $M$ contains the measures $\mu_\eta(\eta')=\eta p(\eta')$ and its closure corresponds to $\bar{S}=[0,\eta_{max}]$, which is the closure of $S$. In this case $n_{\bar{\eta}}$ is zero unless $\bar{\eta}=\eta_{max}$, because the consistency equation with an additional node has no finite solution for other values of $\bar{\eta}$, therefore condensation occurs near $\eta_{max}$ as expected.
\section{Clustering and assortativity}
\subsection{Clustering}
We define the average clustering coefficient $C_{clust}$ of a network as $C_{clust}=3\cdot n_\mathrm{triangles}/ n_\mathrm{triples}$. It is well known that the clustering coefficient of the Barab\'asi-Albert model decreases as the network size $t$ increases, converging to zero in the thermodynamic limit \cite{bollobas}. As we show in the next sections, this property is quite general, being shared by all heterogenous models under some conditions on the convergence of sums of $\sigma(h,h')$. This mean that heterogeneity or features cannot account for non-vanishing clustering coefficients observed in most real networks.
\subsubsection{Clustering in the Barab\'asi-Albert and in homogeneous model}
Both the average number of triangles and the average number of triples can be easily computed from the preferential attachment rule if we assume that node degrees follow the continuum equation for the mean degree $k_i(t)=m(t/t_i)^{q(h_i)}$ \cite{Barabasi1999mean}. This approach has been applied to the BA model in \cite{fronczak2003mean}. Here we generalize it to models with features. First, we summarize the computation for the BA case. The asymptotic number of triangles is given by
\begin{equation}
n_\mathrm{triangles}\sim\frac{m^2(m-1)\ln^3t}{48}
\end{equation}
Denoting by $t_A<t_B<t_C$ the birth times of a triplet of nodes, BA networks contain three kind of triples: $A\leftarrow B\leftarrow C$, $A\leftarrow C\rightarrow B$ and $B\rightarrow A\leftarrow C$. Since older nodes have the highest degrees and are therefore the most attractive under preferential attachment, for large $t$ almost all triples are of the last kind and their number is given by
\begin{equation}
n_\mathrm{triples}\sim\frac{m^2t\ln t}{2}
\end{equation}
therefore obtaining the known result for the asymptotic clustering coefficient
\begin{equation}
C^{BA}_{clust}\sim \frac{(m-1)}{8}\frac{\ln^2 t}{t}\label{eqclustba}
\end{equation}
Details of the calculations
can be found in appendix \ref{clustba}.
For homogeneous models ($q(h)=1/2$) the same calculation is valid for the number of triples, while the number of triangles and therefore the clustering coefficient are multiplied by a factor dependent on the connection function:
\begin{equation}
\frac{C_{clust}}{C_{clust}^{BA}}= \left\langle \frac{\sigma(h_A,h_B)\sigma(h_A,h_C)\sigma(h_B,h_C)}{C(h_B)C(h_C)^2/8}\right\rangle_{A,B,C}\label{eqclusthom}
\end{equation}
Features
appear only in this factor. For example, bipartite networks have no triangles and the above factor is zero, giving $C_{clust}=0$. Note that the above factor could be divergent: in this case our approach breaks down and the asymptotic behaviour of $C_{clust}(t)$ could change. However, we are not aware of any model of this kind with non-zero clustering in the limit $t\rightarrow \infty$ and a power-law tail in the degree distribution.
For a symmetric model with community structure, the clustering coefficient is
\begin{equation}
\frac{C_{clust}^{com}}{C_{clust}^{BA}}=
\frac{N_c+3N_c(N_c-1)\bar{\sigma}^2+N_c(N_c-1)(N_c-2)\bar{\sigma}^3}{(1+\bar{\sigma}(N_c-1))^3}
\end{equation}
An additional remark applies to spatial networks with short-range interactions and networks with community structure. At short times, these models resemble geometric random graph models, which exhibit strong clustering \cite{barthelemy2003crossover}. However, when the average number of nodes in the interaction volume increases, the clustering coefficient decreases as a consequence of the preferential attachment dynamics. At longer times, clustering falls according to eqs. (\ref{eqclustba}),(\ref{eqclusthom}) but remains higher for spatial networks than for the Barab\'asi-Albert model, as it is shown in Figure \ref{fig_clust}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.450\textwidth]{./clustering.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Plot of the clustering coefficient as a function of the size of the network, for networks on the two-dimensional flat disk of radius $r=1$ with Gaussian connection functions.}
\label{fig_clust}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Clustering in general models}
For general models with some $q(h)\neq 1/2$, the calculation is similar to the homogeneous case. The dominant contribution comes from triples and triangles with a vertex of maximum fitness $q_M=q(h_M)>1/2$ with $h_M=\argmax_{h\in S}{q(h)}$. The leading contribution to the average number of triangles is
\begin{align}
& n_\mathrm{triangles}\sim \frac{m^2(m-1)p(h_M)}{(2q_M-1)^2} t^{2q_M-1}\ln t\cdot \\ & \cdot \sum_{h_B,h_C}\frac{\sigma(h_M,h_B)\sigma(h_M,h_C)\sigma(h_B,h_C)p(h_B)p(h_C)}{C(h_B)C(h_C)^2}\nonumber
\end{align}
while the number of triples is
\begin{equation}
n_\mathrm{triples}\sim\frac{m^2p(h_M)}{2(2q_M-1)}t^{2q_M}
\end{equation}
then the clustering coefficient is
\begin{align}
C_{clust}&\sim \frac{6(m-1)}{2q_M-1}\frac{\ln t}{t}\cdot \\ \cdot&\sum_{h_B,h_C}\frac{\sigma(h_M,h_B)\sigma(h_M,h_C)\sigma(h_B,h_C)p(h_B)p(h_C)}{C(h_B)C(h_C)^2} \nonumber
\end{align}
This expression is valid as long as the sum inside it is finite. So the asymptotic clustering is sligthly smaller than in the BA model.
From this general result we can extract the clustering for the fitness model of Bianconi and Barab\'asi \cite{bianconi2001competition} in the fit-get-rich phase:
\begin{equation}
C_{clust}^{BB}\sim \frac{6(m-1)\langle \eta\rangle}{C^2(2-C)}\frac{\ln t}{t}
\end{equation}
assuming $\eta_{max}=1$ and $\rho(\eta_{max})>0$.
\subsection{Assortativity: {features}}
Nodes with different $h$ are not randomly connected: in- and out-going links connect preferentially nodes with some features. These preferences are embedded in the in- and out-distributions $f^{IN}(h_i,h')$ and $f^{OUT}(h_i,h')$, which are asymptotically defined by the equations
\begin{equation}
k^{IN}_{i(h')}=f^{IN}(h_i,h')k^{IN}_i \label{fin}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
k^{OUT}_{i(h')}=f^{OUT}(h_i,h')k^{OUT}_i \label{fout}
\end{equation}
where $k^{IN}_i$ and $k^{OUT}_i$ are the number of in- and out-going links for the $i$th node (note that in these models $k^{OUT}_i=m$), while $k^{IN}_{i(h')}$ and $k^{OUT}_{i(h')}$ are the numbers of in- and out-going links between the $i$th node and nodes with variable $h'$. From the definitions above, we have $\sum_{h'}f^{IN}(h_i,h')=\sum_{h'}f^{OUT}(h_i,h')=1$.
The distributions $f^{IN}$ and $f^{OUT}$ are positive. $f^{IN}$ can be obtained from the continuum equations for $k^{IN}_{i(h')}$
\begin{equation}
\frac{dk^{IN}_{i(h')}}{dt}=\frac{\sigma(h_i,h')p(h')(k^{IN}_i+m)}{C(h')t}
\end{equation}
by plugging in equation (\ref{fin}) and comparing with the continuum equation for $k^{IN}_{i}$
\begin{equation}
\frac{dk^{IN}_{i}}{dt}=q(h_i)\frac{k^{IN}_i+m}{t}
\end{equation}
giving as a result
\begin{equation}
f^{IN}(h_i,h')=\frac{\sigma(h_i,h')p(h')}{C(h')q(h_i)}
\end{equation}
while $f^{OUT}$ can be obtained from equation (\ref{prefattachrule}) by substituting $k_i$ with the mean of the total degree of nodes of feature $h'$:
\begin{equation}
f^{OUT}(h_i,h')=\frac{\sigma(h',h_i)p(h')}{C(h_i)(1-q(h'))}
\end{equation}
From these distributions it is easy to find the fraction of links between nodes with variables $h', h''$:
\begin{align}
\varphi(h',h'') & = \frac{p(h')p(h'')}{1+\delta_{h',h''}}\cdot \label{assort} \\
\cdot & \left(\frac{\sigma(h',h'')}{C(h'')(1-q(h'))}+ \frac{\sigma(h'',h')}{C(h')(1-q(h''))}
\right) \nonumber
\end{align}
that should be compared with the null value of the same quantity, obtained by a random re-arrangement of links that preserves degree (i.e., unassortative connections):
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{0}(h',h'')=\frac{p(h')p(h'')}{1+\delta_{h',h''}}\frac{1}{2(1-q(h'))(1-q(h''))}
\end{equation}
As an example, consider the simplest model with community structure in section \ref{commstruct}. Denote the number of communities by $N_c$ and the only parameter of the connection function by $\bar{\sigma}=\sigma(h,h')/\sigma(h,h)$ for $h'\neq h$. The null distribution of links is given by $\varphi_{0}(h',h')=1/N_c^2$, $\varphi_{0}(h',h'')=2/N_c^2$ for $h''\neq h'$, while the actual assortativity depends on the parameter $\bar{\sigma}$:
\begin{equation}
\varphi(h',h'')=\begin{cases}\frac{1}{N_c^{2}}\cdot\left[ 1+(\bar{\sigma}-1)\frac{N_c-1}{N_c} \right]^{-1}\quad \mathrm{if}\ h'=h'' \\
\frac{2}{N_c^{2}}\cdot\left[1+\left(\frac{1}{\bar{\sigma}}-1\right)\frac{1}{N_c} \right]^{-1}\quad \mathrm{if}\ h'\neq h''
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
so links are randomly distributed between {features}\ if $\bar{\sigma}=1$, while the mixing is assortative (that is, $\varphi(h,h)/\varphi_{0}(h,h)>\varphi(h',h'')/\varphi_{0}(h',h'')$) for $\bar{\sigma}<1$ and disassortative for $\bar{\sigma}>1$.
For the Bianconi-Barab\'asi fitness model, the distributions are
\begin{align}
\varphi_{0}(\eta,\eta')&=\frac{\rho(\eta)\rho(\eta')}{2\left(1-\frac{\eta}{C}\right)\left(1-\frac{\eta'}{C}\right)}\\
\frac{\varphi(\eta,\eta')}{\varphi_{0}(\eta,\eta')}&= 2 \left[\frac{\eta}{C}\left(1-\frac{\eta'}{C}\right) + \frac{\eta'}{C} \left(1-\frac{\eta}{C}\right) \right]
\end{align}
and therefore the system shows disassortative mixing, since the ratio ${\varphi(\eta,\eta')}/{\varphi_{0}(\eta,\eta')}$ is higher between high and low fitness than between similar fitnesses.
\subsection{Assortativity: degree correlations}
Nontrivial connection functions $\sigma(h,h')$ and node distributions $p(h)$ do not only induce assortative mixing between nodes with different variables, but affect also the degree-degree correlations between neighbours, as shown in \cite{krapivsky2001organization} for the BA model. The BA model is disassortative \cite{newman2003mixing}; however, in models with {features}, the pattern of (disassortative) mixing between nodes with different degree is influenced by the hidden space and the connection function.
\subsubsection{Analytical results: continuum approximation}
A first understanding of degree correlations can be obtained by assuming deterministic evolution of node degree $k=m(t/t_0)^q$. In this approximation, average nearest-neighbour degree is given by
\begin{equation}
\langle k_{NN}(k)\rangle=\sum_h\frac{n_k(h)}{\sum_jn_k(j)}\sum_i\int_m^\infty dk_{NN}\ k_{NN} P(k_{NN},i|k,h)
\end{equation}
where $P(k_{NN},i|k,h)$ is the probability that if we choose a random neighbour of a random node with features $h$ and degree $k$, the node chosen has degree $k_{NN}$ and features $i$. If we denote the birth times of these nodes by $t_0$ and $t_{0NN}$ respectively, then if $t_{0NN}<t_0$ (i.e. $(k_{NN}/m)^{1/q(i)}>(k/m)^{1/q(h)}$) this probability can be obtained from the connection probability $m \frac{\sigma(i,h)k_{NN}(t_0)}{mC(h)t_0}$ multiplied by $1/k$ (which accounts for the random neighbour chosen), $p(i)$ (the probability that a node of feature $i$ is born at time $t_{0NN}$) and $dt_{0NN}/dk_{NN}$ (the Jacobian of the mapping from $k_{NN}$ to $t_{0NN}$). The final result is given by $\frac{dt_{0NN}}{dk_{NN}}\frac{p(i)\sigma(i,h)k_{NN}(t_0)}{kC(h)t_0}$. In the other case, if $t_{0NN}>t_0$, the relevant connection probability is $m \frac{\sigma(h,i)k(t_{0NN})}{mC(i)t_{0NN}}$. Substituting the present values of $k$ and $k_{NN}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
P(k_{NN},i|k,h)=\begin{cases}
\frac{\sigma(i,h)p(i)}{mq(i)C(h)} (k/m)^{\frac{1-q(i)-q(h)}{q(h)}} (k_{NN}/m)^{-1/q(i)} \\
\qquad\qquad \mathrm{for}\ k_{NN}>m\left(\frac{k}{m}\right)^{q(i)/q(h)}\ ;\ \\
\frac{\sigma(h,i)p(i)}{mq(i)C(i)} (k_{NN}/m)^{-1-q(h)/q(i)} \\
\qquad\qquad \mathrm{for}\ k_{NN}<m\left(\frac{k}{m}\right)^{q(i)/q(h)}\ .\
\label{asscont}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For the BA model, we have $P(k_{NN}|k)=m k_{NN}^{-2}$ and the average nearest neighbour degree $\langle k_{NN}(k)\rangle=m\log(t)/2$ is independent of $k$, so the model shows no assortativity at all in this approximation. On the other hand, models with features tend to be disassortative, i.e. $\langle k_{NN}(k)\rangle$ decreases with $k$. However, this is not true for all classes of nodes: for example, low quality nodes tend to be assortative, i.e. they attach more often to low quality nodes with similar degree.
In figure \ref{fig_ass} we compare the above results (\ref{asscont}) with the actual values of $\langle k_{NN}(k)\rangle$ in the BA model and in a simple fitness model. The continuum approach describes correctly the qualitative pattern of degree correlations in these models, even if it does not fully account for their disassortativity.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./assort.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Plot of $\langle k_{NN}(k)\rangle$ for the BA model and for a fitness model with $\rho(\eta)=\frac{1}{2}\delta(\eta-1/2)+ \frac{1}{2}\delta(\eta-1)$. Results are averaged from 20 simulations of size $N=10^7$ and initial degree $m=5$. Continuous lines correspond to the predictions from continuum equation (\ref{asscont}).}
\label{fig_ass}
\end{figure}
It is also possible to estimate the asymptotic behaviour of the assortativity coefficient in the same approximation. We denote the maximum quality by $q_M=\max_h q(h)$. As in the BA model, the coefficient $C_{ass}$ tends to zero in the thermodynamic limit $t\rightarrow\infty$. However, its asymptotic behaviour is $C_{ass}\sim t^{q_M-1}$, and since $q_M\simeq 1$ in many models with features, its decrease is typically very slow compared to the BA model ($C_{ass}\sim t^{-1/2}$).
\subsubsection{Analytical results: rate equation approach}
Assortativity in node degree can be easily estimated from the matrix $n_{k,l}$, defined as the fraction of links in the network joining a node of degree $k$ with a younger node of degree $l$. In models with {features}, we define $n^{(h,i)}_{k,l}$ as the fraction of links joining a node of degree $k$ and variable $h$ with a younger node of degree $l$ and variable $i$. The matrix $n^{(h,i)}_{k,l}$ takes into account correlations between both degrees and {features}.
Asymptotically, this matrix can be obtained as in \cite{krapivsky2001organization}, by solving the difference equation
\begin{align}\label{eqass}
n^{(h,i)}_{k,l} & (1+q(h)k+q(i)l)=q(h)(k-1)n^{(h,i)}_{k-1,l}+\\
+ & q(i)(l-1)n^{(h,i)}_{k,l-1}
+\delta_{l,m}\frac{\sigma(h,i)p(i)}{C(i)}(k-1)n_{k-1}(h)\nonumber
\end{align}
This equation implies that $n^{(h,i)}_{k,l}\propto F(q(h),q(i))\cdot {\sigma(h,i)p(i)p(h)}/{C(i)}$ where $F(q(h),q(i))$ is a function of the qualities, in agreement with the form (\ref{assort}) for the assortative mixing between {features}. The matrix $n_{k,l}$ can then be obtained as $n_{k,l}=\sum_{h,i}n_{k,l}^{(h,i)}$.
In principle, the equation (\ref{eqass}) can be solved by generating function methods discussed in appendix \ref{analyticassort}. The general solution for $m=1$ is
\begin{align}
n^{(h,i)}_{k,l} & = \frac{\sigma(h,i)p(i)}{C(i)q(h)} \sum_{c=2}^\infty (c-1) n_{c-1}(h)\cdot \nonumber \\
\cdot & \sum_{j=0}^{l-1}(-1)^j \frac{1}{\alpha_j}{ l-1 \choose j} \sum_{n=0}^{k-c} (-1)^n \cdot \nonumber \\
\cdot & \frac{\Gamma(\alpha_j+1+k-c-n)}{(\alpha_j+k-n)\Gamma(\alpha_j-n)\Gamma(n+1)\Gamma(k-c-n+1)}\label{gensolass}
\end{align}
where $\alpha_j=\frac{1+(j+1)q(i)}{q(h)}$. However, extracting information from this solution is difficult.
The existence of degree correlations can be also shown simply by looking at the scaling of the quantity $n^{(h,i)}_{k,l}$ for $k\gg l$ and $k\ll l$. In the BA model with $m=1$, the scaling is $n_{k,l}\sim k^{-2} l^{-2}$ and $k l^{-5}$ respectively \cite{krapivsky2001organization}, which is different from the naive $k^{-2}l^{-2}$ expected in the absence of degree correlations.
The scaling $k^{-2} l^{-2}$ for $k\gg l$ can be understood from the following simple arguments. The degree of young nodes is dominated by outgoing connections, which select random nodes with probability proportional to $kn_k\sim k^{-2}$. On the other way, the attractiveness of old nodes decays with time as $t^{-1/2}$, therefore the distribution of the linked nodes (assuming a deterministic evolution $\bar{k}=l(t)\sim t^{-1/2}$ as a function of the birth time $t$) is $dt(l)/\sqrt{t(l)}=dl/l^2$.
To obtain the scaling for $n^{(h,i)}_{k,l}$ in these models with $m=1$, we approximate the difference equation with the corresponding differential equation $n^{(h,i)}_{k,l}=q(h)\partial (kn^{(h,i)}_{k,l})/\partial k+q(i)\partial (l n^{(h,i)}_{k,l})/\partial l$ and match the solution with the exact boundary conditions $n^{(h,i)}_{k,1}$ (for $k\gg l$) and $n^{(h,i)}_{2,l}$ (for $l \gg k$). The computation is outlined in appendix \ref{analyticassort}. The result
is
\begin{equation}
n^{(h,i)}_{k,l}\sim \begin{cases}
k^{-1/q(h)}l^{-1-q(h)/q(i)}\quad \mathrm{for}\ k\gg l \\
kl^{-1-(1+2q(h))/q(i)}\quad \mathrm{for}\ k\ll l \end{cases}
\end{equation}
which is quite different from the null scaling $k^{-1/q(h)}l^{-1/q(i)}$. This shows that degree correlations exist also in heterogeneous model. Note that the scaling for $k\gg l$ is consistent with the continuum approximation (\ref{asscont}). The same scaling for $k\gg l$ and $l$ fixed can also be found directly from the generating function (\ref{gfass}) using Tauberian theorems. For $m>1$, the scaling for $k\gg l$ is the same as for $m=1$, while the scaling for $l\gg k$ changes to $n^{(h,i)}_{k,l}\sim k^ml^{-1-(1+(m+1)q(h))/q(i)}$.
The BA model is slightly disassortative in degree and the addition of features does not change this property. This is already apparent from the numerical results in the previous sections, but can be also understood from the above scaling properties. In fact, in the BA model the asymptotic ratio between $n_{k,l}$ and its null value scales between $1$ for $k\gg l$ and $(k/l)^3\sim 0$ for $k\ll l$, therefore decreasing while $k$ and $l$ get closer. In homogeneous models ($q=1/2$), like the symmetric communities model, the scaling is the same as in the BA model. On the other side, in models with different qualities (like the Bianconi-Barabasi fitness model) the pattern of degree correlations is nontrivial, as already observed in the previous section: for example, old and well-connected nodes with features $h$ are preferentially linked to younger nodes of features $i$ and similar degree if qualities are low ($q(i)+q(h)<1$), but they link instead to younger nodes of low degree if qualities are high ($q(i)+q(h)>1$).
\subsubsection{Numerical results: spatial networks}
As an example, we consider spatial networks with preferential attachment \cite{ferretti2011}. In these networks $S$ corresponds to a metric space and the connection function depends only on the distance $\sigma(x,y)=\tilde{\sigma}(d(x,y))$. We simulated network growth on disks in 2-dimensional spaces with constant curvature (sphere, flat and hyperbolic space) and calculated both the assortativity coefficient $C_{ass}$ \cite{newman2003mixing} and the average nearest neighbour degree $\langle k_{NN}(k)\rangle$. We show the results in table \ref{tab_ass} and figures \ref{fig_exp16}, \ref{fig_exp4} and \ref{fig_theta}.
It is apparent that the short-range connections and the spatial structure make the network slightly more disassortative, because hubs tend to be sparse (close hubs compete between them and reduce their degree). Hyperbolic spaces at strong curvature show even higher disassortativity because of their almost star-like connectivity.
Also, the generally low values of the assortativity coefficients suggest that they decrease with time as it happens in the BA model.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.450\textwidth]{./fig_exp16.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Plot of average neighbour degree $\langle k_{NN}(k)\rangle$ (averaged over 50 simulations) for networks of size $2\cdot 10^5$ on disks of radius $r=1.5$ in two-dimensional spaces of curvature $+1,0,-1$ with connection function $\tilde{\sigma}(d)=e^{-16d/r}$.}
\label{fig_exp16}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./fig_exp4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Plot of average neighbour degree $\langle k_{NN}(k)\rangle$ (averaged over 50 simulations) for networks of size $2\cdot 10^5$ on disks of radius $r=1.5$ in two-dimensional spaces of curvature $+1,0,-1$ with connection function $\tilde{\sigma}(d)=e^{-4d/r}$.}
\label{fig_exp4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./fig_theta.eps}
\caption{Plot of average neighbour degree $\langle k_{NN}(k)\rangle$ (averaged over 50 simulations) for networks of size $2\cdot 10^5$ on disks of radius $r=1.5$ in two-dimensional spaces of curvature $+1,0,-1$ with connection function $\tilde{\sigma}(d)=\theta(1-d/r)$.}
\label{fig_theta}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\multicolumn{7}{c}{$C_{ass}$ for spatial networks:} \\
\hline
Space & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ Spherical} & Flat & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Hyperbolic} \\ \hline
Curvature &
2.25$ &
1$ &
0$ &
-1$ &
-2.25$ &
-16$ \\ \hline
$\tilde{\sigma}=e^{-16d/r}$ & -0.0139 & -0.0142 & -0.0145 & -0.0147 & -0.0151 & -0.0187 \\
$\tilde{\sigma}=e^{-4d/r}$ & -0.0144 & -0.0151 & -0.0155 & -0.0162 & -0.0169 & -0.0136 \\
$\tilde{\sigma}=\theta\left(1-\frac{d}{r}\right)$ & -0.0160 & -0.0158 & -0.0152 & -0.0149 & -0.0149 & -0.0909 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Values of the assortativity coefficient $C_{ass}$ (averaged over 50 simulations) for networks of size $2\cdot 10^5$ on disks of radius $r=1$ in different two-dimensional spaces and for different connection functions $\tilde{\sigma}(d)$. (Note that the only parameter of the space is actually the product of the curvature and the squared radius.) The corresponding assortativity coefficient for the Barab\'asi-Albert model is $C_{ass}^{BA}=-0.0112$.}\label{tab_ass}
\end{table}
\section{Generalizations
The Barab\'asi-Albert model is based purely on addition of nodes and preferential attachment. Realistic models can include many other ingredients: addition of extra links, rewiring and removal of links, directed links, variable initial degree, attachment functions that are only asymptotically linear in $k$, etc. Some generalizations of the BA model are reviewed in \cite{albert2002statistical,newman}.
In this section we present several variations on the heterogeneous models with preferential attachment presented in section \ref{sectionmodel}. For most of these generalizations, the degree distribution is a sum of power-laws, showing that scale-free or multi-scaling behaviour is a robust feature of preferential attachment models. The results are generally similar when different generalizations are combined together.
The consistency equations for $ q(h)$ in these models
can be obtained through a rate equation approach or, more easily, by using the continuum approach, i.e. the deterministic evolution of node degree $dk_i/dt=q(h_i)k_i/t$ or equivalently $k_i(t)=k_i(t_0)(t/t_0)^{q(h_i)}$ \cite{Barabasi1999mean}. The corresponding equations for $q(h)$ are exact, as explained in appendix \ref{stochastic}.
\subsection{Heterogeneity in initial degree
We consider a model of growing networks with the usual preferential attachment rule (\ref{prefattachrule}). However, new nodes have a initial degree $m(h)$ that depends on their {feature}\ $h$.
The continuum equation for the node degree is
\begin{equation}
\frac{dk_i}{dt}=\sum_h p(h) m(h) \frac{\sigma(h_i,h)k_{i}}{\sum_{l
\sigma(h_l,h)k_{l}}
\end{equation}
The degree distribution is given by equation
\begin{equation}
n_k=\sum_{h\inS}\frac{p(h)}{q(h)m(h)}\left(\frac{k}{m(h)}\right)^{-(1+q(h)^{-1})} \theta(k-m(h)) \label{pkm}
\end{equation}
with $q(h)$ satisfying the consistency equations
\begin{equation}
q(h)=\sum_{l\inS} \frac{\sigma(h,l) p(l)m(l)}{C(l)}
\quad,
\quad
C(h)=\sum_{l\inS} \frac{\sigma(l,h)p(l)m(l)}{1-q(l)}
\end{equation}
Interestingly, if $\sigma(h,h')=1$, the model is equivalent to a variation on the BA model with a random initial degree for the new nodes. In practice, the {feature}\ is the initial degree $m$ of each node. Assume that the average initial connectivity $\bar{m}$ is finite. Then if the distribution of $m$ decays faster than $m^{-3}$, the degree distribution of this model for $k\gg \bar{m}$ is
the same as the BA model. Instead, if the distribution of $m$ decays as a power law with exponent $-\alpha$ greater than $-3$, the sum in equation (\ref{pkm}) gives an additional factor $k^{3-\alpha}$ and therefore $n_k\sim k^{-\alpha}$. More generally, we can consider a general variation on the BA model with degree distribution $p_0(k)\sim k^{-\gamma}$ for fixed $m$, and modify this model to allow for a stochastic initial degree with distribution $p(m)\sim m^{-\alpha}$. In this case the degree distribution from equation (\ref{pkm}) is $n_k\sim k^{-\min(\alpha,\gamma)}$, in agreement with the formal results in \cite{deijfen2009preferential}.
\subsection{Heterogeneous links
In this model, the attractiveness of a node does not depend only on the number of links, but also on the types of nodes to which they are attached. For examples, in copying vertex models or walking models \cite{vazquez2001disordered}, new nodes could preferentially explore existing nodes with a specific feature (e.g. search engines in the WWW example), therefore the effective preferential attachment dynamics would give an higher weight to the links that connect to this feature.
The preferential attachment probability is a positive linear combination of $k_{i(h)}$, which is the number of links between the $i$th node and nodes with variable $h$:
\begin{equation}
\Pi(i)=\frac{\sum_{h'}\sigma(h_i,h;h')k_{i(h')}}{\sum_{l
\sum_{h'}\sigma(h_l,h;h')k_{l(h')}}
\end{equation}
The distribution follows equation (\ref{distrk}) with quality $q(h)$ defined by the set of consistency equations
\begin{align}
q(h_i) & =\sum_{h,h'} \frac{\sigma(h_i,h;h')f^{IN}(h_i,h')p(h)}{C(h)}\\
C(h) & =\sum_{h',h''}\sigma(h'',h;h')p(h'')\cdot \\
\cdot & \left[f^{OUT}(h'',h') + f^{IN}(h'',h')\frac{q(h'')}{1-q(h'')}\right] \nonumber \\
f^{OUT}(h_i,h')& = \sum_{h''}\frac{\sigma(h',h_i;h'')p(h')}{C(h_i)} \cdot \\
\cdot & \left[f^{OUT}(h',h'')+ f^{IN}(h',h'')\frac{q(h')}{1-q(h')}\right] \nonumber \\
f^{IN}(h_i,h') & =\sum_{h''}\frac{p(h'')\sigma(h_i,h';h'')f^{IN}(h_i,h'')}{q(h_i)C(h')}
\end{align}
\subsection{Shifted preferential attachment
The preferential attachment rule is modified by the addition of a positive term $a(h_i,h)$ independent of the degree but dependent on the {features}. Similar models without features were proposed in \cite{krapivsky2001organization,dorogovtsev2000structure}.
\begin{equation}
\Pi(i)=\frac{\sigma(h_i,h)k_{i}+a(h_i,h)}{\sum_{l
\sigma(h_l,h)k_{l}+a(h_l,h)}
\end{equation}
The degree distribution for large $k$ follows equation (\ref{distrk}) with quality $q(h)$ defined by (\ref{qdef}) and $C(h)$ defined by
\begin{equation}
C(h)=\sum_{h'}\left[\frac{\sigma(h',h)}{1-q(h')}+\frac{a(h',h)}{m}\right]p(h')
\end{equation}
\subsection{Directed links}
In this model the preferential attachment probability is proportional to the number of incoming links $k^{IN}$:
\begin{equation}
\Pi(i)=\frac{\sigma(h_i,h)(k^{IN}_{i}+a(h_i))}{\sum_{l
\sigma(h_l,h)(k^{IN}_{l}+a(h_l))}
\end{equation}
Note that the positive term $a(h)$ is needed to specify the initial attachment probability because initially $k^{IN}=0$. The results are similar to the shifted preferential attachment case, with $C(h)$ defined by
\begin{equation}
C(h)=\sum_{h'}\sigma(h',h)\left[\frac{q(h')}{1-q(h')}+\frac{a(h)}{m}\right]p(h')
\end{equation}
\subsection{Addition of links
In this model, in addition to the usual growth rules, extra links are added at rate $mr_+$ and attached to nodes $i,j$ according to the probability
\begin{equation}
\Pi_+(i,j)=\frac{\sigma_+(h_i,h_j)k_{i}k_{j}}{\sum_{r,s
\sigma_+(h_r,h_s)k_{r}k_{s}}
\end{equation}
This model can be solved similarly to the usual one under some extra assumptions, like the scaling
\begin{equation}
\sum_{r,s
\sigma_+(h_r,h_s)k_{r}k_{s}=m^2C_+t^2+o(t^2)
\end{equation}
The degree distribution follows equation (\ref{distrk}) with quality $q(h)$ defined by
\begin{align}
q(h_i)=&\sum_h \left[\frac{\sigma(h_i,h)}{C(h)}+\frac{2r_+\sigma_+(h_i,h)}{C_+(1-q(h))}\right]p(h) \\
C(h)=& \sum_{h'}\frac{\sigma(h',h)p(h')}{1-q(h')}\\
C_+=& \sum_{h,h'}\frac{\sigma_+(h',h)p(h)p(h')}{(1-q(h))(1-q(h'))}
\end{align}
\subsection{Preferential rewiring in directed networks}
Modifications to the usual preferential attachment growth of the node degree include also possible losses of links, either because of removal or rewiring \cite{albert2000topology}. An high rate of link removal/rewiring could result in a degree distribution with an exponential tail instead of the usual power-law tail. However, if the removal/rewiring process is not too fast, the resulting distribution is typically a power-law with an exponent dependent on the rates of the different processes.
Several heterogeneous models with preferential rewiring and/or removal of links can be analyzed with the techniques of this pape
. In these models the growth of node degrees can be characterized by an effective fitness $q(h)$ and the stochastic noise due to link addition and removal does not change significantly the tail of the degree distribution, as explained in appendix \ref{stochastic}. Here present a simple example of such a model.
We consider a directed network growing under the same rules as the model (\ref{prefattachrule}) and with rewiring taking place at rate $mr$. In each rewiring process, a random link is selected with probability proportional to $\sigma_-(h_{in},h_{out})$ where $h_{in}$ and $h_{out}$ are the variables of the attached nodes. The ingoing end of the link is then detached and reattached to another node according to the probability
\begin{equation}
\Pi_+(i)=\frac{\sigma_+(h_i,h_{out})k_i^{IN}}{\sum_j\sigma_+(h_j,h_{out})k_j^{IN}}
\end{equation}
In this model, at least for large $k$, the degree distribution follows a multi-scaling behaviour similar to equation (\ref{distrk}), given by
\begin{equation}
n_k\simeq\sum_{h\inS}\theta(q(h))\frac{p(h)}{q(h)m}\left(\frac{k}{m}\right)^{-(1+q(h)^{-1})} \label{distrkrewiring}
\end{equation}
with quality $q(h)$ defined by the set of consistency equations
\begin{align}
q(h_i)=&\sum_h \frac{\sigma(h_i,h)p(h)}{C(h)}+\frac{r\Sigma_+(h_i)}{C_+}+\\
&-\sum_h\frac{r\sigma_-(h_i,h)f^{IN}(h_i,h)}{C_-} \quad , \nonumber \\
C(h)=& \sum_{h'}\frac{\sigma(h',h)p(h')}{1-q(h')}\\
C_+=& \sum_{h}\frac{\Sigma_+(h)q(h)p(h)}{1-q(h)} \\
C_-= & \sum_{h,h'}\frac{\sigma_-(h',h)f^{IN}(h',h)q(h')p(h')}{1-q(h')}& \\
f^{IN}(h_i,h)=& \frac{\sigma(h_i,h)p(h)/C(h)+r\Sigma_+(h_i)/C_+}{q(h_i)+r\sigma_-(h_i,h)/C_-}\\
\Sigma_+ (h_i)= &\sum_{h,h'} \frac{\sigma_+(h_i,h)\sigma_-(h',h)f^{IN}(h',h)q(h')p(h')}{
C_-(1-q(h'))}
\end{align}
In this model (and more generally in models including rewiring/removal of links) the quality $q(h)$ can also be negative, thus requiring the factor $\theta(q(h))$ in equation (\ref{distrkrewiring}).
\subsection{Fixing the connection probability between {features}}
The last variation is a more radical departure from the heterogeneous models presented in this paper, since it is a modification of the attachment probability (\ref{prefattachrule}). In this model, a new node with {feature}\ $h$ attaches to nodes with different variables $h'$ according to a probability $\pi(h'|h)$ independent of the degrees. Then, once a {feature}\ $h'$ is chosen at random according to $\pi(h'|h)$, a specific node $i$ with $h_i=h'$ is chosen according to the usual preferential attachment rule. (If no such node exists, another variable $h''$ is chosen according to $\pi(h''|h)$ .)
Asymptotically, the overall probability is then
\begin{equation}
\Pi(i)=\pi(h_i|h)\frac{k_i}{\sum_k k N_k(h_i,t)}\label{modprefattachrule}
\end{equation}
It is possible to define a quality $q(h)$ also for these models. Assuming the scaling
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\{j|h_j=h\}}k_j = mp(h)C(h)t+o(t)
\end{equation}
we obtain $C(h)=1/(1-q(h))$ and the quality can be obtained explicitly:
\begin{equation}
q(h_i)=\frac{\sum_{h}\pi(h_i|h)p(h)}{p(h_i)+\sum_{h}\pi(h_i|h)p(h)}\label{qeqmod}
\end{equation}
The degree distribution follows the usual equation (\ref{distrk}). This model works if the {feature space}\ $S$ is discrete and finite, but can be generalized to continuous spaces through discretization and equation (\ref{qeqmod}) is valid with $p(h)$ and $\pi(h'|h)$ interpreted as probability densities.
\section{Conclusions}
The addition of node features to growing network models with preferential attachment is an important step towards realistic network modeling and results in a wide class of models, for which this paper provides several analytical results. In particular, this work shows that the power-law scaling of the degree distribution generated by preferential attachment is quite robust with respect to the heterogeneity between nodes. The main effect of heterogeneity is the emergence of an ``effective fitness'' $q(h)$ for each class of nodes, therefore their degree distribution resembles the fitness model of Bianconi and Barab\'asi \cite{bianconi2001competition,bianconi2001bose}.
Beyond the degree distribution, other network properties were studied. The clustering coefficient of these networks disappears for large network size, a property shared with the BA model. Negative degree correlations are also present in these models, along with non-trivial mixing patterns among features. Both small clustering coefficients and disassortative mixing are therefore outcomes of the preferential attachment mechanism in general growing networks.
The effect of the {features}\ $h$ associated to each node has been presented as non-random, but the formalism applies to any kind of heterogeneity. In particular it is easy to include random variables or {features}\ with random effects as well, as long as their values do not change with time. In fact, any random effect can be parametrized by some extra random variables $\chi$ with a distribution $p_R(\chi)$. Then it is possible to redefine a non-random variable $\tilde{h}=(h,\chi)$ with frequency $\tilde{p}(\tilde{h})=p(h)p_R(\chi)$. The connection function $\tilde{\sigma}(\tilde{h}, \tilde{h}')$ now takes into account both random and non-random components. So the formalism captures stochastic as well as deterministic node features.
Moreover, the growth of many scale-free networks is based on some local dynamics such as the vertex copying/duplication rules for growth of molecular networks. However, from the point of view of the link distribution, the local dynamics often results in an effective preferential attachment mechanism. Our methods and results on degree distribution and assortativity apply to these models as well, if we take the connection probability (\ref{prefattachrule}) as an effective dynamics for the growth of the node connectivities.
Therefore the main results of this paper, i.e. power-law multiscaling of the degree distribution and disassortative mixing in degree, are generally valid for models with effective preferential attachment.
On the other way, the clustering coefficient depends on the specific model and not only on the effective form (\ref{prefattachrule}) for the attachment probability, therefore our proof that the clustering vanishes in the thermodynamic limit is valid only for models with pure preferential attachment.
In future works it would be very interesting to map the metric space implied by the class of growing network models discussed in this paper with the hidden metrics recently introduced to model complex networks in hyperbolic spaces \cite{krioukov2009curvature}.
Finally, an interesting extension of the model would be to include {features}\ that fluctuate in time, in order to determine how time-dependent heterogeneities affect the power-law behaviour of the degree distribution and the other properties discussed here, and features that coevolve with the network, for example spaces that expand with time while the node density remains constant.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank M. Bogu\~na and M. Mamino for useful discussions. L.F. acknowledges support from CSIC (Spain) under the JAE-doc program.
\end{acknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1.bst}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{The problem}
In 1969, Peter Mazur suggested \cite{Mazur} that {\em the time-average}
$\bar{A}=\lim_{t\to\infty}t^{-1} \int_0^t {\rm d} t' A(t')$ of a bounded observable $A(t)$ can be bounded from below
by means of {\em exact conservation laws}, i.e. observables $Q_k$, $k=1,2\ldots$,
satisfying $( {\rm d} / {\rm d} t)Q_k=0$ and being mutually in {\em involution}, namely
\begin{equation}
\ave{\bar{A}^2}_\beta = \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\int_{0}^t {\rm d} t' \ave{A(0)A(t')}_\beta \ge \sum_k \frac{\ave{A Q_k }^2_\beta}{\ave{ Q_k^2}_\beta}.
\label{eq:MazursIneq}
\end{equation}
$\ave{\bullet}_\beta$ is a thermal average at inverse temperature $\beta$, and observables $Q_k$ have to be chosen to be mutually
`orthogonal' $\ave{Q_k Q_l}_\beta = \delta_{k,l} \ave{Q_k^2}_\beta$.
Considering observables with a vanishing equilibrium expectation $\ave{A}_{\beta} = 0$, strict positivity of the right-hand side (RHS) of Mazur inequality (\ref{eq:MazursIneq}) is a convenient indicator of {\em non-ergodicity} of the observable $A$.
Mazur has shown that in classical statistical physics, the inequality (\ref{eq:MazursIneq}) is merely a corollary of the
Khinchin theorem \cite{Khinchin}. Later, Suzuki \cite{Suzuki} has proven a quantum version of the bound (\ref{eq:MazursIneq}),
strictly applying only to {\em finite} quantum systems as his proof is based on explicit diagonalization of the Hamiltonian operator.
Existence of non-trivial constants of motion which is characteristic of {\em completely integrable systems} implies non-ergodicity of (almost all/generic) observables, making an intimate connection between non-ergodicity and complete integrability, both in classical and quantum statistical mechanics.
The inequality (\ref{eq:MazursIneq}) has found numerous and very useful applications in condensed matter physics as it is naturally
suited for bounding dynamical susceptibilities within the linear response theory. For example, within the framework of Kubo's linear response approach, the zero-frequency Drude peak (see e.g.\cite{Meisner}) is defined in terms of the real part of (heat/electric/spin) conductivity $\sigma'_\beta(\omega)= 2\pi D_\beta \delta(\omega) + \sigma^{\rm reg}_\beta(\omega)$. The constant $D_\beta$ known as the {\em Drude weight} can be expressed\footnote{For a detailed discussion and derivation of the linear response expression of Drude weight see subsection \ref{sect:lr}.} for a one-dimensional quantum lattice of size $n$ as
\begin{equation}
D_\beta = \lim_{t\to\infty}\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\beta}{4 n t} \int_{-t}^t {\rm d} t' \ave{J_n(0) J_n(t')}_\beta .
\label{eq:Kubo}
\end{equation}
The symmetrized correlation function is used in order to render Drude weight manifestly real.
Here, in (\ref{eq:Kubo}), $J_n=\sum_{x=1}^n j_x$ is an extensive (energy/particle/spin) current operator, and $j_x$ is a current density at site $x$.
Positivity of the Drude weight $D_\beta > 0$ is a signature of a ballistic transport at finite temperature and is generically related
to complete integrability via Mazur inequality (\ref{eq:MazursIneq}), as pointed out in Ref.~\cite{Zotos}.
It should be emphasized that the order of limits in the Kubo-type formula (\ref{eq:Kubo}) is crucial, namely taking them in a different order can sometimes produce completely different results (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{Rigol}).
Within Suzuki's approach, {\em thermodynamic} limit (TL) of letting the system size $n$, or the number of degrees of freedom, $n\to\infty$,
can only be taken at the end, which is not according to a fundamental principle of statistical mechanics which states that
TL $n\to\infty$ has to be always considered before the {\em long-time} limit $t \to \infty$ (say as in formula
(\ref{eq:Kubo})).
Our program in this paper is then to use the natural language of quantum statistical mechanics of systems with local interactions --- the quasi-local $C^*$-algebras ---
and to develop an algebraic approach to Drude weight bounds of the Mazur-type pertaining to strictly infinite quantum lattice systems. In the Suzuki's theorem conservation laws have to strictly commute with the Hamiltonian, $[H,Q_k]=0$, for all finite sizes $n$. For that reason, one has to often study periodic boundary conditions which may only guarantee existence of such
exact conserved quantities. However, in our $C^*$-algebraic setup we can accommodate also for quite common situations, where for any finite system size $n$ the conservation laws $Q_k$ might not be perfect, but the commutator $ {\rm d} Q_k/ {\rm d} t = {\rm i} [H,Q_k]$ may result in terms supported at the system's boundaries. In this way, TL $n\to \infty$ can be taken in the beginning, by inclusion of larger and larger open lattices, and no resort to periodic boundary conditions is needed.
\subsection{Summary of the main results}
The main idea behind our susceptibility bounds is to bring together two classical results in quantum spin lattice systems with local interactions \cite{BR,Bruno,LiebRobinson,Araki}, namely (i) the exponential clustering property of finite temperature Gibbs states in one-dimensional translationally invariant lattices, and (ii) Lieb-Robinson kinematic bound on the spatio-temporal propagation of local quantum correlations which result from boundary terms of the commutators. The projection form of the Lieb-Robinson bound \cite{BHV} enables us to nicely separate the causality light-cone of a time-evolved observable in the autocorrelator and to exploit the property of exponential clustering in the equilibrium state.
After introducing the notation and outlining the main concepts ((i) and (ii)) in section \ref{sect:prel} we write and prove in section \ref{sect:main} our main result (Theorem 1): Namely, given any observable $J_n$ and Hamiltonian $H_n$ of a finite lattice system of size $n$, such that the interactions are translationally invariant, and another quasi-local extensive observable $Q_n$ which has a property that the commutator $[H_n,Q_n] = b_1 - b_n$ where $b_1$ and $b_n$ are two operators supported at the left and the right boundary of the chain, we show that the Drude weight (\ref{eq:Kubo}) is strictly bounded by a simple expression
$D_\beta \ge \frac{\beta}{2} \lim_{n\to \infty} n^{-1} (\frac{1}{2}\ave{J_n Q_n + Q_n J_n}_\beta)^2/\ave{Q_n^2}_\beta$.
In section \ref{sect:general} we then provide trivial generalization of the result (Theorem 2) to the case where we have an arbitrary set of almost-conserved quasi-local operators. In section \ref{sect:examples} we describe a nontrivial application of our results for bounding the spin Drude weight in the anisotropic Heisenberg $XXZ$ model. In section \ref{sect:discussion} we conclude by discussing the assumptions needed to equate the thermal-averaged correlator (\ref{eq:Kubo}) with the canonical Kubo-Mori expression, and state some remarks on possible other general contexts where results of our type may appear.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sect:prel}
We consider the following setup, where the notation essentially follows Bratteli and Robinson \cite{BR}. Let $N \in \mathbb{Z}_+$ be a local Hilbert space dimension, say $N=2$ for spins 1/2 or qubits,
and ${\mathfrak A}_x \equiv \CC^{N \times N}$, $x \in \mathbb{Z}$, a local on-site matrix algebra.
We associate a matrix algebra to any finite open lattice of integers, the so-called {\em chain} $[x,y] = \{x,x+1,\ldots,y-1,y\}$, as
${\mathfrak A}_{[x,y]} = \bigotimes_{z=x}^y {\mathfrak A}_z$ and define the quasi-local (UHF) $C^*$-algebra ${\mathfrak A}={\mathfrak A}_\mathbb{Z}$ in terms of a closure of the {\em limit by inclusion} $[x,y] \to \mathbb{Z}$.
Let the {\em interaction} $h\in {\mathfrak A}_{[0,d_{h}-1]}$ be an element of a local spin $C^{*}$-algebra on $d_h$ sites \footnote{We shall assume $d_h \ge 2$, as the on-site interaction with $d_h=1$ represent a trivial case with strictly local dynamics.}. The Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H_{\Lambda_{n}}=\sum_{x=1}^{n-d_{h}+1}h_{x}
\end{equation}
is an operator acting on a finite chain $\Lambda_{n} \equiv [1,n]$, which is a sum of local energy densities
$h_{x}=\eta_{x}(h) \in {\mathfrak A}_{[x,x+d_h-1]}$, obtained
by a group of lattice ({\em shift}) $*$-automorphisms $\eta_x$ of ${\mathfrak A}$, defined by $\eta_{y}(a_{x})=a_{x+y}$.
Translationally invariant Hamiltonian can be understood in terms of the limit by inclusion $\Lambda\to\mathbb{Z}$ of Hamiltonians $H_\Lambda$ for arbitrary chains $\Lambda$
\begin{equation}
H_{\Lambda}=\sum_{x=\text{min}\,\Lambda}^{\text{max}\,\Lambda-d_{h}+1}h_{x}.
\end{equation}
The latter defines another group of $*$-automorphisms of the quasi-local algebra ${\mathfrak A}$, namely the {\em time automorphism}
\begin{equation}
\tau_{t}(a)=\lim_{\Lambda \to \mathbb{Z}}\tau^{\Lambda}_{t}(a),\qquad \tau^{\Lambda}_{t}(a) := e^{ {\rm i} H_{\Lambda}t}ae^{- {\rm i} H_{\Lambda}t},
\end{equation}
and a finite temperature equilibrium expectation, namely the infinite volume {\em Gibbs state}
\begin{equation}
\omega_\beta(a) = \lim_{\Lambda\to\mathbb{Z}} \frac{\text{tr} (a e^{-\beta H_{\Lambda}})}{\text{tr}(e^{-\beta H_{\Lambda}})}
\end{equation}
strictly defined only for local operators $a$ and extended to ${\mathfrak A}$ by continuity. Araki (Theorem 2.3 of \cite{Araki}) has shown that
such Gibbs state is an extremal $(\tau,\beta)$-KMS state,
which is invariant under space and time translations
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_\beta(\eta_x(A)) &=& \omega_\beta(A), \label{eq:translx}\\
\omega_\beta(\tau_t(A)) &=& \omega_\beta(A), \label{eq:translt}
\end{eqnarray}
for any $A\in{\mathfrak A}$, $x\in\mathbb{Z}$, $t\in\mathbb{R}$. Most importantly, Gibbs state $\omega_\beta$ has an {\em exponential clustering property} (ECP)
(Theorem 2.3 of \cite{Araki}, see also Theorem 3 of \cite{Matsui}): for any pair of local operators $f \in {\mathfrak A}_{[-d_f,-1]}$, $g \in {\mathfrak A}_{[0,d_g-1]}$, $d_f,d_g\in \mathbb{Z}_+$, and a displacement $x\in \mathbb{Z}_+$
one has
\begin{equation}
\left|\omega_\beta(f \eta_{x}(g)) - \omega_\beta(f)\omega_\beta(g)\right| \le
\kappa \|f\| \|g\| e^{-\rho x}
\label{eq:ECP}
\end{equation}
where $\kappa,\rho$ are two positive constants, which do not depend on $x$, neither on $f,g$.
Next, we define an extensive current operator in the open chain
\begin{equation}
J_{\Lambda_{n}}=\sum_{x=1}^{n-d_{j}+1}j_{x},\quad j_{x}=\eta_{x}(j),
\label{eq:current}
\end{equation}
where the current density $j$ belongs to a $d_j$-site local algebra $j\in {\mathfrak A}_{[0,d_{j}-1]}$.
In fact, the observable $J$ may not necessarily be interpreted as a physical current, but it can be any spatial sum of a local self-adjoint operator
$j$ (representing an extensive translationally invariant observable), the only condition being that its local equilibrium expectation vanishes
\begin{equation}
\omega_\beta(j) = 0.
\label{eq:jzero}
\end{equation}
We shall think of it as a current merely because the most important application we have in mind is in the quantum transport.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:1}
The key concept in our work is a {\em quasi-local translationally invariant conservation law} $Q$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $Q$ is a translationally invariant spatial sum of exponentially localized (quasi-local) operators.
For any finite chain $\Lambda_n$:
\begin{equation}
Q_{\Lambda_{n}}=\sum_{d=1}^{n}Q^{(d)}_{\Lambda_n},\quad Q_{\Lambda_{n}}^{(d)}=\sum_{x=1}^{n-d+1}q_{x}^{(d)},\quad \|q^{(d)}\|\leq \gamma \exp{(-\xi d)},
\label{eq:qdef}
\end{equation}
where $q^{(d)} = (q^{(d)})^* \in {\mathfrak A}_{[0,d-1]}$, and $\gamma,\xi$ are positive $n$-independent constants.
\item
$Q$ should have vanishing thermal expectation value
\begin{equation}
\omega_\beta(Q_{\Lambda_n}) = 0.
\end{equation}
We can thus assume also that all orders of local density $q^{(d)}$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\omega_\beta(q^{(d)})=0.
\end{equation}
\item
The operator $Q_{\Lambda_{n}}$ is \textit{almost-conserved} on any open chain $\Lambda_{n}$, i.e. it commutes with the Hamiltonian $H_{\Lambda_{n}}$ except for terms that are supported at the boundary of the chain
\begin{equation}
[H_{\Lambda_{n}},Q_{\Lambda_{n}}]=B_{\partial_{n}}
\label{eqn:commutator}
\end{equation}
where $\partial_n \equiv [1,d_b] \cup [n-d_b+1,n]$ and
\begin{equation}
B_{\partial_n} := b_{1}-b_{n-d_{b}+1}
\end{equation}
for some local operator $b \in {\mathfrak A}_{[0,d_b-1]}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
For concrete, nontrivial examples of $Q$, see section \ref{sect:examples}.
Take now any chain $\Lambda$ which is sufficiently bigger than $\Lambda_n$, say $\Lambda \supseteq [-d_h + 2,n+d_h-1]$. Then, the almost-commutation identity (\ref{eqn:commutator})
implies
\begin{equation}
[H_\Lambda,Q_{\Lambda_n}] = B_{\partial_n} + [h_{\rm L},Q_{\Lambda_n}] + [h_{\rm R},Q_{\Lambda_n}]
\label{eq:comm2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
h_{\rm L}:=\sum_{x=-d_{h}+2}^{0}h_{x},\qquad h_{\rm R}:=\sum_{x=n-d_{h}+2}^{n}h_{x}
\end{equation}
represent the left and the right near-boundary interactions.
The RHS of (\ref{eq:comm2}) can be rewritten as a sum of two quasi-local operators localized near the boundary
\begin{eqnarray}
[H_\Lambda,Q_{\Lambda_n}] &=& B_{\rm L} + B_{\rm R}, \label{eq:eom} \\
B_{\rm L} &:=& \sum_{d=0}^n b^{(d)}_{\rm L}, \nonumber\\
B_{\rm R} &:=& \sum_{d=0}^n b^{(d)}_{\rm R}, \\
b^{(0)}_{\rm L} &:=& b_1,\,\,\qquad\qquad b^{(d)}_{\rm L} := \sum_{x=-d_h+2}^0\sum_{y=1}^{x+d_h-1} [h_x,q^{(d)}_y], \nonumber\\
b^{(0)}_{\rm R} &:=& -b_{n-d_b+1},\quad b^{(d)}_{\rm R} := \sum_{x=n-d_h+2}^n \sum_{y=n-d-d_h+3}^{x-d+1} [h_x,q^{(d)}_y].
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the supports\footnote{
Due to existence of the \textit{principle of locality} in the systems with finite-range interactions, the notion of an operator support enters naturally into
the discussion. The support ${\rm supp}\,A$ of an observale $A\in {\mathfrak A}_\Lambda$ is the minimal set $\Gamma \subset \Lambda$ for which
$A=\tilde{A}\otimes \mathbbm{1}_{\Lambda \setminus \Gamma}$ for some $\tilde{A}\in {\mathfrak A}_\Gamma$.
} of the boundary operators are
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm supp\,} b^{(d)}_{\rm L} &\subseteq& [-d_h+2,\max\{d_h-2+d,d_b\}], \nonumber \\
{\rm supp\,} b^{(d)}_{\rm R} &\subseteq& [\min\{n-d-d_h+3,n-d_b+1\},n+d_h-1],
\end{eqnarray}
and that they are {\em exponentially localized} (following from the definition (\ref{eq:qdef}) and elementary inequalities, $\| A B\| \le \| A\| \| B \|$ and the triangular inequality):
\begin{equation}
\| b^{(d)}_{\rm L} \| = \| b^{(d)}_{\rm R}\| \le \max\{ d_h(d_h-1) \gamma \| h\| ,\| b\|\}e^{-\xi d}.
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{eq:eom}) results in the Heisenberg equation of motion for the almost-conserved operator
\begin{equation}
( {\rm d} / {\rm d} t)\tau^\Lambda_t(Q_{\Lambda_n}) =
{\rm i} [H_\Lambda, \tau^\Lambda_t(Q_{\Lambda_n})] = {\rm i} \tau^\Lambda_t(B_{\rm L}+B_{\rm R}),
\label{eq:heom}
\end{equation}
which together with the initial condition $\tau_{t=0}(Q_{\Lambda_n}) = Q_{\Lambda_n}$, after taking the limit $\Lambda\to\mathbb{Z}$, integrates to an explicit time dependence
\begin{equation}
\tau_{t}(Q_{\Lambda_{n}})=Q_{\Lambda_{n}} + {\rm i} \int_{0}^{t} {\rm d} s\, \tau_{s}(B_{\rm L}+B_{\rm R}).
\label{eq:explicit}
\end{equation}
Another crucial technical tool that we shall facilitate is the {\em Lieb-Robinson estimate} (LRE) \cite{LiebRobinson} which bounds the speed at which a disturbance propagates through a quantum spin system with local interactions. Let $f \in {\mathfrak A}_{X}$,
$g \in {\mathfrak A}_{\Gamma}$, where $X,\Gamma\subset \mathbb{Z}$ are two subsets with $|X|$, $|\Gamma|$ sites, such that at least one of them is
finite. A useful form of LRE (see e.g. \cite{BHV}) then states
\begin{equation}
\|[\tau_{t}(f),g]\|\leq
\phi \min\{|X|,|\Gamma|\} \| f\| \| g \| \exp{\left(-\mu({\rm dist}(X,\Gamma) - v |t|)\right)},
\label{eq:LRE}
\end{equation}
where ${\rm dist}(X,\Gamma)=\min_{x\in X, y\in\Gamma}|x-y|$ is the distance between the sets $X,\Gamma$,
and $\phi$, $\mu$ and $v$ are some positive constants, independent of $f,g$, and $t$.
Regarding any finite subset $\Gamma \subset \mathbb{Z}$ we define a projection mapping $(\bullet)_\Gamma:{\mathfrak A} \to {\mathfrak A}$ as
\begin{equation}
(A)_\Gamma := \lim_{\Lambda\to\mathbb{Z}} \frac{ \text{tr}_{\Lambda\setminus \Gamma}(A)}{\text{tr} (\mathbbm{1}_{\Lambda\setminus \Gamma})} \otimes \mathbbm{1}_{\Lambda\setminus\Gamma}
= \lim_{\Lambda\to\mathbb{Z}} \int {\rm d} \mu(U_{\Lambda\setminus\Gamma})
U_{\Lambda\setminus\Gamma} A U_{\Lambda\setminus\Gamma}^*
\label{eq:proj}
\end{equation}
where $\text{tr}_X$ denotes a partial trace with respect to a local algebra supported on $X$.
The RHS of (\ref{eq:proj}) provides a very useful identity, where $ {\rm d} \mu(U_X)$ denotes the normalized Haar measure for the integration over the full unitary group of a $N^{|X|}$ dimensional Hilbert space over sites $X$.
Bravyi, Hastings and Verstraete (BHV) \cite{BHV} have reformulated LRE (\ref{eq:LRE}) in a very convenient way, namely they have
shown that (\ref{eq:LRE}) implies the estimate
\begin{equation}
\| \tau_t(f) - (\tau_t(f))_{\Gamma}\| \le \phi |X| \| f\| \exp{\left(-\mu ({\rm dist}(X,\mathbb{Z}\setminus\Gamma) - v |t|)\right)}
\label{eq:BHV}
\end{equation}
where $f \in {\mathfrak A}_X$, and $\Gamma\subset\mathbb{Z}$ an arbitrary set of sites. The constants $\phi,\mu,v$ are the same as in (\ref{eq:LRE}) and hence also do not depend on $\Gamma$. The BHV inequality (\ref{eq:BHV}) is proven by applying the identity (\ref{eq:proj}), writing
\begin{eqnarray}
\| \tau_t(f) - (\tau_t(f))_{\Gamma} \| &=& \| \lim_{\Lambda\to\mathbb{Z}}\int {\rm d} \mu(U_{\Lambda\setminus\Gamma})
[\tau_t(f),U_{\Lambda\setminus\Gamma}] U^*_{\Lambda\setminus\Gamma} \|
\nonumber \\&\le& \lim_{\Lambda\to\mathbb{Z}}\int {\rm d} \mu(U_{\Lambda\setminus\Gamma})
\| [U_{\Lambda\setminus\Gamma},\tau_t(f)]\|,
\end{eqnarray} and then using LRE (\ref{eq:LRE}). Note that $U^*_{\Lambda\setminus\Gamma} = U^{-1}_{\Lambda\setminus\Gamma}$.
\section{Thermodynamic limit of Mazur inequality}
\label{sect:main}
Let us consider a suitable extensive translationally invariant observable $J$ (\ref{eq:current}).
Then we define the Drude weight in terms of a time-averaged autocorrelation function as the following double limit,
\begin{equation}
D_\beta:=\lim_{t\to \infty}\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{\beta}{2n}\frac{1}{2t}\int_{-t}^{t} {\rm d} t'
\omega_{\beta}(J_{\Lambda_{n}}\tau_{t'}(J_{\Lambda_{n}})).
\label{eq:Dbeta}
\end{equation}
In order to avoid any ambiguity and to make the definition precise, we stress that the Gibbs state $\omega_\beta$ and the time-evolution $\tau_t$ on the RHS of (\ref{eq:Dbeta}) are already taken for an
infinite system, before the infinite volume limit $n\to\infty$ is applied to the extensive observable $J_{\Lambda_n}$. However, we will show later that RHS can be expressed in terms of local quantities only, therefore a single TL suffices.
The Drude weight $D_\beta$ is an important quantity in linear response theory of condensed matter physics (see the discussion in
subsection \ref{sect:lr}). In the following we prove a general and useful inequality related to it,
and clarify its existence in infinite one-dimensional systems. Moreover, $D_\beta$ can be considered as an interesting {\em ergodicity indicator} of $C^*$ dynamical systems.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theo:main}
(i) The following limit exists for any $t\in \mathbb{R}$
\begin{equation}
c(t) = \lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{x=-n}^n \omega_\beta( j_x \tau_t(j) ).
\label{eq:cdef1}
\end{equation}
(ii) Let us assume that the symmetric time-average of $c(t)$ exists
\begin{equation}
\bar{c} = \lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{1}{2t}\int_{-t}^t {\rm d} s\, c(s),
\label{eq:cbar}
\end{equation}
together with a very mild condition, namely that the integral of $|t|(c(t) - \bar{c})$ grows slower than $t^2$
\begin{equation}
\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t^2}\int_{-t}^t {\rm d} s |s| (c(s) - \bar{c}) = 0.
\label{eq:ccbar}
\end{equation}
Then, the double-limit $D_\beta$ (\ref{eq:Dbeta}) exists and is equal to
\begin{equation}
D_\beta = \frac{\beta}{2} \bar{c}.
\label{eq:Dc}
\end{equation}
(iii) Let $Q_{\Lambda_{n}}$ be a self-adjoint almost-con\-served quantity, satisfying {\em Definition~\ref{def:1}} (Eq. \ref{eqn:commutator}).
Then, under the assumptions of (ii), a lower bound on $D_\beta$ exists and is equal to the limit
\begin{equation}
D_\beta \geq \frac{\beta}{2}\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{1}{n}
\frac{(\omega_{\beta}(\{J_{\Lambda_{n}},Q_{\Lambda_{n}}\}))^{2}}{4\omega_{\beta}(Q^{2}_{\Lambda_{n}})}.
\label{eqn:theorem}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
$\{A,B\} \equiv AB+BA$ denotes the anti-commutator.
\begin{proof}
We start by considering the following finite-time-averaged self-adjoint operator
\begin{equation}
A_{\Lambda_{n},t}:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\frac{1}{t}\int_{0}^{t} {\rm d} t'(\tau_{t'}(J_{\Lambda_{n}})-\alpha Q_{\Lambda_{n}}),
\label{eqn:ansatz}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ is a free parameter.
Since the state $\omega_{\beta}$ is a positive linear functional, we have $\omega_{\beta}(A^{2}_{\Lambda_{n},t})\geq 0$ for any $t,\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$, $n\in\mathbb{Z}_+$, or equivalently:
\begin{eqnarray}
0 &\leq& \frac{1}{t^{2}}\int_{0}^{t} {\rm d} t'\int_{0}^{t} {\rm d} t'' \frac{1}{n} \omega_{\beta}(\tau_{t'}(J_{\Lambda_{n}})\tau_{t''}(J_{\Lambda_{n}})) \label{eq:AC} \\
&-& \frac{\alpha}{t} \int_0^t {\rm d} t' \frac{1}{n}\left\{\omega_{\beta}(\tau_{t'}(J_{\Lambda_{n}})Q_{\Lambda_{n}})
+ \omega_{\beta}(Q_{\Lambda_{n}}\tau_{t'}(J_{\Lambda_{n}}))\right\} \label{eq:mixedterms}\\
&+&\frac{\alpha^{2}}{n}\omega_{\beta}(Q^{2}_{\Lambda_{n}}). \label{eq:QQ}
\end{eqnarray}
We shall proceed to show that TL $n\to\infty$ of all the terms in the above inequality exists, treating it term by term.
Let us first discuss in detail the mixed terms (\ref{eq:mixedterms}).
Time invariance of the Gibbs state (\ref{eq:translt}) implies that the integrand of (\ref{eq:mixedterms}) can be rewritten as (writing now time integration variable as $t$)
\begin{equation}
\omega_{\beta}(J_{\Lambda_{n}}\tau_{-t}(Q_{\Lambda_{n}})) + \omega_{\beta}(\tau_{-t}(Q_{\Lambda_{n}})J_{\Lambda_{n}}).
\end{equation}
As both terms can be treated on equal footing, we shall focus on the first one
$\omega_{\beta}(J_{\Lambda_{n}}\tau_{-t}(Q_{\Lambda_{n}}))$ and show that in the limit $n\to\infty$ the term becomes time-independent.
Using the explicit time evolution (\ref{eq:explicit}), the linearity of the state $\omega_\beta$, and an elementary integral triangular inequality, we estimate
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left| \omega_{\beta}(J_{\Lambda_{n}}\tau_{-t}(Q_{\Lambda_{n}})) - \omega_{\beta}(J_{\Lambda_{n}} Q_{\Lambda_{n}}) \right| \nonumber \\
&&\le \int_{-t}^0 {\rm d} s\, \left|\omega_{\beta}(J_{\Lambda_{n}} \tau_{s}(B_{\rm L}+B_{\rm R}))\right| \nonumber\\
&&
\le \int_{-t}^0 {\rm d} s\, \left(
\left|\omega_{\beta}(J_{\Lambda_{n}} \tau_{s}(B_{\rm L}))\right| +
\left|\omega_{\beta}(J_{\Lambda_{n}} \tau_{s}(B_{\rm R}))\right|\right).
\label{eq:bound}
\end{eqnarray}
We note that, before taking the TL $n\to\infty$, the mixed terms (\ref{eq:mixedterms}) have to be multiplied by $1/n$, hence it is enough to show that all terms on the RHS of (\ref{eq:bound}), for arbitrary time variables $s$, {\em do not grow with} $n$, i.e. are bounded by constants that do not depend on $n$.
Again, it is enough to focus just on one of the terms in the integrand, say $|\omega_\beta(J_{\Lambda_n} \tau_s(B_{\rm L}))|$, while the other one can be treated in exactly the same way.
Expressing the operators in terms of local densities, we obtain:
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{color_new.pdf}
\caption{A scheme visualizing the estimation of the crucial term $|\omega_\beta(j_x \tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))|$.
The operator $\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L})$, supported near the left boundary at time $s=0$, is localized within an effective
light-cone (light-green region) and can be approximated with an error exponentially small in half-gap $\ell$ (indicated) to the support of $j_x$ (red strip), by projecting it onto a sublattice $\Gamma$ (painted in yellow).}
\label{fig:lightcones}
\end{figure}
\begin{equation}
|\omega_\beta(J_{\Lambda_n} \tau_s(B_{\rm L}))| \le
\sum_{d=0}^n \sum_{x=1}^{n-d_j+1}\left|\omega_\beta(j_x \tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))\right|.
\label{eq:xdsum}
\end{equation}
For the time being, let us fix the integration time variable $s$, and the summation variables $d,x$.
We first assume that the Lieb-Robinson light-cone emitting from the local operator $b_{\rm L}^{(d)}$, at time $s$, is not including $x$, i.e. there is a positive half-gap $\ell > 0$,
defined as (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lightcones}):
\begin{equation}
\ell = \frac{1}{2}\left( x - v|s| - \max\{d_h-2+d,d_b\}\right).
\end{equation}
Defining the chain of sites including the light-cone plus the half-gap of sites on each side as
\begin{equation}
\Gamma= \left[-d_h+2 - \lfloor v|s| + \ell \rfloor, \max\{d_h-2+d,d_b\} + \lfloor v|s| + \ell \rfloor\right]
\label{eq:Gamma}
\end{equation}
we can estimate the term on the RHS of (\ref{eq:xdsum}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!\!|\omega_\beta(j_x \tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))| &\le&
|\omega_{\beta}(j_x (\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))_\Gamma)| + |\omega_{\beta}(j_x (\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L})-(\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))_\Gamma))|,
\end{eqnarray}
where the first term is further estimated using the ECP (\ref{eq:ECP}), also noting (\ref{eq:jzero}),
\begin{eqnarray}
|\omega_{\beta}(j_x (\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))_\Gamma)| &=& |\omega_{\beta}(j_x (\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))_\Gamma)-\omega_\beta(j_x)\omega_\beta((\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))_\Gamma)|
\nonumber\\
&\le& \kappa \| j\| \| (\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))_\Gamma\| e^{-\rho(\ell-1)}, \label{eq:ECPapp}
\end{eqnarray}
while the second term is bounded by BHV form of the LRE (\ref{eq:BHV})
\begin{eqnarray}
&&|\omega_{\beta}(j_x (\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L})-(\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))_\Gamma))|
\le \| j\| \| \tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L})-(\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))_\Gamma\| \label{eq:BHVapp} \\
&&\le \phi \max\{d_b+d_h-1,2 d_h-3+d\} \max\{ d_h(d_h-1) \gamma \| h\| ,\| b\|\} \| j \| e^{-\mu(\ell -1)-\xi d}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The norm of projected evolution can be estimated generously by another use of the triangular and the BHV inequalities
\begin{eqnarray}
\| (\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))_\Gamma \| &\le&
\| \tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}) \| + \| \tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}) - (\tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))_\Gamma\| \label{eq:projnorm}\\
&\le& (1 + \phi \max\{d_b+d_h-1,2 d_h-3+d\}) \nonumber \\
&& \times \max\{d_h (d_h-1) \gamma \| h\|,\| b\|\} e^{-\xi d}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Putting Eqs. (\ref{eq:ECPapp},\ref{eq:BHVapp},\ref{eq:projnorm}) together, writing the minimal exponent $\lambda = \min\{\rho,\mu\} > 0$, and taking suitable constants
$C,C' > 0$, which only depend on the local operator norms and dimensions but {\em not} on the size $n$ {\em neither} on the variables $x$, $d$, and $s$, we have:
\begin{equation}
|\omega_\beta(j_x \tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))| \le (C d + C') e^{-\lambda \max\{0,\ell\}-\xi d }.
\label{eq:exponential}
\end{equation}
For the bound to remain valid for an overlapping light-cone, $\ell < 0$, we should simply make sure that we choose $C$ and $C'$ large enough to satisfy the naive bound
$|\omega_\beta(j_x \tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))| \le \| j\| \| b^{(d)}_{\rm L}\|$.
The whole term (\ref{eq:xdsum}) can now be estimated as, introducing $k(d) := \lfloor v|s| + \max\{d_h-2+d,d_b\}\rfloor$:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sum_{d=0}^n \sum_{x=1}^{n-d_j+1}\left|\omega_\beta(j_x \tau_s(b^{(d)}_{\rm L}))\right| \nonumber \\
&&\le \sum_{d=0}^n (C d + C') e^{-\xi d} \left(k(d) +
\sum_{x'=0}^{\max\{0,n-k(d)\}} e^{-\lambda x'/2}\right) \nonumber \\
&&
\le \sum_{d=0}^\infty (C d + C') e^{-\xi d} \left( v|s| + d_h+d_b-2 + d + \sum_{x'=0}^\infty e^{-\lambda x'/2}\right) \nonumber\\
&&= \sum_{d=0}^\infty (C d^2 + C'' d + C''') e^{-\xi d}\nonumber\\
&&= \frac{e^\xi ((e^\xi+1)C + (e^\xi-1)(C''+(e^\xi-1)C'''))}{(e^\xi-1)^3} =: K < \infty,
\end{eqnarray}
where $C''=C' + C (v|s| + d_h + d_b - 2 + (1-e^{-\lambda/2})^{-1})$ and $C'''=C' (v|s| + d_h + d_b - 2 + (1-e^{-\lambda/2})^{-1})$.
As $C''$ and $C'''$ are at most linear functions of time $s$, we have also that $K = K' + K'' |s|$ where $K'$ and $K''$ are
$n$ and $s$ independent constants. Exactly the same estimates applies for the other term $|\omega_{\beta}(J_{\Lambda_{n}} \tau_{s}(B_{\rm R}))|$,
so we have finally shown that the difference on the left-hand-side (LHS) of (\ref{eq:bound}) is bounded by
\begin{equation}
\left| \omega_{\beta}(J_{\Lambda_{n}}\tau_{-t}(Q_{\Lambda_{n}})) - \omega_{\beta}(J_{\Lambda_{n}} Q_{\Lambda_{n}}) \right|
\le 2 K' |t| + K'' t^2.
\label{eq:KK}
\end{equation}
We shall now study the convergence properties of the sequences
\begin{eqnarray}
w_n &=& \frac{1}{n}\omega_\beta(J_{\Lambda_n} Q_{\Lambda_n}),\nonumber\\
w'_n &=& \frac{1}{n}\omega_\beta(Q_{\Lambda_n}J_{\Lambda_n} ),\\
u_n &=& \frac{1}{n}\omega_\beta(Q_{\Lambda_n}^2), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and show that they are, in fact, Cauchy sequences.
Let us consider, for the time being, an abstract sequence of this type
\begin{equation}
v_n = \frac{1}{n}\omega_\beta(F_{\Lambda_n} G_{\Lambda_n}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
F_{\Lambda_n}=\sum_{x=1}^{n-d_f+1} f_x, \quad G_{\Lambda_n}=\sum_{x=1}^{n-d_g+1} g_x, \quad f \in {\mathfrak A}_{[0,d_f-1]},\quad g \in {\mathfrak A}_{[0,d_g-1]},
\end{equation}
with $\omega_\beta(f)=\omega_\beta(g)=0$.
Exploiting the translational invariance of the Gibbs state $\omega_\beta(f_x g_y) = \omega_\beta(f g_{y-x})$ we find (see Fig.~\ref{fig:congo})
\begin{eqnarray}
v_n &=& \frac{1}{n}\sum_{x=1}^{n-d_f+1} \sum_{y=1}^{n-d_g+1} \omega_\beta(f_x g_y) \nonumber \\
&=& \left(\textstyle{1-\frac{\max\{d_f,d_g\}-1}{n}}\right)\sum_{r=\min\{0,d_f-d_g\}}^{\max\{0,d_f-d_g\}} \omega_\beta(f g_r) \nonumber \\
&&+ \sum_{r=\max\{1,d_f-d_g+1\}}^{n-d_g}\left(\textstyle{1 - \frac{d_g-1+r}{n}}\right)\omega_\beta(f g_r) \nonumber \\
&&+ \sum_{r=-n+d_f}^{\min\{-1,d_f-d_g-1\}} \left(\textstyle{1 - \frac{d_f-1-r}{n}}\right)\omega_\beta(f g_r). \label{eq:mm}
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly, ECP (\ref{eq:ECP}), combined with the trivial norm-bound,
\begin{equation}
|\omega(f g_r)| \le \|f\| \|g\| \min\{1,\kappa\exp(-\rho(r-d_f+1)),\kappa\exp(-\rho(-r-d_g+1))\}
\label{eq:ECPx}
\end{equation}
guarantees boundedness of the sequence $|v_n| \le V < \infty$.
But we have more:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&|v_{n+1}-v_{n}| = \frac{1}{n(n+1)}\Biggl|
(\max\{d_f,d_g\}-1)\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{r=\min\{0,d_f-d_g\}}^{\max\{0,d_f-d_g\}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\omega_\beta(f g_r) \nonumber \\
&&+\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{r=\max\{1,d_f-d_g+1\}}^{n+1-d_g}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!(d_g-1+r)\omega_\beta(f g_r)+\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{r=-n-1+d_f}^{\min\{-1,d_f-d_g-1\}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!(d_f-1-r)\omega_\beta(f g_r)
\Biggr| \nonumber \\
&&
\le \frac{\| f\| \|g\|}{n(n+1)} \Bigl\{ (\max\{d_f,d_g\}-1)(|d_f-d_g|+1) \nonumber \\
&&\quad + \!\!\!\!\!\sum_{r=\max\{1,d_f-d_g+1\}}^{d_f-1}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!(d_g-1+r) + \kappa\!\sum_{r=d_f}^{n+1-d_g} (d_g-1+r)e^{-\rho(r-d_f+1)} \nonumber \\
&&\quad + \!\!\sum_{r=-d_g+1}^{\min\{-1,d_f-d_g-1\}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!(d_f-1-r) + \kappa\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{r=-n-1+d_f}^{-d_g}\!\!\!\!\! (d_f - 1 - r) e^{-\rho(-r-d_g+1)}
\Bigr\} \label{eq:50}\\
&&= \frac{\| f\| \|g\|}{n(n+1)} \Bigl\{ d_f^2+d_g^2+d_f d_g-2 d_f-2 d_g+1 + 2\kappa\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{r=1}^{n+1-d_f-d_g}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!(r\!+\!d_f\!+\!d_g\!-\!2) e^{-\rho r}\Bigr\} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where we have adopted a convention that $\sum_{r=x}^y(\ldots) = 0$ if $x > y$.
Finally, we complete the sum in the curly bracket to a geometric series and simplify the denominator to arrive at the quickly decreasing bound on the difference between the adjacent terms
\begin{equation}
|v_{n+1}-v_{n}|
\le \frac{1}{n^2} \| f\| \|g \| \bigl\{ d_f^2+d_g^2+d_f d_g + \nu(d_f + d_g-1) + \zeta\bigr\},
\end{equation}
where $\nu:=2({\textstyle \frac{\kappa}{e^\rho-1}}-1)$, $\zeta:=\frac{2\kappa}{(e^\rho-1)^{2}}-1$,
which proves that $\{ v_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence, i.e. $\lim_{n\to \infty} v_n$ exists and is finite. In fact it is equal to the limit
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty} v_n = \lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{x=-n}^n \omega_\beta(f g_x),
\label{eq:fglimit}
\end{equation}
since it can be shown -- again using (\ref{eq:mm},\ref{eq:ECPx}) -- that the difference of the terms of the sequences on the LHS and the RHS of (\ref{eq:fglimit}) is bounded by
${\rm const}/n$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{congo_new.pdf}
\caption{A scheme visualizing the double summation over $x$ and $y$ for computing the sequence $v_n$ (\ref{eq:mm}).
Yellow, green, and red region, represent the terms under the first, the second, and the third sum on the RHS of (\ref{eq:mm}), respectively.
Light-green and light-red stripes denote the terms which are separated out as the first (left) summations in the last two lines of expression (\ref{eq:50}) before ECP (\ref{eq:ECP}) is applied to the remaining terms.}
\label{fig:congo}
\end{figure}
Similarly we now treat the sequence $w_n = n^{-1} \omega_\beta(J_{\Lambda_n} Q_{\Lambda_n})$. Writing $w_n=n^{-1}\sum_{d=1}^n \omega_{\beta}(J_{\Lambda_n} Q^{(d)}_{\Lambda_n})$,
and associating $f\equiv j$, $g\equiv q^{(d)}$, we arrive at (again in the last step completing the geometric series)
\begin{eqnarray}
&&|w_{n+1}-w_n| \le \frac{\gamma \| j\|}{n^2}
\sum_{d=1}^n e^{-\xi d} (d^2 + (d_j + \nu) d + d_j^2 + \nu (d_j-1)+\zeta
) \nonumber \\
&&\le \frac{\gamma\| j\|}{n^2} \frac{2 + (e^\xi-1)(d_j+3+\nu)+(e^\xi-1)^2((d_j+1+\nu)d_j+1+\zeta)}{(e^\xi-1)^3},
\end{eqnarray}
and with the same bound for the `transposed' sequence $w'_n = n^{-1}\omega_\beta(Q_{\Lambda_n} J_{\Lambda_n})$.
Analogously, for the sequence $u_n = n^{-1}\omega_\beta(Q_{\Lambda_n} Q_{\Lambda_n})=n^{-1}\sum_{d,d'=1}^n \omega_{\beta}(Q^{(d)}_{\Lambda_n} Q^{(d')}_{\Lambda_n})$,
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
|u_{n+1}-u_n| &\le& \frac{\gamma^2}{n^2}
\sum_{d,d'=1}^n e^{-\xi (d+d')} (d^2+{d'}^2+d d' + \nu (d+d'-1)+\zeta) \nonumber \\
&\le& \frac{\gamma^2}{n^2} \frac{\zeta - \nu + e^\xi (2 - 2\zeta + e^\xi(\zeta + \nu + 3))}{(e^\xi-1)^4}.
\end{eqnarray}
We have thus shown that the limits
\begin{eqnarray}
w&=&\lim_{n\to\infty}w_n = \sum_{d=1}^\infty \sum_{x\in\mathbb{Z}} \omega_\beta(j q^{(d)}_x), \nonumber \\
w'&=&\lim_{n\to\infty} w'_n = \sum_{d=1}^\infty \sum_{x\in\mathbb{Z}} \omega_\beta(q^{(d)} j_x),\\
u&=&\lim_{n\to\infty} u_n = \sum_{d,d'=1}^\infty \sum_{x\in\mathbb{Z}} \omega_\beta(q^{(d)}q^{(d')}_x), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
exist and are finite (see Eq. (\ref{eq:fglimit}) for the RHS).
Moreover, Eq. (\ref{eq:KK}) implies that the distance between $w_n+w'_n$ and the integrand in (\ref{eq:mixedterms}),
\begin{equation}
z_n(t):= n^{-1}\left\{\omega_{\beta}(\tau_{t}(J_{\Lambda_{n}})Q_{\Lambda_{n}})
+ \omega_{\beta}(Q_{\Lambda_{n}}\tau_{t}(J_{\Lambda_{n}}))\right\}
\end{equation}
is decreasing in $n$
\begin{equation}
\left| w_n+w'_n-z_n(t) \right| \le \frac{ 4 K'|t| + 2 K'' t^2}{n},
\end{equation}
so the two sequences should have the same limit, i.e. $\lim_{n\to\infty}z_n(t)=w+w'$. Therefore, the
TL of (\ref{eq:mixedterms}) exists, it is independent of $t$, and equals $w + w'$.
At last, let us devote also some attention to the first term (\ref{eq:AC}), which after exploiting the time-invariance of the Gibbs state and substituting for the integration variable $s=t''-t'$, reads:
\begin{equation}
a_n(t) = \frac{1}{t}\int_{-t}^t {\rm d} s \left(1 - \frac{|s|}{t}\right) c_n(s),\
\label{eq:an}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
c_n(t) := \frac{1}{n}\omega_\beta(J_{\Lambda_n}\tau_t(J_{\Lambda_n})) = \sum_{r=-n+d_j}^{n-d_j}{\textstyle\left(1-\frac{|r|+d_j-1}{n}\right)}\omega_\beta(j_r \tau_t(j)).
\label{eq:cn}
\end{equation}
For each fixed time $t$, we can again show that $\{ c_n(t)\}$ is a Cauchy sequence, namely
\begin{equation}
|c_{n+1}(t)-c_n(t)| \le \frac{1}{n(n+1)}\sum_{r=-\infty}^\infty (|r|+d_j-1) |\omega_\beta(j_r \tau_t(j))| < \frac{L|t|+L'}{n^2}
\end{equation}
where the constants $L,L'$ follow from bounding the sum of exponentially decaying (in $x$)
envelope of the spatio-temporal autocorrelation function
\begin{equation}
|\omega_\beta(j_x \tau_t(j))| \le \| j\|^2 \min\{1, e^{-\lambda(|x|-d_j-v|t|)/2}\}.
\label{eq:expon}
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{eq:expon}) can be proven in exactly the same way as Eq.(\ref{eq:exponential}) -- combining the BHV inequality and the ECP -- simply taking $j$ to substitute the boundary operator $b^{(d)}_{\rm L}$.
This implies that the limit of $c_n(t)$ exists. It also coincides with the expression (\ref{eq:cdef1}) of $c(t)$, as the difference between the terms of sequences (\ref{eq:cn}) and (\ref{eq:cdef1}) can be bounded by ${\rm const}/n$ (again using (\ref{eq:expon})).
This proves the point (i) of the theorem.
As $c_n(t)$ converges uniformly in $t$, the limit $a(t)=\lim_{n\to\infty} a_n(t)$ of (\ref{eq:an}) exists as well and is equal to
\begin{equation}
a(t) = \frac{1}{t}\int_{-t}^t {\rm d} s \left(1-\frac{|s|}{t}\right) c(s).
\end{equation}
Similarly, a uniform convergence of $c_n(t)$ can be used to express the Drude weight (\ref{eq:Dbeta}) as
\begin{equation}
D_\beta = \frac{\beta}{2} \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{2t}\lim_{n\to\infty} \int_{-t}^t {\rm d} s\,c_n(s) = \frac{\beta}{2} \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{2t}\int_{-t}^t {\rm d} s\,c(s) = \frac{\beta}{2}\bar{c}
\end{equation}
proving the point (ii) of the theorem.
Finally, writing the TL $n\to\infty$ of all the terms in the inequality (\ref{eq:AC}-\ref{eq:QQ})
we have
\begin{equation}
0 \le a(t) - \alpha (w + w') + \alpha^2 u.
\label{eq:at}
\end{equation}
One should observe an obvious identity
\begin{equation}
a(t) - \bar{c} = 2 \left(\frac{1}{2t}\int_{-t}^t {\rm d} s\, c(s) - \bar{c}\right) - \frac{1}{t^2} \int_{-t}^t {\rm d} s |s|(c(s) - \bar{c}),
\end{equation}
where, according to the assumptions (\ref{eq:cbar}) and (\ref{eq:ccbar}), the limits $t\to\infty$ of both terms on the RHS exist and vanish, hence $\lim_{t\to\infty} a(t) = \bar{c}$.
Taking then the limit $t\to\infty$ of the inequality (\ref{eq:at}) and optimizing it with respect to the free parameter $\alpha$,
we arrive to the final bound
\begin{equation}
\bar{c} \ge \frac{(w+w')^2}{4 u}.
\end{equation}
This proves the point (iii) of the theorem.
\end{proof}
Let us conclude this section by making a few remarks.
\begin{remark}
The key in our proof was a convenient form of the ansatz (\ref{eqn:ansatz}). It has been inspired by combining a finite-time-average version of the original idea of Mazur
\cite{Mazur} with an expected central limit theorem behavior in size $n$ for local spin chains (hence the $1/\sqrt{n}$ prefactor) which allows taking the TL $n\to\infty$ first.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
It is not clear at present if in the context of quasi-local $C^*$ dynamical systems, the assumptions of point (ii) of the Theorem 1, e.g. on the existence of the time average $\bar{c}$, are in fact needed, or can be separately proven. In cases of more general dynamics it is of course easy to come up with counterexamples of dynamics for which $\bar{c}$ does not exist. For example, one may formally construct a gaussian process with the (2-point) correlator $c(t) = (-1)^{\lfloor \log_2 (t/t_0)\rfloor}$ for which, clearly, the average $\bar{c}$ does not exist.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Note that the RHS of our estimate (\ref{eqn:theorem}) can in fact vanish in some cases, e.g. when the limits $w,w'$ vanish. In such cases our bound is nearly trivial, and merely expresses the fact that the Drude weight as defined by (\ref{eq:Dbeta}) is always non-negative.
\end{remark}
\section{Generalization to the case of several almost-conserved quantities}
\label{sect:general}
The bound (\ref{eqn:theorem}) of the Theorem~\ref{theo:main} can be readily generalized to the case where one has several almost-conserved quantities.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theo:general}
Let $Q_{[k]\Lambda_{n}}$, $k=1,\ldots,m$ be a set of $m$ self-adjoint, almost-con\-served quantities with densities $q^{(d)}_{[k]}\in {\mathfrak A}_{[0,d-1]}$, all satisfying {\em Definition~\ref{def:1}} (Eq. \ref{eqn:commutator}).
Then, under the assumptions of the Theorem 1, together with the points (i) and (ii) of Theorem 1 we have the following lower bound on $D_\beta$ (\ref{eq:Dbeta})
\begin{equation}
D_\beta \ge \frac{\beta}{2} \sum_{k,l=1}^m w_k (\mm{U}^{-1})_{k,l} w_l
\label{eq:generalbound}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
w_k = \frac{1}{2} \lim_{n\to\infty} \omega_\beta(\{J_{\Lambda_n},Q_{[k]\Lambda_n}\}) = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{d=1}^\infty\sum_{x\in\mathbb{Z}}
\omega_\beta(\{ j_x, q^{(d)}_{[k]}\})
\label{eq:wk}
\end{equation}
and $\mm{U}^{-1}$ is an inverse of $m\times m$ covariance matrix
\begin{equation}
\mm{U}_{k,l} = \frac{1}{2} \lim_{n\to\infty} \omega_\beta(\{Q_{[k]\Lambda_n},Q_{[l]\Lambda_n}\}) = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{d,d'=1}^\infty\sum_{x\in\mathbb{Z}}
\omega_\beta(\{\eta_x(q^{(d)}_{[k]}),q^{(d')}_{[l]}\}).
\label{eq:Ukl}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof involves exactly the same steps as the proof of the Theorem~\ref{theo:main}, except that the ansatz (\ref{eqn:ansatz}) is replaced by a more general one
\begin{equation}
A_{\Lambda_{n},t}:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\frac{1}{t}\int_{0}^{t} {\rm d} t'\left(\tau_{t'}(J_{\Lambda_{n}})-\sum_{k=1}^m\alpha_{k}Q_{[k]\Lambda_{n}}\right),
\end{equation}
with $m$ real free parameters $\alpha_k$.
The final step of optimization of $m$-dimensional quadratic form (in $\alpha_k$) then results in (\ref{eq:generalbound}).
The limit-identity (\ref{eq:fglimit}) is used to write the compact expressions on the RHSs of (\ref{eq:wk},\ref{eq:Ukl}).
\end{proof}
\section{Examples}
\label{sect:examples}
As a pool of nontrivial examples let us discuss the anisotropic Heisenberg spin 1/2 chain (the so-called $XXZ$ model).
Here $N=2$, and the local algebra ${\mathfrak A}_{[0]}$ is spanned by Pauli matrices $\sigma^{s}$, $s\in\{0,{\rm x},{\rm y},{\rm z}\}$, with $\sigma^0 = \mathbbm{1}$, or $\sigma^{\pm} = \frac{1}{2}(\sigma^{\rm x} \pm {\rm i} \sigma^{\rm y})$.
The Hamiltonian density reads
$h = \sigma^{\rm x}_0 \sigma^{\rm x}_1 + \sigma^{\rm y}_0 \sigma^{\rm y}_1 + \Delta \sigma^{\rm z}_0 \sigma^{\rm z}_1$, $d_h=2$, where $\Delta$ is the anisotropy parameter.
Grabowski and Mathieu \cite{Grabowski} have shown that an infinite sequence of nontrivial local conservation laws of an infinite $XXZ$ chain can be formally constructed using the {\em boost operator}
$B= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{x\in\mathbb{Z}} x h_x$, namely
\begin{equation}
Q_{[k+1]} = [B,Q_{[k]}], \; k = 2,3,\ldots,\qquad Q_{[2]} = \sum_{x\in\mathbb{Z}} h_x,
\label{eq:Qk}
\end{equation}
supplemented with the trivial on-site conservation law - the total magnetization - $Q_{[1]} \equiv M = \sum_{x\in\mathbb{Z}} \sigma^{\rm z}_x$.
Translationally invariant operators (\ref{eq:Qk}) which can clearly be written in terms of $k-$site densities $Q_{[k]}=\sum_{x\in\mathbb{Z}} \eta_x(q_{[k]})$, $q_{[k]}\in{\mathfrak A}_{[0,k-1]}$,
are strictly conserved, i.e. they exactly commute with the Hamiltonian $Q_{[2]}$ and among each other $[Q_{[k]},Q_{[l]}] = 0$, {\em only} for infinite lattice ($\mathbb{Z}$) or for periodic boundary conditions.
Note however, that they {\em do not exist} as elements of $C^*$-algebra ${\mathfrak A}$ in the former case, while in the latter case the `limit by inclusion' construction $\Lambda \to\mathbb{Z}$ does not work.
In the setup of $C^*$-algebraic statistical mechanics, the operators (\ref{eq:Qk}) should be considered on a finite open chain $\Lambda_n$, written as $Q_{[k]\Lambda_n}$, being the elements of ${\mathfrak A}$.
Interestingly, it has been shown again by Grabowski and Mathieu \cite{Grabowski2} that for open boundary conditions, i.e. considering the Hamiltonian $H_{\Lambda_n}$, half of the conservation laws (for {\em odd} $k$) are destroyed,
while the other half (for {\em even} $k$) can be amended by adding terms supported near the boundary of $\Lambda_n$: $Q'_{[2l]\Lambda_n} = Q_{[2l]\Lambda_n} + Q_{[2l]{\rm L}} + Q_{[2l]{\rm R}}$, such that $[Q'_{[2l]\Lambda_n},Q'_{[2l']\Lambda_n}]=0$,
for $l,l'=1,\ldots,\lfloor n/2\rfloor$.
Nevertheless, as we have shown in the sect.~\ref{sect:main},\ref{sect:general}, one does not need {\em exact} conservation to state dynamic susceptibility bounds (\ref{eqn:theorem},\ref{eq:generalbound}).
Therefore, we rewrite the procedure (\ref{eq:Qk}) of \cite{Grabowski} in terms of densities $q_{[k]} \in {\mathfrak A}_{[0,k-1]}$ and boundary remainders $p_{[k]} \in {\mathfrak A}_{[0,k]}$
such that one has {\em almost-commutation relations}
\begin{equation}
{\rm i} [H_{\Lambda_n},Q_{[k]\Lambda_n}] = \eta_1(p_{[k]}) - \eta_{n-k}(p_{[k]}).
\end{equation}
Operators $p_{[k]}$, which can be interpreted as the current densities, are actually determined from the local continuity equations $( {\rm d} / {\rm d} t) q_{[k]} = \eta_{-1}(p_{[k]}) - p_{[k]}$, or
\begin{equation}
p_{[k]}-\eta_1(p_{[k]}) = {\rm i} \sum_{x=0}^k [h_x,\eta_1(q_{[k]})].
\label{eq:rec1}
\end{equation}
Local-algebraic version of the boost relation (\ref{eq:Qk}) gives the other recurrence relation which determines the charge density in the next order in terms of the charge and current densities of the previous order:
\begin{equation}
q_{[k+1]} = \frac{1}{2}p_{[k]} + \frac{ {\rm i} }{2}\sum_{x=0}^{k-1}(x + 1)[h_x,q_{[k]}], \quad k=2,3\ldots
\label{eq:rec2}
\end{equation}
Clearly, $p_{[1]} = j=2(\sigma^{\rm x}_0 \sigma^{\rm y}_1 - \sigma^{\rm y}_0\sigma^{\rm x}_1)$ is just the spin current, $q_{[2]}=h$, while the first few higher charges and densities can easily be obtained solving the recurrence (\ref{eq:rec1},\ref{eq:rec2}) by means of some computer algebra
\footnote{Using the {\em Mathematica} code {\tt http://chaos.fmf.uni-lj.si/prosen?action=AttachFile\&do\\=get\&target=PauliAlgebra.nb} one may obtain explicit form of $q_{[k]}$ and $p_{[k-1]}$ up to $k=10$.}
\begin{eqnarray}
q_{[3]} &=&-\Delta \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm z}}+\Delta \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm z}}-\Delta \sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm y}}+\Delta \sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm x}}+\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm y}}-\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm x}}, \nonumber\\
q_{[4]} &=& -2 \Delta ^2 (\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}\x{\rm z}} + \sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}\y{\rm z}})-(2 \Delta ^2+2) (\sigma^{{\rm x}\x00}+ \sigma^{{\rm y}\y00})+2 \Delta ( \sigma^{\x0\x0}+
\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm y}}\nonumber\\&-& \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}\y{\rm x}}+ \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm z}}+ \sigma^{\y0\y0}-\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}\x{\rm y}}+ \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm x}}+ \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm z}}+
\sigma^{\z0\z0}+ \sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm x}}+\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm y}}\nonumber\\&-&2 \sigma^{{\rm z}\z00})-2 \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}\z{\rm x}}-2 \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}\z{\rm y}}, \nonumber\\
q_{[5]} &=& (4 \Delta ^3+14 \Delta )(
\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}\z00}-\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}\z00}+\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}\y00}-\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}\x00})
+ 6 \Delta ^2 (-\sigma^{\x0{\rm y}\z0}+\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm x}\x{\rm z}}\nonumber\\ &+& \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}\y{\rm y}{\rm z}}+ \sigma^{\y0{\rm x}\z0}-\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}\x{\rm x}{\rm z}}-\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm y}\y{\rm z}}- \sigma^{{\rm z}\x0\y0}+\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}\x{\rm x}{\rm y}}-\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}\x{\rm y}{\rm x}}-\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm z}}\nonumber\\&+&
\sigma^{{\rm z}\y0\x0}+\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}\y{\rm x}{\rm y}}-\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}\y{\rm y}{\rm x}}+\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm z}})+(10 \Delta ^2+8)(-\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}\y00}+ \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}\x00})\nonumber\\&+&
6 \Delta ( \sigma^{\x0{\rm z}\y0}- \sigma^{{\rm x}\y0\z0}- \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm x}}- \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}\y{\rm z}{\rm y}}+ \sigma^{{\rm x}\z0\y0}-
\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm x}\x{\rm y}}+ \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm x}}+ \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}\z{\rm y}{\rm z}}\nonumber\\&-& \sigma^{\y0{\rm z}\x0}+ \sigma^{{\rm y}\x0\z0}+ \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}\x{\rm z}{\rm x}}+ \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm y}}- \sigma^{{\rm y}\z0\x0}- \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm y}}+ \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm y}\y{\rm x}}- \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}\z{\rm x}{\rm z}}\nonumber\\
&-& \sigma^{\z0{\rm x}\y0}+ \sigma^{\z0{\rm y}\x0}+
\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm z}\z{\rm y}}- \sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm z}\z{\rm x}})-6 \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}\z{\rm z}{\rm y}}+6 \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}\z{\rm z}{\rm x}},\nonumber\\
p_{[2]} &=& -2 q_{[3]},\nonumber\\
p_{[3]} &=& 2\Delta ^2 (\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}\x{\rm z}}+\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}\y{\rm z}})-(2\Delta ^2+2)(\sigma^{0{\rm x}\x0}+\sigma^{0{\rm y}\y0})+2 \Delta(-2\sigma^{0{\rm z}\z0}-
\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm y}}
\nonumber\\&+& \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}\y{\rm x}}- \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm z}}+ \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}\x{\rm y}}- \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm x}}- \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm z}}- \sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm x}}- \sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm y}}) + 2\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}\z{\rm x}}+2\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}\z{\rm y}}, \nonumber\\
p_{[4]} &=& (4 \Delta ^3+4 \Delta )( \sigma^{0{\rm x}{\rm y}\z0}-\sigma^{0{\rm y}{\rm x}\z0}-\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}\y00}+\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}\x00})+4 \Delta ^2(-\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm x}\x{\rm z}}-\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}\y{\rm y}{\rm z}} \nonumber\\&+&\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}\x{\rm x}{\rm z}}+\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm y}\y{\rm z}}+
\sigma^{{\rm z}\x0\y0}-\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}\x{\rm x}{\rm y}}+\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}\x{\rm y}{\rm x}}+\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm z}}-\sigma^{{\rm z}\y0\x0}-\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}\y{\rm x}{\rm y}}\nonumber\\&+&
\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}\y{\rm y}{\rm x}}-\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm z}})+(4 \Delta ^2+4)(-\sigma^{0{\rm x}{\rm z}\y0}+\sigma^{0{\rm y}{\rm z}\x0}+
\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}\y00}-\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}\x00}) \nonumber\\&+&
4 \Delta ( 2\sigma^{0{\rm z}{\rm x}\y0}-2\sigma^{0{\rm z}{\rm y}\x0}+ \sigma^{{\rm x}\y0\z0}+ \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm x}}+ \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}\y{\rm z}{\rm y}}-2\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm y}\z00}-\sigma^{{\rm x}\z0\y0}\nonumber\\&+&\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm x}\x{\rm y}}-\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm x}}-\sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}\z{\rm y}{\rm z}}-\sigma^{{\rm y}\x0\z0}-\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}\x{\rm z}{\rm x}}-\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm y}}+2\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm x}\z00}+\sigma^{{\rm y}\z0\x0}\nonumber\\&+&\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm x}{\rm y}}-\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}{\rm y}\y{\rm x}}+
\sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}\z{\rm x}{\rm z}}-\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm x}{\rm z}\z{\rm y}}+\sigma^{{\rm z}{\rm y}{\rm z}\z{\rm x}})+4 \sigma^{{\rm x}{\rm z}\z{\rm z}{\rm y}}-4 \sigma^{{\rm y}{\rm z}\z{\rm z}{\rm x}},
\end{eqnarray}
where we use the notation $\sigma^{s_1 s_2\ldots s_k} \equiv \sigma^{s_1}\otimes \sigma^{s_2}\otimes \cdots \sigma^{s_k}$, $s_l \in\{0,{\rm x},{\rm y},{\rm z},\pm\}$.
It has been shown in Ref. \cite{Zotos} that $Q_{[k]}$ can be applied to the Mazur inequality \cite{Mazur,Suzuki} with periodic boundary conditions in mind, to yield finite, non-vanishing spin Drude weights
for a general $XXZ$ model with a transverse magnetic field of strength $\chi$ added to the Hamiltonian density\footnote{
Note that considering non-zero transverse field $\chi$ is -- in TL -- equivalent to considering symmetry sectors with
non-vanishing total (conserved) magnetization. },
$h'=h + \chi \sigma^{\rm z}_0$, at finite (non-zero) or even infinite temperature (where the evaluation of expectations $\omega_\beta(A)$ becomes easiest). This interesting result called for deeper theoretical understanding, as the Suzuki's proof \cite{Suzuki} only allows to consider the {\em incorrect} order of limits, namely $t\to\infty$ first, for a finite periodic system, and only then $n\to\infty$.
This problem has been now settled in the present paper.
Furthermore, it has been pointed out in \cite{Zotos}, that for a vanishing external field $\chi=0$, the Mazur bound on the spin Drude weight always vanishes, for any set of $Q_{[k]}$ from (\ref{eq:Qk}). This results from opposite `spin-flip' symmetry $\hat{\cal S} : \sigma^{\rm z} \to - \sigma^{\rm z},
\sigma^\pm \to \sigma^\mp$ of the spin-current, $\hat{\cal S}j = -j\hat{\cal S}$, and of the conserved charges, $\hat{\cal S}q_{[k]} = q_{[k]}\hat{\cal S}$. Non-vanishing magnetic field breaks the spin-flip symmetry of the Hamiltonian density and makes it possible that coefficients $w_k$ (\ref{eq:wk}) are non-vanishing and the bound (\ref{eq:generalbound}) is strictly positive.
On the other hand, there has been clear numerical evidence (see e.g. \cite{Meisner}) suggesting finite Drude weight and ballistic spin transport
at any temperature even at vanishing magnetic field strength $\chi=0$, in the easy-plane regime $|\Delta| < 1$.
This seemed to suggest that another, nontrivial quasi-local conservation law should exist with the same spin-flip symmetry as that of a spin current.
Indeed such a missing translationally invariant quasi-local conservation law $Q$ with negative spin-flip symmetry has recently been found~\cite{ProsenXXZ}, in case when $|\Delta| < 1$, satisfying almost commutation condition
\begin{equation}
[H_{\Lambda_n},Q_{\Lambda_n}] =
-2 {\rm i} \sigma^{\rm z}_1 + 2 {\rm i} \sigma^{\rm z}_n.
\end{equation}
It has been shown that $Q$ admits a simple matrix-product representation in terms of infinite rank, almost-diagonal matrix operators
$\mm{A}_0,\mm{A}_{\pm}$, acting on an auxiliary Hilbert space with orthonormal basis labeled as
$\{ \ket{{\mathtt L}},\ket{{\mathtt R}},\ket{1},\ket{2},\ldots \}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mm{A}_0 &=&
\ket{{\mathtt L}}\bra{{\mathtt L}} + \ket{{\mathtt R}}\bra{{\mathtt R}} + \sum_{r=1}^\infty \cos\left(r\varphi\right) \ket{r}\bra{r}, \nonumber \\
\mm{A}_+ &=& \ket{{\mathtt L}}\bra{1} + \sum_{r=1}^\infty \sin\left(2\left\lfloor \frac{r\!+\!1}{2}\right\rfloor \varphi\right) \ket{r}\bra{r\!+\!1},\label{eq:explicitA}\\
\mm{A}_- &=& \ket{1}\bra{{\mathtt R}} - \sum_{r=1}^\infty \sin\left(\!\left(2\left\lfloor \frac{r}{2}\right\rfloor\!+\!1\right)\varphi\right)\ket{r\!+\!1}\bra{r}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta = \cos \varphi$.
Namely, $Q$ satisfies the conditions of the Definition 1, with local densities of order $d\ge 2$, ($q^{(1)}=0$), generated as
\begin{eqnarray}
q^{(d)} &=& {\rm i} \!\!\!\!\sum_{s_2,\ldots,s_{d-1}\in\{0,\pm\}}\!\!\!\bra{{\mathtt L}}\mm{A}_+\mm{A}_{s_2}\cdots \mm{A}_{s_{d-1}} \mm{A}_{-}\ket{{\mathtt R}} \label{eq:QZ}\\
&&\qquad\qquad\times\quad (\sigma^{+}\otimes\sigma^{s_2 \ldots s_{d-1}}\otimes\sigma^{-} - \sigma^{-}\otimes\sigma^{(-s_2) \ldots (-s_{d-1})}\otimes\sigma^{+}).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
For example, the first few orders read explicitly:
\begin{eqnarray}
q^{(2)} &=& {\rm i} (\sigma^{+-}-\sigma^{-+}) = {\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}j,\\
q^{(3)} &=& {\rm i} \Delta ( \sigma^{+0-}-\sigma^{-0+}),\nonumber\\
q^{(4)} &=& {\rm i} \Delta^2(\sigma^{+00-}-\sigma^{-00+}) + 2 {\rm i} \Delta (\Delta^2-1)(\sigma^{++--}-\sigma^{--++}). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
For the resonant values of the anisotropy $\Delta = \cos(\pi l/m)$, for coprime $l,m\in \mathbb{Z}$, $m> 1$, the rank of matrices (\ref{eq:explicitA})
becomes finite, i.e. it is $m+1$, whence the norm of $q^{(d)} $ can be estimated $\| q^{(d)} \| < \gamma e^{-\xi d}$ by powering the
following rank-$(m+1)$ {\em transfer matrix}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mm{T} &=& \ket{{\mathtt L}}\bra{{\mathtt L}} +\ket{{\mathtt R}}\bra{{\mathtt R}} + \frac{1}{2}(\ket{{\mathtt L}}\bra{1}+\ket{1}\bra{{\mathtt R}})
+ \sum_{r=1}^{m-1} \biggl\{ \cos^2\!\left( \frac{\pi r l}{m}\right) \ket{r}\bra{r} \\
&+& \frac{1}{2}\sin^2\!\left(\!2\left\lfloor\!\frac{r\!+\!1}{2}\!\right\rfloor\!\frac{\pi l}{m}\right) \ket{r}\bra{r\!+\!1} + \frac{1}{2} \sin^2\!\left(\!\left(2\left\lfloor \frac{r}{2}\right\rfloor\!+\!1\right)\frac{\pi l}{m}\right)\ket{r\!+\!1}\bra{r}\biggr\},
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
whose subleading eigenvalue is strictly smaller than $1$ \cite{ProsenXXZ}.
In this regime, one can use (\ref{eq:QZ}) in our Theorem 1 to bound $D_\beta$ even for a vanishing transverse magnetic field $\chi=0$.
The calculation can be made exact for infinite temperature $\beta\to 0$, where we present a rigorous lower bound
expressed as \cite{ProsenXXZ}
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\beta\to 0} \frac{D_\beta}{\beta} \ge 4 D_Z, \quad D_Z := \frac{1}{4} \lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{n}{\bra{{\mathtt L}}\mm{T}^n\ket{{\mathtt R}}}.
\label{eq:exactbound}
\end{equation}
This expression can be evaluated explicitly \cite{Affleck} in terms of Jordan decomposition of $\mm{T}$, yielding a {\em fractal} (nowhere continuous) dependence on $\Delta$:
\begin{equation}
D_Z = \frac{1}{2}(1-\Delta^2) \frac{m}{m-1}, \qquad \Delta = \cos\frac{\pi l}{m}.
\end{equation}
Note that two marginal cases with $|\Delta|=1$, (for $l=0$ and $l=m$), are exceptional, as translationally invariant operator
\begin{equation}
Q(\Delta=\pm 1)= {\rm i} \sum_{d=2}^{\infty}\Delta^{d-2}\sum_{x\in \mathbb{Z}}\eta_x(\sigma_1^+ \sigma_d^- - \sigma_1^- \sigma_d^+)
\end{equation}
is no longer a spatial sum of exponentially localized operators (therefore incompatible with the Definition~\ref{def:1}), i.e. $\| q^{(d)}\|$ ceases to decay with increasing $d$.
Computing the Drude weight bounds for a finite temperature ($\beta > 0$) is certainly more tedious and cannot be done as explicitly as for the infinite temperature (\ref{eq:exactbound}). One possible approach for high-temperature is, for example, a $\beta$-expansion \cite{Enej}.
We stress that the bounds provided by our Theorems 1 and 2 for the $XXZ$ model are mathematically rigorous if one assumes in addition the existence of the
Drude weight. The second assumption in the Theorem 1 (ii), essentially requiring an (arbitrarily slow) relaxation of the extended current-current temporal correlations
$c(t)-\bar{c}$, can be understood as necessary for having a uniquely defined Drude weight (see the discussion in subsect.~\ref{sect:lr}).
\section{Discussion}
\label{sect:discussion}
\subsection{On the linear response derivation of the Drude weight}
\label{sect:lr}
Note that a slightly different form of the Drude weight than (\ref{eq:Dbeta}) follows from a strict derivation of the linear response where the canonical Kubo-Mori inner product
$\int_0^\beta {\rm d} \lambda \omega_\beta(a^* \tau_{ {\rm i} \lambda}(b))$ replaces a simple thermal average $\omega_\beta(a^*b)$. We will show that a small extra assumption of ``non-ergodic dynamical mixing'' is needed in order to justify the simple thermal-averaged expression (\ref{eq:Dbeta}). Let us here carefully outline our linear response setup and the main steps of our argument.
We consider the constant-gradient field perturbation to the Hamiltonian, which extends on a finite symmetric sublattice $[-n,n]$ (for $\Lambda \supseteq [-n,n]$), as
\begin{equation}
H^{F,n}_{\Lambda} = H_\Lambda - F \sum_{x=-n}^{n-d_q+1} \! x\, q_x,
\quad {\rm for\; some}\quad q \in {\mathfrak A}_{[0,d_q-1]}.
\label{eq:quenched}
\end{equation}
$H^{F,n}_{\Lambda\to\mathbb{Z}}$ generates a perturbed time evolution $\tau^{F,n}_t(a) = \lim_{\Lambda\to\mathbb{Z}} e^{ {\rm i} H^{F,n}_\Lambda} a e^{- {\rm i} H^{F,n}_\Lambda}$, on an infinite lattice, but still for a finite {\em field extension} $[-n,n]$.
Starting in the equilibrium state $\omega_\beta$ for $F=0$, at $t=0$, and then {\em quenching} the Hamiltonian by switching on the force field (\ref{eq:quenched}), we define the {\em canonical} Drude weight as the {\em asymptotic rate} at which the local current in the bulk increases per unit time, after taking the limit of infinite field extension:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{D}_\beta:= \lim_{t\to \infty}\frac{1}{2t}\lim_{n\to \infty}\left[\frac{ {\rm d} }{ {\rm d} F}\omega_{\beta}\left(\tau^{F,n}_{t}(j)\right)\right]_{F=0}.
\end{equation}
Note that, in contrast to Ref.~\cite{Jaksic}, we have to take a vanishing force limit $F\to 0$ first, in order to make our perturbation bounded (and well defined) in the infinite extension limit $n\to\infty$.
Writing in the first order of Born/Dyson expansion
\begin{equation}
(\tau_{-t}\circ \tau^{F,n}_t)(j) = j - {\rm i} F \int_0^t {\rm d} s \sum_{x=-n}^{n-d_q+1}\!x [\tau_{-s}(q_x), j] + {\cal O}(F^2),
\end{equation}
and observing the following identity, for any $f,g\in{\mathfrak A}$
\begin{equation}
\omega_\beta([\tau_t(f),g]) = {\rm i} \int_0^\beta\! {\rm d} \lambda\,\omega_\beta(\tau_{t- {\rm i} \lambda}(\delta(f)) g)
\end{equation}
where $\delta(f)\equiv \lim_{\Lambda\to\mathbb{Z}} {\rm i} [H_\Lambda,f]$ is the $*$-derivation with respect to the
the unperturbed dynamics,
we arrive at
\begin{equation}
\tilde{D}_\beta = \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{2t}\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_{0}^{t} {\rm d} s\int_{0}^{\beta} {\rm d} \lambda \sum_{x=-n}^{n-d_q+1} x\, \omega_{\beta}
\left(\tau_{-s- {\rm i} \lambda}\left(\delta(q_x)\right)j\right).
\end{equation}
Finally, we choose the current $j$ and the force-field density $q$, such that they satisfy the {\em continuity equation} $j_{x-1}-j_x=\delta(q_x)$ (see, as an example, Eq.~(\ref{eq:rec1})). The sum over $x$ can now be expressed as a difference of two sums
which result in, after shifting the index $x\to x + 1$ in the first sum containing $j_{x-1}$,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{D}_\beta = \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{2t}\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_{0}^{t} {\rm d} s\int_{0}^{\beta} {\rm d} \lambda \sum_{x=-n}^{n-d_j+1} \omega_{\beta}
\left(\tau_{-s- {\rm i} \lambda}\left(j_x\right)j\right),
\label{eq:Dtilde1}
\end{equation}
except for the boundary terms of magnitude $|\omega_{\beta}(\tau_{-s-i\lambda}(j_x)j)|$ at $x\approx \pm n$ which decay exponentially in $n$ and uniformly in $z = -s- {\rm i} \lambda$ (and thus do not contribute in the limit $n\to\infty$ of (\ref{eq:Dtilde1}))
according to the Theorem 4.2 of Araki \cite{Araki}: Namely,
$\lim_{n\to \infty} e^{|n|\rho}\| [f,\tau_z(\eta_n (g))]\|=0$, applying for any strictly local $f,g$ and $z\in\CC$.
Shifting the time evolution to the second factor of RHS (\ref{eq:Dtilde1}),
the sequence $\tilde{c}_n(z):=\sum_{x=-n}^{n-d_j+1}\omega_{\beta}\left(j_x \tau_{z}(j)\right)$ converges uniformly to $c(z)$ (expression (\ref{eq:cdef1}) of Theorem 1, but for complex time argument $z$), again as a consequence of the above
mentioned Araki's proof of locality of complex time evolution. Thus, the limit $n\to\infty$ and $s,\lambda$ integrations can be interchanged. Finally, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\tilde{D}_\beta =
\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{2t} \int_{0}^{t} {\rm d} s\int_{0}^{\beta} {\rm d} \lambda\, c(s + {\rm i} \lambda).
\label{eq:Dtilde2}
\end{equation}
Clearly, a sufficient condition for the equality between the {\em thermal} (\ref{eq:Dc}) and the {\em canonical} (\ref{eq:Dtilde2})
Drude weights
\begin{equation}
D_\beta = \tilde{D}_\beta
\end{equation}
is a kind of {\em non-ergodic weak-mixing} condition
\begin{equation}
\lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{1}{2t} \int_{0}^t {\rm d} s |c(s + {\rm i} \lambda) - \bar{c}| = 0, \quad \forall \lambda \in [0,\beta].
\label{eq:weakmixing}
\end{equation}
This follows from writing $|D_\beta(t) - \tilde{D}_\beta(t)| \le \frac{1}{2t}\int_{0}^t {\rm d} s \int_0^\beta {\rm d} \lambda |c(s + {\rm i} \lambda) - \bar{c}|$ where $D_\beta(t)$ and $\tilde{D}_\beta(t)$ denote the expressions (\ref{eq:Dbeta}) and (\ref{eq:Dtilde2}), respectively, before taking the limit $t\to\infty$.
For example, for the condition (\ref{eq:weakmixing}) to be fulfilled it is enough that the correlation function $c(z)$ converges
(to an asymptotic value $\bar{c}$, no matter how slowly), as $|z|\to\infty$ anywhere within the thermal strip ${\rm Im\,}z\in [0,\beta]$.
This is likely to be expected as a generic property of many-body systems with thermodynamically dense spectra, however it seems one may not trivialize it using Cauchy's integral theorem, as in a related study of Ref.~\cite{Jaksic} with holomorphic dynamics of finite-system's observables. For instance, our $c(z)$ may not be holomorphic (due to an infinite extension limit $n\to \infty$ needed for a definition (\ref{eq:cdef1})). In fact, a better understanding of analytic properties of $c(z)$ seems to be an interesting problem for future investigations.
Nevertheless, even if $D_\beta$ (\ref{eq:Dbeta}) may not be both, rigorously and generally connected to the linear response theory of the Drude weight, it might still be interesting general-purpose quantity in its own right, as a simple dynamical indicator of non-ergodic $C^*$ dynamical systems possessing non-trivial conservation laws.
\subsection{General remarks}
Note that our Theorems~\ref{theo:main},\ref{theo:general} can be applied to any completely integrable quantum chain, like the one-dimensional fermionic Hubbard model, supersymmetric $t$-$J$ model, etc., for which one has algebraic procedures (e.g. algebraic Bethe Ansatz) for obtaining nontrivial conserved quantities which can be written as exponentially convergent sums of local operators.
It is enough that these operators are conserved only in the TL, while for finite chains their time-derivative is supported only on finite domains near the boundaries of the chain.
We conclude by remarking that the conditions of our theorems could be relaxed or generalized in some cases: (i) The translational invariance of interactions was required only to guarantee a sufficiently strong clustering in the equilibrium state. This can perhaps be relaxed, and replaced by an algebraic clustering in some instances (with inverse power larger than $1$, e.g. for zero temperature equilibrium states in the so-called {\em critical} systems), or exponential clustering may set in for other reasons (e.g. due to {\em disordered} interactions and {\em localization}, however in such cases we are not aware of non-trivial examples of extensive conserved quantities). (ii) Quasi-local almost-conserved quantities need not be exponentially localized, but it would be enough to have a power law bound $\| q^{(d)}\| \le \gamma d^{-\nu}$ for sufficiently large inverse power $\nu > 3$. (iii) Similar theory could be built for higher, $D$-dimensional quantum spin lattices, where time-derivatives (commutators) of almost conserved quantities could result in terms distributed on the $(D-1)$-dimensional boundary of the lattice. Again, we do not see yet any application of this potentially very interesting generalization.
\\\\
The work has been partially supported by research grants P1-0044 and J1-2208 of Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS).
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The ability to couple waveguides and cavities offers exciting opportunities
for integrated quantum optical devices using solids~\cite{Cirac:PRL97,Vahala:Nature03,Wang:PRL05}.
In particular, planar photonic crystals offer a technology platform, where quantum bits (qubits) can be
manipulated from quantum dots (QDs) placed at field antinode positions within the
cavity or waveguide~\cite{England:OE07,OurReview:OE,ObrianReview:Nature10}.
Integrated semiconductor micropillar systems also show great promise
for quantum optical applications~\cite{pillar1,pillar2}, working at the
few photon level.
Recently, there have been several successful demonstrations
of coherent light {propagation} effects in various semiconductor systems,
including planar photonic crystals
and micropillars. Bose {\em et al.}~\cite{Bose:OE10}
measured the exciton-induced doublet (polariton splitting)
through waveguide mode transmission in a photonic crystal waveguide-cavity system~\cite{hughes:2004} [cf.~Fig.~1(a)], while
Loo {\em et al.}~\cite{Loo:APL10} probed the strong coupling in a micropillar via coherent reflection [cf.~Fig.~1(b)];
Young {\em et al.}~\cite{Young:arXiv10} demonstrated first steps toward
a conditional phase gate using light
reflection from a micropillar.
Common to the analysis of all of these experiments has been
the application of the {\em weak excitation approximation} (WEA), where at most only one quantum is assumed.
For example,
Ref.~\onlinecite{Young:arXiv10}
suggested that their experiments were likely at the ``single photon level'' for less than 0.1 photons
per cavity lifetime, so they applied
a WEA solution. The same assumptions are tacitly made by many other
groups, in excitation regimes where the mean photon number is
well below those
associated with saturating the QD exciton~\cite{Englund:Nature07}.
These useful formalisms have been very successful and certainly help to clarify the
basic physics of low-intensity photon transport.
For increasing field strengths, however, the validity for the WEA becomes questionable, and there can be quantum
nonlinearities in the system due to multiphoton correlations.
Giant optical nonlinearities were studied by Auff\'eves-Garnier {\em et al.}~\cite{Auffeves:PRA07}; their semiclassical approach adiabatically eliminated the cavity mode and included effects outside the WEA (the ``Purcell regime''); naturally with such a semiclassical approach, there is no influence from the higher lying levels of the {\em anharmonic}
Jaynes-Cumming (JC) ladder, so it cannot be applied in the strong coupling regime.
Most photon transport approaches also neglect the details of electron-acoustic phonon scattering
\cite{besombes,Frank:PRB08,HohenesterPRB:2010,hughes1,Calic:PRL11}---apart
from the
inclusion of a Lorentzian decay rate for the exciton, i.e., broadening of the the
zero phonon line (ZPL).
Recently, several works have shown that coherent excitation of semiconductor-QD systems can easily go into the anharmonic cavity-QED (quantum electrodynamics) regime~\cite{roy_hughes,me_PRL01}.
Thus the questions arise: ($i$) To what extent can one safely employ the WEA
for these emerging semiconductor
waveguide-cavity and micropillar
systems? ($ii$) When are multiphoton correlation effects important (quantum nonlinear regime)? ($iii$) What is the role of electron-acoustic phonon scattering
and how does this mechanism differ from a simple-Lorentzian pure dephasing model?
In this work we attempt to answer these questions for the
regime of coherent photon transport,
and show that generally one must include
multiphoton effects and phonon scattering within the theoretical formalism.
Even for weakly-coupled QD-cavity systems, higher-order quantum correlations
effects are shown to be significant. Our paper is organized as follows: In Sect.~\ref{theory}, we introduce the general theoretical technique to simulate coherent photon transport
outside both the WEA and the semiclassical approximation.
The theory is based on a quantum master equation (ME) formalism
where cavity and dot decays are introduced by Lindblad superoperators, and phonon interactions are included from an effective phonon ME~\cite{PRX} that includes electron-phonon interactions at a microscopic level---derived using a polaron transform~\cite{PRX,roy_hughes}.
In Sect.~\ref{results},
we first present calculations with no acoustic phonon coupling, for several different QD-cavity couplings; both the weak coupling
regime and the intermediate-to-strong coupling regime are investigated. We demonstrate that
substantial deviations from the WEA can result,
even for
very small mean photon numbers $\ll 0.1$. We then modify the ME approach to
include the mechanism of electron--acoustic-phonon scattering, and study the impact of electron-phonon interactions on incoherent scattering
and on coherent renormalization of the exciton-cavity coupling rate; qualitative differences from a simple Lorentzian decay model are found. As an application of the theory, we study the transmission of light in the strong coupling regime
and simulate
a conditional (exciton-induced) phase gate. We conclude in Sect.~\ref{conclusions}.
\section{Theory}
\label{theory}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig1.eps
\vspace{-0.0cm}
\caption{(Color online) Schematic of two semiconductor cavity-QED
systems containing a quantum dot: (a) waveguide-cavity system
(e.g., made up of a
planar photonic crystal) where we assume $\kappa_l=\kappa_r=2\,\kappa_0$
(where $\kappa_0$ is the out of plane loss), and
(b) a micropillar cavity.
(c) Dot and cavity energy levels, where the
exciton system
($\ket{+/-}$)
interacts with an acoustic phonon bath (see text).
}
\label{fig:schematic}
\end{figure}
We wish to describe light propagation for a QD-cavity geometry,
where the input and output fields can be identified separately from the
cavity region in which the QD is assumed to be embedded.
An example waveguide-cavity system
is shown schematically in Fig.~1(a).
For a continuous wave (cw) waveguide mode of a photonic crystal system,
the classical WEA reflectivity was
previously derived by Hughes and Kamada~\cite{hughes:2004,note1}:
\begin{align}
r_{\rm pc}(\omega) = \frac{i\omega\Gamma_c}{\omega_c^2-\omega^2-i\omega(\Gamma_c+\Gamma_0) -\omega\Sigma(\omega)},
\end{align}
where the self-energy
$\omega\Sigma(\omega)=\omega g^2/(\omega_x-\omega^2-i\omega\Gamma_x^{t})$, $\Gamma_0 \equiv 2\kappa_0$ is the cavity decay rate through vertical scattering ({\em unloaded}
cavity broadening), $\Gamma_{c}\equiv 2 \kappa_{c}=2(\kappa_l+\kappa_r$)
is the cavity-waveguide coupling rate (which is inversely proportional to the
group velocity of the waveguide mode~\cite{hughes:2004}),
$\omega_c$ is the cavity mode resonance,
$\omega_x$ is the target exciton resonance of the QD,
and $\Gamma_x^{t}=\gamma+\gamma'$ is the total decay rate of the exciton---including radiative
($\gamma$) and non-radiative, pure dephasing ($\gamma'$) processes.
The total cavity decay rate is $\Gamma_c^t=\Gamma_0+\Gamma_c$ and
the exciton-cavity coupling rate, $g\propto d^2/V_{\rm eff}$, where
$d$ is the dipole moment of the exciton and
$V_{\rm eff}$ is the effective mode volume.
The corresponding transmissivity is simply $t=1+r$, and
one can also define the reflection and transmission, through $R=|r|^2$ and $T=|t|^2$.
Similar expressions have
been derived by other groups, e.g.,
Refs.~\onlinecite{Waks:PRL06,Auffeves:PRA07,Fan:PRA09}.
With the dot on resonance with the cavity, then
a polariton doublet
coincides with the vacuum Rabi splitting which
can be observed in transmission or reflection;
this {\em normal mode} doublet can occur even if the dot is {\em not} in the strong coupling
regime~\cite{Waks:PRL06,Auffeves:PRA07,Rakher:PRL09}, though ultimately the doublet
feature is lost at high temperatures due to phonon bath coupling~\cite{Frank:PRB08}.
The analysis of coherent reflection from a micropillar system is similar; one has
$r_{\rm \mu pill}=1-\sqrt{\eta}\, r_{\rm pc}$,
where $\eta$ is a measure of in/out coupling
efficiency~\cite{Loo:APL10}, and one also makes the following replacements:
$\Gamma_c\rightarrow \Gamma_0$ (vertical scattering)
and
$\Gamma_0 \rightarrow \Gamma_s$ (sidewall scatter).
The above WEA formalism does not distinguish between
radiative and pure dephasing processes of the QD exciton (which a semiclassical
approach can); nor does it take into
consideration the acoustic phonon bath or multiphoton effects.
Ignoring the complexities of phonon scattering for now~\cite{Frank:PRB08,hughes1,Calic:PRL11}---which we will introduce below---these analytical formulas are expected to work for only weak excitation conditions (strictly linear),
and for pure dephasing rates~\cite{Bose:OE10},
$\gamma' \ll g^2\Gamma_c^t/[4(\omega_c-\omega)^2+(\Gamma_c^t/2)^2]$.
To go beyond the WEA, and the semiclassical approches,
we will use a ME approach
where
exciton-photon interactions are easily included to all orders.
Referring to Fig.~\ref{fig:schematic}(a),
we relate the left/right output operators
to the cavity mode operator through~\cite{carmichael:2005}
\begin{align}
\braket{a_{\rm out}^r(t)} & = - \braket{a_{\rm in}(t)} + \sqrt{2\kappa_c}\, \braket{a(t)}, \\
\braket{a_{\rm out}^l(t)} & = \sqrt{2\kappa_c} \, \braket{a(t)},
\end{align}
where, for a coherent cw input state,
$\braket{a_{\rm in}}=i\eta_c/(2\sqrt{2\kappa_c})$, with
$\eta_c$ the cavity pump rate.
Following the solution of the ME (discussed below),
the {\em steady-state} transmissivity and reflectivity
are obtained:
$t \equiv |t|e^{i\phi_t} = {\braket{a_{\rm out}^r}_{\rm ss}}/{\braket{a_{\rm in}}}$
and
$r \equiv |r|e^{i\phi_r} = {\braket{a_{\rm out}^l}_{\rm ss}}/{\braket{a_{\rm in}}}$ ,
where $\phi_t$ and $\phi_r$ are the phases.
Working in a frame rotating with respect to the laser pump frequency, $\omega_L$,
the model Hamiltonian can be written as
\begin{align}
\label{sec1eq1}
H&=\hbar\Delta_{xL}{\sigma}^{+}{\sigma}^{-}+\hbar\Delta_{cL}{a}^{\dagger}{a} +
\hbar g({\sigma}^{+}{a}+{a}^{\dagger}{\sigma}^{-}) \nonumber \\
&+H^{c}_{\rm{drive}} +{\sigma}^{+}{\sigma}^{-}\sum_{q}\hbar\lambda_{q}({b}_{q}
+{b}_{q}^{\dagger})+\sum_{q}\hbar\omega_{q}{b}_{q}^{\dagger}{b}_{q}\, ,
\end{align}
where ${b}_{q}({b}_{q}^{\dagger})$ are the annihilation and creation operators of the phonons,
$a$ is the
cavity mode annihilation operator, ${\sigma}^+,{\sigma}^-$
are Pauli operators of
the electron-hole pair (exciton), $\Delta_{\alpha L}\equiv \omega_\alpha-\omega_L$ ($\alpha =x,c$)
are the detunings of the exciton ($\omega_{x}$) and cavity ($\omega_{c}$) from $\omega_{L}$,
and
$H^{c}_{\rm{drive}} = \hbar \eta_{c}({a}+{a}^{\dagger})$
describes the
{\em coherent} cavity drive (excited through the waveguide channel).
To obtain the ME,
we first transform Eq.~(\ref{sec1eq1}) to a polaron frame,
which
formally recovers the independent boson model (IBM)~\cite{mahan,imamoglu,krum};
the IBM is known to accurately describe the characteristic lineshape of
a single exciton coupled to a bath of acoustic phonons~\cite{besombes}.
Specifically, the polaron ME~\cite{imamoglu,nazir2,roy_hughes}
introduces coherent electron-phonon coupling exactly,
while incoherent phonon interactions are
treated at the level of a second-order Born approximation.
Further details og the model are discussed in Refs.~\onlinecite{nazir2,roy_hughes}.
The time-convolutionless ME takes the form~\cite{nazir2,roy_hughes}:
\begin{align}
\label{sec3eq3}
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}&=\frac{1}{i\hbar}[H_{\rm sys}^{\prime},\rho(t)]+{\cal L}(\rho)
+ {\cal L}_{\rm ph}(\rho) ,
\end{align}
where the polaron-transformed system Hamiltonian is
$
H^{\prime}_{\rm sys} = \hbar(\Delta_{xL}-\Delta_{P}){\sigma}^{+}{\sigma}^{-}
+\hbar\Delta_{cL} {a}^{\dagger}{a}+\langle B\rangle {X}_{g}+H_{\rm drive}^c$,
with
$\langle B\rangle=\exp [ -\frac{1}{2}\int^{\infty}_{0}d\omega{J(\omega)}/{\omega^{2}}\coth(\beta\hbar\omega/2) ] (\beta=1/k_bT)$,
$X_g = \hbar g( {a}^{\dagger}{\sigma}^{-}+{\sigma}^{+}{a})$,
and $\Delta_P=\int^{\infty}_{0}d\omega{J(\omega)}/{\omega}$. In what follows,
we will absorb the polaron shift ($\Delta_P$) into the definition of $\omega_x$.
The phonon spectral function~\cite{ota,nazir2,roy_hughes},
$J(\omega)=\alpha_{p}\,\omega^{3}\exp (-{\omega^{2}}/{2\omega_{b}^{2}} )$,
describes electron-acoustic phonon interaction via a deformation potential coupling.
Using a Markov approximation, the incoherent phonon scattering term is defined as~\cite{roy_hughes}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Lph}
{\cal L}_{\rm ph}(\rho)& =
-\frac{1}{\hbar^{2}}\int^{\infty}_{0}d\tau\sum_{m=g,u}
\left ( G_{m}(\tau) \phantom{{X}_{m},e^{-iH_{sys}^{\prime}}} \right . \nonumber \\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \times \left . \left [{X}_{m},e^{-iH_{\rm sys}^{\prime}\tau/\hbar}{X}_{m}e^{iH_{\rm sys}^{\prime}\tau/\hbar}\rho(t)\right]
+{\rm H.c.} \right ),
\end{align}
where $X_u= -i\hbar g(a^\dagger{\sigma}^{-}-{\sigma}^{+}a)$, and $G_{g/u}(t)$ are the
polaron Green functions~\cite{mahan,imamoglu}:
$G_{g}(t)=\langle B\rangle^{2}\left (\cosh[\phi(t)]-1 \right ),
G_{u}(t)=\langle B\rangle^{2}\sinh[\phi(t)]$,
with
$\phi(t)=\int^{\infty}_{0}d\omega\frac{J(\omega)}{\omega^{2}}
\left [\coth(\beta\hbar\omega/2)\cos(\omega t)-i\sin(\omega t)\right ]$.
In Ref.~\onlinecite{PRX}, an effective Lindblad ME has been shown to yield
very good agreement with the full polaron ME solution above. In this
way, one defines the phonon-mediated incoherent scattering processes through
\begin{align}
\label{sec3eqfinal3}
{\cal L}_{\rm ph}(\rho)=\frac{\Gamma_{\rm ph}^{\sigma^{+}a}}{2}{\cal L}({\sigma}^{+}{a})
+\frac{\Gamma_{\rm ph}^{a^{\dagger}\sigma^{-}}}{2}{\cal L}({a}^{\dagger}{\sigma}^{-}),
\end{align}
where
${\cal L}({D})=2{D}\rho{D^{\dagger}}-{D^{\dagger}}{D}\rho-\rho{D^{\dagger}}{D}$, and the scattering rates are obtained analytically, from~\cite{PRX}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:phononrates}
\Gamma_{\rm ph}^{\sigma^{+}a/a^{\dagger}\sigma^{-}}& =2\braket{B}^2 \! g^{2}\,{\rm Re} \left [\int_{0}^{\infty}d\tau\,
e^{\pm i\Delta_{cx} \tau}\! \left (e^{\phi(\tau)}-1 \right )\right],
\end{align}
where $\Delta_{cx}=\omega_c-\omega_x$ is the cavity-exciton detuning.
The rate $\Gamma_{\rm ph}^{a^\dagger\sigma^-}$ describes the process of cavity excitation
and the emission of a exciton, via phonon-induced scattering,
and $\Gamma_{\rm ph}^{\sigma^+a}$ describes exciton excitation via the emission of a cavity photon.
For completeness, one can also add in the Stark shifts~\cite{roy_hughes}, but these
are found to be negligible for the regimes considered in this work.
An alternative weak--phonon-coupling theory is presented in Ref.~\onlinecite{jelena_arka}.
Since this Lindblad--ME-form is considerably easier to work with and helps to identify the physics of the scattering processes in a more transparent way, we will use this latter form for our phonon calculations in this paper.
Phenomenologically,
we also
include Liouvillian superoperators~\cite{ota,roy_hughes}:
\begin{align}
{\cal L}(\rho) &=\frac{\tilde{\gamma}}{2}(2{\sigma}^{-}\rho{\sigma}^{+}
-{\sigma}^{+}{\sigma}^{-}\rho-\rho{\sigma}^{+}{\sigma}^{-}) \nonumber \\
&+\kappa_t(2{a}\rho{a}^{\dagger}-{a}^{\dagger}{a}\rho-\rho{a}^{\dagger}{a})
\nonumber \\
&+\frac{\gamma^{\prime}}{2}(
{\sigma}_{11}\rho{\sigma}_{11}-
{\sigma}_{11}{\sigma}_{11}\rho
- \rho\sigma_{11}{\sigma}_{11}
),
\end{align}
where
$2\kappa_t=2\kappa_0+2\kappa_w\equiv \Gamma_c^t$,
$\tilde{\gamma}=\gamma\langle B\rangle^{2}$
is the radiative decay rate of the exciton, $\gamma'$ is the pure dephasing rate of the exciton, and
${\sigma}_{11}={\sigma}^{+}{{\sigma}^{-}}$.
Figure 1(c) shows a schematic of the model, which we solve
in a basis of $\ket{n}$ photons and the two QD states $\ket{-/+}$.
The WEA corresponds to
a three state model, i.e.,
only including the ground ground state and
and the first two ladder states
of the JC model.
For suitably large input fields, many JC ladder states may be involved. To better highlight the role of quantum statistics in the system
and to help quantify the possible failure of a semiclassical
approximation, we introduce a function for computing the relative {\em correlation error}
in the expectation $\braket{a^\dagger\sigma^-}_{\rm ss}$ compared to $\braket{a^\dagger}_{\rm ss}\braket{\sigma^-}_{\rm ss}$,
\begin{equation}
{\rm CE}=\frac{|\braket{a^\dagger\sigma^-}_{\rm ss}-\braket{a^\dagger}_{\rm ss}\braket{\sigma^-}_{\rm ss}|}
{|\braket{a^\dagger\sigma^-}_{\rm ss}|} ,
\end{equation}
where $100\, {\rm CE}$ is the percentage relative error; in a semicassical picture, of course ${\rm CE}=0$. We also
compute the mean photon variance, defined through the
Fano factor:
\begin{equation}
F = \frac{\braket{(a^\dagger a)^2}_{\rm ss} - \braket{a^\dagger a}_{\rm ss}^2}
{\braket{a^\dagger a}_{\rm ss}}.
\end{equation}
\section{Results}
\label{results}
\subsection{Photon transport with no acoustic phonon coupling}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig2R.eps
\vspace{-0.15cm}
\caption{(Color online)
Transmission characteristics for a weakly-coupled QD--cavity-waveguide
system, with $g=20~\mu$eV $\approx 0.32\,\kappa_t$ and $\eta_c=0.5\,g$.
(a) Transmission with (dashed) and without (solid) the WEA approximation.
All other calculations in (b-d) use the full multiphoton approach.
(b) Steady-state cavity (solid) and exciton (cavity) populations.
(c) Relative correlation error of $\braket{a^\dagger\sigma^-}_{\rm ss}$ if a semiclassical
approximation was used, CE, and the Fano factor (photon number variance).
(d) Cavity photon moments
$\braket{(a^\dagger)^ma^m}_{\rm ss}$ versus $m$.
The other parameters are as follows: $\gamma=1~\mu$eV,
$\gamma'=4\mu$eV, and $\kappa_c=50~\mu$eV ($\kappa_t=62.5~\mu$eV).
Of note, the polariton doublet in (a) is not due to strong coupling, since we are in the weak coupling regime for these simulations (see text).
}
\label{fig:2}
\vspace{0.25cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig3Revised.eps
\vspace{-0.15cm}
\caption{(Color online)
As in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}, but with the
larger pump field $\eta_c=2.5\,g$.
We clearly see that multiphoton correlations
are needed, even for this weakly coupled system ($g\ll\kappa_t$).
}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
We first investigate the system with no acoustic phonon coupling---apart from the ZPL broadening (i.e., no ${\cal L}_{\rm ph}$ process and $\braket{B}=1$). For calculations, we use material parameters that correspond closely to those in experiments: $\tilde\gamma_{x}=1~\mu$eV, $\kappa_c=4\kappa_0=50~\mu$eV,
$ \gamma^{\prime}=4~\mu$eV (unless stated otherwise), and we will study various values of $g$ and $\eta_c$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:2} we study the weak-coupling regime, with $g=20~\mu{\rm eV}\approx0.32\,\kappa_t$,
using a fairly weak excitation field of $\eta_x=0.5\,g$. This field value
was chosen to be small enough that the cavity population
is significantly lower than 0.1, but large enough to see a breakdown
of the WEA. We have also confirmed that this value of $g/\kappa$ yields no vacuum Rabi splitting.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(a) we show the transmission versus detuning
with (dashed) and without the WEA (solid); a few comments are in order:
($i$) we confirm that the polariton doublet appears even though we are {\em not}
in the strong coupling regime (also see Refs.~\onlinecite{Waks:PRL06,Auffeves:PRA07,Rakher:PRL09}); ($ii$) the WEA breaks down with already
qualitative differences of more than 40\% near $\omega\approx\omega_c$;
($iii$) with the chosen value of $g$, the region of ``transparency'' is notably very weak, which is a consequence of the finite
QD broadening (through $\tilde\gamma$ and $\gamma'$). This latter observation can be contrasted with the results this can be contrasted to the
results in Ref.~\onlinecite{Auffeves:PRA07} where such broadenings were not included; these ZPL broadenings are essential to include for a realistic QD system. In Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(b), we show the (numerically-exact)
exciton and cavity-mode populations, confirming that the
largest cavity population is well below 0.1;
however, we note that the fundamental condition for the WEA is not a low number of photons, but a negligible excitation of the dot---and the exciton population is evidently no longer negligible. In Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(c), we display the correlation error, CE,
and the Fano factor, $F$.
Even at these weak drives and small $g$ (weak coupling regime), it is clear
that a semiclassical approximation can fail, especially
near $\omega \approx \omega_c$ where the percentage error
of assuming $\braket{a^\dagger\sigma^-}_{\rm ss} \approx \braket{a^\dagger}_{\rm ss}\braket{\sigma^-}_{\rm ss}$
is as much as 50\%.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(d), we plot the corresponding cavity-photon moments
$\braket{(a^\dagger)^m a^m}_{{\rm ss}}$ for the first few
photon states, which suggest that only the first two photon number states are excited.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig4R.eps
\vspace{-0.15cm}
\caption{(Color online)
As in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}, but for an intermediate-to-strongly coupled system, with $g=60~\mu$eV $\approx \,\kappa_t$ and $\eta_c=0.25\,g$.
The other parameters are
the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}.
}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
To better probe the nonlinear quantum aspects of this dot-cavity coupling regime,
in Fig.~\ref{fig:3} we increase the pump value to $\eta_c=2.5\,g$.
Here the WEA breaks down dramatically, as shown by Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(a); Figs.~\ref{fig:3}(c)-(d) further confirm that we are accessing a regime
where both the WEA and the semiclassical approximations may fail, even for a weakly coupled system. We are thus already in the anharmonic cavity-QED regime.
Figure 3(b) shows the corresponding populations.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\vspace{0.25cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig5R.eps
\vspace{-0.15cm}
\caption{(Color online)
As in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}, but with the
larger pump field $\eta_c=1.2\,g$.
}
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure}
Next, we investigate a QD-cavity system in the intermediate-to-strong coupling regime, with $g=60~\mu{\rm eV}\approx \kappa_t$, and
$\eta_c=0.25\,g.$
In Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(a), we show the transmission
with (dashed) and without (solid) the WEA; we also show the populations [\ref{fig:4}(b)], the semiclassical error and the Fano factor [\ref{fig:4}(c)].
For this relatively weak drive,
we again observe noticeable differences in the WEA and non-WEA
predictions; we also recognize that higher-order
photon moments are significant already
in the $m=2$ photon state [Fig.~4(b)].
With increasing drives,
namely when $\eta_c=1.2\,g$,
Fig.~5 confirms that the
differences between the WEA and multiphoton calculations
are even more dramatic (as expected), and the on-resonance transmission becomes much smaller
with the nonlinear drive~\cite{Auffeves:PRA07}. Indeed, we recognize that
multiphoton effects are now fairly profound, easily exciting the
first 15 photon states. This means that we are now
accessing the first 30 states of the JC ladder, with modest exciton-cavity coupling rates (i.e., $g \sim \kappa_t$).
\subsection{Influence of acoustic phonon coupling}
For the phonon bath calculations, we use material parameters
for InAs QDs~\cite{roy_hughes,hughes1}, with $\omega_b=1~$meV
and $\alpha_p/(2\pi)^2=0.06\,{\rm ps}^2$.
The phonon ME model considers a bath at a temperature of $T=20~$K, resulting in $\braket{B}(20\,{\rm K})=0.73$.
We also now consider a QD-cavity system in the strong coupling regime, with $g=120~\mu{\rm eV}\approx 2\,\kappa_t$, using
a low cavity pump rate of $\eta_c=0.15\,g.$
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig6R.eps
\vspace{-0.15cm}
\caption{(Color online)
Transmission/reflection characteristics of a weakly excited
strongly-coupled coupled system, $\eta_c=0.15\,g$, with $g=120~\mu$eV $\approx 2\,\kappa_t$. The peak exciton and cavity photon populations are both below
0.1 (not shown). For these calculations we
also consider the effect of acoustic phonon scattering
at a bath temperature of $T=20~$K.
(a) Transmission with (solid) and without (dashed)
incoherent photon scattering terms, included through ${\cal L}_{\rm ph}$; here we ignore coherent renormalization effects, i.e.,
$\braket{B}=1$.
(b) Transmission as in (a), but now teh non-phonon case has $\gamma'\rightarrow 1.6\,\gamma'$
to try and mimic the influence of incoherent phonon scattering.
(c) Transmission with (solid) and without (dashed)
incoherent scattering and a coherent phonon reduction in $g\rightarrow\braket{B}g$ with $\braket{B}=0.73$. (d) Conditional phase gate, where the larger phase changes are $\phi^c_t$ and the smaller phase change is $\phi^c_r$; solid and dashed lines show results with and without phonon coupling, respectfully. All other system and material parameters are
the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}, and no WEA is made (the semiclassical approximation breaks down dramatically in this strong coupling regime).
}
\label{fig:6}
\end{figure}
From the theory described in Sec.~\ref{theory}, electron-phonon scattering is seen to manifest in a coherent renormalization in $g\rightarrow \braket{B}g$ as well as mediate incoherent scattering between the exciton and cavity. To better highlight the
role of incoherent scattering separately, we first set $\braket{B}=1$
(i.e., we neglect the coherent phonon effects) for the calculations in Fig.~\ref{fig:6}(a) and Fig.~\ref{fig:6}(b).
Figure~\ref{fig:6}(a) shows the transmission results with (solid) and without (dashed) incoherent phonon scattering. We recognize a clear change in the maximum and minimum transmission regions and a qualitative reshaping of the spectral profile. It is common to try and partially mimic the effects of phonon scattering by using an effective $\gamma'$ to fit the data.
To highlight the differences with such a simple Lorentzian coupling approach, in Fig.~\ref{fig:6}(b) we try to fit the phonon model by increasing $\gamma'\rightarrow 1.6\gamma'$, which
naturally broadens the ZPL through an increase of the (Lorentzian model) pure dephasing process. However, comparing the
dashed and solid curves of Fig.~\ref{fig:6}(b), we see that the features near the center peak and the edges of the graph are noticeably different; in particular, a broadened ZPL incorrectly widens the Lorentzian tails and misses the reduction of the center transmission peak. In addition, a change in pure dephasing does not obtain
the coherent reduction of $g$ ($g\rightarrow 0.73g$ since $\braket{B}=0.73$ at 20\,K), which is an important temperature-dependent effect
that we include in Fig.~\ref{fig:6}(c); this marked reduction in the Rabi
splitting will increase with temperature, which is important to note especially if trying to fit experimental data that is probed via temperature tuning. For lower bath temperatures, the
on-resonance case can also be asymmetric~\cite{Frank:PRB08}.
We further note that because we are exciting through the cavity mode,
the effects of the drive on excitation-induced dephasing are significantly suppressed, which is in this contrast to driving through the
QD exciton~\cite{stuttgart_prl,roy_hughes,nazir2,ramsay2}.
Finally, we study a {conditional} phase gate. We define the conditional phase
through $\phi^c_{t/r}=\phi^d_{t/r}-\phi^0_{t/r}$, where
$\phi^d_{t/r}$ includes the dot resonance and
$\phi^0_{t/r}$ is the phase without the dot.
Using a semiconductor micropillar system, conditional phase shifts of around 0.03~rad
were recently observed~\cite{Young:arXiv10}.
Figure~\ref{fig:6}(d) shows the conditional phases, with (solid) and without (dashed) phonon
coupling.
Near the spectral regions near $\pm 0.1~$meV, about $4\pi$ transmission phase change is possible
{\em conditioned} upon the dot exciton being at the frequency regime---which can be tuned
for example by applying a field-induced Stark shift. In reflection, conditional phase changes of
around $\pm \pi/4$ are found to be possible; note that the one photon results (i.e., the WEA) tend to overestimate this value.
Including the coupling to the phonon bath is seen to qualitatively change the phase characteristics, and
we
stress that there is no
effective
$\gamma'$ which could mimic the same phase trends with phonon bath coupling;
the large negative phase of transmission actually widens with increasing
$\gamma'$, instead of narrowing then eventually disappears for increasing drives.
The phase gate characteristics can be optimized further by changing the phonon bath temperature and by changing the exciton-cavity detuning
\section{Conclusions}
\label{conclusions}
We have presented a semiconductor ME formalism that can accurately
simulate coherent input/output coupling of open-system semiconductor
cavity-QED
systems
such as planar photonic crystals and micropillar cavities. We investigated the role of quantized multiphoton effects
and pointed out the possible failure of the WEA,
which is shown to fail even for low
input powers and small mean cavity photon numbers (much lower than 0.1).
For increasing field strengths, the possible failure of the semiclassical approach is also highlighted. We have further shown that
coupling to an acoustic phonon bath causes considerable qualitative changes to the
light propagation characteristics than is modeled by a simple pure dephasing process. Finally, we used this model to simulate a conditional phase gate.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the National Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada. We thank
H. J. Carmichael
for useful discussions and
acknowledge
use of the quantum optics
toolbox~\cite{QOToolbox}.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Three years after the launch of the \textit{Fermi Gamma-ray
Space Telescope}, pulsations have been detected with its Large
Area Telescope (LAT) from at least 100 rotation-powered neutron
stars \citep[e.g.,][]{abdo11}, increasing by more than an order of
magnitude the number of pulsars known to emit above 0.1\,GeV\footnote{See
https://confluence.slac.stanford.edu/display/GLAMCOG/Public+List+of+LAT-Detected+Gamma-Ray+Pulsars
for an up-to-date list.}. Nearly 20 of these are millisecond
pulsars (MSPs) known independent from {\em Fermi}, for which rotational
ephemerides obtained from radio observations were used to fold the
sparse gamma-ray photons \citep[e.g.,][]{abdo10,abdo12}. Another 34
have been discovered in direct pulsation searches of the gamma-ray data
\citep[e.g.,][]{abdo2,pga+11,sdz+10}.
Among the known non-MSP gamma-ray pulsar sample, about 75\% have large
values of spin-down luminosity ($\dot E > 10^{35}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$); the remaining
17 have lower $\dot E$ and are older, with characteristic age $\tau_c =
P/(2\dot P) \sim 0.1$--1\,Myr. Five of these are also radio emitters
\citep[two are exceedingly faint and were detected only after the
gamma-ray discoveries;][]{crr+09,pga+11}. Almost all of these middle-aged
pulsars are also known or expected to be nearby, at $d \la 1$\,kpc,
although obviously many more similar pulsars exist at larger distances.
In principle several of them could be detected in gamma rays despite
a relatively low $\dot E$, because the efficiency for conversion of
rotational kinetic energy into gamma rays, $\eta \equiv L_{\gamma}/\dot
E$, apparently increases with decreasing $\dot E$ and may approach 100\%
for $\dot E \approx 10^{33-34}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$ \citep[see][]{abdo11,aro96b,mh03}.
In order to improve our understanding of pulsar emission mechanisms and
evolution, it is important to identify more gamma-ray-emitting neutron
stars, particularly in under-represented groups such as middle-aged
pulsars. The Fermi LAT First Source Catalog (1FGL), based on 11 months
of survey data and containing more than 600 unidentified sources
\citep{abdo14}, provides a path toward such discoveries \citep[as
does now 2FGL;][]{abdo17}. Many unidentified LAT sources are being
surveyed within the context of a ``pulsar search consortium'' that
aims to efficiently organize this collaborative radio and gamma-ray
work \citep[see, e.g.,][]{rp11}. Spectacularly, many radio MSPs have
recently been discovered in such searches at high Galactic latitudes
\citep[$|b|>5\arcdeg$; e.g.,][]{cgj+11,kjr+11,rrc+11}. Here we report
on the first pulsar to be discovered at low Galactic latitude that is
responsible for a formerly unidentified 1FGL source. PSR~J2030+3641\ in 1FGL~J2030.0+3641\
(also 2FGL~J2030.0+3640), discovered with the NRAO Green Bank Telescope
(GBT), is also the first non-MSP gamma-ray pulsar identified in radio
searches of 1FGL sources.
\section{Observations and Results} \label{sec:obs}
\subsection{Radio Searches} \label{sec:search}
Consistent with the properties of known gamma-ray pulsars, our first
1FGL search targets are non-variable and have spectra consistent
with exponentially-cutoff power laws. In this initial small radio
survey at the GBT we aimed to search along the Galactic plane,
indicating a relatively high search frequency ($\ga 1$\,GHz) in order
to minimize deleterious propagation effects in the interstellar medium
and the background temperature due to Galactic synchrotron emission.
At the 2\,GHz frequency used, the GBT beam is $3'$ HWHM, and the 1FGL
sources to be searched should therefore, ideally, have $r_{95}$ (95\%
confidence level error radii) below that, after accounting for the
combined statistical and estimated systematic positional uncertainties.
These are strict criteria, and we searched a total of only three sources.
For each we provide ($\alpha,\delta,\Delta_{\theta},r_{95}$), which
are respectively the R.A. and decl. of the {\em observed} position,
its offset from the 1FGL position (we observed in late 2009, based on an
interim version of the catalog), and $r_{95}$ for the gamma-ray source:
1FGL~J0224.0+6201c ($36\fdg00,62\fdg04,1',4'$), where the ``c'' indicates
that the measured properties of this source (including position) may not
be reliable; 1FGL~J1746.7--3233 ($266\fdg70,-32\fdg61,3',3'$); and 1FGL~J2030.0+3641\
($307\fdg52,36\fdg68,1',3'$).
We observed each source for 1\,hr using the GUPPI
spectrometer\footnote{https://wikio.nrao.edu/bin/view/CICADA/GUPPiUsersGuide}
at a central frequency of 2\,GHz. Each of 512 polarization-summed
frequency channels, spanning a bandwidth of 800\,MHz, were sampled
every 0.164\,ms before writing to disk. The flux density limit of
these searches, converted to a standard search frequency of 1.4\,GHz, was
approximately 0.03\,mJy, for an assumed pulsar duty cycle of 10\% and spin
period larger than a few tens of milliseconds. We analyzed the data with
standard pulsar search techniques implemented in PRESTO \citep{ran01},
selecting trial dispersion measures so as to maintain ideal sensitivity
up to twice the maximum Galactic DM predicted in each direction by
the \citet{cl02} electron distribution model. The data sets retained
significant sensitivity to (possibly binary) MSPs up to $\mbox{DM}
\approx 100$\,pc\,cm$^{-3}$. We therefore did the analysis in two passes,
including one where we allowed for a modest amount of unknown constant
acceleration (parameterized in PRESTO by $\mbox{zmax}=50$). In the 1FGL~J2030.0+3641\
data, collected on 2009 November 27, we discovered on Christmas day an
obvious pulsar with period $P=0.200$\,s and $\mbox{DM}=247$\,pc\,cm$^{-3}$.
\subsection{Radio Timing and Polarimetry of PSR~J2030+3641} \label{sec:timing}
We began regular timing observations of the new pulsar at GBT on
2010 January 8. Observing parameters were identical to those used in
the search observation, although with much shorter integration times,
typically 5 minutes. In this manner we measured pulse times of arrival
(TOAs) on 28 separate days through 2011 April 11. Using these with
TEMPO\footnote{http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/tempo} we
obtain a phase-connected rotational ephemeris with 0.3\,ms rms residual.
After 5 months of radio timing, the solution was sufficient to yield an
initial detection of gamma-ray pulsations (see Section~\ref{sec:gamma}).
The DM measurement was improved with the aid of one additional observation
centered at 1.5\,GHz, and implies an uncertainty in the alignment of
radio and gamma-ray pulses of only 0.7\,ms.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{
\hfill
\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{J2030+3641_Stokes_1500MHz.pdf}
\hfill
}
\caption{\label{fig:pol}
Polarimetric observation of PSR~J2030+3641\ at 1.5\,GHz with the GBT. In the
lower panel the total-intensity profile is represented by the black
trace, red corresponds to linear polarization, and blue to circular.
The profiles, based on a 4.5\,hr integration, are displayed with a
resolution of 256 bins and arbitrary phase. In the upper panel the
position angle of linear polarization is displayed for bins in which the
linear signal-to-noise ratio exceeds 2.2, and the PAs have been rotated
to the pulsar frame using the measured $\mbox{RM}=+514$\,rad\,m$^{-2}$.
The full pulse phase corresponds to $P=0.200$\,s. }
\end{figure}
In order to determine the polarization characteristics of PSR~J2030+3641, we have
used GUPPI to make three flux-calibrated full-Stokes observations of
the pulsar, one each at central frequencies of 0.82\,GHz (lasting for
2.3\,hr), 1.5\,GHz (4.5\,hr), and 2\,GHz (1.0\,hr). We analyzed
the data with PSRCHIVE \citep{hvm04}, and show the resulting
1.5\,GHz profiles in Figure~\ref{fig:pol}. The profiles at the
other two frequencies are comparable, with a possible slight hint of
interstellar scattering visible at 0.8\,GHz. The Faraday rotation
measure is $\mbox{RM}=+514$\,rad\,m$^{-2}$, which implies an average
electron-weighted Galactic magnetic field strength along the line of
sight of $2.6\,\mu$G. The radio spectral index, based on the three
flux density measurements, is $\alpha = -1.7\pm0.1$ (where $S_{\nu}
\propto \nu^{\alpha}$; see Table~\ref{tab:parms}).
\subsection{Gamma-ray Study of PSR~J2030+3641} \label{sec:gamma}
We used ``Pass 6 diffuse''-class {\em Fermi}\ LAT events (having the
highest probability of being gamma-ray photons), excluding those
with zenith angles $>100\arcdeg$ to minimize gamma-ray emission from
the Earth's limb. The events were analyzed using the LAT \textit{Science
Tools}\footnote{http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/scitools/overview.html},
and photon phases were calculated using TEMPO2 \citep{hem06} with the
\texttt{fermi} plugin \citep{rkp+11}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{J2030+3641_gamma+radio_profiles.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:prof}
Phase-aligned radio and gamma-ray profiles of PSR~J2030+3641. Bottom panel:
discovery observation at the GBT. Middle panel: {\em Fermi}\ LAT 0.5--0.8\,GeV
profile (significant LAT pulsations are not detected below this energy
band). Top panel: $>0.8$\,GeV and $>3$\,GeV (lower) LAT profiles.
Each pulse profile is repeated in phase, and displayed with 30 bins per
period in gamma rays and 128 bins in radio. The dashed line gives the
level of unpulsed emission in the aperture as estimated from the light
curve fits. }
\end{figure}
We first folded photons detected from 1FGL~J2030.0+3641\ based on the initial
radio timing solution for PSR~J2030+3641\ (Section~\ref{sec:timing}). Selecting
photons using guesses for the minimum energy and radius of interest for
extraction, we made a clear detection of pulsations. Optimal cuts in this
region of very high background were subsequently found with $E>0.8$\,GeV
and within a $0\fdg5$ radius. We then obtained 20 gamma-ray TOAs from
a total of 1402 photons detected between 2008 August 4 and 2011 April 20
(49 days of integration per TOA), and used TEMPO2 to determine a timing
solution with an rms of 4.0\,ms. Despite the much higher precision
of the individual radio TOAs, the best overall ephemeris is obtained
by combining the gamma-ray and radio TOAs, owing to the longer span of
the former. The parameters of this timing solution, in which a small
amount of ``timing noise'' is parameterized by $\ddot \nu$ (where $\nu =
1/P$), are presented in Table~\ref{tab:parms}.
Figure~\ref{fig:prof} shows the gamma-ray pulse profiles in three energy
bands, along with the radio discovery profile. In order to optimize
each pulsed signal-to-noise ratio, we selected photons within $0\fdg8$,
$0\fdg5$, and $0\fdg3$ of the timing position, respectively for the
0.5--0.8\,GeV, $>0.8$\,GeV, and $>3$\,GeV bands. For the middle energy
band, the bin-independent H-test \citep{db10}, with a value of 270,
indicates enormous significance. For each of the other two bands, the
H-test values of approximately 40 correspond to pulsation significances
over $5\,\sigma$. The light curve at $>0.8$\,GeV consists of two
(conceivably three) overlapping components as observed, e.g., for
PSRs~J1709--4429, J1057--5226, and the CTA~1 pulsar \citep{abdo11},
which have peak separation $\Delta \approx 0.25$. While the statistics
are poor, the $>3$\,GeV profile is consistent with such a description.
At 0.5--0.8\,GeV, only one peak is visible, which corresponds in phase
with the first peak visible at higher energies. No pulsed signal was
detected below 0.5\,GeV, despite searches using different apertures.
We fit the unbinned gamma-ray data above 0.8\,GeV with two two-sided
Gaussians, to account for the steep leading and trailing edges of
the pulsed emission. The first peak is offset in phase from the main
radio peak by $\delta = 0.26 \pm 0.02$ with $\mbox{FWHM} = 0.11 \pm
0.04$, while the second peak is offset from the first by $\Delta =
0.30^{+0.03}_{-0.08}$, with $\mbox{FWHM} = 0.18 \pm 0.05$. We have
included systematic error from the modest uncertainty in DM and our
choice of model.
\subsubsection{Spectrum} \label{sec:spect}
To characterize the spectrum of PSR~J2030+3641, we analyzed Pass 6 diffuse events
collected between 2008 August 4 and 2011 April 20 selected to have
reconstructed energies between 178\,MeV and 100\,GeV and reconstructed
positions within $10^{\circ}$ of the timing position of PSR~J2030+3641.
We excluded the 100--178\,MeV energy bin because the rapidly increasing
effective area in this bin exacerbates the effects of energy dispersion
\cite[][]{aaa+09}. We removed events with a reconstructed zenith angle
$>100^{\circ}$ and also filtered data in which the aperture approached
the limb of the Earth; these cuts remove most of the contribution of
the bright gamma-ray emission produced by cosmic rays interacting in
the Earth's atmosphere. To further enhance the signal-to-noise ratio
of PSR~J2030+3641, we selected events with rotation phase $0.22<\phi<0.64$ (see
Figure \ref{fig:prof}). We verified that there was negligible emission
outside of this phase range, so the best-fit values may be taken to
represent the phase-averaged magnetospheric emission.
PSR~J2030+3641\ lies in the source-crowded Cygnus region, and extracting its
spectrum requires careful modeling of both neighboring point sources
(including the three bright gamma-ray pulsars J2021+3651, J2021+4026,
and J2032+4127) and the diffuse background. We included all point
sources in a preliminary version of the 2FGL catalog \citep{abdo17}
within $15\arcdeg$ of the pulsar, as the broad point-spread function
(PSF) at low energy allows sources away from the aperture boundary
to contribute to the observed counts. Identified pulsars were
modeled with a power law with exponential cutoff, $dN/dE \propto
(E/{\rm GeV})^{-\Gamma}\exp(-E/E_c)$. In the fits reported below, we
varied all parameters for sources within $7\arcdeg$ of the aperture,
while sources outside of the aperture were held fixed at the catalog
values. We modeled the Galactic and isotropic diffuse backgrounds using,
respectively, the \textit{gll\_iem\_v02\_P6\_V11\_DIFFUSE} diffuse map and
the \textit{isotropic\_iem\_v02\_P6\_V11\_DIFFUSE} tabulation employed
for the 1FGL spectral analysis; these have been rescaled from those
constructed with the \textit{P6\_V3\_DIFFUSE} instrument response functions
(IRFs). We allowed the normalizations of the diffuse models to vary in
the fit.
We performed spectral fits with the \textit{pointlike} application
\citep{ker11}. This software bins the events in both energy and position,
using HEALPix\footnote{http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/} to provide position
bins whose energy-dependent extent is always small compared to the PSF,
providing a compact representation of the data with minimal information
loss. We verified the results with the ScienceTool \textit{gtlike}.
The best-fit values are reported in Table~\ref{tab:parms}, and include
a power-law photon index $\Gamma = 1.1$ and cut-off energy $E_c =
2.0$\,GeV. These values apply to the profile as a whole, although
Figure~\ref{fig:prof} suggests that the second gamma-ray peak has
a harder spectrum than the first, as is observed for many gamma-ray
pulsars \citep[e.g.,][]{awd+11}.
In addition to the rescaled 1FGL diffuse model, we also
performed the fit with an improved model internal to the
LAT collaboration and with ``Pass 7'' data\footnote{See
http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/scitools/} using the
\textit{P7SOURCE\_V6} IRFs and the appropriate diffuse model (accompanying
the 2FGL catalog). These values were consistent with those reported
in Table~\ref{tab:parms}, and the scatter has been used to estimate
systematic errors on the parameters. We have also included uncertainty
in the instrument's effective area in the systematic errors through the
use of ``bracketing'' IRFs \citep{abdo2009}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.83]{J2030+3641_OG_SL_chi3+poln.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:chi3}
Surfaces of goodness of fit ($\chi_3$) to the $E>0.8$\,GeV light curve
for the OG (left) and SL (right) outer magnetosphere beaming models.
Dark colors indicate lower (better) values of the fit statistic. The
$\Delta \chi^2 = +1, +2, +3$ contours for the RVM fit to the 1.5\,GHz
polarization data are shown in green. }
\end{figure*}
\subsection{X-ray Observations} \label{sec:x-ray}
A short \textit{Swift} \citep{gcg+04} observation was obtained
on 2010 May 11 to search for an X-ray counterpart to PSR~J2030+3641.
No emission is observed at the pulsar position in this 3.8\,ks X-ray
Telescope \citep{bhn+05} PC mode observation, with a $3\,\sigma$
upper limit of $1.7\times10^{-3}$\,cts\,s$^{-1}$ (0.5--8 keV).
Assuming a power-law spectrum with photon index $\Gamma=1.5$ for
a possible pulsar wind nebula \citep[e.g.,][]{kp08} absorbed by
a column with $N_H = 7.4\times10^{21}$\,cm$^{-2}$ (assuming one
free electron for every 10 neutral hydrogen atoms along the line
of sight), this corresponds to an unabsorbed flux limit of $f_X <
1.3\times10^{-13}$\,erg\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$, or luminosity $L_X <
1.6\times10^{31} (d/1\,{\rm kpc})^2$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$. For a distance of $\approx
2$\,kpc (see Table~\ref{tab:parms}), this corresponds to $L_X/\dot E <
2\times10^{-3}$, which is a reasonably stringent limit, although it would
not be a surprise if the actual X-ray flux of this pulsar were about an
order of magnitude below the current limit \citep[see, e.g.,][]{mdc11}.
\section{Discussion} \label{sec:disc}
The gamma-ray pulsations from PSR~J2030+3641\ unambiguously identify it as the
origin of the gamma rays from 1FGL~J2030.0+3641. We note also that a candidate
TeV source possibly detected by the Milagro Gamma-Ray Observatory
\citep[``C2'' in][]{aab+07} is positionally coincident with PSR~J2030+3641.
Its faintness and location near a very bright source precludes
further investigation based only on published results \citep[see
also][]{milagro09}, but the relatively small $\dot E$ and relatively large
age and distance of PSR~J2030+3641\ make an association unlikely. With a DM-derived
distance of 8\,kpc, PSR~J2030+3641\ is located toward the Cygnus region, where until
recently very few pulsars were known and where the pulsar distance scale
is highly uncertain. Recent discoveries suggest that the \citet{cl02}
model greatly overpredicts distances in this direction: PSR~J2032+4127,
located $5\arcdeg$ from PSR~J2030+3641, with a DM-derived distance of 3.6\,kpc,
is thought to be located at half that distance \citep{crr+09}; and
PSR~J2021+3651, less than $2\arcdeg$ from PSR~J2030+3641, with a model distance of
12\,kpc, is more likely located at 2--4\,kpc \citep{abdo15}. Also, the RM
for PSR~J2030+3641\ is large and positive, very similar to that of PSR~J2021+3651,
and this is suggestive of a location closer than the Perseus arm, at
6\,kpc in this direction \citep[see discussion in][]{hml+06}. Overall,
we judge that a likely distance for PSR~J2030+3641\ is in the range 2--4\,kpc.
\subsection{Geometrical Constraints from Radio Profile} \label{sec:simon}
\citet{jw06} noted that the profiles of pulsars with high $\dot{E}$
share many common features. In particular, the profiles with two
components generally show (i) two components with equal width, (ii)
the trailing component stronger than the leading component, (iii) close
to 100\% linear polarization, (iv) significant circular polarization
under the trailing component, and (v) flat position angle swings which
appear to steepen at the far trailing edge of the profile. The profile
of PSR~J2030+3641\ conforms in some ways to these generalizations. The profile is
symmetrical with the trailing edge brighter. The PA swing is remarkably
flat with a hint of steepening at the trailing edge. However, although
the leading component is highly polarized, the trailing edge is not,
unlike the majority of the high $\dot{E}$ pulsars. \citet{wj08} pointed
out that the transition between pulsars with low linear polarization and
those which are highly polarized occurs at $\dot{E}\sim 10^{34.5}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$.
PSR~J2030+3641\ could be an example of a pulsar in transition from high to low
polarization.
The interpretation of these profiles by \cite{jw06} was that the magnetic
pole crossing occurs at the (symmetry) center of the profile. The PA
swing is significantly shifted to later phase because of aberration
\citep{bcw91}, leading to emission heights close to 1000\,km. This may
also be the case in PSR~J2030+3641. If we assume that the inflexion point of the
PA swing is the rise in the PA curve some $20^{\circ}$ after the profile
center in Figure~\ref{fig:pol}, this implies an emission height of $\sim
800$\,km (close to 10\% of the light cylinder), similar to those seen
in other high $\dot{E}$ pulsars. We also note that a height of $\sim
800$\,km would in turn imply an overall pulse width of some $50^{\circ}$,
similar to the observed value. This further suggests that the inclination
between the magnetic and rotation axes cannot be too far from orthogonal.
\subsection{Light Curve Fitting and Model Implications} \label{sec:roger}
We can use the gamma-ray light curve and polarimetric measurements to
test the predictions of magnetosphere beaming models. Such tests are most
constraining when the magnetic inclination angle $\alpha$ and the viewing
angle $\zeta$ are well determined. The polarization data provide some
geometrical constraints. Since the lower frequency data may be affected
by interstellar scattering, our primary constraints are based on the
1.5\,GHz data. We use PA values from the native 512 observational
phase bins with $\sigma_{\rm PA}<10^\circ$ and phases $-0.1 <\phi <
0.05$ (relative to the intensity maximum; see Figure~\ref{fig:pol}),
and fit to a standard rotating vector model (RVM) polarization sweep.
The maximum sweep rate is d$\Psi$/d$\phi |$max = 1.4 and one obtains
good fits in a band of the $\alpha$--$\zeta$ plane, with a best fit
$\chi^2 = 37.5$ for 55 degrees of freedom (suggesting the PA errors
are somewhat overestimated). Figure~\ref{fig:chi3} shows the RVM fit
confidence regions in this plane, after correcting for the RVM sign
convention problem \citep{ew01}. The phase of maximum sweep is not
well constrained, but the best fits place it well after the radio peak
at $\phi\approx 0.06$. The fit implies $\alpha < 140^\circ$, with best
fit values $<90^\circ$. If we simultaneously fit the 1.5\,GHz points
and the $-0.1 <\phi < 0.02$ 0.8\,GHz data, larger $\alpha > 90^\circ$
are preferred, but this preference is controlled largely by the trailing
edge of the sweep where scattering distortions may be present.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.51]{J2030+3641_OG_SL_LCs.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:lc}
Model light curves (red) at the best-fit $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ consistent
with the RVM PA constraints compared to the $E > 0.8$\,GeV LAT light
curve (black histograms). The offset $\phi$ indicates the phase of
the closest approach of the magnetic dipole axis at the star surface.
The SL curves have been offset by +80 counts/bin. }
\end{figure}
Following \citet{rw10}, we next compare the gamma-ray light curve to
three geometrical models of outer magnetosphere emission. The first,
``Outer Gap'' \citep[OG;][]{chr86a}, model posits emission from vacuum
dipole field lines radiating from the null charge surface to the
light cylinder at radius $R_{\rm LC}$. In this model, the heuristic
efficiency scaling $\eta \approx (10^{33} {\rm erg\,s^{-1}}/{\dot
E})^{1/2}$ is assumed. For PSR~J2030+3641, the value $\eta = 0.18$ was used
for the gap width $w$ in the OG calculations. The second model,
``Two Pole Caustic'' \citep[TPC;][]{dr03}, has emission in the vacuum
open zone from the neutron star surface out to 0.75\,$R_{\rm LC}$
from the rotation axis or an altitude of $R_{\rm LC}$, whichever is
lesser. More recently, numerical models of force-free magnetospheres
have been computed by \citet{bs10} and they have argued that the
pulsar gamma-ray beam can be created in the ``Separatrix Layer''
where the open zone current sheets overlap. The emission in this SL
model is assumed to extend to 1.5\,$R_{\rm LC}$. We assess the match
to the data by plotting a goodness of fit $\chi_3$ surface in the
$\alpha$--$\zeta$ plane \citep[see][]{rw10}. Using the $E > 0.8$\,GeV
light curve, the best-fit OG models (with best $\chi_3= 3.9$ at $\alpha=
133^\circ$, $\zeta=110^\circ$) lie inside the $3\,\sigma$ 1.5\,GHz fit
contours and at the maximum of the combined 1.5\,GHz and 0.8\,GHz fit.
A small second region of adequate but poorer fits ($\chi_3= 7$) is also
present within the $1\,\sigma$ RVM contour at smaller $\alpha= 63^\circ$
($\zeta=60^\circ$). The SL model has a similar small region of good fits
within the $1\,\sigma$ 1.5\,GHz RVM contour ($\chi_3= 5$ at $\alpha=
50^\circ$, $\zeta=48^\circ$). The TPC model predicts a large unpulsed
component resulting in much poorer fits (not shown), with a best value
$\chi_3 = 19$ in the RVM-allowed region; this is at $\alpha= 26^\circ$,
$\zeta=25^\circ$, giving a light curve with little pulsed flux.
Figure~\ref{fig:lc} shows the best-fit light curves in the RVM-allowed
region for the OG and SL models, compared with the data. The present
models do not include the full radiation physics, employing simple uniform
emissivity throughout the active zones. However, it appears that both
high altitude models can produce reasonable matches to the LAT data.
With improved geometrical constraints it may be possible to distinguish
between the OG and SL models. For the former, the fit phase of the
magnetic axis is at $\phi \approx 0.09$, after the pulse and somewhat
later than the polarization sweep. The SL model prefers a magnetic
axis much closer to the maximum of the radio pulse. In both cases,
the lag of the sweep maximum from the pulse peak implies significant
altitude $\sim 0.1$--$0.15\,R_{\rm LC}$ for the radio emission. Such
altitudes are also required to accommodate the relatively wide radio
pulse in the open zone. Modeling such finite altitude effects may
provide some additional restrictions on the geometry. We also note that
the OG and SL models predict somewhat different viewing angles $\zeta$;
if an X-ray pulsar wind torus could be measured, the resulting $\zeta$
might be used to select the preferred model.
The classic TPC model fails in these fits at least in part because
it does not have enough emission at high altitudes. In order to
improve upon this, we also fit the $>0.8$\,GeV profile of PSR~J2030+3641\
with light curves predicted from a geometrical high-altitude ``Slot
Gap'' model \citep[SG;][]{mh04a}, an evolution of the low-altitude
SG of \citet{mh03}. In the SG geometry, the emission originates in
a gap that extends from the neutron star surface at the polar cap
to high altitudes near the light cylinder. We fit for four model
parameters: $\alpha$, $\zeta$, gap width $w$ \citep[a fraction of the
open volume radius of the polar cap, $r_{\mathrm{ovc}}$, in the open
volume coordinate system described in][]{dh04}, and maximum radius
of emission $r$ (in units of $R_{\mathrm{LC}}$), assuming uniform
emission rate in the corotating frame. Our resolution is $1^{\circ}$
in $\alpha$ and $\zeta$, $0.01\,r_{\mathrm{ovc}}$ in $0 \leq w \leq
0.3$, and $0.1\,R_{\mathrm{LC}}$ in $0.7\,R_{\mathrm{LC}} \leq r \leq
2.0\,R_{\mathrm{LC}}$ (we assumed a maximum cylindrical emission radius of
$0.95\,R_{\mathrm{LC}}$). The simulated light curves are fit to the data
via a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) routine that explores the parameter
space and records regions of maximum likelihood, as in \citet{vps+03}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.54]{J2030+3641_SG_Chi2+poln.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{\label{fig:chi2} Reduced $\chi^2$ values (with 25 degrees of
freedom) in $\alpha$--$\zeta$ space from slot gap gamma-ray light curve
fits, marginalized over $w$, $r$, and $\Delta \phi$, and black curves
from the RVM fit to radio polarization measurements, showing where
these constraints intersect the geometrical light curve parameters
(the overall best-fit light curve lies outside these regions;
see Section~\ref{sec:roger}). The plotted values of $\chi^2_{25}$
are those included in the Markov chains via the algorithm given in
\citet{vps+03}. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.04]{J2030+3641_SG_LCs.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:3lc}
Slot gap model light curves compared to the data. (a) The best-fit light
curve (blue) with parameters lying within the polarization contours. The
LAT light curve is shown in black. The vertical dot-dashed line shows
the model location of the magnetic pole, shifted by $\Delta \phi$
from zero. The horizontal dashed line represents the background count
level. (b) Same as (a), for the second-best fit parameters (red). (c)
Same as (a) and (b) for the absolute best-fit light curve (green) found
by the MCMC routine, with no restriction on $\Delta \phi$. Its parameters
do not fall within the radio polarization contours. }
\end{figure*}
As noted before, we have some independent constraints on the emission
geometry of PSR~J2030+3641\ from radio polarization (cf.\ Figure~\ref{fig:pol}).
To make our model fits be consistent with the RVM fit, we allowed the
model light curve to shift with respect to the location of the magnetic
pole by no more than $\Delta \phi = 0.1$ in phase. Figure~\ref{fig:chi2}
shows the $\alpha$--$\zeta$ space with the polarization contours already
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:chi3} and color ``contours'' of reduced $\chi^2$
from the MCMC likelihood fits. The polarization contours pass through
parameters yielding light curve fits with $3 \leq \chi^2/25 \leq 5$,
the best fit falling within the contours occurring at ($\alpha$, $\zeta$,
$w$, $r$, $\Delta \phi$; $\chi^2/25$) = ($134^{\circ}$, $114.5^{\circ}$,
$0.0\,r_{\mathrm{ovc}}$, $1.4\,R_{\mathrm{LC}}$, 0.08; 3.4). The second
best fit that falls within the polarization contours is at ($54^{\circ}$,
$52.5^{\circ}$, $0.01\,r_{\mathrm{ovc}}$, $1.3\,R_{\mathrm{LC}}$, 0.105;
4.2). We include this fit because while it has a larger $\chi^2$, it
falls within a more constrained region of the polarization contours.
The absolute best fit, with or without restricting $\Delta \phi$,
is at ($170^{\circ}$, $110.5^{\circ}$, $0.0\,r_{\mathrm{ovc}}$,
$>1.1\,R_{\mathrm{LC}}$, 0.017; 1.4). This is inconsistent with standard
radio cone beam emission because the values of $\alpha$ and $\zeta$
are too far apart for lower altitude radio emission to be visible.
All of these light curves are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:3lc}.
Two of the fits include $w=0$, meaning the emission in the model
originates from a single open field line. Physically, this means the
emission zone width is smaller than the resolution of our simulations,
but not really zero. All the fits have small widths, requiring higher
current of radiating particles in the gap (either more primaries or
high pair multiplicity) in order to generate the observed luminosity.
It is also likely that the emissivity and width of the emission zone
change azimuthally and with altitude, unlike the constant width of our
simulations \citep[see][]{hm11}. None of the fits are able to reproduce
well the small middle peak of the observed light curve; it is not yet
clear whether this is a separate feature or part of the second peak.
Also, the background is slightly over-predicted by the SG model,
especially for the parameters consistent with the polarization curves.
None of these (OG, SL, SG) gamma-ray light curve fits are particularly
consistent with our inferences from the radio profile and polarimetric
constraints. For instance, the latter suggest a nearly orthogonal rotator
(Section~\ref{sec:simon}), for which there are no good gamma-ray light
curve fits. However, the polarimetric data provide limited constraints,
owing to the small range of pulse longitude for which they are obtained,
and our inferences rely on some assumptions. As for the gamma-ray fits,
none are perfect, although the OG and SG fits appear slightly better
than the SL one. Considering their inherent limitations, however,
these fits are encouraging, and further refinements may improve our
understanding of the magnetosphere of middle-aged pulsars like PSR~J2030+3641.
For each beaming model, one can extrapolate the average pulsar flux
on the Earth line-of-sight to the isotropic all-sky equivalent.
For the best-fit angles consistent with polarization constraints,
the corrections for PSR~J2030+3641\ are $f_\Omega = 0.66$ (OG), 0.64 (SL), and
0.78 (SG; neglecting polarization constraints, $f_{\Omega, \rm SG} =
0.45$). Using the observed flux and the 8\,kpc DM-estimated distance,
we find that $\eta_{\rm obs} = 4\pi d^2 f_\Omega F_\gamma/{\dot E} =
10\,d_8^2 f_\Omega$. This indicates that any distance greater that
$\sim 2.5$\,kpc is problematic, unless the emission is highly beamed.
For the OG/SL/SG beaming $f_\Omega \sim 0.7$, we require $d<3$\,kpc.
The preferred distance for the heuristic OG efficiency law ($\eta = 0.18$)
is $\sim 1.3$\,kpc. Such distance estimates of $\approx 2$\,kpc are
consistent with the discussion at the beginning of Section~\ref{sec:disc},
and strongly suggest that PSR~J2030+3641\ is located at roughly $10\times$ the
distance to Geminga ($d=0.16$\,kpc). Improved distance estimates for
middle-aged, apparently efficient pulsars have the potential to constrain
or falsify gamma-ray emission models.
\subsection{Where Have All the (Ordinary Radio) Pulsars Gone?}
In a radio search with the GBT of three unidentified low Galactic latitude
LAT sources, we have discovered PSR~J2030+3641, a relatively distant member of the
under-represented group of gamma-ray pulsars that are middle-aged and
have small $\dot E$. A gamma-ray-only pulsar was subsequently discovered
in one of the two remaining sources, 1FGL~J1746.7--3233 \citep{pga+11}.
The third source could yet be a gamma-ray pulsar, but is unlikely to
be a substantial radio emitter beamed towards the Earth (assuming we
covered its location adequately --- in the case of 1FGL~J1746.7--3233,
the pulsar is $3\farcm8$ offset from our GBT search position; see
Section~\ref{sec:search}): for a fiducial distance of 4\,kpc, our
sensitivity corresponds to a luminosity limit $L_{1.4} \equiv S_{1.4} d^2
= 0.5$\,mJy\,kpc$^2$, which is near the low end of the radio luminosity
distribution for detected radio pulsars \citep[see][which include the
two exceptions with much lower luminosities]{abdo16,cng+09,crr+09}.
It would seem that we were quite successful, with one related radio
discovery among three LAT sources searched. However, as we argue next,
we don't expect such continued success.
Many more Galactic plane unidentified LAT sources have been searched
for radio pulsars than the three mentioned here. This work is being
done at the GBT, Parkes, Nan\c{c}ay, GMRT, and Effelsberg telescopes by
members of the {\em Fermi}\ pulsar search consortium, and includes searches of
all sources that have pulsar characteristics at all Galactic latitudes.
So far this has resulted in the discovery of more than 30 MSPs, all at
high latitudes \citep[e.g.,][]{cgj+11,kjr+11,rrc+11} --- and PSR~J2030+3641. While
a detailed population analysis will have to wait for the publication of
all the completed searches, the lone example of PSR~J2030+3641\ already stands out.
Why have more radio pulsars not been detected among the unidentified
Galactic plane LAT sources?
A point related to this question concerns the very deep radio searches
done of 34 pulsars discovered in blind pulsation searches of gamma rays
\citep[e.g.,][]{abdo2,pga+11,sdz+10}: only four of them were found
to also be radio emitters \citep[see][]{pga+11,rkp+11}. Three are
exceptionally faint and their detection was possible only following the
gamma-ray discoveries \citep{abdo16,crr+09,pga+11}. The remaining one,
PSR~J2032+4127 \citep{crr+09}, is like PSR~J2030+3641\ in that they are both located
in the Cygnus region and both are relatively bright, being detectable in
1~minute with the GBT at 2\,GHz. They were not known prior to the launch
of {\em Fermi}\ simply because no sensitive surveys had (or have yet fully)
been done of the northern (equatorial) reaches of the Galactic plane,
using the high radio frequencies desired to unveil the Galactic disk.
Conversely, the enormously successful 1.4\,GHz Parkes multibeam survey
\citep[e.g.,][]{mlc+01} {\em did} search the entire Galactic plane at
$260\arcdeg<l<50\arcdeg$ with sensitivity sufficient to detect ordinary
(non-MSP) radio pulsars with $L_{1.4} \ga 0.5$\,mJy\,kpc$^2$ out to $d \ga
2$\,kpc. A very large fraction of all potentially detectable ordinary
radio pulsars in that area of the sky that could also be plausible
gamma-ray sources were therefore discovered before {\em Fermi}\ launch,
especially when adding those discovered in deep pointed observations
of known pulsar wind nebulae \citep[e.g.,][]{cmgl02}. In time,
several of these pulsars were detected by LAT \citep[e.g.,][]{abdo11}.
Subsequent to the Parkes multibeam survey an even deeper Parkes survey
extended Galactic plane coverage out to $l = 60\arcdeg$ (Camilo et al.,
in preparation), and the on-going PALFA Arecibo survey is doing so out
to $l \approx 75\arcdeg$ \citep{cfl+06}.
In our view, the above suggests that the answer to ``why have more radio
pulsars not been detected among the unidentified Galactic plane LAT
sources?'' is that the vast majority of ordinary radio pulsars accessible
to the current generation of telescopes and located within a few degrees
of the plane at $l \la 75\arcdeg$ that can yield an appreciable gamma-ray
flux at the Earth were discovered a long time ago (it is possible that
in rare but important cases very high $L_{\gamma}$ distant pulsars will
have their radio pulses scattered beyond practical detectability).
Many of the LAT sources that remain unidentified along the Galactic
plane are surely pulsars --- but they may not be detectable as radio
sources, and should be searched anew in gamma rays \citep[some of
these may be in binaries, and inaccessible to current blind searches;
see, e.g.,][]{cck+11}. PSR~J2030+3641\ is bright enough that it would have been
discovered in blind searches of 18 months of LAT data, if the photon
selection criteria had been adjusted to take into account its flat
spectrum (e.g., if only photons with $E\ga0.8$\,GeV had been searched
for pulsations), as we confirmed after discovery. Spectral analysis
of a region can improve the signal-to-noise ratio by selecting events
based on the probability that they come from the source of interest
\citep[see][]{bel11}, and applying this technique to the Cygnus
region also resulted in the unbiased detection of pulsations from PSR~J2030+3641.
For fainter point sources superimposed on the large and uncertain diffuse
Galactic background, spectral analysis and localization are harder
(1FGL~J2030.0+3641\ was only $0\farcm4$ from the actual pulsar position), but these
and other improvements in search techniques are already resulting in the
discovery of many more gamma-ray pulsars \citep[see][]{pga+11,par11}.
As a consequence, the ratio of known gamma-ray-only to gamma-ray-and-radio
ordinary pulsars, which is currently slightly under 1.0, should increase
substantially.
When will we ever learn all that we can (in the {\em Fermi}\ era) about
the geometry and emission properties of gamma-ray and radio pulsar
accelerators? Perhaps when full details emerge from the continuing
collaborative radio and gamma-ray observational and modeling work.
The future is bright (at some wavelength), but requires publication of
all searches, including radio non-detections, and consideration of the
non-detection by LAT of radio pulsars with very large $\dot E$ flux at
the Earth \citep[e.g.,][]{rkc+11}.
\acknowledgements
The GBT is operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a
facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative
agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.
The {\em Fermi}\ LAT Collaboration acknowledges generous ongoing support
from a number of agencies and institutes that have supported both
the development and the operation of the LAT as well as scientific
data analysis. These include the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and the Department of Energy in the United States,
the Commissariat \`a l'Energie Atomique and the Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique/Institut National de Physique Nucl\'eaire et de
Physique des Particules in France, the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana and
the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare in Italy, the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), High Energy
Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) and Japan Aerospace Exploration
Agency (JAXA) in Japan, and the K.~A.~Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish
Research Council and the Swedish National Space Board in Sweden.
Support for this work was provided by NASA through Einstein Postdoctoral
Fellowship Award Number PF0-110073 issued by the Chandra X-ray Observatory
Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
for and on behalf of NASA under contract NAS8-03060.
{\em Facilities:} \facility{Fermi (LAT)}, \facility{GBT (GUPPI)},
\facility{Swift (XRT)}
|
\section{Introduction}
Clusters of galaxies are filled with hot X-ray gas or intracluster
medium (ICM) with temperatures of $\sim 2$--10~keV. While the radiative
cooling time of the ICM is longer than the age of the Universe in most
of the region in a cluster, the exception is the core, which is
$r\lesssim 100$~kpc from the cluster center. If there is no heating
source, the ICM in the core cools and a flow toward the cluster center
should develop (a cooling flow). However, X-ray observations have denied
the existence of massive cooling flows in clusters, which suggests that
the cores should be heated by some unknown sources
\citep[e.g.][]{ike97,mak01,pet01,tam01,kaa01,mat02}. Since active
galactic nuclei (AGNs) are often found in the cores, they are often
thought to be the heating sources
\citep*[e.g.][]{chu01,qui01,bru02,bas03}. X-ray observations have
actually revealed the interaction between AGNs and the ambient ICM
\citep*[e.g.][]{fab00,mcn00,bla01,mcn01,maz02,fuj02,joh02,kem02,tak03,fuj04}. However,
even if AGNs can produce enough energy to heat the core, the energy must
deliberately be transported to the surrounding ICM in the core. For
example, conventional mechanical heating such as the dissipation of weak
shocks and sound waves often cause thermal instabilities
\citep*{fuj05,mat06}. Therefore, turbulence may essentially be required
to hold the instabilities for such heating mechanisms.
Cosmic-rays (CRs) may be another channel of transporting energy to the
ICM \citep*[e.g.][]{tuc83,rep87,rep95,col04,pfr07,jub08}. Especially, CR
streaming has been studied as an energy transport mechanism
\citep*{rep79,boh88,loe91,guo08}. In this mechanism, CRs streaming in
the ICM excites Alfv\'en waves. The CRs interact and move outwards with
the waves. The $PdV$ work done by the CRs effectively heat the
ICM. Recently, using numerical simulations, we showed that the CR
streaming can stably heat the core for a long time \citep[][hereafter
Paper~I]{fuj11}. The reason of the stability is that the CR pressure is
insensitive to changes in the ICM and that the density dependence of the
heating term is similar to that of radiative cooling. Moreover, CRs can
prevail in the entire core and the heating is not localized around the
source. The CRs may be provided in the core not only by AGNs but also
through pumping by turbulence \citep{ens11}.
In this paper, we study the non-thermal emission from the CRs that heat
cool cores and the AGN activities that are responsible for the
acceleration of the CRs. It is to be noted that non-thermal emissions
from CR protons accelerated by AGNs in the cores have been studied by
\citet{fuj07c}. However, they studied CR acceleration associated with a
single AGN burst with an extremely large energy, and they did not
consider the heating of the ICM by CR streaming. This paper is organized
as follows. In \S~\ref{sec:model}, we explain our models on core heating
and AGN activities that are responsible for the generation of CRs. In
\S~\ref{sec:AGNr}, we present the results of our calculations and
compare them with observations. In \S~\ref{sec:dis}, we discuss the
implications of our results, and \S~\ref{sec:conc} is devoted to
conclusions. We refer to protons as CRs unless otherwise mentioned.
\section{Models}
\label{sec:model}
\subsection{Cosmic-Ray Distributions}
\label{sec:CRdist}
In Paper~I, we studied heating of a cool core by CRs injected through
the activities of the central AGN. The CRs travel with Alfv\'en waves in
the ICM. They amplify the waves, which heat the surrounding ICM. In this
subsection, we briefly summarize the models to obtain CR and ICM
distributions.
For simplicity, we assumed that the cluster is spherically symmetric.
The flow equations are
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}
+ \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r^2\rho u) = 0\:,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial (\rho u)}{\partial t}
+ \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r^2\rho u^2)
= - \rho \frac{G M(r)}{r^2}-\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
(P_g + P_c + P_B)\:,
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial e_g}{\partial t}
+ \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r^2 u e_g)
&=& -P_g \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r^2 u)
+ \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left[r^2\kappa(T)\frac{\partial T}{\partial r}\right]\nonumber\\
& &- n_e^2\Lambda(T) + H_{\rm st} + H_{\rm coll}\:,
\label{eq:eg}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ec}
\frac{\partial e_c}{\partial t}
+ \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r^2 \tilde{u} e_c)
= -P_c \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r^2 \tilde{u})
+ \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left[r^2 D(\rho)\frac{\partial e_c}{\partial r}\right]
- \Gamma_{\rm loss}
+ \dot{S}_c \:,
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the gas density, $u$ is the gas velocity, $P_g$ is the
gas pressure, $P_c$ is the CR pressure, $P_B$ is the magnetic pressure,
$G$ is the gravitational constant, $M(r)$ is the gravitational mass
within the radius $r$, $\kappa(T)$ is the coefficient for thermal
conduction and $T$ is the temperature, $n_e$ is the electron density,
$\Lambda$ is the cooling function, $H_{\rm st}$ is the heating by CR
streaming, $H_{\rm coll}$ is the heating by Coulomb and hadronic
collisions, $\tilde{u}$ is the CR transport velocity, $D(\rho)$ is the
diffusion coefficient for CRs averaged over the CR spectrum,
$\Gamma_{\rm loss}$ is the energy loss by Coulomb and hadronic
collisions, and $\dot{S}_c$ is the source term of CRs. Energy densities
of the gas and the CRs are respectively defined as
$e_g=P_g/(\gamma_g-1)$ and $e_c=P_c/(\gamma_c-1)$, where $\gamma_g=5/3$
and $\gamma_c=4/3$. In this paper, we do not treat models with thermal
conduction, and thus $\kappa=0$. The terms for radiative cooling
$\Lambda$, Coulomb collisions $H_{\rm coll}$, hadronic collisions
$H_{\rm coll}$, diffusion $D(P)$, and the energy loss $\Gamma_{\rm
loss}$ are the same as those in Paper~I. The source term of CRs is given
by $\dot{S}_c \propto L_{\rm AGN}$, where $L_{\rm AGN}$ is the energy
injection rate from the AGN. We assume that $L_{\rm AGN}=\epsilon
\dot{M} c^2$, where $\epsilon$ is the parameter, $\dot{M}$ is the inflow
rate of the gas toward the AGN, and $c$ is the speed of light.
The CR transport velocity in equation~(\ref{eq:ec}) is given by
$\tilde{u}=u+v_A$, where $v_A=B/\sqrt{4\pi\rho}$ is the Alfv\'en
velocity for a magnetic field $B$, which evolves as $B\propto
\rho^{2/3}$. The initial magnetic field at the cluster center is
$B_0=10\: \mu G$. The wave energy $U_A=\delta B^2/(4\pi)$, where $\delta
B$ is the magnetic field fluctuation, is amplified by the $PdV$ work
done by the CRs on Alfv\'en waves:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:UA}
\frac{\partial U_A}{\partial t} + \frac{1}{r^2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left[r^2 U_A\left(\frac{3}{2}u + v_A\right)\right]
= u\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\frac{U_A}{2} -
v_A\frac{\partial P_c}{\partial r} - H_{\rm st} \:
\end{equation}
\citep{mck82,boh88}. This equation is more correct than that we adopted
in Paper~I (equation~[6] in that paper), because it is based on wave
energy conservation. However, the results are not affected by this
change of the equation (see \S~\ref{sec:AGNr}). After the wave energy
increases to $U_A\sim U_M$, where $U_M$ is the energy of the background
magnetic field, the waves are expected to heat ICM through non-linear
damping \citep[e.g.][]{ohira09,gargate10}. Thus, we give the heating
term for CR streaming by
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm st} = \Gamma v_A\left|\frac{\partial P_c}{\partial r}\right|
\end{equation}
\citep{voe84,kan06}. We simply give $\Gamma=U_A/U_M$ for $U_A<U_M$ and
$\Gamma=1$ after $U_A$ reaches $U_M$.
\subsection{Non-Thermal Emissions}
\label{sec:AGNm}
Although by solving equations presented in \S~\ref{sec:CRdist} we can
obtain the profile of the ICM and that of the CR pressure $P_c(r)$
required to heat the core effectively (Paper~I), we do not have
information on the energy spectrum of the CRs. Thus, we need to specify
the spectrum of the CRs to calculate the non-thermal emissions from the
CRs.
We assume that the central AGN drives outgoing shock waves and form
cocoons or bubbles inside them. In the following, we show a description
of their evolution (position, velocity, Mach number as functions of
time). The shocks should inject CRs with varying efficiencies and
spectra. At some moment this injection will be maximal (actually, this
moment differs for different CR energy ranges). We only consider the
efficiency and Mach number at this moment and fix these numbers by
requesting them to reproduce the observed radio emission for the sake of
simplicity, although there would be a more physical approach to
calculate the injection evolution and the full injected CR spectrum,
assuming the AGN energy release, timescale, and initial cocoon radius.
The CRs are accumulated in the core through the AGN activities. In
Paper~I, we studied continuous CR injection as a time average, although
the supply of the CRs may be intermittent. Each activity of the AGN is
approximated by an instantaneous explosion. Thus, the shock expands in
the ICM like a supernova remnant in the Galaxy, and the shock velocity
depends on the energy input from the AGN.
In Paper~I, we obtained the profiles of the ICM density $\rho(r)$, the
temperature $T(r)$, and the magnetic field $B(r)$ at a given time. We
approximate the density profile of the ICM by a power-law:
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\rm ICM}(r)=\rho_{\rm in}(r/r_{\rm in})^{-\omega}\:,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{\rm in}$ is the ICM density at the inner boundary ($r_{\rm
in}=5$~kpc). Using a shell approximation \citep[e.g.][]{ost88}, the
radius of the shock can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Rs}
R_s = \xi\left(\frac{E_a}{\rho_{\rm in} r_{\rm in}^\omega}\right)
^{1/(5-\omega)} t_a^{2/(5-\omega)}\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\xi = \left[\left(\frac{5-\omega}{2}\right)^2\frac{3}{4\pi}
\frac{(\gamma_g+1)^2(\gamma_g-1)(3-\omega)}{9\gamma_g-3-\omega(\gamma_g+1)}
\right]^{1/(5-\omega)}\:,
\end{equation}
$E_a$ is the energy released by the AGN, and $t_a$ is the time elapsed
since the last energy input from the AGN. The velocity of the shock is
given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Vs}
V_s = \frac{d R_s}{d t_a}
\:.
\end{equation}
The Mach number of the shock is given by $M_s=V_s/c_s(R_s)$, where $c_s$
is the sound velocity. Since we know the profile of the ICM temperature
$T(r)$, we can construct the profile of the sound velocity
$c_s(r)$. Therefore, if $M_s$ and $E_a$ are given, the shock radius
$R_s$, velocity $V_s$, and the time $t_a$ that satisfy
equations~(\ref{eq:Rs}) and~(\ref{eq:Vs}) can be specified.
In reality, the spectrum of accelerated CRs at the shock may change
during the expansion of the cocoon. Probably, the spectrum is flat, when
the cocoon is young, and the shock velocity and the Mach number are
large. Then it gradually steepens as the Mach number decreases, and CR
acceleration ceases when the Mach number approaches $M_s\sim
1$. However, we consider a typical Mach number $M_{st}$ around which
most CRs are accelerated. In other words, we consider a typical spectrum
of CRs that are accelerated when the injection of CRs becomes
maximal. We treat $M_{st}$ and $E_a$ as parameters. The shock radius,
velocity, and age when $M_s=M_{st}$ are $R_s=R_{st}$, $V_s=V_{st}$, and
$t_a=t_{at}$, respectively. We also assume that the spectrum of CRs that
are just accelerated at $r\sim R_{st}$ has a form of
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:NE}
N(p,r)\propto p^{-x}e^{-p/p_{\rm max}}\:,
\end{equation}
where $p$ is the CR momentum, $x$ is the index, and $p_{\rm max}$ is the
cutoff momentum of the CRs. Since we already know CR pressure $P_c(r)$,
the normalization of relation~(\ref{eq:NE}) is determined by the
relation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Pc}
P_c(r) = \frac{c}{3}\int_{p_{\rm min}}^\infty
\frac{p^2 N(p,r)}{\sqrt{p^2 + m^2 c^2}} dp\:,
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the proton mass.
The index is given by $x=(r_b+2)/(r_b-1)$, where
$r_b$ is the compression ratio of the shock \citep{bla87}, which is
given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:comp}
r_b = \frac{(\gamma_g+1) M_{st}^2}{(\gamma_g-1) M_{st}^2+1}\:.
\end{equation}
Since the cooling of CR protons is not effective, the maximum energy of
protons corresponding to $p_{\rm max}$ is determined by the age of the
shock and is represented by
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm max}\sim 1.6\times 10^4\:
\left(\frac{V_{st}}{10^3\rm\: km\: s^{-1}}\right)^2
\left(\frac{B_d}{10\: \mu\rm\: G}\right)
\left(\frac{t_{at}}{10^7\:\rm yr}\right)\:{\rm TeV}\:,
\label{eq:pmax}
\end{equation}
where $B_d$ is the downstream magnetic field at $r=R_{st}$ and is given
by $B_d = r_b B$ \citep{yam06,fuj07c}. That is, the background magnetic
field $B$ is amplified by the compression ratio $r_b$
(equation~[\ref{eq:comp}]). Although some particles may be accelerated
to higher energies when the expansion velocity of the cocoon was larger,
their contribution to the overall spectrum is expected to be small.
The CRs injected at $r\sim R_{st}$ propagate in the ICM with Alfv\'en
waves. Although adiabatic cooling may change $E_{\rm max}$, it does not
change the index $x$ in relation~(\ref{eq:NE}). Moreover, the results in
\S~\ref{sec:AGNr} show that the CR spectra must be steep. Thus, the
results are not sensitive to the value of $E_{\rm max}$. Therefore, we
do not consider the adiabatic cooling for $E_{\rm max}$ and adopt the
relations~(\ref{eq:NE}) and~(\ref{eq:Pc}) at any radius $r$, although
the adiabatic cooling was considered when we calculated $P_c$ in
Paper~I. Since we expect that thermal protons with higher energies are
accelerated as CRs, we assume that the minimum momentum of the CRs is
$p_{\rm min}=4 m c_{sd}$, where $c_{sd}$ is the sound velocity of the
ICM at the downstream of the shock at $r=R_{st}$, which is obtained from
the Rankine-Hugoniot relations for given $c_s(R_{st})$ and $M_{st}$:
\begin{equation}
c_{sd} = c_s\frac{\sqrt{2\gamma_g M_{st}^2
- (\gamma_g-1)}\sqrt{(\gamma_g-1)
M_{st}^2 + 2}}{(\gamma_g + 1)M_{st}}\:.
\end{equation}
In this way we have the CR spectrum at each radius for given $M_{st}$
and $E_a$.
For a given CR proton spectrum, we calculate radiation from
them. Non-thermal emission originated from CR protons in the central
region of clusters have been studied by several groups
\citep[e.g.][]{min03,pfr04,kes10}. In this paper, we adopt the model of
\citet{fuj09c}, in which they calculated non-thermal emissions from
supernova remnants. We consider the synchrotron, bremsstrahlung, and
inverse Compton (IC) emissions from secondary electrons created through
the decay of charged pions that are generated through proton-proton
collisions. IC emissions are created by electrons that scatter Cosmic
Microwave Background (CMB) photons. We also consider $\pi^0$-decay
gamma-rays through proton-proton collisions. We do not consider
emissions from primary electrons that are directly accelerated at the
shock, because we did not calculate the distribution of the primary
electrons in Paper~I. Because of the short cooling time of electrons,
emissions from primary electrons will disappear soon after their
acceleration is finished \citep{fuj07c}.
The photon spectra are calculated based on the radiation models of
\citet{fan07}. For the production of secondary electrons and
$\pi^0$-decay gamma-ray photons through proton-proton interactions, we
use the code provided by \citet{kar08}. The spectrum of the secondary
electrons are given by $N_e(E_e)=t_{\rm cool,e}(E_e)\: Q_e(E_e)$, where
$E_e$ is the electron energy, $t_{\rm cool,e}$ is the cooling time of an
electron, and $Q_e$ is the production rate of the secondary electrons.
For the cooling, we include synchrotron cooling, IC scattering,
Bremsstrahlung, and Coulomb loss.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:AGNr}
Since we replaced the equation for the wave energy $U_A$ (equation~[6]
in Paper~I) with equation~(\ref{eq:UA}), we recalculate the
distributions of the ICM and CRs and show them in
Figures~\ref{fig:Tn_lcr0} and~\ref{fig:Pcb_lcr0}. The cluster is
initially isothermal with $P_c=0$. The input parameters are the same as
those of Model~LCR0 in Paper~I, and we simply refer to this model as
LCR0 again. The gravitational potential adopted in this model is that of
the Perseus cluster. The efficiency of AGN energy input is
$\epsilon=2.5\times 10^{-4}$. The results are almost identical to those
in Paper~I (Figures~2 and 4 in that paper). This is because $\Gamma$
rapidly approaches one after $L_{\rm AGN}$ increases regardless of the
equation we adopted. The ICM temperature outside the core is $\sim
7$~keV. The heating by CR streaming and the radiative cooling are
well-balanced at $t\gtrsim 4$~Gyr.
Figure~\ref{fig:lcr0} shows the spectra of a region including the entire
core ($r<1$~Mpc) at $t=9$~Gyr for Model LCR0. The slope of the ICM
density profile is assumed to be $\omega=1$, which is a good
approximation for $r\lesssim 70$~kpc (Figure~\ref{fig:Tn_lcr0}b). The
distance to the cluster is 78.4~Mpc, which is the one for the Perseus
cluster. In this figure, we take $M_{st}=2.1$ and $E_a=1\times
10^{60}\rm\: erg\: s^{-1}$; we first give $E_a$, and then adjust
$M_{st}$ in order to be consistent with radio observations for the
mini-halo in the Perseus cluster \citep*{sij93,git02}. Since the Mach
umber $M_{st}$ is fairly small, the CR spectrum is steep ($x=3.2$). The
maximum energy of the CRs is $E_{\rm max}=1.5\times 10^5$~TeV, the
radius and age of the shock are $R_{st}=22$~kpc and $t_{at}=6.0\times
10^6$~yr, respectively. The spectrum of thermal Bremsstrahlung is shown
for comparison.
The slope of the synchrotron and IC scattering spectra at the higher
energy side can be explained by a simple calculation. The slope of the
energy spectrum of secondary electrons are the same as that of protons
($x=3.2$), if radiative cooling is not effective. However, cooling by
synchrotron radiation and IC scattering increases the slope by one and
it becomes $x'=4.2$ \citep[e.g.][]{sar99}. The spectral indices of the
synchrotron emission and IC scattering are represented by
$\alpha=(x'-1)/2=1.6$ \citep[e.g.][]{ryb79}, which is consistent with
those in Figure~\ref{fig:lcr0} ($f_\nu\propto \nu^{-\alpha}$).
We found that the results for $M_{st}=2.1$ and $E_a=1\times 10^{61}\rm\:
erg\: s^{-1}$ are almost the same as those for $M_{st}=2.1$ and
$E_a=1\times 10^{60}\rm\: erg\: s^{-1}$. In the former case, the shock
radius and age are $R_{st}=59$~kpc and $t_{at}=1.4\times 10^7$~yr,
respectively. Although the maximum energy of the CRs is increased
($E_{\rm max}=2.7\times 10^5$~TeV), the steep CR spectrum or the large
$x$ obscures the effect. This means that the radiation from the cool
core is insensitive to the strength of an AGN activity ($E_a$) for a
{\it given} $P_c(r)$. Figure~\ref{fig:lcr0_2} shows the spectra when
$M_s=1.8$ and 4.0 for $E_a=1\times 10^{60}\rm\: erg\: s^{-1}$. The
indices are $x=3.8$ and $2.3$, respectively. Compared with the results
of $M_s=2.1$ and $E_a=1\times 10^{60}\rm\: erg\: s^{-1}$, the
non-thermal emissions are weaker (stronger) when $M_s$ is smaller
(larger), and the synchrotron radio emission is inconsistent with the
observations. The results are very sensitive to the value of $M_{st}$
for a given $P_c(r)$. Basically, changing $E_a$ and $M_{st}$ correspond
to changing $E_{\rm max}$ and $x$, respectively.
Figure~\ref{fig:surf_lcr0} shows the surface brightness profiles for
Model~LCR0 at $t=9$~Gyr with $M_{st}=2.1$ and $E_a=1\times 10^{60}\rm\:
erg\: s^{-1}$. The model generally reproduces the surface brightness
profile observed in the radio band, although we did not intend to
reproduce that when we calculated Model~LCR0 in Paper~I. In that figure,
the surface brightness rapidly increases toward the cluster center for
the synchrotron radio emissions because of the increase of the magnetic
fields toward the cluster center ($B(r)\propto\rho(r)^{2/3}$). On the
other hand, the profile for the IC missions is relatively flat because
electrons scatter CMB photons, which are uniformly distributed. The size
of the region with high surface brightness is regulated by radiative
cooling, because radiative cooling increases the ICM density and makes a
cool core. On the other hand, CRs can fill the entire core with fast
Alfv\'en waves (Paper~I). Proton-proton interactions are effective in
such a high-density region. The surface brightness for thermal
Bremsstrahlung slightly decreases at the cluster center, because the ICM
temperature decreases there (Figure~\ref{fig:Tn_lcr0}a).
We also study a less massive cluster. Figure~\ref{fig:scr0} shows the
spectra of the entire core ($r<1$~Mpc) at $t=9$~Gyr calculated using
parameters of Model~SCR0 in Paper~I. For this model, we adopted the
observed gravitational potential of the Virgo cluster. The efficiency of
AGN energy input is $\epsilon=1\times 10^{-4}$. Although we
recalculated the ICM and CR distributions, they are almost identical to
those calculated in Paper~I. The ICM temperature outside the core is
$\sim 2$~keV. We take $M_{st}=2.1$ ($x=3.2$) and $E_a=1\times
10^{59}\rm\: erg\: s^{-1}$. The distance to the cluster is set to be
16~Mpc. We take $\omega=0.7$, which is an good approximation for
$r\lesssim 50$~kpc (Figure~11 in Paper~I). The shock radius and age are
$R_{st}=21$~kpc and $t_{at}=6.3\times 10^6$~yr, respectively. The
maximum energy of CRs is $E_{\rm max}=3.3\times 10^4$~TeV. The gamma-ray
flux is much smaller than the upper limits for the Virgo cluster
obtained with {\it Fermi} \citep{ack10}. The luminosity is sensitive to
$M_{st}$ but not to $E_a$. The surface brightness profiles for this
model are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:surf_scr0}. The surface brightness is
smaller than that in Figure~\ref{fig:surf_lcr0}.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:dis}
We have studied the non-thermal spectra of cool cores heated by CR
streaming. The results indicate that the Mach number of the shock that
accelerate CRs must be small ($\sim 2$) to be consistent with radio
observations at least for the Perseus cluster. We think that this is
reasonable because the temperature and the sound velocity of the ICM is
large and thus it is difficult for the cocoon shock to have a large Mach
number. The small Mach number means that the CR spectrum must be steep.
In Paper~I, we did not specify the injection mechanism of CRs. We
emphasize that even if CRs are injected by anything other than the
cocoon, the spectrum must be steep for the given $P_c$.
Recently, \citet{ens11} indicated that the CR streaming velocity may be
much larger than the Alfv\'en velocity $v_A$ in the hot ICM. This is
because in high-$\beta$ plasma, where $\beta$ is the ratio of thermal to
magnetic energy, waves may suffer strong resonant damping by thermal
protons. In this case, the sound velocity $c_s$ may be appropriate as
the streaming velocity instead of $v_A$ \citep{hol79,ens11}. Thus, we
simply replace $v_A$ by $c_s$ in equations~(\ref{eq:ec})
and~(\ref{eq:UA}) and see what would happen. Figures~\ref{fig:Tn_lcrs}
and~\ref{fig:Pcb_lcrs} show the profiles of the ICM and CRs for the
parameters of Model~LCR0 except for the larger streaming velocity $c_s$;
we refer to this model as Model~LCRs. The ICM is stably heated by the CR
streaming even in this model and the evolution of $\dot{M}$ is not much
different from that in Model LCR0. Compared with
Figures~\ref{fig:Pcb_lcr0}, the fraction of CR pressure is small in the
central region because of the larger streaming velocity and the escape
of CRs. Since the ICM temperature is an increase function of radius
(Figure~\ref{fig:Tn_lcrs}), the sound velocity or the streaming velocity
is also an increasing function. Thus, $P_c/P_g$ tends to decrease
outward fairly rapidly. Figures~\ref{fig:lcrs} and~\ref{fig:surf_lcrs}
are the same as Figures~\ref{fig:lcr0} and~\ref{fig:surf_lcr0} but for
Model LCRs. If we assume $M_{st}=2.1$ as is the case of Model LCR0,
non-thermal luminosities in Model LCRs are smaller than those in Model
LCR0, because more CRs have escaped from the core with the high ICM
density. Thus, we increase the Mach number and set it to be
$M_{st}=2.4$. We present the spectra and surface brightness in
Figures~\ref{fig:lcrs} and~\ref{fig:surf_lcrs}. The synchrotron
spectrum and the surface brightness are consistent with the
observations.
Regardless of the streaming velocity, the CR spectra in the cores must
be steep, because if not, the luminosities are too large
(Figure~\ref{fig:lcr0_2}b); this is inconsistent with the small number
of clusters in which radio mini-halos have been observed \citep{gov09}
and the non-detection of gamma-rays from clusters. Because of the steep
spectra, future observations in the low-frequency radio band would be
useful. Thus, cool cores would be promising targets for radio telescopes
such as {\it LOFAR}. The number of mini-halos may increase as the
sensitivities of radio telescopes are improved. In our model, we
assumed that CRs are mostly accelerated when the Mach number of the
shock is $M_s\sim M_{st}$. For real clusters, however, we expect that
the Mach number $M_s$ decreases and that the CR spectrum at the shock
steepens during the expansion of a cocoon. Thus, we expect that the
spectral index should increase outwards in the cluster, which has
actually been observed in the radio band \citep{sij93,git02}, although
the interferometric nature of these measurements might result in smaller
radio halos at higher frequencies (missing zero spacing problem). On the
other hand, observations in other bands would be difficult in the near
future (Figures~\ref{fig:lcr0} and~\ref{fig:scr0}). In the X-ray band,
IC emissions should be observed (Figures~\ref{fig:lcr0}
and~\ref{fig:scr0}). However, thermal emissions from cool cores are very
bright, which makes it difficult for the non-thermal emission to be
detected. For the Perseus cluster, \citet*{san05} claimed the detection
of non-thermal emission with a flux of $6.3\times 10^{-11}\rm\: erg\:
cm^{-2}\: s^{-1}$ between 2 and 10~keV. However, the detection was not
confirmed by later observations \citep{mol09,eck09}. Even with hard
X-ray telescopes that will be launched in the near future such as {\it
NuSTAR} and {\it Astro-H}, the detection may be difficult because of the
low surface brightness (Figures~\ref{fig:surf_lcr0}
and~\ref{fig:surf_scr0}). For the detection in the gamma-ray band, good
angular resolutions as well as sensitivities are required, because
gamma-rays could also be emitted from the central AGNs
\citep[e.g.][]{abd09,kat10}, which must be resolved.
The steep CR spectra mean that most of the CRs in cool cores have low
energies. Thus, indirect studies may be useful. For example, optical
filaments observed in cool cores may be heated by those CRs
\citep[see][]{fer09,bay10}. We note that the CR heating is locally
unstable, and that the filaments could be created through local thermal
instabilities (Paper~I). Moreover, our model does not require turbulence
for stable heating. Thus, cool cores in which turbulence is not
developing may be observed with detectors having high spectral
resolutions such as {\it Astro-H}, while the detection of turbulence
does not deny our model. Although we did not consider primary electrons,
they may be accelerated at shocks in cores in spite of the low Mach
numbers \citep{mat11}, and the emissions from them may be observed in
some clusters.
Finally, we caution the reader that we did not consider energy-dependent
diffusion of CRs, because we do not know the actual diffusion
coefficient in the ICM, especially away from the shock front
\citep[see][]{fuj11a}. If CRs with higher energies escape from the core
faster than those with lower energies, the energy spectrum could be
steep \citep*[e.g.][]{fuj09c,ohi10,ohi11}. Moreover, we did not include
the contribution of gamma-rays from CRs accelerated at cosmological
shocks and those from dark-matters \citep*[e.g.][]{tot04,pin10,pin11}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc}
We have investigated non-thermal emissions from cool cores heated by
CRs. For the distributions of CRs, we used the model in which the cores
are stably heated by CR streaming. CR protons interact with ICM protons
and produce secondary electrons and $\pi^0$-decay gamma-rays. We found
that the CR spectra must be steep in order to be consistent with
observations of a radio mini-halo. The steep spectra reflect the fact
that the CRs are accelerated at shocks with low Mach numbers ($\sim 2$)
in hot ICM. We have also studied the dependence on the CR streaming
velocity and found that the stronger shocks are required to be
consistent with the observations for the larger CR streaming
velocity. Since most of the CRs in cores have low energies, synchrotron
emissions from them should be observed in low-frequency radio
bands. Thus, the number of clusters that have radio mini-halos would
increase as the sensitivities of radio telescopes increase. On the other
hand, the detection in other bands such as the X-ray and gamma-ray bands
would be difficult in the near future. The low-energy CRs could be
studied by observing optical filaments that are often found in cool
cores.
\acknowledgments
We thank the referee for useful comments. This work was supported by
KAKENHI (Y.~F.: 23540308, Y.~O.: 21684014).
|
\subsection{Pure rotation model: governing equation}
Throughout this paper, we will work with both spherical $(r, \theta, \phi)$
and
cylindrical $(R, \phi, z)$ coordinates. As noted in the Introduction, $r$ and
$\theta$ are respectively the spherical radius and colatitude angle. The quantity
$\phi$ is the azimuthal angle, while $R$ and $z$ are the cylindrical
radius and vertical Cartesian coordinate respectively.
The governing dynamical equation of our analysis is the $\phi$ component of
the vorticity equation. For steady flows this is
\begin{equation} \label{dix}
(\rho \vv\bcdot\del)\left(\omega_\phi\over \rho r\sin\theta\right)-
(\bb{\omega}\bcdot\del) \Omega = {1\over(r\sin\theta) \rho^2}(\del\rho\btimes\del P)\bcdot
\bb{e_\phi}
\end{equation}
or, since by mass conservation $\del\bcdot(\rho\vv)=0$,
\begin{equation} \label{onze}
\del\bcdot \left[ {\vv\omega_\phi\over R} - {\bb{\omega} \Omega}
\right] = {1\over R\rho}(\del\ln\rho\btimes\del P)\bcdot
\bb{e_\phi}
\end{equation}
where $\vv$ is the velocity, $\omega$ the vorticity,
$P$ the pressure, and $\rho$ is the density. Equation (\ref{onze})
implicitly defines a vorticity flux within the divergence operator
on its left side. The vector $\bb{e_\phi}$ is of unit norm, in the
azimuthal direction.
The left side of equation (\ref{dix})
contains two terms, the first corresponding to advection
by the poloidal velocity components
of the vortensity (divided by cylindrical radius),
the second to vorticity distortion by differential rotation.
For a purely azimuthal velocity field, only
the second (vorticity-distorting) term is present.
The leads to what is commonly referred to as the {\em thermal wind equation}
(Thompson et al. 2003):
\begin{equation} \label{trez}
-\cos\theta\left(\dd\Omega^2\over \dd r\right)_\theta + {\sin\theta\over r}
\left(\dd\Omega^2\over
\dd \theta\right)_r \equiv
- \left( {\dd\Omega^2\over \dd z}
\right)_R = {1\over(r\sin\theta) \rho}(\del\ln \rho\btimes\del P)\bcdot
\bb{e_\phi}.
\end{equation}
An important simplification of equation (\ref{trez})
is effected by replacing,
with impunity, $\ln\rho$ by $-(1/\gamma)\ln P \rho^{-\gamma}$,
where $\gamma$ is the adiabatic index. Then,
in terms of the entropy variable
$\sigma = \ln P\rho^{-\gamma}$
and gravitational field $g=-(1/\rho)(\dd P/\dd r)$, we have:
\begin{equation} \label{therm}
\left({\dd\Omega^2\over\dd r}\right)_\theta -{\tan\theta\over r}
\left({\dd\Omega^2\over \dd\theta}\right)_r =
{g\over\gamma r^2 \sin\theta \cos\theta}\left({\dd\sigma\over\dd \theta}
\right)_r
\end{equation}
On the right side, we have dropped the term proportional to
$(\dd\sigma/\dd r)(\dd P/\dd\theta)$ in favor of
$(\dd\sigma/\dd\theta)(\dd P/\dd r)$.
This is justified because, while the radial gradient
of $\sigma$ may well exceed its $\theta$ gradient in the SCZ
(region 1), because of entropy mixing by convection it does so by
a factor far smaller than the pressure radial gradient exceeds {\em its}
$\theta$ gradient. We will adopt equation (\ref{therm}) as our governing
equation, though it must break down, of course, inside the radiative
zone (cf. \S 3).
\subsection {Establishing a functional relation between $\sigma$ and $\Omega^2$}
As discussed in the Introduction and in BBLW,
the entropy variable $\sigma$ appears in equation (\ref{therm})
only in the form of its $\theta$ gradient. This means that any function differing
from $\sigma$ by another function depending only upon $r$ would serve
just as well as $\sigma$ itself. There is, in other words, a gauge invariance
in the problem\footnote{
A similar issue formally afflicts the angular velocity, which is insensitive
to an additive function of $R$. This ``geostrophic degeneracy'' is
lifted by fitting our $\Omega$ solution to an explicit set of
isrotation surfaces provided by observations.}.
This observation motivated BBLW to introduce the residual entropy $\sigma'$,
defined by
\begin{equation} \label{onebis}
\sigma'(r, \theta) = \sigma(r, \theta) - \sigma_r(r)
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_r$ is the minimal adverse radial entropy profile needed
to both drive and maintain ongoing convection. In this manner, we choose our
gauge. The idea is that
mixing of entropy would eliminate {\em residual} entropy gradients within
a convective cell, but the resulting nearly constant
value of $\sigma'$ within one convective
cell need not be the same constant in another cell.
BBLW went on to argue that
the presence of shear would favor the tendency for
long-lived coherent convective structures
to lie also within constant $\Omega$
surfaces. Under these conditions, constant $\sigma'$ and constant
$\Omega$ surfaces would tend to coincide.
The mathematical implementation of this is a powerful analytic constraint.
If $\sigma'=f(\Omega^2)$,
where $f$ is a function to be determined, then
\begin{equation} \label{constr1}
\sigma(r, \theta) = f(\Omega^2) + \sigma_r(r)
\end{equation}
(cf.\ equation [\ref{one}]).
In this view, the combination of convection and rotation in the SCZ
constrains the two-dimensional
entropy to be an {\it additive} function $\Omega^2$ and $r$.
Let us take a somewhat more formal viewpoint for the moment.
On purely mathematical grounds, for this development to be valid,
all that is required is that
the constraint embodied by equation (\ref{constr1}) be satisfied for
whatever reason.
If it is, the ensuing thermal wind partial differential equation becomes
\begin{equation} \label{therm2}
\left({\dd\Omega^2\over\dd r}\right)_\theta -
\left[ {\tan\theta\over r}
+ {gf'(\Omega^2)\over\gamma r^2\rho \sin\theta \cos\theta}\right]
\left({\dd\Omega^2\over\dd \theta}
\right)_r \equiv {{\cal D}\Omega^2\over {\cal D}r} = 0,
\end{equation}
where $f'(\Omega^2)$ is $df/d\Omega^2$, and we have made use of the ${\cal D}$
notation of equation (\ref{four}). The solution to equation (\ref{therm2})
is that $\Omega$ is constant along the contours
given explicitly by equation (\ref{three}).
It is remarkable that no
knowledge of $f$ is necessary to extract the basic functional form of the
contours: $R^2$ is just a linear function of $1/r$.
Since these simple contours lie essentially
on top of the helioseismology data (BBLW),
the mathematical formalism
at the very least
constrains any deeper physical theory for the origin
of $\Omega(r,\theta)$. Equation (\ref{constr1}) and thermal wind
balance are empirically true. The ultimate underlying physical cause
remains to be settled, however:
the physical argument laid out in BBLW may or may not be the correct one.
\subsection{Another approach to the $\sigma'-\Omega^2$ relationship}
In addition to a likely dynamical linkage between $\sigma'$ and $\Omega$,
there is another simple feature of our problem that supports
equation (\ref{constr1}) : the SCZ is rather thin.
Imagine a Sun-like star with a slender outer convective zone. In the case
of the SCZ itself, the central radius is about $r_c=0.87 r_\odot$ and our
analysis extends $\pm 0.1 r_\odot$, so the relative spread in the radial
domain $\Delta r/r_c$ is some $11.5\%$. The residual entropy $\sigma'$
is a two-dimensional function of $r$ and $\theta$, but it could equally
well be locally regarded, by the implicit function theorem,
as a function of $r$
and $\Omega^2$ (the sign of $\Omega$ should not matter)\footnote{There
are of course some technical restrictions that accompany this remark.
The variable $\Omega^2$ should be well-behaved, free of internal extrema or
saddle points over the domain
of interest; surfaces of constant $\Omega$ should not be spherical.
These are not concerns for our present application.}. We shall assume
this is valid throughout the SCZ.
Our motivation
for choosing these two quantities as independent variables, as opposed to,
e.g.\ angular momentum and $r$, is clear: we wish to turn the thermal
wind equation into a simple mathematical constraint for the surfaces
of constant $\Omega$. Had $\Omega^2$ not been one of our dependent
variables, the task of extracting the form of the constant isorotation
contours from the thermal wind equation would be much more difficult.
Much the same technique is familiar in thermodynamics, where the choice
of functions for independent variables is somewhat arbitrary, but often
dictated by what quantity is being held constant during the transformation
of interest.
If the dispersion in $\Omega^2$ and $r$ in the SCZ is such
that $\sigma'(\Omega^2, r)$ never leaves the bilinear regime,
then equation (\ref{constr1}) will be directly satisfied,
with gauge invariance allowing us to use either $\sigma$
or $\sigma'$. But an expansion in $\Omega^2$ is not essential.
If we expand $\sigma'(\Omega^2, r)$ in a Taylor series about $r=r_c$,
there obtains
\begin{equation} \label{twobis}
\sigma'(\Omega^2, r) \simeq \sigma'(\Omega^2, r_c)+
\left(1-{r_c\over r}\right)\left( {\dd \sigma'\over \dd\ln r}
\right)_\Omega
+ {\rm ...} \end{equation}
The second term, which we shall regard as a small, is reduced relative
to the first by an explicit factor of $1-r/r_c\simeq 0.1$. But, as we
argued in the Introduction, if in the dynamical regime of the SCZ there
is already some tendency for constant $\sigma'$ and $\Omega$ surfaces
to coincide, which is another way of saying that {\em any partial
derivative of $\sigma'$ taken at constant $\Omega$ will be small.}
The point is that ``small'' is by no means infinitesimal:
the first-order correction to retaining the leading term in equation
(\ref{twobis}) is quadratic, not linear in small quantities.
Two $10\%$ effects would combine to yield a $1\%$ effect. It is the
mutually reinforcement of the tendency of $\sigma'$ and
$\Omega$ surfaces to blend (even if it is not more than a trend),
plus the narrow shell approximation $|r-r_c|\ll r_c$, that renders
the $\sigma'(r,\theta)=\sigma'(\Omega^2)$ ansatz more robust
than might at first sight seem apparent. The narrowness of the
shell means that residual entropy variations are more
beholden to changes in $\Omega$ than to
the spread in $r$, and the process of convection reinforces this
trend by constraining the radial residual entropy gradients
(at constant $\Omega$). The Sun happens
to be in a felicitous
theoretical regime from this point of view: it has both
an order unity convective Rossby number (Miesch \& Toomre 2009)
and a relatively narrow convective layer.
Is it at all useful to consider the dependence $\sigma'(\Omega^2,\theta)$?
This seems counterproductive in the SCZ, where $\Omega$ already has a
dominant $\theta$ dependence, and where we have just advanced arguments to the
effect that $\sigma'$ should be considered a function of $\Omega^2$ alone.
But we can also turn this argument around. In the tachocline,
$\Omega$ is clearly dominated by its $r$ dependence. Therefore, from a
global viewpoint, adopting a $\sigma'(\Omega^2, \theta)$
dependence would allow
both the tachocline and the SCZ to be treated on the same footing, without
necessarily abandoning thermal wind balance. In this formalism, $\sigma'$ goes
from a two-dimensional function in the tachocline $(\Omega^2, \theta)$
to a simpler one-dimensional function in the SCZ $(\Omega^2)$. Such
a dynamical structure would not be unknown in the study of rotating fluids:
a classical two-dimensional Ekman boundary layer joining onto a
one-dimensional interior Taylor column exhibits the same feature.
In \S 3, this idea will be more fully developed.
\subsection{Intuitively understanding the convection zone}
\subsubsection{Mathematical description}
The current approach has helped us to understand the answer to the first
question posed in the Introduction: why do informal arguments work so
well when our mathematical solutions are compared with observations?
It is enlightening to examine the mathematical form of our simple
SCZ solution with a view toward the helioseismology data.
Let us start with the explicit solution (\ref{three})
for an isorotation contour in the form
\begin{equation}
\sin^2\theta = {\sin^2\theta_0 + \beta\over y^2} -{\beta\over y^3}
\end{equation}
where $y=r/r_0$. Then,
expanding about some fiducial radius $y_c$,
\begin{equation}
\sin^2\theta = \left( {\sin^2\theta_0 + \beta\over y_c^2} -{\beta\over y_c^3}
\right)
+(y-y_c) \left( {3\beta\over y_c^4} -{2\sin^2\theta_0 +2\beta\over y_c^3}
\right) + ...
\end{equation}
which implies the existence of a constant $\theta$ contour (a radial spoke) if
\begin{equation}
y_c = {1.5\beta\over \sin^2\theta_0 +\beta}
\end{equation}
lies within the convection zone. The data show that in fact it does so
for $\theta_0\simeq 30^\circ$. For other angles
not too near the poles or equator, the
deviation from this class of contour is evidently not large.
But neither is the alignment perfect: at larger $\theta_0$ the spoke
is canted more parallel to the $z$ axis, while at smaller $\theta_0$
the cant is more orthogonal to the vertical direction.
All this can be seen both in the helioseismology data,
and the leading order term of a Taylor expansion of our simple solution.
\subsubsection{Dynamics}
What is special about $\Omega\simeq\Omega(\theta)$ that much
of the convection zone is to first order well-described by this class of contour?
It is by no means a direct consequence of our $\sigma'=f(\Omega^2)$
ansatz, yet it is the most striking feature of the SCZ, and must
involve the dynamics of heat convection and rotation. We defer
an extended
discussion of this important point to a subsequent paper
(Schaan \& Balbus 2011), but the basic picture is easily grasped.
The coupled dynamics of entropy and angular velocity
gradients are indeed at the heart
of matter. The most
efficient route for heat transport is spherical convection,
radial motions being the most direct path
to the surface. However, an inevitable secondary
consequence of turbulent convection in an initially uniformly rotating
system is the production of differential
rotation, a sort of dynamical pollutant in this case.
The presence of differential rotation
introduces its own inertial force, pushing fluid parcels away from
spherically radial motions toward {\em cylindically}
radial motions. For a displacement $\bb{\xi}$, this acceleration
is of the form $-\bb{\xi}\bcdot\del\Omega^2$.
(Note that this is {\em not} the Coriolis force.)
If spherical radial displacements dominate,
this oblateness-inducing force is formally eliminated when
$\Omega=\Omega(\theta)$.
Radially convecting elements could then
not help but move in constant $\Omega$
surfaces. This closes the circle of theoretical
self-consistency: the gross pattern of
differential rotation in the Sun looks the way it does
because in the presence of unavoidable build-up of differential rotation,
$\Omega\simeq\Omega(\theta)$ would produce a pattern that would not interfere
with the most efficient form of heat transport.
The top priority of the convective zone
would remain uncompromised.
Moreover, we have in the previous section noted that
the description of the $\Omega$ curves is {\em not} precisely
$\Omega(\theta)$; the curves are canted slightly poleward everywhere but
at the highest latitudes. This slight poleward cant emerges, in fact,
from the linear theory
of convective displacements (Schaan \& Balbus 2011) as well, and
$\bb{\xi}\bcdot\del\Omega^2$ remains small.
\section {Global solutions of the isorotation contours}
\subsection{Entering the tachocline}
As one crosses from the SCZ into the tachocline, the isorotation contours
change their character abruptly.
It is possible that this is due to the increased importance of
additional dynamics beyond pure rotational motion, and the thermal
wind equation breaks down.
On the other hand, there is little reason to assume that
the precise $\sigma'-\Omega^2$ relation in the SCZ
should hold here; the $r$ component of
$\del\Omega$ becomes vastly more important in the tachocline.
Let us assume that thermal wind balance continues to hold
in the tachocline. We will make use of the ansatz
$\sigma'=\sigma'(\Omega^2, \theta)$, which is particularly apt,
since $\Omega$ now carries a strong $r$-dependence.
This pronounced dependence on radius is of course a consequence of
the boundary condition enforcing uniform rotation
at the radiative zone interface. Once this zone is breached,
the radial entropy gradient starts to rise, and the approximation
of neglecting the term proportional to $\dd s/\dd r$ in the
baroclinic contribution to the thermal wind equation eventually breaks
down. But by this point, $\Omega$ will be so close to uniform
rotation that the shift of the isorotation contours
is unlikely to be important.
We turn now to an investigation of
thermal wind balance in the tachocline.
\subsection {The ansatz $\simga' = \sigma'(\Omega^2, \theta)$}
The thermal wind equation acquires a very different mathematical
structure if $\sigma'$ is taken to be a function of $\Omega^2$
and $\theta$, as opposed to $\Omega^2$ and $r$. We will
assume that this functional dependence is well-defined locally in $r$
for the tachocline region.
The, the equation formally becomes
\begin{equation} \label{twt}
{\dd\Omega^2\over \dd r} -\left[ {\tan\theta\over r} +
{g\over\gamma r^2\sin\theta \cos\theta} \left(\dd\sigma'\over
\dd \Omega^2\right)_\theta\right]{\dd\Omega^2\over \dd\theta}
=
{g\over \gamma r^2\sin\theta \cos\theta}
\left(\dd\sigma'\over \dd\theta\right)_{\Omega^2} .
\end{equation}
This should be contrasted with the case $\sigma'=\sigma'(\Omega^2, r)$,
for which the equation takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{twt2}
{\dd\Omega^2\over \dd r} -\left[ {\tan\theta\over r} +
{g\over\gamma r^2\sin\theta \cos\theta} \left(\dd\sigma'\over
\dd \Omega^2\right)_r\right]{\dd\Omega^2\over \dd\theta}
=0.
\end{equation}
What is striking here is that equation (\ref{twt}) has precisely the
same mathematical form invoked
by BL to account for the rotation pattern
in the tachocline. (The computed rotation pattern fit the data well.)
But this earlier study viewed the right side of the equation
as arising from {\em external} vorticity stresses. Here, we see that
this same equation could equally well arise without the need to appeal to external
dynamics, emerging instead within the context of thermal wind balance.
Notice the important distinction between $\dd\sigma'/\dd\Omega^2$
at constant $\theta$ versus constant $r$. At constant $\theta$,
the derivative is perfectly well behaved in the tachocline. At
constant $r$, the derivative is ill-behaved: a significant
change in $\sigma'$ can be accompanied by virtually no change
in $\Omega$. For this reason, equation (\ref{twt}) is to be
preferred.
Comparison of equations (\ref{twt}) and (\ref{twt2})
reveals another simple but important fact.
If $\sigma'$ is a function of $\Omega^2$
alone in the SCZ (and it certainly appears to be so), equation (\ref{twt})
is valid globally. The partial $\theta$ derivative on the right
vanishes in the SCZ, and comes alive within the tachocline.
At the very least, this is a useful organizational framework
for understanding solar rotation. The truly daunting problem of
mastering the underlying dynamics of the tachocline can be decoupled from the
strictly mathematical problem of finding self-consistent solutions
to equation (\ref{twt}). For the latter, we may appeal directly
to the observations, and to very general and simple dynamical constraints.
While not directly addressing the underlying physical
structure of the tachocline, this approach is not without interest:
a compelling fit would be strong evidence for the assumption of thermal
wind balance.
\subsection {Tachocline solution}
In BL, the characteristics of the SCZ
continued into the tachocline, and the entire
inhomogeneous term on the right side of the
governing equation was assumed to be proportional
to a function of $\theta$
only, the spherical harmonic $P_2(\cos\theta)$.
In the current theoretical formalism, we have created somewhat tighter
mathematical constraints for ourselves.
The SCZ characteristics can now extend into the tachocline
(which BL found produced good agreement with the data) only
if $(\dd\sigma'/\dd\Omega^2)_\theta$ is a function of $\Omega^2$
alone. This means that $(\dd\sigma'/\dd\theta)_{\Omega^2}$
can be a function only of $\theta$. This in turn means that
the right side inhomogeneous term of equation (\ref{twt}) has a steep
$g/r^2\sim 1/r^4$ radial dependence. This radial dependence
was {\em not} present in BL, since the entire transition zone
(from $0.77 r_\odot$ to $0.65 r_\odot$ was viewed as
a local boundary layer. How does the additional radial dependence,
a new feature of the current model,
affect the shape of the tachocline isorotation contours?
In the tachocline, equation (\ref{twt}) may be written
\begin{equation} \label{uni}
{{\cal D}\Omega^2\over {\cal D} r} = {g\over \gamma r^2 \sin\theta\cos\theta}
\left( \dd\sigma'\over \dd \theta\right)_{\Omega^2}.
\end{equation}
The $\theta$ dependence of the right side of the equation may be inferred
from helioseismology data as being approximately proportional to
$-P_2(\cos\theta)$, or $\sin^2\theta-2/3$. We will consider a slightly
more general form, $\sin^2\theta-\epsilon$, allowing $\epsilon$ to be determined
by the best fit. (Note that the $\theta$ dependence of $\sigma'$ itself must
then involve a superposition of $P_4(\cos\theta)$ and $P_2(\cos\theta)$,
as found in the simulations of Miesch et al. [2006].) Consider
the equation
\begin{equation} \label{unii}
{{\cal D}\Omega^2\over {\cal D} r} = {C\over r^4}(\sin^2\theta-\epsilon) .
\end{equation}
The formal solution to equation (\ref{unii}) is that $\Omega^2 (r)$ is given
along a characteristic curve by
\begin{equation} \label{vingt}
\Omega^2(r) = \Omega^2(r_1) + \int^r_{r_1} {C\over r^4}
[\sin^2\theta(r) - \epsilon]
\, dr
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation} \label{twen}
\sin^2\theta(r) = \left( r_0\over r\right)^2\left[\sin^2\theta_0 -{\beta}
\left( {r_0\over r} - 1\right)\right].
\end{equation}
The coordinates $r_0$ and $\theta_0$ represent the starting and
defining point of the characteristic (the effective surface), and $r_1$ is a fiducial
radius marking here
the starting point of the tachocline. In general, we will use equation (\ref{vingt})
with $r<r_1$, reversing the integration limits and changing the sign.
The $\beta$ parameter in general will depend
upon $\theta_0$, though it is simplest to take $\beta$ to be a global constant,
and we will often do so.
The radius $r_0$ will always lie outside of the tachocline on the constant-$\Omega$
portion of the characteristic. We use the notation
$r_1=r_T$ for start of the SCZ-tachocline boundary, and
we may take $\Omega^2(r_1)=\Omega_0^2(\sin^2\theta_0)$.
Then, along a characteristic (\ref{twen}), the variation of angular velocity is given by
\begin{equation} \label{twen1}
\Omega^2(r) = \Omega_0^2(\sin^2\theta_0)+\epsilon C F_3 -Cr_0^2
(\beta + \sin^2\theta_0)F_5 +C\beta r_0^3 F_6
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
F_j = F_j(r, r_T)=\int^{r_T}_r {du\over u^{j-1}}=
{1\over j}\left( {1\over r^j} - {1\over r_T^j} \right)
\end{equation}
To apply this with a minimum of mathematical overhead to an interesting case,
consider a linear form for $\Omega_0^2(\sin^2\theta_0)$,
\begin{equation}
\Omega_0^2(\sin^2\theta_0) = \Omega_1^2 + \Omega_2^2\sin^2\theta_0,
\end{equation}
with $\Omega_1^2$ and $\Omega_2^2$ constants. This may be regarded as a
simplified model of the Sun's surface.
For this particular form of $\Omega_0^2(\sin^2\theta_0)$,
the solution for $\Omega^2(r, \theta)$
is found by eliminating $\sin^2\theta_0$ between equations (\ref{twen}) and
(\ref{twen1}). The equation for the isorotational
contours is then found to be
\begin{equation} \label{isor}
\sin^2\theta = \left(r_0\over r\right)^2
\left[
{\Delta - \epsilon c_1 r_0^3F_3 +\beta c_1 r_0^5F_5 -\beta c_1 r_0^6F_6\over
1 - c_1r_0^5F_5} +\beta \left(1-{r_0\over r}\right)
\right]
\end{equation}
where we define the dimensionless constants $\Delta$ and $c_1$ by
\begin{equation}
\Delta = {\Omega^2 -\Omega_1^2 \over \Omega_2^2},
\quad c_1= {C \over r_0^3 \Omega_2^2}
\end{equation}
Note that the contour-labeling collection of constants comprising the quantity
$\Delta$ is numerically the same as $\sin^2\theta_0$.
By choosing $c_1$ and $\epsilon$ appropriately,
equation (\ref{isor}) represents a global solution for both the bulk of the SCZ
and the tachocline.
\subsection{The outer layer}
In the outermost layer of the Sun, $r>0.96r_\odot$, the convection
is likely to be vigorous, with velocities comparable to the sound
speed. In this zone, there is no reason to expect that a simple
thermal wind balance
prevails in the vorticity equation, and good reason to suspect
that turbulent forcing is involved (Miesch \& Hindman 2011).
For deriving the form of the isorotation contours however, it is
useful to have a simple phenomenological description of this region.
An inspection of the helioseismology data indicates a $\sin^2\theta$
rotational morphology in the subsurface layers. We have
accordingly found that setting
\begin{equation} \label{ol}
{{\cal D}\Omega^2\over {\cal D}r} = {C_o \sin^2\theta\over r_\odot-r}
\end{equation}
works extremely well as a governing equation
for the outer layer isorotation contours.
The right side of this equation is a departure from thermal wind
balance, and may be the outcome of some combination of
convectively-induced Reynolds stresses,
meridional circulation, and magnetic braking.
Here, as
earlier, ${\cal D}/{\cal D} r$ is the radial derivative along the
SCZ contour, and $C_o$ is a universal constant. In the formalism
of Miesch \& Hindman (2011) the baroclinic term is dropped, whereas
here it is incorporated in the ${\cal D}/{\cal D} r$ operator.
The right side of equation (\ref{ol}) would then correspond to the
${\cal G}$ term of Miesch \& Hindman, divided by $R\cos\theta$.
Whatever the origin of the right side forcing of (\ref{ol}),
this equation
may be solved for the constant $\beta$ case
by characteristic techniques entirely analogous to those used
for the tachocline solution (\ref{isor}). In fact,
the equations are simpler,
since $r$ may be set equal to $r_\odot$ everywhere, save the expression
$r-r_\odot$.
An investigation of the form of equation (\ref{ol}) based on retaining
poloidal circulation terms in the vorticity conservation equation (\ref{dix})
is presented
in the Appendix. We find that the $\sin^2\theta$ dependence can be
readily reproduced
in such a picture, but the singular $1/(r_\odot-r)$ behavior seems
to require additional dynamics. It is possible that the
increasingly steep radial entropy gradient plays a role via
the as yet neglected baroclinic term proportional to the
product of ${\dd P/\dd\theta}$ and ${\dd \sigma/\dd r}$.
\subsection{Results}
\subsubsection {Constant and varying $\beta$}
The analytic solutions that extend our characteristic techniques
into the tachocline and SCZ boundaries
are rigorous, we reemphasize, only if the $\beta$ parameter is a universal constant.
Otherwise there is a nontrivial coupling between the characteristic equations for
$d\theta/dr$ and $d\Omega^2/dr$ in the boundary layers. (But not, it must be stressed,
in the bulk of the SCZ, which may handled rigorously in the case of a varying $\beta$.)
We will develop accurate numerical models for
this case in a later study, but for the present we will begin with constant $\beta$
models. These work well enough (remarkably so given their simplicity)
to foster confidence in our fundamental approach.
We will then take our expressions for the constant $\beta$ solutions, and
in effect abuse
them by using the same expressions with a varying $\beta$ chosen
to match the contours in the bulk of the SCZ.
Ignoring the differential equation couplings this would introduce
with the tachocline is justified if such couplings
were small, here a marginal assumption. But the effect of this simple expediency
on the boundary layer isorotation curves produces an extremely
striking match to the data (cf. Figure [5]).
This strongly motivates pursuing a more rigorous
numerical solution of the governing partial differential equation,
a project we defer to a later publication.
\begin{figure} [h]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=bet55nolab.eps, width=12 cm}}
\caption{The isorotation contours of the Sun according to equation
(\ref{isor}) with $\beta=0.55$, $r_0=0.896$, $r_1 = 0.96$, $r_T=0.77$ (solar radii),
$k_1= 1.745$. }
\centerline{\epsfig{file=bet84nolab.eps, width=12 cm}}
\caption{As in Fig. [1] with $\beta=0.84$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} [h]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=bet1pt1nolab.eps, width=12 cm}}
\caption{As in Fig. [1] with $\beta=1.1$.}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=thedata.eps, width=12 cm}}
\caption{Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) isorotation contours
(courtesy R. Howe).}
\end{figure}
Figures (1-3) show the constant $\beta$ isorotation contours
(equation [\ref{isor}]) for
$\beta= 0.55$, 0.84, and 1.1 respectively. The first value is chosen to
match high latitude structure, the second to match the diverging
tachocline contours at $\theta\simeq60^\circ$, and the final $\beta$ value
to match the equatorial contour structure. Overall, the global constant $\beta$
models clearly resemble the helioseismology data of figure 4.
In particular, the large $\beta$ contours near the bifurcation
point of the tachocline display a ``plateau'' followed by a precipitate,
cliff-like structure that is evident in the data.
In figure (5) we have overlayed the data with an analytic solution.
To effect this, we have used equation (\ref{isor}) but with
$\beta$ a function of $\sin\theta_0$:
\begin{equation} \label{bett}
\beta = 2.5\sin^2\theta_0 - 2.113\sin\theta_0 + .8205.
\end{equation}
The overlay shows an excellent, detailed, global match.
\begin{figure} [h]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=matchnolab.eps, width=12 cm}}
\caption{GONG data (black) overlayed with fit from equations (\ref{isor})
and (\ref{bett}) (red). $\epsilon=0.75$.
Other parameters as in Fig. [1].
The contours
near the point of bifurcation at the radiative core
are very well-modeled.
}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{What is $\epsilon$?}
In figures (1-3), $\epsilon$ has been set
to $0.75$. This parameter sets the location at which the
isorotation contours bifurcate in the tachocline. What sets
its value?
BL set $\epsilon$ equal to $2/3$ on the basis that this
fit the data rather well, and because $\sin^2\theta -2/3$ was
proportional to the spherical harmonic $P_2[\cos(\theta)]$,
a natural leading order structural modification to spherical
symmetry. But a closer investigation shows that there is
a better data fit. In figures (5) and (6) we show overlay plots
with $\epsilon=2/3$ and $4/5$ respectively. While these
fits are reasonable, they are clearly inferior to $\epsilon
=3/4$. Is there something special about this value of $\epsilon$?
\begin{figure} [h]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=Pee2nolab.eps, width=12 cm}}
\caption{GONG data (black) overlayed with fit from equations (\ref{isor})
and (\ref{bett}) (red). $\epsilon=2/3$. Other parameters as in Fig. [1].}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} [h]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=ztnolab.eps, width=12 cm}}
\caption{GONG data (black) overlayed with fit from equations (\ref{isor})
and (\ref{bett}) (red). $\epsilon=0.8$. Other parameters as in Fig. [1].}
\end{figure}
One possible explanation is dynamical. For example, what is the
torque exerted by our solution on the inner, uniformly rotating
radiative zone? We assume that the couple is proportional to
$R\dd\Omega/\dd r$, the $r\phi$ component of a viscous stress tensor.
We denote
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_n = {n+1\over n+2}
\end{equation}
so that $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, and $\epsilon_3$ correspond to our
three choices. Then the following elementary integral identity is satisfied:
\begin{equation}
\int_0^\pi \sin^n\theta\, (\sin^2\theta-\epsilon_n)\, d\theta = 0.
\end{equation}
The case $n=3$ is relevant to the calculation of the torque
exerted by the tachocline on the inner uniformly rotating core
since this torque is directly proportional to the integral on
the left side of the equation.
(One factor of $\sin\theta$
arises from the $r\phi$ stress tensor component, another from the
lever arm $r\sin\theta$, and the third from the spherical area element.)
In other words, when $\epsilon=\epsilon_3=0.8$, the torque exerted
by the tachocline on the interior vanishes.
Since the couple to the core must act on time scales no shorter
than evolutionary, we might therefore expect $\epsilon=0.8$ to yield the best
fit.
The best fit, however, is clearly $\epsilon=\epsilon_2=0.75$.
This is close enough to 0.8 that there may be something correct about our
argument,
but far enough off the mark that there is surely a piece of the puzzle missing.
Moreover, it
really is the case that $\epsilon=3/4$ {\em is} the best fit
in our models, not just among the three values we display here.
While there is no compelling reason to believe that the value
of $\epsilon$ may be accurately deduced from the idealized
assumption of a vanishing viscous torque, it is puzzling
that an equally simple, but quite distinguishable, integral constraint
seems to fit the data so well. It is as though we had mistakenly included an
additional factor of $\sin\theta$ inside our viscous torque integral.
For the present,
the explanation for why $\epsilon=\epsilon_2=0.75$ and not $
\epsilon_3=0.8$, corresponding
to a true vanishing stress at colatitude
$\theta=60^\circ$ rather than
$3.4^\circ$ further south, remains elusive.
\section {Summary}
In this paper, we have investigated global models of the angular rotation
profile of the solar convective zone (SCZ) using the toroidal component
of the vorticity equation and under the assumption of
a dominant thermal wind balance.
The model is global in that it
seeks to unite both the tachocline and the bulk of the SCZ within the thermal
wind formalism. The subsurface outer layers have also been treated at a
quantitative, but more descriptive, level. In effect, we have
modeled the subsurface outer layers by an ad hoc source term to the
thermal wind equation.
The general nature of the isorotation surfaces in
the joint SCZ-tachocline structure seems to be a mathematical
consequence of a few simple principles, each noncontroversial
by itself:
i) thermal wind balance, as noted above;
ii) a narrow SCZ which may be treated
locally in $r$; iii) a tendency for surfaces of constant
angular velocity and residual entropy
(see below) to blend; iv) an inner boundary condition of uniform
rotation at the tachocline base; v) vigorous radial transport in
the bulk of the SCZ; vi) a small couple between
the tachocline and the core. When modeled by an idealized
viscous prescription and the simplest possible
deiviation from spherical symmetry, assumption vi gives close, but not
perfect, agreement with helioseismology data.
As in earlier studies (e.g. BBLW, BL), we have introduced and
exploited the concept
of residual entropy, in essence
the true entropy minus a suitable average over angles.
The residual entropy is, in fact, defined only up to an additive
function of $r$. Numerical simulations are particularly
well suited to this concept: a Schwarzschild-unstable,
user-determined entropy profile $S(r)$ is imposed to drive the
requisite convective
turbulence, and what one may call the ``response'' entropy
$\tilde{S}(r,\theta)$ is then the
quantity that is calculated (e.g. Miesch \& Toomre 2009 and
references therein). While $\tilde{S}$ may
formally differ
from the residual entropy $S'$ by compensating the radial
background $S(r)$, in practice it
is not diffiult to extract a suitable
$S'$ from the numerical simulations.
The heart of our approach
is to regard the two-dimensional residual entropy as a function of
$\Omega^2$ and $\theta$ in the tachocline, but a function of $\Omega^2$
and $r$ in the bulk of the SCZ.
In \S 2.3 we have argued that
the $r$ dependence of $\sigma'$ within the SCZ is ultimately unimportant.
In fact, it seems possible to arrive at the appropriate
form of the SCZ thermal wind equation for this latter case via
multiple routes;
the advantages of theoretical models that lead to the
coincidence of constant $\sigma'$ and $\Omega$ surfaces have been discussed
elsewhere (Balbus 2009, BBLW, Schaan \& Balbus 2011).
In any case, such behavior enjoys very clear numerical
support (Miesch et al. 2006).
The explicit bulk-SCZ and tachocline solutions, equations (\ref{twen}) and (\ref{isor})
respectively, work reasonably well even in the constant $\beta$ limit, and
strikingly well when $\beta$ is permitted to vary. Only the details
of the mathematical solutions, not their essential
structure, are sensitive to the choice of free parameters. At this
point there seems little doubt that thermal wind balance is,
in fact, the overall
organizing principle for the tachocline and interior SCZ.
We are, however, far from a complete solution.
The mathematical equations contain free parameters, which must be
chosen to fit
the helioseismology data.
We lack an understanding of how they are determined from first principles.
For example, the existence of a tachocline ``bifurcation point,''
where the isorotation
contours diverge either
toward the pole or equator, is clearly a consequence of the
$\theta$-independent boundary
condition imposed by the uniformly rotating core. The location of this
bifurcation point depends upon our $\epsilon$ parameter, which reproduces
the data well if $\epsilon=0.75$, and much less well if $\epsilon$ changes
even by a little. Why $\epsilon$ should be close to, but distinct
from, the value of 0.8 (corresponding to vanishing viscous torque on the
core) is not yet clear.
Finally, the outer layers are not well understood. Once again,
the mathematical description of the isorotation contours seems simpler
than the underlying physics that gives rise to them. A good match to the
helioseismology data is obtained from an approach
that uses thermal wind balance plus a simple $\sin^2\theta
/(r-r_\odot)$ external source.
We may thus end on a positive note.
If the work presented here is correct in its essentials, then the
beginnings of a deeper dynamical understanding of the rotation of the solar
convective zone are at hand. It is gratifying that there is a certain
mathematical inevitability of the gross features of the
Sun's internal rotation pattern following from
thermal wind balance and a tight coupling between the
rotation and the residual entropy isosurfaces.
It is likewise encouraging that the more complex appearance of the isorotation
contours in the tachocline and outer layers seems to emerge from
relatively simple mathematics. In short, there is no reason to think
that the dynamics of the solar rotation problem is intractable. The blend
of numerical simulation and analysis promises to be a powerful combination
for elucidating the rotation profile of the convective regions of the Sun
and of other types of stars.
\section*{Acknowledgements} SAB is grateful
to Princeton University Observatory for hospitality and
support as a Paczynskii Visitor, and
to the Isaac Newton
Institute for Mathematical Sciences at Cambridge University, where this
work was begun. We thank M. McIntyre and G. Vasil for their constructive
comments on an earlier version of this work, and the
referee for a helpful, detailed report.
|
\section{Introduction}
Direct comparison of experimental data and theory become ambiguous
if problems such as the many-body problem are not solved accurately.
This is particularly true in nuclear physics, where one uses
numerical solutions of the Schr\"odinger equation to constrain in
part the effective interaction between nucleons~\cite{urbana}.
Despite tremendous accomplishments in the past decade in carrying
out ab~initio studies of nuclear structure of light
systems~\cite{gfmc1,gfmc2,gfmc3,gfmc4,ncsm1,ncsm2,ncsm3,ncsm4,exps-1,exps-2,exps-3,expZ-1,expZ-2,expZ-3},
numerical solutions of medium and large nuclear systems are yet to
be performed in the framework of realistic nuclear
interactions~\cite{av18,cd-bonn,idaho}.
The matrix elements of the interaction represent the building blocks
of any many-body approach which shares features in common with the
shell model approach. Here, the model space is represented in terms
of a complete set of single-particle wave functions. All possible
single-particle configurations with the appropriate properties
should in principle be used to diagonalize the Hamiltonian, and
obtain the associated spectrum of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions.
However, the single-particle model space is in principle infinite.
Hence, finite reductions of the model space must be considered and
convergence to the continuum limit must be achieved. The efficiency
of this procedure is linked to the ability of the functional form of
the single-particle wave functions to capture the relevant
correlations at both short- and long-range scale.
Traditionally, matrix elements of the interaction are formed in a
basis of harmonic-oscillator wave functions. This has the advantage
that one can perform an exact separation of the center-of-mass
and relative coordinates degrees of freedom using the Talmi transformation approach~\cite{Talmi}
(via its numerical implementation based on the Moshinsky transformation brackets~\cite{brackets}), and integrals can be accurately performed using
Gauss-Hermite quadrature formulas.
Therefore, we will by discussing the calculation of the two-body
matrix elements in a harmonic-oscillator basis. This is done both
for completeness, and for testing purposes, as the more elaborated
procedures to be discussed in the second part of this paper will require
validation.
Unfortunately, the asymptotic form of
the harmonic-oscillator wave functions is Gaussian which leads to
densities decaying as $e^{-x^2}$, whereas the natural tail of the
nuclear density is exponential, $e^{-x}$. Added flexibility is
desirable, and can be achieved by considering linear combinations
of harmonic oscillator wave functions~\cite{exps-1,exps-2,exps-3},
or different functional representations for the hole and particle
sides of the spectrum~\cite{cce-a1}. To this effect, in the second part of this paper, we will discuss the framework of calculating matrix
elements of the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential in a basis of single-particle
wave functions of arbitrary functional form. Here, the ability of using
the Moshinsky transformation brackets approach to perform the
separation of the center-of-mass and relative coordinates degrees of freedom is
rendered numerically unfeasible, as the required CPU time is of
order $N^4$ compared to the calculation involving Moshinsky transformation brackets.
For illustrative and testing purposes, we will apply this approach to
the case when the radial part of the single-particle wave functions, $R_{nl}(x)$ can be expanded out into harmonic-oscillator wave functions,
$\mathcal{HO}_{kl}(x)$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
R_{nl}(x) \, = \, \sum_{k=1}^N \, A^k_{n l} \, \mathcal{HO}_{kl}(x)
\>.
\label{rnl}
\end{equation}
This is convenient because we can still use a Gaussian quadrature technique
to perform the numerical computation of the radial integrals.
This also allows us to check of the reliability of our
matrix-elements calculation by comparing with matrix elements calculated
in a harmonic-oscillator basis using the procedures using the Moshinsky transformation brackets.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec.~\ref{basics}, we review features of the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential, together with the definitions of the matrix elements to be discussed further. Basic aspects of the separation of the center-of-mass and
relative coordinates using the numerical implementation of the Talmi transformation via the Moshinsky transformation-brackets approach, together with the procedures required for the 7~types of operators part of the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential, are discussed in
Sec.~\ref{ops}. In Sec.~\ref{two} we present the general results used to calculate the
matrix elements of a translationally-invariant two-body interaction in an arbitrary single-particle basis. The implementation of this general approach for the particular case of the 7~operators in the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential is discussed in Sec.~\ref{app:jjme_app}. This calculation is carried out in a \emph{jj}-coupling scheme.
The part of the calculation involving the isospin part of the interaction is identical in both frameworks. A brief review of this calculation is the object of Sec.~\ref{iso}.
Finally, in Sec.~\ref{discuss} we discuss numerical convergence aspects of the matrix elements calculation corresponding to a $^{16}$O-like model space of harmonic-oscillator single-particle wave functions, and compare with results obtained
using the two frameworks.
We also include an appendix on the calculation of large sets of abscissas
and weights for the evaluation of integrals using Gauss-Hermite
quadrature formulas, followed by an appendix summarizing results relevant to the calculation of reduced matrix elements used in Sec.~\ref{app:jjme_app}.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{basics}
Consider the two-body approximation of the Hamiltonian describing a
system consisting of protons and neutrons
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{H}
& = &
\sum_i T_i
\, + \, \sum_{i<j} \, V_{ij}
\>.
\label{eq:Hamiltonian_0}
\end{eqnarray}
In the {\em second-quantization} representation this becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{H}
= &&
\sum_{\alpha \beta}
\mathbf{a}^{\dag}_{\alpha}
\langle \alpha | T | \beta \rangle
\mathbf{a}_{\beta}
+
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}
\mathbf{a}^{\dag}_{\alpha} \mathbf{a}^{\dag}_{\beta}
\langle \alpha \beta | V_{2N} | \delta \gamma \rangle
\mathbf{a}_{\gamma} \mathbf{a}_{\delta}
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
where Greek letters label the single-particle states $| \alpha
\rangle = | n l s j m_j ; \frac {1} {2} m_\tau \rangle$, with $n \ge 1$, $s =
\frac {1} {2}$, $j = l \pm \frac {1} {2}$ and
$m_\tau = + \frac {1} {2} ( - \frac {1} {2})$ -- for a proton
(neutron). The parity of these states is ${(-1)}^l$. In this work we
will assume that the radial part of the single-particle wave
functions, $R_{nl}(x)$, is simply given by the radial part of the
harmonic oscillator wave functions $\mathcal{HO}_{kl}(x)$, subject
to the normalization conditions
\begin{equation}
\int_0^\infty \, [x^2 \, \mathrm{d}x] \, R_{nl}(x) \, R_{n'l'}(x)
\, = \, \delta_{n \, n'} \delta_{l \, l'}
\>.
\end{equation}
Here, $x \, = \, r / b$, with $b$ the oscillator parameter. We note
that the single-particle radial functions $\mathcal{R}_{nl}(r)$ are
defined in terms of the the radial functions $R_{nl}(x)$ such that
they satisfy the normalization condition
\begin{equation}
\int_0^\infty \, [r^2 \, \mathrm{d}r] \,
\mathcal{R}_{nl}(r) \, \mathcal{R}_{n'l'}(r)
\, = \, \delta_{n \, n'} \delta_{l \, l'}
\> .
\end{equation}
Thus, we have
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_{nl}(r) \, = \, \frac{1}{b^{3/2}} \, R_{nl}(x)
\label{xversusr}
\> .
\end{equation}
\subsection{Argonne $v_{18}$ potential}
The Argonne $v_{18}$ potential~\cite{av18} is an updated version of
the nonrelativistic Argonne potential~\cite{av14} that fits both
{\it np} data and {\it pp} data, as well as low-energy {\it nn} data
scattering parameters and deuteron properties. The potential was fit
directly to the Nijmegen {\it NN} scattering database, which
contains 1787 {\it pp} and 2514 {\it np} data in the range 0-350
MeV, together with the $nn$~scattering length measured in
$d(\pi^-,\gamma)nn$ experiments and the deuteron binding energy. The
fit has a $\chi^2$ per datum of 1.09.
The strong interaction part of the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential is
projected into an operator format with 18~terms:
i)~a charge-independent part that has 14~operator components (as in
the older Argonne $v_{14}$~\cite{av14}), featuring 7~basic
operators,
\begin{eqnarray}
1, \ \sigma_i \cdot \sigma_j, \ S_{ij}, \ \ell \cdot S, \
\ell^2, \ \ell^2 \, (\sigma_i \cdot \sigma_j), \ (\ell \cdot S)^2
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
and their charge-independent counterparts
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\tau_i \cdot \tau_j, \ (\sigma_i \cdot \sigma_j) \, (\tau_i \cdot \tau_j), \
S_{ij} \, (\tau_i \cdot \tau_j), \ (\ell \cdot S) \, (\tau_i \cdot \tau_j), \
\nonumber \\ &&
\ell^2 \, (\tau_i \cdot \tau_j), \ \ell^2 \, (\sigma_i \cdot \sigma_j) \, (\tau_i \cdot \tau_j), \
(\ell \cdot S)^2 \, (\tau_i \cdot \tau_j)
\>;
\end{eqnarray}
ii)~a charge-independence breaking part that has three
charge-dependent operators
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{ij}, \ (\sigma_i\cdot\sigma_j) \, T_{ij}, \ S_{ij} \, T_{ij}
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_{ij} = 3 \, \tau_{zi} \tau_{zj} - \tau_i \cdot \tau_j$ is
the isotensor operator, defined analogous to the $S_{ij}$ operator,
and iii)~one charge-asymmetric operator
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_{zi} + \tau_{zj}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
In principle, there could be more charge-independence breaking
terms, such as $(\ell \cdot S)\, T_{ij}$ or $S_{ij}\, (\tau_{zi} +
\tau_{zj})$, but the scattering data are not sufficiently precise to
identify them at present. The potential also includes a complete
electromagnetic potential, containing Coulomb, Darwin-Foldy, vacuum
polarization, and magnetic moment terms with finite-size effects.
\subsection{Two-body matrix elements}
Matrix elements of the two-body interaction can be specified either
in particle-particle (\emph{pp}) coupling or in particle-hole (\emph{ph}) coupling. Either set of matrix elements completely specify the
two-body interaction. We define \emph{ph}-coupled matrix elements
as
\begin{align}
&
\phme{V}{\lambda}
=
\!\!\!\! \sum_{m_1 m_2 m_3 m_4} \!\!\!\!
\mmme{V}
\label{eq:phme_def}
\\ \nonumber & \times \
\sgn{j_3 - m_3} \, \cg{j_1}{m_1}{j_3}{-m_3}{\lambda}{\mu} \,
\sgn{j_2 - m_2} \, \cg{j_4}{m_4}{j_2}{-m_2}{\lambda}{\mu} \,
\>.
\end{align}
Correspondingly, the \emph{pp}-coupled matrix elements are
defined as
\begin{align}
\ppme{V}{L}
= &
\!\!\!\! \sum_{m_1 m_2 m_3 m_4} \!\!\!\!\!\!
\mmme{V}
\label{eq:ppme_def}
\cg{j_1}{m_1}{j_2}{m_2}{L}{M}
\cg{j_3}{m_3}{j_4}{m_4}{L}{M}
\>.
\end{align}
In practice, the calculation of the two-body matrix elements using a
harmonic-oscillator single-particle basis set is carried out in
\emph{pp}~coupling. Subsequently, \emph{ph}-coupled matrix elements
are evaluated from their \emph{pp} counterpart, using the
relationship
\begin{align}
&
\phme{V}{\lambda}
\label{eq:convert_ppph}
=
\sum_{L} \, (-)^{j_3+j_4+L} \, (2L+1) \,
\wsj{j_1}{j_3}{\lambda}{j_4}{j_2}{L} \,
\ppme{V}{L}
\>.
\end{align}
Conversely, we have
\begin{align}
&
\ppme{V}{L}
\label{eq:convert_phpp}
=
\sum_{\lambda} \, (-)^{j_3+j_4+L} \, (2\lambda+1) \,
\wsj{j_1}{j_2}{L}{j_4}{j_3}{\lambda} \,
\phme{V}{\lambda}
\>.
\end{align}
It is useful to introduce here some notations we will be using throughout
the rest of this paper. First, we note that,
by definition, the scalar product of two tensor operators of rank
$k$, $U^{(k)}$ and $V^{(k)}$, is introduced as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left ( U^{(k)} \odot V^{(k)} \right )
=
\label{scalar_def}
\sum_q \ \sgn{q} \ U^{(k)}_q \ V^{(k)}_{-q}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
In turn, the definition of the spherical tensor product of two tensor operators, $A^{(k_1)}$ and $B^{(k_2)}$, is
\begin{eqnarray}
\left [ A^{(k_1)} \otimes B^{(k_2)} \right ]^{(k)}_q
=
\label{tensor_def}
\sum_{q_1 q_2} \, \cg{k_1}{q_1}{k_2}{q_2}{k}{q} \,
A^{(k_1)}_{q_1} B^{(k_2)}_{q_2}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
Second, we note that the angular degrees of freedom will be described in terms of the
\emph{unnormalized} spherical harmonics, defined in terms of their
\emph{normalized} counterparts such that (\cite{Edmonds},
Eq.~2.5.31)
\begin{equation}
\ckq{k}{q}{r} \, = \, \frac{\sqrt{4 \pi}}{\hat k} \, \Ykq{k}{q}{r}
\>.
\end{equation}
The \emph{unnormalized} spherical harmonics satisfy the
orthogonality conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
\int \mathrm{d}\Omega \ \ckq{k_1}{q_1}{r}{}^* \, \ckq{k_2}{q_2}{r}
=
\frac{4\pi}{2k_1+1} \, \delta_{k_1 \, k_2} \, \delta_{q_1 \, q_2}
\>.
\label{ckortho}
\end{eqnarray}
For completeness, we list here useful properties of the
\emph{unnormalized}
spherical harmonics:\\
i)~$\ck{0}{r} \, = \, 1$.\\
ii)~$C^{(k)\star}_q(\hat r) \, = \, (-)^{q} \, \ckq{k}{-q}{r}$.\\
iii) $\left ( \ck{k}{r} \odot \ck{k}{p} \right ) \, = \, P_k(\cos \omega )$,
where $\omega$ is the angle between $\hat{r}$ and
$\hat{p}$.\\
iv) $\left [ \ck{k_1}{r} \otimes \ck{k_2}{r} \right ]^{(k)} =
\cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{k}{0} \, \ck{k}{r}$.
\\
v) $\ckq{k_1}{q_1}{r} \ \ckq{k_2}{q_2}{r} =
\sum_{k q} \
\ckq{k}{q}{r} \
\cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{k}{0} $
$ \cg{k_1}{q_1}{k_2}{q_2}{k}{q}$.
Finally, in the interest of brevity, throughout the remainder of this paper we will follow the conventions, and will be referring
directly to the equation numbers, found in Ref.~\cite{Edmonds}.
\section{Matrix elements calculation using harmonic-oscillator wave functions}
\label{ops}
Provided that the single-particle wave functions are
harmonic-oscillator wave functions, one can use Talmi transformation~\cite{Talmi}
via the Moshinsky transformation brackets~\cite{brackets}
to exactly factorize a product of two
single-particle wave functions into a part which depends only on the
center-of-mass degrees of freedom, and a part which depends only on
the relative-motion degrees of freedom. For completeness, we will
review now the technical details of this procedure.
\subsection{Moshinsky transformation brackets}
Consider a two-particle system in a harmonic oscillator potential.
We shall characterize the two particles by their coordinates and
quantum numbers. For the purpose of our discussion, we introduce two
system of coordinates:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{laboratory frame}, where the two particles are described by their
coordinates with respect to the center of the potential well,
$\vec r_1$ and $\vec r_2$, and corresponding radial, $n_1$ and $n_2$,
and orbital quantum numbers, $l_1$ and $l_2$.
\item \emph{center-of-mass frame}, where the system is characterized
by the relative coordinate $\vec r$ and the coordinate $\vec R$ of the
center of mass of the two particles, defined as
\begin{equation}
\vec r = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ ( \vec r_1 - \vec r_2 )
\>,
\quad
\vec R = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ ( \vec r_1 + \vec r_2 )
\>;
\end{equation}
the radial and orbital quantum numbers $n,l$ will correspond to the
relative motion, and $N,L$ to that of the center of mass.
\end{itemize}
The eigenkets in the two coordinate systems may be written as
follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{laboratory frame}
\begin{equation}
| n_1 n_2 \: (l_1 l_2) \, \lambda \mu \rangle
= \!\!\!\!
\sum_{m_1 m_2} \cg{l_1}{m_1}{l_2}{m_2}{\lambda}{\mu}
| n_1 l_1 m_1 \rangle \ | n_2 l_2 m_2 \rangle
\>;
\label{eq:SL_2bwf}
\end{equation}
\item \emph{center-of-mass frame}
\begin{equation}
| n N \: (l L) \, \lambda \mu \rangle
= \!\!
\sum_{m M} \cg{l}{m}{L}{M}{\lambda}{\mu}
| n l m \rangle \ | N L M \rangle
\>.
\label{eq:CM_2bwf}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
The Moshinsky transformation brackets are defined as the expansion coefficients of
the eigenket~(\ref{eq:SL_2bwf}) in a series of
eigenkets~(\ref{eq:CM_2bwf}). We have~\cite{brackets}
\begin{equation}
| n_1 n_2 \: (l_1 l_2) \, \lambda \mu \rangle
= \!\!\!
\sum_{n l N L}
\mc{n}{l}{N}{L}{n_1}{l_1}{n_2}{l_2}{\lambda}
| n N \: (l L) \, \lambda \mu \rangle
\>.
\end{equation}
This transformation is independent of the magnetic quantum number
$\mu$, and the transformation bracket vanishes for all combinations
of its parameters which do not satisfy the total angular momentum
\begin{equation}
\vec{\lambda} \ = \ \vec \ell_1 + \vec \ell_2
\ = \ \vec \ell + \vec L
\>,
\end{equation}
and energy
\begin{eqnarray}
E
& \propto &
( 2n_1 + l_1 + 3/2 ) \ + \ ( 2n_2 + l_2 + 3/2 )
\nonumber \\
& = &
( 2n + l + 3/2 ) \ + \ ( 2N + L + 3/2 )
\>.
\label{eq:energy}
\end{eqnarray}
conservation laws. Therefore, the transformation bracket vanishes
for all combinations of its parameters which do not satisfy the
energy condition~(\ref{eq:energy}), and any summations over
$\lambda$ will be restricted by the corresponding triangle
relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
| l_1 - l_2 | \leq \lambda \leq l_1 + l_2
\>,
\nonumber \\
| l - L | \leq \lambda \leq l + L
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
We calculate the two-body matrix element in a harmonic oscillator
single-particle basis using the Moshinsky transformation brackets, and obtain
\begin{align}
&
\langle n_1 n_2 \,
{(l_1 {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{j_1} {(l_2 {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{j_2} ; \, J M_J
\; | \; V \; | \; n_3 n_4 \,
{(l_3 {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{j_3} {(l_4 {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{j_4} ; \, J M_J
\rangle
\nonumber \\ &
=
\hat j_1 \, \hat j_2 \
\hat j_3 \, \hat j_4 \
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{n l N L\, \lambda ; n' l' N' L'\, \lambda'} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\hat \lambda \, \hat \lambda' \
\mc{n_1}{l_1}{n_2}{l_2}{n'}{l'}{N'}{L'}{\lambda '}
\mc{n_3}{l_3}{n_4}{l_4}{n}{l}{N}{L}{\lambda}
\nonumber \\ & \qquad \times \
\sum_{S,S'=0}^1 \
\hat S \, \hat S' \
\wnj{l_1}{\frac{1}{2}}{j_1}{l_2}{\frac{1}{2}}{j_2}{\lambda'}{S'}{J} \
\wnj{l_3}{\frac{1}{2}}{j_3}{l_4}{\frac{1}{2}}{j_4}{\lambda}{S}{J} \
\\ \nonumber & \qquad \qquad \qquad \times \
\langle n' N' \,
(l' L')_{\lambda'} \, ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S'} \, ; \, J M_J
\; | \; V \; | \; n N \,
(l L)_\lambda \, ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_S \, ; \, J M_J
\rangle
\>.
\end{align}
For a particular choice of the potential, $V$, all we have to do is to
calculate the matrix element
\begin{equation}
\langle n' N' \:
(l' L')_{\lambda'} \, ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S'} \, ; \, J M_J
\; | \; V \; | \; n N \:
(l L)_\lambda \, ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_S \, ; \, J M_J
\rangle
\>.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Central interaction.}
For the case of the central interaction, the potential depends only
on the magnitude of the vector $\vec{r}$, and not on its angular
degrees of freedom. We apply the Wigner-Eckart theorem for the case
of a zero-rank tensor (\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~5.4.1a)
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; | \; V_c \; | \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\label{eq:c_medef}
\\ \nonumber && =
\frac{1}{\hat{J}} \
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; \| \; V_c \; \| \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have introduced the notation $\hat J = \sqrt{2J+1}$. The
reduced matrix element in Eq.~(\ref{eq:c_medef}) is evaluated using
(\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~7.1.7). We have
\begin{align}
&
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; \| \; V_c \; \| \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\label{eq:c_redme1}
\\ \nonumber & =
\delta_{S S'} \ (-)^{\lambda'+S+J+0} \ (2J+1) \
\wsj{\lambda'}{J}{S}{J}{\lambda}{0}
\langle n' N' \: {(l' L')}_{\lambda'}
\; \| \; V_c \; \| \; n N \: {(l L)}_{\lambda} \rangle
\>.
\end{align}
We use (\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~7.1.7) one more time for the reduced
matrix element
\begin{align}
&
\langle n' N' \: {(l' L')}_{\lambda'}
\; \| \; V_c \; \| \; n N \: {(l L)}_{\lambda} \rangle
\label{eq:c_redme2}
\\ \nonumber & =
\delta_{N N'} \delta_{L L'}
(-)^{l'+L+\lambda+0}
\hat \lambda \, \hat \lambda'
\wsj{l'}{\lambda'}{L}{\lambda}{l}{0}
\langle n' \: l' \; \| \; V_c \; \| \; n \: l \rangle
\>.
\end{align}
The Wigner $6j$ symbols in
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:c_redme1},\ref{eq:c_redme2}) are calculated using
(\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~6.3.2).
From the Wigner-Eckart theorem (\cite{Edmonds},
Eq.~5.4.1a) we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle n' \: l' m_l \; | \; V_c \; | \; n \: l m_l \rangle
& = &
\delta_{l l'} \ \frac{1}{\hat l} \
\langle n' \: l' \; \| \; V_c \; \| \; n \: l \rangle
\label{eq:c_merad}
\\ \nonumber & = &
\delta_{l l'} \ {\cal RM}[V_c](n' l \: ; \: n l)
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have introduced the notation
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal RM}[V](n' l' \: ; \: n l)
\label{radmat}
& = &
\! \int_0 ^{\infty} \! [ r^2 \, {\rm d}r ] \:
\mathcal{HO}_{n' l'}(r) \, V(r) \, \mathcal{HO}_{n l}(r)
\> .
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, Eq.~(\ref{eq:c_medef}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; | \; V_c \; | \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\label{eq:mosh_dr}
\\ \nonumber
&& =
\delta_{S S'} \delta_{N N'} \delta_{L L'}
\delta_{l l'} \delta_{\lambda \lambda'} \
{\cal RM}[V_c](n' l \: ; \: n l)
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Spin-spin interaction}
It is convenient to carry out the calculation of the spin-spin
interaction matrix element by using the \emph{m}-representation
approach outlined above. We have:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; | \; V_s \: \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \; | \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\\ \nonumber && = \
\sum_{m_{l'} M' m_{S'} \mu'} \!\!
\cg{l'}{m_{l'}}{L'}{M'}{\lambda'}{\mu'}
\cg{\lambda'}{\mu'}{S'}{m_{S'}}{J}{M_J}
\\ \nonumber && \qquad \times \
\sum_{m_l M m_S \mu} \
\cg{l}{m_l}{L}{M}{\lambda}{\mu}
\cg{\lambda}{\mu}{S}{m_S}{J}{M_J}
\\ \nonumber && \qquad \quad \times \,
\langle n' N' \: l' m_{l'} \: L' M' \: S' m_{S'}
\; | \; V_s \, \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \; | \; n N \:
n N \: l m_l \: L M \: S m_S
\rangle
\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the matrix element in the last equation is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle n' N' \: l' m_{l'} \: L' M' \: S' m_{S'}
\; | \; V_s \, \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \; | \; n N \:
n N \: l m_l \: L M \: S m_S
\rangle
\\ \nonumber && = \
\delta_{N N'} \delta_{L L'} \delta_{M M'}
\delta_{l l'} \delta_{m_l m_{l'}} \
\langle n' l \; | \; V_s \; | \; n l \rangle \
\langle ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S'}
\; | \; \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \; | \;
({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S} \rangle
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
The spin-dependent factor is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S'}
\; | \; \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \; | \;
({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S} \rangle
&&
\ = \
2 \ \left [ S(S+1) - \frac{3}{2} \right ] \ \delta_{S S'}
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
where we used the fact that $\hat{s}_i = \frac{1}{2}
\hat{\sigma}_i$. Therefore, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; | \; V_s \: \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \; | \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\label{eq:mosh_ss}
\\ \nonumber && = \
\delta_{N N'} \delta_{L L'} \delta_{M M'}
\delta_{l l'} \delta_{S S'}
\delta_{\lambda \lambda'} \
2 \left [ S(S+1) - \frac{3}{2} \right ] \
{\cal RM}[V_s](n' l \: ; \: n l)
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Tensor interaction}
We begin the calculation of the tensor interaction matrix element by
using (\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~7.1.6)
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; | \; V_t \, S_{12} \; | \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\label{eq:te_me1}
\\ \nonumber &&
=
(-)^{\lambda+S'+J} \
\wsj{J}{S'}{\lambda'}{2}{\lambda}{S} \
\sqrt{6} \
\sum_{n'' N''}
\langle n' N' \: (l' L')_{\lambda'}
\; \| \; V_t \ C^{(2)} \; \| \;
n'' N'' \: (l L)_{\lambda} \rangle
\\ \nonumber &&
\qquad \qquad \times
\langle n'' N'' \: ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S'}
\; \|
[ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 ]^{(2)}
\; \| \;
n N \: ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S} \rangle
\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{12} && \ = \
3 \, (\sigma_1 \cdot \hat r) \ (\sigma_2 \cdot \hat r)
\ - \ \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2
\label{S12_def}
\ = \
\sqrt{6} \
\Bigl ( C^{(2)} (\hat{r}) \odot
[ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 ]^{(2)}
\Bigr )
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
The reduced matrix elements in Eq.~(\ref{eq:te_me1}) are evaluated
as follows:\\
\noindent (i) We use (\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~7.1.5) -- for $S (S') =
0,1$, to obtain
\begin{align}
\langle ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S'}
\; \|
[ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 ]^{(2)}
\| \;
({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S} \rangle
=
\sqrt{5} \, \hat S \hat S' \
\wnj{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}{1}
{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}{1}
{S'}{S}{2}
\langle {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \; \| \; \sigma_1 \; \| \;
{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \rangle
\langle {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \; \| \; \sigma_2 \; \| \;
{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \rangle
\end{align}
with $
\langle {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \; \| \; \sigma_i \; \| \;
{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \rangle
=
\sqrt{6}
$~~(see Ref.~\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~5.4.4).
\noindent (ii) Next, we use (\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~7.1.7) to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle n' N' \: (l' L')_{\lambda'}
\; \| \; V_t \ C^{(2)} \; \| \;
n N \: (l L)_{\lambda} \rangle
\\ \nonumber && = \
\delta_{N N'} \delta_{L L'}
(-)^{l'+L+\lambda+2} \
\hat \lambda \hat \lambda'
\wsj{l'}{\lambda'}{L}{\lambda}{l}{2}
\langle n' \: l'
\; \| \; V_t \ C^{(2)} \; \| \;
n \: l \rangle \>,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent (iii) We also have
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle n' \: l'
\; \| \; V_t \ C^{(2)} \; \| \;
n \: l \rangle && =
\langle l'
\; \| \; C^{(2)} \; \| \;
l \rangle \
{\cal RM}[V_t](n' l' \: ; \: n l)
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
where
$
\langle l'
\; \| \; C^{(k)} \; \| \;
l \rangle
$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{ck_red}).
We obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; | \; V_t \, S_{12} \; | \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\label{eq:mosh_te}
\\ \nonumber && =
\delta_{N N'} \delta_{L L'}
\delta_{S S'} \delta_{S 1} \
2 \, \sqrt{30} \
(-)^{l'+L+J+1} \
\hat \lambda \hat \lambda' \hat l \
\cg{l}{0}{2}{0}{l'}{0} \
\\ \nonumber && \qquad \times \
\wsj{J}{S}{\lambda'}{2}{\lambda}{S}
\wsj{l'}{\lambda'}{L}{\lambda}{l}{2}
{\cal RM}[V_t](n' l' \: ; \: n l) \>.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Spin-orbit interaction}
Similarly to the case of the tensor interaction, we first use
(\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~7.1.6)
\begin{align}
&
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; | \; V_{ls} \, \bigl ( \mathbf{\ell} \cdot \mathbf{S} \bigr ) \; | \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\\ & \nonumber
=
(-)^{\lambda+S'+J}
\wsj{J}{S'}{\lambda'}{1}{\lambda}{S}
\\ & \nonumber \qquad \times \,
\sum_{n'' N''}
\langle n' N' \: (l' L')_{\lambda'}
\; \| \; V_{ls} \, \mathbf{\ell} \; \| \;
n'' N'' \: (l L)_{\lambda} \rangle
\langle n'' N'' \: ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S'}
\; \| \mathbf{S} \; \| \;
n N \: ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S} \rangle
\>,
\end{align}
with the reduced matrix elements calculated as:\\
\noindent (i) We use (\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~5.4.3) -- for $S = 0,1$,
to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S'}
\; \| \mathbf{S} \; \| \;
({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S} \rangle &&
\ = \
\label{S1S}
\delta_{S S'} \sqrt{S(S+1)(2S+1)}
\ = \
\sqrt{6} \ \delta_{S 1} \delta_{S S'} \>.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent (ii) Next, we use (\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~7.1.7) to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle n' N' \: (l' L')_{\lambda'}
\; \| \; V_{ls} \, \mathbf{\ell} \; \| \;
n N \: (l L)_{\lambda} \rangle
\\ \nonumber &&
= \
\delta_{N N'} \delta_{L L'} \
(-)^{l'+L+\lambda+1} \
\hat \lambda \hat \lambda' \
\wsj{l'}{\lambda'}{L}{\lambda}{l}{1}
\langle n' \: l'
\; \| \; V_{ls} \, \mathbf{\ell} \; \| \;
n \: l \rangle
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent (iii) Finally, we use~$\langle l
\; \| \; \mathbf{\ell} \; \| \;
l' \rangle = \delta_{l l'} \
\hat l \ \sqrt{l(l+1)}$~~(\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~5.4.3) to
obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle n' \: l'
\; \| \; V_{ls} \, \mathbf{\ell} \; \| \;
n \: l \rangle
=
\delta_{l l'} \ \hat l \ \sqrt{l(l+1)} \
{\cal RM}[V_{ls}](n' l \: ; \: n l)
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
Collecting terms, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; | \; V_{ls} \, \bigl ( \mathbf{\ell} \cdot \mathbf{S} \bigr ) \; | \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\label{eq:mosh_ls}
\\ \nonumber =
\delta_{N N'} \delta_{L L'}
\delta_{l l'} \delta_{S S'} \delta_{S 1} \
\sqrt{6} \
(-)^{l+L+J} \
\hat \lambda \hat \lambda' \hat l \
\sqrt{l(l+1)} \
\\ \nonumber \qquad \times \
\wsj{J}{S}{\lambda'}{1}{\lambda}{S}
\wsj{l}{\lambda'}{L}{\lambda}{l}{1}
{\cal RM}[V_{ls}](n' l \: ; \: n l) \>.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{$\ell^2$ Interaction.}
The matrix element of the $\ell^2$ interaction can be easily calculated
when the matrix element is written in the \emph{m} representation,
i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle n' N' \: l' m_{l'} \: L' M' \: S' m_{S'}
\; | \; V_{l2} \, \ell^2 \; | \;
n N \: l m_l \: L M \: S m_S
\rangle
\label{eq:mosh_l2_m}
\\ \nonumber && = \
\delta_{N N'} \: \delta_{L L'} \: \delta_{M M'} \:
\delta_{l l'} \: \delta_{m_l m_{l'}} \
\delta_{S S'} \: \delta_{m_S m_{S'}} \ \ l(l+1) \ \
{\cal RM}[V_{l2}](n' l \: ; \: n l)
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
We use the transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; | \; V_{l2} \, \ell^2 \; | \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\\ \nonumber && = \
\sum_{m_{l'} M' m_{S'} \mu'}
\cg{l'}{m_{l'}}{L'}{M'}{\lambda'}{\mu'}
\cg{\lambda'}{\mu'}{S'}{m_{S'}}{J}{M_J}
\\ \nonumber && \qquad \times \
\sum_{m_l M m_S \mu} \
\cg{l}{m_l}{L}{M}{\lambda}{\mu}
\cg{\lambda}{\mu}{S}{m_S}{J}{M_J} \
\\ \nonumber && \qquad \qquad \qquad \times \
\langle n' N' \: l' m_{l'} \: L' M' \: S' m_{S'}
\; | \; V_{l2} \, \ell^2 \; | \;
n N \: l m_l \: L M \: S m_S
\rangle
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
substitute Eq.~(\ref{eq:mosh_l2_m}), and employ the orthogonality
properties of the Clebsch-Gordon coefficients, to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; | \; V_{l2} \, \ell^2 \; | \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\label{eq:mosh_l2}
\\ \nonumber && = \
\delta_{\lambda \lambda'}
\delta_{N N'} \delta_{L L'}
\delta_{l l'} \delta_{S S'} \
l(l+1) \
{\cal RM}[V_{l2}] (n' l \: ; \: n l)
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{$\ell^2 \,\bigl ( \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \bigr )$ interaction}
The derivation of the matrix element for the $\ell^2 \, \bigl (
\sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \bigr )$ interaction follows closely the
calculation of the matrix element corresponding to the $\ell^2$
interaction. We first perform a transformation to the \emph{m}
representation where the calculation of the matrix element is
particularly simple, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; | \; V_{l2s} \, \ell^2 \, \bigl ( \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \bigr ) \; | \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\\ \nonumber = \
\sum_{m_S \mu ; m_{S'} \mu'} \!\!\!\!
\cg{\lambda'}{\mu'}{S'}{m_{S'}}{J}{M_J}
\cg{\lambda}{\mu}{S}{m_S}{J}{M_J} \
\\ \nonumber \qquad \qquad \times \
\langle n' N' \: \lambda' \mu' \: S' m_{S'}
\; | \; V_{l2s} \, \ell^2 \, \bigl ( \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \bigr ) \; | \;
n N \: \lambda \mu \: S m_S
\rangle
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
which gives:
\begin{align}
&
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; \: J M_J
\; | \; V_{l2s} \, \ell^2 \, \bigl ( \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \bigr ) \; | \; n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; \: J M_J
\rangle
\label{eq:mosh_l2s}
\\ & \nonumber = \
\delta_{\lambda \lambda'} \:
\delta_{S S'} \:\delta_{N N'} \: \delta_{L L'} \:
\delta_{l l'} \:
{2} \Bigl [ S(S+1) - \frac{3}{2} \Bigr ] \ l(l+1) \
{\cal RM}[V_{l2s}](n' l \: ; \: n l) \>.
\end{align}
\subsection{Quadrupole spin-orbit interaction}
For the purpose
of generalizing this matrix-element calculation to the case of an arbitrary set of
single-particle wave functions, it is convenient to approach this
calculation by first noting that
\begin{eqnarray}
(\mathbf{\ell} \cdot \mathbf{S})^2
\ = \
\sum_{j=0}^2 \ \hat j \
\left [ \
\left [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell} \right ]^{(j)}
\otimes
\left [ \mathbf{S} \otimes \mathbf{S} \right ]^{(j)} \
\right ]^{(0)}
\label{ls2_def}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
A close inspection of the above equation shows that some of the
pieces of the quadrupole spin-orbit interaction may be incorporated
into the calculation of the other previous interactions involving
the relative orbital angular momentum operator, $\mathbf{\ell}$.\\
\noindent(i)~\emph{Case $j=0$.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left [ \
\left [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell} \right ]^{(0)}
\otimes
\left [ \mathbf{S} \otimes \mathbf{S} \right ]^{(0)} \
\right ]^{(0)}
= && \ \frac{1}{6} \ \mathbf{\ell}^2 \, \left ( 3 + \sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 \right )
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used
($\sigma_{i\,x}^2=\sigma_{i\,y}^2=\sigma_{i\,z}^2=1$)
\begin{eqnarray}
S^2
= && \ \frac{1}{2} \ \left ( 3 + \sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 \right )
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, we can introduce the modified radial amplitudes of the
$\mathbf{\ell}^2$ and $\mathbf{\ell}^2 \, \bigl ( \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \bigr )$ interactions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{V}_{l2} & = & \ V_{l2} \ + \ \frac{1}{2} \ V_{ls2}
\label{l2_mod}
\>,
\\
\tilde{V}_{l2ss} & = & V_{l2ss} \ + \ \frac{1}{6} \ V_{ls2}
\label{l2s_mod}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent(ii)~\emph{Case $j=1$.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sqrt{3} \
\Bigl [ \
\bigl [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell} \bigr ]^{(1)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \mathbf{S} \otimes \mathbf{S} \bigr ]^{(1)} \
\Bigr ]^{(0)}
= && \
- \ \frac{1}{2} \ \mathbf{\ell} \cdot \mathbf{S}
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the definition of the angular momentum quantum operator,
$
\vec{J} \times \vec{J} = \mathrm{i} \, \vec J
$.
Similarly, we introduce the modified radial amplitude for the spin-orbital
interaction, as:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{V}_{ls} \ = \ V_{ls} - \frac{1}{2} \ V_{ls2}
\label{ls_mod}
\>.
\end{equation}
\noindent(iii)~\emph{Case $j=2$.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sqrt{5} \
\left [ \
\left [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell}\right ]^{(2)}
\otimes
\left [ \mathbf{S} \otimes \mathbf{S} \right ]^{(2)} \
\right ]^{(0)}
\label{j2}
\ = \
\frac{\sqrt{5}}{2} \
\left [ \,
\left [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell}\right ]^{(2)}
\otimes
\left [ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 \right ]^{(2)} \,
\right ]^{(0)}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
We notice that the only component of the $\bigl ( \mathbf{\ell}
\cdot \mathbf{S} \bigr )^2$ interaction that we have not addressed
yet is the one corresponding to $j=2$.
To calculate the corresponding matrix element we first use
(\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~7.1.6)
\begin{align}
&
\langle n' N' \:
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; J M_J
| V_{ls2}
\hat j
\left [
\left [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell}\right ]^{(j)}
\otimes
\left [ \mathbf{S} \otimes \mathbf{S} \right ]^{(j)}
\right ]^{(0)}
| n N \:
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}
{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; J M_J
\rangle
\nonumber \\ &
=
(-)^{\lambda+S'+J+j}
\wsj{J}{S'}{\lambda'}{j}{\lambda}{S}
\sum_{n'' N''}
\langle n' N' \: (l' L')_{\lambda'}
\; \| \; V_{ls2} \, \left [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell}\right ]^{(j)} \; \| \;
n'' N'' \: (l L)_{\lambda} \rangle
\nonumber \\ & \quad \times \
\langle n'' N'' \: ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S'}
\; \| \left [ \mathbf{S} \otimes \mathbf{S} \right ]^{(j)} \; \| \;
n N \: ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S} \rangle
\>,
\end{align}
with the reduced matrix elements calculated as:\\
\noindent (i) We use (\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~7.1.1), to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle ({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S'}
\; \| \left [ \mathbf{S} \otimes \mathbf{S} \right ]^{(j)} \; \| \;
({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})_{S} \rangle
=
\delta_{SS'} \delta_{S1} \
6 \
(-)^{j} \hat j
\wsj{1}{1}{j}{1}{1}{1}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent (ii) Next, we use (\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~7.1.7) to obtain
\begin{align}
&
\langle n' N' \: (l' L')_{\lambda'}
\; \| \; V_{ls2} \, \left [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell}\right ]^{(j)} \; \| \;
n N \: (l L)_{\lambda} \rangle
\\ \nonumber & =
\delta_{N N'} \delta_{L L'} \
(-)^{l'+L+\lambda+j} \
\hat \lambda \hat \lambda' \
\wsj{l'}{\lambda'}{L}{\lambda}{l}{j}
\langle n' \: l'
\| V_{ls2} \, \left [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell}\right ]^{(j)} \|
n \: l \rangle
\>,
\end{align}
with (\cite{Edmonds}, Eq.~7.1.1)
\begin{align}
&
\langle (n' l'
\; \| V_{ls2} \, \left [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell}\right ]^{(j)} \; \| \;
n l \rangle
\nonumber \\ &
=
\delta_{ll'} \
(-)^{j} \ \hat j \ \bigl [ l (l+1) (2l+1) \bigr ] \
\wsj{1}{1}{j}{l}{l}{l}
{\cal RM}[V_{ls2}](n' l \: ; \: n l)
\>.
\end{align}
Collecting terms, we find
\begin{align}
&
\langle n' N'
{(l' L')}_{\lambda'} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S'} ; J M_J
| V_{ls2}
\left [
\left [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell}\right ]^{(j)}
\otimes
\left [ \mathbf{S} \otimes \mathbf{S} \right ]^{(j)}
\right ]^{(0)}
| n N
{(l L)}_{\lambda} {({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})}_{S} ; J M_J
\rangle
\nonumber \\ &
=
\label{eq:mosh_ls2}
\delta_{N N'} \delta_{L L'}
\delta_{l l'} \delta_{S S'} \delta_{S 1} \
6
(-)^{l+L+J+1} \
\hat j \hat \lambda \hat \lambda' \
\bigl [ l (l+1) (2l+1) \bigr ]
\\ \nonumber &
\quad \times
\wsj{1}{1}{j}{1}{1}{1}
\wsj{1}{1}{j}{l}{l}{l}
\wsj{J}{S'}{\lambda'}{j}{\lambda}{S}
\wsj{l}{\lambda'}{L}{\lambda}{l}{j}
{\cal RM}[V_{ls2}](n' l \: ; \: n l)
\>.
\end{align}
\section{Two-body matrix elements calculation}
\label{two}
Unlike the case of harmonic-oscillator single-particle basis set,
the calculation (and storage) of the two-body matrix elements using
single-particle wave functions that can be represented as linear combinations of harmonic-oscillator
wave functions is performed more
efficiently in \emph{ph}~coupling.
The \emph{ph}-coupled matrix-element calculation is based on the
following two lemmas:
\textit{Lemma 1:
Provided that the two-body potential can be factorized into parts
depending only on the $\vec{r}_1$ or $\vec{r}_2$ coordinates, respectively,
\begin{equation}
V(\vec r_1, \vec r_2) \, = \,
\left ( U^{(k)}(\vec r_1) \odot V^{(k)}(\vec r_2) \right )
\>,
\end{equation}
then \emph{ph}-coupled matrix elements of the two-body interaction are given by
\begin{align}
&
\phme{ \left ( U^{(k)}(\vec r_1) \odot V^{(k)}(\vec r_2) \right ) }{\lambda}
\\ \nonumber &
=
\frac{\sgn{j_2+j_4+1}}{2\lambda+1} \,
\sprme{1}{U^{(\lambda)}}{3} \,
\sprme{2}{V^{(\lambda)}}{4} \, \del{k}{\lambda}
\>.
\label{eq:lemma1}
\end{align}
}
Using the definition of the scalar product of two tensor operators of rank
$k$, Eq.~(\ref{scalar_def}),
we calculate the matrix elements of the $U^{(k)}_q(\vec r_1)
V^{(k)}_{-q}(\vec r_2)$ operator in the \emph{m}-representation, using
the Wigner-Eckart theorem
\begin{align}
\mmme{U^{(k)}_q(\vec r_1) V^{(k)}_{-q}(\vec r_2) }
& = \,
\frac{\sgn{j_3 - m_3}}{\hat k} \, \cg{j_1}{m_1}{j_3}{-m_3}{k}{q}
\sprme{1}{U^{(k)}}{3} \,
\nonumber \\ & \times \,
\frac{\sgn{j_4 - m_4}}{\hat k} \, \cg{j_2}{m_2}{j_4}{-m_4}{k}{-q}
\sprme{2}{V^{(k)}}{4}
\>,
\end{align}
where we have also introduced the notation $\hat k = \sqrt{2k+1}$.
Then, Eq.~(\ref{eq:lemma1}) is obtained using the orthonormality of
the Clebsch-Gordon coefficients, together with the definition of
\emph{ph}-coupled matrix elements, Eq.~(\ref{eq:phme_def}).
We note the identity:
\begin{equation}
\Bigl [ U^{(k)}(\vec r_1) \otimes V^{(k)}(\vec r_2) \Bigr ]^{(0)}
= \frac{(-)^k}{\hat k} \,
\Bigl ( U^{(k)}(\vec r_1) \odot V^{(k)}(\vec r_2) \Bigr )
\>,
\end{equation}
where the spherical tensor product of two tensor operators, $A^{(k_1)}$ and $B^{(k_2)}$, was defined in Eq.~(\ref{tensor_def}).
\textit{Lemma 2:
Provided that the spatial part of the two-body interaction has
the form $V(r) \, \ck{k}{r}$, with $k$ a positive integer or zero,
then the variables $\vec{r}_1$ and $\vec{r}_2$ can be separated in
the sense that~\cite{horie}
\begin{align}
r^\alpha \, V(r) \, \ck{k}{r}
\label{lemma2}
= \!\!
\sum_{k_1,k_2} & \
\mathrm{i}^{k_2-k_1-k} \frac{(2k_1+1)(2k_2+1)}{2k+1}
\cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{k}{0} \,
\\ \nonumber & \times \
u^{(k_1 k_2 ; k)} (r_1,r_2)
\left [ \ck{k_1}{r_1} \otimes \ck{k_2}{r_2} \right ]^{(k)}
\!\! ,
\end{align}
where $\alpha$ is a positive integer exponent, and
$\vec r = \vec r_1 - \vec r_2$ indicates the relative-motion coordinate. We have also introduced the notations
\begin{equation}
u^{(k_1 k_2 ; k \alpha)} (r_1,r_2) \, = \,
\frac{2}{\pi} \, \intr{p} \ v_{\alpha \, \kappa}(p) \,
j_{k_1}(p r_1) \,
j_{k_2}(p r_2)
\>,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
v_{\alpha \, \kappa}(p)
\, = \, \int_0^\infty \, [r^2 \, \mathrm{d}r] \, r^\alpha \, V(r) \, j_\kappa (p r)
\label{3_6}
\> .
\end{eqnarray}
}
To prove lemma~2, we first introduce the asymmetric Fourier transform
of the operator $V(r) \, \ck{k}{r}$
\begin{equation}
\tilde{v}^{(\alpha \, k)}(\vec{p}) \, = \,
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} \, \intt{r} \ r^\alpha \, V(r) \ \ck{k}{r} \, e^{\mathrm{i} \vec{p}\, \cdot\vec{r}}
\label{eq:FT_VCk_def}
\end{equation}
and, conversely,
\begin{equation}
r^\alpha \, V(r) \ \ck{k}{r} \, = \,
\intt{p} \ \tilde{v}^{(k)}(\vec{p}) \, e^{-\mathrm{i} \vec{p}\, \cdot\vec{r}}
\> .
\label{eq:invFT_VCk}
\end{equation}
We use the plane wave expansion in terms of \emph{unnormalized}
spherical harmonics,
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{\mathrm{i} \vec{p}\, \cdot \vec{r}}
\ = \
\sum_{l} \, \mathrm{i}^l \, (2l+1) \, j_l (pr) \,
\left ( \ck{l}{r} \odot \ck{l}{p} \right )
\>,
\label{eq:plane_wave}
\end{eqnarray}
together with the orthogonality conditions~(\ref{ckortho}), and
carry out the angular part of the integral~(\ref{eq:FT_VCk_def}).
Then, $\tilde{v}^{(k)}(\vec{p})$ becomes
\begin{equation}
\tilde{v}^{(\alpha \, k)}(\vec{p}) =
\frac{(-\mathrm{i})^k}{2\pi^2} \ \ck{k}{p} \ v_{\alpha \, \kappa}(p)
\>.
\label{eq:FT_VCk}
\end{equation}
From Eq.~(\ref{eq:invFT_VCk}), we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
r^\alpha \, V(r) \ \ck{k}{r}
\, = \,
\frac{(-\mathrm{i})^k}{2\pi^2}
\intt{p} \ v_{\alpha \, \kappa}(p) \ \ck{k}{p} \, e^{\mathrm{i} \vec{p}\, \cdot\vec{r}}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
The angular part of the last integral can be carried out explicitly
using the definition of the relative coordinate, $\vec{r} =
\vec{r}_1 - \vec{r}_2$, and by applying Eq.~(\ref{eq:plane_wave})
twice for $\exp(\mathrm{i}\, \vec{p}\cdot\vec{r}_1)$ and
$\exp(-\mathrm{i}\, \vec{p}\cdot\vec{r}_2)$, respectively. The
following integral is evaluated using the above properties of the
\emph{unnormalized} spherical harmonics:
\begin{align}
\int \mathrm{d}\Omega_p & \ [\ckq{k_1}{q_1}{p}]^* \,
[\ckq{k_2}{q_2}{p}]^* \, \ckq{k}{q}{p}
=
\frac{4\pi}{2k+1} \,
\cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{k}{0} \,
\cg{k_1}{q_1}{k_2}{q_2}{k}{q}
\>.
\end{align}
To finalize our proof, we use the definition of the spherical
tensor product of rank $k$ obtained from the tensor operators $\ck{k_1}{r_1}$ and $\ck{k_2}{r_2}$.
\section{Matrix elements calculation using arbitrary single-particle wave functions}
\label{app:jjme_app}
It is convenient to evaluate two-body matrix elements in \emph{ph}
angular momentum coupling using lemma~1. Then, according to lemma~2,
\emph{ph} matrix elements factorize in two parts, which depend on
the coordinates of the first and the second particle, respectively.
Hence, the appropriate angular-momentum coupling for each
single-particle wave function $| \alpha \rangle $ is provided in the
$(lsj)$ coupling, with the individual orbital angular
momentum~$l_\alpha$ and spin~$s_\alpha$ are coupled to a total
angular momentum~$j_\alpha$. For an operator $\mathcal{O}^{(k)}$ which
depends only on the orbital angular momentum
components, in the $(lsj)$-coupling scheme we have:\\
i) (see \cite{Edmonds}, 7.1.7)
\begin{align}
&
\spjrme{1}{\mathcal{O}^{(k)}}{2}
= \,
\Ffac{1}{2}{k} \, \lropme{1}{\mathcal{O}^{(k)}}{2}
\>,
\end{align}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\Ffac{1}{2}{k} \, = \, \sgn{l_1+j_2+{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}+k} \,
\hat{j}_1 \hat{j}_2 \,
\wsj{l_1}{j_1}{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}{j_2}{l_2}{k}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
ii) (see \cite{Edmonds}, 7.1.5 and 5.4.4)
\begin{align}
&
\spjrme{1}{\left [ \mathcal{O}^{(k_1)} \otimes \sigma \right ]^{(k_2)} }{2}
= \,
\Gfac{1}{2}{k_1}{k_2} \, \lropme{1}{\mathcal{O}^{(k_1)}}{2}
\>,
\end{align}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gfac{1}{2}{k_1}{k_2} \, = \, \sqrt{6} \, \hat{j}_1 \hat{j}_2 \hat{k}_2 \,
\wnj{l_1}{l_2}{k_1}
{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}{1}
{j_1}{j_2}{k_2}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
We can now proceed to discussing the calculation of the two-body
matrix elements of the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential: We will first
evaluate the radial part of the matrix element, which can be
performed independently of the way we handle the angular and
spin/isospin degrees of freedom of the interaction. Next, we will
discuss the angular and spin part of the 7~basic operators
corresponding to the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential.
\subsection{Radial part of the two-body matrix element}
\label{seq:radial}
The radial part of the two-body matrix elements is defined as
\begin{align}
R^{\alpha \, \kappa; \, k_1 k_2}_{n_1 l_1 \, n_2 l_2 \, ; \, n_3 l_3 \, n_4 l_4}
= & \
\frac{2}{\pi} \, \int_0^\infty \,
[p^2 \, \mathrm{d}p] \, v_{\alpha \, \kappa}(p) \,
\nonumber \\ & \times
\int_0^\infty \, [r_1^2 \, \mathrm{d}r_1] \, \mathcal{R}_{n_1 l_1}(r_1) \,
\Bigl [ \mathcal{O}^{(1)} \mathcal{R}_{n_3 l_3}(r_1) \Bigr ] \,
j_{k_1}(p r_1) \,
\nonumber \\ & \times
\label{ralphakappa}
\int_0^\infty \, [r_2^2 \, \mathrm{d}r_2] \, \mathcal{R}_{n_2 l_2}(r_2) \,
\Bigl [ \mathcal{O}^{(2)} \mathcal{R}_{n_4 l_4}(r_2) \Bigr ] \,
j_{k_2}(p r_2)
\> ,
\end{align}
where $v_{\alpha \, \kappa}(p)$ was defined in Eq.~(\ref{3_6}) and the operators
$\mathcal{O}^{(1,2)}$ are operators acting only on the radial part of the single-particle wave functions.
The functional form of the radial wave functions in
Eq.~(\ref{ralphakappa}) is not restricted to that of a
harmonic-oscillator wave function. Therefore, at this point we need
to carefully consider what is the most efficient numerical strategy
to computing~(\ref{ralphakappa}) for the particular radial form of
the wave functions under consideration. For illustrative (and
testing) purposes, in the following we will confine our discussion
to the case of a basesis of single-particle wave functions defined as linear combinations of harmonic-oscillator wave functions [see Eq.~(\ref{rnl})],
in which case some of the integrals in~(\ref{ralphakappa}) can be efficiently performed using Gauss-Hermite quadrature formulas.
Treating separately the integral
\begin{equation}
\int_0^\infty \, [r_1^2 \, \mathrm{d}r_1] \, \mathcal{R}_{n_1 l_1}(r_1) \,
\Bigl [ \mathcal{O}^{(1)} \mathcal{R}_{n_3 l_3}(r_1) \Bigr ] \,
j_{k_1}(p r_1)
\> ,
\label{eq:int1_2b}
\end{equation}
we first change variables such that {$x_i' = r_i\ (\sqrt 2/b)$ with
$q'$~$=$~$p \ (b/\sqrt{2})$}, and we recall that (see discussion surrounding Eq.~(\ref{xversusr})
\begin{equation}
R_{nl}({\scriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} \, {x'})
\, = \, b^{3/2} \, R_{nl}(r)
\>.
\end{equation}
Next, we perform the harmonic-oscillator
expansion
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{n_1 l_1}({\scriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} \, {x'}_1) \,
& \Bigl [
\mathcal{O}^{(1)} R_{n_3 l_3}({\scriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} \, {x'}_1)
\Bigr ]
\, = \, \sum_n \, A^{n k_1}_{n_1 l_1 \, n_3 l_3} \, \mathcal{HO}_{n k_1}({x'}_1)
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the integral (\ref{eq:int1_2b}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{( \sqrt{2} )^3} \, \sum_n \, A^{n k_1}_{n_1 l_1 \, n_3 l_3} \,
\left [ \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \, \widetilde{\mathcal{HO}}_{n k_1}(q')
\right ]
\>,
\label{eq:intr1_2b}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have introduced the notation, $\widetilde{\mathcal{HO}}_{n\ell}(q) = (-)^n \, \mathcal{HO}_{n\ell}(q)$, which denotes
the Fourier transform of the harmonic-oscillator wave function,
$\mathcal{HO}_{n\ell}$, and the coefficients $A^{n k_1}_{n_1 l_1 \,
n_3 l_3}$ are calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
A^{n k_1}_{n_1 l_1 \, n_3 l_3} \, =
\int_0^\infty & [{x'}_1^2 \, \mathrm{d}x'_1] \,
R_{n_1 l_1}({\scriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} \, {x'}_1) \,
\label{3_10}
\Bigl [
\mathcal{O}^{(1)} R_{n_3 l_3}({\scriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \, {x'}_1})
\Bigr ] \,
\mathcal{HO}_{n k_1}({x'}_1)
\> .
\end{eqnarray}
This integral is conveniently performed using Gaussian quadratures.
Similarly, we have:
\begin{align}
&
\int_0^\infty \!\! [r_2^2 \mathrm{d}r_2] \mathcal{R}_{n_2 l_2}(r_2)
\Bigl [ \!\mathcal{O}^{(2)} \mathcal{R}_{n_4 l_4}(r_2) \Bigr ]
j_{k_2}(p r_2)
\nonumber \\ &
=
\frac{1}{( \sqrt{2} )^3}
\sum_m \, A^{m k_2}_{n_2 l_2 n_4 l_4}
\left [ \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \widetilde{\mathcal{HO}}_{m k_2}(q')
\right ]
,
\label{eq:intr2_2b}
\end{align}
where the coefficients $A^{m k_2}_{n_2 l_2 \, n_4 l_4}$ are given as
\begin{eqnarray}
A^{m k_2}_{n_2 l_2 \, n_4 l_4} \, = \,
\int_0^\infty & [{x'}_2^2 \, \mathrm{d}x'_2] \,
R_{n_2 l_2}({\scriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} {x'}_2)
\label{3_12}
\Bigl [
\mathcal{O}^{(2)} R_{n_4 l_4}({\scriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} {x'}_2)
\Bigr ]
\mathcal{HO}_{m k_2}({x'}_2)
\> .
\end{eqnarray}
Using Equations (\ref{eq:intr1_2b}) and (\ref{eq:intr2_2b}), the
radial part of the two-body matrix elements becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
&
R^{\alpha \, \kappa; \, k_1 k_2}_{n_1 l_1 \, n_2 l_2 \, ; \, n_3 l_3 \, n_4 l_4}
\! = & \frac{1}{(b \sqrt{2})^3}
\sum_n \, A^{n k_1}_{n_1 l_1 \, n_3 l_3}
\sum_m \, A^{m k_2}_{n_2 l_2 \, n_4 l_4}
\label{3_13}
\nonumber \\ & \quad & \times
\int_0^\infty \, [{q'}^2 \, d{q'}] \,
v_{\alpha \, \kappa}({\scriptstyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{b}} \, q') \,
\widetilde{\mathcal{ HO}}_{n k_1}(q') \,
\widetilde{\mathcal{ HO}}_{m k_2}(q')
\> .
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Central interaction}
The central interaction depends only on the magnitude of the
relative distance~$r$ between the two particles, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
V_C \, = & \ V_{c}(r) \, \ck{0}{r}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
The strategy to calculating the \emph{ph} matrix element
\[ \jjmeph{V_C} \>, \]
is emblematic for the rest of this section: (For simplicity, we will not concerns ourselves here with the radial degrees of freedom. The radial part of the matrix elements is calculated using the approach discussed in the previous section.) First, we use lemma~2 and separate $V_C$ into tensor-operator components which
depend on either $\vec r_1$ or $\vec r_2$. We have
\begin{eqnarray}
V_C \, = & \, \sum_{k} \, (2k+1) \,
u^{(k k ; 0 0)} (r_1,r_2) \, \left ( \ck{k}{r_1} \odot \ck{k}{r_2} \right )
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
Second, we use lemma~1 to calculate the \emph{ph} matrix element
of the corresponding interaction. For the central interaction, this
procedure leads to
\begin{align}
& \jjmeph{V_C} =
\sgn{j_2 + j_4 +1} \
u^{(\lambda \lambda ; 0 0)} (r_1,r_2) \,
\nonumber \\ & \times \
\spjme{1}{\ck{\lambda}{r_1}}{3} \, \spjme{2}{\ck{\lambda}{r_2}}{4}
\>,
\end{align}
which gives
\begin{align}
&
\jjmeph{V_C} =
\sgn{j_2 + j_4 +1} \
u^{(\lambda \lambda ; 0 0)} (r_1,r_2) \,
\nonumber \\ & \times \
\Ffac{1}{3}{\lambda} \, \ckrme{1}{\lambda}{3} \,
\Ffac{2}{4}{\lambda} \, \ckrme{2}{\lambda}{4}
\>.
\end{align}
\subsection{Spin-spin interaction}
By definition, the spin-spin interaction is introduced as
\begin{equation}
V_S \, = \, V_s(r) \, \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2
\>,
\end{equation}
where we can write
\begin{equation}
\sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 \, = \, - \sqrt{3} \, \left [ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 \right ]^{(0)}
\>.
\end{equation}
We perform the recoupling
\begin{align}
&
\Bigr [ \,
\bigl [ \ck{k}{r_1} \otimes \ck{k}{r_2} \bigr ]^{(0)}
\, \otimes \,
\bigl [ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 \bigr ]^{(0)}
\, \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\label{recoup_s}
\\ \nonumber & =
\frac{1}{\hat k \sqrt 3}
\sum_{l} \, \sgn{l} \, \Bigl ( \,
\bigl [ \ck{k}{r_1} \otimes \sigma_1 \bigr ]^{(l)}
\, \odot \,
\bigl [ \ck{k}{r_2} \otimes \sigma_2 \bigr ]^{(l)}
\, \Bigr )
\>,
\end{align}
and obtain
\begin{align}
& \jjmeph{V_S}
\\ \nonumber
& =
\frac{\sgn{\lambda + j_2 + j_4}}{2\lambda+1} \
\sum_k \, \sgn{k} \, (2k+1) \,
u^{(k k ; 0 0)} (r_1,r_2) \,
\\ \nonumber & \quad \quad \times \
\Gfac{1}{3}{k}{\lambda} \, \ckrme{1}{k}{3} \,
\Gfac{2}{4}{k}{\lambda} \, \ckrme{2}{k}{4}
\>,
\end{align}
with $|\lambda-1| \leq k \leq \lambda+1$ .
\subsection{Tensor interaction}
The tensor interaction is defined as:
\begin{equation}
V_{T} = V_{t}(r) \, S_{12}
\>,
\end{equation}
where the operator $S_{12}$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{S12_def}) is written now as
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{12}
\, = \,
\sqrt{30} \, \left [ \, \ck{2}{r} \otimes
\left [ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 \right ]^{(2)} \, \right ]^{(0)}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
Using a recoupling scheme similar to Eq.~(\ref{recoup_s}),
\begin{align}
&
\Bigr [ \,
\bigl [ \ck{k_1}{r_1} \otimes \ck{k_2}{r_2} \bigr ]^{(2)}
\, \otimes \,
\bigl [ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 \bigr ]^{(2)}
\, \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\label{recoup_te}
\\ \nonumber & = \
- \ (-)^{k_2} \, \sqrt{5} \
\sum_{k} \
\wsj{k_1}{k_2}{2}{1}{1}{k} \,
\Bigl ( \,
\bigl [ \ck{k_1}{r_1} \otimes \sigma_1 \bigr ]^{(k)}
\, \odot \,
\bigl [ \ck{k_2}{r_2} \otimes \sigma_2 \bigr ]^{(k)}
\, \Bigr )
\>,
\end{align}
we obtain
\begin{align}
& \jjmeph{V_T} =
\frac{\sgn{j_2 + j_4 +1}}{2\lambda+1}
\\ \nonumber
& \times
\sqrt{6} \,
\sum_{k_1} \ (2k_1+1) \,
\Gfac{1}{3}{k_1}{\lambda} \, \ckrme{1}{k_1}{3} \,
\sum_{k_2} \, \mathrm{i}^{k_1+k_2} \, (2k_2+1) \,
\\ \nonumber &
\times
u^{(k_1 k_2 ; 2 0)} (r_1,r_2)
\cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{2}{0}
\wsj{k_1}{k_2}{2}{1}{1}{\lambda}
\Gfac{2}{4}{k_2}{\lambda} \ckrme{2}{k_2}{4}
\>.
\end{align}
\subsection{Spin-orbit interaction}
\label{ls}
The spin-orbit interaction is given by:
\begin{equation}
V_{LS} \ = \ V_{ls}(r) \, \mathbf{\ell} \cdot \mathbf{S}
\>,
\end{equation}
where the orbital angular momentum operator and the total spin
operator are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{\ell}
\ = \
\frac{1}{2} \ \vec{r} \times (\vec{p_1} - \vec{p_2})
\>,
\qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad
\vec{S}
\ = \
\frac{1}{2} \ (\vec{\sigma_1} + \vec{\sigma_2})
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
respectively. Using the tensor operator properties:
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec r_m \ = \ r \ \ckq{1}{m}{r} \>,
\qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad
(\vec{x} \times \vec{y} )_m
\ = \
- \mathrm{i} \ \sqrt{2} \
\displaystyle \left [ x \otimes y \right ]^{(1)}_m
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{\ell} & =
\frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{2}} \ r
\left[ \ \ck{1}{r} \otimes (\bigtriangledown_2 - \bigtriangledown_1) \ \right]^{(1)}
\> .
\end{eqnarray}
Then, we use lemma~2, and obtain:
\begin{align}
&
r V_{ls}(r) \, \ck{1}{r}
\ = \
\sum_{k_{1} k_{2}} \ \mathrm{i}^{k_2 - k_1 - 1} \
\\ \nonumber &
\times \,
\frac{(2 k_1 + 1)(2 k_2 + 1)}{3 \sqrt{2}} \, \cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{1}{0} \,
u^{(k_1 k_2, 1 1)} (r_1,r_2)
\Bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \Bigr ]^{(1)}
\>.
\end{align}
Recoupling the $\cka{k_1}$ and $\ckb{k_2}$ operators with the
appropriate gradient operators, we obtain:
\begin{align}
&
V_{ls}(r) \, \mathbf{\ell}
=
\sum_{k_{1} k_{2}} \
\mathrm{i}^{k_2 - k_1 - 1} \
(2 k_1 + 1)\, (2 k_2 + 1) \
\cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{1}{0} \
\label{eq:l_1}
\\ \nonumber &
\times \
\sum_{k} \
\frac{\hat k}{\sqrt 6} \
\wsj{k_1}{k_2}{1}{1}{1}{k}
u^{(k_1 k_2, 1 1)} (r_1,r_2) \
\biggl \{
- \Bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes
\bigl [ \ckb{k_2} \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(k)} \Bigr ]^{(1)}
\\ \nonumber & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
+ \sgn{k+k_2+1}
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(k)}
\otimes \ckb{k_2} \Bigr ]^{(1)}
\biggr \}
\>.
\end{align}
Next, using the triangle conditions for the angular momentum
arguments of the Wigner $6j$ symbol, we derive the conditions: $|
k_1 - k_2 | \leq 1 \leq k_1 + k_2$, $| k_2 - 1 | \leq k \leq k_2 + 1$
and $| k_1 - 1 | \leq k \leq k_1 + 1$. These conditions together with the condition that $k_1+k_2$ is odd, derived from the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient in~(\ref{eq:l_1}), can be satisfied only
if $k$ equals either $k_1$ or $k_2$. Therefore, we can write
Eq.~(\ref{eq:l_1}) as
\begin{align}
&
V_{ls}(r) \, \mathbf{\ell}
=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\
\sum_{k_{1} k_{2}} \ \mathrm{i}^{k_1 + k_2 + 1} \
(2 k_1 + 1)(2 k_2 + 1) \
\cg{k_2}{0}{1}{0}{k_1}{0} \wsj{k_1}{k_2}{1}{1}{1}{k_1}
\nonumber \\ & \qquad
\times
\biggl \{
- \
u^{(k_1 k_2, 1 1)} (r_1,r_2)
\Bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes
\bigl [ \ckb{k_2} \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(k_1)} \Bigr ]^{(1)}
\nonumber \\ & \qquad \qquad
\ + \
u^{(k_1 k_2, 1 1)} (r_1,r_2)
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(k_1)}
\otimes \ckb{k_2} \Bigr ]^{(1)}
\nonumber \\ & \qquad \qquad
\ + \
u^{(k_2 k_1, 1 1)} (r_1,r_2)
\Bigl [ \cka{k_2} \otimes
\bigl [ \ckb{k_1} \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(k_1)} \Bigr ]^{(1)}
\nonumber \\ & \qquad \qquad
\label{eq:l_2}
\ + \
u^{(k_2 k_1, 1 1)} (r_1,r_2)
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_2} \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(k_1)}
\otimes \ckb{k_1} \Bigr ]^{(1)}
\biggr \}
\> ,
\end{align}
with $k_1+k_2+1$ even.
Taking the inner products of Eq.~(\ref{eq:l_2}) with $\mathbf{S}$,
and using the following identities valid for operators $A^{(k)}$ and $B^{(\ell)}$ that commute with all components~$\sigma_i$
\begin{eqnarray}
\biggl (
\Bigl [ A^{(k)}_{(1)} \, \otimes \, B^{(\ell)}_{(2)} \Bigr ]^{(1)}
\ \odot \ \sigma_1
\biggr )
& = &
\sgn{k} \ \frac{\sqrt 3}{\hat \ell} \
\biggl (
\Bigl [ A^{(k)}_{(1)} \, \otimes \, \sigma_1 \Bigr ]^{(\ell)}
\, \odot \, B^{(\ell)}_{(2)}
\biggr )
\>,
\label{eq:ls_id1}
\\ \biggl (
\Bigl [ A^{(k)}_{(1)} \, \otimes \, B^{(\ell)}_{(2)} \Bigr ]^{(1)}
\ \odot \ \sigma_2
\biggl )
& = &
\sgn{k+1} \ \frac{\sqrt 3}{\hat k} \
\biggl (
A^{(k)}_{(1)} \, \odot \,
\Bigr [ B^{(\ell)}_{(2)} \, \otimes \, \sigma_2 \Bigr ]^{(k)}
\biggr )
\>,
\label{eq:ls_id2}
\end{eqnarray}
the operators in Eq.~(\ref{eq:l_2}) give the following contributions
to the \emph{ph}-coupled matrix element $\jjmeph{V_{LS}}$: \\
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\biggl (
\Bigl [ \cka{k_1}
\otimes
\bigl [ \ckb{k_2} \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(k_1)}
\Bigr ]^{(1)}
\, \odot \, S \biggl )
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\delta_{k_1 \lambda} \
\frac{\sgn{\lambda + j_2 + j_4 +1}}{\hat \lambda \, (2\lambda+1)} \
\frac{\sqrt 3}{2}{} \
\\ \nonumber & \quad \times
\Bigl [
\Gfac{1}{3}{\lambda}{\lambda} \ \ckrme{1}{\lambda}{3} \
\Ffac{2}{4}{\lambda} \ CG_2(\lambda k_2, k_2 \lambda)
\\ \nonumber & \qquad \
-
\Ffac{1}{3}{\lambda} \ \ckrme{1}{\lambda}{3} \
\Gfac{2}{4}{\lambda}{\lambda} \ CG_2(\lambda k_2, k_2 \lambda)
\Bigr ]
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\biggl (
\Bigl [
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(k_1)}
\otimes
\ckb{k_2}
\Bigr ]^{(1)}
\, \odot \, S \biggr )
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\frac{\sgn{k_1 + j_2 + j_4 +1}}{\hat \lambda \, (2\lambda+1)} \
\frac{\sqrt 3}{2} \
\\ \nonumber & \quad \times
\Bigl [
\delta_{k_2 \lambda} \
\Gfac{1}{3}{k_1}{\lambda} \ CG_1(k_1 \lambda, k_1 k_1) \
\Ffac{2}{4}{\lambda} \ \ckrme{2}{\lambda}{4}
\\ \nonumber & \qquad \
-
\delta_{k_1 \lambda} \
\Ffac{1}{3}{\lambda} \ CG_1(\lambda k_2, \lambda \lambda) \
\Gfac{2}{4}{k_2}{\lambda} \ \ckrme{2}{k_2}{4}
\Bigr ]
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\biggl (
\Bigl [ \cka{k_2} \otimes
\bigl [ \ckb{k_1} \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(k_1)} \Bigr ]^{(1)}
\, \odot \, S \biggr )
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\frac{\sgn{k_2 + j_2 + j_4 +1}}{\hat \lambda \, (2\lambda+1)} \
\frac{\sqrt 3}{2} \
\\ \nonumber & \quad \times
\Bigl [
\delta_{k_1 \lambda} \
\Gfac{1}{3}{k_2}{\lambda} \ \ckrme{1}{k_2}{3} \
\Ffac{2}{4}{\lambda} \ CG_2(k_2 \lambda, \lambda \lambda)
\\ \nonumber & \qquad \
-
\delta_{k_2 \lambda} \
\Ffac{1}{3}{\lambda} \ \ckrme{1}{\lambda}{3} \
\Gfac{2}{4}{k_1}{\lambda} \ CG_2(\lambda k_1, k_1 k_1)
\Bigr ]
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\biggl (
\Bigl [
\bigl [ \cka{k_2} \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(k_1)}
\otimes \ckb{k_1}
\Bigr ]^{(1)}
\, \odot \, S \biggr )
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\delta_{k_1 \lambda} \
\frac{\sgn{\lambda + j_2 + j_4 +1}}{\hat \lambda \, (2\lambda+1)} \
\frac{\sqrt 3}{2}{} \
\\ \nonumber & \quad \times
\Bigl [
\Gfac{1}{3}{\lambda}{\lambda} \ CG_1(k_2 \lambda, k_2 \lambda) \
\Ffac{2}{4}{\lambda} \ \ckrme{2}{\lambda}{4}
\\ \nonumber & \qquad \
-
\Ffac{1}{3}{\lambda} \ CG_1(k_2 \lambda, k_2 \lambda) \
\Gfac{2}{4}{\lambda}{\lambda} \ \ckrme{2}{\lambda}{4}
\Bigr ]
\>,
\end{align}
where we have introduced the notations
\begin{align}
&
CG_1(k_1 k_2, l_1 l_2) =
\cga{k_1}{k_2}{1}{1}{l_1}{l_2}
\>,
\label{cg1}
\\ &
CG_2(k_1 k_2, l_1 l_2) =
\cgb{k_1}{k_2}{1}{1}{l_1}{l_2}
\label{cg2}
\>.
\end{align}
\subsection{$\mathbf{\ell}^2$ interaction}
\label{l2}
The $\mathbf{\ell}^2$ interaction is defined as
\begin{equation}
V_{L2} \ = \ V_{l2}(r) \, \mathbf{\ell}^2
\>,
\end{equation}
where we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{\ell}^2
= & - \sqrt{3} \ [ \, \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell} \, ]^{(0)}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
It is useful to discuss this as a particular case of the more
general operator
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigl [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell} \bigr ]^{(j)}
\ = \
- \ \frac{1}{2} \
\left [ \, [ \, r \otimes ( p_1 - p_2 ) \, ]^{(1)}
\otimes
[ \, r \otimes ( p_1 - p_2 ) \, ]^{(1)} \, \right ]^{(j)}
\>.
\label{rr}
\end{eqnarray}
We begin by using the definition of the spherical components of an
arbitrary vector, $a$, i.e. (\cite{Edmonds}, 5.9.4)
\begin{equation}
a_{\pm 1} = \mp \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ (a_x \pm \mathrm{i} \, a_y) \, ; \ \ \ a_0 = a_z
\>.
\end{equation}
Then, we can show that
\begin{equation}
\comm{r_{m}}{p_{n}} \ = \ \mathrm{i} \hbar \ \sgn{m} \ \del{n,}{-m}
\>,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\comm{(r_1 - r_2)_{m}}{(p_1 - p_2)_{n}} & = &
2 \, \mathrm{i} \hbar \ \sgn{m} \ \del{n,}{-m}
\> .
\end{eqnarray}
We can change the coupling scheme and combine the two $\vec{r}\, $s,
in Eq.~(\ref{rr}), into a single tensor operator dependent on the
relative-coordinate unit vector:
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [ \, \bigl [ \, r \otimes ( p_1 - p_2 ) \bigr ]^{(1)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \, r \otimes ( p_1 - p_2 ) \bigr ]^{(1)} \, \Bigr ]_m^{(j)}
\label{rprp}
\\ \nonumber & =
3 \, r^2 \,
\sum_{\kappa \kappa'}
\hat \kappa \hat \kappa'
\wnj{1}{1}{1}{1}{1}{1}{\kappa}{\kappa'}{j}
\cg{1}{0}{1}{0}{\kappa}{0}
\left [ \ck{\kappa}{r}
\otimes
[ ( p_1 - p_2 ) \otimes ( p_1 - p_2 ) ]^{(\kappa')} \right ]_m^{(j)}
\\ \nonumber & \qquad
+ \ 6 \, \mathrm{i} \ r\ \sgn{-j} \
\wsj{1}{1}{1}{1}{1}{j} \
\left [ \ \ck{1}{r} \otimes ( p_1 - p_2 ) \ \right ]_m^{(j)}
\>.
\end{align}
Because of the cross product property, $\vec{p}_m \times \vec{p}_n = 0$,
$\kappa$ and $\kappa'$ cannot be equal to 1. (The parameter $\kappa$ is also restricted to even values only because of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient in~(\ref{rprp}).) Then, we can write
\begin{align}
\bigl [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell} \bigr ]^{(j)}
\label{llj}
= & \
\frac{3}{2} \ r^2
\!\!\! \sum_{\kappa \kappa' = 0,2} \!\!\!
\hat \kappa \, \hat \kappa' \
\wnj{1}{1}{1}{1}{1}{1}{\kappa}{\kappa'}{j} \
\cg{1}{0}{1}{0}{\kappa}{0} \
\\ \nonumber & \qquad \qquad \times \
\Bigl [ \, \ck{\kappa}{r}
\otimes
\bigl [ \, ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 )
\otimes ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 \, ) \bigr ]^{(\kappa')} \, \Bigr ]^{(j)}
\\ \nonumber &
- \ 3 \ r \ \sgn{j} \
\wsj{1}{1}{1}{1}{1}{j} \
\Bigl [ \ck{1}{r} \otimes ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 \, ) \Bigr ]^{(j)}
\> .
\end{align}
In the particular case of the $\mathbf{\ell}^2$ interaction, the
rank $j$ is equal to 0, and we can use the symmetry properties of the Wigner
$6j$ and $9j$ symbols (\cite{Edmonds}, 6.4.14 and 6.3.2) to obtain the tensor-product form of $\mathbf{\ell}^2$ as
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\ell}^2 = & \,
\frac{3}{2} \, r^2
\!\! \sum_{\kappa = 0,2} \!\!
\hat \kappa
\wsj{1}{1}{1}{1}{1}{\kappa}
\cg{1}{0}{1}{0}{\kappa}{0}
\Bigl [ \ck{\kappa}{r}
\! \otimes \!
\bigl [ ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 )
\! \otimes \! ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 ) \bigl ]^{(\kappa)} \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\nonumber \\ &
- \ \sqrt{3} \ r \
\Bigl [ \ck{1}{r} \otimes \bigl ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 \, \bigr ) \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\> .
\label{eq:l2_1}
\end{align}
We expand the unnormalized spherical harmonics $\ck{\kappa}{r}$ and
$\ck{1}{r}$ using lemma~2, to obtain
\begin{align}
&
V_{l2}(r) \, \mathbf{\ell}^2
=
\frac{3}{2}
\sum_{\kappa = 0,2} \frac{1}{\hat \kappa}
\wsj{1}{1}{1}{1}{\kappa}{1}
\label{eq:l2_2}
\\ \nonumber & \ \times
\cg{1}{0}{1}{0}{\kappa}{0}
\sum_{k_{1} k_{2}} \mathrm{i}^{k_2 - k_1 - \kappa}
(2 k_1 + 1)(2 k_2 + 1) \cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{\kappa}{0}
\\ \nonumber & \ \times
u^{(k_1 k_2, \kappa 2)} (r_1,r_2)
\Bigl [ \, \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\! \otimes \!
\bigl [ ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 )
\! \otimes \! ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 ) \bigr ]^{(\kappa)} \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\\ \nonumber &
- \ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \
\sum_{k_{1} k_{2}} \, \mathrm{i}^{k_2 - k_1 - 1} \,
(2 k_1 + 1)(2 k_2 + 1) \, \cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{1}{0} \
u^{(k_1 k_2, 1 1)} (r_1,r_2)
\\ \nonumber & \ \times
\biggl \{
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \! \otimes \! \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(1)}
\otimes \bigtriangledown_{2} \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\!\! -
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \! \otimes \! \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(1)}
\! \otimes \! \bigtriangledown_{1} \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\biggr \}
\> .
\end{align}
The operators in Eq.~(\ref{eq:l2_2}) give rise to contributions to the matrix element
$\jjmeph{V_{L2}}$
similar to the
contributions of the $\mathbf{\ell}^2 \, \bigl ( \sigma_1 \cdot
\sigma_2 \bigr )$ and quadrupole spin-orbit operators discussed in
the subsequent sections. Therefore, it is useful to base the
calculation of the $\mathbf{\ell}^2$ matrix element on several
general results.
First, let us discuss the case of the matrix elements involving only
one gradient operator in Eq.~(\ref{eq:l2_2}), which are very
similar to those discussed in the case of the spin-orbit
interaction. We have the general identities:
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(1)}
\otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \Bigr ]^{(j)}
\label{eq:l2_Dj}
\\ \nonumber & =
\sgn{j} \, \sqrt{3} \
\sum_k \ \hat k \
\wsj{k_1}{k_2}{1}{1}{j}{k}
\Bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes
\bigl [ \ckb{k_2} \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(k)} \Bigr ]^{(j)}
\>,
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(1)}
\otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \Bigr ]^{(j)}
\label{eq:l2_Ej}
\\ \nonumber & =
\sgn{k_2} \, \sqrt{3} \
\sum_k \ \sgn{k} \, \hat k \
\wsj{k_2}{k_1}{1}{1}{j}{k}
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(k)}
\otimes
\ckb{k_2} \Bigr ]^{(j)}
\>.
\end{align}
For the $\mathbf{\ell}^2$ interaction we are only interested in $j=0$. We obtain:\\
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \Bigr ]^{(1)}
\otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\label{eq:l2_D}
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow
\delta_{k_1 \lambda}
\frac{\sgn{\lambda + j_2 + j_4 +1}}{\hat \lambda \, (2\lambda+1)}
\Ffac{1}{3}{\lambda} \ckrme{1}{k_1}{3}
\Ffac{2}{4}{\lambda} CG_2(\lambda k_2, k_2 \lambda)
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(1)}
\otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\label{eq:l2_E}
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow
\delta_{k_2 \lambda}
\frac{\sgn{\lambda + j_2 + j_4 +1}}{\hat \lambda \, (2\lambda+1)}
\Ffac{1}{3}{\lambda} CG_1(k_1 \lambda, k_1 \lambda)
\Ffac{2}{4}{\lambda} \ckrme{2}{\lambda}{4}
\>.
\end{align}
Next, we multiply the operator expressions in the first sum in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:l2_2}) to obtain
\begin{align}
\Bigl [ \, \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes & \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \, ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 )
\otimes ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 \, ) \bigr ]^{(\kappa)} \, \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\label{eq:r2_terms}
\\ \nonumber = &
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \bigtriangledown_2 \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(\kappa)} \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\\ \nonumber & \quad
- 2
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \bigtriangledown_1 \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(\kappa)} \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\\ \nonumber & \quad
+
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \bigtriangledown_1 \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(\kappa)} \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\>.
\end{align}
Now, we have to change the coupling and separate the operators
depending on the coordinates of the first particle, from the
operators depending on the coordinates of the second particle.
Hence, the matrix elements involving two gradient operators in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:l2_2}), are calculated using the following identities:
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [ \,
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \, \bigtriangledown_2 \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(\kappa')} \,
\Bigr ]^{(j)}
\label{eq:l2_Aj}
\\ \nonumber &
=
\sum_k
\sgn{k_1 + k_2 + \kappa' + j}
\hat \kappa \hat k
\wsj{k_1}{k_2}{\kappa}{\kappa'}{j}{k}
\Bigl [
\cka{k_1} \! \otimes \!
\Bigl [ \ckb{k_2}
\! \otimes \!
\bigl [ \bigtriangledown_2 \! \otimes \! \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(\kappa')} \Bigr ]^{(k)}
\Bigr ]^{(j)}
\>,
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [ \,
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \, \bigtriangledown_1 \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(\kappa')} \,
\Bigr ]^{(j)}
\label{eq:l2_Bj}
\\ \nonumber &
=
\sum_{k k'} \,
\hat \kappa \, \hat \kappa' \, \hat k \, \hat k' \,
\wnj{k_1}{k_2}{\kappa}{1}{1}{\kappa'}{k}{k'}{j}
\Bigl [
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(k)} \,
\otimes
\bigl [ \ckb{k_2} \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(k')}
\Bigr ]^{(j)}
\>,
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [ \,
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \, \bigtriangledown_1 \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(\kappa')} \,
\Bigr ]^{(j)}
\label{eq:l2_Cj}
\\ \nonumber &
=
\sum_k
\sgn{k_2 + \kappa' - \kappa + k}
\hat \kappa \hat k
\wsj{k_2}{k_1}{\kappa}{\kappa'}{j}{k}
\Bigl [ \Bigl [
\cka{k_1} \! \otimes \!
\bigl [ \bigtriangledown_1 \! \otimes \! \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(\kappa')} \Bigr ]^{(k)}
\otimes
\ckb{k_2}
\Bigr ]^{(j)}
\>.
\end{align}
Again, for the $\mathbf{\ell}^2$ interaction, we are only interested
in the case
$j=0$. We obtain:\\
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [ \,
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \, \bigtriangledown_2 \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(\kappa)} \,
\Bigr ]^{(0)}
\label{eq:l2_A}
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow
\delta_{k_1 \lambda}
\frac{\sgn{\lambda + j_2 + j_4 +1}}{\hat \lambda \, (2\lambda+1)}
\Ffac{1}{3}{\lambda} \ckrme{1}{\lambda}{3}
\\ \nonumber &
\qquad \qquad \qquad \times \
\Ffac{2}{4}{\lambda} CGG_2(\lambda k_2 \kappa, k_2 \kappa \lambda)
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [ \,
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \, \bigtriangledown_1 \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(\kappa)} \,
\Bigr ]^{(0)}
\label{eq:l2_B}
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow
\frac{\sgn{k_2 + j_2 + j_4}}{2\lambda+1} \
\hat \kappa \,
\wsj{k_1}{k_2}{\kappa}{1}{1}{\lambda}
\\ \nonumber &
\qquad \qquad \qquad \times \
\Ffac{1}{3}{\lambda} \Ffac{2}{4}{\lambda}
CGCG(k_1 k_2 \kappa, k_1 \lambda k_2 \lambda)
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [ \,
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigl ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \, \bigtriangledown_1 \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(\kappa)} \,
\Bigr ]^{(0)}
\label{eq:l2_C}
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow
\delta_{k_2 \lambda}
\frac{\sgn{\lambda + j_2 + j_4 +1}}{\hat \lambda \, (2\lambda+1)}
\Ffac{1}{3}{\lambda} CGG_1(k_1 \lambda \kappa, k_1 \kappa \lambda)
\\ \nonumber &
\qquad \qquad \qquad \times \
\Ffac{2}{4}{\lambda} \ckrme{2}{\lambda}{4}
\>.
\end{align}
Here we have introduced the notations
\begin{align}
&
CGG_1(k_1 k_2 \kappa, k l \lambda)
=
\cgga{k_1}{k_2}{2}{\kappa}{k}{l}{\lambda}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&
CGG_2(k_1 k_2 \kappa, k l \lambda)
=
\cggb{k_1}{k_2}{2}{\kappa}{k}{l}{\lambda}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
CGCG(k_1 k_2 \kappa, l_1 l_2 \lambda_1 \lambda_2)
= & \
\langle
l_1 \, \| \,
u^{(k_1, 2 \kappa)} (r_1) \,
\left[ C^{(l_1)} (\hat{r_1}) \otimes \bigtriangledown_1
\right ]^{(l_2)}
\, \| \,
l_3 \rangle
\\ \nonumber & \times \
\langle
l_2 \, \| \,
u^{(k_2, 2 \kappa)} (r_2) \,
\left[ C^{(\lambda_1)} (\hat{r_2}) \otimes \bigtriangledown_2
\right ]^{(\lambda_2)}
\, \| \,
l_4 \rangle
\>.
\end{align}
\subsection{$\mathbf{\ell}^2 \, \bigl ( \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \bigr )$ interaction}
\label{l2ss}
The $\mathbf{\ell}^2 \, \bigl ( \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \bigr )$
interaction is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{L2S} \ = \
V_{l2s}(r) \, \mathbf{\ell}^2 \, \bigl ( \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \bigr ) & = &
\left ( - \, \sqrt{3} \right ) \
V_{l2s}(r) \, \mathbf{\ell}^2 \,
\left [ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 \right]^{(0)}
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
Since the $\mathbf{\ell}^2 \, \bigl ( \sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \bigr
)$ interaction differs from the $\mathbf{\ell}^2$ interaction only
through the spin part, $\left ( \sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 \right )$, we
can use Eq.~(\ref{eq:l2_2}) and add the corresponding spin
interaction. We have:
\begin{align}
&
V_{l2s}(r) \, \mathbf{\ell}^2 \, \left ( \sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 \right )
=
\frac{3}{2} \
\sum_{\kappa = 0,2} \frac{1}{\hat \kappa}
\wsj{1}{1}{1}{1}{\kappa}{1}
\label{eq:l2ss_2}
\\ \nonumber & \ \times
\cg{1}{0}{1}{0}{\kappa}{0}
\sum_{k_{1} k_{2}} \mathrm{i}^{k_2 - k_1 - \kappa} \,
(2 k_1 + 1)(2 k_2 + 1) \, \cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{\kappa}{0}
u^{(k_1 k_2, \kappa 2)} (r_1,r_2)
\\ \nonumber & \ \times
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
\bigl [ ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 )
\otimes ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 ) \bigr ]^{(\kappa)} \Bigr ]^{(0)}
\left ( \sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 \right )
\\ \nonumber &
- \ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \
\sum_{k_{1} k_{2}} \, \mathrm{i}^{k_2 - k_1 - 1} \,
(2 k_1 + 1)(2 k_2 + 1) \, \cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{1}{0} \
u^{(k_1 k_2, 1 1)} (r_1,r_2)
\\ \nonumber & \ \times \,
\biggl \{
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(1)}
\otimes \bigtriangledown_{2} \Bigr ]^{(0)}
( \sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 )
\\ \nonumber & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
-
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(1)}
\otimes \bigtriangledown_{1} \Bigr ]^{(0)}
( \sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 )
\biggr \}
\> .
\end{align}
Accordingly, using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:l2_A}--\ref{eq:l2_C}) and
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:l2_D},\ref{eq:l2_E}) we obtain the
contributions to the \emph{ph} matrix element $\jjmeph{V_{L2S}}$:\\
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [ \,
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
[ \bigtriangledown_2 \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 ]^{(\kappa)} \,
\Bigr ]^{(0)} \
\left ( \sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 \right )
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\frac{\sgn{\lambda + j_2 + j_4}}{\hat k_1 \, (2\lambda+1)} \
\Gfac{1}{3}{k_1}{\lambda} \ \ckrme{1}{k_1}{3} \
\\ \nonumber &
\qquad \qquad \qquad \times \
\Gfac{2}{4}{k_1}{\lambda} \ CGG_2(k_1 k_2 \kappa, k_2 \kappa k_1)
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [ \,
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
[ \, \bigtriangledown_1 \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 ]^{(\kappa)} \,
\Bigr ]^{(0)} \
\left ( \sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 \right )
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\frac{\sgn{\lambda + k_2 + j_2 + j_4 +1}}{2\lambda+1} \
\hat \kappa \,
\sum_{k} \ \sgn{k} \
\wsj{k_1}{k_2}{\kappa}{1}{1}{k} \
\\ \nonumber &
\qquad \qquad \qquad \times \
\Gfac{1}{3}{k}{\lambda} \ \Gfac{2}{4}{k}{\lambda} \
CGCG(k_1 k_2 \kappa, k_1 k k_2 k)
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [ \,
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
[ \, \bigtriangledown_1 \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 ]^{(\kappa)} \,
\Bigr ]^{(0)} \
\left ( \sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 \right )
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow
\frac{\sgn{\lambda + j_2 + j_4}}{\hat k_2 \, (2\lambda+1)} \
\Gfac{1}{3}{k_2}{\lambda} \ CGG_1(k_1 k_2 \kappa, k_1 \kappa k_2) \
\\ \nonumber &
\qquad \qquad \qquad \times \
\Gfac{2}{4}{k_2}{\lambda} \ \ckrme{2}{k_2}{4}
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(1)}
\otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \Bigr ]^{(0)} \
\left ( \sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 \right )
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\frac{\sgn{\lambda + j_2 + j_4}}{\hat k_1 \, (2\lambda+1)} \
\Gfac{1}{3}{k_1}{\lambda} \ \ckrme{1}{k_1}{3} \
\\ \nonumber &
\qquad \qquad \qquad \times \
\Gfac{2}{4}{k_1}{\lambda} \ CG_2(k_1 k_2, k_2 k_1)
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\Bigl [
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(1)}
\otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \Bigr ]^{(0)} \
\left ( \sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2 \right )
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\frac{\sgn{\lambda + j_2 + j_4}}{\hat k_2 \, (2\lambda+1)} \
\Gfac{1}{3}{k_2}{\lambda} \ CG_1(k_1 k_2, k_1 k_2) \
\\ \nonumber &
\qquad \qquad \qquad \times \
\Gfac{2}{4}{k_2}{\lambda} \ \ckrme{2}{k_2}{4}
\>.
\end{align}
\subsection{Quadrupole spin-orbit interaction}
\label{ls2}
The quadrupole spin-orbit interaction, $V_{LS2}$, is given as the
radial factor, $V_{ls2}(r)$, multiplying the operator $(\mathbf{\ell} \cdot \mathbf{S})^2$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{ls2_def}).
As discussed in Sec.~\ref{ops}, the $j=0,1$ components in Eq.~(\ref{ls2_def}) can be
incorporated by introducing modified radial amplitudes of the
spin-orbit, $\mathbf{\ell}^2$ and $\mathbf{\ell}^2 \, \bigl (
\sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2 \bigr )$ interactions, see Eqs.~(\ref{l2_mod},\ref{l2s_mod},\ref{ls_mod}).
The only component of the interaction that we have not addressed yet
is the one in Eq.~(\ref{j2}), corresponding to $j=2$.
In general, we can use Eq.~(\ref{llj}) and write
\begin{align}
&
V_{ls2}(r) \, \left [ \mathbf{\ell} \otimes \mathbf{\ell} \right ]^{(j)}
=
\frac{3}{2} \, r^2
\!\! \sum_{\kappa \kappa' = 0,2} \!
\frac{\hat \kappa'}{\hat \kappa}
\wnj{1}{1}{1}{1}{1}{1}{\kappa}{\kappa'}{j}
\label{eq:ls2_2}
\\ \nonumber & \
\times \,
\cg{1}{0}{1}{0}{\kappa}{0}
\sum_{k_{1} k_{2}} \mathrm{i}^{k_2 - k_1 - \kappa}
(2 k_1 + 1)(2 k_2 + 1) \cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{\kappa}{0}
u^{(k_1 k_2, 2 \kappa)} (r_1,r_2)
\\ \nonumber & \
\times \,
\Bigl [
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(\kappa)}
\otimes
\bigl [ ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 )
\otimes ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 ) \bigr ]^{(\kappa')}
\Bigr ]^{(j)}
\\ \nonumber &
- \ r \ \sgn{j} \
\wsj{1}{1}{1}{1}{1}{j} \
\sum_{k_{1} k_{2}} \, \mathrm{i}^{k_2 - k_1 - 1} \,
(2 k_1 + 1)(2 k_2 + 1) \, \cg{k_1}{0}{k_2}{0}{1}{0} \
\\ \nonumber & \qquad \qquad \qquad
\times \
u^{(k_1 k_2, 1 1)} (r_1,r_2)
\Bigl [ \bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \ckb{k_2} \bigr ]^{(1)}
\otimes ( \bigtriangledown_1 - \bigtriangledown_2 \, )
\Bigr ]^{(j)}
\> .
\end{align}
Using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:l2_Aj}--\ref{eq:l2_Cj}) and
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:l2_Dj},\ref{eq:l2_Ej}), with $j=2$, we couple
$\cka{k}$ with $\bigtriangledown_1$, and $\ckb{l}$ with $\bigtriangledown_2$ dependent
operators, respectively.
The contributions to the
\emph{ph}-coupled matrix element $\jjmeph{V_{LS2}}$ are:
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\biggl [
\Bigl [
\cka{k_1} \otimes
\Bigl [
\ckb{k_2}
\otimes
\bigl [ \bigtriangledown_2 \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(\kappa')}
\Bigr ]^{(k)}
\Bigr ]^{(2)}
\otimes
\left [ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 \right ]^{(2)} \
\biggl ]^{(0)}
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\frac{\sgn{k + j_2 + j_4}}{2\lambda+1} \
\sqrt{5} \
\wsj{k_1}{k}{2}{1}{1}{\lambda} \
\\ \nonumber & \ \times \,
\Gfac{1}{3}{k_1}{\lambda} \, \ckrme{1}{k_1}{3} \,
\Gfac{2}{4}{k}{\lambda} \, CGG_2(k_1 k_2 \kappa, k_2 \kappa' k)
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\biggl [
\Bigl [
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(k)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \ckb{k_2} \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(k')}
\Bigr ]^{(2)}
\otimes
\left [ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 \right ]^{(2)} \
\biggl ]^{(0)}
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\frac{\sgn{k' + j_2 + j_4 +1}}{2\lambda+1} \
\sqrt{5} \
\wsj{k}{k'}{2}{1}{1}{\lambda} \
\\ \nonumber & \qquad \times \,
\Gfac{1}{3}{k}{\lambda} \, \Gfac{2}{4}{k'}{\lambda} \,
CGCG(k_1 k_2 \kappa, k_1 k k_2 k')
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\biggl [
\Bigr [
\Bigr [
\cka{k_1}
\otimes
\bigl [ \bigtriangledown_1 \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(\kappa')}
\Bigr ]^{(k)}
\otimes \ckb{k_2}
\Bigr ]^{(2)}
\otimes
\left [ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 \right ]^{(2)} \
\biggr ]^{(0)}
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\frac{\sgn{k_2 + j_2 + j_4 +1}}{2\lambda+1} \
\sqrt{5} \
\wsj{k}{k_2}{2}{1}{1}{\lambda} \
\\ \nonumber & \ \times \,
\Gfac{1}{3}{k}{\lambda} \, CGG_1(k_1 k_2 \kappa, k_1 \kappa' k) \,
\Gfac{2}{4}{k_2}{\lambda} \, \ckrme{2}{k_2}{4}
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\biggl [
\Bigl [
\cka{k_1} \otimes
\bigl [ \ckb{k_2} \otimes \bigtriangledown_2 \bigr ]^{(k)}
\Bigr ]^{(2)}
\otimes
\left [ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 \right ]^{(2)} \
\biggr ]^{(0)}
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\frac{\sgn{k + j_2 + j_4}}{2\lambda+1} \
\sqrt{5} \
\wsj{k_1}{k}{2}{1}{1}{\lambda} \
\\ \nonumber & \qquad \times \,
\Gfac{1}{3}{k_1}{\lambda} \, \ckrme{1}{k_1}{3} \,
\Gfac{2}{4}{k}{\lambda} \, CG_2(k_1 k_2, k_2 k)
\>,
\end{align}
and
\noinden
\begin{align}
&
\biggl [
\Bigl [
\bigl [ \cka{k_1} \otimes \bigtriangledown_1 \bigr ]^{(k)}
\otimes \ckb{k_2}
\Bigr ]^{(2)}
\otimes
\bigl [ \sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2 \bigr ]^{(2)} \
\biggr ]^{(0)}
\\ \nonumber &
\Rightarrow \
\frac{\sgn{k_2 + j_2 + j_4}}{2\lambda+1} \
\sqrt{5} \
\wsj{k}{k_2}{2}{1}{1}{\lambda} \
\\ \nonumber & \qquad \times \,
\Gfac{1}{3}{k}{\lambda} \, CG_1(k_1 k_2, k_1 k) \,
\Gfac{2}{4}{k_2}{\lambda} \, \ckrme{2}{k_2}{4}
\>.
\end{align}
\section{Isospin matrix-elements calculation}
\label{iso}
Independent of the functional form of the single-particle wave functions,
the isospin dependence of the matrix elements is worked out in
a proton-neutron basis representation. We find it convenient to introduce the
proton/neutron creation/destruction operators, $\tau_\pm$, in terms
of its Cartesian components, as
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_\pm = \frac{1}{2} \, (\tau_x \, \pm \, i \tau_y)
\>, \quad
\tau_0 = \tau_z
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_+ \, | p \rangle & = \ 0
\qquad \qquad
\tau_+ \, | n \rangle & = \ | p \rangle
\\
\tau_-\, | n \rangle & = \ 0
\qquad \qquad
\tau_-\, | p \rangle & = \ | n \rangle
\> .
\end{eqnarray*}
Reciprocally, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_x & = & \tau_+ \, + \, \tau_-
\>,
\\
\tau_y & = & \frac{1}{i} \ (\tau_+ \, - \, \tau_-)
\>,
\end{eqnarray}
where the Cartesian components of the isospin operator are the usual
Pauli matrices
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_x \ = \
\Bigl (
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0
\end{array}
\Bigr )
\>,
\quad
\tau_y \ = \
\Bigl (
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -i \\ i & 0
\end{array}
\Bigr )
\>,
\quad
\tau_z \ = \
\Bigl (
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1
\end{array}
\Bigr )
\>.
\end{eqnarray}
With these definitions, the expectation values of the various
isospin-dependent operators are computed,
in terms of the matrices
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \tau' \, | \, \tau_+ \, | \, \tau \rangle
& =
\left \lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & {\rm if} \ | \tau \rangle = | n \rangle \ \mathrm{and}
\ | \tau' \rangle = | p \rangle
\>,
\\
0 & {\rm otherwise}
\>,
\end{array}
\right .
\\
\langle \tau' \, | \, \tau_- \, | \, \tau \rangle
& =
\left \lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & {\rm if} \ | \tau \rangle = | p \rangle \ \mathrm{and}
\ | \tau' \rangle = | n \rangle
\>,
\\
0 & {\rm otherwise}
\>,
\end{array}
\right .
\\
\langle \tau' \, | \, \tau_0 \, | \, \tau \rangle
& =
\left \lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & {\rm if} \ | \tau \rangle = | \tau' \rangle = | p \rangle
\>,
\\
-1 & {\rm if} \ | \tau \rangle = | \tau' \rangle = | n \rangle
\>,
\\
0 & {\rm otherwise} \>.
\end{array}
\right .
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, we note the identity:
\begin{equation}
\tau_1 \cdot \tau_2
\ = \
2 \, ( \tau_{1 +} \tau_{2 -} \, + \, \tau_{1 -} \tau_{2 +} )
\ + \
\tau_{1 0} \tau_{2 0}
\>.
\end{equation}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:dr}Convergence of matrix elements of the
central interaction of the Argonne $v_{18}$
potential calculated using the Moshinsky transformation-brackets
approach outlined in Sec.~\ref{ops}.
Here we study the evolution of the parameter $\varepsilon_{>x}^{\le y}$,
which indicates how many matrix elements
out of the total number of matrix elements, NME,
that can be formed in a $^{16}$O-like model space of single-particle
wave functions, $\mathcal{R}_{nl}$,
with $l \le 6$ and $n \le 6$, are characterized by a relative error ranging between
$x\%$ and $y\%$ when doubling the number of abscissas and weights in the
Gauss-Hermite quadrature set, NGAUS,
use to compute the radial integral~(\ref{radmat}).}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rcrrrr}
\hline
NGAUS & NME & $\varepsilon_{> 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.1}^{\le 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.01}^{\le 0.1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.001}^{\le 0.01}$
\\
\hline
64 & 23950 & 4792 & 16961 & 1907 & 270 \\
128 & 23950 & 0 & 122 & 8781 & 14595 \\
256 & 23950 & 0 & 0 & 64 & 7279 \\
512 & 23950 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 114 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!]
\caption{\label{tab:ss}Convergence of matrix elements of the
spin-spin interaction of the Argonne $v_{18}$
potential calculated using the Moshinsky transformation-brackets
approach outlined in Sec.~\ref{ops}.
Similar to table~\ref{tab:dr}.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rcrrrr}
\hline
NGAUS & NME & $\varepsilon_{> 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.1}^{\le 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.01}^{\le 0.1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.001}^{\le 0.01}$
\\
\hline
64 & 43796 & 14168 & 20877 & 8237 & 476 \\
128 & 43796 & 172 & 559 & 16236 & 24244 \\
256 & 43796 & 0 & 172 & 725 & 14238 \\
512 & 43796 & 0 & 0 & 179 & 758 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Results and Discussions}
\label{discuss}
To study the numerical accuracy of the approach described in the
previous sections, we will consider all possible \emph{ph}-coupled
matrix elements, NME, of the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential that can be
formed in a $^{16}$O-like model space of single-particle
harmonic-oscillator wave functions, $\mathcal{HO}_{nl}$, with $l \le
6$ and $n \le 6$: the states involving $\mathcal{HO}_{10}$ and
$\mathcal{HO}_{11}$, i.e. $(nlj)=\{
(10\frac{1}{2}),(11\frac{1}{2}),(11\frac{3}{2}) \}$, are taken to be
\emph{hole} (occupied) states, and all others are \emph{particle}
(unoccupied) states.
We will begin by studying the convergence of the matrix elements
calculated using the Moshinsky transformation-brackets approach
outlined in Sec.~\ref{ops}.
Up to intrinsic round-off errors, the numerical accuracy of the
matrix element calculation is tied to the calculation of the radial
part of the matrix element, given in Eq.~(\ref{radmat}). While this
is not the only possible way to calculate this integral, we find it
instructive to perform this integral using the Gauss-Hermite
quadrature formula. This approach is applicable because the
asymptotic form of the product of two harmonic-oscillator wave
functions is Gaussian, and the potential itself falls to zero, as
$r$ goes to infinity. To study the convergence of the matrix
elements with NGAUS, the number of abscissas and weights in the
Gauss-Hermite quadrature set, it is convenient to introduce the
parameter $\varepsilon_{>x}^{\le y}$, which represents the number of
matrix elements characterized by a
percentage change in the numerical value of the matrix element
between $x\%$ and $y\%$ when doubling the number of grid points, NGAUS.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:te}Convergence of matrix elements of the
tensor interaction of the Argonne $v_{18}$
potential calculated using the Moshinsky transformation-brackets
approach outlined in Sec.~\ref{ops}.
Similar to table~\ref{tab:dr}.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rcrrrr}
\hline
NGAUS & NME & $\varepsilon_{> 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.1}^{\le 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.01}^{\le 0.1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.001}^{\le 0.01}$
\\
\hline
64 & 45853 & 16337 & 20967 & 7729 & 751 \\
128 & 45853 & 1907 & 12680 & 6663 & 3845 \\
256 & 45853 & 121 & 1851 & 12795 & 6667 \\
512 & 45853 & 6 & 147 & 2111 & 13314 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!]
\caption{\label{tab:ls}Convergence of matrix elements of the
spin-orbit interaction of the Argonne $v_{18}$
potential calculated using the Moshinsky transformation-brackets
approach outlined in Sec.~\ref{ops}.
Similar to table~\ref{tab:dr}.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rcrrrr}
\hline
NGAUS & NME & $\varepsilon_{> 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.1}^{\le 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.01}^{\le 0.1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.001}^{\le 0.01}$
\\
\hline
64 & 41255 & 7931 & 20655 & 10778 & 1724 \\
128 & 41255 & 10 & 108 & 556 & 5059 \\
256 & 41255 & 0 & 8 & 78 & 428 \\
512 & 41255 & 0 & 0 & 6 & 66 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Results for the 7~types of operators discussed in the Argonne
$v_{18}$ potential are presented in Tables~\ref{tab:dr}--\ref{tab:ls2}. We find that the
calculation of the matrix-elements converges relatively fast with
the number of points in the Gauss-Hermite quadrature set, NGAUS,
with the one notable exception of the matrix element of the tensor
interaction. In order to converge the tensor matrix element we
require a large set of Gauss-Hermite abscissas. Obtaining such a set
is in fact a nontrivial endeavor, and we have described in~\ref{GH}
a practical approach to achieve this. The difficulty in
converging numerically the tensor matrix element is related to the
fact that the radial shape of the tensor interaction has a longer
range than the other components of the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential.
Hence the deviations from the $e^{-x^2}$ tail of the integrand in
Eq.~(\ref{radmat}) are more pronounced in the case of the tensor
interaction. A larger cutoff and a finer Gauss-Hermite grid is
needed for an accurate numerical evaluation, which in turn leads to
a larger NGAUS number of points.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:l2}Convergence of matrix elements of the
$\ell^2$ interaction of the Argonne $v_{18}$
potential calculated using the Moshinsky transformation-brackets
approach outlined in Sec.~\ref{ops}.
Similar to table~\ref{tab:dr}.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rcrrrr}
\hline
NGAUS & NME & $\varepsilon_{> 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.1}^{\le 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.01}^{\le 0.1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.001}^{\le 0.01}$
\\
\hline
64 & 30650 & 5560 & 15907 & 7636 & 1421 \\
128 & 30650 & 0 & 130 & 254 & 7045 \\
256 & 30650 & 0 & 0 & 82 & 158 \\
512 & 30650 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 82 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!]
\caption{\label{tab:l2s}Convergence of matrix elements of the
$\ell^2 (\sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2)$ interaction
of the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential
calculated using the Moshinsky transformation-brackets
approach outlined in Sec.~\ref{ops}.
Similar to table~\ref{tab:dr}.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rcrrrr}
\hline
NGAUS & NME & $\varepsilon_{> 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.1}^{\le 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.01}^{\le 0.1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.001}^{\le 0.01}$
\\
\hline
64 & 44261 & 8280 & 22408 & 11709 & 1715 \\
128 & 44261 & 2 & 89 & 765 & 8686 \\
256 & 44261 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 163 \\
512 & 44261 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!]
\caption{\label{tab:ls2}Convergence of matrix elements of the
quadrupole spin-orbit interaction in the Argonne $v_{18}$
potential calculated using Moshinsky transformation-brackets
approach outlined in Sec.~\ref{ops}.
Similar to table~\ref{tab:dr}.
}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rcrrrr}
\hline
NGAUS & NME & $\varepsilon_{> 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.1}^{\le 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.01}^{\le 0.1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.001}^{\le 0.01}$
\\
\hline
64 & 46726 & 17572 & 22013 & 6245 & 787 \\
128 & 46726 & 31 & 408 & 5549 & 21721 \\
256 & 46726 & 0 & 10 & 106 & 1412 \\
512 & 46726 & 0 & 0 & 6 & 49 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We conclude that a parameter value, NGAUS=512, is large enough to
assure a good accuracy of all components of the Argonne $v_{18}$
matrix elements, including the tensor part of the interaction, as
indicated by the sharp decrease in the parameter
$\varepsilon_{>0.1}$ for NGAUS=512. This statement is supported by
results of an independent calculation, to be discussed next.
\begin{table}[!]
\caption{\label{tab:jj}Convergence of matrix elements of the various
components of the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential calculated using
the approach outlined in Sec.~\ref{app:jjme_app}. Calculations were
performed for values of the number of abscissas and weights in the
Gauss-Hermite quadrature set, NGAUS, equal to 32, 64, 96 and 128.
Here we study the evolution of the parameter $\varepsilon_{>x}^{\le
y}$, which indicates how many matrix elements out of the total number of matrix
elements, NME, that can be formed in a $^{16}$O-like model space of
harmonic-oscillator single-particle wave functions,
$\mathcal{R}_{nl}$, with $l \le 6$ and $n \le 6$, are characterized
by a relative error between $x\%$ and $y\%$ when the number of grid
points,NGAUS, changes.
Calculations for larger values of NGAUS, (NGAUS=96 or 128 where
appropriate) have resulted in zero values of the parameter
$\varepsilon_{>x}^{\le y}$.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccrrrr}
\hline
Operator & NGAUS & NME & $\varepsilon_{> 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.1}^{\le 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.01}^{\le 0.1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.001}^{\le 0.01}$
\\
\hline
$1$ & 64 & 23950 & 0 & 20 & 411 & 17243 \\
$\sigma_i\cdot\sigma_j$ & 64 & 43796 & 0 & 137 & 1425 & 22048 \\
$S_{ij}$ & 64 & 45853 & 17844 & 4704 & 3795 & 17892 \\
$S_{ij}$ & 96 & 45853 & 0 & 4 & 23 & 378 \\
$\ell \cdot S$ & 64 & 41255 & 10 & 109 & 636 & 5191 \\
$\ell^2$ & 64 & 30650 & 0 & 115 & 257 & 3011 \\
$\ell^2 \, (\sigma_i\cdot\sigma_j)$ & 64 & 44261 & 0 & 9 & 294 & 3659 \\
$(\ell \cdot S)^2$ & 64 & 46726 & 22 & 230 & 2971 & 16467 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:jj-mosh}Comparison of the matrix elements of the
7~operators in the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential calculated using
the center-of-mass separation of variables for harmonic-oscillator
wave functions such as described in Sec.~\ref{ops}
and the general procedure outlined in Sec~\ref{app:jjme_app}. Here, the
parameter $\varepsilon_{>x}^{\le y}$ reflects the changes between
the Moshinsky-transformation based result (NGAUS=512) and the matrix
elements calculated using the approach presented in Sec.~\ref{app:jjme_app} for
NGAUS=96.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcrrrr}
\hline
Operator & NME & $\varepsilon_{> 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.1}^{\le 1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.01}^{\le 0.1}$ &
$\varepsilon_{> 0.001}^{\le 0.01}$
\\
\hline
$1$ & 23950 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
$\sigma_i\cdot\sigma_j$ & 43796 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 188 \\
$S_{ij}$ & 45853 & 0 & 8 & 187 & 3365 \\
$\ell \cdot S$ & 41255 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 \\
$\ell^2$ & 30650 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
$\ell^2 \, (\sigma_i\cdot\sigma_j)$ & 44261 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
$(\ell \cdot S)^2$ & 46726 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Next, we will compare the calculation of the Argonne $v_{18}$ matrix elements
using the Moshinsky transformation-brackets approach described in Sec.~\ref{ops} with the more general calculation of the same matrix elements
in the framework outlined in Sec.~\ref{app:jjme_app}.
With the exception of unavoidable round-off errors, the source of possible
numerical loss of accuracy in the calculation of the matrix elements
presented here is linked to the calculation of the integrals
discussed in Sec.~\ref{seq:radial}. First, we are concerned with the
integrals in Eqs.~(\ref{3_6}) and~(\ref{3_13}): Given that the
integrand vanishes for large values of the integration variables,
and in order to maintain the approach general, we will evaluate
these integrals by choosing a large cutoff and discretizing the
integrand on a fine grid. Because these integrals only have to be
performed once in the beginning of the calculation, and that the
results can be stored on disk for future reference, we have chosen a
radial cutoff of 25~fm and a momentum cutoff of 30~fm$^{-1}$ in
Eqs.~(\ref{3_6}) and~(\ref{3_13}), respectively, together with
uniform grids of 8000~points, and have performed these integrals
using the Simpson rule.
Second, we have to perform the integrals involving the radial
parts of the single-particle wave functions, as seen in
Eqs.~(\ref{3_10}) and~(\ref{3_12}). For an arbitrary functional form
of the single-particle wave functions, these calculations can become
computationally expensive, as they may have to be repeated for the
calculation of each and every matrix element. For the case of a
linear combination of harmonic-oscillator single-particle basis, these
integrals can be performed using Gauss-Hermite quadrature formulas.
We study the convergence of the matrix elements
with the number of abscissas and
weights in the Gauss-Hermite quadrature set, NGAUS, by computing the
value of the parameter $\varepsilon_{>x}^{\le y}$, which represents
the number of matrix elements characterized by a
percentage change in the numerical value of the matrix element
between $x\%$ and $y\%$ as the number of grid points, NGAUS, changes.
We have performed calculations using 4~sets of Gauss-Hermite
quadrature points, corresponding to values of the NGAUS parameter of
32, 64, 96, and 128.
Results for the 7~types of operators part of the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential are
presented in Table~\ref{tab:jj}. We find that the calculation of the
matrix-elements is fully converged for a value of the NGAUS
parameter, NGAUS=96, for all components of the Argonne $v_{18}$
potential, with the exception of the tensor interaction, which
requires a larger set of NGAUS=128 Gauss-Hermite quadrature points.
The slower convergence of the tensor-interaction matrix element
follows the trend observed in the case of the calculation based on
the Moshinsky transformation brackets, and is due to the fact
that the tensor interaction in the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential has a
longer range and more structure than the other components of the
interaction.
In order to ascertain the numerical accuracy and correctness of the
approach presented in Sec.~\ref{app:jjme_app}, we have also compared with
results of the calculation of the matrix elements using the
Moshinsky transformation brackets discussed earlier. Results are
displayed in Table~\ref{tab:jj-mosh}. Here, the parameter
$\varepsilon_{>x}^{\le y}$ reflects the changes between the
Moshinsky transformation-brackets result (NGAUS=512) and the matrix
elements calculated using the approach discussed in Sec.~\ref{app:jjme_app} for
NGAUS=96. The two calculations lead to numerically identical matrix
elements, which is quite remarkable since the two approaches are
very different. This validates both theoretical approaches.
In summary, in this paper we discussed two approaches for the calculation of
two-body matrix elements of the Argonne $v_{18}$ potential.
The first approach is only applicable to the specific case of a
harmonic-oscillator single-particle wave function representation.
In this case, the matrix elements are calculated
using the Talmi transformation (implemented numerically
using the Moshinsky transformation brackets) which allows for the separation of the center-of-mass and relative coordinates degrees of freedom.
Integrals involving the radial part of
the potential were performed using Gauss-Hermite quadrature
formulas, and convergence was achieved for sets of at least
512~Gauss points. This procedure was designed to validate the
calculation of matrix elements of the Argonne $v_{18}$
potential using an approach suitable for an arbitrary functional form of the
single-particle wave functions.
The latter approach represents the main thrust of this paper.
This general framework is suitable for the calculation of matrix elements
involving a representation of the single-particle wave functions
given by linear combinations of harmonic-oscillator
wave functions such as in Refs.~\cite{exps-1,exps-2,exps-3},
and/or the two-scale functional representation for the hole and particle
sides of the spectrum such as outlined in Ref.~\cite{cce-a1}.
For a model space represented in terms of harmonic-oscillator
wave functions, results obtained using the approaches discussed in Sec.~\ref{ops} and Sec.~\ref{app:jjme_app} are shown to be identical within numerical accuracy.
|
\section{Introduction}
The hallmark of graphene, a single layer of carbon atoms arranged on a honeycomb lattice, is its particular band structure with a linear dispersion of the low-energy carriers
around the two inequivalent (Dirac) points $K$ and $K'$ at the corners of the first Brillouin zone \cite{graphene}.
The $K$ and $K'$ valleys are distinguished by the valley (isospin) degree of freedom which is
robust against perturbations (unless a momentum on the scale of the graphene's reciprocal lattice vector is transferred) \cite{foot},
which makes it attractive for (valleytronics) applications \cite{1,2,xiao07,4,5,6}.
Hence, it is highly desirable to explore whether transport properties are controllable
via the valley degree of freedom.
As well-established \cite{berry}, the charge Hall conductivity $\sigma^{\text{C}}_{xy}$ is governed by the Berry phase, which for each Dirac cone is finite ($\pm\pi$ for $K(K')$), but the sum is zero. The Berry curvature mediated Hall effect in graphene
has been studied in the presence of a spin-orbit coupling \cite{kane05,qiao10,tse11}, or for a substrate-induced gap \cite{xiao07,zhang09,xiao10,fzhang11}, or in the proximity to a superconductor \cite{ghaemi}.
For a monolayer graphene with a uniform interaction gap, e.g. as resulting from the interaction with a substrate,
one finds \cite{xiao07} a finite Berry curvature and a finite charge Hall conductivity $\sigma^{K(K')}_{xy}$ in each of the Dirac cones by the interaction gap \cite{fuchs}. The total charge Hall current vanishes however, for the Berry curvature and the charge Hall conductivity for the two Dirac cones are equal with opposite signs. To circumvent this problem and obtain a net charge Hall current the authors of Ref. \cite{xiao07} proposed the creation of a non-equilibrium population in the Dirac cones, which is inherently hard to realize and sustain in a real device.
{An energy gap in the electronic structure is advantageous for graphene applications. E.g., a zero gap in graphene prevents the graphene field-effect transistor (GFET) device from possessing a turn-off state \cite{gfet}. A substrate-induced gap is not restricted to the SiC substrate but is also observed for the hexagonal boron nitride substrate \cite{bn}. A further way to tune the energy gap is via the strain engineering, e.g. as
brought about by strain super lattices or wrinkles \cite{low2011}. The strain can be viewed as a symmetry-adapted effective, pseudo magnetic field in the sublattice space for the two valleys \cite{low,vozmediano,fujita10}. A uniaxial strain can be realized experimentally by bending a flexible substrate \cite{mohiuddin}. And a biaxial strain in graphene can be created by shallow depressions \cite{metzger}. Recently, a zero-field quantum Hall effect in graphene was proposed via a designed strain profile \cite{guinea2010}. Usually, strain effect is studied via a minimal coupling which is momentum independent \cite{low2011}.
Here we go beyond the minimal coupling and include terms that are linear in the momentum by using the theory of invariants \cite{winkler}. The reason is that these terms will change the topology of the Dirac cones and which is manifested in real physical quantities, for example the Hall conductivity. Furthermore, the effect of strain is usually thought to introduce time-reversal-invariant terms in the Hamiltonian. However, we show in a time-reversal-breaking environment, for example under a weak magnetic field, the strain could couple with graphene via a time-reversal-breaking term which gives rise to exotic effects,
e.g., under the strain, a net charge Hall current can be driven by an applied electric field.
This effect may be useful to design strained-graphene-based devices where the Hall current can be turned on and off via an in-plane weak magnetic field.}
\section{Model} For a general analysis, let us start from a Hamiltonian derived by the theory of invariants that accounts systematically for all possible strains \cite{winkler}. Symmetry operations
and their compatibility with the underlying lattice
structures are encapsulated in this approach.
The general structure of the two-dimensional (2D) Dirac Hamiltonian is
\begin{eqnarray}
h_{K}(\mathbf{k}) &=& d_{0}(\mathbf{k})+\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{d}(\mathbf{k}), \text{ for $K$ cone,} \notag\\
h_{K'}(\mathbf{k}) &=& {d}_{0}'(\mathbf{k})+\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{d}'(\mathbf{k}), \text{ for $K'$ cone.}
\label{hkkp}
\end{eqnarray}
The vectors $\mathbf {d}(\mathbf{k})$ and $\mathbf {d}'(\mathbf{k})$ map the 2D momentum space to a 3D parameter space. $d_0(\mathbf{k})$ and $d'_{0}(\mathbf{k})$ are structureless parameters in the sublattice space and yield no contributions to the Berry curvature and Hall effect (see the appendix for details). The concrete form of these vectors depends on the realized physical situations and is given and discussed in full details in the appendix.
$\mathbf{d}$ is parameterizable as $\mathbf{d}=d(\cos\varphi\sin\theta,\sin\varphi\sin\theta,\cos\theta)$ (for $\mathbf{d'}$, we use $d'$, $\varphi'$ and $\theta'$). The eigen energies are $E_{\pm}=d_{0}(\mathbf{k})\pm d(\mathbf{k})$ and $E'_{\pm}=d'_{0}(\mathbf{k})\pm d'(\mathbf{k})$. Solving for the eigenfunctions of Eqs. (\ref{hkkp}), we can obtain the Berry connection (i.e. the fictitious vector potential as explained in the appendix) and the Berry curvature (i.e. the $z$ component of the associated magnetic field in the momentum space) as
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\nu Kz}(\mathbf{k})=\nu\frac{\sin\theta}{2}\left(\frac{\partial\theta}{\partial k_{x}}\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial k_{y}}-\frac{\partial\theta}{\partial k_{y}}\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial k_{x}}\right),
\label{berrycurvature}
\end{equation}
where $\nu=+(-)$ for conduction (valence) band. The same applies for $\Omega_{\nu K'z}$, with $\theta$ and $\varphi$
being replaced by $\theta'$ and $\varphi'$. The charge current operator is $j_{i}=\frac{\partial h(\mathbf{k})}{\partial k_{i}}$. Introducing $\tau_{z}$ as the Pauli matrix along the $z$ direction to describe the valley degree of freedom
we write for the valley current operator $j^{\text{V}}_{i}=\frac{1}{2}\{\tau_{z},j_{i}\}$, where $i=x,y$. From the standard Kubo formula \cite{qi2006} given in the appendix, we find the charge Hall ($\sigma^{\text{C}}_{xy}$) and the valley Hall ($\sigma^{\text{V}}_{xy}$) conductivities as
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma^{\text{C(V)}}_{xy} &=& \sigma_{xy}^{K}\pm\sigma_{xy}^{K'} \label{hallconductivity} \\
&=& \frac{e^{2}}{\hbar A_{0}}\left[\sum_{\nu\mathbf{k}}n_{\nu}(\mathbf{k})\Omega_{\nu Kz}(\mathbf{k})\pm\sum_{\nu\mathbf{k'}}n_{\nu}(\mathbf{k'})\Omega_{\nu K'z}(\mathbf{k'})\right]. \notag
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_{0}$ is the area of the system, $n_{\nu}(\mathbf{k})$ is the Fermi function.
The Berry curvature can be further expressed as
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\nu Kz}(\mathbf{k})=\frac{\nu}{2d^{2}(\mathbf{k})}\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}j_{\alpha x}j_{\beta y}\hat{d}_{\gamma},
\label{berry2}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ is the anti-symmetric tensor, $j_{\alpha i}=\frac{\partial d_{\alpha}(\mathbf{k})}{\partial k_{i}}$ is the \textit{pesudo spin current tensors}, $\alpha,\beta,\gamma=1,2,3$ and $\hat{d}_{\gamma}=d_{\gamma}/d(\mathbf{k})$.
\begin{figure}[tph]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(color online) The \textit{d} vector space which is mapped from a circle in the momentum space is shown for the case in absence (a) or presence (b) of strain. The unit of d vector is $\tilde{v}_{F}k$. The other parameters in (b) are $\frac{\tilde{v}_{x}}{\tilde{v}_{F}}=\frac{\tilde{v}_{y}}{\tilde{v}_{F}}=\frac{\mathcal{A}_{x}}{\tilde{v}_{F}k}=\frac{\mathcal{A}_{y}}{\tilde{v}_{F}k}=0.2$.
\label{d1d2}}
\end{figure}
\section{Hamiltonian with strain and analysis}
\subsection{Analysis for the case without strain}
In absence of the strain and the interaction gap the vector $\mathbf{d(d')}$ has only in-plane components, i.e. $d_{1}(d'_{1})=\pm v_{F}k_{x}$ and $d_{2}(d'_{2})=v_{F}k_{y}$. Geometrically, a circle in momentum space (constant $|\mathbf{k}|$) is mapped onto a circle in the \textit{d} vector space shown in Fig. \ref{d1d2}(a). The $\mathbf{d}$ and $\mathbf{d'}$ are related by a reflection $R^{-1}_{y}$ (a reflection through $yz$ plane which is perpendicular to the graphene layer see \cite{winkler}).
This operation conserves the sublattices but exchanges the Dirac cones. Under this operation, $(k_{x},k_{y})$ in $K$ cone is
transformed to $(-k_{x},k_{y})$ in $K'$ cone which means the angle $\phi$ of $\mathbf{k}$ (i.e. $\tan\phi=k_{y}/k_{x}$) is mapped
upon $R^{-1}_{y}$ to an angle $\pi-\phi$ of $(-k_{x},k_{y})$ in $K'$ cone. The role of $R^{-1}_{y}$ in the \textit{d} vector space is manifested as a reflection through $d_{2}d_{3}$ plane. Therefore, we have $\varphi=\phi$, $\varphi'=\pi-\phi$ and $\theta'=\theta$ between the phases of $\mathbf{d}$ and $\mathbf{d}'$. Thus, with increasing $\phi$ in $K$ cone ($\mathbf{d}$), the reflected vector in $K'$ cone ($\mathbf{d}'$) varies in the opposite direction which explains the cancelation of the total charge Hall current (see Fig. \ref{d1d2}(a)). The above analysis is also valid in the presence of an interaction gap although a $d(d')_{3}$ is introduced and a nontrivial topology in each Dirac cone is induced by it. The interaction gap does not break the symmetry between the two Dirac cones \cite{xiao07}.
\subsection{Analysis for the case with strain}
To discuss the effect of the strain, let us first define the strain tensor as
\begin{equation}
u_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial u_{i}}{\partial r_{j}}+\frac{\partial u_{j}}{\partial r_{i}}+\frac{\partial u_{z}}{\partial r_{i}}\frac{\partial u_{z}}{\partial r_{j}}\right),
\label{straintensor}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{u}$ is a polar vector indicating the displacements of atoms. In the theory of invariants \cite{toi}, the strain tensor couples with $\mathbf{k}$ giving rise to the irreducible tensors $\mathcal{K}$ under $D_{3h}$ group. We only focus on the $H^{55}$ which is derived by a multiplication of the irreducible matrices and the irreducible tensors that belong both to the $\Gamma_{5}$ representations. Thus, the Hamiltonian is expressed in terms of $\Gamma_{1}$, $\Gamma_{2}$ and $\Gamma_{6}$, respectively. The corresponding irreducible matrices for these representations are $\mathbf{1}$, $\sigma_{z}$, and $(\sigma_{x},\sigma_{y})$ \cite{winkler}. Hence, we infer $d_{0}=\mathcal{K}^{1}$, $d_{3}=\mathcal{K}^{2}$, $d_{1}=\mathcal{K}^{6,1}$ and $d_{2}=\mathcal{K}^{6,2}$ where $\mathcal{K}^{\kappa,\lambda}$ indicates irreducible tensors that transform according to the $\kappa$-th irreducible representations of $D_{3h}$ \cite{winkler}.
From the theory of invariants \cite{winkler} (cf. also the appendix), we obtain the $\mathbf{d}$ vector in the $K$ and $K'$ cones {without including the external electric field}
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{1}&=& (\tilde{v}_{F}k_{x}+\tilde{\mathbf{v}}\cdot\mathbf{k})\tau_{z}-\mathcal{A}_{x}, \notag\\
d_{2} &=& \tilde{v}_{F}k_{y}+(\mathbf{k}\times\tilde{\mathbf{v}})_{z}+\mathcal{A}_{y}\tau_{z}, \notag\\
d_{3} &=& \beta(\tilde{v}_{x}k_{y}+\tilde{v}_{y}k_{x}),
\label{dvector1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau_{z}$ denotes the valley degree, $\tilde{v}_{F}=v_{F}+b_{62}(u_{xx}+u_{yy})$, $\tilde{v}_{x}=b_{63}(u_{xx}-u_{yy})$, $\tilde{v}_{y}=2b_{63}u_{xy}$, and $\beta=b_{21}/b_{63}$ being a dimensionless parameter.
As in studies on semiconductors all the parameters ($b$'s) are to be determined experimentally
or from \textit{ab-initio} calculations \cite{toi}.
The effective vector potential whose components are $\mathcal{A}_{x}=b_{61}(u_{xx}-u_{yy})$ and $\mathcal{A}_{y}=b_{61}(2u_{xy})$ was studied as a minimal coupling in a strain-induced transport \cite{pereira,pereira2009,neto}. This vector potential can also be expressed in terms of the hopping parameters in a tight-binding formalism $\mathcal{A}_{x}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}(t_{3}-t_{2})$ and $\mathcal{A}_{y}=\frac{1}{2}(t_{2}+t_{3}-2t_{1})$ where $t$'s are the hopping parameters under strain \cite{vozmediano}. This term is independent of $\mathbf{k}$ and can not change the topology of the Dirac cones. {Please note the third component, i.e. $d_{3}$, is present under the time-reversal-breaking environment. This term violates the $\mathbf{d}$ vector from $\theta=\pi/2$ plane. Thus the $\mathbf{d}$ vector now describes a map from a 2D momentum space to a 3D vector space. We will study the specific consequences of this mapping.}
Furthermore, the diagonal strain $u_{xx}-u_{yy}$ and the off-diagonal component $u_{xy}$ yield new effects, beyond the minimal coupling, and give rise to extra terms that depend on $\mathbf{k}$. Therefore, the topology of the cones is changed and a non-vanishing Hall conductivity will be the first-order effect from these terms.
Note, that the $b_{62}$ term in the above equations stems from the contribution of a smooth rippling of the graphene sheet \cite{winkler,juan} and results
in an isotropic renormalization of the electron velocity. The action of the operator $R^{-1}_{y}$ is now $R^{-1}_{y}(\mathcal{A}_{x},\mathcal{A}_{y})=(\mathcal{A}_{x},-\mathcal{A}_{y})$, $R^{-1}_{y}(\tilde{v}_{x},\tilde{v}_{y})=(\tilde{v}_{x},-\tilde{v}_{y})$.
Because of these symmetry relations, in the presence of a strain, a circle in the momentum space is mapped onto ellipses in the \textit{d} vector space, as visualized in Fig. \ref{d1d2}(b).
The two ellipses are reflection-symmetric at $d_{1}d_{3}$ plane in the \textit{d} vector space. This plane is perpendicular to the one in the case of zero strain. This is the consequence of the symmetry property for the strain tensor $u_{ij}$ under $R_{y}^{-1}$. $u_{ij}$ is not a polar vector (say $\mathbf{k}$) and transforms like the symmetrized $\left\{k_{i},k_{j}\right\}$. However, the symmetry plane of $d_{1}d_{3}$ links $\mathbf{d}(\mathbf{k})$ and $\mathbf{d}'(-\mathbf{k})$ and vice versa (rather then $\mathbf{d}(\mathbf{k})$ and $\mathbf{d}'(\mathbf{k})$) (see Fig. \ref{d1d2}(b)). We note $d_{3}(\mathbf{k})=-d'_{3}(-\mathbf{k})$. Therefore, we can rearrange the summation in deriving $\sigma^{\text{C(V)}}_{xy}$ over $\mathbf{k}'$ in $K'$ cone by the restriction $\mathbf{k}'=-\mathbf{k}$ in Eq. (\ref{hallconductivity}). So the phases of $d'$ are $\phi'=2\pi-\phi$ and $\theta'=\pi-\theta$. According to Eq. (\ref{berrycurvature}) we obtain the remarkable result
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\nu Kz}=\Omega_{\nu K'z}.
\label{berrystrain}
\end{equation}
The two Dirac cones have the same conductivity contributions in contrast to the opposite contributions in zero strain case.
The opposite properties of the Berry curvature for the conduction and the valence bands are maintained since the strain does not break the particle-hole symmetry. Eq. (\ref{berrystrain}) evidences a net charge Hall conductivity in our case.
\section{Numerical illustrations}
To demonstrate the symmetry analysis, in Fig. \ref{berrycur} we show the results of the numerical calculations for the total Berry curvature in (a), (b) and (c). The observations from (a) and (b) are:\\
\emph{ i)} the prominent peaks (or dips) indicate the positions of the Dirac points in momentum space
shifted by the effective magnetic field induced by the strain.\\
\emph{ii)} A singularity of these peaks (or dips) does not exist generally since a strain-induced gap is present.\\
\emph{iii)} The Berry curvature apart from the Dirac points is generally finite.\\
\emph{ iv) } The two peaks in Berry's curvature are just at the antipodal points with respect to the zero $\mathbf{k}$ (inversion in the momentum space).\\
\emph{ v)} The most important fact is that the Berry curvatures at these two points possess the same sign.
These observations are exactly what one expects from a symmetry analysis. Furthermore, we find the Berry curvature is exactly zero if the off-diagonal component $u_{xy}$ is zero. For $u_{xy}\neq 0$, as shown in Fig. \ref{berrycur}(b), the Berry curvature is non vanishing even when $u_{xx}=u_{yy}$ (which means $\mathcal{A}_{x}=\tilde{v}_{x}=0$).
Note, the discussed symmetry is still preserved with the result of a
net Hall conductivity.
The difference to Fig. \ref{berrycur}(a) and (b) is that the Hall conductivity is present with a reversed sign. The energies (with respect to $d_{0}(d'_{0})$) for the conduction and valence bands, and the total Berry curvature calculated along the dash line in (a), are shown in Fig. \ref{berrycur}(d) and (e), respectively. As evident, the two peaks in the Berry curvature are the same and appear at the positions where the smallest band gap exists.
The inset in (e) shows a zoom-in of the opened strain-induced gap.
\begin{figure}[tphb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{(color online) The contour plot of the total Berry curvature $\Omega_{\text{tot}}$ for the conduction band is calculated numerically in (a), (b) and (c). The energy profiles in (d) and (f) and the $\Omega_{\text{tot}}$ in (e) and (g) are calculated along the dashed lines in (a) and (c) respectively. The inset of (d) and (e) is a zoom-in plot around $K'$ cone. The units are $k_{0}=1$ nm$^{-1}$, $\tilde{v}_{F}$, $\tilde{v}_{F}\hbar k_{0}$ for the wave vector, the velocity, and energy respectively (note the unit of $\mathcal{A}$ is energy).
$\beta=0.5$ is kept for all graphs. A energy gap $\Delta=0.28$ eV \cite{zhou} is present in (c), (f) and (g) and zero elsewhere. The other parameters are $\frac{\tilde{v}_{x}}{\tilde{v}_{F}}=\frac{\mathcal{A}_{x}}{\tilde{v}_{F}k_{0}}=\frac{\tilde{v}_{y}}{\tilde{v}_{F}}=\frac{\mathcal{A}_{y}}{\tilde{v}_{F}k_{0}}=0.3$ in (a), (c)-(g); $\frac{\tilde{v}_{x}}{\tilde{v}_{F}}=\frac{\mathcal{A}_{x}}{\tilde{v}_{F}k_{0}}=0$, $\frac{\tilde{v}_{y}}{\tilde{v}_{F}}=\frac{\mathcal{A}_{y}}{\tilde{v}_{F}k_{0}}=0.3$ in (b).
\label{berrycur}}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{berrycur}(c) shows the calculated the total Berry curvature for the conduction band in the presence of a strain and an interaction gap \cite{zhou}. The interaction gap is uniformly generated for both Dirac cones \cite{xiao07} and thus adds to $d_{3}$ and $d'_{3}$. The interaction gap breaks the symmetry shown in Fig. \ref{d1d2}(b). If $d_{3}=d'_{3}=\Delta/2$ only, the odd-symmetry of the Berry curvature for the two cones is preserved. If there is only a strain effect in $d_{3}$ and $d'_{3}$, the symmetry is changed to even. If the interaction gap and the strain are both present, they compete with each other. Generally, the Berry curvature does not possess an explicit symmetry which can be seen from Figs. \ref{berrycur}(f) and (g) along the dash line in (c). The gaps at the shifted $K$ and $K'$ cones composed of the interaction gap and the strain-induced gap are generally not symmetric now.
\begin{figure}[tphb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{(color online) The dependencies of $\sigma^{\text{C}}_{xy}$ on $\mu$ in (a) and on $\tilde{v}_{x}$ and $\tilde{v}_{y}$ in (b) and (c). (d) shows the variation of $\sigma^{\text{V}}_{xy}$ with $\tilde{v}_{x}$ and $\tilde{v}_{y}$. In (a), $\tilde{v}_{x}=\tilde{v}_{y}$, $\alpha=1$ and $\beta=0.5$.
The parameters in (b), (c) and (d) are $\beta=0.5$, $\alpha=1.2$ and $\mu=1.0$. The unit of the conductivity is $e^{2}/\hbar$. The other units are the same as in Fig. \ref{berrycur}.
\label{hallstrain}}
\end{figure}
Introducing the relation $\mathcal{A}_{x(y)}=\alpha\tilde{v}_{x(y)}$ we calculated the total charge Hall conductivity with varying the Fermi level $\mu$ (Fig. \ref{hallstrain} (a)). For graphene without the interaction gap there is no sign change in $\sigma^{\text{C}}_{xy}$.
In the presence of the interaction gap and the strain, there is a sign change since the interaction gap is modified to two non-symmetric gaps in the two cones (see Fig. \ref{berrycur} (c) and (f)). With increasing $\mu$, one cone dominates first. The other cone follows up with a further increase of $\mu$ leading thus to a sign change. The values at which the sign change occurs indicate the asymmetry of the gaps at $K$ and $K'$.
The saturation value of the $\sigma^{\text{C}}_{xy}$ is increased with a larger strain. To obtain a deeper insight into how the $\sigma^{\text{C(V)}}_{xy}$ varies with the strain parameters, the contour plots are shown in Fig. \ref{hallstrain}(b)-(d). In (b) and (c), $\sigma^{\text{C}}_{xy}$ is shown for $\Delta=0$ and $\Delta=0.28$ eV, respectively.
The regions of a finite Hall conductivity are split into islands by a zero regions. The dash lines in (b) and (c) indicate the relation $\tilde{v}_{y}=\sqrt{3}\tilde{v}_{x}$ from which $d(d')=0$ can be obtained. When this happens there is no structure in the system. In the upper part of this line, the islands show a positive sign of the charge Hall conductivity. In contrast, in the lower part of the line, the charge Hall conductivity is negative.
In regions (III) and (IV) in Figs. \ref{hallstrain}(b) and (c), the strain effect is prominent leading to a large charge Hall conductivity. The areas of the regions (III) and (IV) shrink accordingly in Fig. \ref{hallstrain}(c) with nonzero interaction gap.
An interesting observation is that a transition may occur when crossing from the lower part to the upper part. Noting that the strain is coupled with the graphene in a symmetry-governed way, the symmetry at the transition point is maintained and the topology is changed. This could be an example of a Lifshitz transition \cite{volovik} induced by the strain in graphene. In the regions (I) in Figs. \ref{hallstrain}(b) and (c), $\sigma^{\text{C}}_{xy}$ is small since the interaction gap dominates the strain-induced gap in (c) and a small strain-induced gap in (b).
The regions (II) in (b) and (c) evidence that the induced gap is large leading to a zero $\sigma^{\text{C}}_{xy}$ for each cone.
The sign change of $\sigma^{\text{C}}_{xy}$ is caused by the reversed sign of the cross products of the two pseudo spin currents, i.e. $\mathbf{j}_{x(y)}=(j_{1x(y)},j_{2x(y)},j_{3x(y)})$ in 3D $\hat{d}$ space.
Fig. \ref{hallstrain}(d) shows the valley Hall conductivity . In contrast to the corresponding regions in (b) and (c), the $\sigma^{\text{V}}_{xy}$ is large in region (I) and possesses the same sign for the (III) and (IV) regions. In regions (II), the valley Hall conductivity is quite small as well.
\begin{figure}[tphb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{(color online) Schematics of the charge and valley Hall effect under an external electric field for a zero strain and nonzero interaction gap in (a), nonzero strain and zero interaction gap in (b), and nonzero strain and nonzero interaction gap in (c). The arrowed curves denote the electron flows. The arrowed circles indicate the orbital magnetic momentum in $K$ and $K'$ cones. The thicker (thinner) curve means larger (weaker) electron current.
\label{CHCVHC}}
\end{figure}
\section{Possible experimental setup} Experimentally, the valley degree could be characterized by the valley-carried orbital magnetic moment \cite{xiao07,xiao10,fuchs}. In our study, the orbital magnetic moment in the presence of the strain is $m^{K(K')}_{\nu z}(\mathbf{k})=-\nu\frac{ed(d')}{\hbar}\Omega_{\nu K(K')z}(\mathbf{k})$, where $\nu=\pm$ for the conduction and the valence band. This formula reduces to that in absence of the strain given in Ref. \cite{xiao07} except for a minus sign because of a sign change in the definition of the Berry curvature. As is known, the orbital magnetic moment for a Bloch wave packet stems from its self rotation and can be tested in an external magnetic field.
For a zero strain, no charge Hall current is present, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{CHCVHC}(a). The electron flows from $K$ and $K'$ cones carry different orbital magnetic moments, which gives rise to a finite valley Hall conductivity. The opposite orbital magnetic moment accumulates on the opposite edges of the Hall bar and may be tested in experiments, e.g. by giant magneto resistent sensors. For nonzero strain and zero interaction gap, the net charge Hall current is nonzero since the electrons flow into the same direction with the same orbital magnetic moments in the two cones (see Fig. \ref{CHCVHC}(b)). The interesting point is that the net magnetic moment is non vanishing as a consequence. For the nonzero strain and nonzero interaction gap, the electron flows may proceed in the same directions; or they may run in opposite directions with different magnitudes of current density and orbital magnetic moment. Which case is realized in determined by the relative ratio of the strengthes of the strain and the interaction gap (the latter case is schematically shown in Fig. \ref{CHCVHC}(c)). {The effect could be observed by applying a weak magnetic field in the plane (to minimize the orbital motion and the Zeeman effect could be negligible) to the graphene device with strain or by depositing
the graphene device on a (magnetic) substrate which breaks the time-reversal symmetry.}
{In summary, we inspected the effects of strain in graphene within a model that goes beyond the minimal coupling by utilizing
the theory of invariants. We show how the strain tunes the topology of the two Dirac cones, the associated Berry curvatures, the orbital magnetic moments and the conductivities. Unlike the other studies, we also consider the effect of strain under a time-reversal-breaking environment and point out that a net charge Hall effect could be induced by an off-diagonal strain.
This is a case which falls in the category of the anomalous Hall effects without spin orbit coupling and could be tested by applying a weak magnetic field in the plane of the graphene device and may be useful in new potential applications in strained-based graphene devices.}
\textbf{Acknowledgements:} We thank R. Winkler and V. K. Dugaev for useful discussions. The work is supported by DFG.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
The methodological approach assumed in this work is based on the Fokas-Gel'fand formula for immersion of 2D-soliton surfaces associated with integrable models. This topic has been extensively developed by several authors (see e.g. \cite{Cies1997, FG, FGFL, Sym, Tafel}) and also by the authors \cite{GrundPost2011a} for integrable partial differential equations (PDEs). The results obtained proved to be so fruitful from the point of view of constructing 2D-surfaces immersed in Lie algebras that it seemed worthwhile to adapt this method and check its effectiveness for the case when an integrable ODE can be written in the Lax representation. The motivation for such an analysis is that it allows for the study of PDE surfaces using ODE surfaces as approximations. The construction of such soliton surfaces using the Fokas-Gel'fand approach is presented in \cite{GrundPost2011b} and its application to the symmetry reduction of the static $\phi^4$-field equations is the goal of this work.
\section{Soliton surfaces associated with integrable ODEs}\label{prelim}
Let us consider an ODE ($x$ stands for the independent variable and $u$ for the unknown function)
\begin{equation} \label{delta} \Delta[u]\equiv \Delta(x,u, u_x, u_{xx}, \ldots)=0\end{equation} which admits a Lax pair with potential matrices $L(\lambda,[u]), \ M(\lambda,[u])$, taking values in a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g},$ which satisfy
\begin{equation} \label{cc} D_x M+[M,L]=0, \mbox{ whenever } \Delta[u]=0,\end{equation}
where $L(\lambda,[u]), \ M(\lambda,[u])$ are rational functions of a spectral parameter $\lambda$ taking values in either $\mathbb{C}$ or $\mathbb{R}.$
In what follows, we make use of jet space and the prolongation structure of vector fields as presented in the book by P. J. Olver \cite{Olver}. For derivatives of $u$ we use the standard notation $u_x$ and $u_J$ for the first and $J$th derivatives of $u$ with respect to $x$, respectively. Functions depending on the independent variable $x,$ dependent variable $u$ and its derivatives are denoted
\[ f[u]=f(x,u, u_x, u_{xx}, \ldots)\]
and the total derivative in the direction of $x$ takes the form
\begin{equation} D_x=\partial_x+u_x\frac{\partial }{\partial u} +u_{xx} \frac{\partial }{\partial u_x}+\ldots .\end{equation}
This Lax pair equation \eref{cc} can be regarded as the compatibility conditions of a linear spectral problem (LSP) for the wave function $\Phi(\lambda, y, [u])$ taking values in the Lie group $G$
\begin{equation}\label{lsp} \fl D_x\Phi(\lambda, y, [u]) = L(\lambda, [u])\Phi(\lambda, y, [u]), \qquad D_y \Phi(\lambda, y, [u]) =M(\lambda, [u])\Phi(\lambda, y, [u]).\end{equation}
Note that the wave function $\Phi$ depends on an auxiliary variable $y$ in the LSP \eref{lsp} and so the compatibility condition for \eref{lsp} coincides with \eref{cc} since $u_y=0.$
The total derivative in the direction $y$ is given by
\[ D_y=\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\]
and consequently, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{Dy0} D_yL=D_yM=0.\end{equation}
It was shown in \cite{FG}, that for any $\mathfrak{g}$-valued functions $A(\lambda, y, [u])$ and $B(\lambda, y, [u])$ which satisfy
\begin{equation} \label{AB} D_y A-D_x B+[A,M]+[L, B]=0\end{equation}
there exists a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued function $F$ with tangent vectors given by
\begin{equation} \label{tanF} D_xF= \Phi^{-1} A \Phi, \qquad D_yF=\Phi^{-1} B \Phi.\end{equation}
Whenever the matrices $A$ and $B$ are linearly independent, $F$ is an immersion function for a 2D surface in the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}.$ It was proved in \cite{FG, FGFL, GrundPost2011a} that there exist three linearly independent terms satisfying \eref{AB} given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{A} A&=a(\lambda) \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial \lambda} L+D_x S +[S,L]+pr \vec{v}_Q L \in \mathfrak{g},\\
\label{B} B&=a(\lambda) \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial \lambda} M+D_y S +[S,M]+pr \vec{v}_Q M \in\mathfrak{g},
\end{eqnarray}
where $a(\lambda)$ is an arbitary scalar function of $\lambda$, $S=S(\lambda, y, [u])$ is an arbitrary $\mathfrak{g}$-valued function, $\vec{v}_Q$ is a generalized symmetry of \eref{delta} and its prolongation is given by
\begin{equation} \vec{v}_Q=Q[u]\frac{\partial }{\partial u}, \qquad pr\vec{v}_Q=\vec{v}_Q+D_J(Q)\frac{\partial }{\partial u_J}.\end{equation}
Here $\vec{v}_Q$ is assumed to be a generalized symmetry of a nondegenerate ODE \eref{delta}, i.e.
\begin{equation} pr\vec{v}_Q(\Delta[u])=0,\qquad \mbox{ whenever } \Delta[u]=0.\end{equation}
Further, it was shown in \cite{GrundPost2011a} that the $\mathfrak{g}$-valued function $F$ can be integrated (up to an additive $\mathfrak{g}$-valued constant as)
\begin{equation}\label{Ffg} F=a(\lambda)\Phi^{-1}\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial \lambda} +\Phi^{-1} S\Phi +\Phi^{-1} pr \vec{v}_Q \Phi\in \mathfrak{g}, \end{equation}
as long as $\vec{v}_Q$ is a generalized symmetry of the LSP \eref{lsp} and the ODE in Lax representation \eref{delta} in the sense that the following equations hold
\begin{eqnarray} pr\vec{v}_Q\left(D_xM+[M,L]\right)=0, \qquad \mbox{ whenever } D_xM+[M,L]=0,\\
pr\vec{v}_Q\left(D_x\Phi-L\Phi\right)=0, \qquad \mbox{ whenever } D_x\Phi-L\Phi=0,\\
pr\vec{v}_Q\left(D_y\Phi-M\Phi\right)=0, \qquad \mbox{ whenever } D_y\Phi-M\Phi=0.\end{eqnarray}
The three terms in \eref{AB} correspond to a conformal transformation in the spectral parameter (known as the Sym-Tafel formula for immersion \cite{Sym, Tafel}), a gauge symmetry of the LSP \eref{lsp} and generalized symmetries of the ODE \eref{delta} and the LSP \eref{lsp}. The integrated form \eref{Ffg} define a mapping $F: \mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow \mathfrak{g}$ which is called the Fokas-Gel'fand formula for immersion in a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$. In what follows, we will refer to it as such.
As first indicated in \cite{FG} and extended in \cite{GrundPost2012}, there are many more choices of $A$ and $B$ which satisfy \eref{AB}. In fact, as proven in \cite{GrundPost2012}, any $\mathfrak{g}$-valued function on jet space can be transformed into a symmetry of the Lax equation \eref{cc} when considered as an autonomous system of PDEs in the variables $L$ and $M$. For example, this system is invariant under the following point transformations: translation in the $x$ direction and conformal transformations in the spectral parameter $\lambda$ corresponding to terms associated with scalar constants $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ in \eref{Aext} and \eref{Bext}. The symmetry of the equation with respect to an arbitrary gauge $S(\lambda, y, [u])\in \mathfrak{g}$ for the wave functions $\Phi$ of the LSP \eref{lsp} is given by the term associated with $\alpha_3.$ The expressions corresponding to $\alpha_4$ and $\alpha_5$ are related to the invariance of \eref{delta} under dilations (i.e. $x\rightarrow e^\mu x, L\rightarrow e^{-\mu}L$ and $y\rightarrow e^\mu y, M\rightarrow e^{-\mu}M$, $\mu \in \mathbb{R}$).
This leads to the following extension of the matrices $A,B\in \mathfrak{g}$ given by \eref{A} and \eref{B} to
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Aext} \fl A&=\alpha_1D_x L+\alpha_2\frac{\partial L}{\partial \lambda}+\alpha_3(D_x S +[S,L]) +\alpha_4 D_x(xL)+\alpha_6pr \vec{v}_Q L ,\\
\label{Bext}\fl B&=\alpha_1 D_x M +\alpha_2 \frac{\partial M}{\partial \lambda} +\alpha_3(D_y S +[S,M])+\alpha_4 xD_xM +\alpha_5D_y(yM)+\alpha_6pr \vec{v}_Q M .
\end{eqnarray}
The case where $\alpha_1=\alpha_3=\alpha_4=\alpha_5=\alpha_6=0,$ $\alpha_2=a(\lambda)$ corresponds to the Sym-Tafel formula for immersion \cite{Sym, Tafel}, which is given by
\begin{equation} F^{ST}=a(\lambda)\Phi^{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} \Phi \in \mathfrak{g}\end{equation}
with tangent vectors
\begin{equation} \label{DFST} D_xF^{ST}=a(\lambda)\Phi^{-1} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial \lambda} L\Phi, \qquad
D_yF^{ST}=a(\lambda)\Phi^{-1} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial \lambda} M\Phi.\end{equation}
If the tangent vectors \eref{DFST} are linearly independent, then the function $F^{ST}$ is an immersion of a 2D-surface in the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$.
The case where $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=\alpha_4=\alpha_5=\alpha_6=0$ was studied in \cite{Cies1997, FGFL, GrundPost2011a} and the corresponding surfaces can be integrated explicitly as
\begin{equation} F^{S}=\Phi^{-1} S(\lambda, y, [u])\Phi\in \mathfrak{g}\end{equation}
with tangent vectors
\begin{equation}\label{DFS} D_xF^{S}=\Phi^{-1}\left(D_x S+[S,L]\right)\Phi, \qquad
D_yF^{S}=\Phi^{-1} \left(D_y S+[S,M]\right)\Phi.\end{equation}
For $F^{S}$ to be an immersion, we require the linear independence of the tangent vector fields.
Here, we show only the proofs for the case involving translation in the $x$ direction and the terms involving dilations. In the first case, (when $\alpha_2=\alpha_3=\alpha_4=\alpha_5=\alpha_6=0$), the tangent vectors are given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{DxF1} D_x F=\Phi^{-1} (D_xL)\Phi, \qquad A=D_xL,\\
\label{DyF1} D_y F=\Phi^{-1} (D_xM)\Phi, \qquad B=D_xM.\end{eqnarray}
The matrices $A$ and $B$ satisfy the condition \eref{AB}
\begin{eqnarray} D_y(D_xL)-D_x(D_xM)+[D_xL,M]+[L,D_xM]\nonumber \\
=-D_x\left(D_xM+[M,L]\right)=0,\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
whenever the Lax equation \eref{cc} holds. Thus, this proves that there exists a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued function $F$ with tangent vectors given by \eref{DxF1} and \eref{DyF1}. Furthermore, the immersion function can be integrated and is given by
\begin{equation}\label{F1} F=\Phi^{-1} D_x\Phi=\Phi^{-1} L\Phi\end{equation}
whenever the wave function $\Phi$ is a solution of the LSP \eref{lsp}.
It is straightforward to check that
\begin{eqnarray} D_xF&=&-\Phi^{-1} (D_x\Phi) \Phi^{-1}L\Phi+\Phi^{-1}D_x(L\Phi)\nonumber \\
&=&-\Phi^{-1} L^2\Phi+\Phi^{-1} D_xL \Phi +\Phi^{-1} L^2\Phi\nonumber \\
&=&\Phi^{-1} (D_xL)\Phi\nonumber,\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} D_yF&=&-\Phi^{-1} (D_y\Phi) \Phi^{-1}L\Phi+\Phi^{-1}D_y(L\Phi)\nonumber \\
&=&-\Phi^{-1}[L,M]\Phi\nonumber \\
&=&\Phi^{-1} (D_xM)\Phi\nonumber,\end{eqnarray}
whenever \eref{cc} holds. Here we have used $D_yL=0.$ Hence, we have proved that the immersion function $F$ can be integrated as \eref{F1}.
In the case of dilation symmetry (where $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=\alpha_3=\alpha_6=0$) the tangent vectors have the form
\begin{equation} \label{DF4} D_x F=\Phi^{-1} A\Phi, \qquad D_y F=\Phi^{-1} B \Phi\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}\label{AB4} A=\alpha_4 D_x(xL), \qquad B=\alpha_4x (D_xM)+\alpha_5 D_y(yM).\end{eqnarray}
It is a straightforward computation that matrices $A$ and $B$ \eref{AB4} satisfy the condition \eref{AB} whenever the Lax equation holds \eref{cc}. From \eref{DF4}, we can integrate and find the immersion function
\begin{equation}\label{F45} F=\alpha_4x\Phi^{-1}L\Phi+\alpha_5y\Phi^{-1}M\Phi. \end{equation}
So we have,
\begin{eqnarray}\fl D_xF&=&\alpha_4\Phi^{-1}\left(L-xL^2+xD_xL+xL^2\right)\Phi+\alpha_5\Phi^{-1}\left(-LM+D_xM+ML\right)\Phi\nonumber \\
\fl &=& \alpha_4\Phi^{-1} D_x(xL)\Phi \nonumber,\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\fl D_yF&=&\alpha_4x\left(-ML+D_yL+ML\right)\Phi+\alpha_5\Phi^{-1}\left(M-yM^2+yD_yM+yM^2\right)\Phi\nonumber \\
\fl &=& \alpha_4x\Phi^{-1} D_xM\Phi+\alpha_5\Phi^{-1}D_y(yM)\Phi,\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
whenever the wave function $\Phi$ satisfies the LSP \eref{lsp} and the potential matrices satisfy the Lax equation \eref{cc}.
This shows that the immersion function $F$ can be integrated as \eref{F45} and that the vector fields
\begin{equation} \vec{v}_{Q_4}=D_x(xL)\frac{\partial}{\partial L}+x(D_xM)\frac{\partial }{\partial M},\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \vec{v}_{Q_5}=M\frac{\partial}{\partial M}\end{equation}
are generalized symmetries of the Lax equation \eref{cc}.
Finally, we demonstrate the proof of the integrated form of the surface for the final term (when $\alpha_1=\ldots=\alpha_5=0$), as shown in a similar way in \cite{GrundPost2011a}. Suppose that $\vec{v}_Q$ is a generalized symmetry of an ODE written in Lax representation \eref{cc}. Then, the matrices
\begin{equation}\label{ABv} A=pr\vec{v}_Q(L),\qquad B=pr\vec{v}_Q(M),\end{equation}
satisfy condition \eref{AB}
\begin{eqnarray}\fl D_y A-D_xB+[A,M]+[L,B]=\nonumber \\
= D_y(pr\vec{v}_Q L)-D_x(pr\vec{v}_QM)+[pr\vec{v}_Q L,M]+[L,pr\vec{v}_Q M]\nonumber \\
=pr\vec{v}_Q\left(D_yL-D_xM+[M,L]\right).\label{deteq}\end{eqnarray}
if and only if $\vec{v}_Q$ is a generalized symmetry of \eref{cc}. Here, we have used the fact that a generalized vector field in evolutionary form commutes with total derivatives \cite{Olver}
\begin{equation} [pr\vec{v}_Q,D_x]=0, \qquad [pr\vec{v}_Q,D_y]=0,\end{equation}
and that the potential matrices $L$ and $M$ do not explicitly depend on $y$ (ie. \eref{Dy0} holds).
Thus, there exists a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued immersion function $F$ for a surface with tangent vectors
\begin{equation} D_xF=\Phi^{-1} (pr\vec{v}_Q)\Phi, \qquad D_y\Phi=\Phi^{-1} (pr\vec{v}_QM)\Phi,\end{equation}
as long as the matrices $A$ and $B$ \eref{ABv} are linearly independent. Furthermore, the immersion $F$ can be integrated explicitly as
\begin{equation} \label{Fv} F=\Phi^{-1} pr\vec{v}_Q\Phi,\end{equation}
if and only if the vector field $\vec{v}_Q$ is a generalized symmetry of the LSP \eref{lsp}. That is,
\begin{eqnarray} D_x F&=&-\Phi^{-1} L (pr\vec{v}_Q\Phi)+\Phi^{-1}D_x(pr\vec{v}_Q\Phi)\nonumber \\
&=&-\Phi^{-1} L (pr\vec{v}_Q\Phi)+\Phi^{-1}pr\vec{v}_Q(D_x\Phi)\nonumber \\
&=&-\Phi^{-1}pr\vec{v}_Q(L\Phi)+\Phi^{-1}(pr\vec{v}_QL)\Phi+\Phi^{-1}pr\vec{v}_Q(D_x\Phi)\nonumber \\
&=& \Phi^{-1}(pr\vec{v}_QL)\Phi,\qquad \mbox{ whenever } pr\vec{v}_Q\left(D_x\Phi-L\Phi\right)=0,\nonumber \end{eqnarray}
and the proof is similar for $D_yF.$ Thus, the immersion function $F$ can be integrated as \eref{Fv} if and only if the vector field $\vec{v}_Q$ in evolutionary form is a generalized symmetry of the LSP \eref{lsp} and ODE in Lax representation \eref{cc}.
Hence, for the system composed of equations \eref{cc} and \eref{lsp}, the corresponding formula for immersion \eref{Ffg} becomes (up to an additional $\mathfrak{g}$-valued constant)
\begin{equation}\label{Fext} F=\Phi^{-1}\left( \alpha_1 D_x+\alpha_2a(\lambda)\frac{\partial }{\partial \lambda} +\alpha_3 S+\alpha_4xL+\alpha_5 yM +pr\vec{v}_Q\right)\Phi,\end{equation}
where $\vec{v}_Q$ is a generalized symmetry of both equations \eref{cc} and \eref{lsp}.
In the next section, we consider second-order autonomous ODEs and their Lax pairs. The wave function for the associated LSP is given explicitly and can be used for the purpose of constructing soliton surfaces.
\section{Second-order autonomous equations}
Let us consider a second-order, autonomous differential equation given by
\begin{equation} \label{uxx} u_{xx}=\frac12 f'(u), \qquad f'(u)=\frac{\partial }{\partial u}f(u) \end{equation}
for some function $f'(u).$ Equation \eref{uxx} admits the first integral
\begin{equation} \label{ux} u_x=\epsilon \sqrt{f(u)},\quad \epsilon^2=1, \end{equation}
and its solutions are known and satisfy
\begin{equation} \label{uint}\int \frac{du}{\epsilon \sqrt{f(u)}}=\epsilon(x-x_0), \qquad \ x_0 \in \mathbb{R}.\end{equation}
Note that, in the case when $f(u)^{-1/2}=R(u, \sqrt{P(u)})$ is a rational function of its arguments and $P(u)$ is a polynomial of degree 3 or 4, the function $u$ which solves \eref{uxx} is the inverse of an elliptic integral \cite{ByrdFriedman}. Note also that the constant of integration, in the first integral \eref{ux}, can be absorbed since the function $f$ is an arbitrary function of $u.$
The ODE \eref{uxx} admits the following Lax pair
\[D_x \Phi=L\Phi, \qquad D_y\Phi=M\Phi,\]
where the potential matrices
\begin{equation} \label{LM}L= \frac12\left[\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \frac{f'(u)}{u+\lambda}-\frac{f(u)-g(\lambda)}{(u+\lambda)^2} \\ 1 & 0 \end{array} \right],\quad M=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} u_x &-\frac{f(u)-g(\lambda)}{u+\lambda}\\ u+\lambda & -u_x \end{array} \right]\end{equation}
take values in the Lie algebra $sl(2, \mathbb{R})$ and are rational functions of the spectral parameter whenever $g(\lambda)$ is a rational function of $\lambda.$ Note that $det(M)=-g(\lambda)$ and the choice \[g(\lambda)=f(-\lambda)\] makes the potential matrices $L$ and $M$ polynomial in $u$ whenever $f(u)$ is a polynomial in $u$.
In what follows, we call $g(\lambda)$ the discriminant.
The goal is to construct surfaces in the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ by the Fokas-Gel'fand procedure for the general form of the ODE \eref{uxx}. For this purpose, we solve the LSP \eref{lsp} and find explicitly the most general form of the wave function $\Phi=(\Phi_{ij})\in SL(2, \mathbb{R})$ with components \cite{GrundPost2011b}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{phipmi} \Phi_{11}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}( \phi_{1+} +\phi_{1-}), \qquad & \Phi_{12}=\frac{-1}{2\sqrt{g}}( \phi_{1+} -\phi_{1-})\\
\Phi_{21}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}( \phi_{2+} +\phi_{2-}), \qquad & \Phi_{22}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{g}}(\phi_{2+} -\phi_{2-}), \end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray} \phi_{1\pm}=\frac{\pm \sqrt{g(\lambda)}+u_x}{\sqrt{u+\lambda}}\Psi_{\pm},\\
\phi_{2\pm}={\sqrt{u+\lambda}}\Psi_{\pm},\\
\label{phipmf} \Psi_{\pm} =\exp \left[\pm \sqrt{g(\lambda)}\left( y+\int\frac{dx}{2(u+\lambda)}\right)\right].\end{eqnarray}
The generalized vector field in evolutionary form
\begin{equation} \vec{v}_Q =Q[u]\frac{\partial }{\partial u}\end{equation}
is a generalized symmetry of the ODE \eref{uxx} if and only if
\begin{equation} pr \vec{v}_Q \left(u_{xx}-\frac12 f'(u)\right)=0, \qquad \mbox{ whenever } u_{xx}-\frac12 f'(u)=0\end{equation}
holds.
The determining equation for $Q$ is
\begin{equation} \label{detQ} D_x^2Q-\frac12f''(u)Q=0, \quad \mbox{ whenever } u_{xx}-\frac12 f'(u)=0.\end{equation}
Here $f'(u)$ and $f''(u)$ are the first and second derivatives of $f$ with respect to $u$.
It is straightforward to verify that $Q=u_x$ is a solution of the determining equations \eref{detQ}. Therefore, for an arbitrary function $f(u)$, the vector field $\vec{v}_{u_x} $ is a symmetry of \eref{cc} and \eref{lsp}, since the the prolongation of $\vec{v}_{u_x}$ acts as a total derivative on functions which do not depend explicitly on $x$, as is the case for both \eref{cc} and \eref{lsp}.
Consequently, we can apply the Fokas-Gel'fand procedure with ODE \eref{cc} admitting a Lax representation \eref{lsp} given by the formula \eref{Fext} with tangent vectors \eref{tanF} for matrices $A$ and $B$ as in \eref{Aext} and \eref{Bext}.
Two possible choices for a scalar product can be introduced on the tangents to the surface $F\in sl(2, \mathbb{R})$ with the basis given by
\begin{equation} \label{basis} e_1=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1&0\\ 0&-1 \end{array} \right], \quad e_2=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&1\\ 1&0 \end{array} \right], \quad e_3=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&-1\\ 1&0 \end{array} \right].\end{equation}
In the first case, we decompose the matrix into the $sl(2,\mathbb{R})$ basis and then use the standard Euclidean metric. The inner product and its norm in Euclidean space are given by
\begin{equation} \label{Euc} \langle X, Y \rangle=X^iY^i, \qquad || X||=\sqrt{X^iX^i},\end{equation}
where $X=X^ie_i$, $Y=Y^je_j \in sl(2,\mathbb{R})$ $i,j=1,2,3$. With the inner product \eref{Euc} the surfaces are Riemannian manifolds.
In the second case, we use the Killing form on $sl(2, \mathbb{R}),$ which is given by \cite{DoCarmo, Helgason}
\begin{equation} B(X,Y)=\frac12 \tr(XY).\end{equation}
In terms of the basis \eref{basis}, the matrices $X,Y\in sl(2, \mathbb{R}) $ and the Killing form can be represented as follows
\begin{eqnarray} B(X^i, Y^j)=X^iB_{ij}Y^j, \\
B_{ij}=\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 &0\\ 0& 0&-1\end{array} \right] .\end{eqnarray}
So, the Killing form has signature $(2,1)$ and induces a pseudo-Euclidean metric. The surfaces $F\in sl(2, \mathbb{R})$ are pseudo-Riemannian manifolds.
Let us now explore certain geometric characteristics of the surfaces immersed in the $sl(2, \mathbb{R})$ algebra. These geometric properties include the fundamental forms, mean and Gaussian curvatures. For example, the first fundamental form for the surfaces $F^{ST}$ and $F^{u_x}$ for any function $f(u)$ with the pseudo-Euclidean metric are given by
\begin{equation} I_B(F^{ST})=\left(2\frac{f-g}{(u+\lambda)^3}-\frac{f'-g'}{(u+\lambda)^2}\right)dxdy+2\left(\frac{g'}{v+\lambda}+\frac{f-g}{(u+\lambda)^2}\right)dy^2
,\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\fl I_B(F^{u_x})=\left(\frac{ff''}{u+\lambda}-\frac{2ff'}{(u+\lambda)^2}+\frac{2f(f-g)}{(u+\lambda)^3}\right)dxdy+\left(\frac{f'^2}{2}-\frac{2ff'}{u+\lambda}+\frac{2f(f-g)}{(u+\lambda)^2}\right)dy^2.\end{equation}
Note that in both cases, the first fundamental forms admit null vectors in the $dx$ direction.
\section{The static $\phi^4$ field equation and its soliton surfaces}
We now present an example which illustrates the theoretical considerations. We intend to discuss in detail the construction of static and translation-invariant solutions of the $\phi^4$-field equations \cite{11}
\begin{equation} \label{phi4} \Delta M=\frac{A}{2D} M+\frac{B}{2D} M^3, \qquad 0< A, B, D, \in \mathbb{R}, \end{equation}
where $\Delta$ denotes the Laplace operator on variables $(x,y,z)$.
For the purpose of this investigation, we limit ourselves to the three-dimensional Lie subalgebra spanned by $\{ L_1, P_2, P_3\}$, where the infinitesimal generators of rotation $L_1$ and translations $P_2$ and $P_3$ are
\begin{equation} L_1=y\frac{\partial}{\partial z}-z\frac{\partial}{\partial y}, \qquad P_2=\frac{\partial}{\partial y}, \qquad P_3=\frac{\partial }{\partial z}. \end{equation}
The invariant solutions are of the form \cite{12}
\begin{equation} M(x)=u(\xi), \qquad \xi=\overline{e}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_0), \qquad |\vec{e}|^2=1, \end{equation}
where $\vec{x}_0$ and $\vec{e}$ are constant vectors and the variable $\xi$ is obtained by applying the rotation $L_1$ and translations $P_2, P_3$ to the symmetry variable $\xi=x$. The translationally symmetric solution $u(\xi)$ satisfies the second-order equation
\begin{equation}\label{xn} u_{xx} =-2k_2u^3+(k_2-k_1)u,\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} k_1=\frac{-1}{2D}(A+\frac{B}{2}), \qquad k_2=\frac{-B}{4D}.\end{equation}
Integrating once, \eref{xn} the first integral is
\begin{equation} \label{xnx} (u_x)^2=(1-u^2)(k_1+k_2u^2).\end{equation}
For specific choices of constants $k_1$ and $k_2$, we obtain different Jacobian elliptic functions $sn$ $cn $ and $dn$ \cite{BriBoubook, ByrdFriedman}.
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{ccc}
k_1 & k_2& \mbox{Solutions of \eref{xnx}}\\
\mr
1 & -k^2 & sn(x, k) \\
k'^2 & k^2 & cn(x,k) \\
-k'^2 & 1 & dn(x,k) \end{array} \end{equation}
The moduli $k$ of the elliptic functions are chosen in such a way that $k'^2+k^2=1$ and $0\leq k, k' \leq 1.$ This ensures that the elliptic solutions possess one real and one purely imaginary period.
The potential matrices $L$ and $M$ take values in the $sl(2, \mathbb{R})$ Lie algebra and are polynomial in $u$ of third degree \cite{27}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Mjac} M=\left[\begin{array}{cc} u_x& (u-\lambda)(k_2(u^2+\lambda^2)+k_1-k_2)\\ u+\lambda& -u_x\end{array} \right]\in sl(2,\mathbb{R}),\\
L=\frac12\left[\begin{array}{cc} 0& -3k_2u^2+2\lambda k_2u +k_1-k_2-k_2\lambda^2 \\1 &0\end{array}\right]\in sl(2,\mathbb{R}),\label{Ljac}\end{eqnarray}
where the discriminant is chosen as
\begin{equation} g(\lambda)=f(-\lambda)=(1-\lambda^2)(k_1+k_2\lambda^2).\end{equation}
Solving the LSP \eref{lsp} with potential matrices given by \eref{Mjac} and \eref{Ljac}, the most general form of the wave function is \cite{GrundPost2011b}
\begin{equation}\label{Phif} \fl \Phi=\left[\begin{array}{cc} \frac{(\sqrt{g(\lambda)}-u_x)\Psi_+-(\sqrt{g(\lambda)}+u_x)\Psi_-}{2\sqrt{u+\lambda}},& \frac{(\sqrt{g(\lambda)}+u_x)\Psi_--(\sqrt{g(\lambda)}-u_x)\Psi_+}{2\sqrt{g(\lambda)}\sqrt{u+\lambda}}\\ \frac{\sqrt{u+\lambda}(\Psi_++\Psi_-)}{2}, & \frac{\sqrt{u+\lambda}(\Psi_--\Psi_+)}{2\sqrt{g(\lambda)}} \end{array}\right]\in SL(2,\mathbb{R}),\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray} \fl \Psi_\pm &=\exp\left[\pm\sqrt{g(\lambda)}\left(y+ \frac{\epsilon}{\lambda\sqrt{k_1}}\Pi\left(u,\frac{1}{\lambda^2}, \sqrt{\frac{-k_2}{k_1}}\right)+c_0\right)\right]\nonumber \\
\fl &\times\left[\frac{2\sqrt{g(\lambda)}\sqrt{(1-u^2)(k_1+k_2u^2)}+(k_2-k_2-2k_2\lambda^2)u^2+(k_2-k_1)\lambda^2+2k_1}{2\sqrt{g(\lambda)}\sqrt{(1-u^2)(k_1+k_2u^2)}-(k_2-k_2-2k_2\lambda^2)u^2-(k_2-k_1)\lambda^2-2k_1}\right]^{\mp \frac{\epsilon}4}.\end{eqnarray}
where $c_0$ is a real integration constant and $\Pi\left(u,a, b\right)$ is the normal elliptic integral of the third kind, see e.g. \cite{ByrdFriedman}
\begin{equation}\label{Pi} \Pi\left(u,\alpha^2,k \right)=\int_0^x\frac{dt}{(1-\alpha^2t^2)\sqrt{1-t^2}\sqrt{1-k^2t^2}}.\end{equation} In the graphs below, we choose the integration constant $c_0$ so that $\Psi_\pm(0,0)=1.$
The surfaces associated with the elliptic equations \eref{xn} are given by the formula \eref{Fext}. As an example, we consider separately three cases of the Jacobian elliptic function $sn(x,k)$. When the discriminant $g(\lambda)>0$, the surfaces display exponential type behavior and when $g(\lambda)<0$ the surfaces behave like trigonometric functions (see figure 1).
In the pseudo-Euclidean metric defined by the Killing form, the first and second fundamental forms for the surfaces $F^{ST}$ and $F^{Q}$ with $Q=u_x$ are
\begin{eqnarray} \fl I(F^{ST})=-k^2(u-\lambda)dxdy+\left(2k^2u^2-4\lambda k^2u+6k^2\lambda^2-2k^2-2\right)dy^2\nonumber \\
\fl II(F^{ST})=2^{-1/2}k^2(u-\lambda)dx^2-2^{1/2}k^2(u^2-\lambda^2)dxdy\nonumber \\
+2^{3/2}\left({k}^{2}{u}^{3}-\lambda\,{k}^{2}{u}^{2}+ \left( {k}^{2}{\lambda}^{2}-{k}^{2}-1 \right) u+{k}^{2}{\lambda}^{3}\right)dy^2\nonumber \\
\fl I(F^{Q})=k^2(u^2-1)(k^2u^2-1)(3u-\lambda)dxdy\nonumber \\
+2\Bigg(\,{k}^{4}{u}^{6}+4\,{k}^{4}{u}^{5}\lambda-2\,{k}^{4}{u}^{4}{\lambda}^
{2}-4\,{k}^{2}\lambda\, \left( 1+{k}^{2} \right) {u}^{3}\nonumber \\ \qquad
+2\,{k}^{2}
\left( -3+{\lambda}^{2}+{k}^{2}{\lambda}^{2} \right) {u}^{2}+4\,
\lambda\,{k}^{2}u+2-2\,{k}^{2}{\lambda}^{2}+2\,{k}^{2}\Bigg)dy^2\nonumber \\
\fl II(F^{Q})=\frac{u_xk^2(\lambda-3u)}{\sqrt{2}}dx^2+\sqrt{2}u_xk^2(\lambda-3u)(u+\lambda)dxdy\nonumber \\
+\frac {2\sqrt {2} \left( u+\lambda \right)}{u_x} \Bigg( -1+{k}^{2}{\lambda}^{2}+3\,{k}^{2}{u}^{2}-
{k}^{2}-2\,\lambda\,{k}^{2}u-{u}^{2}{k}^{2}{\lambda}^{2}-2\,{k}^{4}{u}
^{5}\lambda\nonumber \\\qquad +2\,{u}^{3}\lambda\,{k}^{2}-{k}^{4}{u}^{2}{\lambda}^{2}+2\,
{k}^{4}\lambda\,{u}^{3}+{k}^{4}{u}^{4}{\lambda}^{2}-{k}^{4}{u}^{6} \Bigg)dy^2, \nonumber\end{eqnarray}
The normals are
\begin{eqnarray} N(F^{ST})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e_1\nonumber \\
N(F^{Q})=\left[ \begin {array}{cc} -1/2\,\sqrt {2}&{\frac { \left( 2\,{k}^{2}{
u}^{2}-{k}^{2}-1 \right) u\sqrt {2}}{u_{{x}}}}\\\noalign{\medskip}0&1/
2\,\sqrt {2}\end {array} \right] \nonumber\end{eqnarray}
and the Gaussian and mean curvatures are
\begin{eqnarray} \fl K(F^{ST})=2\, \left( 2\,{k}^{2}{u}^{2}-{k}^{2}-1 \right) \left( \lambda-u
\right) {k}^{2}u\nonumber \\
\fl H(F^{ST})={k}^{2}{\lambda}^{2}-2\,\lambda\,{k}^{2}u+3\,{k}^{2}{u}^{2}-{k}^{2}-1\nonumber \\
\fl K(F^{Q})=2\,{k}^{2} \left( u+\lambda \right) \left( \lambda-3\,u \right)
\left( -1-{k}^{2}-3\,{k}^{2}{u}^{4}+6\,{k}^{2}{u}^{2}+2\,{k}^{4}{u}^{
6}-3\,{k}^{4}{u}^{4} \right) \nonumber \\
\fl H(F^{Q})=\sqrt {2}\left( \lambda-3\,u
\right) u_{{x}}{k}^{2}\Bigg(-5\,{k}^{4}{u}^{6}-2\,{k}^{4}{u}^{5}\lambda+{k}^{2} \left( 6+{k}^{2}{
\lambda}^{2}+6\,{k}^{2} \right) {u}^{4}\nonumber \\+2\,{k}^{2}\lambda\, \left( 1+{
k}^{2} \right) {u}^{3}-{k}^{2} \left( 9+{k}^{2}{\lambda}^{2}+{\lambda}
^{2} \right) {u}^{2}-2\,\lambda\,{k}^{2}u+{k}^{2}{\lambda}^{2}+1+{k}^{
2} \Bigg) \nonumber. \end{eqnarray}
Note that the second fundamental form and the Gaussian curvature for the surface $F^{ST}$ in the pseudo-Euclidean metric coincide with those given for the surface in the Euclidean metric \cite{GrundPost2011b}. Also, the surface $F^{ST}$ lies in a plane in the moving frame defined by conjugation with respect to the wave function $\Phi.$ Graphs of these surfaces can be found in \cite{GrundPost2011b}.
Finally, we consider the surfaces associated with dilation symmetry (i.e. with constant $\alpha_4$ in \eref{Fext}). The surface is given by
\begin{equation} F^{4}=\Phi^{-1}xL\Phi,\end{equation}
and the first fundamental form is
\begin{eqnarray} \fl I(F^{4})=\left(3/2\,{k}^{2}{u}^{2}-{k}^{2} \left( \lambda-3\,xu_{{x}} \right) u+1/2\,
{k}^{2}{\lambda}^{2}-u_{{x}}x{k}^{2}\lambda-1/2\,{k}^{2}-1/2\right)dx^2\nonumber \\
+k^2x^2(u^1-2)(k^2u^2-1)(3u-\lambda)dxdy\nonumber \\
+2\,{x}^{2} \Bigg({k}^{4}{u}^{6}+2\,{k}^{4}{u}^{5}\lambda-{k}^{4}{u}^{4}{\lambda}^{2}-2
\,{k}^{2}\lambda\, \left( 1+{k}^{2} \right) {u}^{3}\nonumber \\ \qquad \qquad
+{k}^{2} \left( -3+
{\lambda}^{2}+{k}^{2}{\lambda}^{2} \right) {u}^{2}+2\,\lambda\,{k}^{2}
u+1-{k}^{2}{\lambda}^{2}+{k}^{2}\Bigg)dy^2.\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
The other geometric characteristics are directly computable but are too involved to write out in an illustrative fashion. Below we gives graphs of these surfaces in figures 1.
\begin{figure}\label{gneg}
\begin{center}$
\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{F4cn2.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{F4cn7.jpg}\\
F^{4}: \ \lambda=1.2, \ k=0.5, \ g(\lambda)<0 &\lambda=0.5, \ k=0.5, \ g(\lambda)>0\end{array}$
\caption{Surfaces $F^{4}$ for $u=sn(x,k)$ and $x$ and $y \in [-8,8]$. The axes indicate the components of the immersion function in the basis \eref{basis} }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Final remarks and future perspectives}
The main goal of this paper is to discuss an adaptation of the Fokas-Gel'fand procedure for constructing exact, analytic soliton surfaces associated with integrable ODEs admitting a Lax representation, as presented in \cite{GrundPost2011b}. In our investigation of the immersion formula for 2D-surfaces immersed in a Lie algebra we have proceeded in the following manner:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1] We have shown, as in the PDE case \cite{GrundPost2011a}, the problem of immersion requires the examination of conformal symmetries in the spectral parameter, gauge symmetries of the LSP and generalized symmetries of the associated ODE model and its LSP (see the formula for immersion \eref{Ffg}). We have also demonstrated addition terms in the immersion formula, associated with translation in the independent variable $x$ and dilation symmetry (see the extended formula for immersion \eref{Fext}).
\item[2] We have constructed a Lax pair for a second-order ODE depending on an arbitrary function $f(u)$ which includes, among others, the case of elliptic equations.
\item[3] We found explicitly the most general form of the wave function.
\item[4] From the general solution for the wave function, we have constructed 2D-surfaces in the Lie algebra $sl(2, \mathbb{R})$ by analytic methods for the general form of the ODE $(u_x)^2=f(u),$ with arbitrary $f(u)$.
\item[5] Next, we identified a generalized symmetry of the considered ODE and showed that the immersion function can be explicitly integrated as in \eref{Fext}.
\item[6] The procedure was illustrated for translationally invariant solutions of the Landau-Ginzburg equation leading to the Jacobian elliptic equation. We have given some geometric characterizations such as the first and second fundamental forms of the surfaces as well as the mean and Gaussian curvatures. Additionally, we have provided graphs of the surfaces for different range of parameters leading to diverse types of surfaces.
\end{itemize}
In the next stage of this research, using a group theoretical technique, the authors plan to consider soliton surfaces immersed in Lie algebras associated with the KdV and MKdV equations
\begin{equation} u_t+u_{xxx}+6u_xu=0, \qquad u_t+u_{xxx}-6u_xu^2=0\end{equation}
respectively. The stationary states of these equations, when $u_t=0$, are given by Jacobian elliptic functions. Thus, a natural extension would be to compare the surfaces associated with PDEs as presented in \cite{GrundPost2011a} to the ODE surfaces associated with their stationary states (here the auxiliary variable $y$ becomes $t$). For this purpose, we can use the exact solutions of the wave function \eref{phipmi} for stationary states to expand analytically for solutions in the neighborhood of stationary states and look for solutions of the wave function in the PDE case.
Another avenue for investigation is the possibility of performing asymptotic analysis for the study of PDE surfaces using the ODE surfaces as approximations. A further investigation might be to consider how to apply the recurrence operator to generalized symmetries of the KdV and MKdV model in order to obtain recurrence relations for the surfaces. These and other issues will be addressed in our future work.
\ack The research reported in this paper is supported by NSERC of Canada. S Post acknowledges a postdoctoral fellowship provided by the Laboratory of Mathematical Physics of the Centre de Recherches Math\'ematiques, Universit\'e de Montr\'eal.
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{nonsec}{\bf Exterior modulus of a quadrilateral.}\,
For $h>0$ consider the rectangle $D$ with vertices $1+ih$, $ih$, $0$, $1$ in the upper half plane $\HH^2=\{x+iy:y>0\}$ and a bounded harmonic function $u:\C\setminus D\to\R$ satisfying the Dirichlet-Neumann boundary value problem $u(z)=0$ for $z\in[0,1]$, $u(z)=1$ for $z\in[ih,1+ih]$, $\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}(z)=0$ for $z\in[1,1+ih]\cup[0,ih]$ where $n$ is the direction of the exterior normal to $\partial D$. The number
$$
\mathcal{M}(1+ih,ih,0,1)=\int_{\C\setminus D}|\nabla u|^2dm
$$
is called the exterior modulus of the rectangle $D(1+ih,ih,0,1)$.
This quantity also has an interpretation as the modulus of the family of all curves, joining the segments $[1+ih,ih]$ and $[0,1]$ in the complement of the rectangle $D$, which also is equal to $\mathcal{M}(1+ih,ih,0,1)$ (cf. \cite{ah}).
For a polygonal quadrilateral $D(a,b,0,1)$ with vertices $a,b\in\HH^2$ and base $[0,1]$, the exterior modulus $\mathcal{M}(a,b,0,1)$ can be defined in the same way.
As far as we know there is no analytic formula for $\mathcal{M}(a,b,0,1)$. Numerical methods for the computation of $\mathcal{M}(a,b,0,1)$ were recently studied by H. Hakula, A. Rasila, and M. Vuorinen in \cite{hrv} which motivate the present study. They used numerical methods such as hp-FEM and the Schwarz-Christoffel mapping. Similar problems for the interior modulus have been studied in \cite{hqr, hrv1}. The literature and software dealing with numerical conformal mapping problems are very wide, see e.g. \cite{dt, ps}.
Here we study the above problem for the case of a rectangle. In this case an explicit formula involving complete elliptic integrals was given by P. Duren and J. Pfaltzgraff \cite{dp}, and our goal is to analytically study the dependence of the formula on $h$.
\end{nonsec}
\begin{nonsec}{\bf Complete elliptic integrals.}\,
Let $\K(r)$ and $\E(r)$ stand for the complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kind, respectively (see (\ref{ellint})). Let $r'=\sqrt{1-r^2}$ for $r\in(0,1)$. We often denote
$\K'(r)=\K(r'),\quad \E'(r)=\E(r')$. Define the function $\psi$ as follows
\beq\label{psi}
\psi(r)=\frac{2(\E(r)-(1-r)\K(r))}{\E'(r)-r\K'(r)},\quad r\in(0,1).
\eeq
The function $\psi:(0,1)\to(0,\infty)$ is a homeomorphism, see Theorem \ref{mythm1} or \cite{dp}. In particular, $\psi^{-1}:(0,\infty)\to(0,1)$ is well-defined.
\end{nonsec}
\begin{nonsec}{\bf Duren-Pfaltzgraff formula for a rectangle.}\,
In \cite{dp}, P. Duren and J. Pfaltzgraff studied the modulus $\mathcal{M}(\Gamma)$ of the family of curves $\Gamma$ joining the opposite sides of length $b$ of the rectangle with sides $a$ and $b$, in the exterior of the rectangle, and gave the formula \cite[Theorem 5]{dp}
\beq\label{dpformula}
\mathcal{M}(\Gamma)=\dfrac{\K'(r)}{2\K(r)},\quad \mbox{where}\quad r=\psi^{-1}(a/b).
\eeq
The exterior modulus $\mathcal{M}(\Gamma)$ is a conformal invariant of a quadrilateral. In \cite{adv}, the authors gave a sharp comparison between the function $\psi$ and Robin modulus of a given rectangle. Their result can be rewritten as the following inequality
\beq\label{advinequal}
\dfrac{\pi r}{(1-r)^2}<\psi(r)<\dfrac{16r}{\pi(1-r)^2},\quad r\in(0,1).
\eeq
\end{nonsec}
In this paper two identities involving the function $\psi$ are proved, and some functional inequalities and elementary estimates for the function $\psi$ are also derived from the monotonicity and convexity of the combinations of the function $\psi$ and some elementary functions. As applications, we will study the growth of the exterior modulus with respect to the length of one side of the rectangle. The main results are listed as follows.
\begin{theorem} \label{myidentity}
For $r\in(0,1)$, the function $\psi$ satisfies the identities
$$\psi(r^2)\psi\left(\left(\dfrac{1-r}{1+r}\right)^2\right)=1,\quad \psi\left(\dfrac{1-r}{1+r}\right)\psi\left(\dfrac{1-r'}{1+r'}\right)=1.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem} \label{mythm2}
The function $f(r)=(1-\sqrt{r})^2\psi(r)/r$ is strictly decreasing from $(0,1)$ onto $(4/\pi,\pi)$. In particular, for all $r\in(0,1)$
$$\dfrac{4r}{\pi(1-\sqrt{r})^2}<\psi(r)<\dfrac{\pi r}{(1-\sqrt{r})^2}.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem} \label{mythm3}
The function $f(x)=\psi(1/\ch(x))$ is decreasing and convex from $(0,\infty)$ onto $(0,\infty)$. In particular, for $r,s\in(0,1)$,
\beq\label{myfunineq}
2\psi\left(\frac{\sqrt{2rs}}{\sqrt{1+rs+r's'}}\right)\leq\psi(r)+\psi(s)
\eeq
with equality in the above inequality if and only if $r=s$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem} \label{mythm5}
For $x,y\in(0,1)$,
$$\psi\left(H_p(x,y)\right)\leq H_p\left(\psi(x),\psi(y)\right) {\quad} \mbox{if}{\quad}p\geq0,$$
and
$$\psi\left(H_p(x,y)\right)\geq H_p\left(\psi(x),\psi(y)\right) {\quad} \mbox{if}{\quad} p\leq-1.$$
The equality holds in each case if and only if $x=y$. Here $H_p$ is the power mean defined as
$$
H_p(x,y)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\left(\dfrac{x^p+y^p}{2}\right)^{1/p},&p\neq0\\
\sqrt{xy},&p=0.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
\end{theorem}
\medskip
\section{Preliminaries}
For $0<r<1$, the functions
\beq\label{ellint}
\K(r)=\int_0^{\pi/2}\dfrac{dt}{\sqrt{1-r^2\sin^2t}}, \quad
\E(r)=\int_0^{\pi/2}\sqrt{1-r^2\sin^2t}\,dt
\eeq
with limiting values $\K(0)=\pi/2=\E(0)$, $\K(1-)=\infty$ and $\E(1)=1$
are known as Legendre's complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kind, respectively.
These two functions are connected by Legendre's relation \cite[110.10]{bf}
\beq\label{legendre}
\E\K'+\E'\K-\K\K'=\dfrac\pi2.
\eeq
Some derivative formulas involving these elliptic integrals are as follows \cite[p.21]{bo}:
\beq\label{derivative}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\dfrac{d\K}{dr}=\dfrac{\E-r'^2\K}{rr'^2},&\dfrac{d\E}{dr}=\dfrac{\E-\K}{r},\vspace{1mm}\\
\dfrac{d}{dr}\left(\E-r'^2\K\right)=r\K, &\dfrac{d}{dr}\left(\K-\E\right)=\dfrac{r\E}{r'^2}.\\
\end{array}\right.
\eeq
The functions $\K$ and $\E$ satisfy the following identities due to Landen \cite[163.01, 164.02]{bf}
\beq\label{transfk1}
\K\left(\dfrac{2\sqrt{r}}{1+r}\right)=(1+r)\K(r),
\eeq
\beq\label{transfk2}
\K\left(\dfrac{1-r}{1+r}\right)=\dfrac12(1+r)\K'(r),
\eeq
\beq\label{transfe1}
\E\left(\dfrac{2\sqrt{r}}{1+r}\right)=\dfrac{2\E(r)-r'^2\K(r)}{1+r},
\eeq
\beq\label{transfe2}
\E\left(\dfrac{1-r}{1+r}\right)=\dfrac{\E'(r)+r\K'(r)}{1+r}.
\eeq
Using Landen's transformation formulas, we have the following identities.
\begin{lemma} \label{mytransf}
For $r\in(0,1)$, let $t=(1-r)/(1+r)$. Then
\beq\label{mytransfk}
\K(t^2)=\dfrac{(1+r)^2}4\K'(r^2),
\eeq
\beq\label{mytransfkk}
\K'(t^2)={(1+r)^2}\K(r^2),
\eeq
\beq\label{mytransfe}
\E(t^2)=\dfrac{\E'(r^2)+(r+r^2+r^3)\K'(r^2)}{(1+r)^2},
\eeq
\beq\label{mytransfee}
\E'(t^2)=\dfrac{4\E(r^2)-(3-2r^2-r^4)\K(r^2)}{(1+r)^2}.
\eeq
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Landen's transformations (\ref{transfk1}) and (\ref{transfk2}), we have
$$\dfrac{2(1+r^2)}{(1+r)^2}\K(t^2)=\K\left(\dfrac{1-r^2}{1+r^2}\right)=\dfrac12(1+r^2)\K'(r^2).$$
This implies (\ref{mytransfk}).
For (\ref{mytransfkk}),
$$
\K'(t^2)=\dfrac{(1+r)^2}{1+r^2}\K\left(\dfrac{2r}{1+r^2}\right)=(1+r)^2\K(r^2)
$$
where the first equality is Landen's transformation (\ref{transfk2}) with the parameter $t^2$ and the second equality follows from (\ref{transfk1}) with the parameter $r^2$.
Using Landen's transformation (\ref{transfe1}) with the change of parameter $r\mapsto t^2$ and the formula (\ref{mytransfk}), we get
\beq\label{idt1}
\E\left(\dfrac{1-r^2}{1+r^2}\right)=\dfrac{(1+r)^2\E(t^2)-r(1+r^2)\K'(r^2)}{1+r^2}.
\eeq
On the other hand, by (\ref{transfe2})
\beq\label{idt2}
\E\left(\dfrac{1-r^2}{1+r^2}\right)=\dfrac{\E'(r^2)+r^2\K'(r^2)}{1+r^2}.
\eeq
Hence (\ref{mytransfe}) follows from (\ref{idt1}) and (\ref{idt2}).
For (\ref{mytransfee}), by the change of parameter $r\mapsto t^2$ in Landen's transformation (\ref{transfe2}) and the formula (\ref{mytransfkk}), we have
\beq\label{idt3}
\E\left(\dfrac{2r}{1+r^2}\right)=\dfrac{(1+r)^2\E'(t^2)+(1-r^2)^2\K(r^2)}{2(1+r^2)}.
\eeq
On the other hand, by (\ref{transfe1})
\beq\label{idt4}
\E\left(\dfrac{2r}{1+r^2}\right)=\dfrac{2\E(r^2)-(1-r^4)\K(r^2)}{1+r^2}.
\eeq
Hence (\ref{mytransfee}) follows from (\ref{idt3}) and (\ref{idt4}).
\end{proof}
The next lemma is a monotone form of l'H\^opital's rule and will be useful in deriving monotonicity properties and obtaining inequalities \cite[Theorem 1.25]{avv}.
\begin{lemma}[\bf Monotone form of l'H\^opital's Rule]\label{MLR}
Let $-\infty<a<b<\infty$, and let $f,g:[a,b]\to\R$ be continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$. Let $g'(x)\neq0$ on $(a,b)$. Then, if $f'(x)/g'(x)$ is increasing (decreasing) on $(a,b)$, so are
$$\dfrac{f(x)-f(a)}{g(x)-g(a)}\qquad \mbox{and}\qquad \dfrac{f(x)-f(b)}{g(x)-g(b)}.$$
If $f'(x)/g'(x)$ is strictly monotone, then the monotonicity on the conclusion is also strict.
\end{lemma}
The following Lemma \ref{lemma} is from \cite[Theorem 3.21 (1),(7)]{avv}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma}
\emph{(1)}\, $r^{-2}(\E-r'^2\K)$ is strictly increasing and convex from $(0,1)$ onto $(\pi/4,1)$.\\
\emph{(2)}\, For each $c\in[1/2,\infty)$, $r'^c\K$ is decreasing from $[0,1)$ onto $(0,\pi/2]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} \label{mylemma}
\emph{(1)}\, $f_1(r)=\E-(1-r)\K$ is strictly increasing and concave from $(0,1)$ onto $(0,1)$.\\
\emph{(2)}\, $f_2(r)=(\E-(1-r)\K)/r$ is strictly decreasing from $(0,1)$ onto $(1,\pi/2)$.\\
\emph{(3)}\, $f_3(r)=\E'-r\K'$ is strictly decreasing and convex from $(0,1)$ onto $(0,1)$.\\
\emph{(4)}\, $f_4(r)=(\E'-r\K')/(1-r)$ is strictly decreasing from $(0,1)$ onto $(0,1)$.\\
\emph{(5)}\, $f_5(r)=(\E-r'\K)/(1-\sqrt{r'})^2$ is strictly decreasing from $(0,1)$ onto $(1,\pi/2)$.\\
\emph{(6)}\, $f_6(r)=(3-r)\E'-(1+r)\K'$ is increasing form $(0,1)$ onto $(-\infty,0)$.\\
\emph{(7)}\, $f_7(r)=(1+r)(\E'-r\K')/(1-r)$ is strictly deceasing from $(0,1)$ onto $(0,1)$.\\
\emph{(8)}\, $f_8(r)=(\E-(1-r)\K)/(\sqrt{r}(1-r)\K)$ is strictly increasing from $(0,1)$ onto $(0,\infty)$. $f_8(0.479047\cdots)=1.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1)\, By differentiation and the derivative formulas (\ref{derivative}),
$$f_1'(r)=\dfrac{\E}{1+r}$$
which is positive and decreasing. Then the properties of monotonicity and concavity of $f_1$ follow. The limiting value
$f_1(0)=0$ is clear and $f_1(1-)=\E(1)-\lim\limits_{r\to1-}(r'^2\K/(1+r))=1$ by Lemma \ref{lemma}(2).
(2)\, Since $f_1$ is concave and $f_2(r)=f_1(r)/r$, $f_2$ is decreasing by the monotone form of
l'H\^opital's rule. By l'H\^opital's rule $f_2(0)=f'_1(0)=\pi/2$, and $f_2(1)=1$ is clear.
(3)\, By (\ref{derivative}), we have
$$f_3'(r)=-\dfrac{\K'-\E'}{1+r},$$
which is negative and increasing in $(0,1)$. Then $f_3$ is decreasing and convex in $(0,1)$. The limiting value
$f_3(0)=1$ follows from Lemma \ref{lemma}(2), and $f_3(1)=0$ is clear.
(4)\, Let $h(r)=1-r$. Since $f_3$ is convex, $f_3'(r)/h'(r)$ is decreasing. Thus $f_4(r)=f_3(r)/h(r)$ is also decreasing by the monotone form of l'H\^opital's rule. By l'H\^opital's rule $f_4(1)=-f'_3(1)=0$, and $f_4(0)=f_3(0)=1$.
(5)\, For the proof we first make the change of variable $r=2\sqrt{x}/(1+x)$. The Landen transformations (\ref{transfk1}) and (\ref{transfe1}) lead to
$$h(x)=f_5\left(\dfrac{2\sqrt{x}}{1+x}\right)=\dfrac{\E(x)-x'^2\K(x)}{1-x'}=\dfrac{h_1(x)}{h_2(x)},$$
where $h_1(x)=\E(x)-x'^2\K(x)$ and $h_2(x)=1-x'$ with $h_1(0)=0=h_2(0)$. Then by (\ref{derivative}) we have
$$\dfrac{h_1'(x)}{h_2'(x)}=\dfrac{x\K(x)}{x/x'}=x'\K(x),$$
which is strictly decreasing by Lemma \ref{lemma}(2). This implies that $h$ is decreasing by the monotone form of
l'H\^opital's rule, and hence $f_5$ is also decreasing in $(0,1)$.
(6)\, By differentiation, we have
$$f_6'(r)=\dfrac{(1-r)(2r\E'+\E'-r\K')}{r(1+r)}>0,$$
and hence $f_6$ is increasing. The limiting values are clear.
(7)\, By simple computation, $f_7'(r)=f_6(r)/(1-r)^2<0$ and hence $f_7$ is decreasing. The limiting values follow from part (4).
(8)\, Differentiation and simplification give that
$$f_8'(r)=\dfrac{((1+r)\K-\E)(2\E-r'^2\K)}{2r^{3/2}(1+r)(1-r)^2\K^2}>0,$$
and hence $f_8$ is strictly increasing. The limit
$$f_8(0+)=\lim_{r\to0+}\dfrac{\E-(1-r)\K}{\sqrt{r}\K}=\lim_{r\to0+}\dfrac{\E-(1-r)\K}{r}\dfrac{\sqrt{r}}{\K}=0$$
follows from the part (2). The limit $f_8(1-)=\infty$ is clear.
\end{proof}
Let
\begin{equation}\label{grotzsch}
\mu(r)=\frac{\pi}{2} \frac{\K'(r)}{\K(r)}
\end{equation}
be the modulus of Gr\"otzsch's ring $\B^2\setminus[0,r]$ (see \cite{lv},\cite{avv}).
\begin{lemma} \label{mylemmupsi}
The function $f(r)=\mu(r)\psi(r)$ is strictly increasing from $(0,1)$ onto $(0,\infty)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the function $f$ can be rewritten as
$$f(r)=\pi\sqrt{r}\K'\dfrac{\E-(1-r)\K}{\sqrt{r}(1-r)\K}\dfrac{1-r}{\E'-r\K'},$$
the conclusion follows from Lemma \ref{lemma}(2), Lemma \ref{mylemma}(4) and (8).
\end{proof}
\medskip
\section{Proofs of Main Results}
In this section we will prove two identities involving the function $\psi$, and some functional inequalities and elementary estimates for the function $\psi$ are also derived from the monotonicity and convexity of the combinations of the function $\psi$ and some elementary functions.
\begin{theorem} \label{mythm1}
The function $\psi(r)$ is strictly increasing and convex from $(0,1)$ onto $(0,\infty)$, and the function
$\psi(r)/r$ is strictly increasing from $(0,1)$ onto $(0,\infty)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By differentiation, and using (\ref{derivative}) and Legendre's identity (\ref{legendre}), we have
\beq\label{psider}
\dfrac{d\psi}{dr}=\dfrac{2(1-r)}{1+r}\dfrac{\E'\K+\E\K'-\K\K'}{(\E'-r\K')^2}=\dfrac{\pi}{1-r^2}\left(\frac{1-r}{\E'-r\K'}\right)^2,
\eeq
which is positive and strictly increasing by Lemma \ref{mylemma}(4). Hence $\psi(r)$ is strictly increasing and convex, and consequently $\psi(r)/r$ is strictly increasing by the monotone form of l'H\^opital's rule.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{myidentity}]
By simple calculations, the first identity follows from the definition of $\psi$ and Lemma \ref{mytransf}.
The second identity follows from the first one with the change of parameter $r\mapsto\sqrt{(1-r)/(1+r)}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{specvalu}
$\psi(3-2\sqrt{2})=1.$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $r=1/\sqrt{2}$. Then $(1-r)/(1+r)=3-2\sqrt{2}=(1-r')/(1+r')$, and the second identity in the Theorem \ref{myidentity} implies $\psi(3-2\sqrt{2})=1.$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Let $\Delta$ be the family of curves lying outside the rectangle $R$ and joining the opposite sides of length $a$. Then a basic fact is
$$\mathcal{M}(\Gamma)=1/\mathcal{M}(\Delta).$$
By \eqref{dpformula} and \eqref{grotzsch}, we have
$$\mathcal{M}(\Gamma)=\mu(r)/\pi,\quad\mbox{and}\quad \mathcal{M}(\Delta)=\mu(s)/\pi$$
with $r=\psi^{-1}(a/b)$ and $s=\psi^{-1}(b/a).$ By the identity \cite[Exercises 5.68(2)]{avv}
$$\mu(r^2)\mu\left(\left(\dfrac{1-r}{1+r}\right)^2\right)=\pi^2,$$
it is easy to see that $\mathcal{M}(\Gamma)=1/\mathcal{M}(\Delta)$ is equivalent to $s=((1-\sqrt{r})/(1+\sqrt{r}))^2.$
Since $s=\psi^{-1}(b/a)=\psi^{-1}(1/\psi(r))$, we have $s=((1-\sqrt{r})/(1+\sqrt{r}))^2$ which is equivalent to
$$\dfrac{1}{\psi(r)}=\psi\left(\left(\dfrac{1-\sqrt{r}}{1+\sqrt{r}}\right)^2\right).$$
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{mythm2}]
The theorem follows from $$f(r)=\dfrac{(1-\sqrt{r})^2\psi(r)}{r}=2\dfrac{\E-(1-r)\K}{r}\dfrac{(1-\sqrt{r})^2}{\E'-r\K'},$$
since $(\E-(1-r)\K)/r$ and $(1-\sqrt{r})^2/(\E'-r\K')$ are both decreasing by Lemma \ref{mylemma}(2), (5), respectively. The limiting values are clear by Lemma \ref{mylemma}(2), (5).
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The function $g(r)=(1-\sqrt{r})\arctanh(1-\sqrt{r})\psi(r)/r$ is strictly decreasing from $(0,1)$ onto $(4/\pi,\infty)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Theorem \ref{mythm2}, since $g(r)=f(r)\arctanh(1-\sqrt{r})/(1-\sqrt{r})$ where $f(r)$ is as in Theorem \ref{mythm2} and $\arctanh(1-\sqrt{r})/(1-\sqrt{r})$ is strictly decreasing from $(0,1)$ onto $(1,\infty)$.
\end{proof}
Since the bounds for $\psi$ in (\ref{advinequal}) and the Theorem \ref{mythm2} are not comparable in the whole interval $(0,1)$, we could combine them to get the following inequalities:
\begin{corollary}
For $0<r<1$,
$$\max\left\{\dfrac{\pi r}{(1-r)^2},\dfrac{4r}{\pi(1-\sqrt{r})^2}\right\}<\psi(r)<\min\left\{\dfrac{16r}{\pi(1-r)^2},\dfrac{\pi r}{(1-\sqrt{r})^2}\right\}.$$
\end{corollary}
\medskip
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{1.eps}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\medskip
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.8cm]{3.eps}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{4.eps}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\medskip
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{mythm3}]
Let $r=1/\ch(x)$ and $s=1/\ch(y)$. Then $dr/dx=-\sh(x)/\ch^2(x)=-rr'$ and
$$f'(x)=-\pi rr'\dfrac{1-r}{1+r}\dfrac{1}{(\E'-r\K')^2}=-\pi g(r),$$
where $g(r)=rr'(1-r)/((1+r)(\E'-r\K')^2)$. By the change of variable $r=(1-t)/(1+t)$ and using Landen's transformations (\ref{transfk2}) and (\ref{transfe2}), we have
$$g\left(\dfrac{1-t}{1+t}\right)=\dfrac{1-t}{2}\frac{t^{3/2}}{(\E-t'^2\K)^2}$$
which is decreasing in $t$ by Lemma \ref{lemma}(1), and consequently, $f'(x)$ is increasing in $x$. Therefore, $f$ is decreasing and convex on $(0,\infty)$. In particular, we have $f((x+y)/2)\leq(f(x)+f(y))/2$, with equality if and only if $x=y$. Now
$$\ch^2\left(\dfrac{x+y}{2}\right)=\dfrac{1+rs+r's'}{2rs}.$$
Hence
$$f\left(\frac{x+y}2\right)\leq\frac{f(x)+f(y)}2$$
gives
$$\psi(r)+\psi(s)\geq2\psi\left(\frac{\sqrt{2rs}}{\sqrt{1+rs+r's'}}\right),$$
with equality if and only if $r=s$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It is clear that $f(x)$ is decreasing and $2f(x+y)\leq f(x)+f(y)$.
Since $$\ch(x+y)=\dfrac{1+r's'}{rs},$$
we have
$$2\psi\left(\dfrac{rs}{1+r's'}\right)\leq\psi(r)+\psi(s)$$
which is weaker than the inequality (\ref{myfunineq}).
\end{remark}
A function $f: I\to J$ is called $H_{p,q}-$convex (concave) if it satisfies
$$f(H_{p}(x,y))\leq(\geq)H_q(f(x),f(y))$$
for all $x,y\in I$ and strictly $H_{p,q}-$convex (concave) if the inequality is strict, except for $x=y$. Recently, many authors investigated the $H_{p,q}-$convexity (concavity) of special functions, see \cite{avv2, balpv, ba, bapv, cwzq, wzj}. The following theorems give some functional inequalities by studying the generalized convexity (concavity) of the function $\psi$.
\begin{theorem} \label{mythm4}
The function $f(x)=\log(1/\psi(e^{-x}))$ is strictly increasing and concave from $(0,\infty)$ onto $(-\infty,\infty)$. In particular, for $r,s\in(0,1)$,
$$\psi(\sqrt{rs})\leq\sqrt{\psi(r)\psi(s)}$$
with equality if and only if $r=s$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $r=e^{-x}$ and $s=e^{-y}$. Then $dr/dx=-r$ and
$$f'(x)=\dfrac{r\psi'(r)}{\psi(r)}=\frac{\pi}{2}\dfrac{r}{\E-(1-r)\K}\dfrac{1-r}{(1+r)(\E'-r\K')}$$
which is positive and increasing in $r$ by Lemma \ref{mylemma}(2) and (7), hence decreasing in $x$.
Therefore, $f$ is strictly increasing and concave on $(0,\infty)$. In particular, we have $f((x+y)/2)\geq(f(x)+f(y))/2$, with equality if and only if $x=y$. This gives
$$\psi(\sqrt{rs})\leq\sqrt{\psi(r)\psi(s)}$$
with equality if and only if $r=s$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{mythm5}]
For $p=0$, the inequality is from Theorem \ref{mythm4}. Now we assume that $p\neq0$.
Let $0<x<y<1$ and $t=((x^p+y^p)/2)^{1/p}>x$. Define
$$f(x)=\psi(t)^p-\dfrac{\psi(x)^p+\psi(y)^p}{2}.$$
By differentiation, we have $dt/dx=\frac{1}{2}(x/t)^{p-1}$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
f'(x)&=&\dfrac12p\psi(t)^{p-1}\psi'(t)\left(\dfrac{x}{t}\right)^{p-1}-\dfrac12p\psi(x)^{p-1}\psi'(x)\\
&=&\dfrac{p}2x^{p-1}\left(\left(\dfrac{\psi(t)}{t}\right)^{p-1}\psi'(t)-\left(\dfrac{\psi(x)}{x}\right)^{p-1}\psi'(x)\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
We first consider the case of $p>0$. Previous calculation gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
f'(x)&=&\dfrac{p}2x^{p-1}\left(\left(\dfrac{\psi(t)}{t}\right)^{-1}\psi'(t)\left(\dfrac{\psi(t)}{t}\right)^{p}-\left(\dfrac{\psi(x)}{x}\right)^{-1}\psi'(x)\left(\dfrac{\psi(x)}{x}\right)^{p}\right)\\
&=&\frac{{\pi}p\,x^{p-1}}{4}\left(\dfrac{t}{\E(t)-(1-t)\K(t)}\dfrac{1-t}{(1+t)(\E'(t)-t\K'(t))}\left(\dfrac{\psi(t)}{t}\right)^{p}\right.\\
& &\qquad\left.-\dfrac{x}{\E(x)-(1-x)\K(x)}\dfrac{1-x}{(1+x)(\E'(x)-x\K'(x))}\left(\dfrac{\psi(x)}{x}\right)^{p}\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
which is positive by Lemma \ref{mylemma}(2),(7) and Theorem \ref{mythm1} since $t>x$ and $p>0$. Hence $f$ is strictly increasing and $f(x)<f(y)=0$. This implies that
$$\psi\left(\left(\frac{x^p+y^p}{2}\right)^{1/p}\right)\leq\left(\frac{\psi(x)^p+\psi(y)^p}{2}\right)^{1/p}.$$
For the case of $p\leq-1$, by previous calculation we have
$$f'(x)
=\dfrac{p}2x^{p-1}\left(\left(\dfrac{\psi(t)}{t}\right)^{-2}\psi'(t)\left(\dfrac{\psi(t)}{t}\right)^{p+1}
-\left(\dfrac{\psi(x)}{x}\right)^{-2}\psi'(x)\left(\dfrac{\psi(x)}{x}\right)^{p+1}\right).$$
Since $(\psi(x)/x)^{p+1}$ is decreasing, we only need to prove $(\psi(x)/x)^{-2}\psi'(x)$ is strictly decreasing in $(0,1)$. In fact,
with the change of variable $x\mapsto(1-t)/(1+t)$,
$$
\left(\dfrac{\psi(x)}{x}\right)^{-2}\psi'(x)=\dfrac{\pi}{4}\left(\dfrac{x(1-x)}{x'(\E-(1-x)\K)}\right)^2=\dfrac{\pi}{4}\left(\dfrac{t'^2}{\E'-t^2\K'}\dfrac{\sqrt{t}}{1+t}\right)^2
$$
which is a product of two positive and strictly increasing functions of $t$ by Lemma \ref{lemma}(1). Hence $f'(x)>0$ and $f$ is strictly increasing in $(0,1)$. Now we have $f(x)<f(y)=0$, and consequently
$$\psi\left(\left(\frac{x^p+y^p}{2}\right)^{1/p}\right)\geq\left(\frac{\psi(x)^p+\psi(y)^p}{2}\right)^{1/p}$$
since $p$ is negative.
The equality case is obvious. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\section{Applications}
In this section we always denote $R=[0,1]\times[0,b]$. Let $\Gamma_b$ and $\Delta_b$ be the families of curves joining the opposite sides of length $b$ of the rectangle $R$, in the exterior and interior of the rectangle, respectively. It is well-known that $\mathcal{M}(\Delta_b)=b$. By the formula of Duren and Pfaltzgraff (\ref{dpformula}), we have
$$\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_b)=\dfrac{1}{\pi}\mu(\psi^{-1}(1/b)).$$
Setting $r=\sqrt{2}-1$ in (\ref{idt2}), we get $\K'(3-2\sqrt{2})=2\K(3-2\sqrt{2})$. By Corollary \ref{specvalu},
$$\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_1)=\dfrac{1}{\pi}\mu(\psi^{-1}(1))=1=\mathcal{M}(\Delta_1).$$
Now we will study the behavior of the modulus $\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_b)$ with respect to the sides of length $b$. The following Theorem \ref{modcomp} shows
\beq
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_b)>\mathcal{M}(\Delta_b), &\mbox{for} \quad 0<b<1,\\
\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_b)<\mathcal{M}(\Delta_b), &\mbox{for} \quad b>1.
\end{array}\right.
\eeq
\begin{theorem}\label{modcomp}
There exists a number $r_0=8.24639\ldots$ such that the function
$$f(r)=\dfrac{1}{\pi}\mu(\psi^{-1}(r))-\frac{1}{r}$$
is strictly increasing in $(0,r_0)$ and decreasing in $(r_0,\infty)$, with the limiting value $f(\infty)=0$. In particular,
$$\dfrac{1}{\pi}\mu(\psi^{-1}(r))<\frac{1}{r}, \quad \mbox{for} \quad 0<r<1,$$
and
$$\dfrac{1}{\pi}\mu(\psi^{-1}(r))>\frac{1}{r}, \quad \mbox{for} \quad r>1.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $s=\psi^{-1}(r)$. Then $r=\psi(s)$ and, by the derivative formula (\ref{psider}),
$$\dfrac{ds}{dr}=(\dfrac{dr}{ds})^{-1}=\dfrac{s'^2}{\pi}\left(\dfrac{\E'(s)-s\K'(s)}{1-s}\right)^2.$$
By differentiation and
$$\dfrac{d\mu(s)}{ds}=\dfrac{-\pi^2}{4ss'^2\K(s)^2},$$
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
f'(r)&=&\dfrac{1}{\pi}\dfrac{d\mu}{ds}\dfrac{ds}{dr}+\dfrac{1}{r^2}\\
&=&\dfrac{1}{r^2}-\dfrac{1}{4s\K(s)^2}\left(\dfrac{\E'(s)-s\K'(s)}{1-s}\right)^2\\
&=&\dfrac{1}{\psi(s)^2}\left(1-\left(\dfrac{\E(s)-(1-s)\K(s)}{\sqrt{s}(1-s)\K(s)}\right)^2\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
which is positive in $(0,r_0)$ and negative in $(r_0,\infty)$ with $r_0=\psi(0.479047\ldots)=8.24639\ldots$ by Lemma \ref{mylemma}(8).
Hence $f$ is strictly increasing in $(0,r_0)$ and decreasing in $(r_0,\infty)$. Since $f(1)=0$ and $f(\infty)=0$,
we have $f(r)<0$ for $r\in(0,1)$ and $f(r)>0$ for $r\in(1,\infty)$.
\end{proof}
The next theorem shows that the modulus $\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_b)$ has a logarithmic growth with respect to the length of side $b$.
\begin{theorem}
For $b\in(0,\infty)$,
\beq\label{modulusest}
L(b)<\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_b)<U(b),
\eeq
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lb4mod}
L(b)&:=&\dfrac{2}{\pi}\left(1-\left(1+\sqrt{4b/\pi}\right)^{-4}\right)^{1/4}\,\log\left(2\left(1+\sqrt{{4b}/{\pi}}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&>&\dfrac{2}{\pi}\left(1-\left(1+\sqrt{4b/\pi}\right)^{-1}\right)\,\log\left(2\left(1+\sqrt{{4b}/{\pi}}\right)\right),
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ub4mod}
U(b)&:=&\dfrac{1}{\pi}\log\left(2\left(1+\sqrt{\pi b}\right)^2\left(1+\sqrt{1-\left(1+\sqrt{\pi b}\right)^{-4}}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&<&\dfrac{2}{\pi}\log\left(2\left(1+\sqrt{\pi b}\right)\right).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{mythm2} we have
$$\left(\dfrac{\sqrt{r}}{\sqrt{\pi}+\sqrt{r}}\right)^2<s=\psi^{-1}(r)<\left(\dfrac{\sqrt{r}}{\sqrt{4/\pi}+\sqrt{r}}\right)^2,\quad r\in(0,\infty).$$
By \cite[Theorem 5.13(4),(5)]{avv},
$$\sqrt{s'}\log{\dfrac{4}{s}}<\mu(s)<\log{\dfrac{2(1+s')}{s}},\quad s\in(0,1).$$
Combining the above inequalities and replacing $r$ with $1/b$, we get the inequalities (\ref{modulusest}).
The inequality (\ref{lb4mod}) follows from the inequality $1-a^x>(1-a)^x$ for $a\in(0,1)$ and $x\in(1,\infty)$.
The inequality (\ref{ub4mod}) is obvious.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{modest.eps}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}
For $a,b\in(0,\infty)$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_{2ab/(a+b)})\leq\sqrt{\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_a)\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_b)}\leq
\dfrac{\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_a)+\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_b)}{2}\leq\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_{(a+b)/2})$;\\
\item $\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_{H_p(a,b)})\leq H_p(\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_a),\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_b)),&p\leq-1,\vspace{1mm}\\
\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_{H_p(a,b)})\geq H_p(\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_a),\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_b)),&p\geq1.\\
\end{array}\right.$
\end{enumerate}
Equality holds in each case if and only if $a=b$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In part (1), the second inequality is clear. For the third inequality, let $s=\psi^{-1}(1/a)$, $t=\psi^{-1}(1/b)$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dfrac{\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_a)+\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_b)}{2}&=&\dfrac{1}{\pi}\dfrac{\mu(s)+\mu(t)}{2}\\
&\leq&\dfrac{1}{\pi}\mu(\sqrt{st})\leq\dfrac{1}{\pi}\mu(H_{-1}(s,t))\\
&\leq&\dfrac{1}{\pi}\mu(\psi^{-1}(H_{-1}(\psi(s),\psi(t))))\\
&=&\dfrac{1}{\pi}\mu(\psi^{-1}(H_{-1}(1/a,1/b)))\\
&=&\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_{(a+b)/2}),
\end{eqnarray*}
where the first inequality follows from \cite[Theorem 5.12(1)]{avv} (also see \cite[Theorem]{wzj}) and the third inequality follows from Theorem \ref{mythm5}.
Let $m(a)=\mu(\psi^{-1}(a))/\pi$ and $u=\psi^{-1}(a)$. By logarithmic differentiation, we have
$$\dfrac{d}{da}\log m(a)=-\dfrac{1}{2u\K'(u)\K(u)}\left(\dfrac{\E'(u)-u\K'(u)}{1-u}\right)^2,$$
which is strictly increasing in $u$ by Lemma \ref{lemma}(2) and Lemma \ref{mylemma}(4), and hence strictly increasing in $a$. Since $m(a)$ is logarithmic convex,
we have
$$m\left(\dfrac{a+b}{2}\right)\leq\sqrt{m(a)m(b)},$$
which implies the first inequality in part (1) by replacing $a,b$ with $1/a,1/b$, respectively.
For the part (2), let $M(x):=\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_x)$.
Let $0<x<y<1$ and $t=((x^p+y^p)/2)^{1/p}>x$. Define
$$f(x)=M(t)^p-\dfrac{M(x)^p+M(y)^p}{2}.$$
By differentiation, we have $dt/dx=\frac{1}{2}(x/t)^{p-1}$ and
\beq\label{diffmod}
f'(x)=\dfrac{p}2x^{p-1}\left(\left(\dfrac{M(t)}{t}\right)^{p-1}M'(t)-\left(\dfrac{M(x)}{x}\right)^{p-1}M'(x)\right).
\eeq
Let $M(x)=m(a)$, then $a=1/x=\psi(u)$. Now we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left(\dfrac{M(x)}{x}\right)^{p-1}M'(x)&=&(m(a)a)^{p-1}m'(a)(-a^2)\\
&=&\left(\dfrac{\mu(u)\psi(u)}{\pi}\right)^{p-1}\psi(u)^2\dfrac{1}{4u\K(u)^2}\left(\dfrac{\E'(u)-u\K'(u)}{1-u}\right)^2\\
&=&\left(\dfrac{\mu(u)\psi(u)}{\pi}\right)^{p-1}\left(\dfrac{\E(u)-(1-u)\K(u)}{\sqrt{u}(1-u)\K(u)}\right)^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
which is strictly increasing in $u$ by Lemmas \ref{mylemmupsi} and \ref{mylemma}(8), and hence strictly decreasing in $x$ for each $p\geq1$. This implies that $f'(x)<0$ if $p\geq1$.
For the case of $p\leq-1$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left(\dfrac{M(x)}{x}\right)^{p-1}M'(x)&=&(m(a)a)^{p-1}m'(a)(-a^2)=-(m(a)a)^{p+1}m(a)^{-2}m'(a)\\
&=&\left(\dfrac{\mu(u)\psi(u)}{\pi}\right)^{p+1}\dfrac{1}{u\K'(u)^2}\left(\dfrac{\E'(u)-u\K'(u)}{1-u}\right)^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
which is strictly decreasing in $u$ by Lemmas \ref{mylemmupsi}, \ref{lemma}(2) and \ref{mylemma}(4), and hence strictly increasing in $x$ for each $p\leq-1$. Since $p$ is negative, this still implies that $f'(x)<0$.
It is easy to see that $f'(x)<0$ implies the inequalities in the part (2).
\end{proof}
\begin{openprob}
What is the exact domain of $p$ for which the function $\psi$ is $H_{p,p}$-convex (concave)? More generally, find the exact $(p,q)$ domain for which the function $\psi$ is $H_{p,q}$-convex (concave). The same questions can be asked for the modulus $\mathcal{M}(\Gamma_b)$.
\end{openprob}
\medskip
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
The research of Matti Vuorinen was supported by the Academy of Finland, Project 2600066611.
Xiaohui Zhang is indebted to the CIMO (Grant TM-09-6629) and the Finnish National Graduate School of Mathematics and
its Applications for financial support. Both authors wish to thank \'Arp\'ad Baricz and the referee for their helpful comments on the manuscript.
|
\section{introduction}\label{intro}
\subsection{Motivation} The convex polytopes and their affine maps
form a natural habitat for a major part of the contemporary combinatorics (combinatorial commutative
algebra, toric algebraic geometry, tropical geometry, Ehrhart theory, linear and integer programming).
The category of polytopes is also an object of
study in its own right. The importance of such an approach is highlighted on the
last pages of \cite{ZiPOL}. By analogy with algebraic structures and
topological spaces, one could ask whether polytopes are also amenable
to a unifying analysis, which would provide a general context for
various important constructions and results. In the case of algebra
and topology such a unifying machine is homology theory. Since convex
polytopes are just one step away from the classical linear world, the
question can be put in very concrete terms: what are the polytopal
versions of $\Hom$, $\otimes$, $\Ker$, $\Coker$, $\text{Ext}$? How do
they fit into the current trends in polytope theory? Is there a more
universal (algebraic?) mechanism for addressing concrete challenges in
polytopes than, say, triangulations, analogous to the triangulations vs. homology dichotomy for topological spaces?
A notable example that suggests that these are natural questions is
the Billera-Sturmfels concept of fiber polytopes
\cite{BiStuFIBER}. This construction is expected to be the right kernel object in the category of polytopes. But the analogy with $\ker$ is yet to be fully explained and, more importantly, pushed further to include still conjectural co-kernel
objects in the same category.
In this paper we undertake the first step in the direction of categorial analysis of convex polytopes: we study the sets of affine maps
between two given polytopes, the \emph{hom-polytopes}. Curiously enough, apart from the motivation above, hom-polytopes show some relevance in quantum physics \cite{Physics}.
\subsection{Results.} That the hom-polytopes are in fact polytopes is a folklore fact; see Section \ref{hom}. The full blown analogy with vector spaces is a symmetric closed monoidal structure on the category of polytopes over which the category itself is enriched (Corollary \ref{enriched}). In particular, there is a natural \emph{tensor product} of polytopes, satisfying the usual conjunction with hom-polytopes. But, unlike the linear situation, the tensor product of polytopes exhibits interesting extremal properties (Example \ref{neighboring}). The material up to Corollary \ref{enriched} is modeled on vector spaces and the arguments are mostly skipped. The summary is given for the sake of
completeness. After posting the preprint on arXiv, we learned about Valby's undergraduate thesis \cite{Valby} which gives a very detailed treatment of the same material.
The description of the facets of hom-polytopes is very simple: a facet
consists of the maps mapping a chosen vertex of the source into a
chosen facet of the target. It is, therefore, the determination of \emph{vertices} which amounts to understanding the geometric consequences of our categorial-polytopal endeavor. Very rarely can one hope for a full description of the vertices of hom-polytopes in terms of the source and target polytopes. In Section \ref{vertices} we introduce several tractable classes of surjective vertex maps in arbitrary dimension (\emph{deflations,} \emph{face collapses}). Their analysis (Theorems \ref{vertexcomposite} and \ref{fGamma}), in particular, yield complete description of the rank 1 vertex maps, i.~e., the vertex maps whose images in the target polytope are segments (Corollary \ref{rank1}).
In Section \ref{examples} we present several examples of interesting vertex maps, making clear: (i) the limitation of the analogy between the categories of polytopes and vector spaces (\emph{vertex factorization of non-vertex maps, gaps in ranks}), and (ii) the distinction between the classes of surjective vertex maps, introduced in Section \ref{vertices}.
In Section \ref{generic} we are able to show that in the hom-polytope
between two generic polygons, all but a few vertices are simple
(Theorem \ref{thm:generic}), and we completely describe the
exceptions. (To this end we must first introduce an
appropriate algebraic parametrization of the set of pairs of polygons.) The
result is shown in two steps: (i) introducing combinatorial structures that reduce the problem to the claim that certain explicit multivariate polynomial determinants of 31 different types are non-degenerate, and then (ii) verifying the claim by effective methods, with use of the computer algebra system \texttt{Macaulay 2}.
Regular polygons give rise to interesting arithmetic functions -- the number of vertices of the hom-polytope $\Hom(P_n,P_m)$ between regular $n$- and $m$-gons. In Section \ref{regular}, by explicit polygonal constructions, we obtain the explicit full lists of the vertices of $\Hom(P_m,P_n)$ when $\min(m,n)\le4$. At the end of Section \ref{regular} we present computational results, based on \textsf{Polymake}, for the number of vertices of $\Hom(P_m,P_n)$ with $m,n\le8$.
\subsection{Affine geometry} In this and next two subsections we fix terminology and collect several general facts.
For the unexplained background material on convex polyhedral geometry the reader is referred to \cite[Ch.1]{KRIPO} and \cite[Ch.1,2]{ZiPOL}.
We will work exclusively in finite dimensional real vector spaces. An
\emph{affine subspace} of a vector space is the sum of a linear
subspace and a vector. For a vector space $E$ and a subset $X\subset
E$, the \emph{affine hull} $\aff(X)$ is the minimal affine subspace of
$E$ containing $X$, and the \emph{linear hull} $\lin(X)$ is the
parallel translate of $\aff(X)$ containing $0$:
\begin{align*}
\aff(X)=\{\lambda_1x_1+\cdots+\lambda_nx_n\ |\ &n\in\NN,\ x_1,\ldots,x_n\in X,\\
&\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n\in\RR,\ \lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_n=1\};\\
\\
\lin(X)=\{\mu_1(x_1-x_0)+\cdots+\mu_n(x_n-x_0)\ |\ &n\in\NN,\ x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_n\in X,\\
&\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_n\in\RR\}.
\end{align*}
An \emph{affine map} $f:E\to E'$ between two vector spaces is the
composition of a linear map $E\to E'$ with a parallel translation $E'\to E'$. A map $f:E\to E'$ is affine if and only if it respects barycentric coordinates:
$$
f\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ix_i\right)=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_if(x_i)
$$
for all $n\in\NN$, $x_1,\ldots,x_n\in E$, and $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n\in\RR$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i=1$. More generally, let $A\subset E$ and $A'\subset E'$ be affine subspaces. A map $f:A\to A'$ is \emph{affine} if it is a restriction of an affine map between the ambient vector spaces. The set of affine maps between $E$ and $E'$, denoted by $\aff(E,E')$, is a vector space in a natural way. The set of affine maps $A\to A'$, denoted by $\aff(A,A')$, becomes an affine subspace of $\aff(E,E')$ upon choosing an affine projection $\pi:E\to A$ with $\pi^2=\pi$ and applying the embedding:
$$
\aff(A,A')\to\aff(E,E'),\quad f\mapsto\iota\circ f\circ\pi,
$$
where $\iota:A'\to E'$ is the identity embedding. The resulting affine
structures on $\aff(A,A')$ for various $\pi$ are all isomorphic. As a
result, there is a well-defined notion of convexity in
$\aff(A,A')$. This space satisfies $\dim\aff(A,A')=\dim A\dim A'+\dim A'$.
For a subset of an affine space $X\subset A$, its convex hull will be denoted by $\conv(X)$. For $X\subset E$, $E$ a vector space, the \emph{conical hull} of $X$ will be denoted by $\cone(X)$:
$$
\cone(X)=\left\{\RR_+x_1+\cdots+\RR_+x_n\ |\ n\in\NN,\ x_1,\ldots,x_n\in X\right\},
$$
where $\RR_+$ refers to the set of nonnegative reals.
For a convex subset $X\subset A$, the \emph{relative interior} of $X$ in $\aff(X)\subset A$ will be denoted by $\int(X)$. The boundary of $X$ is defined by $\partial X=X\setminus\int(X)$.
For two convex sets $X$ and $Y$, $\hom(X,Y)$ denotes the set of affine
maps $X\to Y$ and $\aff(X,Y)$ denotes the set of affine maps
$\aff(X)\to\aff(Y)$. The natural embedding
$\hom(X,Y)\hookrightarrow\aff(X,Y)$ makes $\hom(X,Y)$ into a convex
subset of $\aff(X,Y)$ that satisfies:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\aff(X,Y)=\aff(\hom(X,Y))=\hom(X,\aff(Y))$,
\item
$\int(\hom(X,Y))=\hom(X,\int(Y))$.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Polytopes and cones}\label{polytopesandcones}
We only consider convex polytopes, i.~e., our polytopes are the
compact intersections of finitely many affine half-spaces, or
equivalently the convex hulls of finitely many points.
For a polytope $P$, the sets of its facets and vertices will be denoted by $\FF(P)$ and $\vertex(P)$, respectively.
For two polytopes in their ambient vector spaces $P\subset E$ and $Q\subset E'$, their \emph{join} is defined by
\begin{align*}
\join(P,Q)=\conv\{(x,0,0),\ (0,1,y)\ |\ x\in P,\ y\in Q\}\subset E\oplus\RR\oplus E'.
\end{align*}
Let $\iota_P$ and $\iota_Q$ be the obvious embeddings of $P$ and $Q$ into $\join(P,Q)$.
Every point $z\in\join(P,Q)$ has a unique representation $z=\lambda\iota_P(x)+(1-\lambda)\iota_Q(y)$, $\lambda\in[0,1]$. For two affine maps $f:P\to R$ and $g:Q\to R$ we have the affine map:
\begin{align*}
\join(P,Q)\to R,\quad\lambda\iota_P(x)+(1-\lambda)\iota_Q(y)\mapsto\lambda f(x)+&(1-\lambda) g(y),\\
&\lambda\in[0,1],\ x\in P,\ y\in Q.
\end{align*}
It is uniquely determined by its restriction to $\Im\iota_P$ and $\Im\iota_Q$.
By \emph{cones} we will refer to pointed, convex, polyhedral cones:
those that are obtained as the intersection of finitely many half-spaces and
contain no lines.
\medskip\noindent\emph{Further notation.} The \emph{bipyramid} over a polytope $P$ in a vector space $E$ is the polytope
$$
\Diamond(P)=\conv((P,0),c_P+(0,1),c_P-(0,1))\subset E\oplus\RR,
$$
where $c_p\in P$ is the barycenter.
The $n$-dimensional standard simplex, cube, and cross-polytope are defined by
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_n=\conv(e_1,\ldots,e_n,e_{n+1}),\\
&\Box_n=\conv\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^n\delta_ie_i,\, \delta_i=\pm1\bigg),\\
&\Diamond_n=\conv(\pm e_1,\ldots,\pm e_n),\\
\end{align*}
where $e_i$ denotes the $i$th standard basis vector.
For a natural number $n\ge3$, the standard regular $n$-gon is
\begin{align*}
P_n=&\conv(1,\zeta_n,\zeta_n^2,\ldots,\zeta_n^{n-1})\subset\CC=\RR\oplus\RR,\\
&\zeta_n=\cos(2\pi/n)+\sin(2\pi/n)i.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Categories} Our category theory terminology follows the classical source
\cite{macCAT}: comma categories, limits and co-limits of diagrams,
conjugated functors, and symmetric monoidal categories. For the
concept of enriched categories, we refer the
reader to \cite{Enriched}. Even if this is the first time the reader
encounters this terminology, the exposition is sufficiently
self-explanatory to warrant skipping inclusion of the definitions. However, the interested reader can consult \cite{Valby}.
Let $\Pol$ denote the category of polytopes and affine maps and $\Cones$ denote the category of cones and linear maps. In both categories, for objects $A$ and $B$ we will use the notation $\Hom(A,B)$ for the corresponding hom-sets.
In $\Pol$ we have the following universal equalities:
\begin{align*}
&\join(P,Q)=P\coprod Q=\lim_{\to}(P,Q),\\
&P\times Q=P\prod Q=\lim_{\leftarrow}\big(P,Q\big).\\
\end{align*}
\section{Hom-polytopes}\label{hom}
The following proposition is well-known \cite[\S9.4]{ZiPOL} and is the basis for the
special module in \textsf{Polymake} \cite{POLYMAKE,GaJoPOLY} for computing
hom-polytopes.\footnote{Called \emph{mapping polytopes} in \textsf{Polymake}.} We used this software for the experiments
presented in Section~\ref{regular} below. The details are written up to ease the references in the following sections.
\begin{proposition}\label{homproperties} Let $P,Q,R$ be polytopes.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Hom(P,Q)$ is a polytope in $\aff(P,Q)$ with
\begin{align*}
\FF(\Hom(P,Q))=\big\{H(v,F)\ |\ &v\in\vertex(P),\ F\in\FF(Q),\\
&H(v,F)=\{f\in\Hom(P,Q)\ |\ f(v)\in F\}\big\},
\end{align*}
\item $\dim\Hom(P,Q)=\dim P\dim Q+\dim Q$.
\item $\Hom(P,Q\times R)\cong\Hom(P,Q)\times\Hom(P,R)$,
\item $\Hom(P,Q\cap R)\cong\Hom(P,Q)\cap\Hom(P,R)$
\item $\Hom(\join(P,Q),R)\cong\Hom(P,R)\times\Hom(Q,R)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof
(1) For every facet $F\subset Q$ we fix a surjective affine map
$\phi_F:Q\to\RR_+$, vanishing only on $F$.
\medskip\noindent\emph{Claim}. The system of affine maps
\begin{align*}
\phi_{F,v}:\aff(P,Q)\to\RR,\quad f\mapsto(\phi_F\circ f)(v),\quad F\in\FF(Q),\quad v\in\vertex(P),
\end{align*}
defines the facets of $\Hom(P,Q)$.
\medskip The equality
$$
\Hom(P,Q)=\bigcap_{F,v}\{f\in\aff(P,Q)\ |\ \phi_{F,v}(f)\ge0\}
$$
is straightforward. But for any vertex $v\in P$ and any facet
$F\subset Q$, there is an affine map $f:P\to Q$ such that
$f(v)\in\int(F)$ and $f(w)\in\int(Q)$ for each vertex $w\in P$ with
$w\not=v$. To obtain such map, take the composition of a parallel
projection of $P$ onto $[0,1]$, mapping $v$ to $0$ and the rest of $P$ onto $(0,1]$, with an embedding $[0,1]\to Q$, mapping $0$ to $\int(F)$ and $(0,1]$ to $\int(Q)$. Thus,
$$
f\in\phi_{F,v}(0)^{-1}\setminus\bigcup_{
{\tiny
\begin{matrix}
\FF(Q)\setminus\{F\}\\
w\in\vertex(P)\setminus\{v\}
\end{matrix}
}}
\phi_{G,w}(0)^{-1},
$$
which proves the claim.
(2) In the notation introduced above, we have
$$
\int(\Hom(P,Q))=\bigcap_{F,v}\{f\in\aff(P,Q)\ |\ \phi_{F,v}(f)>0\},
$$
a nonempty bounded open subset of $\aff(P,Q)$ defined by linear inequalities, so $\Hom(P,Q)\subset\aff(P,Q)$ is a full-dimensional polytope.
\medskip\noindent The parts (3,4,5) follow from the universal equalities in Section \ref{polytopesandcones} and the natural bijections of sets for any object $a$ and any diagram $\mathcal D$ in any category:
\begin{align*}
\Hom(a,\lim_{\leftarrow}\mathcal D)\cong\lim_{\leftarrow}\Hom(a,\mathcal D),\\
\Hom(\lim_{\to}\mathcal D,a)\cong\lim_{\leftarrow}\Hom(\mathcal D,a);
\end{align*}
these bijections are affine maps in our polytopal setting.
\end{proof}
For cones we have the following analogous statment:
\begin{proposition}\label{coneversion}
Let $C_1$, $C_2$, $C_3$ be cones.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\Hom(C_1,C_2)$ is a cone in $\Hom(\lin C_1,\lin C_2)$, whose facets are naturally indexed by the pairs $(R,F)$, $R\subset C_1$ an extremal ray and $F\subset C_2$ a facet.
\item $\Hom(C_1,C_2\times C_3)\cong\Hom(C_1,C_2)\times\Hom(C_1,C_3)$.
\item $\Hom(C_1\times C_2,C_3)\cong\Hom(C_1,C_3)\times\Hom(C_2,C_3)$.
\item $\Hom(C_1,C_2\cap C_3)\cong\Hom(C_1,C_2)\cap\Hom(C_1,C_3)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\section{Homogenization, duals, and tensor product}\label{tensor}
To a polytope $P$ in a vector space $E$ we associate the \emph{homogenization cone}:
$$
C(P)=\cone(P,1),\ \text{where}\ (P,1)=\{(x,1)\ |\ x\in P\}\subset E\oplus\RR.
$$
\medskip A \emph{graded cone} is a cone $C$ together with an affine
map $\phi:C\to\RR_+$, satisfying the condition
$\phi^{-1}(0)=\{0\}$. The map $\phi$ is called a \emph{grading}. All
of our cones admit a grading \cite[Prop.1.21]{KRIPO}. For a graded cone $(C,\phi)$ we have the \emph{de-homogenization polytope} $\phi^{-1}(1)$, denoted by $C_{[1]}$.
For a full-dimensional polytope $P$ with $0\in\int(P)$ and a full
dimensional cone $C$ in a vector space $E$, the corresponding dual
objects in the dual space $E^{\o}$ are defined by
\begin{align*}
&P^{\o}=\{h\in E^{\o}\ |\ h(x)\le1\ \text{for all}\ x\in P\},\\
&C^{\o}=\{h\in E^{\o}\ |\ h(C)\subset\RR_+\}=\Hom(C,\RR_+).
\end{align*}
The duals are also full-dimensional in their ambient space $E^{\o}$.
For the general facts of dual polytopes and dual cones the reader is referred to \cite[\S1.B]{KRIPO} and \cite[\S2.3]{ZiPOL}. (The latter uses `polar' instead of `dual').
Unless specified otherwise, for a polytope $P$ in a vector space $E$, we consider the cone $C(P)$ as a graded cone w.r.t. the grading
$\xymatrix{C(P)\ar@{^{(}->}[r]&E\oplus\RR\ar[rr]^{\text{pr}_{\RR}}&&\RR}$.
For two polytopes $P$ and $Q$, let $\phi$ and $\psi$ denote the gradings $C(P),C(Q)\to\RR_+$, respectively. Then we have the grading on the product of the homogenization cones:
$$
C(P)\times C(Q)\to\RR_+,\quad(x,y)\to\phi(x)+\psi(y),
$$
which results in the isomorphism of polytopes
$$
(C(P)\times C(Q))_{[1]}\cong\join(P,Q).
$$
Further, if $\dim P=\dim E$ and $0\in\int(P)$ (i.~e., $(0,1)\in\int(P,1)$), then $C(P)^{\o}$ will be viewed as a graded cone via the grading $C(P)^{\o}\to\RR_+$, $h\mapsto h((0,1))$. It is crucial that $h((0,1))=0$ iff $h=0$.
\begin{definition}\label{tensordefinition}
Let $E$ and $E'$ be vector spaces, $C\subset E$ and $C'\subset E'$ be cones, and $P\subset E$ and $Q\subset E'$ be polytopes. We define the tensor products as follows:
\begin{align*}
&C\otimes C'=\cone\{(x\otimes y)\ |\ x\in C,\ y\in C'\}\subset E\otimes E',\\
&P\otimes Q=\conv\big(\big\{(x\otimes y, x, y)\ |\ x\in P,\ y\in Q\big\}\big)\subset\big(E\otimes E'\big)\oplus E\oplus E'.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}\label{conetensor}
Let $C,C_1,C_2,C_3$ be cones and $P$ be a polytope.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The bilinear map $C_1\times C_2\longrightarrow C_1\otimes C_2$, $(x,y)\mapsto x\otimes y$, solves the following universal problem: any bilinear map $C_1\times C_2\longrightarrow C_3$ passes through a unique linear map $\phi$,
$$
\xymatrix{
C_1\times C_2\ar@{=>}[r]\ar@{=>}[rd]_f&C_1\otimes C_2\ar@{.>}[d]_{\circlearrowright\ \ }^{\exists!\phi}\\
&C_3
}\ .
$$
Equivalently, $\Hom(C_1\otimes C_2,C_3)\cong\Hom(C_1,\Hom(C_2,C_3))$, i.~e., $\otimes,\Hom:\Cones\times\Cones\to\Cones$ form a pair of left and right adjoint functors.
\item $\Hom(C_1,C_2^{\o})^{\o}\cong C_1\otimes C_2\cong\Hom(C_2,C_1^{\o})^{\o}$ for $C_1$ and $C_2$ full-dimensional.
\item\begin{align*}
&\dim(C_1\otimes C_2)=\dim C_1\dim C_2=\dim\Hom(C_1,C_2),\\
&C\otimes\RR_+\cong C,\ (C_1\otimes C_2)\otimes C_3\cong C_1\otimes(C_2\otimes C_3),\ C_1\otimes C_2\cong C_2\otimes C_1,\\
&C_1\otimes(C_2\times C_3)\cong(C_1\otimes C_2)\times(C_1\otimes C_3).
\end{align*}
\item The extremal rays of $C_1\otimes C_2$ are the tensor products of the extremal rays of $C_1$ and $C_2$.
\item $\Hom(P,C)\cong\Hom(C(P),C)$, where the $\Hom$ on the right refers to the set of affine maps from $P$ to $C$.
\item If $P$ is full-dimensional and $0\in\int(P)$ then:
\begin{align*}
&C(P^{\o})\cong C(P)^{\o}\ \text{as graded cones, i.~e.,}\ P^{\o}\cong C(P)^{\o}_{[1]},\ \text{and}\\
&\Hom(P,[0,1])\cong C(P^{\o})\cap((0,1)-C(P^{\o})).
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(1--3) are straightforward analogues of the corresponding linear algebra facts.
\medskip\noindent\emph{Notice.} Actually, (2) holds true for general, not necessarily full
dimensional, cones. This is so because $C^{\o\o}=C$ for general cones. Here we have to restrict to the full dimensional
case because from the beginning we have restricted to the case of pointed cones, and the dual of a cone is pointed iff the cone is full dimensional.
\medskip\noindent(4) Let $R_i\subset C_i$ be extremal rays, $\nu_i:C_i\to\RR_+$ be linear maps with $\nu_i^{-1}(0)=R_i$, and $\phi_i:C_i\to\RR_+$ be gradings, $i=1,2$. Then the linear map $$
\nu_1\otimes\phi_2+\phi_1\otimes\nu_2:C_1\otimes C_2\to\RR_+$$
satisfies the condition
$$
(\nu_1\otimes\phi_2+\phi_1\otimes\nu_2)^{-1}(0)=R_1\otimes R_2.
$$
Conversely, let $\xi=\sum_{j=1}^kx_j\otimes y_j$ be an element of an
extremal ray $R\subset C_1\otimes C_2$, where $x_j\in
C_1\setminus\{0\}$ and $y_j\in C_2\setminus\{0\}$ for all $j$. Then
$x_j\otimes y_j\in R$ for all $j$ because $x_j\otimes y_j\not=0$ for
all $j$ -- the tensor product of two nonzero vectors is a nonzero
vector. Consequently, there exist real
numbers $t_j>0$ with $x_j\otimes y_j=(t_j x_1)\otimes y_1$ for every
$j$. In particular, $R=\RR_+(x_1\otimes y_1)$. All we need to show is
that $x_1$ and $y_1$ are extremal generators of $C_1$ and $C_2$,
respectively. Without loss of generality we can assume that $x_1$ is
not an extremal generator of $C_1$. There is a segment $[u,v]\in C_1$
such that $x_1\in(u,v)$ and $0\notin\aff([u,v])$. But then the subset
$[u\otimes y_1,v\otimes y_1]\subset C_1\otimes C_2$ is a nondegenerate
segment and $0\notin\aff(u\otimes y_1,v\otimes y_1)$ -- one uses the
same fact on the tensor product of nonzero vectors. This contradicts the assumption that $x_1\otimes y_1\in R$.
\medskip\noindent(5) We have the mutually inverse linear maps:
\begin{align*}
&\alpha:\Hom(P,C)\to\Hom(C(P),C),\quad\alpha(h)((x,z))=h(z^{-1}x),\ (x,z)\in C(P)\setminus\{0\},\\
&\beta:\Hom(C(P),C)\to\Hom(P,C),\quad \beta(h)(x)=h((x,1)),\quad x\in P.
\end{align*}
\medskip\noindent(6) We have the following mutually inverse affine maps:
\begin{align*}
&\gamma:P^{\o}\to C(P)^{\o}_{[1]},\quad\gamma(h)((x,z))=z-z\cdot h(z^{-1}x),\ (x,z)\in C(P)\setminus\{0\},\\
&\delta:C(P)^{\o}_{[1]}\to P^{\o},\quad\delta(h)(x)=1-h((x,1)),\quad x\in P.
\end{align*}
That $\gamma$ and $\delta$ in fact evaluate in the right objects and have all necessary properties is straightorward.
For the second isomorphism, we note that $[0,1]=\RR_+\cap(1-\RR_+)$ and so (5), the previous isomorphism, and Proposition \ref{coneversion}(4) apply.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{cautionprojective}(1) Caution is needed in extending linear algebra facts to cones. For instance, the canonical map $C_1^{\o}\otimes C_2^{\o}\to(C_1\otimes C_2)^{\o}$ is in general \emph{not} an isomorphism: by Proposition \ref{conetensor}(4), the extremal rays of the first cone naturally correspond to the pairs of facets $F_1\subset C_1$ and $F_2\subset C_2$, while those of the second one are in bijective correspondence with the facets of $C_1\otimes C_2$. But there is no natural correspondence between the two sets. In fact, they can easily be non-bijective -- a combined effect of Proposition \ref{homproperties}(1) and the upcoming Proposition \ref{tensorproperties}(1).
(2) As a consequence of (6), for two isomorphic full dimensional
polytopes $P_1\cong P_2$ with $0\in\int(P_1)\cap\int(P_2)$, although
$P_1^{\o}$ and $P_2^{\o}$ are in general not isomorphic in $\Pol$, we
nonetheless have the isomorphism
$$
C(P_1^{\o})\cap((0,1)-C(P_1^{\o}))\cong C(P_2^{\o})\cap((0,1)-C(P_2^{\o})).
$$
In particular, we recover the standard fact that, when a full-dimensional polytope moves around the origin so that the origin stays in the interior of the polytope, the resulting dual polytopes are all projectively equivalent.
\end{remark}
For polytopes $P,Q,R$, a map $P\times Q\to R$ is called \emph{bi-affine} if, upon fixing one component, it is affine w.r.t. the other component.
\begin{proposition}\label{tensorproperties}
Let $P,Q,R$ be polytopes.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $C(P\otimes Q)\cong C(P)\otimes C(Q)$, or, equivalently,
$$
\vertex(P\otimes Q)=\{(v\otimes w,v,w)\ |\ v\in\vertex(P),\ w\in\vertex(Q)\}.
$$
\item
The bi-affine map $P\times Q\longrightarrow P\otimes Q$, $(x,y)\mapsto(x\otimes y,x,y)$, solves the following universal problem: any bi-affine map $P\times Q\longrightarrow R$ passes through a unique affine map $\phi$,
$$
\xymatrix{
P\times Q\ar@{=>}[r]\ar@{=>}[rd]_f&P\otimes Q\ar@{.>}[d]_{\circlearrowright\ \ }^{\exists!\phi}\\
&R\\
}\ .
$$
Equivalently, $\Hom(P\otimes Q, R)\cong \Hom(P,\Hom(Q,R))$, i.e., $\otimes, \Hom:\Pol\times\Pol\to\Pol$ form a pair of left and right adjoint functors.
\item
\begin{align*}
&\dim(P\otimes Q)=\dim P\dim Q+\dim P+\dim Q,\\
&P\otimes\{*\}\cong P,\ (P\otimes Q)\otimes R\cong P\otimes(Q\otimes R),\ P\otimes Q\cong Q\otimes P.\\
&P\otimes\join(Q,R)\cong\join(P\otimes Q,P\otimes R),\\
&\vertex(P\otimes Q)=\{(v\otimes w,v,w)\ |\ v\in\vertex(P),\ w\in\vertex(Q)\}.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} (1) We have
\begin{align*}
C(P)\otimes C(Q)=&\cone\{(x\otimes y)\ |\ x\in C(P),\ y\in C(Q)\}=\\
&\cone\{(x\otimes y)\ |\ x\in (P,1),\ y\in (Q,1)\}=\\
&\cone\{(u\otimes v,u,v,1)\ |\ u\in P,\ v\in Q\}=C(P\otimes Q).
\end{align*}
\medskip\noindent(2) A bi-affine map $\psi:\xymatrix{P\times Q\ar@{=>}[r]& R}$ gives rise to the following bilinear map:
\begin{align*}
&\xymatrix{ C(P)\times C(Q)\ar@{=>}[r]& C(R)},\\
&((u,x),(v,y))\mapsto\left(xy\cdot\psi\left(x^{-1}u,y^{-1}v\right),xy\right),\quad x,y>0.
\end{align*}
By Proposition \ref{conetensor}(1), we have the linear map:
\begin{align*}
&C(P)\otimes C(Q)\to C(R),\\
&(u,x)\otimes(v,y)\mapsto\left(xy\cdot\psi\left(x^{-1}u,y^{-1}v\right),xy\right),\quad x,y>0,
\end{align*}
which shows that the composite affine map
$$
P\otimes Q\cong(P\otimes Q,1)\hookrightarrow C(P\otimes Q)\cong C(P)\otimes C(Q)\to C(R),
$$
evaluates in $(R,1)$. The uniqueness is straightforward.
\medskip\noindent(3) This follows from (1) and the corresponding parts of Proposition \ref{conetensor}.
\end{proof}
For polytopes $P,Q,R$, the pairing
$$
\Hom(P,Q)\times\Hom(Q,R)\to\Hom(P,R),\qquad (f,g)\mapsto g\circ f,
$$
is clearly bi-affine. The pentagon and hexagon coherence conditions of the bifunctor $\otimes:\Pol\times\Pol\to\Pol$ are inherited from the corresponding conditions of the tensor product of vector spaces. So Proposition \ref{tensorproperties} has the
following consequence.
\begin{corollary}\label{enriched}
$(\Pol,\otimes)$ is a symmetric closed monoidal category w.r.t. which $\Pol$
is self-enriched.
\end{corollary}
As a more computational application, we have the following.
\begin{corollary}\label{explicitcomputations} Let $P$ be a polytope
and $n$ and $m$ be natural numbers. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Hom(\Delta_n,P)\cong P^{n+1}$ and $\Delta_n\otimes P\cong P^{\join^{n+1}}$ -- the $(n+1)$-fold iteration of join, applied to $P$.
\item $\Hom(P,\Box_n)\cong\Diamond(P^{\o})^n$ for $P$ centrally symmetric w.r.t. $0$. In particular, $\Hom(\Box_m,\Box_n)\cong(\Diamond_{m+1})^n$.
\item $\Hom(\Box_m,\Diamond_n)\cong\Hom(\Box_{n-1},\Diamond_{m+1})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} (1) Any map $\vertex(\Delta_n)\to P$ extends uniquely to an affine map $\Delta_n\to P$.
For the second isomorphism, one uses Proposition \ref{tensorproperties}(3), the third isomorphism, and the fact that $\Delta_n\cong(*)^{\join^{n+1}}$.
\medskip\noindent(2) This follows from Propositions \ref{homproperties}(3) and \ref{conetensor}(6), the 2nd isomorphism, and the fact that $P^{\o}$ is also symmetric w.r.t. the origin. (See Remark \ref{cautionprojective}(2).)
\medskip\noindent(3) One applies the conjunction $\otimes\dashv\Hom$ twice.
\end{proof}
We have not been able to find $\rank \ge2$ elements of $\vertex(\Hom(\Box_m,\Delta_n))$. More generally, one would wish to have Corollary \ref{explicitcomputations} completed by an explicit description of the hom-polytopes between the general regular polytopes. Dimensions 3 and 4 seem more challenging than $\dim\ge5$. Currently, even the 2-dimensional case, or just a satisfactory description of $\vertex(\Hom(P_n,P_m))$, is out of reach. Partial results in the latter direction are presented in Section \ref{regular}.
In the context of extremal maps from regular polytopes, it is
interesting to remark that the octahedron $\Diamond_3$ admits an affine embedding into \emph{any} simple 3-dimensional polytope $P$ so that the vertices of $\Diamond_3$ map to the boundary $\partial P$ \cite{Akopyan}.
\medskip We conclude the section with one application of the tensor product, yielding point configurations with interesting extremal properties.
\begin{example}\label{neighboring}
Let $P$ and $Q$ be polytopes in a vector space $E$.
\medskip\noindent(1) For a vertex $v\in P$ and an edge $[w_1,w_2]\subset Q$, the segment
$$
[(v\otimes w_1,v,w_1),(v\otimes w_2,v,w_2)]\subset E^{\otimes^2}\oplus E^{\oplus^2}
$$
is easily seen to be an edge of $P\otimes Q$.
\medskip\noindent(2) The tensor square $P^{\otimes^2}=P\otimes P$ admits less obvious edges:
$$
[(v\otimes v,v,v),(w\otimes w,w,w)]\subset P^{\otimes^2},\quad v,w\in\vertex(P),\ v\not=w.
$$
To show this, assume $v,w\in\vertex(P)$, $v\not=w$ and let $\phi_v,\phi_w:C(P)\to\RR_+$ be linear maps, vanishing on exactly $\cone(v')$ and $\cone(w')$, respectively, where $v'=(v,1)$ and $w'=(w,1)$. Then the linear map
$$
\xymatrix{
C(P^{\otimes^2})\ar[r]^{\cong}&C(P)^{\otimes^2}\ar[rrr]^{\phi_v\otimes\phi_w+\phi_w\otimes\phi_v}&&&\RR_+
}
$$
(the isomorphism on the left is from Proposition \ref{tensorproperties}(1)), vanishes
on exactly the 2-face
$$
\cone(v'\otimes v',w'\otimes w')\subset C(P^{\otimes^2}).
$$
\medskip As a consequence of the two types of edges, if $P$ has $m$ vertices and $n$ edges, then the tensor square $P^{\otimes^2}$ has at least $2mn+\frac{m(m-1)}2$ edges. This counting is, however, far from the complete list; an example is $(\Delta_n)^{\otimes^2}=\Delta_{n^2+2n}$.
\medskip\noindent(3) It follows from (2) that the following polytope is \emph{neighborly}:
$$
\conv\big((v\otimes v,v,v)\ |\ v\in\vertex(P)\big)\subset E^{\otimes^2}\oplus E^{\oplus^2},
$$
i.~e., any two vertices are joined by an edge. (In \cite[Ch.0]{ZiPOL} the property is called \emph{2-neighborly}.)
\medskip\noindent(4) A similar argument implies that for the unit Euclidean ball $B_d\subset\RR^d$ and any two points $v,w\in S^{d-1}=\partial B_d$, the segment
$$
[(v\otimes v,v,v),(w\otimes w,w,w)]\subset(B_d)^{\otimes^2}\quad (=\conv((x\otimes y,x,y)\ |\ x,y\in B_d))
$$
is an extremal subset (\cite[p.10]{KRIPO}).
\medskip\noindent(5) Similarly, the map
$$
\psi_{d-1}:S^{d-1}\to\RR^{d^2+2d},\quad v\mapsto(v\otimes v,v,v),
$$
has the following extremal property: for any system of points
$v_1,\ldots,v_n\in S^{d-1}$, their $\psi_{d-1}$-images are in convex
and neighborly position. This observation is, in a sense, weaker than (4) because $\conv(\Im\psi_{d-1})\subsetneqq (B_d)^{\otimes^2}$. (For instance, $(v\otimes w,v,w)\in(B_d)^{\otimes^2}\setminus\conv(\Im\psi_{d-1})$ for $v,w\in S^{d-1}$, $v\not=w$.) On the other hand, it yields the interesting embedding
$$
\psi:S^1\to\RR^4,\quad(\cos t,\sin t)\mapsto(\cos t,\sin t,\cos2t,\sin2t),
$$
which maps any number of points on the unit circle into a convex neighborly point configuration in $\RR^4$. In fact, $\psi$ is obtained from $\psi_1$ by the following series of affine transformations of $\RR^8$
\begin{align*}
&(\cos t,\sin t)\mapsto(\cos^2t,\sin^2t,\cos t\sin t,\cos t\sin t,\cos t,\sin t,\cos t,\sin t)\mapsto\\
&(\cos t,\sin t,\cos^2t,\sin^2t,\cos t\sin t)\mapsto(\cos t,\sin t,\cos^2t,1-\cos^2t,\sin2t)\mapsto\\
&(\cos t,\sin t,\cos^2t,\sin2t)\mapsto(\cos t,\sin t,\cos2t,\sin2t),
\end{align*}
implying an affine isomorphism $\conv(\Im\psi_1)\cong\conv(\Im\psi)$.
\end{example}
\section{Vertex factorizations}\label{vertices}
Let $A$ and $B$ be convex sets. A family of maps $\big(f_t\big)_{(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(A,B)$
is called an \emph{affine 1-family} if the map
$$
(-1,1)\to\Hom(A,B),\quad t\mapsto f_t,
$$
is injective and affine.
A map $f:P\to Q$ in $\Pol$ is called a \emph{vertex map}, or just a \emph{vertex}, if $f\in\vertex(\Hom(P,Q))$.
We will need the following obvious \emph{(affine) perturbation criteria} for vertices and interior points. Let $f:P\to Q$ be an affine map between two polytopes. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\pc_1)$]
$f$ is not a vertex if and only if there is an affine 1-family
$\big(f_t\big)_{(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(P,Q)$, with $f_0=f$.
\item[$(\pc_2)$]
$f\in\int(\Hom(P,Q))$ if and only if for any affine 1-family $\big(f_t\big)_{(-1,1)}\subset\aff(P,Q)$ with $f_0=f$ there exists a real number $\varepsilon>0$ such that $\big(f_t\big)_{(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)}\subset\Hom(P,Q)$
\end{enumerate}
Every map $f$ in $\Pol$ factors, uniquely up to the obvious equivalence, into a surjective and an injective map in $\Pol$: $f=f_{\inj}\circ f_{\surj}$.
A map $f:P\to Q$ is called a \emph{deflation} if it satisfies the conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $f$ is surjective,
\item[(ii)] $f$ is a vertex,
\item[(iii)] for any vertex $v\in P$ either $f(v)\in\vertex(Q)$ or $f(v)\in\int(Q)$.
\end{itemize}
Simple examples of deflations are provided by the parallel projections
$\Box_n\to\Box_m$ along the subspace $\RR_+e_{m+1}+\cdots+\RR_+e_n\subset\RR^n$, where we assume $m<n$.
The \emph{rank} of a map $f$ in $\Pol$ is defined by $\rank f=\dim\Im(f)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{vertexcomposite}
Let $f:P\to Q$ be a map in $\Pol$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If $f$ is a vertex then so are $f_{\inj}$ and $f_{\surj}$.
\item If $\vertex(f(P))\subset\vertex(Q)$ and $f_{\surj}$ is a deflation then $f$ is also a vertex map.
\item There are examples of non-vertex maps $f$ with $f_{\inj}$ a vertex map and $f_{\surj}$ a deflation. In particular, the converse to the implication in (1) is not true.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} We can assume $f_{\surj}:P\to f(P)$.
(1) (Using $(\pc_1)$.) If $f_{\inj}:f(P)\to Q$ is not a vertex then there exists an affine 1-family $(\psi_t)_{(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(f(P),Q)$ with $\psi_0=f_{\inj}$. Then the resulting affine 1-family $\big(\psi_t\circ f_{\surj}\big)_{(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(P,Q)$ has $\psi_0\circ f_{\surj}=f$, a contradiction.
If $f_{\surj}$ is not vertex then there is an affine 1-family $(\phi_t)_{(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(P,f(P))$ with $\phi_0=f_{\surj}$. So we get the affine 1-family $\big(f_{\inj}\circ\phi_t\big)_{(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(P,Q)$ with $f_{\inj}\circ\phi_0=f$, again a contradiction.
\medskip\noindent(2) Observe that, in view of $(\pc_1)$, the
condition $\vertex(f(P))\subset\vertex(Q)$ already implies that $f_{\inj}$ is a vertex map. But we do not use this explicitly.
Assume to the contrary that $f$ is not a vertex. By $(\pc_1)$, there is an affine 1-family $(f_t)_{(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(P,Q)$ with $f_0=f$.
We will show that the maps
$$
\phi_v:(-1,1)\to Q,\qquad t\mapsto f_t(v),
$$
are constant for \emph{all} $v\in\vertex(P)$. Since this implies that the map
$$
(-1,1)\to\Hom(P,Q),\qquad t\mapsto f_t,
$$
is constant, we have the desired contradiction.
The maps
$$
\phi_v:(-1,1)\to Q,\qquad t\mapsto f_t(v),
$$
are constant for the vertices $v\in\vertex(P)$ with $f(v)\in\vertex(Q)$.
Assume $v_1,\ldots,v_k$ are the vertices of $P$ for which the maps
$$
\phi_{v_1},\ldots,\phi_{v_k}:(-1,1)\to Q,\qquad t\mapsto f_t(v_k),
$$
are not constant. By the hypothesis, $f(v_1),\ldots,f(v_k)\in\int(f(P))$.
Fix a $(\dim Q-\rank f)$-dimensional affine subspace $H\subset\aff(Q)$ that is parallel to none of the intervals
$$
\bigcup_{t\in(-1,1)}f_t(v_i)\subset Q,\quad i=1,\ldots,k,
$$
and consider the parallel projection $\pi:Q\to\aff(\Im(f))$ along $H$. We get an affine family $(\pi\circ f_t)_{(-1,1)}\subset=\aff(P,\Im(f))$ with $\pi\circ f_0=f_{\surj}$. By $(\pc_2)$, there exists a real number $\varepsilon>0$ which defines the affine family $(\pi\circ f_t)_{(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)}\subset\Hom(P,\Im(f))$, contradicting the assumption that $f_{\surj}$ is vertex.
\medskip\noindent(3) Examples of non-vertex maps $f$ for which $f_{\inj}$ is a vertex and
$f_{\surj}$ is a deflation will be presented in Example \ref{nonvertexfactorization}.
\end{proof}
Let $P$ be a polytope and $0\le r<\dim P$. Consider a family $\Gamma=\{G_1,\ldots,G_k\}$, satisfying the conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
$G_i\subset P$ is a face and $\dim G_i>0$, $i=1,\ldots,k$,
\item[(ii)]
$\codim(\lin(G_1)+\cdots+\lin(G_k))=r$,
\item[(iii)]
$(G_i+\lin(G_1)+\cdots+\lin(G_k))\cap P=G_i$, $i=1,\ldots,k$,
\item[(iv)] the family of faces $\{G_1,\ldots,G_k\}$ is maximal w.r.t inclusion among the families satisfying the first three conditions.
\end{itemize}
The linear hulls above are taken in the ambient vector space and the codimension is understood relative to $\lin(P)$.
To $\Gamma$ we associate a surjective affine map of rank $r$ from $P$ as follows. We can assume $0\in P$. Consider a linear map $f:\lin(P)\to E$ with $\dim E=r$ and $\ker(f)=\lin(G_1)+\cdots+\lin(G_k)$. For the restriction $f|_P$ we will use the notation $f_\Gamma$.
A map $P\to Q$ in $\Pol$ is called a \emph{face-collapse of rank $r$}
if it is of the type $f_{\Gamma}$ up to isomorphism in the comma category $P\downarrow\Pol$.
\medskip The following example shows that neither of the conditions (iii) and (iv) above can be dropped in the definition of face-collapses. Let $P_6$ be a regular hexagon with vertices $v_1,\ldots,v_6$. Then the pair of facets $\Gamma=\{[v_1,v_2]\times[0,1],\ [v_4,v_5]\times[0,1]\}$ of the unit prism $P_6\times[0,1]$ satisfies (i-iv). On the one hand, if one drops (iii), then $\Gamma$ ceases to be maximal. On the other hand, if one drops (iv), then $\Gamma'=\{[v_1,v_2]\times[0,1]\}$ satisfies (i,ii,iii), but one cannot collapse the facet $[v_1,v_2]\times[0,1]$ into a point by an affine map without also collapsing the facet $[v_4,v_5]\times[0,1]$:
\medskip
\begin{figure}
\tikzstyle{vertex}=[circle,draw,fill,inner sep=2pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node at (0,0)[vertex,label=below:$v_6$]{};
\node at (0.8,3.3)[vertex,label=right:$v_5$]{};
\node at (4,0.5)[vertex,label=below:$v_1$]{};
\node at (7.2,2.9)[vertex,label=below:$v_2$]{};
\node at (0,7)[vertex]{};
\node at (-.5,3.6)[vertex]{};
\node at (3.6,4.4)[vertex]{};
\node at (4.7,6.1)[vertex,label=above right:$v_4$]{};
\node at (4.2,10.4)[vertex]{};
\node at (6.9,7.2)[vertex]{};
\node at (7.6,10.7)[vertex]{};
\node at (7.9,6.4)[vertex,label=right:$v_3$]{};
\draw[fill=lightgray] (0,7) -- (4.2,10.4) -- (4.7,6.1) -- (0.8,3.3) -- (0,7);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (4,0.5) -- (3.6,4.4) -- (6.9,7.2) -- (7.2,2.9) -- (4,0.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (4,0.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (-0.5, 3.6);
\draw (-0.5,3.6) -- (0,7);
\draw (4.2, 10.4) -- (7.6, 10.7);
\draw (7.2, 2.9) -- (7.9, 6.4);
\draw (7.9, 6.4) -- (7.6, 10.7);
\draw (7.6, 10.7) -- (6.9, 7.2);
\draw (3.6, 4.4) -- (-0.5, 3.6);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.8, 3.3);
\draw[dashed] (4.7, 6.1) -- (7.9, 6.4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A polytope illustrating the definition of face-collapse}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}\label{fGamma} We have the following proper containments:
\begin{itemize}
\item[]Deflations $\subsetneqq$ Face-Collapses $\subsetneqq$ Surjective Vertex Maps.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First we show that face-collapses are vertex maps.
Let $P\in\Pol$ and $\Gamma=\{G_1,\ldots,G_k\}$ be a system of faces of $P$ satisfying the condition (i--iv) above.
Without loss of generality we can assume $0\in P$. Denote $H=\lin(G_1)+\cdots+\lin(G_k)$.
First we observe that $f(G_i)\in\vertex(f(P))$ for every
$i=1,\ldots,k$. In fact, $f(G_i)\subset\partial f(P)$ by (iii) and
$\dim f(G_i)=0$. But then, if $f(G_i)\in\int(\gamma)$ for some
positive dimensional face $\gamma\subset f(P)$, we have
$\int(G_i)\subset\int\big(f_\Gamma^{-1}(\gamma)\big)$ and
$f_\Gamma^{-1}(\gamma)$ is a face of $P$ with $G_i\subsetneqq f_\Gamma^{-1}(\gamma)$. This is impossible because $G_i\subset P$ is a face.
Suppose $f_\Gamma$ is not a vertex. By $(\pc_1)$, there exists an affine 1-family $(f_t)_{(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(P,f(P))$ with $f_0=f_\Gamma$. The condition $f(G_i)\in\vertex(f(P))$ forces $f_t|_{G_i}=f|_{G_i}$ for all $t\in(-1,1)$ and $i=1,\ldots,k$. In other words, the 1-family $(f_t)_{(-1,1)}$ is constant on every $G_i$. Let $\{w_{k+1},\ldots,w_{k+l}\}=\vertex(f(P))\setminus\{f(G_1),\ldots,f(G_k)\}$. Fix $v_{k+1},\ldots,v_{k+l}\in\vertex(P)$ with $f(v_j)=w_j$, $j=k+1,\ldots,k+l$. (The $v_j$ are uniquely determined, but we do not need this.) Using again $(\pc_1)$, the 1-family $(f_t)_{(-1,1)}$ is constant on the $v_j$. So $(f_t)_{(-1,1)}$ is constant on $\conv(G_1,\ldots,G_k,v_{k+1},\ldots,v_{k+l})$. But, by (ii), the latter is a full dimensional subpolytope of $P$ and that forces our 1-family to be constant on $P$ -- a contradiction.
\medskip Next we show that deflations are face-collapses.
Consider a rank $r$ deflation $f\in\vertex\big(\Hom(P,f(P)\big)$. We
can assume that $0\in P$ and that $f(0)=0$; i.e., $f$ is the restriction of a (unique) linear map $h:\lin(P)\to\lin(f(P))$. Let $w_1,\ldots,w_k\in f(P)$ be the vertices with $\dim f^{-1}(w_i)>0$ for all $i=1,\ldots,k$. It is enough to show the following
\medskip\noindent\emph{Claim.} The faces $G_i=f^{-1}(w_i)\subset P$, $i=1,\ldots,k,$ form a system satisfying the conditions (i--iv) with $\ker(h)=\lin(G_1)+\cdots+\lin(G_k)$.
\medskip The conditions (i,iii,iv) are straightforward. Since $\lin(G_1)+\cdots+\lin(G_k)\subset\ker(h)$, we only need to verify (ii).
Assume to the contrary $\codim\big(\lin(G_1)+\cdots+\lin(G_k)\big)>r$. Let $\{w_{k+1},\ldots,w_{k+l}\}=\vertex(f(P))\setminus\{w_1,\ldots,w_k\}$. There are (uniquely determined) vertices $v_{k+1},\ldots,v_{k+l}\in P$ with $f(v_j)=w_j$ for $j=k+1,\ldots,k+l$. Our assumption implies
$$
\dim\conv(G_1,\ldots,G_k,v_{k+1},\ldots,v_{k+l})<\dim P.
$$
Without loss of generality we can additionally assume
$$
0\in\conv(G_1,\ldots,G_k,v_{k+1},\ldots,v_{k+l}).
$$
Pick a basis $B\subset\lin(P)$, restricting to a basis
$B_0\subset\lin(G_1,\ldots,G_k,v_{k+1},\ldots,v_{k+l})$, and a basis
$B'\subset\lin(f(P))$. Let $M$ be the matrix of $h$ with respect to the bases $B$ and $B'$ so that the first $\#(B_0)$ rows correspond to the elements of $B_0$. Consider the affine 1-family
$(h_t)_{(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(\lin(P),\lin(f(P)))$, where the matrix of $h_t$ in the bases $B$ and $B'$ is obtained from $M$ by adding $(t,\ldots,t)\in\RR^{\#B'}$ to each of the last $\#(B\setminus B_0)$ rows. Then, because $f$ is a deflation, there exists $0<\varepsilon<1$ such that $h_t(P)\subset f(P)$ for all $-\varepsilon<t<\varepsilon$ and this produces an affine 1-family in $\Hom(P,f(P))$, containing $f$ -- a contradiction by $(\pc_1)$.
\medskip Examples \ref{propercollapses} and \ref{propersurjvertices} in the next section will show that both inclusions in Theorem \ref{fGamma} are proper inclusions.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{rank1}
\begin{enumerate}
\item A rank $1$ surjective map is a vertex if and only if it is a face-collapse if and only if it is a deflation.
\item Every system $\Gamma$ of faces of $P$ satisfying \emph{(i-iv)} and $\rank(f_\Gamma)=1$ has at most two elements. If $P$ is centrally symmetric then such systems $\Gamma$ are exactly the pairs of opposite facets of $P$.
\item A rank one map $f$ is a vertex iff $f_{\surj}$ and $f_{\inj}$ are vertices.
\item For a polygon $P$ with $l$ edges, of which $m$ pairs are parallel, and a polytope $Q$ with $n$ vertices, the number of rank $1$ vertex maps $P\to Q$ is
$(l-m)n(n-1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
(1) holds true because of the first inclusion in Theorem \ref{fGamma} and the fact that the boundary of a segment is just the vertices of the segment .
\medskip\noindent(2) If $\{u,v\}=\vertex f_\Gamma(P)$ and $\dim
f^{-1}(u),\dim^{-1}(v)>0$ then $\Gamma=\{f^{-1}(u),f^{-1}(v)\}$;
otherwise $\Gamma$ consists of a single facet of $P$. The conclusion for centrally symmetric polytopes is obvious.
\medskip\noindent(3) From $(\pc_1)$, the injective vertex maps from a
segment to $Q$ are the maps that send the two vertices of the segment to
distinct vertices of $Q$. So the claim follows from (1) and Theorem
\ref{vertexcomposite}(1,2).
\medskip\noindent (4) In view of (1) and (2), $(l-m)$ is the number of
surjective vertex maps from $P$ to a segment. The count follows from (3) and the observation above on injective vertex maps from a segment.
\end{proof}
\section{Examples of vertex maps}\label{examples}
In this section we present various constructions of vertex maps exhibiting interesting phenomena, some of them mentioned in the previous sections.
\begin{example}[\emph{Vertex factorization of non-vertex maps}]\label{nonvertexfactorization}
For a map $f:P\to Q$ in $\Pol$, if $1+\dim P$ affinely independent
vertices of $P$ map to vertices of $Q$ then $f$ is a vertex. In fact,
if there were an affine 1-family $(f_t)_{(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(P,Q)$ with
$f_0=f$, then the family would be constant on the distinguished
vertices of $P$. The affine hull of these vertices is all of
$\aff(P)$. Consequently, $(f_t)_{(-1,1)}$ must be constant on $P$ -- a
contradiction. This simple observation, together with Theorem
\ref{vertexcomposite}(2), suggests that to look for non-vertex maps
$f:P\to Q$ with $f_{\surj}$ and $f_{\inj}$ both vertices, we should
consider maps that keep the vertices of $\Im f$ away from
$\vertex(Q)$. We first give a general construction and then construct examples of vertex factorizations of non-vertex maps.
Let $Q\subset\RR^3$ be a 3-polytope and $H\subset\RR^3$ be an affine plane such that: (i) the intersection $P=Q\cap H$ is a polygon with $2n\ge6$ vertices, and (ii) there exist $w_1,\ldots,w_{2n}\in\vertex(Q)$ such that every open interval $(w_i,w_{i+1})$ contains exactly one vertex $v_i\in\vertex(P)$, the indexing being mod $2n$. Observe that the segments $[w_i,w_{i+1}]$ are necessarily edges of $Q$.
\medskip\noindent\emph{Claim}. The identity embedding $\iota:P\to Q$ is a vertex of $\Hom(P,Q)$.
\medskip
\begin{figure}
\tikzstyle{vertex}=[circle,draw,fill,inner sep=2pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\draw[fill=lightgray] (0,0) -- (5,0) -- (5.6,1.1) -- (4.8,2) -- (0.2,2) -- (-0.5,0.9) -- (0,0);
\node at (0,0)[vertex,label=below right:$v_1$](v1){};
\node at (5,0)[vertex,label=below left:$v_2$](v2){};
\node at (5.6,1.1)[vertex,label=right:$v_3$](v3){};
\node at (4.8,2)[vertex,label=above:$v_4$](v4){};
\node at (0.2,2)[vertex,label=above right:$v_5$](v5){};
\node at (-0.5,0.9)[vertex,label=left:$v_6$](v6){};
\node at (-0.78,-1.3)[vertex,label=left:$w_1$](w1){};
\node at (3,5)[vertex,label=above:$w_2$](w2){};
\node at (5.3,-0.9)[vertex,label=below:$w_3$](w3){};
\node at (6.05,4.1)[vertex,label=above:$w_4$](w4){};
\node at (1.8,-3.04)[vertex,label=below:$w_5$](w5){};
\node at (-0.2,3.26)[vertex,label=above:$w_6$](w6){};
\draw[very thick] (w6) -- (w1) -- (w2) -- (w3) -- (w4);
\draw (w4) -- (w5) -- (w6);
\draw[<->,very thick](7,-1) -- (7.75,4);
\draw node at (2.5,1){$H$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The construction of Example \ref{nonvertexfactorization} with
$n=3$}
\end{figure}
\medskip\noindent The two groups of vertices $w_1,w_3,\ldots,w_{2n-1}$
and $w_2,w_4,\ldots,w_{2n}$ are separated by $H$. To see that $\iota$
is a vertex, we apply the following \emph{sliding argument}. Assume
$\iota\notin\vertex(\Hom(P,Q))$. Pick a vertex of
$\sigma\in\Hom(P,Q)$, which belongs to the same minimal face of
$\Hom(P,Q)$ as $\iota$. By sliding $\iota$ along the segment
$[\iota,\sigma]$ one gets a 1-parameter family
$(\iota_t)_{[0,1]}\subset\Hom(P,Q)$ with $\iota_0=\iota$ and
$\iota_1=\sigma$ such that, for every $t\in[0,1]$, the image of
$\iota_t$ is a polygon, isomorphic to $P$ and with vertices
$v_{ti}\in[w_i,w_{i+1}]$. In fact, the `vertex of $\iota_t(P)$
$\leftrightarrow$ edge of $Q$' incidence table remains constant in the
process of sliding for $t\in[0,1)$. So $\dim(\Im\iota_t)=2$ for
$t\in[0,1)$. But $\dim\Im\sigma=2$ as well because no affine line can
intersect all segments $[w_i,w_{i+1}]$ simultaneously -- this is where
we use the inequality $n\ge6$.\footnote{For $n=2$ the construction
does not go through; an example is a tetrahedron and a plane,
intersecting the tetrahedron in a parallelogram -- the identity
embedding of the parallelogram into the tetrahedron is not a
vertex.} In particular, $\Im(\iota_t)\cong P$ for all
$t\in[0,1]$. Since none of the mentioned incidences is lost for $t=1$
and $\sigma$ is a vertex, $\sigma$ belongs to more facets of
$\Hom(P,Q)$ than $\iota$. So the condition $v_{1i}\in[w_i,w_{i+1}]$
for $i=1,\ldots,2n$ forces $v_{1j}=w_j$ or $v_{1j}=w_{j+1}$ for some
$j$. But then one easily deduces $w_1,\ldots,w_{2n}\in\Im\sigma$,
forcing $\dim(\Im\sigma)=3$. This contradicts the fact that
$\Im\sigma\cong P$, proving the claim.
Consider the special case of the construction above, using the regular $n$-gon $P_n$ with $n$ even:
\begin{align*}
Q=\conv(&\hat P_n,\check P_n)\subset\CC\oplus\RR,\quad \text{with}\\
&\hat P_n=(P_n,-1)\subset\CC\oplus\RR,\\
&\check P_n=(\eta P_n,1)\subset\CC\oplus\RR,\\
&\eta=\cos(\pi/n)+\sin(\pi/n)i.
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.4]
\draw[fill=lightgray] (0,6.5) -- (1.6,8.1) -- (4.0,8.8) -- (7.0,8.7)
-- (9.5,7.9) -- (8.2,6.5) -- (5.47,5.3) -- (2.8,5.3) -- (0,6.5);
\fill(0,1.8) circle(0.2);
\fill(4.8,0) circle(0.2);
\fill(9.5,1.8) circle(0.2);
\fill(4.8,3.7) circle(0.2);
\fill(0,6.5) circle(0.2);
\fill(2.8,5.3) circle(0.2);
\fill(5.47,5.3) circle(0.2);
\fill(8.2,6.5) circle(0.2);
\fill(9.5,7.9) circle(0.2);
\fill(7.0,8.7) circle(0.2);
\fill(4.0,8.8) circle(0.2);
\fill(1.6,8.1) circle(0.2);
\fill(0,12.7) circle(0.2);
\fill(6.4,12.7) circle(0.2);
\fill(9.5,14.1) circle(0.2);
\fill(3.1,14.1) circle(0.2);
\draw[very thick] (0,1.8) -- (4.8,0);
\draw[very thick] (4.8,0) -- (9.5,1.8);
\draw[very thick] (9.5,1.8) -- (9.5,14.1);
\draw[very thick] (9.5,14.1) -- (3.1,14.1);
\draw[very thick] (3.1,14.1) -- (0,12.7);
\draw[very thick] (0,12.7) -- (0,1.8);
\draw[very thick] (0,6.5) -- (2.8,5.3);
\draw[very thick] (2.8,5.3) -- (5.47,5.3);
\draw[very thick] (5.47,5.3) -- (8.2,6.5);
\draw[very thick] (8.2,6.5) -- (9.5,7.9);
\draw[very thick] (0,12.7) -- (6.4,12.7);
\draw[very thick] (6.4,12.7) -- (9.5,14.1);
\draw[very thick] (0,12.7) -- (4.8,0);
\draw[very thick] (4.8,0) -- (6.4,12.7);
\draw[very thick] (6.4,12.7) -- (9.5,1.8);
\draw (0,1.8) -- (4.8,3.7);
\draw (4.8,3.7) -- (9.5,1.8);
\draw (0,6.5) -- (1.6,8.1);
\draw (1.6,8.1) -- (4.0,8.8);
\draw (4.0,8.8) -- (7.0,8.7);
\draw (7.0,8.7) -- (9.5,7.9);
\draw (0,1.8) -- (3.1,14.1);
\draw (3.1,14.1) -- (4.8,3.7);
\draw (4.8,3.7) -- (9.5,14.1);
\draw[<->,very thick](-2,2) -- (-2,12);
\draw node at (3.5,7){$H$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The construction of Example \ref{nonvertexfactorization} with
$P_n$ regular, $n=4$}
\end{figure}
\medskip\noindent For every $h\in(-1,1)$, the polygon
$P_h=Q\cap(\CC,h)$, is a \emph{centrally symmetric} $2n$-gon and the
identity embedding $\iota_h:P_h\to Q$ is a vertex of $\Hom(P_h,Q)$. We
can choose surjective maps $\rho_h:\Diamond_n\to P_h$, $h\in(-1,1)$ so
that (i) for every $h$, vertices map to vertices and (ii) the maps
$\rho_h$, viewed as elements of $\aff(\RR^n,\CC\oplus\RR)$,
continuously depend on $h$. Because each $\rho_h$ maps vertices to vertices, we have $\rho_h\in\vertex(\Diamond_n,P_h)$ for every $h$. Moreover, $\rho_h$ is a deflation for every $h$.
It is important that the assignment $h\mapsto\rho_h$ is not just continuous, but even an affine map $(-1,1)\to\aff(\RR^n,\CC\oplus\RR)$.
Summarizing, for every $h\in(-1,1)$, the composite map $f_h=\iota_h\circ\rho_h$ has the surjective factor $(f_h)_{\surj}=\rho_h$ a deflation and the injective factor $(f_h)_{\inj}=\iota_h$ a vertex map. Yet,
$$
f_h\notin\vertex(\Hom(\Diamond_n,Q)).
$$
For simplicity of notation we can restrict to the case $h=0$, and then $f_0$ fits into the affine 1-family $(f_h)_{h\in(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(\Diamond_n,Q)$.
\medskip From the construction above one can derive new examples of vertex factorizations of non-vertex maps as follows. Observe that, for every $h\in(-1,1)$, there exists a deflation $\tau_h:\Box_n\to P_h$. So the composite maps $g_h=\iota_h\circ\tau_h$ do not belong to $\vertex(\Hom(\Box_n,Q))$, yet $(g_h)_{\surj}$ is a deflation and $(g_h)_{\inj}$ is a vertex map.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[\emph{Face-collapses that are not deflations}]\label{propercollapses}
Not all face-collapses are deflations. Here is an example. Let $\{e_1,e_2,e_3\}\subset\RR^3$ be the standard basis and consider the parallel projection in the direction of $-e_3$:
$$
\pi:\conv(0,2e_1,2e_2,e_3,e_1+e_3,e_2+e_3)\to\conv(0,2e_1,2e_2)
$$
\begin{figure}
\tikzstyle{vertex}=[circle,draw,fill,inner sep=2pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\node at (0,0)[vertex]{};
\node at (2.4,-1.2) [vertex, label=below:$e_1$]{};
\node at (4.8,-2.4) [vertex, label=below:$2e_1$]{};
\node at (1.5,0.8) [vertex, label=below:$e_2$]{};
\node at (3,1.6) [vertex, label=above:$2e_2$]{};
\node at (0,2) [vertex, label=left:$e_3$]{};
\node at (2.6,0.9) [vertex]{};
\node at (1.5,2.7) [vertex]{};
\draw (0,0) -- (0,5);
\draw (0,0) -- (7.5,4);
\draw (0,0) -- (7.2,-3.6);
\draw[very thick] (0,0) -- (4.8, -2.4);
\draw[very thick] (0,0) -- (0,2);
\draw[very thick] (0,2) -- (2.6,0.9);
\draw[very thick] (2.6,0.9) -- (4.8,-2.4);
\draw[very thick] (0,2) -- (1.5,2.7);
\draw[very thick] (1.5,2.7) -- (3,1.6);
\draw[very thick] (3,1.6) -- (4.8,-2.4);
\draw[very thick] (1.5,2.7) -- (2.6,0.9);
\draw[->, very thick] (-2,2) -- (-2,0);
\draw (-2.5,1) node{$\pi$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A face-collapse that is not a deflation}
\end{figure}
\medskip\noindent We have $\pi=f_{\Gamma}$ for $\Gamma=\{[0,e_3]\}$. However, $\pi$ is not a deflation because $\pi(e_1+e_3)$ and $\pi(e_2+e_3)$ are neither vertices not interior points of the target polytope.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[\emph{Not all surjective vertex maps are face-collapses}]\label{propersurjvertices}
By a slight modification of the map above, we get an example of a surjective vertex map which is not a face-collapse. Consider the parallel projection in the direction $-e_3$:
$$
\rho:\conv(0,2e_1,2e_2,e_1+e_3,e_2+e_3)\to\conv(0,2e_1,2e_2)
$$
\medskip
\begin{figure}
\tikzstyle{vertex}=[circle,draw,fill,inner sep=2pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\node at (0,0)[vertex]{};
\node at (2.4,-0.6) [vertex, label=below:$e_1$]{};
\node at (4.8,-1.2) [vertex, label=below:$2e_1$]{};
\node at (1.5,0.8) [vertex, label=above:$e_2$]{};
\node at (3,1.6) [vertex, label=above:$2e_2$]{};
\node at (0,2) [vertex, label=left:$e_3$]{};
\node at (2.6,0.9) [vertex]{};
\node at (1.5,2.7) [vertex]{};
\draw (0,0) -- (0,5);
\draw (0,0) -- (7.5,4);
\draw (0,0) -- (7.2,-1.8);
\draw[very thick] (0,0) -- (4.8, -1.2);
\draw[very thick] (0,0) -- (1.5,2.7);
\draw[very thick] (0,0) -- (2.6,0.9);
\draw[very thick] (2.6,0.9) -- (4.8,-1.2);
\draw[very thick] (1.5,2.7) -- (3,1.6);
\draw[very thick] (3,1.6) -- (4.8,-1.2);
\draw[very thick] (1.5,2.7) -- (2.6,0.9);
\draw[->, very thick] (-2,2) -- (-2,0);
\draw (-2.5,1) node{$\rho$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A surjective vertex map that is not a face-collapse}
\end{figure}
\medskip\noindent This projection cannot be a face-collapse because
none of the positive dimensional faces of the source polytope is
collapsed into a point. To show that $\rho$ is a vertex, assume there
is an affine 1-family $(\rho_t)_{(-1,1)}$ with $\rho_0=\rho$. Then it
must be constant on the vertices of $\conv(0,2e_1,2e_2)$. But it must
also be constant on $e_1+e_3$ and $e_2+e_3$. In fact, if the family is not constant there then $\rho_t(e_1+e_3)$ and $\rho_t(e_2+e_3)$ must trace out parallel intervals as $t$ varies over $(-1,1)$ (one uses barycentric coordinates). But, on the other hand, these trajectories must be confined to the non-parallel edges $[0,2e_1]$ and $[0,2e_2]$ of the target polytope. So the family $(\rho_t)_{(-1,1)}$ is constant on all vertices of the source polytope, forcing the family to be constant -- a contradiction.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[\emph{Many incident facets}]\label{onmanyfacets} As we know, $\dim(\Hom(P_n,P_n))=6$ for
the regular $n$-gon, $n\in\NN$. By
Proposition \ref{homproperties}(1), any automorphism $P_n\to P_n$
sits on $2n$ facets of $\Hom(P_n,P_n)$. These $2n$ facets can be
split into two groups of $n$ facets, each defining an edge of
$\Hom(P_n,P_n)$. For the identity map, these groups are specified as
follows.
\begin{align*}
&\FF_1=\left\{H\big(\iota(\zeta_n^k)),[\zeta_n^k,\zeta_n^{k+1}]\big)\subset\Hom(P_n,P_n)\ |\ k\in\ZZ\right\},\\
&\FF_2=\left\{H\big(\iota(\zeta_n^k)),[\zeta_n^{k-1},\zeta_n^k]\big)\subset\Hom(P_n,P_n)\ |\ k\in\ZZ\right\},
\end{align*}
notation as in Proposition \ref{homproperties}(1). The edges are, correspondingly,
\begin{align*}
&E_1=\bigcap_{\FF_1}F=\left\{\iota_t:P_n\to P_n,\quad \zeta_n^k\mapsto\left(\frac12-\frac t2\right)\zeta_n^k+\left(\frac12+\frac t2\right)\zeta_n^{k+1}\right\}_{t\in[-1,1]},\ \text{and}\\
&E_2=\bigcap_{\FF_2}F=\left\{\rho_t:P_n\to P_n,\quad \zeta_n^k\mapsto\left(\frac12-\frac t2\right)\zeta_n^{k-1}+\left(\frac12+\frac t2\right)\zeta_n^k\right\}_{t\in[-1,1]}.
\end{align*}
We leave to the reader to check that $E_1$ and $E_2$ are in fact the edges, joining the identity map with the rotations by $2\pi/n$ and $-2\pi/n$, respectively.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2];
\fill (0,1) circle(0.035);
\fill (-.951,.309) circle(0.035);
\fill (-.588,-.809) circle(0.035);
\fill (.588,-.809) circle(0.035);
\fill (.951,.309) circle(0.035);
\fill (-.238,.827) circle(0.035);
\fill (-.860,-.030) circle(0.035);
\fill (-.294,-.809) circle(0.035);
\fill (.679,-.530) circle(0.035);
\fill (.713,.482) circle(0.035);
\draw[very thick] (0,1) -- (-.951,.309) -- (-.951,.309) --
(-.588,-.809) -- (.588,-.809) -- (.951,.309) -- (0,1);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (-.238,.827) -- (-.860,-.030) -- (-.294,-.809) -- (.679,-.530)
-- (.713,.482) -- (-.238,.827);
\draw[->] (-.9,.45) -- (-.142,1);
\draw[->] (.1,1.05) -- (.8,.54);
\draw[->] (1.05,.269) -- (.7,-.809);
\draw[->] (.5,-.95) -- (-.5,-.95);
\draw[->] (-.7,-.809) -- (-1.05,.269);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Two edges of $\Hom(P_n,P_n)$ incident to the identity map, $n=6$}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[\emph{Gaps in ranks}]\label{bisimplexinsimplex} For two polytopes $P$ and $Q$, the range of possible ranks $r$ of the vertices of $\Hom(P,Q)$ is
$$
0\le r\le\min(\dim P,\dim Q).
$$
For any polytopes $P$ and $Q$, the polytope $\Hom(P,Q)$ always has rank 0 vertices. If $\dim P,\dim Q>0$ then there are also rank 1 vertices, explicitly described in Corollary \ref{rank1}.
However, there may be gaps in the range.
\medskip\noindent\emph{Claim.} For any natural number $n$ there are no rank $2$ vertices in $\Hom(\Diamond_n,\Delta_2)$.
\medskip First, for every polytope $P$ and an element $f\in\vertex(\Diamond_n,P)$, one has
$$
\vertex(\Im f)\subset\vertex(P\cap(-P^{(c)})),
$$
where $c$ is the center of $\Im f$ and $-P^{(c)}$ is the symmetric image of $P$ w.r.t. $c$. In fact, because $\Im f$ is centrally symmetric, we have $\Im f\subset P\cap(-P^{(c)})$. But if there is a vertex $v\in \Im f$ not in $\vertex(P\cap(-P^{(c)}))$, then there is an open interval $I\subset\Im f$, containing $v$. Then, by sliding $v$ along $I$ (and $-v^{(c)}$ along $-I^{(c)}$ in the opposite direction), one can define an affine 1-parameter $(f_t)_{(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(\Diamond_n,P)$ with $f_0=f$. Such is not possible in view of $(\pc_1)$.
Returning to the case $P=\Delta_2$, assume to the contrary that $f$ is
a rank $2$ vertex of $\Hom(\Diamond_n,\Delta_2)$. Let $c$ be the
center of $\Im f$. There are two cases: (i)
$\Delta_2\cap(-\Delta_2^{(c)})$ is a parallelogram, or (ii)
$\Delta_2\cap(-\Delta_2^{(c)})$ is a centrally symmetric hexagon. In the
first case, there is a vertex $x\in\Delta_2$ such that $-x^{(c)}$ is in
the interior of the edge $E\subset\Delta_2$, opposite to $x$. So
sliding $c$ along a small open interval $c\in I$, parallel to $E$,
produces an affine family of parallelograms
$(\Delta_2\cap(-\Delta_2^{(c)}))_I$ in $\Delta_2$. The latter can be used
to define an affine 1-parameter family
$(f_t)_{(-1,1)}\subset\Hom(\Diamond_n,\Delta_2)$ with $f_0=f$. In the
second case, we use the similar sliding procedure, except now the small
open interval $I\subset\Delta_2$, containing $c$, is not constrained
to have any particular direction -- we can always define an affine family of centrally symmetric hexagons $(\Delta_2\cap(-\Delta_2^{(c)}))_I$. In either case we get a contradiction by $(\pc_1)$.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\fill(0.1,0) circle(0.13);
\fill(2.9,0) circle(0.13);
\fill(5.4,0) circle(0.13);
\fill(0.25,4) circle(0.13);
\fill(3.2,4) circle(0.13);
\fill(6,4) circle(0.13);
\fill(3.0,1.9) circle(0.13);
\draw (0.1,0) -- (5.4,0);
\draw (5.4,0) -- (3.2,4);
\draw (3.2,4) -- (0.1,0);
\draw (0.25,4) -- (6,4);
\draw (6,4) -- (2.9,0);
\draw (2.9,0) -- (0.25,4);
\draw[<->](2.5,1.9) -- (3.5,1.9);
\draw (3,1.35) node{$c$};
\draw (-0.5,-0.5) node{$\Delta_2$};
\draw (6,3) node{-$\Delta_2^{(c)}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\fill(0,0) circle(0.13);
\fill(6.85,0) circle(0.13);
\fill(4.5,4.5) circle(0.13);
\fill(4.2,-1.5) circle(0.13);
\fill(1.7,3) circle(0.13);
\fill(8.2,3) circle(0.13);
\fill(4.3,1.5) circle(0.13);
\draw (0,0) -- (6.85,0);
\draw (6.85,0) -- (4.5,4.5);
\draw (4.5,4.5) -- (0,0);
\draw (1.7,3) -- (4.2,-1.5);
\draw (4.2,-1.5) -- (8.2,3);
\draw (8.2,3) -- (1.7,3);
\draw[<->] (3.8,1.3) -- (4.8,1.7);
\draw (4.3,1.1) node{$c$};
\draw (5.5,4.5) node{$\Delta_2$};
\draw (5.5,-2) node{-$\Delta_2^{(c)}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{tabular}
\caption{The sliding argument in Example~\ref{bisimplexinsimplex}}
\label{fig:sliding}
\end{figure}
As a side observation, the right picture in Figure~\ref{fig:sliding} gives rise to yet another example of a deflation, followed by an injective vertex map, such that the composite is not a vertex map. In fact, the deflation is a surjective affine map $\Diamond_3\to\Delta_2\cap\Delta_c^{(c)}$ and the injective vertex map is the embedding $\Delta_2\cap\Delta_c^{(c)}\to\Delta_2$. One needs to apply a variant of the sliding argument in Example \ref{nonvertexfactorization} to show that the latter belongs to $\vertex\big(\Delta_2\cap\Delta_c^{(c)},\Delta_2\big)$. The crucial point is that no perturbation of the hexagon in $\Delta_2$ can keep both the isomorphism class of the hexagon and the `hexagon vertex $\leftrightarrow$ triangle edge' incidence table constant.
\section{Generic pairs of polygons}\label{generic}
The goal of this section is to understand some of the structure of the
hom-polytope of a generic pair of polygons $(P,Q)$. The main
result, Theorem~\ref{thm:generic}, is that such a hom-polytope is 'almost
simple': apart from the short list of vertex maps of rank zero and
one, every vertex of $\Hom(P,Q)$ is simple.
We begin by constructing spaces of polytopes that will allow
us to precisely state this result. Fix dimensions $d$ and $e$ and
integers $m \geq d+1$, $n \geq e+1$. To every real $d \times m$ matrix
$M$ we associate the polytope $P(M) \subseteq \RR^d$ given as the
convex hull of the columns of $M$. Let $R_{d,m} \subseteq \RR^{d
\times m}$ be the set of matrices $M$ for which the columns are in
convex position and affinely span $\RR^m$; that is, for which $P(M)$ is a $d$-polytope with $m$
vertices. Similarly, to every real $n \times e$ matrix $M'$ we
associate the polyhedron $Q(M') \subseteq \RR^e$ given by the system of
inequalities $M' \xx \leq \mathbf{1}$, where $\mathbf{1} \in \RR^n$
denotes the vector of all ones. Let $R'_{e,n}$ be
the set of matrices $M'$ for which $Q(M')$ is an $e$-polytope with $n$
facets.
Note that the conditions defining $R_{d,m}$ and $R'_{e,n}$ are stable under small perturbation; that is, $R_{d,m}$ and $R'_{e,n}$
are open subsets of $\RR^{d \times m}$ and $\RR^{n \times e}$, respectively. Also, for generic $M$ and $M'$, $P(M)$ is simplicial and $Q(M')$ is simple. Furthermore, $R_{d,m}\subset\RR^{d\times m}$ and $R'_{e,n}\subset\RR^{n\times e}$ are \emph{semi-algebraic} subsets (i.~e., defined by algebraic equalities and (strict) inequalities). In fact, the convex $d$-polytopes with $m$-vertices give rise to only finitely many combinatorial types and each type is represented by a semi-algebraic subset of $\RR^{d\times m}$, consisting of the matrices whose certain $d\times d$ minors vanish, certain $d\times d$ minors are positive, and certain $d\times d$ minors are negative. Therefore, $R_{d,m}$ is the union of finitely many semi-algebraic sets and, as such, is itself semi-algebraic. A similar argument applies to $R'_{e,n}$.
Clearly, $R_{2,m}$ and $R'_{2,n}$ are the realization spaces of single combinatorial types. Moreover, the realization space of any 3-dimensional combinatorial type is a classically a smooth ball; however, starting from $d=e=4$, the realization space of a combinatorial type can be arbitrarily complicated; see \cite{Richter-Gebert}.
It is in the context above that we consider the hom-polytopes $\Hom(P(M), Q(M'))$ for a generic pair
$(M,M')$.
We now focus on the case of pairs of polygons: $d=e=2$.
Every $m$-gon in the plane is associated to a matrix in $R_{2,m}$
that is unique up to permuting its columns. Every $n$-gon in the plane
that contains the origin in its interior is associated to a matrix in $R'_{2,n}$ that is
unique up to permuting its rows. So $R_{2,m} \times R'_{2,n}$,
a full-dimensional semi-algebraic open subset of the Euclidean space $\RR^{2
\times m} \times \RR^{n \times 2}$, effectively represents the space
of pairs of polygons.
One the one hand, we have $\dim(R_{2,m} \times R'_{2,n})=2m+2n$. On the other hand, for every pair $(M,M')\in \dim(R_{2,m} \times R'_{2,n})$,
the space of all small perturbations of the facets of $\Hom(P(M),Q(M'))$, keeping the facet-normals invariant, has dimension $mn$ (by Proposition \ref{homproperties}(1)).
Yet, we have
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:generic}
There is a dense open subset $U_{m,n}$ of $R_{2,m} \times
R'_{2,n}$ such that if $(M,M') \in U_{m,n}$, then every vertex map
$f:P(M) \to Q(M')$ of rank two is a simple vertex of $\Hom(P(M), Q(M'))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Write $P:=P(M)$, $Q:=Q(M')$. Since $d=e=2$, $\Hom(P,Q)$ is a six-dimensional polytope and we can write
\[ M =
\begin{pmatrix}
s_1 & \hdots & s_m \\
t_1 & \hdots & t_m
\end{pmatrix},
M' =
\begin{pmatrix}
u_1 & v_1 \\
\vdots & \vdots \\
u_n & v_n
\end{pmatrix}. \]
To verify the conclusion of Theorem~\ref{thm:generic} for fixed $P$
and $Q$, it suffices to show the stronger statement that if a map $f \in
\aff(\RR^2,\RR^2)$ lies in the intersection of the affine hulls of
seven facets of $\Hom(P,Q)$, then either
\begin{itemize}
\item $f(P)$ is not contained in $Q$, or
\item $f$ is not of full rank.
\end{itemize}
For each $i=1,\dots,n$ and $j=1,\dots,m$
there is a facet of $\Hom(P,Q)$ whose affine span is given by the
equation $$(u_i, v_i) \cdot f(s_j,t_j) = 1.$$
If we write $f(x,y) = (\alpha x+ \beta y+\gamma, \delta x+ \epsilon y+
\zeta)$, then more explicitly,
this affine span is given by
\[ \begin{pmatrix} u_i & v_i & 0 \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} \alpha & \beta & \gamma \\
\delta & \epsilon & \zeta \\
0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} s_j \\ t_j \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} = 1, \] \label{eq:facetmatrix}
or as a linear constraint on the entries of $f$,
\[ (u_i s_j) \alpha + (u_i t_j) \beta + u_i \gamma + (v_is_j)\delta +
(v_it_j) \epsilon + v_i \zeta
= 1. \] \label{eq:facetlinear}
In other words, the condition for the affine hulls of seven facets to meet is that the last column in the matrix below is a linear combination of the first six columns:
\[ A_{i_1,\dots,i_7,j_1,\dots,j_7}=\begin{pmatrix}
u_{i_1}s_{j_1} & u_{i_1}t_{j_1} & u_{i_1} & v_{i_1}s_{j_1} &
v_{i_1}t_{j_1} & v_{i_1} & -1 \\
u_{i_2}s_{j_2} & u_{i_2}t_{j_2} & u_{i_2} & v_{i_2}s_{j_2} &
v_{i_2}t_{j_2} & v_{i_2} & -1 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
u_{i_7}s_{j_7} & u_{i_7}t_{j_7} & u_{i_7} & v_{i_7}s_{j_7} &
v_{i_7}t_{j_7} & v_{i_7} & -1 \end{pmatrix} \in \RR^{7 \times 7}
\]
So the matrix $A_{i_1,\dots,i_7,j_1,\dots,j_7}$ needs to be singular for some distinct pairs of indices $(i_1,j_1) \dots,
(i_7,j_7)$. Note that the indices $i_1, \dots i_7$ need not all be
distinct, nor do $j_1, \dots j_7$.
Thus it will suffice to show that for all choices of $(i_1,j_1), \dots,
(i_7,j_7)$, either
\begin{itemize}
\item the seven facets do not intersect in any point of
$\Hom(P,Q)$, or
\item every map in the intersection of the seven facets is of less
than full rank, or
\item the generic matrix
$A_{i_1,\dots,i_7,j_1,\dots,j_7}$ is nonsingular.
\end{itemize}
We index the various cases for lists of indices by \emph{coincidence graphs}: bipartite
graphs $G = (A,B,E)$ with exactly seven edges and no isolated
nodes. The set $A$ represents the distinct elements of the list $i_1,
\dots i_7$ (facets of $Q$) and $B$ represents the distinct elements
of $j_1, \dots, j_7$ (vertices of $P$.) The nodes of $G$ are not
labelled but the two parts $A$ and $B$ of $G$ are distinguishable: the condition
that two vertices of $P$ land on the same edge line (i.e. affine span
of an edge) of $Q$ is not the same as the condition that a vertex of
$P$ lands on the intersection of two different edge lines of $Q$. For
instance, the case that $i_1,\ldots,i_7$ are all distinct and
$j_1,\ldots,j_7$ are also all distinct is encoded by the graph with
seven vertex-disjoint edges, the first graph in Table~\ref{tab:allgraphs}. The case that $j_1=j_2,i_3=i_4$, and
everything else is distinct is encoded by the third graph in the left column of Table~\ref{tab:allgraphs}.
\begin{observation} \label{obs:whichgraphs}
$ $
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $A$ contains a node of degree greater than two, then there is a vertex
$v$ of $P$ such that $f(v)$ is a point of intersection of three
distinct edge lines of $Q$. But no three edge lines of a polygon can meet at a point (whether this point is inside or outside of the polygon).
\item If $B$ contains a node of degree greater than two,
then $f$ sends three different vertices of $P$ onto the same edge
line of $Q$. Since any three vertices of $P$ are affinely
independent, this implies that $f$ sends all of $\RR^2$ onto the
same line; i.e, $f$ is not of full rank.
\item If $G$ contains a 4-cycle, then $f$ sends two vertices of $P$
to the same point: the intersection of two edge lines of $Q$. So
again $f$ is not of full rank.
\item If $G$ contains a 6-cycle, then there are vertices $v_1,
v_2, v_3$ of $P$ and edge lines $\ell_1,
\ell_2, \ell_3$ of $Q$ such that $f(v_1) = \ell_1 \cap
\ell_2$, $f(v_2) = \ell_2 \cap \ell_3$, and $f(v_3) =
\ell_3 \cap \ell_1$. For the condition $f(P) \subseteq Q$
to also be satisfied, the three intersection points $\ell_1 \cap \ell_2$, $\ell_2 \cap \ell_3$,
and $\ell_3 \cap \ell_1$ must all be vertices of $Q$. That is, $Q$
is a triangle. Then since $f(P)$ contains all three vertices of $Q$,
$f(P) = Q$, which implies that $P$ is also a triangle. Then
$\Hom(P,Q) = Q^3$, the product of three triangles, and then all of its
vertices are simple.
\end{enumerate}
\end{observation}
In summary, we may now assume that $G$ has no cycles and no vertices of
degree greater than two. That is, $G$ is a union of
vertex-disjoint paths with exactly seven edges. The 31 such graphs
(with distinguished upper part $A$ and lower part $B$) are shown
in Table~\ref{tab:allgraphs}.
\medskip
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\draw (6,0) -- (6,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture} &
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\draw (6,0) -- (6,1.5);
\fill(0,0) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {2,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture} &
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\draw (6,0) -- (6,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\fill(0,1.5) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {2,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\\[8pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\draw (6,0) -- (6,1.5);
\fill (0,0) circle (0.2);
\fill (2,0) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {4,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture} &
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\draw (6,0) -- (6,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\fill (0,1.5) circle (0.2);
\fill (2,1.5) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {4,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\draw (6,0) -- (6,1.5);
\fill (0,0) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {2,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\fill (0,1.5) circle (0.2);
\fill (1,1.5) circle (0.2);
\fill (2,1.5) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {4,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\fill (0,0) circle (0.2);
\fill (1,0) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {3,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\\[8pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\fill (0,1.5) circle (0.2);
\fill (1,1.5) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {3,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {4,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {4,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (5,1.5);
\draw (6,0) -- (6,1.5);
\fill (0, 0) circle (0.2);
\fill (2, 0) circle (0.2);
\fill (4, 0) circle (0.2);
\fill (6, 0) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {0,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\\[8pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (6,0) -- (6,1.5);
\fill (0, 0) circle (0.2);
\fill (2, 0) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {4,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\fill (6, 1.5) circle (0.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (6,0) -- (6,1.5);
\fill (0, 0) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {2,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\fill (4, 1.5) circle (0.2);
\fill (6, 1.5) circle (0.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (6,0) -- (6,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,6}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\fill (0, 1.5) circle (0.2);
\fill (2, 1.5) circle (0.2);
\fill (4, 1.5) circle (0.2);
\fill (6, 1.5) circle (0.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\\[8pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\fill(0,0) circle (0.2);
\fill(1,0) circle (0.2);
\fill(3,0) circle (0.2);
\fill(5,0) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {0,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\fill(0,0) circle (0.2);
\fill(1,0) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {3,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,3}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\fill(5,1.5) circle (0.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,3}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\fill(5,0) circle (0.2);
\fill(0,1.5) circle (0.2);
\fill(1,1.5) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {3,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\fill(0,1.5) circle (0.2);
\fill(1,1.5) circle (0.2);
\fill(3,1.5) circle (0.2);
\fill(5,1.5) circle (0.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\\[8pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (5,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\fill (4,0) circle (0.2);
\fill (5,0) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {0,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (4,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\fill (4,0) circle (0.2);
\fill (5,0) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {0,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (5,0) -- (4,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,5}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\fill (4,1.5) circle (0.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\\[8pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\fill (4,0) circle (0.2);
\foreach \i in {0,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\fill (4,1.5) circle (0.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (4,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,3}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (3,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,3}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\\[8pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,1}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {3,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (4,1.5);
\draw (4,0) -- (4,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,1}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {3,...,4}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (1,1.5);
\draw (1,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (2,1.5);
\draw (2,0) -- (3,1.5);
\draw (3,0) -- (3,1.5);
\foreach \i in {0,...,3}
{
\fill (\i, 0) circle (0.2);
}
\foreach \i in {0,...,3}
{
\fill (\i, 1.5) circle (0.2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\end{tabular}
\bigskip\caption{The 31 possible coincidence graphs}
\label{tab:allgraphs}
\end{table}
For each graph $G$, we used the computer algebra system
\texttt{Macaulay 2} \cite{M2} to
compute the appropriate generic determinant $D_G$
and to verify that it is not identically zero.
It follows that in each case, $D_G$ is nonzero on a dense open subset
of $\RR^{m \times 2} \times \RR^{2 \times n}$, the complement of an
algebraic hypersurface. Since
$R_{2,m}$ and $R_{2,n}'$ are full-dimensional subsets of $\RR^{m \times 2}$ and $\RR^{2
\times n}$, we conclude that $D_G$ is also nonzero on a dense open
subset $U_G$ of $R_{2,m} \times R_{2,n}'$. We now let $U_{n,m} := \bigcap_{G}U_G$,
where the intersection is taken over the 31 coincidence graphs
$G$. For every pair $(M,M')$ in $U_{n,m}$,
every full-rank vertex of $\Hom(P,Q)$ is simple.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
For every $m,n\ge3$ there is a dense open subset $V_{m,n}$ of $R_{2,m} \times R_{2,n}'$ such
that for $n$ approaching infinity and fixed $m$, the ratio of simple
vertices to all vertices in $\Hom(P,Q)$ tends to one under that
condition $(M,M') \in V_{m,n}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We take $V_{m,n}$ to be the dense open subset of $U_{m,n}$ given by
the additional constraint that $P$ has no parallel edges. For fixed $(M,M') \in V_{m,n}$, we
group the vertex maps $f \in \Hom(P,Q)$ into four classes as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f$ has rank zero; that is, $f$ maps all of $P$ to a
single vertex of $Q$. Then $f$ is not a simple vertex unless $m=3$.
\item $f$ has rank one and $\textup{im}(f)$ is an edge of
$Q$. Again $f$ is not simple unless $m=3$.
\item $f$ has rank one and $\textup{im}(f)$ is a proper diagonal
of $Q$. Then by Corollary~\ref{rank1}(1), $f$ is a face collapse;
that is, it maps an edge of $P$ to one end of the diagonal and
(since $P$ has no parallel edges) a vertex to the other end. All other vertices of $P$ are mapped into the interior of $Q$. This means $f$ satisfies exactly six facet inequalities of
$\Hom(P,Q)$, so it is simple.
\item $f$ has rank two. Then $f$ is simple by
Theorem~\ref{thm:generic}.
\end{enumerate}
By an easy refinement of Corollary~\ref{rank1}(4), we see that there are
$2mn$ vertex maps of type (2), and $mn(n-2)$ of type (3). There are
also $n$ of type (1). Let $k$ be the number of vertex maps of type
(4), which may depend on the particular choice of $(M,M') \in
V_{m,n}$. Regardless of this choice, the ratio of simple
to total vertex maps is (if $m>3$) at least
$$ \frac{mn(n-2)+k}{n+2mn+mn(n-2)+k} \geq \frac{mn(n-2)}{n+mn^2} =
\frac{n-2}{m^{-1}+n}, $$
which tends to one as $n$ tends to infinity.
\end{proof}
We now return to the case of arbitrary dimension, where we make the
following conjecture which would generalize
Theorem~\ref{thm:generic}.
\begin{conjecture}
For any dimensions $d$ and $e$ and any integers $m \geq d+1$ and $n
\geq e+1$, there is a dense open subset $U_{d,e,m,n}$ of $R_{d,m}
\times R'_{e,n}$ such that if $(M,M') \in U_{d,e,m,n}$, then every
vertex map $f:P(M) \to Q(M')$ of full rank is a simple vertex of
$\Hom(P,Q)$.
\end{conjecture}
The motivation is that the main idea of the proof of
Theorem~\ref{thm:generic}, which is to use a finite list of graphs to
enumerate the situations under which a vertex of $\Hom(P(M),Q(M)$ might
\emph{not} be simple and then to show that each is equivalent to the
nonvanishing of a certain generic determinant, does not appear to depend
on the dimensions of the source and target polytopes. However, some of
the conditions in Observation~\ref{obs:whichgraphs} do not apply in
the more general setting, and the number of graphs that must be
checked grows very rapidly with $d$ and $e$.
\section{Regular polygons}\label{regular}
We now consider the hom-polytopes of pairs $(P_m,P_n)$ of regular
polygons. There do not appear to be general descriptions of all
vertices of $\Hom(P_m,P_n)$, or even of $\Hom(P_n,P_n)$, so we only
consider special cases. Again the main goal is to understand
the set of vertices. In fact we need only consider those of full rank,
since we have the following immediate consequence of
Corollary~\ref{rank1}(4).
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:rank1regular}
The number of rank zero vertices of $\Hom(P_m,P_n)$ is $n$ and the
number of rank one vertices is
$$ \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
mn(n-1) & \textup{ for } m \textup{ odd, } \\
\frac{mn(n-1)}{2} & \textup{ for } m \textup{ even. } \\
\end{array}
\right. $$
\end{corollary}
For any positive integer $k \geq 3$, let $\ZZ_k$ be the cyclic group of
order $k$ and let $D_k$ be the dihedral group of order $2k$. Then
$D_k$ acts naturally on $P_k$ by rotation and reflection, with $\ZZ_k$
identified with the subgroup of rotations inside $D_k$. In particular, this induces an
action of $D_m \times D_n$ on $\Hom(P_m, P_n)$. The action respects
faces of each dimension. The action of the subgroup $\ZZ_m \times \ZZ_n$
is free and transitive on the $mn$ facets of $\Hom(P_m,P_n)$. Although
the action on the vertices is more subtle, it is still useful in
enumerating them. We begin with a sample result that holds for
all $m$ and $n$ and serves as a mild check on the experimental data we
will later present.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:divisibility} Fix $m$ and $n$ and let
$V$ be the number of vertices of $\Hom(P_m,P_n)$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $n$ divides $V$,
\item $m$ divides $V-n$, and
\item $n$ and $V$ have the same parity.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} All of these statements follow from applying the
orbit-stabilizer theorem to the action of various subgroups of $D_m
\times D_n$ on $\vertex(\Hom(P_m,P_n))$.
\medskip\noindent(1) The action of any nontrivial rotation in $\ZZ_n$ on
$\Hom(P_m,P_n)$ fixes only one affine map: the zero map. The zero map is not a vertex
of $\Hom(P_m,P_n)$, so the action is free on the vertices.
\medskip\noindent(2) The action of any nontrivial rotation in $\ZZ_m$ on
$\Hom(P_m,P_n)$ fixes only vertex maps of rank zero. Thus $m$ divides $V-n$.
\medskip\noindent(3) If $n$ is even, this is immediate from (1).
If $n$ is odd, then a reflection $s \in D_n$ fixes only the
line segment from one vertex of $P_n$ to the midpoint of the opposite
edge. Thus the only maps in $\Hom(P_m, P_n)$ that are fixed by $s$ are
the maps that take $P_m$ to that segment. But then, by the perturbation criterion $(\pc_1)$, the only vertex of $\Hom(P_m,P_n))$ that is fixed by $s$ is the map that takes all of $P_m$ to the mentioned vertex of $P_n$. It follows that $2$ divides $V-1$, so $V$ is odd.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
For any $n \geq 3$, $\Hom(P_3,P_n) = P_n^3$. In particular, the number
of full-rank vertices is $n(n-1)(n-2)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first statement is a special case of
Corollary~\ref{explicitcomputations}(1). For the second, note that
a map $f$ is a full rank vertex of $\Hom(P_3,P_n)$ if and only if
it sends each vertex of $P_3$ to a distinct vertex of $P_n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
The number of full rank vertices of $\Hom(P_n, P_3)$ is
$$ \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{n(n+1)(n-1)}{4} & \textup{ for } n \textup{ odd } \\
\frac{n(n-2)(n-4)}{4} & \textup{ for } n \textup{ even } \\
\end{array}
\right. $$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $f$ is a rank two vertex of $\Hom(P, P_3)$ for any polygon
$P$. Then $f$ cannot send more than two vertices to any edge of
$P_3$. Since it lies at the intersection of at least six different
facets of $\Hom(P,P_3)$, it must send exactly two vertices of $P$ to
each edge of $P_3$. That is, it inscribes an affine image of $P$ into
the equilateral $P_3$. But since all triangles in the plane are
affinely isomorphic, this is equivalent to circumscribing an arbitrary
triangle around $P$ itself.
Now specialize to $P=P_n$ and let its edges be $E_0,E_1,\dots,E_{n-1}$
in consecutive order. The condition that a triangle can be drawn
around $P_n$ along three edges $E_i, E_j, E_k$ is that the gap between
each pair of indices, taken cyclically, is at most $\lfloor
(n-1)/2 \rfloor.$ We count such triples separately in the cases where
$n$ is odd and where it is even.
Suppose $n=2p+1$ is odd. Consider just the triples $0=i<j<k$. Then we
must have
$$1 \leq j \leq p,\; k-j \leq p,\; (2p+1)-k \leq p.$$
That is, for $j$ fixed we must have $p+1 \leq k \leq p+j$, giving
$\sum_{j=1}^p j = {p+1 \choose 2}$ triples with $i=0$. Since
$\frac{3}{n}$ of the allowed triples include 0, the total number of triples is
\begin{eqnarray*}\frac{n}{3}{p+1 \choose 2} & = &
\frac{(p+1)p(2p+1)}{6} \\
& = & \frac{(2p+2)2p(2p+1)}{24} \\
& = & \frac{(n+1)(n-1)n}{24}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly if $n=2p$ is even, the size of each gap must be at most
$p-1$. A similar calculation gives the formula
$\frac{n(n-2)(n-4)}{24}$ for the number of triples of edges in this
case.
(Note that these formulae appear without proof as sequence A060422
in~\cite{Sloane}, listed as the number of triples of \emph{vertices} of
a regular $n$-gon that form acute triangles. By passing to the dual
polygons with respect to 0, it is not hard to see that this is equivalent.)
Finally, once we have chosen the three edges $E_i,E_j,E_k$ of $P_n$,
we can apply an arbitrary symmetry of $P_3$, so we multiply the formulae above by $3! =
6$ to obtain the total number of rank two vertices of $\Hom(P_n,P_3)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
The number of vertices of $\Hom(P_m,P_4)$ is
$$ \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
(2m+2)^2 & \textup{ for } m \textup{ odd } \\
(m+2)^2 & \textup{ for } m \textup{ even. } \\
\end{array} \right. $$
In particular the number of full-rank vertices is $$ \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
4m^2-4m & \textup{ for } m \textup{ odd } \\
m^2-2m & \textup{ for } m \textup{ even } \\
\end{array} \right. $$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{homproperties}(3), $\Hom(P_m,P_4) =
\Hom(P_m,I) \times \Hom(P_m,I)$. Now $\Hom(P_m,I)$ has two vertices
of rank zero and (by Corollary~\ref{rank1}) has $2m$ vertices of rank
one if $m$ is odd or $m$ such vertices if $m$ is even.
\end{proof}
Note that if $m$ is even, we obtain an explicit description of
$\Hom(P_m,I)$ from Corollary~\ref{explicitcomputations}(2):
it is a bipyramid over the dual $m$-gon $P_m^0$. The $f$-vector (i.~e., the vector of the numbers of vertices, edges, $2$-faces etc) of this
bipyramid is $(m+2,3m,2m,1)$. Using the general formula
$$ f_i(P \times Q) = \sum_{j=0}^i f_j(P)f_{i-j}(Q),$$
we compute the $f$-vector of $\Hom(P_m,I)$ to be
$$ (m^2+4m+4,6m^2+12m,13m^2+4m,12m^2+2m+4,4m^2+6m,4m,1).$$
\begin{proposition}
The number of full-rank vertices of $\Hom(P_4,P_n)$ is
$$ \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
n^3-9n & \textup{ for } n \textup{ odd } \\
n^3-5n^2+6n & \textup{ for } n \textup{ even } \\
\end{array} \right. $$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $v_0, v_1, v_2, v_3$ and $w_0, w_1,\dots,w_{n-1}$ respectively be
the vertices of $P_4$ and of $P_n$ in counterclockwise
order, with $v_0 = w_0$. If $f:P_4 \to P_n$ is a vertex map
of rank two, then in order to achieve the necessary six incidences of
vertices of $f(P_4)$ with facets of $P_n$,
one of the following must apply:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f$ sends at least three vertices of $P_4$ to distinct vertices of
$P_n$, or
\item $f$ sends two adjacent vertices of $P_4$ to distinct
vertices of $P_n$ and the other two onto interior points of edges,
or
\item $f$ sends two opposite vertices of $P_4$ to distinct
vertices of $P_n$ and the other two onto interior points of edges.
\end{enumerate}
In case (1), we first observe that an affine map $f:P_4\to P_n$ which maps three vertices of $P_4$ to vertices of $P_n$ is automatically a vertex map; see the comment at the beginning of Example \ref{nonvertexfactorization}.
We may assume up to symmetry that
$f(v_0)=w_0$, $f(v_1) = w_i$, and $f(v_3)=w_{n-j}$ with $0 < i \leq
j$. We now consider different cases for the
interior angle $\Theta$ of the parallelogram $f(P_4)$ at
$w_0$.
If $\Theta$ is acute, then $f(v_2)$ lies outside the unit circle. In
particular it is not in $P_n$, so no vertex maps are obtained this way.
If $\Theta$ is a right angle, then
$f(v_2)$ is a rectangle and we must have that $n=2p$ is even and
$i+j=p$. Furthermore $f(v_2)$ is also a vertex of $P_n$:
specifically it is the vertex $w_p$ directly opposite $w_0$, as in the
first two pictures in Table~\ref{tab:Hom48}. Thus to fix the image of
such a map, we must pick two opposite pairs of vertices of
$P_n$. Finally, taking into account the eight possible orientations of
$f(P_4)$, the number of these maps is $$8{p\choose 2} = 4p(p-1) = n(n-2) = n^2-2n.$$
Finally, if $\Theta$ is obtuse then $f(v_2)$ is necessarily in the
interior of $P_n$ (one uses the symmetry w.r.t. to the perpendicular line through the midpoint of $[w_0,w_{n-j}]$). In particular, $f$ is a valid map from $P_4$ to
$P_n$. The condition for $\Theta$ to be obtuse is that $i+j <
n/2$. This situation holds in the third and fourth pictures in
Table~\ref{tab:Hom47} (with $n=7$ and respectively $i=j=1$;
$i=1,j=2$) and in the third and fourth pictures in
Table~\ref{tab:Hom48} (with $n=8$ and respectively $i=j=1$; $i=1,j=2$.)
By considerations similar to the above, the number of
ways to obtain such a map is
$$ 8(2p+1) {p \choose 2} = n(n-1)(n-3) = n^3-4n^2+3n$$
if $n=2p+1$, or
$$ 8(2p){p-1 \choose 2} = 2p(2p-2)(2p-4) = n(n-2)(n-4) = n^3-6n^2+8n$$
if $n=2p$.
\medskip In case (2), we may assume that $f(v_0) = w_0$ and $f(v_1) =
w_{i}$ for some $i < n/2$. Then, since $P_n$ is symmetric w.r.t. the perpendicular line through the midpoint of $[w_0,w_i]$, we must actually have that $f(P_4)$ is a
rectangle in order that both $v_2$ and $v_3$ land on edges. Furthermore $n$ must be odd or $f(v_2)$ and
$f(v_3)$ will both be vertices of $P_n$, a situation we already
considered in case (1). Finally, we must have $i+1 < n/2$ in order that the right angles at $f(v_0)$ and
$f(v_1)$ are contained in $P_n$. This situation holds in the first
and second pictures in Table~\ref{tab:Hom47}, with $n=7$ and
respectively $i=1$; $i=2$.
Setting $n=2p+1$, we see that the number of maps of this type is
$$8(2p+1)(p-1) = 4n(n-3) = 4n^2-12n.$$ That all these maps are in fact vertex maps follows from $(\pc_1)$: any affine 1-family must be constant on $v_0$ and $v_1$, but if such a family is not constant on $v_2$ then the images of $v_2$ and $v_3$, when the family parameter varies over $(-1,1)$, must trace out parallel lines - something not possible because these images are confined to \emph{non-parallel} edges of $P_n$.
\medskip In case (3), we may assume $f(v_0) = w_0$ and $f(v_2) = w_i$ for
some $0 < i \leq n/2$. If $i=n/2$, then $n$ is even. Then we
can indeed arrange that $f(v_1)$ and $f(v_3)$ are both on edges, but these
will necessarily be \emph{opposite} (and hence parallel) edges of $P_n$. Without moving
$v_0$ or $v_2$, we can then slide $v_1$ and $v_3$ along these edges in the opposite directions to produce an affine 1-family of maps, contradicting the assumption that $f$ is a vertex map.
On the other hand, if $i<n/2$, and we assume that $f(v_1)$ is on an
edge, let $Q$ be the polygon with vertices $w_0,w_1,\dots,w_i$ and
$Q'$ be the polygon obtained by reflecting $Q$ across the line defined
by $w_0$ and $w_i$. Since $f(v_0)=w_0$, $f(v_2)=w_i$, and $f(w_1)
\in \partial Q$, we conclude that $f(w_3) \in \partial Q'$. But $Q'$
touches the edges of $P$ only at $w_0$ and at $w_i$, so we cannot
arrange that $f(v_3)$ lies on an edge of $Q$. That is, there are no
vertices of $\Hom(P_4,P_m)$ of this type: case (3) is impossible.
Adding up the vertices described by the various cases, we obtain the
total count of rank two vertices of $\Hom(P_4,P_n)$ as claimed in the
proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw (1,0) -- (0.6235,0.7818);
\draw (0.6235,0.7818) -- (-0.2225, 0.9749);
\draw (-0.2225, 0.9749) -- (-0.9010, 0.4334);
\draw (-0.9010,0.4334) -- (-0.9010, -0.4334);
\draw (-0.9010, -0.4334) -- (-0.2225,-0.9749);
\draw (-0.2225,-0.9749) -- (0.6235,-0.7818);
\draw (0.6235,-0.7818) -- (1,0);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (-0.9010,0.4334) -- (-0.9010,-0.4334);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (-0.9010,-0.4334) -- (0.7914,-0.4334);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.7914,-0.4334) -- (0.7914,0.4334);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.7914,0.4334) -- (-0.9010,0.4334);
\end{tikzpicture} &
\hskip0.5cm
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw (1,0) -- (0.6235,0.7818);
\draw (0.6235,0.7818) -- (-0.2225, 0.9749);
\draw (-0.2225, 0.9749) -- (-0.9010, 0.4334);
\draw (-0.9010,0.4334) -- (-0.9010, -0.4334);
\draw (-0.9010, -0.4334) -- (-0.2225,-0.9749);
\draw (-0.2225,-0.9749) -- (0.6235,-0.7818);
\draw (0.6235,-0.7818) -- (1,0);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.6235,-0.7818) -- (0.6235,0.7818);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.6235,0.7818) -- (-0.4607,0.7818);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (-0.4607,0.7818) -- (-0.4607,-0.7818);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (-0.4607,-0.7818) -- (0.6235,-0.7818);
\end{tikzpicture} & \hskip0.5cm
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw (1,0) -- (0.6235,0.7818);
\draw (0.6235,0.7818) -- (-0.2225, 0.9749);
\draw (-0.2225, 0.9749) -- (-0.9010, 0.4334);
\draw (-0.9010,0.4334) -- (-0.9010, -0.4334);
\draw (-0.9010, -0.4334) -- (-0.2225,-0.9749);
\draw (-0.2225,-0.9749) -- (0.6235,-0.7818);
\draw (0.6235,-0.7818) -- (1,0);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (1,0) -- (0.6235,0.7818);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.6235,0.7818) -- (0.2470,0);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.2470,0) -- (0.6235,-0.7818);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.6235,-0.7818) -- (1,0);
\end{tikzpicture} &
\hskip0.5cm
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw (1,0) -- (0.6235,0.7818);
\draw (0.6235,0.7818) -- (-0.2225, 0.9749);
\draw (-0.2225, 0.9749) -- (-0.9010, 0.4334);
\draw (-0.9010,0.4334) -- (-0.9010, -0.4334);
\draw (-0.9010, -0.4334) -- (-0.2225,-0.9749);
\draw (-0.2225,-0.9749) -- (0.6235,-0.7818);
\draw (0.6235,-0.7818) -- (1,0);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.6235,-0.7818) -- (0.6235,0.7818);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.6235,0.7818) -- (-0.2225, 0.9749);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (-0.2225, 0.9749) -- (-0.2225,-0.5887);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (-0.2225,-0.5887) -- (0.6235,-0.7818);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{tabular}
\medskip\caption{Rank two vertices of $\Hom(P_4,P_7)$ up to symmetry}
\label{tab:Hom47}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw (1,0) -- (0.7071,0.7071);
\draw (0.7071,0.7071) -- (0,1);
\draw (0,1) -- (-0.7071,0.7071);
\draw (-0.7071,0.7071) -- (-1,0);
\draw (-1,0) -- (-0.7071,-0.7071);
\draw (-0.7071,-0.7071) -- (0,-1);
\draw (0,-1) -- (0.7071,-0.7071);
\draw (0.7071,-0.7071) -- (1,0);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (1,0) -- (0,1);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0,1) -- (-1,0);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (-1,0) -- (0,-1);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0,-1) -- (1,0);
\end{tikzpicture} &
\hskip0.5cm
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw (1,0) -- (0.7071,0.7071);
\draw (0.7071,0.7071) -- (0,1);
\draw (0,1) -- (-0.7071,0.7071);
\draw (-0.7071,0.7071) -- (-1,0);
\draw (-1,0) -- (-0.7071,-0.7071);
\draw (-0.7071,-0.7071) -- (0,-1);
\draw (0,-1) -- (0.7071,-0.7071);
\draw (0.7071,-0.7071) -- (1,0);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (1,0) -- (0.7071,0.7071);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.7071,0.7071) -- (-1,0);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (-1,0) -- (-0.7071,-0.7071);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (-0.7071,-0.7071) -- (1,0);
\end{tikzpicture} &
\hskip0.5cm
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw (1,0) -- (0.7071,0.7071);
\draw (0.7071,0.7071) -- (0,1);
\draw (0,1) -- (-0.7071,0.7071);
\draw (-0.7071,0.7071) -- (-1,0);
\draw (-1,0) -- (-0.7071,-0.7071);
\draw (-0.7071,-0.7071) -- (0,-1);
\draw (0,-1) -- (0.7071,-0.7071);
\draw (0.7071,-0.7071) -- (1,0);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (1,0) -- (0.7071,0.7071);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.7071,0.7071) -- (.4142,0);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (.4142,0) -- (0.7071,-0.7071);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.7071,-0.7071) -- (1,0);
\end{tikzpicture} &
\hskip0.5cm
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw (1,0) -- (0.7071,0.7071);
\draw (0.7071,0.7071) -- (0,1);
\draw (0,1) -- (-0.7071,0.7071);
\draw (-0.7071,0.7071) -- (-1,0);
\draw (-1,0) -- (-0.7071,-0.7071);
\draw (-0.7071,-0.7071) -- (0,-1);
\draw (0,-1) -- (0.7071,-0.7071);
\draw (0.7071,-0.7071) -- (1,0);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.7071,-0.7071) -- (0.7071,0.7071);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0.7071,0.7071) -- (0,1);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0,1) -- (0,-0.4142);
\draw[lightgray,thick] (0,-0.4142) -- (0.7071,-0.7071);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{tabular}
\medskip\caption{Rank two vertices of $\Hom(P_4,P_8)$ up to symmetry}
\label{tab:Hom48}
\end{table}
\subsection{Experimental results}
We end with a table of experimental results for the number of vertices
of $\Hom(P_m,P_n)$ for all $m,n \leq 8$. Our approach to the
computation was as follows. We begin with rational approximations
$Q_m$ and $Q_n$ and compute the polytope $H:=\Hom(Q_m,Q_n)$ with exact
arithmetic, using the
software package \textsf{Polymake}~\cite{GaJoPOLY}. This is possible because of
the explicit facet description of any hom-polytope given by
Proposition~\ref{homproperties}.
\begin{table}\noindent
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}\centering
\begin{tabular}{||rr|rrrrr|}
m & n & rank 0 & rank 1 & rank 2 & total \\ \hline
3 & 3 & 3 & 18 & 6 & 27 \\
3 & 4 & 4 & 36 & 24 & 64 \\
3 & 5 & 5 & 60 & 60 & 125 \\
3 & 6 & 6 & 90 & 120 & 216 \\
3 & 7 & 7 & 126 & 210 & 343 \\
3 & 8 & 8 & 168 & 336 & 512 \\
4 & 3 & 3 & 12 & 0 & 15 \\
4 & 4 & 4 & 24 & 8 & 36 \\
4 & 5 & 5 & 40 & 80 & 125 \\
4 & 6 & 6 & 60 & 72 & 138 \\
4 & 7 & 7 & 84 & 280 & 371 \\
4 & 8 & 8 & 112 & 240 & 360 \\
5 & 3 & 3 & 30 & 30 & 63 \\
5 & 4 & 4 & 60 & 80 & 144 \\
5 & 5 & 5 & 100 & \emph{60} & \emph{165} \\
5 & 6 & 6 & 150 & \emph{540} & \emph{696} \\
5 & 7 & 7 & 210 & \emph{770} & \emph{987} \\
5 & 8 & 8 & 280 & \emph{1120} & \emph{1408} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}\centering
\begin{tabular}{||rr|rrrrr|}
m & n & rank 0 & rank 1 & rank 2 & total \\ \hline
6 & 3 & 3 & 18 & 12 & 33 \\
6 & 4 & 4 & 36 & 24 & 64 \\
6 & 5 & 5 & 60 & \emph{240} & \emph{305} \\
6 & 6 & 6 & 90 & \emph{84} & \emph{180} \\
6 & 7 & 7 & 126 & \emph{1008} & \emph{1141} \\
6 & 8 & 8 & 168 & \emph{864} & \emph{1040} \\
7 & 3 & 3 & 42 & 84 & 129 \\
7 & 4 & 4 & 84 & 168 & 256 \\
7 & 5 & 5 & 140 & \emph{770} & \emph{915} \\
7 & 6 & 6 & 210 & \emph{1092} & \emph{1308} \\
7 & 7 & 7 & 294 & \emph{700} & \emph{1001} \\
7 & 8 & 8 & 392 & \emph{2912} & \emph{3312} \\
8 & 3 & 3 & 24 & 48 & 75 \\
8 & 4 & 4 & 48 & 48 & 100 \\
8 & 5 & 5 & 80 & \emph{400} & \emph{485} \\
8 & 6 & 6 & 120 & \emph{288} & \emph{414} \\
8 & 7 & 7 & 168 & \emph{1904} & \emph{2079} \\
8 & 8 & 8 & 224 & \emph{912} & \emph{1144} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\bigskip\caption{Expected numbers of vertices of $\Hom(P_m,P_n)$}
\label{tab:expected}
\end{table}
However, we do not expect $\Hom(Q_m,Q_n)$ to have the same number of
vertices as $\Hom(P_m,P_n)$. For example, if $m=n \geq 5$, the affine
map that rotates $P_m$ by $\frac{2\pi}{m}$ is a vertex of $\Hom(P_m,P_m)$ at
which $2m$ facets meet; see Example \ref{onmanyfacets}. This map does not exist in
$\Hom(Q_m,Q_m)$. Specifically, the corresponding facets do not all
meet in one point, but various subsets of them do meet to form several
different vertices of $\Hom(Q_m,Q_m)$.
Our problem, then, is to identify the collections of vertices of
$\Hom(Q_m,Q_n)$ that correspond to single vertices of $\Hom(P_m,P_n)$.
Given a polytope $R$ and $\epsilon > 0$, we say that a collection $V$ of
vertices of $R$ is an \emph{$\epsilon$-cluster} if $\|v-w\| <
\epsilon$ for all $v,w \in V$. If all of the vertices of $R$ are
partitioned into a collection of disjoint clusters, we say that
$\epsilon$ successfully partitions $\vertex(R)$.
Note that for any sufficiently large $\epsilon$, we get a single
cluster, and for any sufficiently small $\epsilon$, each vertex forms
a cluster by itself. However, we need intermediate values of
$\epsilon$ that successfully partition $\vertex(\Hom(Q_m,Q_n))$. By
trying several values, we find that for six-digit rational
approximations $Q_m,Q_n$ and for all $m,n \leq 8$, the values
$\epsilon = 10^{-3}$ and $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$ give the same nontrivial
partition. Furthermore, the data resulting from such a partition
agree with what we have proved for the cases $m=3$, $m=4$, $n=3$, and
$n=4$, and also with Proposition~\ref{prop:divisibility}.
Using this partition, we predict the vertex counts shown in the
slanted entries of Table~\ref{tab:expected}; all other values can be obtained from the
theoretical results in this section.
|
\section{Introduction}
In this article we reexamine the derivation of the helicon dispersion relation in terms of the potential formulation of electrodynamics. Under the same approximations as used in the standard derivation, namely a uniform plasma with stationary ions subject to a constant background magnetic field with vanishing thermal stress and space charge density, the linearized equation of motion for the electron flow describes only the electron cyclotron resonance when the ion contribution to the material response is included through the friction term. Only by addressing the nonlinear self-coupling of the perturbed electron flow to its own potential through the Lorentz term can a more interesting solution be found. The plane wave solution for a general propagation vector is determined, whose frequency depends upon its inclination from the plane orthogonal to the direction of the background field. These solutions are represented in terms of a vector of phase factors in addition to the oscillatory phase. Several cases of interest are evaluated explicitly. The main result is that propagation occurs only for frequencies in a range below the cyclotron frequency when the ratio of conductivity to the magnitude of the background magnetic field is sufficiently low that the skin depth exceeds the wavelength in the plasma.
The history of this derivation\cite{chen-137} goes back several decades.\cite{trivelpiece-1784,bowers-1961,legendy-1964,KMT-1965} Chen surveys the experimental literature in his contribution\cite{chen-155r} to \textit{High Density Plasma Sources}, and with Boswell reviews the development of the theory throughout the twentieth century.\cite{chen-173,chen-174} Recent examples have appeared in \textit{Physics of Plasmas} of the application of this theory to a toroidal vessel\cite{tripathi-697} and to an annularly bounded discharge chamber.\cite{yano-063501,yano-033510} What these derivations have in common is their use of the electron equation of motion to determine the electric field rather than the electron flow as a consequence of their neglect of Gauss's law. In the potential formulation of electrodynamics, the electric and magnetic fields are recognized as auxiliary expressions describing the spatial and temporal variations of the four-potential, which is determined by the inhomogeneous (source-bearing) Maxwell equations in conjunction with the gauge condition expressing the continuity of the potential.
This paper is organized as follows. First we will review the standard derivation of the ``fast'' and ``slow'' helicon modes. We will then reconsider the derivation in the potential formulation, including both the ion contribution to the material response and the nonlinear self-coupling of the electron flow to the potential it generates. An example of the use of the potential formulation for the electrostatic case is given by Jankauskas and Kvedaras.\cite{jankauskas-274} The solution of the material equation of motion is expressed in terms of a vector phasor describing the direction of the electron flow in addition to the scalar phasor describing its magnitude. The solution of the potential equation of motion is expressed in terms of a complex propagation vector describing the wavelength and decay of oscillations at a given frequency. These vectors are evaluated explicitly for a range of frequencies surrounding the electron cyclotron resonance, and the behavior of the solution is found to be determined by the ratio of the material's conductivity to the magnitude of the background magnetic field. We will close by discussing how the theory must be extended before it can be applied to the description of an actual experimental configuration.
\section{Linearized Derivation}
First let us look at the derivation of the ``fast'' helicon mode, followed by the derivation of the coupled ``fast'' and ``slow'' modes. The model for infinite conductivity is based on the field equations \begin{eqnarray}
\nabla \times \mbf{E}_\omega + \dsub{t} \mbf{B}_\omega = 0 \;,& \qquad \nabla \cdot \mbf{B}_\omega = 0 \;, \label{eqn:homo} \\
\nabla \times \mbf{B}_\omega = \mu_0 \mbf{J}_\omega \;,& \label{eqn:ampere}
\end{eqnarray} and the linearized material equation of motion \begin{equation} \label{eqn:forE1}
\mbf{E}_\omega = \mbf{J}_\omega \times \mbf{B}_0 / e n_0 \;,
\end{equation} subject to the constraint $\nabla \cdot \mbf{J}_\omega = 0$, where the subscript $\omega$ identifies the oscillating quantities, the constant background field $\mbf{B}_0 \equiv B_0 \uvec{z}$ defines a direction $\uvec{z}$, the uniform plasma density $n_0$ equals the number of electrons required for neutrality, and the plasma current $\mbf{J}_\omega = - e n_0 \mbf{V}_\omega$ for electron fluid velocity $\mbf{V}_\omega$. The electric field is eliminated by the substitution \begin{subequations}\begin{eqnarray}
- \dsub{t} \mbf{B}_\omega &=& \nabla \times ( \mbf{J}_\omega \times \mbf{B}_0 ) / e n_0 \\
&=& ( \mbf{B}_0 \cdot \nabla ) \mbf{J}_\omega / e n_0 \;,
\end{eqnarray}\end{subequations} where $\nabla n_0 \equiv 0$, and the current is eliminated by \begin{equation}
- \dsub{t} \mbf{B}_\omega = ( \mbf{B}_0 \cdot \nabla ) ( \nabla \times \mbf{B}_\omega ) / \mu_0 e n_0 \;,
\end{equation} which for a traveling wave with phase $\exp^i (\mbf{k} \cdot \mbf{r} - \omega t) \propto \exp^i (k_z z - \omega t)$, using the notation $\exp^i (\delta) \equiv e^{i \delta}$, yields the relation \begin{equation} \label{eqn:foralpha}
0 = ( \alpha - \nabla \times ) \mbf{B}_\omega \;,
\end{equation} where the total wave number $\alpha = ( \omega / k_z ) ( \mu_0 e n_0 / B_0 )$ equals the magnitude of the propagation vector $\alpha = \abs{\mbf{k}}$, leading to the Helmholtz equation $(\nabla^2 + \alpha^2) \mbf{B}_\omega = 0$ describing the ``fast'' helicon mode.
For finite conductivity represented by a collision rate $\nu$ and including the effect of inertia represented by the electron mass $m_e$, the material equation of motion becomes \begin{equation} \label{eqn:forE2}
\mbf{E}_\omega = \mbf{J}_\omega ( \nu - i \omega ) m_e / e^2 n_0 + \mbf{J}_\omega \times \mbf{B}_0 / e n_0 \;,
\end{equation} whose curl leads to the relation \begin{equation}
0 = \left \lbrace \bigl [ (\omega + i \nu) / (k_z \omega_c) \bigr ] ( \nabla \times )^2 - ( \nabla \times ) + \alpha \right \rbrace \mbf{B}_\omega \;,
\end{equation} in terms of the electron cyclotron frequency $\omega_c \equiv e B_0 / m_e$, which can be factored\cite{KMT-1965} as \begin{equation}
0 = ( \beta_{+} - \nabla \times ) ( \beta_{-} - \nabla \times ) \mbf{B}_\omega \;.
\end{equation} The two roots for nontrivial $\mbf{B}_\omega$, in terms of $\gamma \equiv k_z \omega_c / 2 (\omega + i \nu)$, give total wave numbers of \begin{equation}
\beta_\pm = \left [ 1 \pm ( 1 - 2 \alpha / \gamma )^{1/2} \right ] \gamma \;,
\end{equation} which are identified as the ``slow'' and ``fast'' modes, also known\cite{trivelpiece-1784,chen-175} as the Trivelpiece and Gould mode for $\beta_{+}$ and the helicon mode for $\beta_{-}$ respectively.
Let us now look at what Gauss's law has to say about these models, whose inclusion turns Eqns.~(\ref{eqn:homo}) and (\ref{eqn:ampere}) into the system for pre-Maxwell electrodynamics. For either Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forE1}) or Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forE2}) one can write \begin{subequations}\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla \cdot \mbf{E}_\omega &=& \nabla \cdot ( \mbf{J}_\omega \times \mbf{B}_0 ) / e n_0 \label{eqn:divE2} \\
&=& \mbf{B}_0 \cdot ( \nabla \times \mbf{J}_\omega ) / e n_0 \;,
\end{eqnarray}\end{subequations} as the source generating the background field is external to the region of consideration, whereupon eliminating $\mbf{J}_\omega$ gives \begin{subequations}\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla \cdot \mbf{E}_\omega &=& \mbf{B}_0 \cdot [ (\nabla \times)^2 \mbf{B}_\omega ] / \mu_0 e n_0 \\
&=& - \nabla^2 ( \uvec{z} \cdot \mbf{B}_\omega ) ( B_0 / \mu_0 e n_0 ) \;.
\end{eqnarray}\end{subequations} For consistency with the approximation of neutrality ${\nabla \cdot \mbf{E}_\omega} = 0$, one requires either $k^2 = 0$, where $k \equiv \abs{\mbf{k}}$, or $\uvec{z} \cdot \mbf{B}_\omega = 0$, which then implies $\mbf{J}_\omega = J_\omega \uvec{z}$ yielding $k_z = 0$. For Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forE1}), either condition results in the expression $\omega = 0$, equivalent to the statement\cite{griffiths-89} ``that the magnetic field is constant [] inside a perfect conductor.'' For Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forE2}), Faraday's law can be written \begin{eqnarray}
- \dsub{t} \mbf{B}_\omega &=& (\nabla \times)^2 \mbf{B}_\omega ( \nu - i \omega ) m_e / \mu_0 e^2 n_0 \nonumber \\
& & + \dsub{z} ( \nabla \times \mbf{B}_\omega ) ( B_0 / \mu_0 e n_0 ) \;,
\end{eqnarray} which can be simplified to \begin{equation}
i \omega \mbf{B}_\omega = ( B_0 / \mu_0 e n_0 ) [ k^2 ( \nu - i \omega ) / \omega_c - k_z \mbf{k} \times ] \mbf{B}_\omega \;.
\end{equation} Under the condition $k_z = 0$ one has the relation \begin{subequations}\begin{eqnarray}
k_\perp^2 &=& i \mu_0 \omega \omega_c e n_0 / B_0 ( \nu - i \omega ) \\
&=& i \mu_0 \omega \wt{\sigma} \;,
\end{eqnarray}\end{subequations} in terms of the AC conductivity $\wt{\sigma} \equiv e^2 n_0 / m_e (\nu - i \omega)$, which one recognizes as the usual dispersion relation for a conductor\cite{griffiths-89} up to its neglect of the term $\mu_0 \epsilon_0 \omega^2$ arising from the displacement current. This result is consistent with the observation that the parallel current along $\uvec{z}$ is impervious to the effect of the linearized Lorentz term appearing in the material equation of motion.
The model as presented in the literature is quite specific about its neglect of the displacement current in the plasma region. As Yano and Walker state,\cite{yano-033510} ``the displacement current in [the Maxwell-Ampere equation] is neglected for calculation of the plasma field, as it is always negligible in experiments.'' Let us consider the effect of its inclusion. From Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forE2}), the plasma current can be written as \begin{eqnarray}
\mbf{J}_\omega &=& e n_0 \left [ ( \nu - i \omega ) m_e / e - \mbf{B}_0 \times \right ]^{-1} \cdot \mbf{E}_\omega \\
&=& \wt{\sigma} \left [ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \xi & 0 \\ - \xi & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right ]^{-1} \cdot \mbf{E}_\omega \; ,
\end{eqnarray} where $\xi \equiv \omega_c / ( \nu - i \omega )$, which defines the gyrotropic conductivity tensor, \begin{eqnarray}
\mbf{J}_\omega &=& \dfrac{\wt{\sigma}}{1 + \xi^2} \left [ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & - \xi & 0 \\ \xi & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 + \xi^2 \end{array} \right ] \cdot \mbf{E}_\omega \\
&\equiv& \msf{\Sigma} \cdot \mbf{E}_\omega \; .
\end{eqnarray} The Maxwell-Ampere equation can thus be written as \begin{eqnarray}
\nabla \times \mbf{B}_\omega &=& \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \dsub{t} \mbf{E}_\omega + \mu_0 \mbf{J}_\omega \\
&=& \mu_0 ( \epsilon_0 \dsub{t} + \msf{\Sigma} ) \cdot \mbf{E}_\omega \; ,
\end{eqnarray} whose curl yields the relation \begin{eqnarray}
- \nabla^2 \mbf{B}_\omega &=& \mu_0 ( \epsilon_0 \dsub{t} + \msf{\Sigma} ) \cdot ( \nabla \times \mbf{E}_\omega ) \\
&=& - \mu_0 \dsub{t} ( \epsilon_0 \dsub{t} + \msf{\Sigma} ) \cdot \mbf{B}_\omega \; ,
\end{eqnarray} whereupon substitution for harmonic oscillations gives \begin{eqnarray}
0 &=& ( - k^2 + \omega^2 / c_0^2 + i \mu_0 \omega \msf{\Sigma} ) \cdot \mbf{B}_\omega \\
&\equiv& \msf{\Upsilon} \cdot \mbf{B}_\omega \; ,
\end{eqnarray} for $\mu_0 \epsilon_0 c_0^2 \equiv 1$. For nontrivial $\mbf{B}_\omega$, one requires the matrix $\Upsilon$ to be singular (non-invertible), thus its determinant must vanish $\det \Upsilon = 0$, yielding the dispersion relation \begin{eqnarray}
0 &=& \left ( i \mu_0 \omega \wt{\sigma} + \dfrac{\omega^2}{c_0^2} - k^2 \right ) \nonumber \\
& & \left [ \left ( \dfrac{i \mu_0 \omega \wt{\sigma}}{1+\xi^2} + \dfrac{\omega^2}{c_0^2} - k^2 \right )^2 - \left ( \dfrac{\mu_0 \omega \wt{\sigma} \xi}{1+\xi^2} \right )^2 \right ] \; ,
\end{eqnarray} which has three positive solutions indexed by $\eta \in [-1, 0, 1]$ and expressed as \begin{equation}
k^2_\eta = \omega^2 / c_0^2 + i \mu_0 \omega \wt{\sigma} / (1 + i \xi \eta) \; .
\end{equation} The solution $k_0$ is commonly identified\cite{dendybook-93} as the ordinary mode, and the solutions $k_\pm$ as the extraordinary modes.
The approximation of neutrality, according to Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:divE2}), now requires \begin{equation}
0 \propto \left ( -\nabla^2 + \dsub{t}^2 / c_0^2 \right ) ( \uvec{z} \cdot \mbf{B}_\omega ) \; ,
\end{equation} where the displacement term has contributed to the first factor. The condition $\mbf{B}_\omega \perp \uvec{z}$ requires $(\epsilon_0 \dsub{t} + \msf{\Sigma}) \cdot \mbf{E}_\omega \parallel \uvec{z}$, thus $\mbf{E}_\omega \parallel \uvec{z}$ and $\mbf{k} \perp \uvec{z}$ as before. The condition $k_\eta^2 = \omega^2 / c_0^2$ can be satisfied by $\wt{\sigma} \rightarrow 0$, \textit{i.e.} the vacuum, or for the extraordinary modes $k_\pm$ at the frequency $\omega = - i \nu$, which describes not an oscillation but a solution that decays exponentially with time, $e^{- i \omega t} \rightarrow e^{- \nu t}$. Note that the satisfaction of Gauss's law for a neutral medium is what prevents these models from supporting propagation with a component parallel to the background field.
\section{Nonlinear Derivation}
Our first objection to the preceding derivations of the helicon dispersion relation is mathematical, as the linearized form of the Lorentz term neglects the self-interaction between the electron fluid and the potential it generates. In order to describe properly the phenomenon of resonance within the electron fluid, one needs to account for the influence one fluid element has on another. That effect appears formally as a nonlinear contribution to the Lorentz force which can dominate the dynamics when the background field is weak compared to that generated by source currents within the plasma.
Our next objection is not so much one of mathematics but rather one of physics, in that the equation chosen to determine the electric field, either Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forE1}) or Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forE2}), does not tell the whole story of the material response. The specification of charge neutrality requires the presence of a positively charged ion background in addition to the negatively charged electron fluid. Just because its fluid velocity vanishes does not mean that its equation of motion is worthless, as the ion background must still satisfy the equation for its contribution to momentum conservation.
Our last objection to the prevailing derivations is that the abbreviated set of Maxwell equations found in Eqns.~(\ref{eqn:homo}-\ref{eqn:ampere}) does not satisfy the formalism of the potential formulation of electrodynamic field theory.\cite{ryder-qft,naka-798212} Conspicuous by its absence is Gauss's law, which describes the fundamental relation between a source and the field it generates and is equivalent to the Maxwell-Ampere equation under a Lorentz transformation. Also absent is the term for displacement current vital to the description of electromagnetic oscillations as well as the covariant expression of the continuity of the source terms.\cite{bork-854,griffiths-89} Let us now reconsider the derivation of the dispersion relation in the potential formulation, based upon the complete classical Maxwell system, for a model which includes both the contribution from the ion equation of motion as well as the nonlinear self-interaction of the electron fluid.
\subsection{Model equations}
For each species $s \in \{i,e\}$, continuity is expressed through the total derivative of density defined by \begin{equation}
\dot{n}_s \equiv \dsub{t} n_s + \nabla \cdot ( n_s \mbf{V}_s ) \;,
\end{equation} where $\mbf{V}_s$ is the species flow velocity and $\dot{n}_s$ is the particle source rate, and the convective derivative of velocity is \begin{equation}
\dot{\mbf{V}}_s \equiv \dsub{t} \mbf{V}_s + ( \mbf{V}_s \cdot \nabla ) \mbf{V}_s \;.
\end{equation} Considering a singly ionized species such that $e_i = e$ and $e_e = -e$ under the assumption of vanishing ion flow $\mbf{V}_i \equiv 0$, both the net current and net momentum are proportional to the electron flux, $n_e \mbf{V}_e = - \mbf{J} / e = \mbf{K} / m_e$, thus the fluid acceleration can be written $\dot{\mbf{K}} = m_e (\dot{n}_e \mbf{V}_e + n_e \dot{\mbf{V}}_e)$. The statements $\dsub{t} \mbf{V}_i = 0$ and $\dsub{t} n_i = 0$ imply that the ions provide a fixed background for the electron dynamics. The equations of motion\cite{dendybook-93,staceybook05} in the absence of particle sources $\dot{n}_s = 0$ are thus \begin{eqnarray}
\nabla \cdot ( n_i \msf{T}_i ) &=& \mbf{F}_{ie} + e n_i \mbf{E} \; , \label{eqn:ion} \\
m_e n_e \dot{\mbf{V}}_e + \nabla \cdot ( n_e \msf{T}_e ) &=& \mbf{F}_{ei} - e n_e ( \mbf{E} + \mbf{V}_e \times \mbf{B} ) \;, \label{eqn:eon}
\end{eqnarray} where $n_s \msf{T}_s$ is the thermal stress tensor for species $s$. Just because the ion flow vanishes does not mean that its equation is worthless, as the electron flow makes an appearance through the friction term, $\mbf{F}_{ie} \equiv - \mbf{F}_{ei} = m_e n_e \nu_{ei} \mbf{V}_e$ for interspecies collision rate $\nu_{ei}$. Summing Eqns.~(\ref{eqn:ion}) and (\ref{eqn:eon}) yields \begin{equation}
m_e n_e \dot{\mbf{V}}_e + \nabla \cdot ( n_i \msf{T}_i + n_e \msf{T}_e ) = e ( n_i - n_e ) \mbf{E} - e n_e \mbf{V}_e \times \mbf{B} \;, \label{eqn:forVe}
\end{equation} which is simply the statement of net momentum conservation in the plasma under the given conditions, \begin{equation} \label{eqn:netforce}
\dot{\mbf{K}} + \nabla \cdot ( n \msf{T} ) = j \mbf{E} + \mbf{J} \times \mbf{B} \;,
\end{equation} where $j = \sum_s n_s e_s$ is the net charge density and $n T = \sum_s n_s \msf{T}_s$ is the net thermal stress. Under the approximation of uniform thermal stress $\nabla \cdot (n_s \msf{T}_s) = 0$ and enforcing neutrality $n_e = n_i$ such that $\nabla \cdot (n_e \mbf{V}_e) = 0$, one is left with the system of equations \begin{eqnarray}
- m_e \nu_{ei} \mbf{V}_e &=& e \mbf{E} \;, \label{eqn:ioneqn} \\
m_e ( \dsub{t} + \mbf{V}_e \cdot \nabla ) \mbf{V}_e &=& e \mbf{B} \times \mbf{V}_e \;, \label{eqn:eoneqn}
\end{eqnarray} which displays the electron fluid's coupling to inertia through $m_e$ on the LHS and to electromagnetism through $e$ on the RHS. Only by satisfying both equations of motion does one achieve a consistent theory for the material response.
Turning now to the electromagnetic sector, the homogeneous Maxwell equations are satisfied identically in the potential formulation $\mbf{B} \equiv \nabla \times \mbf{A}$ and $\mbf{E} \equiv - \nabla \Phi - \dsub{t} \mbf{A}$, thus they cannot determine any physically relevant degrees of freedom. The physical relation between the potential and its source is given by the inhomogeneous Maxwell equations \begin{equation} \label{eqn:inhomo}
\nabla \times \mbf{B} - \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \dsub{t} \mbf{E} = \mu_0 \mbf{J} \;, \qquad \nabla \cdot \mbf{E} = j / \epsilon_0 \;,
\end{equation} where the inclusion of the displacement current is essential to the description of electromagnetic propagation as well as the covariant expression of charge conservation. Selecting the Lorenz gauge $\dsub{t} a + \nabla \cdot \mbf{A} = 0$, where the scalar potential $a \equiv \Phi / c_0^2$, the continuity of the potential mirrors that of the source $\dsub{t} j + \nabla \cdot \mbf{J} = 0$, and the field equations are covariant $- \square^2 A^\nu = \mu_0 J^\nu$, where the d'Alembertian operator is defined as $\square^2 \equiv \nabla^2 - c_0^{-2} \dsub{t}^2$. For a neutral medium $j \equiv 0$ the scalar potential vanishes $a \equiv 0$ (technically is constant), thus one is left with the gauge condition $\nabla \cdot \mbf{A} = 0$ and the field equation \begin{equation}
- \nabla^2 \mbf{A} + c_0^{-2} \dsub{t}^2 \mbf{A} = \mu_0 \mbf{J} \;,
\end{equation} expressing the relation between the vector potential $\mbf{A}$ and its source current $\mbf{J}$.
\subsection{Linearized solution}
Considering a region with uniform plasma density $\nabla n_e \equiv 0$ such that $\nabla \cdot \mbf{V}_e = 0$ and subject to a constant background magnetic field $\mbf{B}_0$ along $\uvec{z}$, the linearized equation of motion reads \begin{equation} \label{eqn:linform}
\dsub{t} \mbf{V}_e = (e/m_e) \mbf{B}_0 \times \mbf{V}_e \; .
\end{equation} Nothing defined in the model breaks translational invariance, so let us work in Cartesian coordinates with position vector $\mbf{r} = (x, y, z)$, and let us write the phasor for the electron flow $\mbf{V}_e = \mathrm{Re\,} \wt{\mbf{V}}_e$ as $\wt{\mbf{V}}_e = \exp^i (- \omega t) (\wt{V}_x, \wt{V}_y, \wt{V}_z)$. The phasor equation of motion in terms of the cyclotron frequency $\omega_c$ is then \begin{equation}
( \wt{V}_x, \wt{V}_y, \wt{V}_z ) = i ( \omega_c / \omega ) ( -\wt{V}_y, \wt{V}_x, 0 ) \;,
\end{equation} thus the flow along $\uvec{z}$ must vanish $\wt{V}_z = 0$, and the relations $\wt{V}_x / \wt{V}_y = - i ( \omega_c / \omega )$ and $\wt{V}_y / \wt{V}_x = i ( \omega_c / \omega )$ must hold independently. For non-vanishing flow, one can then write \begin{subequations}\begin{eqnarray}
0 &=& 1 - (\wt{V}_x / \wt{V}_y) (\wt{V}_y / \wt{V}_x) \\
&=& 1 - ( \omega_c / \omega )^2 \;,
\end{eqnarray}\end{subequations} with the positive root $\omega = \omega_c$ which describes the material response at the electron cyclotron resonance. Having assumed away most of the relevant physics, there is nothing else left for that equation to describe. The phasor solution can thus be written in terms of a scalar phasor $\exp^i (\delta)$ for the magnitude and a vector phasor $\wt{\mbf{f}}$ for the direction, \begin{subequations}\begin{eqnarray}
\wt{\mbf{V}}_e &\equiv& V \exp^i (\delta) \wt{\mbf{f}} \\
&=& V \exp^i (- \omega_c t) (1, i, 0) \;,
\end{eqnarray}\end{subequations} where $V$ is a real constant bearing units of velocity and $\wt{\mbf{f}} \equiv \mbf{f}_{+} + i \mbf{f}_{-}$ is the complex sum of real unit vectors satisfying the requirements of normalization $\abs{\mbf{f}_{+}} = \abs{\mbf{f}_{-}} = 1$ and orthogonality $\mbf{f}_{+} \cdot \mbf{f}_{-} = 0$. Note that this solution does not describe a propagating wave as the entire region is oscillating at the same phase in time, having no dependence on position $\mbf{r}$. The vector phasor $\wt{\mbf{f}}$ describes the direction of the flow at two times separated by one quarter of a cycle with a relative phase $\exp^i (-\pi / 2) = - i$.
\subsection{Nonlinear solution}
Let us now consider the coupled nonlinear system of equations \begin{eqnarray}
\dsub{t} \wt{\mbf{V}}_e + ( \wt{\mbf{V}}_e \cdot \nabla ) \wt{\mbf{V}}_e &=& (e/m_e) (\mbf{B}_0 + \nabla \times \wt{\mbf{A}}) \times \wt{\mbf{V}}_e \; , \label{eqn:forV} \\
- \nabla^2 \wt{\mbf{A}} + c_0^{-2} \dsub{t}^2 \wt{\mbf{A}} &=& - \mu_0 e n_e \wt{\mbf{V}}_e \; , \label{eqn:forA}
\end{eqnarray} where the phasor for the generated potential $\wt{\mbf{A}} \equiv (A/V) \exp^i (\delta_A) \wt{\mbf{V}}_e$ has a phase of $\delta_A$ relative to $\wt{\mbf{V}}_e$, and seek solutions for $\wt{\mbf{V}}_e$ and $\wt{\mbf{A}}$ under the constraints \begin{eqnarray}
\nabla \cdot \wt{\mbf{V}}_e = 0 \; , \quad \nabla \cdot \wt{\mbf{A}} &=& 0 \; , \label{eqn:divcon} \\
\dsub{t} \wt{\mbf{A}} - (m_e \nu_{ei} / e) \wt{\mbf{V}}_e &=& 0 \; , \label{eqn:Econ}
\end{eqnarray} where the final constraint is Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:ioneqn}) in terms of the potential. The oscillatory phase $\delta = \wt{\mbf{k}} \cdot \mbf{r} - \omega t$ now allows for variation in space through the complex propagation vector $\wt{\mbf{k}} \equiv \mbf{k}_{+} + i \mbf{k}_{-}$ whose real part $\mbf{k}_{+}$ determines the oscillation's wavelength and whose imaginary part $\mbf{k}_{-}$ describes its attenuation. The propagation vector can also be written in terms of its direction, \begin{equation}
\uvec{k} \equiv (\cos \theta_k \cos \phi_k ,\sin \theta_k \cos \phi_k ,\sin \phi_k) \;,
\end{equation} and magnitude $\wt{k} \equiv k \exp^i (\delta_k)$ as $\wt{\mbf{k}} \equiv \wt{k} \uvec{k}$, where the angle $\theta_k \in [-\pi, \pi)$ is its azimuth from $\uvec{x}$, and the angle $\phi_k \in [-\pi/2, \pi/2]$ is its inclination from the plane whose normal is $\uvec{z}$. In these coordinates $\nabla \rightarrow i \wt{\mbf{k}}$, and the divergence constraints in Eqns.~(\ref{eqn:divcon}) imply $\wt{\mbf{k}} \cdot \wt{\mbf{f}} = 0$ so that the convective acceleration vanishes $( \wt{\mbf{V}}_e \cdot \nabla ) \wt{\mbf{V}}_e = 0$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[]{figA.eps}%
\caption{\label{fig:A}(Color online.) The propagation vector $\wt{\mbf{k}}$ has an inclination from the plane orthogonal to $\uvec{z}$ of $\phi_\pm$ determined by the ratio of the oscillating frequency $\omega$ to the electron cyclotron frequency $\omega_c$. Shown are the vectors $\uvec{k}$ for $\phi_{+}$ as $\square$ and $\phi_{-}$ as $\lozenge$ when $\omega / \omega_c = 3/4$.}
\end{figure}
The divergence constraints can be satisfied constructively by specifying $\wt{f}_z = - ( \wt{k}_x \wt{f}_x + \wt{k}_y \wt{f}_y ) / \wt{k}_z$ for both $\wt{\mbf{V}}_e$ and $\wt{\mbf{A}}$. The remaining constraint requires $\omega \wt{\mbf{A}} = i ( m_e \nu_{ei} / e ) \wt{\mbf{V}}_e$, thus determining $\delta_A = \pi / 2$ and $A/V = m_e \nu_{ei} / e \omega$. In this formulation, the ion contribution Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:Econ}) plays the role of Ohm's law, and the electron contribution Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forV}), rewritten with the nonlinear term isolated as \begin{equation} \label{eqn:forAxV}
\left[ (m_e/e) \dsub{t} - \mbf{B}_0 \times \right] \wt{\mbf{V}}_e = (\nabla \times \wt{\mbf{A}}) \times \wt{\mbf{V}}_e \; ,
\end{equation} describes the oscillatory equilibrium in terms of momentum balance. One factor of $e^{i \delta}$ appears on either side of that equation, but a second one appears on the RHS, which can be rewritten as $(\nabla \times \wt{\mbf{A}}) \times \wt{\mbf{V}}_e = \wt{\gamma} \exp^i(2 \delta) \wt{\mbf{k}}$, where $\wt{\gamma} = A V [ \begin{array}{cc} \wt{f}_x & \wt{f}_y \end{array} ] \msf{\Gamma} [ \begin{array}{cc} \wt{f}_x & \wt{f}_y \end{array} ]^T$ in terms of \begin{equation}
\msf{\Gamma} = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 + \cos^2 \theta_k \cot^2 \phi_k & \cos \theta_k \sin \theta_k \cot^2 \phi_k \\
\cos \theta_k \sin \theta_k \cot^2 \phi_k & 1 + \sin^2 \theta_k \cot^2 \phi_k \end{array} \right] \; .
\end{equation} The common factor of $\wt{\gamma}$ lets one use the $\uvec{z}$ component of Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forAxV}), \begin{equation}
(m_e/e) \dsub{t} \wt{V}_z = \wt{\gamma} \exp^i(2 \delta) \wt{k}_z \; ,
\end{equation} to simplify the $\uvec{x}$ and $\uvec{y}$ components into a system of equations for $\wt{f}_x$ and $\wt{f}_y$, \begin{eqnarray}
\wt{f}_x / \wt{f}_y &=& - \dfrac{ \cos \theta_k \sin \theta_k \cot^2 \phi_k + i (\omega_c/\omega) }{ 1 + \cos^2 \theta_k \cot^2 \phi_k } \; , \\
\wt{f}_y / \wt{f}_x &=& - \dfrac{ \cos \theta_k \sin \theta_k \cot^2 \phi_k - i (\omega_c/\omega) }{ 1 + \sin^2 \theta_k \cot^2 \phi_k } \; ,
\end{eqnarray} which one can solve for $\phi_k (\omega)$ by writing \begin{subequations}\begin{eqnarray}
0 &=& 1 - (\wt{f}_x / \wt{f}_y) (\wt{f}_y / \wt{f}_x) \\
&\propto& (\omega_c \sin \phi_k - \omega) (\omega_c \sin \phi_k + \omega) \;,
\end{eqnarray}\end{subequations} with the solutions $\phi_\pm = \pm \arcsin (\omega / \omega_c)$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:A}, which says that propagation at a frequency $\omega \lesssim \omega_c$ is mostly along $ \pm \uvec{z}$ while at low frequency $0 \lesssim \omega$ is mostly perpendicular to $\uvec{z}$. The ratio \begin{equation}
\wt{f}_z / \wt{f}_x = - \dfrac{ [ \cos \theta_k + i (\omega_c/\omega) \sin \theta_k ] \cot \phi_k }{ 1 + \sin^2 \theta_k \cot^2 \phi_k }
\end{equation} in terms of $\phi_\pm$ such that $\cot \phi_\pm = \pm (\omega_c^2 / \omega^2 - 1)^{1/2}$ lets one express the vector phasor as \begin{equation} \label{eqn:forf}
\wt{\mbf{f}} \propto \left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 + ( \omega_c^2 / \omega^2 - 1 ) \sin^2 \theta_k \\ ( 1 - \omega_c^2 / \omega^2 ) \cos \theta_k \sin \theta_k + i ( \omega_c / \omega ) \\ \mp ( \omega_c^2 / \omega^2 - 1 )^{1/2} [ \cos \theta_k + i (\omega_c/\omega)\sin \theta_k ] \end{array} \right] \; ,
\end{equation} where the constant of proportionality normalizes both the real and imaginary components of $\wt{\mbf{f}}$, which is a primary result of this investigation. One can verify that $\hat{\mbf{k}} \cdot \wt{\mbf{f}} = 0$ so that continuity is preserved.
Let us examine two specific cases of interest. Suppose first that $\delta_1 = \wt{k} z - \omega t$. The explicit solution of Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forAxV}) recovers the electron cyclotron resonance $\wt{\mbf{f}}_1 = (1, i, 0)$ for $\omega_1 = \omega_c$ such that $\phi_1 = \pi / 2$. Now suppose that $\delta_2 = \wt{k} ( x + y + z ) / 3^{1/2} - \omega t$, where the square root of 3 normalizes the unit vector. The explicit solution now gives $\wt{\mbf{f}}_2 \propto (1, e^{i 2 \pi / 3}, e^{-i 2 \pi / 3})$ for $\omega_2 = \omega_c / 3^{1/2}$ such that $\phi_2 = \arcsin 3^{-1/2}$ and $\theta_2 = \pi / 4$. One can check that Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forf}) reproduces these phase factors using the appropriate angles for the propagation vector.
The trigonometric functions extend analytically to the complex plane $\phi \rightarrow \wt{\phi}$ such that $\cos^2 \wt{\phi} + \sin^2 \wt{\phi} = 1$ is preserved.\cite{flanigan-1983} In particular, one can extend the expression $\sin \phi_\pm = \pm \omega / \omega_c$ to the domain $\omega > \omega_c$ such that $\cos \phi_\pm = i (\omega^2 / \omega_c^2 - 1)^{1/2}$. The evolution of the complex $\phi_{+}$ as a function of the frequency ratio $\omega / \omega_c$ is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:B}, as are its sine and cosine. The angle $\phi_{+}$ proceeds along the real axis from 0 to $\pi/2$ as $\omega$ goes from 0 to $\omega_c$, and then it acquires an imaginary component when $\omega > \omega_c$. The sine is entirely real, while the cosine goes from being real to imaginary as the frequency ratio exceeds unity; consequently, the unit vector $\uvec{k}$ is itself complex in this regime. Nonetheless, it maintains its normalization $\uvec{k} \cdot \uvec{k} = 1$ and its orthogonality to the vector phasor $\uvec{k} \cdot \wt{\mbf{f}} = 0$. We will come back to the interpretation of $\wt{\mbf{k}}$ after we solve the conductive d'Alembertian equation for its magnitude $\wt{k}$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{figB.eps}%
\caption{\label{fig:B}(Color online.) Shown are the real $\square$ and imaginary $\lozenge$ components of $\phi_{+}$ as a function of the frequency ratio $\omega / \omega_c$ in (a) and (b), as well as its sine in (c) and its cosine in (d).}
\end{figure}
What remains is to solve Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forA}) for $\wt{k} (\omega)$, which is a standard problem in electro\-dynamics.\cite{griffiths-89} Having written the propagation vector in terms of its magnitude and direction, the d'Alembertian operator simplifies considerably, $- \square^2 = \wt{k}^2 - \omega^2 / c_0^2$. Rearranging factors after writing $\wt{\mbf{V}}_e$ in terms of $\wt{\mbf{A}}$ yields the scalar relation $- \square^2 = i \mu_0 \sigma \omega$ for DC conductivity $\sigma \equiv e^2 n_e / m_e \nu_{ei}$, which has the positive root \begin{equation} \label{eqn:fork}
\wt{k} = (\omega / c_0) (1 + i \sigma / \epsilon_0 \omega)^{1/2}
\end{equation} with magnitude $k = (\omega / c_0) (1 + \sigma^2 / \epsilon_0^2 \omega^2)^{1/4}$ and phase $\delta_k = \arctan (\sigma / \epsilon_0 \omega) / 2$. When $\omega \leq \omega_c$ the real propagation and decay vectors $\mbf{k}_{+}$ and $\mbf{k}_{-}$ point in the same direction such that $\wt{k} = \abs{\mbf{k}_{+}} + i \abs{\mbf{k}_{-}}$, but when $\omega > \omega_c$ the situation gets more complicated because of the complex form of $\uvec{k} \equiv \uvec{k}_{+} + i \uvec{k}_{-}$, where $\abs{\uvec{k}_{+}}^2 = \omega^2 / \omega_c^2$ and $\abs{\uvec{k}_{-}}^2 = \omega^2 / \omega_c^2 - 1$. In this notation, $\uvec{k}_{+} \neq \mbf{k}_{+} / \abs{\mbf{k}_{+}}$ as each expression refers to a different object; $\uvec{k}_{+}$ is the real part of $\uvec{k}$, whereas $\mbf{k}_{+} / \abs{\mbf{k}_{+}}$ gives the direction of propagation according to the real part of $\wt{\mbf{k}}$. The direction of decay is given by $\mbf{k}_{-} / \abs{\mbf{k}_{-}}$, which is not aligned with the direction of propagation when the frequency ratio exceeds unity. Recalling $\wt{\mbf{k}} \equiv \mbf{k}_{+} + i \mbf{k}_{-}$ such that \begin{equation} \label{eqn:fordecay}
\exp^i (\wt{\mbf{k}} \cdot \mbf{r}) = \exp (-\mbf{k}_{-} \cdot \mbf{r}) \exp^i (\mbf{k}_{+} \cdot \mbf{r}) \;,
\end{equation} the complex propagation vector describes the dispersion of electromagnetic radiation in a conductive medium with skin depth $\lambda_\sigma = 1 / \abs{\mbf{k}_{-}}$, wavelength $\lambda_\omega = 2 \pi / \abs{\mbf{k}_{+}}$, phase speed $c_\omega = \omega / \abs{\mbf{k}_{+}}$, and group speed $v_\omega = \partial \omega / \partial \abs{\mbf{k}_{+}}$.
\section{Evaluation of the Nonlinear Solution}
The evaluation of the solution to the system of equations as a function of the frequency ratio $\omega / \omega_c$ divides naturally into that for the vector phasor described by $\wt{\mbf{f}}$ and for the scalar phasor described by $\wt{\mbf{k}}$. The solution is translationally invariant, as it is expressed in terms of its magnitude $V$ at some arbitrary location identified as the origin of the coordinate system. The expression for $\wt{\mbf{f}}$ in Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forf}) depends only upon the frequency ratio and the arbitrary azimuth $\theta_k$, whereas the expression for $\wt{\mbf{k}}$ depends additionally upon the conductivity $\sigma$. Let us now look at each in turn.
\subsection{Evaluation of the vector phasor}
The vector phasor $\wt{\mbf{f}} \equiv \mbf{f}_{+} + i \mbf{f}_{-}$ describes the direction of the electron flow at two times separated by one quarter of a cycle. Under the conditions of normalization and orthogonality it can be reduced to two scalar degrees of freedom corresponding to two of the components of Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forAxV}), but it is instructive to evaluate all of its components explicitly. The third component of Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:forAxV}) determines the direction $\uvec{k}$ through its dependence on $\phi_\pm$ as a function of the frequency ratio $\omega / \omega_c$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{figC.eps}%
\caption{\label{fig:C}(Color online.) The vector phasor $\wt{\mbf{f}}$, here for $\phi_{+}$, depends upon the frequency ratio $\omega / \omega_c$ and the propagation azimuth $\theta_k$, equal to 0 in (a) and (b), $\pi/4$ in (c) and (d), $\pi/2$ in (e) and (f), and $3\pi/4$ in (g) and (h). On the left is its real part $\mbf{f}_{+}$, and on the right is its imaginary part $\mbf{f}_{-}$. The $(x,y,z)$ components are displayed as $\square$, $\bigcirc$, and $\lozenge$ respectively.}
\end{figure}
Shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:C} are the $(x,y,z)$ components of $\mbf{f}_{+}$ and $\mbf{f}_{-}$ as a function of $\omega / \omega_c$ for various azimuths $\theta_k$ spanning one half revolution and selecting $\phi_{+}$. The components of $\uvec{k}$ can be inferred from Fig.~\ref{fig:B}. Focusing on the case of $\theta_k = 0$ such that $\uvec{k}$ has no $\uvec{y}$ component, the flow is primarily in the $y \mbox{-} z$ plane for $\omega \ll \omega_c$, in the $x \mbox{-} y$ plane for $\omega = \omega_c$, and in the $x \mbox{-} z$ plane for $\omega \gg \omega_c$. Despite having flow in the same plane as propagation when the frequency ratio exceeds unity, one can verify that the divergence constraint $\uvec{k} \cdot \wt{\mbf{f}} = 0$ is satisfied.
\subsection{Evaluation of the scalar phasor}
The scalar phasor $\exp^i (\delta)$ for $\delta = \wt{\mbf{k}} \cdot \mbf{r} - \omega t$ describes the behavior of the time harmonic solution in space through the complex propagation vector $\wt{\mbf{k}}$ as a function of the frequency ratio $\omega / \omega_c$ and propagation azimuth $\theta_k$, as well as the plasma conductivity $\sigma$. In the following let us set $\theta_k = 0$ so that propagation and decay are solely in the $x \mbox{-} z$ plane, and let us select the $\phi_{+}$ solution. The electromagnetic sector reduces to the scalar equation $- \square^2 = i \mu_0 \sigma \omega$ which determines $\wt{k}$ according to Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:fork}), thus we need to consider what is a reasonable range for the parameter $\sigma$ in units of siemens per meter.
The conductivity is proportional to the ratio of density to collision frequency $\sigma \propto n_e / \nu_{ei}$, where $\nu_{ei}$ depends upon both density and temperature. The range of density and temperature spanned by matter in the plasma state covers many orders of magnitude for each. A common parametrization of the $n \mbox{-} T$ plane, where $T$ is the thermal energy, is given by the (electron) Debye length $\lambda_D \equiv (\epsilon_0 T_e / n_e e^2 )^{1/2}$ and Debye density $n_D \equiv (4 \pi / 3) \lambda_D^3 n_e$. Their contours are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:D} over a reasonable range of the $n \mbox{-} T$ plane. Also shown are contours for the conductivity evaluated as follows. For a gaseous plasma\cite{staceybook05} one can estimate the collision rate from the expression \begin{equation}
\nu_{ei}^{-1} = 6 \epsilon_0^2 ( 6 \pi m_e T_e^3 )^{1/2} / ( n_e e^4 \log \Lambda ) \; ,
\end{equation} where $\Lambda = 12 \pi [(\epsilon_0 T_e / e^2)^3 / n_e]^{1/2}$. One can see that the conductivity $\sigma$ has only a weak dependence on density $n_e$ through $\log \Lambda$. A reasonable range for $\sigma$ can thus be estimated as $10^0 < \sigma < 10^{10}$ which spans materials from poorly to highly conductive.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{figD.eps}%
\caption{\label{fig:D}(Color online.) Shown are contours for conductivity $\sigma$ (solid), Debye length $\lambda_D$ (dashed), and Debye density $n_D$ (dash-dot) over the $n \mbox{-} T$ plane with temperature expressed in units of electron-volts. The contours for $\sigma$ are labeled vertically, for $\lambda_D$ are horizontal, and for $n_D$ are to the outside of the plot.}
\end{figure}
The expression for $\wt{k}$ depends explicitly on the ratio of conduction to displacement current $\rho \equiv \sigma / \epsilon_0 \omega = \tan (2 \delta_k)$. In the presence of a background magnetic field $\mbf{B}_0$ with magnitude $B_0$ in units of tesla, that ratio can be rewritten in terms of the cyclotron frequency as $\rho = (\omega_c / \omega) \rho_0$, where \begin{equation}
\rho_0 \equiv \sigma / \epsilon_0 \omega_c
\end{equation} is a unitless parameter depending on the conductivity and the magnitude of the background field. The value of $\rho_0$ is ultimately what determines the dispersion of electromagnetic radiation in a conductive medium subject to an external magnetic field.
To determine the real propagation and decay vectors $\mbf{k}_{+}$ and $\mbf{k}_{-}$, we construct the complex propagation vector $\wt{\mbf{k}}$ according to its magnitude $\wt{k}$ and direction $\uvec{k}$ and then decompose its real and imaginary parts, $\mbf{k}_{+} + i \mbf{k}_{-} = \wt{k} \uvec{k}$. The directions for propagation and decay are given by the unit vectors $\mbf{k}_{+} / \abs{\mbf{k}_{+}}$ and $\mbf{k}_{-} / \abs{\mbf{k}_{-}}$, which for $\omega > \omega_c$ are found not to point in the same direction as a phase in addition to $\delta_k$ appears when $\uvec{k}$ is complex. When $\omega \leq \omega_c$ the unit vector $\uvec{k}$ is real, and for all $\omega$ one finds $\uvec{k} \cdot (\mbf{f}_{+} \times \mbf{f}_{-}) = 1$.
For various $\rho_0 \in [10^{-1}, 10^2]$, the directions of propagation and decay as a function of the frequency ratio are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:E}. When $\omega \leq \omega_c$ they are both equal to $\uvec{k} = \mbf{f}_{+} \times \mbf{f}_{-}$, which does not depend on $\rho_0$. For $\omega \gg \omega_c$ they are nearly but not quite orthogonal, as $\mbf{k}_{+} \cdot \mbf{k}_{-} > 0$, and the extent of the transition region does depend on $\rho_0$. Attempting to describe the behavior, as $\omega$ goes from 0 to $\omega_c$ the propagation and decay vectors both point along the normal to the flow plane, which in this case $\theta_k = 0$ goes from $\uvec{x}$ to $\uvec{z}$ in the $x \mbox{-} z$ plane. As $\omega$ increases beyond the cyclotron frequency, the propagation direction first acquires a component along $-\uvec{x}$ before swinging back to $\uvec{z}$. The direction of decay proceeds back towards $\uvec{x}$, and the normal to the flow plane heads towards $\uvec{y}$ in the $y \mbox{-} z$ plane. As the ratio $\rho_0$ increases, the transition region for the propagation direction grows both in terms of the swing towards $-\uvec{x}$ and how high a frequency ratio is needed before pointing along $\uvec{z}$, and similarly for the direction of decay.
The magnitudes of the propagation and decay vectors determine the wavelength and skin depth as a function of the frequency ratio, $\lambda_\omega = 2 \pi / \abs{\mbf{k}_{+}}$ and $\lambda_\sigma = 1 / \abs{\mbf{k}_{-}}$. The dispersion relation yields the phase speed $c_\omega = \omega / \abs{\mbf{k}_{+}}$, and its derivative the group speed $v_\omega = \partial \omega / \partial \abs{\mbf{k}_{+}}$. For all $\omega$ one can decompose the complex propagation vector $\wt{\mbf{k}}$ as \begin{subequations}\begin{eqnarray}
\wt{k} \uvec{k} &\equiv& ( k_{+} + i k_{-} ) ( \uvec{k}_{+} + i \uvec{k}_{-} ) \\
&=& ( k_{+} \uvec{k}_{+} - k_{-} \uvec{k}_{-} ) + i ( k_{-} \uvec{k}_{+} + k_{+} \uvec{k}_{-} ) \; ,
\end{eqnarray}\end{subequations} and when $\uvec{k}_{-} = 0$ one has $\abs{\mbf{k}_{+}} = k_{+}$ and $\abs{\mbf{k}_{-}} = k_{-}$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:F} we display $\lambda_\omega$ and $\lambda_\sigma$ in units of the vacuum wavelength $\lambda_0 = c_0 / (\omega / 2 \pi)$ as well as $c_\omega$ and $v_\omega$ in units of the vacuum light speed $c_0$, for $\rho_0 \in [10^{-1}, 10^2]$.
The transition between conductive and non-conductive behavior occurs for a value of $\rho_0 \lesssim 1$, such that $\lambda_\sigma > \lambda_\omega$ for a range of frequencies $\omega < \omega_c$. In other words, significant propagation of the oscillation over several wavelengths occurs only for a span of frequencies below the cyclotron resonance when the conductivity is sufficiently low that dissipation does not destroy the waveform. For higher conductivities the skin depth is but a fraction of the wavelength, indicating that the amplitude decays to almost nothing before a single cycle is realized. For $\omega < \omega_c$ the phase speed is less than the group speed, and for $\omega > \omega_c$ it is greater. Interestingly, for a poor conductor $\rho_0 \lesssim 1$ there exists a range of frequencies below $\omega_c$ for which the group speed exceeds the vacuum light speed. Such a case is not unheard of in plasma physics,\cite{peters-129} and we stress that this result obtains directly from the accepted solution to the inhomogeneous d'Alembertian equation for conductors.\cite{griffiths-89} One can verify that the group speeds displayed, evaluated from numerical gradients, agree with the analytic expression \begin{equation}
v_{\omega < \omega_c} = \dfrac{2 ( \rho^2 + 1 )^{3/4} c_0}{\rho \sin \delta_k + ( \rho^2 + 2 ) \cos \delta_k} \; , \label{eqn:vglo}
\end{equation} for frequencies below the cyclotron resonance, and above the resonance \begin{widetext} \begin{equation}
v_{\omega > \omega_c} = \dfrac {2 ( \rho^2 + 1 )^{3/4} \left [ ( \omega / \omega_c )^2 - \sin^2 \delta_k \right ]^{1/2} c_0} {\rho \cos \delta_k \sin \delta_k - ( \rho^2 + 2 ) \sin^2 \delta_k + ( \omega / \omega_c )^2 ( 3 \rho^2 + 4 )} \; , \label{eqn:vghi}
\end{equation} \end{widetext} recalling $\rho = \tan (2 \delta_k)$. Equation~(\ref{eqn:vglo}) can be derived from textbook electrodynamics, while Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:vghi}) is a contribution of this investigation taking into account $\uvec{k}_{-}$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{figE.eps}%
\caption{\label{fig:E}(Color online.) Shown are the unit vectors giving the directions of propagation $\mbf{k}_{+}$ and decay $\mbf{k}_{-}$ as a function of the frequency ratio for various values of $\rho_0$ indicated to the lower left of each panel. The $(x,y,z)$ components are displayed as $\square$, $\bigcirc$, and $\lozenge$ respectively.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{figF.eps}%
\caption{\label{fig:F}(Color online.) Shown on the left are the wavelength $\lambda_\omega$ as $\square$ and the skin depth $\lambda_\sigma$ as $\lozenge$ in units of the vacuum wavelength $\lambda_0$ as a function of the frequency ratio for various $\rho_0$ indicated to the upper right of each panel. On the right are the phase speed $c_\omega$ as $\square$ and the group speed $v_\omega$ as $\lozenge$ in units of the vacuum light speed $c_0$.}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
In discussing the significance of these results, let us begin by enumerating some of the many effects neglected by this analysis. By using the vacuum values for permittivity and permeability $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$, one has ignored both the electric and magnetic atomic polarizability of the ions. Obviously these effects will have an impact on the evaluation of the wave number $\wt{k}$ and all quantities derived therefrom. For that reason we are not overly concerned by the appearance of a group speed in excess of the vacuum light speed at this stage in the development of the theory. When the atomic polarizabilities can by absorbed into scalar relative permittivity and permeability $\epsilon$ and $\mu$, one simply replaces the vacuum expressions with those values; however, in a magnetized plasma, those quantities are usually defined as gyrotropic tensors derived from the equations of motion.
The motion of the ions is neglected throughout these derivations. To the extent that the ion and electron motions decouple, one can repeat the analysis for $\mbf{J} = e n_i \mbf{V}_i$ over a range of frequencies around the ion cyclotron frequency to yield a ``slow'' partner to the ``fast'' mode derived above for the electrons. As the ions (are assumed to) carry positive charge, their motion couples to electromagnetic oscillations of opposite circular polarization to that for electrons.\cite{wallace-196} The most interesting case of course is when both electrons and ions are allowed to flow. In that situation their combined flow can be decomposed into net current and momentum oscillations $\wt{\mbf{J}}$ and $\wt{\mbf{K}}$ coupled through the equations of motion. One expects that low frequencies will excite mostly momentum waves, whereas high frequencies should drive mostly current waves, with separate transition frequencies for positive and negative helical polarization.
An important effect neglected here is the possibility of temporal and spatial variation to the electron density, as well as the presence of sources or sinks of current, $(\dsub{t} + \mbf{V}_e \cdot \nabla) n_e = \dot{n}_e - (\nabla \cdot \mbf{V}_e) n_e$. It is the effect of a net charge density, after all, which pushes current around a source driven wire; Hernandes and Assis\cite{PRE-046611} give an example of its derivation in the steady state and Jefimenko\cite{jefimenko-19} gives an example of its measurement. In Lorenz gauge, the net charge density $j$ couples to the scalar potential $a$ through the same d'Alembertian operator $- \square^2 a = \mu_0 j$. With respect to the derivation of the (electron) plasma frequency $\omega_p = n_e e^2 m_e \epsilon_0$, a non-vanishing $j$ should allow for the coupling of the electron fluid to electromagnetic oscillations of linear polarization in addition to the circular polarization described here. In this context, it might be beneficial to decompose the statement of net momentum conservation Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:netforce}) in terms of the Maxwell stress tensor\cite{mansuripur-1619,rwj-jpp03} so that the components of the macroscopic Lorentz force can be identified.
As the only external potential apparent in the theory is that of the background field $\mbf{B}_0$, what we have derived is essentially a model for resonance within the electron fluid, not its response to a driving potential at arbitrary frequency. In order to describe the plasma response to an external device, such as a radio frequency antenna, the potential from that device must be calculated and included explicitly in the mathematics. For the common configuration of a plasma confined by a cylindrical vessel,\cite{chen-123507,palmer-0609,kwon-045021} one also must be explicit with the transition from conductive to dielectric material at the boundary such that $n_e \rightarrow 0$. Nonetheless, the model derived here is based upon the same simplifying approximations as commonly used in the theoretical description of such devices\cite{chen-173,chen-174,yano-063501,yano-033510} and sheds some light on the electromagnetic behavior of ionized material.
What we have learned is that one need not neglect the nonlinear term in the equation of motion to find an analytic solution when the ion contribution is included as a constraint relating the electron flow to the potential it generates. Working with the electromagnetic potential, neither is Gauss's law neglected; rather, it is the possible occurrence of a net charge density which is neglected in the neutral fluid approximation. Our main result is that propagation occurs in an ionized medium under the given conditions only for a range of frequencies below the electron cyclotron resonance when the conductivity is sufficiently low that the displacement current outweighs the conduction current. For a highly conductive medium, the skin depth dominates the wavelength such that the amplitude of oscillation is attenuated. Below the cyclotron resonance the propagation and decay vectors point along the normal to the flow plane, whereas above the resonance they point in different directions while still respecting continuity.
\section{Conclusion}
In closing, we hope that this article has contributed to the understanding of the analysis of dispersion in an ionized medium subject to a background magnetic field. The solution presented here satisfies the classical Maxwell equations, which may be expressed succinctly in terms of geometric forms\cite{ryder-qft,naka-798212} as ${\mrm{d} \star \mrm{d} A = J}$ for ${\mrm{d} \mrm{d} A \equiv 0}$, as well as both the ion and electron equations of motion under the given simplifying approximations. From the plane wave expansion one should be able to construct solutions of arbitrary geometry. The nonlinear coupling of the electron flow to its own potential leads to a model which specifies a relation between the frequency of oscillation and the inclination of the propagation vector from the plane normal to the background field. The circulatory flow given by the vector phasor describes the magnetization of the electron fluid in the presence of a propagating electromagnetic oscillation.
To describe systems of physical interest, this model must be extended to a multispecies formalism which allows the ions to flow, incorporates the effects of intraspecies collisions through the thermal stress tensors, and accounts for a net charge density. Nonetheless, this simplified model reveals some interesting physics, namely that the propagation of electromagnetic radiation in a uniform plasma subject to a constant magnetic field induces a rotation of the magnetization away from the axis of the background field. The ratio of oscillation and cyclotron frequencies determines the inclination of the propagation vector, which is orthogonal to the plane of flow when that ratio is less than unity. The solution decays in space according to the ratio of free to displacement current, which depends upon the conductivity of the medium and the frequency of oscillation.
The motivation for this investigation is the question of whether helicon waves really exist, to which our answer is yes, they do exist, just not the ones given by previous derivations. Working in the potential formulation simplifies the analysis by reducing the electromagnetic sector to its physical degrees of freedom, so that the nonlinear self-interaction between the plasma current and the potential it generates can be addressed in the equation of motion. Under the stated conditions, an analytic solution can be found to the nonlinear system of equations describing resonance within the electron fluid of a uniform, stationary plasma subject to a constant background magnetic field.
\makeatletter
\@ifundefined{linenumbers}{}{
\nolinenumbers
}
\makeatother
|
\section{Introduction}
\section{Introduction}
The concept of inertial reference system underlies all classical and modern physics \cite{gal}.
The assumption of the existence of at least two such reference systems in an isotropic space leads
inevitably to the existence of an infinite set of such systems moving
with constant velocities with respect to one another\footnote[1]{To avoid confusion,
we call the velocity of a certain point
(the reference point for spatial distances) the velocity of reference system motion.}
The laws of nature must be formulated in terms that are covariant under transformations from one
inertial system to another. It is interesting to determine the general form of transformations between
arbitrary inertia reference systems, which also leads to determining the general form of spaces in which
such reference systems exist.
Since the first years of existence of the special theory of relativity, it has been known
\cite{von1}-\cite{c1}, that the Lorentz transformation is the most general {\it linear}
transformation of such type, and the Minkowski space is the corresponding space. An arbitrary constant $c$
having the dimension of velocity arises (is not postulated!) in deriving these transformations.
Fock showed \cite{fock} that a linear fractional transformation is the most general form of such transformations.
He also showed that requiring that the transformations be linear is equivalent to postulating that a certain
velocity $c$ must be constant, which agrees with requiring that the Maxwell equations be invariant.
Based on the Fock papers, the explicit forms of such linear fractional transformations were constructed
in \cite{man},\cite{man2} It turned out that these transformations contained not only
the constant $c$ but also a certain constant $R$ of the dimension of length; in this case, $c$
turned out to be invariant but not constant.
These results were confirmed from other standpoints by several authors
\cite{step1} -\cite{mag}.
The local invariance of the Maxwell equations in this case was obtained automatically because the locally
linear fractional transformations coincided with ordinary Lorentz transformations.
The space in which the Fock-Lorentz linear fractional transformations are applicable differs from the Minkowski space,
although the algebra of symmetry generators of such a space coincides with that of the Poincar\'e group.
This space (the $R$ space in what follows)
can be obtained from the Minkowski space by the simple transformation
\be
{\bf r}\Rightarrow \frac{{\bf r}R}{tc},
\hspace{20pt}
{t}\Rightarrow -\frac{R^2}{tc^2}. \label{rt}
\ee
In the case of such a transformation, the quantity ${\bf v}^2/c^2$, which is standard for many
equalities of the special theory of relativity becomes $({\bf r}-{\bf v}t)^2/R^2.$
One of the integrals of motion for $N$ free point particles in the special theory of relativity
$$
E=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\frac{m_nc^2 }{ \sqrt{1-{{\bf v}_n^2/ c^2}}}
$$
becomes
\be
E\approx\sum_{n=1}^{N} m_nc^2+
\sum_{n=1}^{N}m_n\frac{{\bf v}_n^2}{ 2}. \label{kin}
\ee
in the nonrelativistic limit $v\ll c$.
A similar integral in the $R$ space has the form
$$
E=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\frac{m_nR^2 }{ \sqrt{1-{({\bf r}_n- {\bf v}_nt)^2/ R^2}}}
$$
and becomes
\be
E\approx \sum_{n=1}^{N}m_nR^2+\sum_{n=1}^{N}
m_n\frac{({\bf r}_n-
{\bf v}_nt)^2}{ 2}. \label{er}
\ee
in the ``noncosmological'' limit $|\vr-\vv t|\ll R$.
It seems that this expression is not related to the ordinary nonrelativistic kinematics.
Indeed, the conservation of the quantity
\be
\sum_{n=1}^{N}
m_n({\bf r}_n-
{\bf v}_nt) \label{g}
\ee
in the nonrelativistic kinematics is obvious: it results from the symmetry under the group
of homogeneous Galilei transformations ${\bf r}'={\bf r}+{\bf v}t,$ $t'=t$
and means that the velocity of motion of the center of mass of the system of material points is constant.
But the conservation of quantity $(\ref{g})$ does not imply that the sum of the squares in the right-hand side of
$(\ref{er})$ is preserved. Nevertheless, quantity $(\ref{er})$ is conserved in elastic collisions of point particles.
Because quantity $(\ref{kin})$ becomes $(\ref{er})$ under transformation $(\ref{rt}),$ the conservation
of quantity $(\ref{er})$ must be related to the symmetry transformation obtained from time shifts by transformation
$(\ref{rt}):$
\be
t'=t+t_0;\quad \vr'=\vr \quad \Longrightarrow \quad
t'=\frac{tt_0}{ t+t_0};\quad \vr'=\vr \frac{t_0}{ t+t_0}. \label{in}
\ee
The free-motion trajectory of a point particle from the initial point ${\bf r}_0$ with the velocity ${\bf v}_0$
has the form
${\bf r}(t ) = {\bf r}_0
+ {\bf v}_0t$.
This equation can be rewritten as ${\bf r}/t = {\bf v}_0 + {\bf
r}_0/t$.
In such a representation, $t$ and the coordinate ${\bf r}$ are replaced with $1/t$ and ${\bf r}/t,$
the initial values
of the coordinate and velocity are interchanged, but the trajectory remains straight. Consequently,
these new variables ${\bf r}/t$ and $1/t$ satisfy the same equations as the old ones ${\bf r}$ and $t$.
Such a symmetry of the nonrelativistic motion of free point particles indeed exists. It was shown in \cite{Sreed}
that the maximum continuous symmetry group for nonrelativistic inertial motion is 12-dimensional.
Here, we consider spaces in which the relativistic inertial motion has symmetries similar to (\ref{in}).
In Sec. 2, we determine the maximum symmetry group for nonrelativistic inertial motion, namely,
an extended Galilei group. This section is methodological. Here, we introduce notions required
for the further exposition.
In Sec.~3, we present two methods for deforming subalgebras of the algebra of the extended Galilei
group introduced in Sec.~2. These deformations lead to either the algebra of the Poincar\'e group and
the Minkowski space or to the algebra of the alternative (second) Poincar\'e group containing the
Fock--Lorentz linear fractional transformations and, consequently, to the R space. The Fock--Lorentz
linear fractional transformations are transformations in the coordinate space. In \cite{45}, similar
transformations were applied to the momentum space with an invariant parameter of the dimension of
energy, which can be regarded as the Planck energy. But problems in interpreting the transformations
for the system of particles arise if this approach is used.
In Sec.~4, we present the combined deformation of the Galilei algebra leading to the algebra of the
symmetry group of the anti--de~Sitter space in Beltrami coordinates. Various versions of the relativistic
kinematics related to the de Sitter and anti--de~Sitter space in Beltrami coordinates were previously
considered in detail in \cite{41}--\cite{48}. But the relation between the symmetry of the anti-de Sitter space
and the Fock--Lorentz transformations and the corresponding symmetry group was not established previously.
We present a possible interpretation of our results in the conclusion.
\section{Maximum symmetry group of nonrelativistic inertial motion} \label{eg}
It is well known that the equations of motion for free nonrelativistic particles in a
$d$-dimensional space are invariant under the continuous group ${\cal G}_0$ of transformations
consisting of shifts of the time reference point $T$ and the static Galilei group
$$ G = SO(d) \ltimes ( P_d \otimes K_d )$$
the semidirect product of $SO(d)$ (the group of $d$--dimensional rotations without reflections) and the group
$P_d$ of $d$--dimensional translations and the group $K_d.$ of homogeneous direct Galilei transformations.
Because $T$ commutes with $SO(d),$ the complete group can be written as
$$ {\cal G}_0 = (T\otimes SO(d))\ltimes (P_d \otimes K_d ). $$
What is the maximum continuous invariance group for the motion
of nonrelativistic free point particles? The answer to this question
can be obtained by directly solving the Killing equations for the action
\be
S = \sum_{n=1}^N\frac{m_n}{ 2}\int \left(\frac{d{\bf r}_n}{ dt}\right)^2~dt.
\label{o}
\ee
We consider one-parameter infinitesimal transformations of coordinates and time:
\be
t' = t + \varepsilon T({\bf r},t),\hspace{100pt} \label{d}
\ee
\be
r'_i = r_i + \varepsilon X_i({\bf r},t),\, \, \,
\, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \,
i = 1, \cdots, d.
\label{t}
\ee
We obtain equations for the functions $T({\bf r},t)$ and $X_i({\bf r},t)$
from the invariance condition for action (\ref{o}) up to a constant:
\be
\frac{1}{2}\left({\dot{\bf r}}\right)^2
\left(
{\partial_t T} + {\partial_j T }
{\dot{r}_j}
\right) -
{\dot{r}_i}\left(
{\partial_t X_i } + {\partial_j X_i }
{\dot{r}_j} \right) =
{\partial_t F } +
{\partial_i F}{\dot{r}_i}, \label{ch}
\ee
where $F({\bf r},t)$ is an arbitrary function of coordinates and time.
Here and hereafter, the summation over the repeated subscripts
$i, j, k,\dots$ is assumed, and we use the notation
$$
\partial_i\equiv \frac{\partial }{ \partial r_i},\hspace{20pt}
\partial_t\equiv \frac{\partial }{ \partial t},\hspace{20pt}
\dot{f}\equiv \frac{df }{ dt}.
$$
Separating coefficients of the same powers of ${\dot{r}_i}$ in (\ref{ch})
we obtain the system of equations
$$
{\partial_t F } = 0; \hspace{5mm}
{\partial_i T } = 0; \hspace{5mm}
{\partial_t X_i } = {\partial_i F };
\hspace{5mm}
\frac{1}{ 2}\delta_{ij}{\partial_t T} =
{\partial_j X_i }.
$$
The general solution of this system is
\be
F({\bf r}) = \frac{1}{ 2} c_1 {\bf r}^2 + c_4;
\hspace{5mm}
T(t) = 2c_2t - c_1t^2 + c_3;
\hspace{5mm}
{\bf X}({\bf r},t)= (c_2 - c_1t){\bf r}, \label{p}
\ee
where $c_1, c_2, c_3, c_4$ are arbitrary constants.
If solution (\ref{p})) is taken into account,
then the generators of transformations (\ref{d}), (\ref{t}) become
\bea
c_1\Longrightarrow
&
\hspace{20pt}
& A= t r_i{\partial_i } + t^2{\partial_t }.
\label{sh}
\\
c_2\Longrightarrow &
\hspace{10mm}
& M = - r_i{\partial_i } - 2 t
{\partial_t };
\label{se}
\\
c_3\Longrightarrow &
\hspace{10mm}
&H = - {\partial_t};
\label{vo}
\eea
The commutation relations of generators (\ref{sh})--(\ref{vo})
$$
[M,H] = 2H; \hspace{15mm} [M,A] =- 2A; \hspace{15mm} [H,A] = M,
$$
indicate the $SL(2,R)$ symmetry group.
Indeed, the corresponding final transformations
\bea
A \Longrightarrow &
\hspace{30pt}
&t' = \frac{t }{ 1 + at};
\hspace{35pt}
r'_i = \frac{r_i}{ 1 +
at},
\label{de}
\\
M \Longrightarrow &
\hspace{30pt}
&t' = (1+m)^2t;
\hspace{20pt}
r_i' = (1+m)r_i;
\label{des}
\\
H \Longrightarrow &
\hspace{30pt}
&t' = t+ h;
\hspace{40pt}
r_i' = r_i;
\label{oo}
\eea
can be represented in the general form
\be
t'=\frac{\alpha t + \beta }{ \gamma t + \delta};
\hspace{5mm}
r'_i = \frac{r_i }{ \gamma t + \delta};
\hspace{5mm}
\alpha \delta - \beta \gamma = 1. \label{od}
\ee
Using the Noether theorem, we obtain the conserved quantities
\bea
&
&{\cal A} = \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{n=1}^Nm_n(t\dot{\bf r}_n-{\bf r}_n)^2,
\label{9a} \\
&
&{\cal M} =
\sum_{n=1}^Nm_n(t\dot{\bf r}_n-{\bf r}_n)\dot{\bf r}_n,
\label{10a} \\
&
&{\cal H} = \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{n=1}^Nm_n{\dot{\bf r}_n}^2,
\label{11a}
\eea
corresponding to these transformations.
Considering transformations similar to (\ref{d}) and (\ref{t}) but with vector
$\varepsilon_i$
or tensor $\varepsilon_{ij}$ parameters, we respectively obtain the group
of spatial translations and homogeneous Galilei transformations
or the group of rotations and represent the conserved quantities in the forms
\be
{\bf P} =
\sum_{n=1}^N m_n\dot{\bf r}_n,
\label{9b}
\ee
\be
{\bf K} =
\sum_{n=1}^N m_n(t\dot{\bf r}_n-{\bf r}_n),
\label{10b}
\ee
\be
{\bf J_{ij}} =
\sum_{n=1}^N m_n\left((\dot{\bf r}_n)_i
(t\dot{\bf r}_n-{\bf r}_n)_j-
(\dot{\bf r}_n)_j(t\dot{\bf r}_n-{\bf r}_n)_i\right).
\label{11b}
\ee
The nonstandard representation for angular momentum $(\ref{11b})$
is introduced to stress that all conserved quantities
$(\ref{9a})$--$(\ref{11b})$ turn out to be linear or quadratic
functions of the kinematic quantities
$\dot{\bf r}_n$ and ${\bf r}_{0n}={\bf r}_n - t\dot{\bf r}_n.$
The final result is as follows: the maximum invariance group for the nonrelativistic
inertial motion of point particles is the group of the dimension $(d^2+3d+6)/2$
(the 12-dimensional group in the three-dimensional space)
$$
{\cal G} =
(SL(2,R)\otimes SO(d)) \ltimes (P_d \otimes K_d ).
$$
This result was first published in
\cite{O'Raif}, \cite{Sreed}, although it was established as long as thirty years ago \cite{Sch}--\cite{Sch3}
that the group ${\cal G}$ is the maximum symmetry group of solutions of the free
Schr\"odinger equation.
It is interesting that the invariance under transformation (\ref{od})
was observed previously in various physical problems.
The closest example is the nonrelativistic
motion of a charged point particle in the field of an infinitely
heavy monopole \cite{monopol}.
For the subsequent discussion, we note that the group $SL(2,R)$
of transformations contains not only ordinary time shifts (\ref{oo}) with the generator
$H$ but also ``inverse'' time shifts (\ref{de}) produced by the generator $A:$
\be
\frac{1}{ t'}=\frac{1}{ t}+a;
\hspace{10mm}
\frac{{\bf r}'}{ t'}=\frac{{\bf r}}{ t}.\label{AA}
\ee
In addition, we consider the one-parameter subgroup $SO(2)$ of $SL(2,R),$
generated by
\be
B\equiv \tau H-\frac{1}{ \tau}A,\label{B}
\ee
where we introduce an arbitrary constant $\tau\ne 0.$
The final transformations corresponding to the generator
$B$ have the forms
\be
t'=\tau\frac{t\cos \alpha -
\tau\sin \alpha }{ t\sin \alpha + \tau\cos \alpha};
\hspace{10mm}
{\bf r}'=\tau\frac{{\bf r}}{ t\sin \alpha + \tau\cos \alpha}. \label{ot}
\ee
This group contains finite cyclic subgroups $C_n,$
consisting of powers of the elements $\sigma_n$ --
rotations through the angles $\alpha = 2\pi/n.$
Among them, the group $C_4,$ consisting of powers of the ``inversion'' $\sigma_4$
(transformation (\ref{ot}) with $\alpha = \pi/2)$ is especially interesting:
\be
\sigma_4:
\hspace{40pt}
t'=-\frac{ \tau^2 }{ t};
\hspace{30pt}
{\bf r}'={\bf r}\frac{\tau}{t};
\hspace{35pt}
\label{och}
\ee
\be
(\sigma_4)^2:
\hspace{33pt}
t'=t;
\hspace{48pt}
{\bf r}'=-{\bf r};
\hspace{46pt}
\label{op}
\ee
\be
(\sigma_4)^3:
\hspace{33pt}
t'=-\frac{ \tau^2 }{ t};
\hspace{28pt}
{\bf r}'=-{\bf r}\frac{\tau}{ t}.
\hspace{35pt}
\label{osh}
\ee
We note that $(\sigma_4)^2=\sigma_2$ is the operation of reflection of
spatial coordinates. Discrete operation (\ref{op}) is usually added to the group $SO(d),$
of rotations; the group $O(d)$ is thus obtained. Our analysis shows that the discrete transformation
(in the usual Galilei space-time) of "parity" (reflection of spatial coordinates) is contained in the
continuous group $SL(2,R).$
We introduce the discrete operation $\tilde{\sigma},$ of time reversal:
\be
t'=-t, \hspace{10mm} {\bf r}'={\bf r}.
\label{ose}
\ee
It is hence clear that the symmetry transformations constructed
above are realized in the Mobius space and not in the usual
nonrelativistic space-time. The operation $\tilde{\sigma}$
is not contained in the group $SL(2,R),$ but is a symmetry of action (\ref{o}).
The point is that the group ${\cal G}$ was constructed above as the maximum
{\it continuous} invariance group of action (\ref{o}).
We multiply an arbitrary element $\Sigma\in SL(2,R)$
by $\tilde{\sigma}:$
$$
\widetilde{\Sigma}= \tilde{\sigma}\Sigma.
$$
Because $\tilde{\sigma}^2=I,$ the elements
$\widetilde{\Sigma}$ form the group
$\widetilde{SL}(2,R)=\Z_2\otimes SL(2,R)$
), and the complete maximum symmetry group has the form
$$
{\widetilde{\cal G}} = SO(d) \ltimes (\widetilde{SL}(2,R))
\ltimes (P_d \otimes K_d)).
$$
We note that integrals of motion (\ref{9a})--(\ref{11b}) transform into
each other (up to the sign and dimensional factors,
powers of the parameter $\tau$) or remain unchanged under the transformations $(\sigma_4)^n$ and
$\tilde{\sigma}(\sigma_4)^n.$
\bigskip
\section{Symmetry group of relativistic inertial motion}
\label{Poincare}
It is almost obvious that some of the above symmetries of inertial motion
are violated in the passage to the relativistic case. If the Killing
equation for the action
\be
S = -\sum_{n=1}^N m_n c^2\int \sqrt{1-\frac{\dot{\bf r}_n^2}{ c^2}}~dt, \label{ovo}
\ee
describing the motion of a relativistic free point particle is solved, then it
is easy to obtain the well-known result: the maximum invariance group of action (\ref{ovo})
�is the Poincar\'e group, the semidirect product of the Lorentz group � $O(d,1)$
and the group of space-time translations
$P_d \otimes T.$
The discrete transformations of spatial coordinate reflection and time reversal are contained in the group $O(d,1).$
). The extension of the symmetry under time shifts up to $SL(2,R),$
as in the case of the Galilei group, is not realized here.
We consider the ``relativization'' procedure for the Galilei group
${\cal G}_0$
up to the Poincar\'e group. We represent the generators of the group ${\cal G}_0$ in the forms
\be
K_i = t {\partial_i};
\hspace{10mm}
P_i= -{\partial_i };
\hspace{10mm}
H=-{\partial_t};
\hspace{10mm}
J_i=-\varepsilon_{ijk}{r_j\partial_k },
\label{ode}
\hspace{10mm}
\ee
Here and hereafter, the space is three-dimensional $(d=3),$
and the tensor generators ${J_{ij}}$ of the rotation group can therefore be represented in the form of the pseudovector
${J_i\equiv \varepsilon_{ijk} J_{jk}}.$
The algebra of these generators has the form
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
\, [J_i, J_j]=\ve_{ijk} J_k;&
[J_i, K_j]=\ve_{ijk} K_k;&
[J_i, P_j]=\ve_{ijk} P_k;\\
\, [J_i, H] = 0; &
[K_i, H] = -P_i; &
[P_i, H] = 0; \\
\,
[P_i, P_j] = 0; &
[P_i, K_j] = 0;
&
[K_i, K_j] = 0.
\end{array}
$$
The passage to the Poincar\'e group is related to replacing the homogeneous
Galilei transformation with the homogeneous Lorentz transformation,
which is equivalent to replacing the generator $K_i$ with the generator
\be
L_i = t \partial_i +
\frac{1}{ c^2}r_i \partial_t, \label{dvo}
\ee
where we introduce the constant $c$ with the dimension of velocity.
Just the algebra of generators $\{J_i; L_i; P_i; H\}$ is
the algebra of the Poincar\'e group (the first Poincar\'e algebra below):
$$
\hspace{1pt}[J_i, J_j]=\ve_{ijk} J_k;
\hspace{20pt}[J_i, L_j]=\ve_{ijk} L_k;
\hspace{20pt}[J_i, P_j]=\ve_{ijk} P_k;
\hspace{29pt}
$$
$$
\hspace{2pt}[J_i, H] = 0;
\hspace{43pt}[L_i, H] = -P_i;
\hspace{31pt}[P_i, H] = 0;
\hspace{53pt}
$$
$$
\hspace{10pt}[P_i, P_j] = 0;
\hspace{40pt}[P_i, L_j] = \frac{1}{ c^2}\delta_{ij}H;
\hspace{17pt}[L_i, L_j] = -\frac{1}{ c^2}\ve_{ijk}J_k.
\hspace{13pt}
$$
Action (\ref{ovo}) is invariant under the group of transformations produced by
the generators $\{J_i; L_i; P_i; H\},$
and the discrete transformations of time reversal and spatial coordinate reflection.
We note that the complete invariance group for nonrelativistic motion ${\cal G}$
contains not only the subgroup ${\cal G}_0,$
but also a similar subgroup ${\cal G}_1,$ produced by the generators $\{J_i; P_i; K_i; A\}$
with the algebra
$$
\hspace{10pt}[J_i, J_j]=\ve_{ijk} J_k;
\hspace{40pt}[J_i, K_j]=\ve_{ijk} K_k;
\hspace{17pt}[J_i, P_j]=\ve_{ijk} P_k;
\hspace{13pt}
$$
$$
\hspace{-32pt}[J_i, A] = 0;
\hspace{65pt}[K_i, A] = 0;
\hspace{45pt}[P_i, A] = -K_i;
\hspace{-21pt}
$$
$$
\hspace{-22pt}[P_i, P_j] = 0;
\hspace{62pt}[P_i, K_j] = 0;
\hspace{41pt}[K_i, K_j] = 0.
\hspace{-1pt}
$$
This algebra can be deformed to obtain the algebra of the Poincar\'e group by replacing the translations
$P_i$ with the ``inverted'' translations
\be
F_i= -{\partial_i }+\frac{1}{ R^2}(tr_i\partial_t+r_ir_k\partial_k),
\label{dv1}
\ee
where $R$ is a constant with the dimension of length. The term ``inverted'' is used because generator
(\ref{dv1}) is obtained from the generator $L_i$ under the transformation
$\sigma_4$ or $\tilde{\sigma}_4=\tilde{\sigma}\sigma_4$ with the parameter
$\tau=R/c,$ just as all generators of the group ${\cal G}_1$ are obtained from the generators of the group ${\cal G}_0.$
The deformed algebra
$$
\hspace{3pt}[J_i, J_j]=\ve_{ijk} J_k;
\hspace{20pt}[J_i, K_j]=\ve_{ijk} K_k;
\hspace{20pt}[J_i, F_j]=\ve_{ijk} F_k;
\hspace{27pt}
$$
$$
\hspace{1pt}[J_i, A] = 0;
\hspace{45pt}[F_i, A] = -K_i;
\hspace{35pt}[K_i, A] = 0;
\hspace{48pt}
$$
$$
\hspace{13pt}[K_i, K_j] = 0;
\hspace{37pt}[K_i, F_j] = \frac{1}{ R^2}\delta_{ij}A;
\hspace{15pt}[F_i, F_j] = -\frac{1}{ R^2}\ve_{ijk}J_k
\hspace{16pt}
$$
forms the second representation of the algebra of the Poincar\'e group (the second Poincar\'e algebra
below)\footnote[2]{A similar concept of "second Poincar\'e group" was introduced in (\cite{20});
its algebra of generators was obtained as a result of contracting the de Sitter algebra a $R\to 0$.}
The final transformations produced by the generators $F_i$
\be
t'=\frac{t\sqrt{1-{a^2}/{R^2}}}
{1-{({\bf r}{\bf a})}/{R^2}},
\hspace{20pt}
{\bf r}'_{||}=
\frac{{\bf r}_{||}-{\bf a}}
{1-{({\bf r}{\bf a})}/{R^2}},
\hspace{20pt}
{\bf r}'_{\perp}=
\frac{{\bf r}_{\perp}\sqrt{1-{a^2}/{R^2}}}
{1-{({\bf r}{\bf a})}/{R^2}},
\label{zz}
\ee
where we introduce the notation
$$
{\bf r}_{||}={\bf n}{({\bf r}{\bf n})},
\hspace{30pt}
{\bf r}_{\perp}={\bf r} -{\bf r}_{||},
\hspace{30pt}
{\bf n}=\frac{\bf a}{|\bf{a}|},
$$
constitute the Lorentz transformations for the quantities
$$
\tilde{\bf r}=\frac{\bf r}{t};
\hspace{30pt}
\tilde{t}=\frac{R}{t}.
$$
Indeed, it follows from formulas (\ref{zz}) that
\be
\tilde{t}'=\gamma_a
\left(\tilde{t}-{\frac{({\bf a}\tilde{\bf r})}{ R}}\right),
\hspace{20pt}
\tilde{\bf r}'_{||}=\gamma_a
\left(\tilde{\bf r}_{||}-
{\bf a}\tilde{t}\right),
\hspace{20pt}
\tilde{\bf r}'_{\perp}=
\tilde{\bf r}_{\perp},
\label{izz}
\ee
where $\gamma_a^{-1}=\sqrt{1-\frac{a^2}{ R^2}}.$
To construct the action that is invariant under the transformations produced by the generators
$\{J_i; F_i; K_i; A\},$ we take into account that ordinary relativistic action (\ref{ovo}) is
\be
S = -\sum_{n=1}^Nm_nc\int \sqrt{ds_n^2}, \label{18a}
\ee
where
\be
ds_n^2=c^2dt^2-d{\bf r}_n^2. \label{ds}
\ee
The transformation $\sigma_4$ translates linear element (\ref{ds}) �
into that of the $R$ space introduced in
\cite{man}, \cite{man2}
\be
d\tilde{s}^2=\frac{\tau^2}{ t^4}[R^2dt^2-(td{\bf r}-{\bf r}dt)^2],\qquad R\equiv c\tau.
\label{ds2}
\ee
Substituting (\ref{ds2}) in (\ref{18a}), we obtain the action
\be
S = -\sum_{n=1}^Nm_nR^2\int \sqrt{1-\frac{(\dot{\bf r}_nt-
{\bf r}_n)^2}{ R^2}}~\frac{dt}{ t^2}.
\label{slf}
\ee
The invariance of action (\ref{slf}) under the transformations produced by the generators
{$\{J_i ; F_i; K_i;A \},$ } implies the conservation of the quantities
\be
A
\hspace{10pt}
\Rightarrow
\hspace{40pt}
{\cal H}=\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{m_n}{\sqrt{1-(\dot{\bf r}_nt-
{\bf r}_n)^2/R^2}};
\hspace{70pt}
\label{E}
\ee
\be
{K}_i
\hspace{10pt}
\Rightarrow
\hspace{40pt}
{\bf K}= \sum_{n=1}^N\frac{m_n(\dot{\bf r}_nt-{\bf r}_n)}{\sqrt{1-
(\dot{\bf r}_nt-{\bf r}_n)^2/R^2}};
\hspace{70pt}
\label{K}
\ee
\be
F_i
\hspace{10pt}
\Rightarrow
\hspace{40pt}
{\bf P}=
\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{m_n\dot{\bf r}_n}{\sqrt{1-
(\dot{\bf r}_nt-{\bf r}_n)^2/R^2}};
\hspace{70pt}
\label{F}
\ee
\be
J_i
\hspace{10pt}
\Rightarrow
\hspace{40pt}
{\bf J}=
\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{m_n({\bf r}_n-t\dot{\bf r}_n)\times\dot{\bf r}_n}{\sqrt{1-
(\dot{\bf r}_nt-{\bf r}_n)^2/R^2}}.
\hspace{70pt}
\label{J}
\ee
The dispersion relation follows from (\ref{E}) and (\ref{K}):
\be
{\cal H}^2-\frac{{\bf K}^2}{ R^2}=m^2, \label{onsh}
\ee
It can be seen from this relation that in the $R$ space, ${\cal H}$ is the energy and
${\bf K}$ is the momentum of the system of noninteracting point particles.
We note that the free-particle energy is minimum if the relation between
its velocity $v$ and the distance to the observer $r$ is $v=r/t.$
In what follows, such velocities are called the ``Hubble'' velocities.
The velocity of light in this space, i.e., the velocity of a massless particle,
depends on the coordinates, the time, and the propagation direction ${\bf n}$ $({\bf n}^2=1)$
\cite{man}:
\be
{\bf c}({\bf r}, t, {\bf n})=
{\bf n}\frac{R}{ t}
\sqrt{1-\frac{r^2}{ R^2}+\frac{({\bf r}{\bf n})^2}{ R^2}}+{\bf n}\frac{({\bf r}{\bf n})}{ t}.
\label{ct}
\ee
For the magnitude of the velocity of light measured in laboratories (i.e., for $r=0$), we obtain the expression
\be
{\bf c}(0, t, {\bf n})=
{\bf n}\frac{R}{ t}.
\label{ct0}
\ee
Despite the explicit ``dependence'' of the velocity of light on the time, distance,
and direction expressed by formulas
(\ref{ct}), (\ref{ct0})), a particular light pulse propagates along the light cone with a constant velocity.
Neither astrophysical observations of the spectra of remote sources nor optical observations
in ground-based laboratories can, in principle, fix the time dependence of the velocity of light of form (\ref{ct0}),
because at the instant $t_0$ at the point $r=0$
the observer detects the light from the source at the distance $r$ at a certain instant $t<t_0.$ We obtain
$c(r,t)=(R-r)/t$ from equality (\ref{ct}) and $c(0,t_0)=R/t_0$
from (\ref{ct0}). These velocities coincide at $r(t)=R-tR/t_0,$
, which means that the light pulse propagates with a constant velocity $c_0=R/t_0.$
Moreover, we must emphasize that this velocity is the same for all observers at a given point in space-time,
which constitutes the fundamental postulate of the special theory of relativity. We note that equalities
(\ref{slf})--(\ref{onsh}) contain only one universal constant $R,$ with the length dimension.
There is no constant with the dimension of velocity in these relations,
but they fit completely into our concept of relativistic theory.
The space described by formulas (\ref{ds2})--(\ref{ct}),
is symmetric under the Galilei transformations, linear fractional space translations (\ref{zz})
and time reversal translations
(\ref{AA}). If these transformations are combined, then we can construct the transformation of the coordinates between two reference systems moving
with a velocity ${\bf u}$ with respect to each other such
that the coordinate origins coincide at the instant
$t_0.$
Just this coordinate transformation is the Fock-Lorentz linear fractional transformation
\cite{man}, \cite{man2}:
\bea
t'=
\frac
{t}
{\ga_0-\left(\ga_0-1\right)t/t_0-\ga_0
{\vr\uu t_0 }/{R^2}},
\label{F37a}\\
\vr'_{||}=
\frac
{\ga_0\left(\vr_{||}-\uu (t-t_0)\right)}
{\ga_0-\left(\ga_0-1\right)t/t_0-\ga_0
{\vr\uu t_0 /{R^2}}},
\label{F37b} \\
\vr'_{\perp}=
\frac
{\vr_{\perp}}
{\ga_0-\left(\ga_0-1\right)t/t_0-\ga_0
{\vr\uu t_0}/{R^2}}.
\label{F37c}
\eea
$$\ga_0\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-u^2t_{0}^2/R^2}, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,u<R/t_0$$
\section{Combined deformation of the Galilei algebra} \label{comb}
The abovementioned two deformations of the algebra of the Galilei group can be combined.
We consider the algebra of the generators
$\{J_i; F_i; L_i; B=({R}/{c})H-({c}/{R})A\}:$
$$ \hspace{0pt}[J_i, J_j]=\ve_{ijk} J_k;
\hspace{30pt}[J_i,
L_j]=\ve_{ijk} L_k;
\hspace{16pt}[J_i, F_j]=\ve_{ijk} F_k;
\hspace{61pt} $$ $$
\hspace{0pt}[J_i, B] = 0;
\hspace{55pt}[F_i, B] = \frac{c}{ R}L_i;
\hspace{25pt}[L_i, B] = -\frac{R}{ c}F_i;
\hspace{60pt}
$$
$$
\hspace{0pt}[L_i, L_j] = -\frac{1}{ c^2}\ve_{ijk}J_k;
\hspace{9pt}[F_i, L_j] = \frac{1}{ Rc}\delta_{ij}B;
\hspace{5pt}[F_i, F_j] = -\frac{1}{ R^2}\ve_{ijk}J_k.
\hspace{38pt}
$$
The In\"on\"u-Wigner contraction \cite{IW}, \cite{IW2} of the constructed algebra is obvious.
We obtain the first Poincar\'e algebra in the limit
$R\rightarrow \infty$ and the second in the limit $c\rightarrow \infty.$
The presence of two dimensional constants $R,$ $c$
allows making all generators and structure algebraic constants dimensionless.
For this, we introduce the dimensionless representations of the generators
$$
\hat{L}_i=cL_i= ct \partial_i +
\frac{1}{ c}r_i \partial_t,
$$
$$
\hat{F}_i=RF_i=
-R{\partial_i }+\frac{1}{ R}(tr_i\partial_t+r_ir_k\partial_k).
$$
In this representation, the commutation relations become
$$
\hspace{4pt}[J_i, J_j]=\ve_{ijk} J_k;
\hspace{22pt}[J_i, \hat{L}_j]=\ve_{ijk} \hat{L}_k;
\hspace{20pt}[J_i, \hat{F}_j]=\ve_{ijk} \hat{F}_k;
\hspace{24pt}
$$
$$
\hspace{6pt}[J_i, B] = 0;
\hspace{46pt}[\hat{F}_i, B] = \hat{L}_i;
\hspace{41pt}[\hat{L}_i, B] = -\hat{F}_i;
\hspace{36pt}
$$
$$
\hspace{17pt}[\hat{L}_i, \hat{L}_j] = -\ve_{ijk}J_k;
\hspace{10pt}[\hat{F}_i, \hat{L}_j] = \delta_{ij}B;
\hspace{27pt}[\hat{F}_i, \hat{F}_j] = -\ve_{ijk}J_k;
\hspace{27pt}
$$
and constitute the algebra $AdS(3,2)$ of the anti-de Sitter group.
The final transformations of the space-time produced by the generators
$\hat{L}_i$ are ordinary Lorentz transformations, those produced by the generators
$\hat{F}_i$ are equalities (\ref{zz}), and those produced by the generators
$B$ are equalities (\ref{ot}).
We introduce the standard notation for the Lorentz vectors and their products:
$$
x^{\mu}=(ct, {\bf r}),
\hspace{20pt}
a^{\mu}=(a_0, {\bf a}),
\hspace{20pt}
(ax)=a_0ct-{\bf a}{\bf r},
\hspace{20pt}
a^2=a_0^2-{\bf a}^2.
$$
In this notation, an arbitrary combination of transformations
(\ref{ot}) and (\ref{zz}) can be represented in the form
\be
x'^{\mu}=\frac{x^{\mu}-a^{\mu}+(\gamma-1)a^{\mu}[(ax)/a^2-1]}
{\gamma(1+(ax)/R^2)},
\hspace{20pt}
\gamma^{-1}=\sqrt{1-a^2/R^2}.
\label{BF}
\ee
The group property of transformation (\ref{BF})
can be verified by direct calculations. Moreover, transformation
(\ref{BF}) coincides with (\ref{zz}) for $a_0=0$ and with (\ref{B})
for
${\bf a}=0,$ $a_0=c\tau \tg \alpha.$
Squaring equality (\ref{BF}) we obtain
\be
x'^2=\frac{(x-a)^2+[a^2x^2-(ax)^2]/R^2}{(1+(ax)^2/R^2)^2}. \label{sq}
\ee
Setting $a^{\mu}=x^{\mu}+dx^{\mu}$ in(\ref{sq}),
we obtain a quantity that is invariant under the entire group of transformations
$AdS(d,2):$
$$
ds^2=R^2\frac{dx^2(R^2+x^2)-(xdx)^2}{(R^2+x^2)^2}
$$
and in the three-dimensional notation
\be
ds^2=\frac{R^4c^2dt^2}{(R^2+c^2t^2-{\bf r}^2)^2}
\left(
1-\frac{\dot{\bf r}^2}{c^2}-
\frac{(\dot{\bf r}t-{\bf r})^2}{R^2}
+\frac{({\bf r}\times\dot{\bf r})^2}{R^2c^2}
\right).\label{3ds}
\ee
The action for free point particles becomes
\be
S= -\sum_{n=1}^N\int\frac{m_nc^2R^2dt}{(R^2+c^2t^2-{\bf r}_n^2)}
\sqrt{1-\frac{\dot{\bf r}_n^2}{c^2}-
\frac{(\dot{\bf r}_nt-{\bf r}_n)^2}{R^2}
+\frac{({\bf r}_n\times\dot{\bf r}_n)^2}{R^2c^2}}. \label{sads}
\ee
In the limit $c\to \infty$ action (\ref{sads}) transforms into action
(\ref{ds}).
The conserved quantities are similar to (\ref{E})--(\ref{J}):
\be
\hspace{40pt}
{\cal H}=\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{m_n}{
\sqrt{1-{\dot{\bf r}_n^2}/{c^2}-
{(\dot{\bf r}_nt-{\bf r}_n)^2}/{R^2}
+{({\bf r}_n\times\dot{\bf r}_n)^2}/({Rc)^2}}},
\hspace{50pt}\label{Ea}
\ee
\be
\hspace{40pt}
{\bf K}=
\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{m_n(\dot{\bf r}_nt-{\bf r}_n)}{
\sqrt{1-{\dot{\bf r}_n^2}/{c^2}-
{(\dot{\bf r}_nt-{\bf r}_n)^2}/{R^2}
+{({\bf r}_n\times\dot{\bf r}_n)^2}/({Rc)^2}}},
\hspace{50pt}\label{Ka}
\ee
\be
\hspace{40pt}
{\bf P}=
\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{m_n\dot{\bf r}_n}{
\sqrt{1-{\dot{\bf r}_n^2}/{c^2}-
{(\dot{\bf r}_nt-{\bf r}_n)^2}/{R^2}
+{({\bf r}_n\times\dot{\bf r}_n)^2}/({Rc)^2}}},
\hspace{50pt}\label{Fa}
\ee
\be
\hspace{40pt}
{\bf J}=
\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{m_n[{\bf r}_n\times\dot{\bf r}_n]}{
\sqrt{1-{\dot{\bf r}_n^2}/{c^2}-
{(\dot{\bf r}_nt-{\bf r}_n)^2}/{R^2}
+{({\bf r}_n\times\dot{\bf r}_n)^2}/({Rc)^2}}}.
\hspace{50pt}\label{Ja}
\ee
Equalities (\ref{Ea})-(\ref{Ja}) imply the dispersion relation
\be
{\cal H}^2-\frac{{\bf P}^2}{ c^2}-\frac{{\bf K}^2}{ R^2}+\frac{{\bf J}^2}{ c^2R^2}=m^2, \label{dis}
\ee
which transforms into (\ref{onsh}) in the limit $c\to \infty$ and into
the ordinary relation of the traditional theory of relativity in the limit $R\to \infty.$
The equation for light cones can be obtained from (\ref{sads}). In the simple case $\vr=0$
we obtain the speed of light $c(t)$ from the relation
\be
\frac{1}{c(t)^2}=\frac{1}{c^2}+\frac{t^2}{R^2}. \label{cads}
\ee
The limit transition $c\to \infty$ in (\ref{3ds})--(\ref{cads})
leads directly to (\ref{ds2})--(\ref{onsh}).
\section{Conclusions}
At first glance, it seems that the space-time described by relations
(\ref{ds2})--(\ref{ct}) is not related to the surrounding world.
But if we consider spatial regions in a small neighborhood
$|{\bf r}|\ll R,$ of the coordinate origin, time intervals $\Delta t$ in a small neighborhood of a point
$t_0$
($\Delta t \ll t_0$) and velocities
$|\dot{\bf r}|\gg |{\bf r}|/t_0,$
then equalities (\ref{ds2})--(\ref{ct})
transform into the ordinary relations of relativistic physics with the speed of light $c_0\equiv R/t_0.$
�Consequently, the $R$ space can be regarded as a ``cosmological'' generalization of the Minkowski
space if $R$ is set equal to the radius of the visible part of the Universe ($\sim 10^{26}$~�)
and $t_0$ is set to be the time passed after the Big Bang ($\sim 10^{10}$~years or $3\cdot 10^{18}$~�).
In this case, all relativistic formulas of the standard theory of relativity are applicable,
and the corrections to them have the cosmological character: their orders are $r/R,$ $\Delta t/t_0,$
and
$|{\bf r}|/(t_0|\dot{\bf r}|).$ In the last expression, the quantity
$|{\bf r}|/t_0$ is the ``Hubble'' velocity of the point ${\bf r}$.
In this case, all relations of the standard relativistic physics hold if the relativistic body velocities considerably exceed the Hubble velocity.
For obviousness, we note that even at distances of the order of the solar system dimensions ($\sim 10^{12}$~m),
the Hubble velocity is a very small quantity $3\cdot10^{-6}$~m/s), for which relativistic effects are not observed.
If the physics described by formulas (\ref{ds2})--(\ref{ct}),
of the $R$ space is really related to our world, then we must understand what the limit transition $c\to \infty,$
translating the physics of the anti-de Sitter space into that of the $R$ space means. In this case, there is the constant
$R$ and the very large constant $c$ (compared with the observed speed of light $c_0$) in our world, and
the ratio $R/c$ is a small (compared with the Universe's lifetime) but fundamental constant,
which can be equal to the Planck time
\be
t_{PL}=\sqrt{\frac{G\hbar}{c_0^5}},\label{tau}
\ee
which is $10^{60}$ times less than the Universe's lifetime. In this case, the speed of light at a given instant is also
$10^{60}$ times less than the speed of light at the initial instant of the Universe's existence. In this way,
interesting prospects are offered to correct our concepts of the first instants of the Universe's development and to
introduce quantum gravitational parameters into physics at the level of kinematics and not dynamics. Moreover,
the speed $c_0$ in expression (\ref{tau}) --
is the physical speed of light (time dependent in the geometry under consideration).
It hence follows that the constants $\hbar,$ $G$ can also be time dependent. Hence, the Planck length
$l_{PL}=c_0t_{PL}$ for example, is time dependent in this geometry, just as $c_0$ is.
Consequently, the Planck length could be $10^{60}$ times greater in the first instants of the Universe's existence,
i.e., it could coincide with the dimension $R$ of the entire Universe.
{\bf Acknowledgments.} A major part of this work would not have been done without
the constant communications, hot discussions,
and constructive criticism of A.~N.~Vasiliev over the course of many years.
|
\section{Supplementary}
\subsection{Noninteracting strained graphene}
Here we consider noninteracting spinless fermions on the honeycomb lattice (including of spin is straightforward). The triangular Bravais lattice $\bold{r}_{mn}=m \bold{a}_1 + n \bold{a}_2 $ is generated by the basis vectors:
\begin{equation}
\bold{a}_1 =\sqrt{3} a \bold{e}_x \text{ and } \space \bold{a}_2 =\frac{\sqrt{3}a}{2} (\bold{e}_x + \sqrt{3} \bold{e}_y),
\label{basis}
\end{equation}
and the vectors:
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}_1 =\frac{a}{2}(\sqrt{3} \bold{e}_x + \bold{e}_y), \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}_2 =\frac{a}{2}(-\sqrt{3} \bold{e}_x + \bold{e}_y) , \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}_3 =- a \bold{e}_y,
\label{delta}
\end{equation}
connect any A atom to its three nearest B atoms, $a_{0}=0.142$ nm being the length of the carbon-carbon bond. The area of the unit cell is $\mathcal{A}_c =3 \sqrt{3} a_{0}^2 /2$.
\subsection{Strained induced gauge potential}
In the absence of interactions, the tight-binding Hamiltonian of strained graphene (Eq. 1 in the main text) can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\label{hamiltonian0rmn}
H_0 =\sum_{\bold{r}_{mn}} \sum_{a=1,2,3} (t+\delta t_{a} (\bold{r}_{mn})) ( a^\dagger (\bold{r}_{mn}) b (\bold{r}_{mn} + \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}_a) + h.c. ),
\end{equation}
where second quantization operators $a(\bold{r}_{mn})$ and $b(\bold{r}_{mn} + \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}_a)$ annihilate a fermion at A-type and B-type sites respectively. The strain is described by the deformation field $\delta t_{a}(\bold{r}_{mn})$ of the nearest-neighbour hopping element between sites $\bold{r}_{mn}$ and $\bold{r}_{mn} + \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}_a$ with respect to the unperturbed value $t$. Note that the deviations $\delta t_{a}(\bold{r}_{mn})$ are real quantities and must be smaller than $t$.
In the absence of strain ($\delta t_{a}(\bold{r}_{mn})=0$), the lattice Hamiltonian can be easily diagonalized and the low energy excitations correspond to the states close to the two gapless Dirac points ${\bf K}_\xi=\xi (4 \pi/3 \sqrt{3}a_{0}) {\bf e_x}$, where $\xi=\pm$ is the valley isospin. Looking for low energy effective theory, we expand the annihilation operators as:
\begin{equation}
a (\bold{r}_{mn}) = a_{+} (\bold{r}_{mn}) e^{-i \bold{K} .\bold{r}_{mn}} + a_{-} (\bold{r}_{mn}) e^{i \bold{K} .\bold{r}_{mn}},
\label{enveloppe}
\end{equation}
in terms of the slowly-varying fields $ a_{\xi}(\bold{r}_{mn})$ (a similar equation holds for $b_\xi(\bold{r}_{mn})$ operators). Substituting into Eq. \ref{hamiltonian0rmn} and going from lattice to continuum fields as
\begin{equation}\label{continuum}\begin{split}
\sum_{\bold{r}_{mn}} & \rightarrow \int d^2 {\bf x}/\mathcal{A}_c \text{ and } a_{\xi}(\bold{r}_{mn}) \rightarrow \sqrt{\mathcal{A}_c} a_{\xi}(\bold{x}) \text{ and } b_{\xi}(\bold{r}_{mn})\\ & \rightarrow \sqrt{\mathcal{A}_c} b_{\xi}(\bold{x}),
\end{split}\end{equation}
leads to the effective Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
H_0 =v_F \int d^2 {\bf x} \sum_{\xi=\pm} \Psi_\xi^\dag({\bf x}) (\xi p_x^\xi \sigma_x + p_y^\xi \sigma_y) \Psi_{\xi}({\bf x}) ,
\label{hamiltoneffzerostrain}
\end{equation}
where $v_F=3at/2 \hbar$ is the Fermi velocity and $(p_x,p_y)=(-i \hbar \partial_x,-i \hbar \partial_y) $ are the components of the canonical momentum. The Pauli matrices $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ act on the lattice isospinors $\Psi_{\xi}({\bf x})=(a_\xi({\bf x}),b_\xi({\bf x}))$.
In the presence of a slowly varying deformation field $\delta t_{a}(\bold{r}_{mn})=\delta t_{a}(\bold{x})$, the valleys remain decoupled and the effective Hamiltonian reads:
\begin{equation}
H_0 =v_F \int d^2 {\bf x} \sum_{\xi=\pm} \Psi_\xi^\dag({\bf x}) (\xi \Pi_x^\xi \sigma_x + \Pi_y^\xi \sigma_y) \Psi_{\xi}({\bf x}) ,
\label{effectivestrained}
\end{equation}
where $\mbox{\boldmath$\Pi$}^\xi= \textbf{p} + \xi e \textbf{A}$ shows the coupling of the electronic charge $-e$ with a valley-dependent gauge field $\textbf{A}_\xi (\textbf{x})=\xi \textbf{A}(\textbf{x})$ defined by:
\begin{equation}
e v_F (A_x(\textbf{x})+i A_y(\textbf{x}))=\sum_{a=1,2,3} \delta t_{a}(\textbf{x})e^{i \textbf{K}.\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}_a} .
\label{hamilton1}
\end{equation}
More specifically using Eq. \ref{delta}, one obtains the gauge vector potential in terms of the deformation field:
\begin{eqnarray}
e v_F A_x &=& - \frac{1}{2} (\delta t_{1} + \delta t_{2} ) + \delta t_{3}, \nonumber\\
e v_F A_y &=& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} (\delta t_{1} - \delta t_{2} ),
\label{hamilton1}
\end{eqnarray}
where all the position arguments $\textbf{x}$ have been omitted.
\subsection{Example of a deformation pattern and its induced gauge field}
We now consider a particular deformation field where only the bonds along $\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}_3 =- a \bold{e}_y$ are modified according to the pattern
\begin{equation}
(\delta t_{1},\delta t_{2},\delta t_{3})=e v_F B y(0,0,-1).
\end{equation}
According to Eq. 9, the corresponding strain-induced vector potential is the familiar vector potential of the Landau gauge $\bold{A} = -By \bf{e}_x$ describing here a uniform magnetic field $\bold{B}=B \bold{e}_z$ in the valley $\xi=+$, and the opposite field in valley $\xi=-$. In this gauge, the natural geometry is a rectangular one with linear sizes $L_x$ and $L_y$. Due to translational invariance, the system can be infinite in the $x$-direction but the smooth deformation condition ($\delta t_3 \ll t$) brings a limitation on the transverse size $L_y$ because $\delta t_3 $ is growing linearly long the $y$-direction. Assuming $\delta t_{3}(y=0)=0$, then $\delta t_{3}(L_y)=ev_F B L_y$ cannot exceed a reasonable fraction of $t=2 \hbar v_F/3a$ which leads to the condition:
\begin{equation}
L_y \ll \frac{\Phi_0}{\left | B \right |}\frac{1}{a}=\frac{l_B^2}{a}.
\end{equation}
Typically for a magnetic length $l_B=\sqrt{\hbar /e B} \simeq 10$ nm and lattice constant $a_{0} \simeq 0.1$ nm, the ribbon width cannot exceed $500$ nm. The strength of the effective magnetic field $B$ is proportional to the gradient of the hopping amplitude deformation. For a similar global deformation over the whole sample, a narrow ribbon hosts a stronger magnetic field than a broader ribbon.
Note that many other deformation fields lead to the same gauge vector potential,
including $(\delta t_{1},\delta t_{2},\delta t_{3})=e v_F B y(2,0,0)$ or $(\delta t_{1},\delta t_{2},\delta t_{3})=e v_F B y(0,2,0)$.
\subsection{Single electron wavefunctions}
We derive here the wavefunctions for noninteracting Dirac fermions under a
strong pseudo-magnetic field ($\xi B \bold{e}_z$), or more precisely the valley-dependent gauge potential $\textbf{A}_\xi (\textbf{x})=\xi \textbf{A}(\textbf{x})$, which are both opposite fields in the valleys $\xi=\pm$. We choose $B$ positive for definiteness, and denotes $l_B=\sqrt{\hbar /e B}$ the magnetic length. For each valley, we consider the first quantized Hamiltonian corresponding to Eq. \ref{effectivestrained}, namely:
\begin{equation}
h_\xi =v_F \sum_\xi (\xi \Pi_x^\xi \sigma_x + \Pi_y^\xi \sigma_y),
\label{hannex}
\end{equation}
where the components of the gauge-independent momentum $\mbox{\boldmath$\Pi$}^\xi= \textbf{p} + \xi e \textbf{A}$ do not commute due to the presence of the pseudo-magnetic field. Unlike the real magnetic field case, the sign of the commutator:
\begin{gather}
[\Pi_x^\xi,\Pi_y^\xi]=-i \xi \frac{\hbar^2}{l_B^2},
\label{commutator}
\end{gather}
depends on the valley index $\xi$. Hence the ladder operators are defined as
\begin{gather}
a_\xi=\frac{l_B}{\sqrt{2} \hbar}(\Pi_x^\xi -i \xi \Pi_y^\xi),
\label{ladder}
\end{gather}
in order to enforce the proper commutation relation $[a_\xi,a_\xi^\dag]=1$. The Hamiltonian can be written as:
\begin{equation}
h_\xi=\xi \frac{\hbar v_F \sqrt{2}}{l_B}%
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & a_\xi \\
a_\xi^\dag & 0
\end{pmatrix}%
. \label{hmatrix}
\end{equation}%
We now focus on the zero energy Landau level. The corresponding wave function in the $\xi$-valley is $(0,v_\xi)$ with $a_\xi v_\xi =0$. Hence in the zero energy level, single electron wavefunctions are finite only on one triangular sublattice, here the B-atoms sublattice (since we have chosen the field strength $B$ to be positive). This is a general property valid for any strain-induced gauge field on the graphene lattice.
Now we give explicitly the wavefunctions for the Landau gauge field ${\bf{A}}=-By \bf{e}_x$. Then the equation $a_\xi v_\xi =0$ reads:
\begin{gather}
\left [ (-i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}-eB\xi y)-\xi \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \right] v_\xi(x,y)=0,
\label{groundstate}
\end{gather}
and substituting $v_\xi(x,y)=f_\xi(y)e^{ikx}$ in it, we get
\begin{equation}
\left( \frac{d}{dy}+\frac{y-\xi k l_B^2}{l_B^2} \right)f_\xi (y)=0.
\label{eqdiff}
\end{equation}
Finally the normalized wavefunction is:
\begin{gather}
v_\xi (x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi^{1/2} L_x l_B}} e^{- \frac{1}{2 l_B^2} (y-\xi k l_B^2)^2} e^{ikx} .
\label{eqdiff}
\end{gather}
Those wavefunctions correspond to the continuum model. For the numerical calculations performed on the honeycomb lattice and discussed in the main text, the wavefunctions are different from Eq. \ref{eqdiff} and have to be determined numerically using lattice model with pseudo magnetic field.
Nevertheless for the $n=0$-Landau level, there is a simple procedure to get the wavefunctions in the pseudo gauge field $\xi \bf{A}$ from the ones in the usual valley-independent gauge field $\bf{A}$. As said before for the real magnetic field, the $(\xi=+)$-valley wavefunctions have predominant weight on B atoms, and $(\xi=-)$-valley wavefunctions on A atoms. To get the corresponding wavefunctions in a pseudo magnetic field, one has simply to i) keep the former $(\xi=+)$-valley wavefunctions on B atoms without any change, ii) remove the wavefunctions on A sites and finally iii) add complex conjugates of B sites wavefunctions.
\subsection{Effect of interactions}
Here we will consider the projection of density-density interactions of the form $H_I=\sum_{\textbf{r},\textbf{r'}} V(\textbf{r}-\textbf{r'})n(\textbf{r})n(\textbf{r'})$ into the $n=0$ PLL which then would have the form:
\begin{equation}
H^{n=0}_I=\sum_{P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4,\sigma,\sigma'} V_{P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4}\ c^\dagger_{\sigma,P_1} c^\dagger_{\sigma',P_2} c_{\sigma',P_3} c_{\sigma,P_4},
\end{equation}
where $c^\dagger_{P,\sigma}$ is the creation operator of fermion in state $P=\{\xi,k\}$ which is in valley $\xi$ and Landau orbital $k$ (see eqn. \ref{eqdiff}).
Using the continuum model derived in the last section we get the the projected potential:
\begin{equation}\label{project}\begin{split}
& V_{P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4} =\left(\frac{g^2 a^2}{L_x\ l}\right)^2 \int d\textbf{r} d\textbf{r}' V(\textbf{r}-\textbf{r}') (-i)^{\xi_3+\xi_4-\xi_1-\xi_2} \\ & e^{-\frac{1}{4 l^2}\left[ (k_1 l^2-y)^2+(k_2 l^2-y')^2+(k_3 l^2-y')^2+(k_4 l^2-y)^2 \right]} \\
& e^{i\frac{4\pi}{3a} \left[ (\xi_1-\xi_4)x+(\xi_2-\xi_3)x' \right]}\ e^{-i\left[(k_1\ \xi_1-k_4\ \xi_4)x+(k_2\ \xi_2-k_3\ \xi_3)x'\right]},
\end{split}\end{equation}
where $g=\left(\frac{3}{64\pi}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}$. We can now consider different interaction potentials.
If the interaction is smooth the dominant interaction term has $\xi_1=\xi_4$ and $\xi_2=\xi_3$.
There are two polarized states which will be particularly of our interest. valley $|\psi_V\rangle =\Pi_k c^\dagger_{1,k,\uparrow}c^\dagger_{1,k,\downarrow}$ or spin $|\psi_S\rangle =\Pi_k c^\dagger_{1,k,\uparrow}c^\dagger_{-1,k,\uparrow}$ polarized states. The energy of these states have the general form of:
\begin{equation}\label{valleypl}\begin{split}
E_{V} =\sum_{\{p_1,1\},\{p_2,1\},\sigma,\sigma'} & V_{\{p_1,1\},\{p_2,1\},\{p_2,1\},\{p_1,1\}}\\ & -V_{\{p_1,1\},\{p_2,1\},\{p_1,1\},\{p_2,1\}}\delta_{\sigma,\sigma'},
\end{split}\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{spinpl}\begin{split} E_{S} =\sum_{\{p_1,\xi_1\},\{p_2,\xi_2\}} & V_{\{p_1,\xi_1\},\{p_2,\xi_2\},\{p_2,\xi_2\},\{p_1,\xi_1\}}\\ &-V_{\{p_1,\xi_1\},\{p_2,\xi_2\},\{p_1,\xi_1\},\{p_2,\xi_2\}}\delta_{\xi_1,\xi_2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Coulomb interaction}
Putting the Coulomb interaction $V({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j)n({\bf r}_i)n({\bf r}_j)=e^2n({\bf r}_i)n({\bf r}_j)/4 \pi \epsilon|\bf r_i - \bf r_j|$ in projection \ref{project}:
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
V_{P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4} =& \left(\frac{g^2 a^2}{L_x\ l}\right)^2 \int d\textbf{r} d\textbf{r}' \frac{q^2}{|\textbf{r}-\textbf{r}'|} \\ & e^{-\frac{1}{2 4l^2}\left[ (k_1 l^2-y)^2+(k_2 l^2-y')^2+(k_3 l^2-y')^2+(k_4 l^2-y)^2 \right]} \\ & e^{-i\left[\xi_1(k_1-k_4)x+\xi_2(k_2-k_3)x'\right]}
\end{split}\end{equation}
For neutral graphene the $n=0$ PLL is at half filling. The interactions naturally prefers the polarized state of valley or spin degrees of freedom. Using \ref{spinpl} the energy of spin polarized state is given by:
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
E_{S} =\sum_{p_1,p_2} & \left(\frac{g^2 a^2}{L_x\ l}\right)^2 L_x
\int d(x-x')\ \ dy dy' \frac{q^2}{\sqrt{(x-x')^2+(y-y')^2}} \\ & 2\left(2e^{-\frac{1}{2 l^2}\left[ (p_1 l^2-y)^2+(p_2 l^2-y')^2 \right]} - \cos{\left[(p_1-p_2)(x-x')\right]}\right. \\ & \left. e^{-\frac{1}{4 l^2}\left[ (p_1 l^2-y)^2+(p_1 l^2-y')^2+(p_2 l^2-y')^2+(p_2 l^2-y)^2 \right]}\right)
\end{split}\end{equation}
Interestingly the valley polarized state has the same energy: $E_V=E_S$. If we include the fast oscillation which we ignored before ($e^{i\frac{4\pi}{3a} \left[ (\xi_1-\xi_4)x+(\xi_2-\xi_3)x' \right]}$), the valley polarized state does not change since $\xi_1=\xi_2=\xi_3=\xi_4$, but the energy of spin polarized state increases, so the valley polarized state will be the ground state of neutral graphene if the long range Coulomb is the dominating interaction.
Notice that we considered a valley polarized state in a single valley. If we consider an arbitrary rotated valley polarized state in a state of the form:
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{V'}\rangle =\Pi(u^+_k\ c^\dagger_{+,k,\uparrow}+u^-_k\ c^\dagger{-,k,\uparrow})(u^+_k\ c^\dagger_{+,k,\downarrow}+u^-_k\ c^\dagger_{-,k,\downarrow})|0\rangle ,
\end{equation}
the Hartree-Fock energy have the form:
\begin{equation}
E_{V'}=E_V+2\sum_{p_1\neq p_2} \Gamma_{p_1,p_2}\sum_\xi|u^{-\xi}_{p_1}|^2|u^{\xi}_{p_2}|^2 ,
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_{p_1,p_2}$ is positive for the Coulomb potential. The term added is then always positive and the minimum of energy is for
$u^{+}_{p}=0$ or $u^{-}_{p}=0$ for all $p$. The the preferred state would be an Ising valley polarized state.
\subsection{Short range Hubbard interactions and superconductivity}
Although all types of density-density interactions could be treated using our projection scheme, here we only present the details for the on-site and next nearest neighbor interactions which we also studied numerically and observed the somehow unexpected spin polarized superconductivity.
The on-site interaction has the form $\int d\textbf{r} d\textbf{r}' V \delta(\textbf{r}-\textbf{r}')$ where as next-nearest neighbor interaction has the form $\int d\textbf{r} d\textbf{r}' V\sum^6_{i=1}\delta(\textbf{r}+\textbf{R}_i-\textbf{r}')$ where $\textbf{R}_i=(X_i,Y_i)$ are the vectors connecting each site to its six next nearest neighbors. This next nearest neighbour interaction projected into the $n=0$ PLL has the form:
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
V_{P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4}= & V\left(\frac{g^2 a^2}{L_x\ l}\right)^2 L_x \int dy\\ & e^{-\frac{1}{ l^2}\left[ (y-\frac{p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4}{4}l^2)^2 +l^4\frac{\sum(p_i-p_j)^2}{32}\right]} \Omega(\xi_2-\xi_3).
\end{split}\end{equation}
Here we have $\xi_2-\xi_3=\xi_4-\xi_1$ and $\xi_1 p_1+\xi_2 p_2-\xi_3 p_3-\xi_4 p_4=0$. Notice that the interaction is not smooth in the lattice scale so we should keep the oscillatory term $\Omega(\xi_2-\xi_3)=\sum^6_{i=1}e^{i\frac{4\pi}{3 a}(\xi_2-\xi_3)X_i}=2\cos{\left[\frac{4\pi}{3} (\xi_2-\xi_3) \right]}+4\cos{\left[\frac{2\pi}{3} (\xi_2-\xi_3) \right]}$.
For on-site interaction we have similar form with $\Omega(\xi_2-\xi_3)=1$.
With this form of the projected interaction potential we can readily compare the energy of spin and valley polarized states. Using the expressions in \ref{valleypl} and \ref{spinpl} we get:
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
E_{V}= & V\frac{g^4 a^4}{L_x\ l^2}\int dy\ \sum_{p_1,p_2}e^{-\frac{1}{ l^2}\left[ (y-\frac{p_1+p_2}{2}l^2)^2 +l^4 \frac{(p_1-p_2)^2}{16}\right]}\\ & \sum_{\sigma,\sigma'}\Omega(0)(1-\delta_{\sigma,\sigma'}),
\end{split}\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
E_{S}= & V\frac{g^4 a^4}{L_x\ l^2}\int dy\ \sum_{p_1,p_2} e^{-\frac{1}{ l^2}\left[ (y-\frac{p_1+p_2}{2}l^2)^2 +l^4 \frac{(p_1-p_2)^2}{16}\right]} \\ & \sum_{\xi_1,\xi_2}\Omega(0)-\Omega(\xi_2-\xi_1).
\end{split}\end{equation}
For the on-site interaction with $\Omega(\xi_2-\xi_1)=1$ the spin polarized state has no energy-gain where as valley polarized state energy increases with on site repulsion.
For the next nearest neighbour interaction $\Omega(\xi_2-\xi_1)=\Omega(0)(\frac{3}{2}\delta_{\xi_1,\xi_2}-1)< \delta_{\xi_1,\xi_2}$. So valley polarized state will be stabilized with next nearest neighbor interactions.
With the projected interaction of the general form $\sum_{P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4,\sigma,\sigma'} V_{P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4}\ c^\dagger_{\sigma,P_1} c^\dagger_{\sigma',P_2} c_{\sigma',P_3} c_{\sigma,P_4}$ we can also compare the mean-field energy of different superconducting states. We compare the energy of two superconducting states which are valley triplet,spin singlet:
\begin{equation}
|\Psi_{Singlet} \rangle=\Pi_{P_i=\{+,p_i\},\{-,p_i\}}(u_i+v_i c^\dagger_{P_i,\uparrow}c^\dagger_{\bar{P}_i,\downarrow})|0\rangle ,
\end{equation}
and spin triplet, valley singlet:
\begin{equation}
|\Psi_{Triplet} \rangle= \Pi_{P_i=\{+,p_i\},\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow}(u_i+v_i c^\dagger_{P_i,\sigma}c^\dagger_{\bar{P}_i\bar{\sigma}})|0\rangle ,
\end{equation}
where $\bar{P}$ and $\bar{\sigma}$ are the time reversal of $P$ and $\sigma$ respectively.
The corresponding mean-field equations for the superconducting gap for the spin singlet state reads:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_P=-\sum_{P'=\{+,p_i\},\{-,p_i\}} V_{P,\bar{P},\bar{P'},P'} u_{P'}v_{P'} ,
\end{equation}
and for the spin triplet state reads:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_P=-\sum_{P'=\{+,p_i\},\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow} V_{P,\bar{P},\bar{P'},P'} u_{P'}v_{P'} ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\nonumber \begin{split}
V_{P,\bar{P},\bar{P'},P'}=& V\left(\frac{g^2 a^2}{L_x\ l}\right)^2 L_x \int dy\ e^{-\frac{1}{ l^2}\left[ (y-\frac{p+p'}{2}l^2)^2 +l^4\frac{\sum(p-p')^2}{16}\right]} \\ & \left(2\cos{\left[\frac{4\pi}{3} (\xi_2-\xi_3) \right]}+4\cos{\left[\frac{2\pi}{3} (\xi_2-\xi_3) \right]}\right)
\end{split}\end{equation}
In the spin-singlet state $V_{P,\bar{P},\bar{P'},P'}$ changes sign between the states with $\xi'=-\xi$ and $\xi'-=\xi$, where as for the spin triplet for all the term in the mean field equation have $\xi'=\xi$. So we get larger gap and so smaller mean-field energy for the spin triplet superconducting state.
\subsection{The robustness of the fractional valley Hall insulator and its evolution
with tunning $U_{nnn}^s$}
\begin{figure}[htp]
{\includegraphics[width=9.cm,height=7.5cm]{5a}}
{\includegraphics[width=9.cm,height=7.5cm]{5b}}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Fractional topological insulating phase for spinless electrons at filling $\nu=-2+2/3$.
The LL degeneracy is $N_s=12$ while there are totally
$N_e=8$ ($N_L=N_R=4$) electrons with polarized spin on a lattice with $24*24$ sites.
We demonstrate an emergent symmetry where energies of nine states
from $k=0$, $2\pi/3$ and $4\pi/3$ sectors become near degeneracy at
large $U_{nnn}^s$ limit. The onset of the fractionalized phase with
nine-fold near degenerating GSM is identified
at $U_{nnn}^s\geq -0.2$. (b) The evolution and the robust of the gap
during the change of the boundary phase.
}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
The fractional valley Hall insulator is characterized by a large ground state
degeneracy. In a finite-size system, due to the coupling between different
states, one usually sees a quasi-degeneracy with a finite splitting
between these states in the ground state manifold.
As shown the main text, around $U_{nnn}^{op}=-0.6$ without the interaction between the electrons in the same valley $U_{nnn}^s=0$, the nine states at the right quantum number sectors are indeed have much lower energy than other excited states.
However, the splitting between these states are close to the finite gap between these states and other excited states. While the quantized nonzero total Chern number of the ground state manifold
indicates the obtained state is indeed a
fractional valley Hall insulator, a clear-cut evidence of nine fold
topological degeneracy
is still absent and it is difficult to predict the fate of the state
as system becomes very large.
Here we address this issue through tuning the system deep into
the topological phase. Indeed this can be achieved by increasing the
correlations between the electrons in the same valley ($U_{nnn}^s$).
As shown in Fig. \ref{fig5}, with the turn on of positive $U_{nnn}^{s}$,
the energy gap between the ground state manifold
and other excited states becomes very robust and much larger than the
splitting of the energy of the ground state manifold.
There is no phase transition as $U_{nnn}$ continuously increases,
so the observed state is indeed the
same phase as the fractional valley Hall insulator at the decoupled limit
(strong $U_{nnn}^s$ limit). In that limit, the nine fold degeneracy is exact
and spinless electrons in different valleys are
contributing $\pm 1/3$ quantized Hall conductances.
We further perform the flux inserting measurement. we show in Fig. \ref{fig5}b
for $U_{nnn}^s=1$,
the three lowest energy states in the momentum sector $k=0$ evolve into other
states in the ground state manifold and they evolve back to themselves after
three periods of boundary phase insertion. The energy gap between these states and
other excited states remain robust as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig5}b. We further
perform valley-dependent Chern number calculation,
and find a total Chern number quantized to 6 for all
nine levels, characterizing the 2/3 fractionalized valley spin-Hall
effect.
Remarkably, this phase
persists in a wide range of $U_{nnn}^s \geq -0.2$ including the
simple case where this interaction is turned off ($U_{nnn}^s=0$
as shown in the main text part of the paper.
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Fibonacci numbers, Pell numbers and their generalizations have been
studying for a long time. One of these generalizations was given by
Miles in 1960.
Miles [6] defined generalized order-$k$ Fibonacci numbers(GO$k$F) as
\begin{equation}
f_{k,n}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{k}f_{k,n-j}\
\end{equation
for $n>k\geq 2$, with boundary conditions:
$f_{k,1}=f_{k,2}=f_{k,3}=\cdots =f_{k,k-2}=0$ and
$f_{k,k-1}=f_{k,k}=1.$\newline
Er [3] defined $k$ sequences of generalized order-$k$ Fibonacci numbers ($k
SO$k$F) as; for $n>0,$ $1\leq i\leq k
\begin{equation}
f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{k}c_{j}f_{k,n-j}^{\text{ }i}\
\
\end{equation
with boundary conditions for $1-k\leq n\leq 0,$
\begin{equation*}
f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
1\text{ \ \ \ \ \ if \ }i=1-n, \\
0\text{ \ \ \ \ \ otherwise,
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
where $c_{j}$ $(1\leq j\leq k)$ are constant coefficients, $f_{k,n}^{\text{
i}$ is the $n$-th term of $i$-th sequence of order $k$ generalization. For
c_{j}=1$, $k$-th sequence of this generalization involves the Miles
generalization(1) for $i=k,$ i.e
\begin{equation}
f_{k,n}^{k}=f_{k,k+n-2}.
\end{equation}
\bigskip
Kili\c{c}[5] defined $k$ sequences of generalized order-$k$ Pell numbers ($k
SO$k$P) as; for $n>0,$ $1\leq i\leq k
\begin{equation}
p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=2p_{k,n-1}^{\text{ }i}+p_{k,n-2}^{\text{
}i}+\cdots +\ p_{k,n-k}^{\text{ }i}\
\end{equation
with initial conditions for $1-k\leq n\leq 0,$
\begin{equation*}
p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
1\text{ \ \ \ \ \ if \ }i=1-n, \\
0\text{ \ \ \ \ \ otherwise,
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
where $p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}$ is the $n$-th term of $i$-th sequence of order
k $ generalization.
\bigskip
\bigskip We give general form of sequences mentioned above depending on
\lambda \in
\mathbb{Z}
^{+}$ and this sequences named as $k$ sequences of generalized
order-$k$
numbers ($k$SO$k$) as; for $n>0,$ $1\leq i\leq k
\begin{equation}
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=\lambda a_{k,n-1}^{i}+a_{k,n-2}^{i}+\cdots +\
a_{k,n-k}^{i\text{ }}\
\end{equation
with initial conditions for $1-k\leq n\leq 0,$
\begin{equation*}
a_{k,n}^{i\text{ }}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
1\text{ \ \ \ \ \ if \ }i=1-n, \\
0\text{ \ \ \ \ \ otherwise,
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
where $a_{k,n}^{i\text{ }}$ is the $n$-th term of \ $i$-th sequences
of order-$k$ generalization.
\bigskip
Not that $f_{k,k+n-2},$ $f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i},$ $p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}$ and
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}$ are GO$k$F, $k$SO$k$F, $k$SO$k$P and $k$SO$k$
respectively,
substituting $c_{j}=1$ in(2) and $\lambda =1$ in(5), for $1\leq
i\leq k$
we obtai
\begin{equation*}
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i},
\end{equation*
\ \ substituting $\lambda =2$ in(5), for $1\leq i\leq k$ we obtai
\begin{equation*}
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}
\end{equation*
and substituting $\lambda =2$ in(5) we obtain
\begin{equation*}
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }k}=f_{k,k+n-2}.
\end{equation*}
\subsection{ Relation between $i$-th sequences and $k$-th sequences of
generalized order-$k$ numbers}
\begin{lem}
Let$\ a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}$ be the $i$-th sequences of $k$SO$k$ for
$n>1-k$
and $1\leq i<k,
\begin{equation*}
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i+1}+\text{
}a_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k}
\end{equation*
and since $a_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k}=0$ for $1\leq n\leq k-i$ then $a_{k,n}^
\text{ }i}=a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i+1}.$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\bigskip It's obvious that for $1\leq n\leq k-i,$\ $a_{k,n}^{\text{
i}=a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i+1}$ from (5).
Assume for\ $n>k-i,$ $a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}-a_{k,n}^{\text{
}i+1}=t_{n}$ and show $t_{n}=$ $a_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k}.$
First we obtain initial conditions for $t_{n}$ by using initial
conditions
of \ $i$-th and $(i+1)$-th sequences of $k$SO$k$ simultaneously as follows
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$n\setminus $ & $a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}$ & $a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i+1}$ &
t_{n}=a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}-a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i+1}$ \\ \hline $1-k$ &
$0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\ \hline $2-k$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\ \hline $\vdots
$ & $\vdots $ & $\vdots $ & $\vdots $ \\ \hline $-i-1$ & $0$ & $0$ &
$0$ \\ \hline $-i$ & $0$ & $1$ & $-1$ \\ \hline $-i+1$ & $1$ & $0$ &
$1$ \\ \hline $-i+2$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\ \hline $\vdots $ & $\vdots
$ & $\vdots $ & $\vdots $ \\ \hline
$0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0
\end{tabular
\end{equation*}
Since initial conditions of $t_{n}$ are equal to initial condition of
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }k}$ with index iteration and since $t_{-i+1}=a_{k,1-k}^
\text{ }i}$ then we hav
\begin{equation*}
t_{n}=a_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{thrm}
\bigskip Let$\ a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}$ be the $i$-th sequences of $k$SO$k,$
then for $n\geq 1$ and $1\leq i\leq k
\begin{equation*}
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=a_{k,n}^{\text{ }k}+a_{k,n-1}^{\text{ }k}+\cdots
+a_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k}=\sum\limits_{m=1}^{k-i+1}a_{k,n-m+1}^{k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{thrm}
\begin{proof}
\bigskip From Lemma(1.1) $a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}-a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i+1}=$
a_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k}.$ Using this equation we write
\begin{eqnarray*}
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}-a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i+1} &=&a_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k} \\
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i+1}-a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i+2} &=&a_{k,n-k+i+1}^{\text{ }k} \\
&&\vdots \\
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }k-1}-a_{k,n}^{\text{ }k} &=&a_{k,n-1}^{\text{ }k}
\end{eqnarray*
and adding these equations side by side we obtai
\begin{equation*}
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}-a_{k,n}^{\text{ }k}=a_{k,n-1}^{\text{ }k}+\cdots
+a_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k}
\end{equation*
and so
\begin{equation*}
a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=a_{k,n}^{\text{ }k}+a_{k,n-1}^{\text{ }k}+\cdots
+a_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k}
\end{equation*
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{cor}
\bigskip Let $f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}$ and $\ p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}$ be the $i$-th
sequences of $k$SO$k$F and $k$SO$k$P respectively. Then, for $1\leq
i<k$
\begin{equation*}
f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i+1}+\text{
}f_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i+1}+\text{
}p_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
\bigskip Proof is similar to Lemma(1.1)\bigskip
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{cor}
Let $f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}$ and $\ p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}$ be the $i$-th
sequences of $k$SO$k$F and $k$SO$k$P respectively then, for $n\geq 1$ and
1\leq i\leq k
\begin{equation*}
f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=f_{k,n}^{\text{ }k}+f_{k,n-1}^{\text{ }k}+\cdots
+f_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k}=\sum\limits_{m=1}^{k-i+1}f_{k,n-m+1}^{k}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}=p_{k,n}^{\text{ }k}+p_{k,n-1}^{\text{ }k}+\cdots
+p_{k,n-k+i}^{\text{ }k}=\sum\limits_{m=1}^{k-i+1}p_{k,n-m+1}^{k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{cor}
\bigskip
\begin{proof}
Proof is similar in Theorem(1.2)\bigskip
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{exam}
Let us obtain $p_{k,n}^{i}$ for $k=5$, $n=10$ and $i=2$ by using
Corollary
(1.4)
\begin{eqnarray*}
p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i} &=&p_{k,n}^{\text{ }k}+p_{k,n-1}^{\text{
}k}+\cdots
+p_{k,n-k+1}^{\text{ }k} \\
p_{5,10}^{\text{ }2} &=&p_{5,10}^{\text{ }5}+p_{5,9}^{\text{ }5}+p_{5,8}^
\text{ }5}+p_{5,7}^{\text{ }5} \\
&=&4116+1578+605+232 \\
&=&6531
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{exam}
\bigskip
Theorem(1.2) and Corollary(1.4) are important, because there are a
lot of studies on $k-th$ sequences of $k$SO$k$F and $k$SO$k$P(which
are called generalized order-$k$ sequences in some papers[3,5,6]).
Our relations allows to translate these studies to $i-th$ sequences.
\bigskip
\subsection{The determinantal representations}
An $n\times n$ matrix $A_{n}=(a_{ij})$ is called lower Hessenberg matrix if
a_{ij}=0$ when $j-i>1$ i.e.
\begin{equation*}
A_{n}=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_{11} & a_{12} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
a_{21} & a_{22} & a_{23} & \cdots & 0 \\
a_{31} & a_{32} & a_{33} & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
a_{n-1,1} & a_{n-1,2} & a_{n-1,3} & \cdots & a_{n-1,n} \\
a_{n,1} & a_{n,2} & a_{n,3} & \cdots & a_{n,n
\end{array
\right]
\end{equation*}
\begin{thrm}
$\bigskip \lbrack 2]$ $A_{n}$ be the $n\times n$ lower Hessenberg
matrix for
all $n\geq 1$ and define $\det (A_{0})=1,$ then
\begin{equation*}
\det (A_{1})=a_{11}
\end{equation*
and for $n\geq 2
\begin{equation}
\det (A_{n})=a_{n,n}\det
(A_{n-1})+\sum\limits_{r=1}^{n-1}((-1)^{n-r}a_{n,r}\pro
\limits_{j=r}^{n-1}a_{j,j+1}\det (A_{r-1})).
\end{equation}
\end{thrm}
\bigskip
\begin{thrm}
\bigskip Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer$,$ $a_{k,n}^{\text{ }k}$ be the $k$-th
sequences of $k$SO$k$ and $Q_{k,n}=(q_{st})$ $n\times n$ Hessenberg
matrix$,$
wher
\begin{equation*}
q_{st}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
i^{\left\vert s-t\right\vert }\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ if
\ }-1\leq s-t<k\text{ and }s\neq t, \\
\lambda \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ }s=t\text{\ \ ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ }
\\
0\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ otherwise\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
i.e.
\begin{equation}
Q_{k,n}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\lambda & i & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
i & \lambda & i & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
i^{2} & i & \lambda & i & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
i^{k-1} & i^{k-2} & i^{k-3} & i^{k-4} & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & i^{k-1} & i^{k-2} & i^{k-3} & \cdots & 0 \\
& \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & i & \lambd
\end{array
\right]
\end{equation
the
\begin{equation*}
\det (Q_{k,n})=a_{k,n+1}^{\text{ }k}
\end{equation*
where $i=\sqrt{-1}.$
\end{thrm}
\begin{proof}
\bigskip Proof is by mathematical induction on $n$. The result is true for
n=1$ by hypothesis.
Assume that it is true for all positive integers less than or equal
to $m,$ namely $\det (Q_{k,m})=a_{k,m+1}^{\text{ }k}.$ Using Theorem
(1.6) we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\det (Q_{k,m+1}) &=&q_{m+1,m+1}\det
(Q_{k,m})+\sum\limits_{r=1}^{m}((-1)^{m+1-r}q_{m+1,r}\pro
\limits_{j=r}^{m}q_{j,j+1}\det (Q_{k,r-1})) \\
&=&\lambda \det
(Q_{k,m})+\sum\limits_{r=1}^{m-k+1}((-1)^{m+1-r}q_{m+1,r}\pro
\limits_{j=r}^{m}q_{j,j+1}\det (Q_{k,r-1})) \\
&&+\sum\limits_{r=m-k+2}^{m}((-1)^{m+1-r}q_{m+1,r}\pro
\limits_{j=r}^{m}q_{j,j+1}\det (Q_{k,r-1})) \\
&=&\lambda \det
(Q_{k,m})+\sum\limits_{r=m-k+2}^{m}((-1)^{m+1-r}i^{\left\vert
m+1-r\right\vert }\prod\limits_{j=r}^{m}i^{\left\vert
j-j-1\right\vert }\det
(Q_{k,r-1})) \\
&=&\lambda \det
(Q_{k,m})+\sum\limits_{r=m-k+2}^{m}((-1)^{m+1-r}i^{m+1-r}\pro
\limits_{j=r}^{m}i\det (Q_{k,r-1})) \\
&=&\lambda \det
(Q_{k,m})+\sum\limits_{r=m-k+2}^{m}((-1)^{m+1-r}i^{m+1-r}i^{m+1-r}\det
(Q_{k,r-1})) \\
&=&\lambda \det (Q_{k,m})+\sum\limits_{r=m-k+2}^{m}\det (Q_{k,r-1}) \\
&=&\lambda \det (Q_{k,m})+\det (Q_{k,m-1})+\cdots +\det
(Q_{k,m-(k-1)})
\end{eqnarray*
From the hypothesis and the definition of $k-th$ sequences of
$k$SO$k$ we
obtai
\begin{equation*}
\det (Q_{k,m+1})=\lambda a_{k,m+1}^{\text{ }k}+a_{k,m}^{\text{
}k}+\cdots +\ a_{k,m-k+2}^{\text{ }k}=a_{k,m+2}^{\text{ }k}.
\end{equation*
Therefore, the result is true for all non-negative integers.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{thrm}
\bigskip \bigskip Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer, $a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}$ be the
i$-th sequences of $k$SO$k$ and $Q_{k,n+1}^{i}$ be Hessenberg matrix as
\begin{equation*}
Q_{k,n+1}^{i}=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & i & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
i & & & & \\
i^{2} & & & & \\
\vdots & & & & \\
i^{k-i} & & Q_{k,n} & & \\
0 & & & & \\
\vdots & & & & \\
0 & & & &
\end{array
\right] _{(n+1)\times (n+1)}
\end{equation*
where $Q_{k,n}$ is as (7), then for $2\leq i\leq k$
\begin{equation*}
\det (Q_{k,n}^{i})=a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}.
\end{equation*}
\end{thrm}
\begin{proof}
Proof \ is similar to the proof of Theorem (1.7).
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{thrm}
\bigskip Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer$,$ $a_{k,n}^{\text{ }k}$ be the $k$-th
sequences of $k$SO$k$ and $B_{k,n}=(b_{ij})$ be an $n\times n$ lower
Hessenberg matrix such tha
\begin{equation*}
b_{ij}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
-1\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if \ \ \ }j=i+1, \\
1\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if\ \ \ \ \ }0\leq i-j<k\text{
and }i\neq
j \\
\lambda \text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ }i=j \\
0\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ otherwise
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
i.e.
\begin{equation}
B_{k,n}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\lambda & -1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
1 & \lambda & -1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
1 & 1 & \lambda & -1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
1 & 1 & \cdots & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 1 & \cdots & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 1 & \cdots & \lambd
\end{array
\right]
\end{equation
the
\begin{equation*}
\det (B_{k,n})=a_{k,n+1}^{\text{ }k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{thrm}
\begin{proof}
\bigskip Proof is by mathematical induction on $n$. The result is true for
n=1$ by hypothesis.
Assume that it is true for all positive integers less than or equal
to $m,$ namely $\det (B_{k,m})=a_{k,m+1}^{\text{ }k}.$ Using Theorem
(1.6) we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\det (B_{m+1,k}) &=&b_{m+1,m+1}\det
(B_{k,m})+\sum\limits_{r=1}^{m}((-1)^{m+1-r}b_{m+1,r}\pro
\limits_{j=r}^{m}b_{j,j+1}\det (B_{r-1,k})) \\
&=&\lambda \det
(B_{k,m})+\sum\limits_{r=1}^{m-k+1}((-1)^{m+1-r}b_{m+1,r}\pro
\limits_{j=r}^{m}b_{j,j+1}\det (B_{r-1,k})) \\
&&+\sum\limits_{r=m-k+2}^{m}((-1)^{m+1-r}b_{m+1,r}\pro
\limits_{j=r}^{m}b_{j,j+1}\det (B_{r-1,k})) \\
&=&\lambda \det
(B_{k,m})+\sum\limits_{r=m-k+2}^{m}((-1)^{m+1-r}\prod\limits_{j=r}^{m}(-1
\det (B_{r-1,k})) \\
&=&\lambda \det (B_{k,m})+\det (B_{m-1,k})+\cdots +\det
(B_{m-(k-1),k}).
\end{eqnarray*
From the hypothesis and the definition of $k$SO$k$ we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\det (Q_{m+1,k})=\lambda a_{k,m+1}^{\text{ }k}+a_{k,m}^{\text{
}k}+\cdots +\ a_{k,m-k+2}^{\text{ }k}=a_{k,m+2}^{\text{ }k}.
\end{equation*
Therefore, the result is true for all non-negative integers.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{thrm}
\bigskip\ Let $a_{k,n}^{i}$ be $i$-th sequences of $k$SO$k$ and for $k\geq 2$
and $2\leq i\leq k;$
\begin{equation*}
B_{k,n+1}^{i}=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & -1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
1 & & & & \\
1 & & & & \\
\vdots & & & & \\
1 & & B_{k,n} & & \\
0 & & & & \\
\vdots & & & & \\
0 & & & &
\end{array
\right]
\end{equation*
where $B_{k,n}$ is as (8) and the number of 1's in the first column is
k-i+1,$ the
\begin{equation*}
\det (B_{k,n}^{i})=a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}.
\end{equation*}
\end{thrm}
\bigskip
\begin{proof}
\bigskip Proof is similar to the proof of Theorem (1.9).
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\bigskip \bigskip\ If we rewrite Theorem (1.7) and Theorem (1.9) for
\lambda =1,$ we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\det (Q_{k,n})=f_{k,n+1}^{k\text{ }}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
\det (B_{k,n})=f_{k,n+1}^{k\text{ }}
\end{equation*
respectively.
\end{cor}
\bigskip
\begin{proof}
We know from [8] that for $\lambda =1$, $\det (Q_{k,n})=f_{k,k+n-1}^{\text{
}$, $\det (B_{k,n})=f_{k,k+n-1}^{\text{ }}$ and since
f_{k,n}^{k}=f_{k,k+n-2}$ in (1.3) then
\begin{equation*}
\det (Q_{k,n})=f_{k,n+1}^{k\text{ }}\text{ and }\det (B_{k,n})=f_{k,n+1}^{
\text{ }}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\bigskip \bigskip If we rewrite Theorem (1.7) and Theorem (1.9) for $\lambda
=2,$ we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\det (Q_{k,n})=p_{k,n+1}^{k\text{ }}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
\det (B_{k,n})=p_{k,n+1}^{k\text{ }}
\end{equation*
respectively.
\end{cor}
\bigskip
\begin{proof}
\bigskip Proof is similar to the proof of \ Theorem (1.7) for $\lambda =2.$
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{cor}
\bigskip If we rewrite Theorem (1.8) for $\lambda =1$ and $\lambda =2,$ we
obtai
\begin{equation*}
\det (Q_{k,n}^{i})=f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
\det (Q_{k,n}^{i})=p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}
\end{equation*
respectively.
\end{cor}
\bigskip
\begin{cor}
\bigskip \bigskip If we rewrite Theorem (1.10) for $\lambda =1$ and $\lambda
=2,$ we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\det (B_{k,n}^{i})=f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
\det (B_{k,n}^{i})=p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}
\end{equation*
respectively.
\end{cor}
\bigskip
\subsection{The permanent representations}
Let $A=(a_{i,j})$ be a square matrix of order $n$ over a ring R. The
permanent of $A$ is defined b
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(A)=\sum\limits_{\sigma \in
S_{n}}\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}a_{i,\sigma (i)}
\end{equation*
where $S_{n}$ denotes the symmetric group on $n$ letters.
Let $A_{i,j}$ be the matrix obtained from a square matrix
$A=(a_{i,j})$ by deleting the $i$-th row and the $j$-th column. Then
it is also easy to see
tha
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(A)=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n}a_{i,k}\text{per}(A_{i,k})=\su
\limits_{k=1}^{n}a_{k,j}\text{per}(A_{k,j})
\end{equation*}
for any $i,j.$
\bigskip
\begin{thrm}
$\left[ 8\right] $Let $A_{n}$ be $n\times n$ lower Hessenberg matrix
for all
$n\geq 1$ and define per$(A_{0})=1.$ Then
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(A_{1})=a_{11}
\end{equation*
and for $n\geq 2
\begin{equation}
\text{per}(A_{n})=a_{n,n}\text{per}(A_{n-1})+\sum\limits_{r=1}^{n-1}(a_{n,r
\prod\limits_{j=r}^{n-1}a_{j,j+1}\text{per}(A_{r-1})).
\end{equation}
\end{thrm}
\bigskip
\begin{thrm}
\bigskip \bigskip Let $a_{k,n}^{k}$ be the $k$-th sequences of $k$SO$k,$
k\geq 2$ be an integer and $H_{k,n}=(h_{st})$ be an $n\times n$
Hessenberg
matrix$,$ such tha
\begin{equation*}
h_{st}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
i^{s-t}\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if \ }-1\leq s-t<k\text{ and }s\neq
t,\text{\
\ \ \ \ \ } \\
\lambda \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
}s=t\text{,\ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } \\
0\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ otherwise\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
i.e.
\begin{equation}
H_{k,n}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\lambda & -i & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
i & \lambda & -i & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
i^{2} & i & \lambda & -i & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
i^{k-1} & i^{k-2} & i^{k-3} & i^{k-4} & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & i^{k-1} & i^{k-2} & i^{k-3} & \cdots & 0 \\
& \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & -i \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & i & \lambd
\end{array
\right]
\end{equation
the
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(H_{k,n})=a_{k,n+1}^{\text{ }k}
\end{equation*
where $i=\sqrt{-1}.$
\end{thrm}
\bigskip
\begin{proof}
\bigskip Proof is similar to the proof of \ Theorem (1.7) using Theorem
(1.15)
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{thrm}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip Let $a_{k,n}^{k}$ be the $k$-th sequences of $k$S
$k$P, $k$ $\geq 2$ be an integer and let $D_{k,n}=(d_{st})$ be an
$n\times n$
Hessenberg matrix such tha
\begin{equation*}
d_{st}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
1\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if \ }-1\leq s-t<k\text{ and }s\neq t
\text{\ \ \ \ } \\
\lambda \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }s=t\text
,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } \\
0\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ otherwise\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
i.e.
\begin{equation}
D_{k,n}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\lambda & 1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
1 & \lambda & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
1 & 1 & \lambda & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & & \vdots \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \cdots & \lambd
\end{array
\right] .
\end{equation
where number of 1's in the first column is $k-i+1,$ the
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(D_{k,n})=a_{k,n+1}^{\text{ }k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{thrm}
\begin{proof}
\bigskip Proof of the theorem is similar to the proof of \ Theorem (1.9)
using Theorem (1.15)
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{cor}
If we rewrite Theorem (1.16) and Theorem (1.17) for $\lambda =1,$ we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(H_{k,n})=f_{k,n+1}^{\text{ }k}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(D_{k,n})=f_{k,n+1}^{\text{ }k}
\end{equation*
respectively.
\end{cor}
\bigskip
\begin{proof}
We know from [8] and [7] for $\lambda =1,$
per$(H_{k,n})=f_{k,k+n-1}^{\text{
}}$ and per$(D_{k,n})=f_{k,k+n-1}^{\text{ }}$ respectively and since
f_{k,n}^{k}=f_{k,k+n-2}$ in $(1.3)$ then
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(H_{k,n})=f_{k,n+1}^{\text{ }k}\text{ \ and per
(D_{k,n})=f_{k,n+1}^{\text{ }k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{cor}
\bigskip If we rewrite Theorem (1.16) and Theorem (1.17) for $\lambda =2,$
we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(H_{k,n})=p_{k,n+1}^{\text{ }k}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(D_{k,n})=p_{k,n+1}^{\text{ }k}
\end{equation*
respectively.
\end{cor}
\begin{thrm}
\bigskip \bigskip\ Let $a_{k,n}^{i}$ be the $i$-th sequences of $k$SO$k$ and
for $2\leq i\leq k$ and $n,k\geq 2;$
\begin{equation*}
H_{k,n+1}^{i}=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & -i & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
i & & & & \\
i^{2} & & & & \\
\vdots & & & & \\
i^{k-i} & & H_{k,n} & & \\
0 & & & & \\
\vdots & & & & \\
0 & & & &
\end{array
\right]
\end{equation*
where $H_{k,n}$ is as (10), the
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(H_{k,n}^{i})=a_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}.
\end{equation*}
\end{thrm}
\bigskip
\begin{proof}
\bigskip Proof is similar to the proof of Theorem (1.16).
\end{proof}
\begin{thrm}
\bigskip Let $a_{k,n}^{i}$ be $i$-th sequences of $k$SO$k$ numbers and for
2\leq i\leq k$ and $k\geq 2;
\begin{equation*}
D_{k,n+1}^{i}=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
1 & & & & \\
1 & & & & \\
\vdots & & & & \\
1 & & D_{k,n} & & \\
0 & & & & \\
\vdots & & & & \\
0 & & & &
\end{array
\right]
\end{equation*
where $D_{k,n}$ is as (11) and the numbers of $1$'s in the first
column is
$k-i+1,$ the
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(D_{k,n}^{i})=a_{k,n}^{i}.
\end{equation*}
\end{thrm}
\bigskip
\begin{proof}
\bigskip \bigskip Proof is similar to the proof of Theorem (1.17).
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{cor}
\bigskip If we rewrite Theorem (1.20) for $\lambda =1$ and $\lambda =2,$ we
obtai
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(H_{k,n}^{i})=f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(H_{k,n}^{i})=p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}
\end{equation*
respectively.
\end{cor}
\bigskip
\begin{cor}
If we rewrite Theorem (1.21) for $\lambda =1$ and $\lambda =2,$we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(D_{k,n}^{i})=f_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(D_{k,n}^{i})=p_{k,n}^{\text{ }i}
\end{equation*
respectively.
\end{cor}
\bigskip
\begin{thrm}
Let $p_{k,n}^{k}$ be the $k$-th sequences of $k$SO$k$P, $k,n\geq 3$
integers
and $P_{k,n}=(p_{i,j})$ be an $n\times n$ Hessenberg matrix$,$ such tha
\begin{equation*}
p_{i,j}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
i)p_{1,1}=\cdots =p_{n-3,n-3}=p_{n-2,n-1}=2\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ } \\
ii)\text{ }p_{n-3,n}=p_{n-4,n}=\cdots =p_{n-k+1,n}=0 \\
iii)\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ }1\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ otherwise \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\end{array
\right. \text{\ \ \ if \ }i-1\leq j\leq i+k-1 \\
\text{ } \\
0\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ otherwise\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
i.e.
\begin{equation*}
P_{k,n}=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
2 & 1 & \cdots & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
1 & 2 & 1 & \cdots & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \ddots & 2 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 &
\end{array
\right]
\end{equation*
the
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}(P_{k,n})=p_{k,n}^{\text{ }k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{thrm}
$\bigskip $
\begin{proof}
$\bigskip $\bigskip Proof is similar to the proof of \ Theorem (1.9)
by using Theorem (1.15).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Binet's formula for generalized order-$k$ Pell numbers}
Let $\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty }a_{n}z^{n}$ be the power series of
the analytical function $f.$ We assume that
\begin{equation*}
f(z)=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty }a_{n}z^{n}\text{ \ when \ }f(0)\neq
0
\end{equation*
then the reciprocal of $f(z)$ can be written in the following for
\begin{equation*}
g(z)=\frac{1}{f(z)}=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}\det
(A_{n})z^{n},
\end{equation*
whose radius of converge is inf$\{\left\vert \lambda \right\vert
:f(\lambda
)=0\}[1]$. It is clear that $A_{n}$ is a lower Hessenberg matrix, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
A_{n}=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_{1} & a_{0} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
a_{2} & a_{1} & a_{0} & \cdots & 0 \\
a_{3} & a_{2} & a_{1} & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \\
a_{n} & a_{n-1} & a_{n-2} & & a_{1
\end{array
\right] _{n\times n}.
\end{equation*
Le
\begin{equation}
p_{k}(z)=1+a_{1}z+\cdots +a_{k}z^{k},
\end{equation
then the reciprocal of $p_{k}(z)$ is
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{p_{k}(z)}=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}\det
(A_{k,n})z^{n}
\end{equation*
wher
\begin{equation*}
A_{k,n}=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_{1} & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
a_{2} & a_{1} & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
a_{3} & a_{2} & a_{1} & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{k} & a_{k-1} & a_{k-2} & & 0 \\
0 & a_{k} & a_{k-1} & & 0 \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \ddots & \\
0 & \cdots & a_{k} & \cdots & a_{1
\end{array
\right] _{n\times n}
\end{equation*
Inselberg [4] showed tha
\begin{equation}
\det (A_{k,n})=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{p_{k}^{^{\prime }}(\lambda _{j}
}(\frac{-1}{\lambda _{j}})^{n+1}\text{ \ \ }(n\geq k)
\end{equation
if\ $p_{k}(z)$ has the distinct zeros $\lambda _{j},$ $j=1,2,\ldots
,k.$ Where $p_{k}^{^{\prime }}(z)$ is the derivative of polynomial
$p_{k}(z)$ in (12)
\bigskip
\begin{lem}
\bigskip The equation $-1+3z-z^{2}-z^{k+1}$ does not have multiple roots for
$k\geq 2.$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\bigskip Let $f(z)=1-2z-\cdots -z^{k}$ and let $h(z)=(z-1)$ $f(z).$ Then
h(z)=-1+3z-z^{2}-z^{k+1}.$ So $1$ is a root but not a multiple root of
h(z), $ since $k\geq 2$ and $f(1)\neq 0.$ Suppose that $a$ is a
multiple root of $h(z)$. Note that $a\neq 0$ and $a\neq 1.$ Since
$a$ is a multiple root,
\begin{equation*}
h(a)=-1+3a-a^{2}-a^{k+1}=0
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
a(3-a-a^{k})=1
\end{equation
and
\begin{equation}
h^{^{\prime }}(a)=3-2a-(k+1)a^{k}=0.
\end{equation
We obtain
\begin{equation*}
3ka-(k+3)a^{2}=k+1
\end{equation*
using equations $(14)$ and $(15)$. Thus $a_{1,2}=\frac{3k\pm \sqrt
5k^{2}-16k-12}}{2(k+3)}$ and hence, for $a_{1}$ we ge
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 &=&(k+1)a_{1}^{k}+2a_{1}-3 \\
&=&(k+1)(\frac{3k+\sqrt{5k^{2}-16k-12}}{2(k+3)})^{k}+2(\frac{3k+\sqrt
5k^{2}-16k-12}}{2(k+3)})-3
\end{eqnarray*
We let
\begin{equation*}
a_{k}=(k+1)(\frac{3k+\sqrt{5k^{2}-16k-12}}{2(k+3)})^{k}+2(\frac{3k+\sqrt
5k^{2}-16k-12}}{2(k+3)}).
\end{equation*
Then we write
\begin{equation*}
a_{k}-3=0.
\end{equation*
Since for $k\geq 4,$ $a_{k}<a_{k+1}$ and $a_{4}=\frac{24\,315}{16\,807}=7,$
a_{k}\neq 3,$ a contradiction. It can be easily shown that the roots
of the equation $-1+3z-z^{2}-z^{k+1}=0$ are distinct for $k=3$ and
$k=4$.
Similarly, fo
\begin{equation*}
a_{2}=\frac{3k-\sqrt{5k^{2}-16k-12}}{2(k+3)}
\end{equation*
similar results are obtained.
Therefore, the equation $h(z)=0$ does not have multiple roots.
Consequently, from Lemma (1.25) it is seen that the equation
\begin{equation*}
0=1-2z-\cdots -z^{k}
\end{equation*
does not have multiple roots for $k\geq 2.$
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{thrm}
Let $p_{k,n}^{k}$ be the $k$-th sequences of $k$SO$k$P, then for
$n\geq k\geq 2$
\begin{equation}
p_{k,n+1}^{k}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{k}\frac{-1}{p_{k}^{^{\prime }}(\lambda _{j}
}(\frac{1}{\lambda _{j}})^{n+1}\text{ \ \ }
\end{equation
where $p_{k}^{^{\prime }}(z)$ is the derivative of polynomial
$p_{k}(z)$ in (12).
\end{thrm}
\bigskip
\begin{proof}
\bigskip Substituting $a_{1}=-2$ and $a_{i}=-1$ for $2\leq $\bigskip $i\leq k
$ in polynomial $p_{k}(z)$ (1.12)$,$ the
\begin{equation*}
p_{k}(z)=1-2z-z^{2}-\cdots -z^{k}.
\end{equation*
Substituting $a_{1}=-2$ and $a_{i}=-1$ for $2\leq $\bigskip $i\leq
k$ in matrix $A_{k,n}$ and for $\lambda =2$ in matrix $B_{k,n}(8)$
then,
\begin{equation*}
\det (A_{k,n})=(-1)^{n}\det (B_{k,n})
\end{equation*
s
\begin{equation}
\det (B_{k,n})=\frac{\det (A_{k,n})}{(-1)^{n}}.
\end{equation
$\det (B_{k,n})=p_{k,n+1}^{k}$ from Corollary(1.13) and using
equation(17)
the
\begin{equation*}
p_{k,n+1}^{k}=\frac{\det (A_{k,n})}{(-1)^{n}}.
\end{equation*
Lemma (1.25) we have the zeros of $p_{k}(z)$ are simple. Hence from
equation(13) we obtain
\begin{equation*}
p_{k,n+1}^{k}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{k}\frac{-1}{p_{k}^{^{\prime }}(\lambda _{j}
}(\frac{1}{\lambda _{j}})^{n+1}\text{ \ \ }(n\geq k).
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\bigskip Let $p_{k,n}^{i}$ be the $i$-th sequences of $k$SO$k$P then for
n\geq k\geq 2$ and $1\leq i\leq k;$
\begin{equation*}
p_{k,n}^{i}=\sum\limits_{m=1}^{k-i+1}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{k}\frac{-1}
p_{k}^{^{\prime }}(\lambda _{j})}(\frac{1}{\lambda _{j}})^{n}.
\end{equation*}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
\bigskip Proof is direct from Corollary (1.4) and Theorem(1.26).
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{exam}
\bigskip Let us obtain $a_{k,n}^{i}$ for $\lambda =2$ and $k=3,$ for
\lambda =3$ and $k=3,$ for $\lambda =3$ and $k=4$ by using (1.5);
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline $n\setminus i$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ \\ \hline $-2$ & $0$ & $0$ &
$1$ \\ \hline $-1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ \\ \hline $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$
\\ \hline $1$ & $2$ & $1$ & $1$ \\ \hline $2$ & $5$ & $3$ & $2$ \\
\hline $3$ & $13$ & $\mathbf{7}$ & $5$ \\ \hline $4$ & $33$ & $18$ &
$13$ \\ \hline
$\vdots $ & $\vdots $ & $\vdots $ & $\vdots
\end{tabular
,\text{ \ \
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline $n\setminus i$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ \\ \hline $-2$ & $0$ & $0$ &
$1$ \\ \hline $-1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ \\ \hline $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$
\\ \hline $1$ & $3$ & $1$ & $1$ \\ \hline $2$ & $10$ & $4$ & $3$ \\
\hline $3$ & $34$ & $\mathbf{13}$ & $10$ \\ \hline $4$ & $115$ &
$44$ & $34$ \\ \hline
$\vdots $ & $\vdots $ & $\vdots $ & $\vdots
\end{tabular
,\text{ \ \
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline $n\setminus i$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ \\ \hline $-3$ & $0$ &
$0$ & $0$ & $1$ \\ \hline $-2$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ \\ \hline
$-1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ \\ \hline $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$
\\ \hline $1$ & $3$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ \\ \hline $2$ & $10$ & $4$ &
$4$ & $3$ \\ \hline $3$ & $34$ & $14$ & $13$ & $10$ \\ \hline $4$ &
$116$ & $\mathbf{47}$ & $\mathbf{44}$ & $34$ \\ \hline
$\vdots $ & $\vdots $ & $\vdots $ & $\vdots $ & $\vdots
\end{tabular
.
\end{equation*}
\end{exam}
\bigskip
\begin{exam}
\bigskip Let us obtain $a_{k,n}^{i}$ for $\lambda =2$ and $k=3,$ for
\lambda =3$ and $k=3,$ for $\lambda =3$ and $k=4$ by using our some
determinant and permanent representation;
\begin{equation*}
\det Q_{3,3}^{2}=\det \left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & i & 0 \\
i & 2 & i \\
0 & i &
\end{array
\right] =7,\text{ per}D_{3,3}^{2}=\text{per}\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 3 & 1 \\
0 & 1 &
\end{array
\right] =7
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
\text{per}H_{4,4}^{2}=\text{per}\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & -i & 0 & 0 \\
i & 3 & -i & 0 \\
-1 & i & 3 & -i \\
0 & -1 & i &
\end{array
\right] =47,\text{ per}H_{4,4}^{3}=\text{per}\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & -i & 0 & 0 \\
i & 3 & -i & 0 \\
0 & i & 3 & -i \\
0 & -1 & i &
\end{array
\right] =44
\end{equation*}
\end{exam}
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
The main purpose of this paper is to initiate a
generalization of Harish-Chandra's notion of cusp forms for a real
semisimple Lie group $G$ to the more general case of a semisimple symmetric
space $G/H$. In Harish-Chandra's work on the Plancherel formula for $G$
the fact that all discrete series are cuspidal plays an important role.
However, in the established generalizations to $G/H$
(see \cite{FJ}, \cite{O-M}, \cite{Del}, \cite{B-SI},
\cite{B-SII}), cuspidality plays no role and,
in fact, is not defined at all.
We propose a notion of cuspidal discrete series for
semisimple symmetric spaces $G/H$ in general,
and we
show by explicit calculations on the real hyperbolic spaces
$\SO(p,q+1)_e/\SO(p,q)_e$
that the notion is meaningful in that case.
The notion agrees with the standard one of
Harish-Chandra for the discrete series of $G$, but
in contrast to the situation for $G$, it is not true in general
that all discrete series are cuspidal. Our main result
determines exactly which discrete series representations
for $\SO(p,q+1)_e/\SO(p,q)_e$ are cuspidal. If $p\ge q-1$, all
discrete series representations
are cuspidal, but if $p<q-1$, there is a non-empty and finite family
of non-cuspidal discrete series.
The notion of cuspidality relates to integral geometry on the
symmetric space by using integration over a certain unipotent
subgroup $N^*\subset G$. The definition of $N^*$ is given
in Section \ref{general theory}.
The map $f\mapsto \int_{N^*} f(\cdot nH)\,dn$,
which maps functions on $G/H$ to functions on $G/N^*$,
is a kind of {\it Radon transform} for $G/H$.
A discrete series subspace of $L^2(G/H)$
is said to be {\it cuspidal} if it is annihilated
by this transform (assuming the convergence of the integral
on an appropriate dense subspace of $L^2(G/H)$).
In the group case $G\simeq G\times G/G$,
we have $N^*=N\times\{e\}$, where $N$ corresponds to a
minimal parabolic subgroup of $G$, and thus the Radon transform
of a function $f$ on $G$ is the function $\int_N f(xny^{-1})\,dn$
on $G\times G$. It follows that the annihilation by this
transform agrees with Harish-Chandra's cuspidality condition
for the minimal parabolic subgroup.
It is clear that certain discrete series for $G/H$, which are spherical
(that is, they contain the trivial $K$-type),
cannot be cuspidal since they contain functions
taking only positive values.
Obviously a positive function cannot be annihilated by
integration over any subgroup $N^*\subset G$.
The present investigation shows that for the hyperbolic spaces
all spherical discrete series are non-cuspidal, but also
that in general there exist non-cuspidal, non-spherical
discrete series. The non-spherical non-cuspidal discrete series
are given by odd functions on the real hyperbolic space,
which means that they do not descend to functions on the
projective hyperbolic space.
The first section of the paper describes in more detail
the suggested program for
general symmetric spaces and motivates our study of the
hyperbolic spaces. The hyperbolic spaces are treated
in the following sections. Apart from the motivation,
this treatment is to a large extend independent of the general theory.
The definition of $N^*$ and the generalized notion of cuspidality
was introduced by the second author in lectures at
Oberwolfach (2001).
The results presented in this paper were announced in
\cite{OW}.
\bigskip
\section{A general notion of cuspidality}\label{general theory}
We first recall from Harish-Chandra \cite{HC} the notion of cuspidality
for $G$ and its relation to the Plancherel decomposition.
Let $G$ be a connected semisimple real Lie group with finite center
(or more generally, reductive of Harish-Chandra's class),
and let $K\subset G$ be a maximal compact subgroup with
corresponding Cartan involution $\theta$. Let
$\fg=\fk\oplus\fp$ denote the
corresponding decomposition of the Lie algebra,
and let $\fa\subset\fp$ be a maximal abelian subspace.
Let $\cC(G)$ denote the Schwartz space for $G$, which is
dense in $L^2(G)$.
By definition, a {\it cusp form} on $G$ is a function $f\in\cC(G)$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{HC-cusp}
\int_N f(xny)\,dn=0,
\end{equation}
for all parabolic subgroups $P=MAN\subsetneq G$,
and all $x,y\in G$ (the integral converges absolutely for all
$f\in\cC(G)$). Let $L^2_{\rm ds}(G)$ denote the sum of all
the discrete series representations in $L^2(G)$. It is both left and
right invariant, and the intersection
$\cC_{\rm ds}(G)=L^2_{\rm ds}(G)\cap\cC(G)$ is a dense
subspace.
\begin{Thm}[Harish-Chandra] $\cC_{\rm ds}(G)$
is exactly the space of cusp forms. It is non-zero if and only if
$G$ and $K$ have equal rank.
\end{Thm}
The Plancherel decomposition
splits $L^2(G)$ into a finite sum of {\it series},
each of which is related to a particular
cuspidal parabolic subgroup $P=MAN$
(that is, ${\rm rank}\, M={\rm rank}\, M\cap K$).
The splitting can be accomplished as follows.
Let $\fh_1,\dots,\fh_r$ be a complete (up to conjugation)
set of $\theta$-stable Cartan subalgebras in $\fg$, and let
$\fa_i=\fh_i\cap\fp$ for $i=1,\dots,r$. For each $i=1,\dots,r$,
let $P_i$ be a parabolic subgroup with Langlands decomposition
$M_iA_iN_i$ such that $A_i=\exp\fa_i$.
We can arrange that $\fa_1=\fa$, then $P_1$ is a minimal
parabolic subgroup.
We now define $\cC_i(G)\subset \cC(G)$ as the set of
functions $f\in\cC(G)$ for which
\begin{itemize}
\item $f$ is orthogonal to all $h\in\cC(G)$ with
$\int_{N_i} h(xny)\,dn=0$, for all $x,y\in G$.
\item $\int_{N} f(xny)=0$, for all $x,y\in G$, for all
cuspidal parabolic subgroups
some conjugate of which is properly contained in $P_i$.
\end{itemize}
In particular, for $i=1$ the second condition is vacuous,
and $\cC_1(G)$, which is called the {\it most-continuous}
series, is just the orthocomplement of space of
functions annihilated by all integrals
$\int_{N_1} g(xny)\,dn$.
On the other hand, for ${\rm rank}\, G={\rm rank}\, K$,
we can arrange that $\fa_r=\{0\}$ and $N_r=\{e\}$.
Then for $i=r$ the first
condition is vacuous, and $\cC_r(G)$ is
the space $\cC_{\rm ds}(G)$ of cusp forms.
\begin{Thm}[Harish-Chandra] The following is an orthogonal direct sum
$$\cC(G)=\oplus_{i=1}^r \,\cC_i(G).$$
\end{Thm}
In Harish-Chandra's Plancherel decomposition, each piece
$\cC_i(G)$ (or its closure in $L^2(G)$) is further decomposed
into generalized principal series representations induced from $P_i$.
Let now $G/H$ be a semisimple symmetric space,
that is, the homogeneous space of $G$ with
a subgroup $H$ satisfying
$G^\sigma_e\subset H\subset G^\sigma$, where
$\sigma\colon G\to G$ is an involution, $G^\sigma$ the group of
its fixed points, and $G^\sigma_e$ the identity component of this
group. The problem of obtaining the Plancherel decomposition for $L^2(G/H)$
has been solved (see the references cited in the introduction).
In general terms the outcome is similar to what was described above for
$L^2(G)$. In particular, discrete series occur if and only if
$G/H$ and $K/K\cap H$ have equal rank.
One can also define a Schwartz space $\cC(G/H)$ for $G/H$,
and again (see \cite{B-SI}, Theorem 23.1) there is a finite decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{decomposition of C}
\cC(G/H)=\oplus_i\,\cC_i(G/H)
\end{equation}
where each piece decomposes as a direct integral of
representations induced from a particular parabolic subgroup.
However, the pieces in this decomposition are defined
representation theoretically.
The motivation behind this paper was to study the following
problem.
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Question:} {\it Is there a description of the $\cC_i(G/H)$
through integrals over subgroups $N$ (or $N/N\cap H$), similar to that
for $G$? In particular, can the discrete
series be characterized through some
reasonable definition of cusp forms?}
\medskip
Recall that a {\it minimal} $\sigma\theta$-stable parabolic subgroup
$P_{\sigma-\rm min}$ is obtained as follows. Let $\fg=\fh\oplus\fq$ be the
decomposition according to $\sigma$. We
may assume that $\sigma$ and $\theta$ commute, and can arrange
that $\fa$ is $\sigma$-invariant and that
$\fa_q:=\fa\cap\fq$ is maximal abelian in $\fp\cap\fq$.
The set $\Sigma$ of non-zero weights of $\fa_q$ in $\fg$
is a root system, and $P_{\sigma-\rm min}=MA_qN$ is
determined from a choice $\Sigma^+$ of positive roots. Here
$A_q=\exp\fa_q$, and $MA_q$ is its centralizer. The
{\it most-continuous series} for $G/H$, which is a basic
summand in (\ref{decomposition of C}),
is induced from a
parabolic subgroup of this form (see \cite{BSmc}).
More generally, the representations in
$\cC_i(G/H)$ are induced from a (not necessarily minimal)
$\sigma\theta$-stable parabolic subgroup $P_i$
(see \cite{B-SII}, Theorem 10.9).
It would be tempting
to apply the unipotent radicals $N_i$ of the $P_i$
in a definition of cusp forms on $G/H$:
\begin{equation}\label{cusp}
\int_{N_i} f(gnH)\,dn=0\quad (g\in G, P_i\neq G).
\end{equation}
In the group case, where $G$ is considered as
a symmetric space for $G\times G$, the $\sigma\theta$-stable
parabolic subgroups of $G\times G$ are of the form $P\times \theta(P)$, where
$P\subset G$ is parabolic, and thus the
integral (\ref{cusp}) becomes an integral over both $N$ and
$\theta(N)$. Hence (\ref{cusp}) differs substantially from
Harish-Chandra's definition (\ref{HC-cusp}) in this case.
Furthermore, although (\ref{cusp}) does converge
in the group case (see \cite{Wallach}, Lemma 15.8.1),
this is not the case for general symmetric spaces.
An example is provided below in Lemma \ref{diverging integrals}
(see however \cite{Kr} for the special case of $L^1$-discrete series
for $G/H$).
Based on these observations one is lead to look for
integrals over different subgroups, and
the following approach was suggested by the second author.
We first fix a system of
positive roots for $\fa$ in $\fg$,
such that $\Sigma^+$ consists of the non-zero restrictions
to $\fa_q$. Since $\Sigma^+$ was already given, this
only amounts to a choice of
positive roots for the root system of {\it pure
$\fa_h$-roots}, that is, the roots of $\fa$
which vanish on $\fa_q$.
On $\fa_q$ an ordering is determined by $\Sigma^+$.
On $\fa_h$ we choose an ordering which is compatible
with the positive pure roots.
More precisely, these orderings
can be attained by choosing elements $X_q\in\fa_q$
and $X_h\in\fa_h$ such that $\alpha(X_q)>0$ for all
$\alpha\in\Sigma^+$, and $\beta(X_h)>0$
for all positive pure $\fa_h$-roots $\beta$.
Furthermore, we request of $X_h$ that $\alpha(X_h)\neq 0$
for all roots of $\fa$ with non-zero $\fa_h$-restriction.
Then $X_q$ and $X_h$
determine the corresponding notions of positivity
for elements in $\fa_q^*$ and $\fa_h^*$. Notice that
the notion which results from the choice of
$X_h$ is in general not unique.
We now define the following subspaces (in fact subalgebras) of the Lie algebra
$\fn$ of $N$:
\smallskip
$\fn_+=\sum_\beta\fg^\beta$, where
$\beta$ is a root with $\beta|_{\fa_q}>0$
and $\beta|_{\fa_h}>0$.
$\fn_-=\sigma\theta(\fn_+)=\sum_\beta\fg^\beta$, where
$\beta$ is a root with $\beta|_{\fa_q}>0$
and $\beta|_{\fa_h}<0$.
$\fn_0=\sum_\beta\fg^\beta$, where
$\beta$ is a root with $\beta|_{\fa_q}>0$
and $\beta|_{\fa_h}=0$.
\smallskip
\noindent Then $\fn=\fn_+\oplus\fn_0\oplus\fn_-$, and
\begin{equation}\label{defin*}
\fn^*:=\fn_+\oplus\fn_0=\sum_{\beta|_{\fa_q}>0,\, \beta|_{\fa_h}\geq0}\fg^\beta
\end{equation}
is a subalgebra. Let $\fn^{**}= \fn_-$ such that
$\fn=\fn^*\oplus \fn^{**}$. Similarly, let $N^*=\exp(\fn^*)$
and $N^{**}=\exp(\fn^{**})$, then $N=N^*N^{**}$.
Notice that $N^*$ intersects trivially with $H$,
since this is the case already for $N$.
The suggestion is to replace $N$ by $N^*$ in (\ref{cusp}) and
consider integrals of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{newcusp}
\int_{N^*} f(gn^*H)\,dn^*
\end{equation}
in a possible definition of cusp forms on $G/H$.
It is easily seen that in the group case, the
integrals (\ref{newcusp}) amount
exactly to those in Harish-Chandra's
original integral (\ref{HC-cusp})
for minimal parabolic subgroups.
It is useful also to view $N^*$ as a quotient
of the nilpotent part of a particular
minimal parabolic subgroup $P_1$
of $G$. For this purpose we define
\begin{equation}\label{n1}
\fn_1=\fn_+\oplus\fn_0\oplus\theta(\fn_-)\oplus\sum_\beta\fg^\beta,
\end{equation}
with the final summation over the positive pure
$\fa_h$-roots.
It follows from the maximality of $\fa_q$, that
the sum $\sum_\beta\fg^\beta$ in (\ref{n1})
is contained in $\fh$. Using this and the fact that
$\sigma\colon\fn_+\to\theta(\fn_-)$ is bijective,
one concludes easily for the Lie algebra
$$\fn_1=\fn^*\oplus(\fn_1\cap\fh).$$
Let $N_1=\exp(\fn_1)$, then the following holds
similarly.
\begin{Lemma} The mapping $(n_1,n_2)\mapsto n_1n_2$
is a diffeomorphism of $N^*\times (N_1\cap H)$ onto $N_1$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
The map $(n_1,n_2)\mapsto n_1n_2$ is clearly injective.
By \cite{Helgason DGLSS}, Lemma VI 5.2,
it is a diffeomorphism onto an open subset
$N^* (N_1\cap H)$ of $N_1$ containing $N_0$.
Let $a_t = \exp(t X_h)$. Then $\lim_{t \mapsto \infty} (a_{-t} n_1 a_t) \in N_0$
for all $n_1 \in N_1$, whence $a_{-t} n_1 a_t \in N^* (N_1\cap H)$ for $t$ sufficiently large.
Since both $N^*$ and $(N_1\cap H)$ are normalized by $a_t$, it follows that $n_1 \in N^* (N_1\cap H)$.
Therefore $N_1 = N^* (N_1\cap H)$, and the result follows.
\qed\end{proof}
We thus have
$$N^* \simeq N_1/N_1\cap H.$$
The construction of $N^*$ is motivated
by the observation that
it is the smallest subgroup of $N$ which can be realized
as a quotient of this form for some minimal parabolic subgroup
of $G$ containing $A$.
For a function $f$ on $G/H$, we define its Radon transform
$Rf$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{R-def}
R f(g) := \int _{N^*} f(gn^*H) \,dn^*
=\int_{N_1/N_1\cap H} f(gn_1H) \,d\dot n_1,\qquad (g\in G),
\end{equation}
provided the integral converges.
Let $\cC(G/H)$ denote the Schwartz space for $G/H$
(see \cite{vdB1992}). At the time of the present research
we expected that (\ref{R-def}) would converge for
all $f \in \cC(G/H)$. However, recently it has been suggested
by van den Ban and Kuit (see \cite{BanKuit}, \cite{BanKuitS})
that the definition of $N^*$ needs to be refined. More precisely,
one needs in addition that the
element $X_h$ is so chosen, that the roots of $\fn_+$ have
non-negative inner product with the sum of the positive
pure $\fa_h$-roots (this can always be attained).
For the hyperbolic spaces investigated in the present paper,
this extra condition is always fulfilled.
Assuming that $Rf$ is well defined for $f\in\cC(G/H)$,
one can define the cuspidal discrete series for $G/H$
to consist of those discrete series for which the corresponding functions
in $\cC(G/H)$ are annihilated by $R$.
We shall need a result about the relation between $R$ and
invariant differential operators on $G/H$.
We let $P_{\sigma-\rm min}=MA_qN$ be as above.
Since $$\fg=\fn\oplus(\fm\cap\fq)\oplus\fa_q\oplus\fh,$$ we can define
a map $$\mu: \D(G/H)\to\D(M/M\cap H)\otimes \D(A_q)$$
by $\mu(D)=T(D_0)$, where
\begin{equation}\label{u-u0}
u-u_0\in \fn\cU(\fg)+\cU(\fg)\fh,
\end{equation}
and $u\in\cU(\fg)^H, u_0\in\cU(\fm)^{M\cap H}\otimes\cU(\fa_q)$
are elements that represent $D$ and $D_0$, and where
$T(D_0)=a^{-\rho}D_0\circ a^{\rho}$
(see for example \cite{vdB1992}, p. 341). The map is independent of the
choice of positive system for $\fa_q$.
Let $\fm_{nc}$ be the ideal in $\fm$ generated by
$\fm\cap\fp$. It follows from
maximality of $\fa_q$ that $\fm_{nc}\subset\fh$.
The complementary ideal $\fm_c$
is contained in $\fk$ and centralizes $\fa$. Let
$M_c\subset M$ be the corresponding analytic subgroup.
Using the decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{dec m}
\fm=\fm_c\oplus\fm_{nc},
\end{equation}
and the fact that $\fm_{nc}\subset\fh$, we see that
$$\D(M/M\cap H)\simeq\D(M_c/M_c\cap H).$$
Therefore, we may as well regard $\mu$ as a map
$$\mu: \D(G/H)\to\D(M_c/M_c\cap H)\otimes \D(A_q).$$
We denote by $\rho$, $\rho^*$, $\rho^{**}$, $\rho_1\in\fa^*$
half the sum of the roots of $\fn$, $\fn^*$, $\fn^{**}$,
and $\fn_1$ respectively (with multiplicities).
Then $\rho=\rho^*+\rho^{**}$ and
$$\rho_1|_{\fa_q}=(\rho^*-\rho^{**})|_{\fa_q}.$$
Let $f$ be a smooth function on $G/H$, such that
the defining integral of $Rf$ allows the application of right
derivatives by all elements from $\cU(\fg)$.
\begin{Lemma}\label{Af eigenfunction}
Let
\begin{equation}
\cA f(ma) := a^{\rho_1} Rf(ma),
\end{equation}
for $m\in M_c$ and $a\in A_q$.
Then
$$
\cA(Df)=\mu(D)\cA f,
$$
for $D\in\D(G/H)$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Notice first that since $M_cA_q$ centralizes $\fa$,
it preserves $N^*$ in the adjoint action. Moreover,
the pull-back of the invariant measure
$dn^*$ by the action of $ma\in M_cA_q$ is
$a^{-2\rho^*}\,dn^*$. It follows that
\begin{equation}\label{Af}
\cA f(ma)=a^{\rho_1}\int_{N^*} f(man^*H)\,dn^*
=a^{-\rho}\int_{N^*} f(n^*maH)\,dn^*.
\end{equation}
Let $u$ and $u_0$ be as above, and note that
as remarked above we may
assume $u_0\in \cU(\fm_c+\fa_q)$.
We shall prove that (\ref{u-u0}) implies
\begin{equation}
u-u_0\in \fn^*\cU(\fg)+\cU(\fg)\fh,
\end{equation}
from which the desired property of $A(Df)(ma)$ then follows
by application of $u$ from the right in
the last expression in (\ref{Af}).
By Poincar\'e-Birkhoff-Witt $u-u_0$, modulo $\cU(\fg)\fh$,
is a sum of terms of the form $X_1\cdots X_k Y_1\cdots Y_l$
where $X_1,\dots,X_k$ are root vectors in $\fn$, say for roots
$\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_k$, and $Y_1,\dots,Y_l$ belong to
$(\fm\cap\fq)+\fa_q$.
We arrange that the basis elements $X_i$ for $\fn$
are ordered such that roots of $\fn^{*}$ come first.
Since $u-u_0$ commutes with $\fa_h$, it follows from the uniqueness
of the expression that $\alpha_1+\dots+\alpha_k$
vanishes on $\fa_h$ for all non-zero terms. As the roots of $\fn^{**}$
are strictly negative on some element in $\fa_h$, it follows that
in each non-zero contribution at least one root vector $X_i$ must
belong to $\fn^*$.\qed
\end{proof}
Notice that if $f$ is an eigenfunction of
the Laplace operator $L$ on $G/H $, then it follows from from
Lemma \ref{Af eigenfunction},
that $\cA f$ is an eigenfunction for $\mu(L)$ on $M_cA$
with the same eigenvalue.
The operator $\mu(L)$ is explicitly determined in
\cite{Arkiv paper}, Lemma 5.3. In particular,
if $M_c\subset H$,
it follows that if $Lf=cf$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eigenvalue}
(L_A-\rho^2)(\cA f)=c\cA f,
\end{equation}
on A. Here $L_A$ is the
(Euclidean) Laplace operator on $A$, normalized
compatibly with the normalization of $L$.
When we define $L$ to be the image of the Casimir element
in $\cU(\fg)$,
this means that correspondingly $L_A$ is the image of
the Casimir element in $\cU(\fa)$.
\section{Notation and definitions for real hyperbolic spaces}
In this and the following sections $G=\SO(p,q+1)_e$ denotes the
identity component of $\SO(p,q+1)$ and $H=\SO(p,q)_e$ the identity component
of $\SO(p,q)$, embedded in the upper left corner of $G$
as the stabilizer of
$x_0=e_{p+q+1}\in\R^{p+q+1}$.
Throughout we assume $p,q \ge 1$. Then $G/H$ is a
non-Riemannian symmetric space.
The corresponding involution $\sigma$ of $G$ is
obtained from conjugation by the diagonal matrix
$(1,\dots,1,-1)$. The fixed point group $G^\sigma$ has two components,
$H$ and $Hc$, where $c\in G$ is the diagonal matrix
$(1,\dots,1,-1,-1)$.
It is known that $G/H$ is simply connected except for $q=1$, where $G/H$ has
an infinite-folded covering. This means that for $q=1$ we can get a somewhat
more general result by going to coverings.
The map $G\ni g\mapsto gx_0$
induces an identification of $G/H$
with the real hyperbolic space $X=X_{p,q}$, defined by the equation
$$ x_1^2 + x_2^2 + ... + x_p^2 - x_{p+1}^2 - ... - x_{p+q+1}^2 = -1$$
in $\R^{p+q+1}$. Likewise $G/G^\sigma$ is identified
with the projective real hyperbolic space $\P X$,
in which antipodal points
$x$ and $-x$ are identified.
The group $K = K_1\times K_2= \SO(p) \times \SO(q+1)\subset G$ is a
maximal compact subgroup, of which the corresponding Cartan involution
will be denoted $\theta$.
We define one-parameter abelian subgroups $A=\{a_t\}\subset G$ and
$T=\{k_\theta\}\subset K_2$
by
\[a_{t} =
\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc
\cosh t & 0 & \sinh t\\
0 & I_{p+q-1} & 0 \\
\sinh t & 0 & \cosh t
\end{array}
\right) ,
\]
and
\[k_{\theta} =
\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc
I_p & 0 & 0& 0 \\
0& \cos\theta & 0 & \sin\theta\\
0& 0 & I_{q-1} & 0 \\
0& -\sin\theta & 0 & \cos\theta
\end{array}
\right) ,
\]
where $I_j$ denotes the identity matrix of size $j$.
Then
\begin{equation}\label{kax0}
k_\theta a_t x_0 =
(\sinh t, 0,\dots,0;\sin\theta\cosh t,0,\dots,0,\cos\theta\cosh t).
\end{equation}
The semicolon, which will be used again later,
indicates the separation of the first
$p$ from the last $q+1$ coordinates. The generalized Cartan
decomposition $G=KAH$ holds and gives rise to the use of
{\it polar coordinates} on $X$:
$$K\times \R\ni (k,t)\mapsto ka_tH\in X.$$
In this case we have in addition that $K_1\subset H$ and
$K_2=(K_2\cap H)T(K_2 \cap H)$,
where $K_2\cap H=\SO(q)$ centralizes $A$. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{G-decomposition}
K=(K\cap H)T(K_2\cap H)\quad\text{and}\quad G=(K\cap H)TAH.
\end{equation}
In particular, we shall deal with functions $f$ on $G/H$ which are
$K\cap H$-invariant from the left. It follows that such a function
is uniquely determined by the values
$
f(k_\theta a_tH)
$
for $(\theta,t)\in [0,2\pi]\times\R$. Notice, that the antipodal point
corresponding to $k_\theta a_tH$ is $k_{\theta + \pi} a_{-t}H$.
The $K$-types with a $K\cap H$-fixed vector
are generated by the $K\cap H$-bi-invariant
zonal spherical functions on $K$.
In the present case the zonal spherical
functions on $\SO(q+1)/\SO(q)$ are given by
$$k_\theta\mapsto R_\mu (\cos\theta),$$ when $q>1$,
where $ R_\mu$ is a particular Gegenbauer polynomial
of degree $\mu\in \Z^+$ (i.e. $\mu\in \Z$ and $\mu \ge 0$).
We normalize these by $ R_\mu(1)= 1$, and
note that in particular $ R_1(\cos\theta)= \cos\theta.$
When $q=1$, we also allow the integer
$\mu$ to be negative, and replace $R_\mu (\cos\theta)$
by
$$k_\theta\mapsto e^{i\mu\theta}.$$
It follows that a function $f$ on $G/H$
which is $K$-finite of irreducible type $\mu$
and $K\cap H$-invariant, must be of the form
\begin{equation}\label{expression for f}
f(k_\theta a_t) = R_\mu(\cos \theta) f(a_t), \quad\text{respectively}\quad f(k_\theta a_t)= e^{i\mu\theta}f(a_t).
\end{equation}
In the study of discrete series on semisimple symmetric spaces
$G/H$, one often needs the following general fact:
\begin{Lemma}\label{generating function}
Let $\cV$ be an irreducible, non-zero closed invariant subspace of
$L^2(G/H)$ or $C^\infty(G/H)$.
Then $\cV$ contains a function $f$ with the properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $f(e)=1$,
\item[(b)] $f$ is an eigenfunction for the Casimir operator on $G/H$,
\item[(c)] $f$ is $K\cap H$-invariant and of some irreducible $K$-type $\mu$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Lemma}
Since $\cV$ is irreducible, it is generated by this element $f$.
The number $\mu$ is related to the highest weight of
the $K$-type as follows. Let $T\in\fk$
be the infinitesimal generator of $k_\theta$,
then $i\mu$ is the value of the highest weight on $T$
(with a suitable choice of positive restricted roots for $\fk$).
\subsection{Parametrization of discrete series}\label{subs ds}
We define
\begin{equation}\label{defi rho}
\rho = \half (p+q-1) \quad\text{and}\quad \rho_c = \half (q-1),
\end{equation}
and for $\lambda>0$
\begin{equation*}
\mu_{\lambda} = \lambda +\rho - 2\rho_c.
\end{equation*}
We first consider the case $q>1$.
It is known (see for example \cite{FJ}, Section 8)
that the discrete series for the hyperbolic space $G/H$ is
parametrized by the set of positive numbers $\lambda$
such that $\mu_{\lambda} \in \Z$.
The representations that arise from the construction
for general semisimple symmetric spaces in \cite{FJ} are
exactly those for which $\mu_\lambda\geq 0$. The remaining
discrete series (called `exceptional' in \cite{FJ}),
correspond to those (finitely many) parameters $\lambda>0$ for which
$\mu_\lambda<0$. The exceptional
parameters exist if and only if $q>p+3$. The discrete
series representation
with parameter $\lambda$ descends to the projective space
$\P X$ if and only if $\mu_\lambda$ is even.
For general semisimple symmetric spaces, the full
discrete series (including the exceptional ones)
is described in \cite{O-M}.
For $q=1$, where $\rho_c=0$,
we parametrize the discrete series by $\lambda \in \R\setminus\{0\}$
such that $|\lambda| + \rho \in \Z$.
In this case we have $\mu_\lambda=\lambda+\rho\geq1$ for $\lambda>0$,
whereas for $\lambda<0$ we define
$$\mu_\lambda=\lambda-\rho\leq-1.$$
There are no exceptional discrete series.
We note that for $q=1$ every $\lambda \ne 0$ defines a relative
discrete series for the infinite covering space of $G/H$.
We return to the general situation $q\geq1$, and describe the
discrete series which are spherical, according to \cite{FJ}, Theorem 8.2.
Spherical discrete series exist if and only if $q>p+1$, and in this case,
the representation with parameter $\lambda$ is spherical
if and only if $\mu_\lambda\le 0$ and even.
The discrete series parameter $\lambda$ is related to the eigenvalue of the
Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta$ of $G/H$ on the
corresponding representation
space in $L^2(G/H)$. More precisely, we have
$\Delta f=(\lambda^2-\rho^2)f$,
for functions $f$ in this space
(with suitable normalization of~$\Delta$), and we can explicitly describe the
discrete series
by a generating function of the form
(\ref{expression for f}) as follows.
\begin{Prop}\label{generating function1}
Let $\lambda\in\R\setminus\{0\}$ be a discrete series parameter
(if $q>1$, this implies in particular that $\lambda >0$).
The corresponding discrete series representation $T_\lambda$ has
a $K\cap H$-invariant generating function
of the following form
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]
For $q>1$ and $\mu_\lambda\ge 0$,
$$ \psi_\lambda (k_\theta a_t) =
R_{\mu_\lambda}(\cos\theta)\,(\ch t)^{-\lambda - \rho}.$$
For $q=1$ and $\mu_\lambda \in\Z$, or for all $\lambda$ for the relative discrete series for the universal covering,
$$ \psi_\lambda (k_\theta a_t) =
e^{i\mu_\lambda\theta}\,(\ch t)^{-|\lambda| - \rho}.$$
\item[(ii)]
For $q>p+3$, $\mu_\lambda=-n < 0$
and
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(I)]
$n= 2m$ even,
$$ \xi_\lambda (k_\theta a_t) =
P_\lambda(\ch^2t) (\ch t)^{-\lambda-\rho-2m}.
$$
\item[(II)]
$n= 2m - 1$ odd,
$$ \xi_\lambda (k_\theta a_t) =\cos \theta\,\,
P_\lambda(\ch^2t) (\ch t)^{-\lambda-\rho-2m},
$$
\end{enumerate}
where in each case $P_\lambda$ is a polynomial of degree $m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof} The expressions for the generating
functions can be derived from
known explicit formulas with hypergeometric functions
for the $K$-finite functions
on $G/H$, see \cite{RLN}, p.~1864, or
\cite{Faraut}, p.~403.
However, we prefer to give an alternative proof which
relates more directly to general theory.
For (i) we refer to \cite{FJ}, formula (8.11), and for
(ii) we refer to \cite{FJO}, where explicit expressions are
determined for the generating functions of the
exceptional discrete series. It follows from \cite{FJO}, Theorem 5.1,
that the following function generates the discrete series
with parameter $\lambda$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(I)]
$n= 2m$ even,
$$ \xi_\lambda (k_\theta a_t) =
\phi_{n,m}(\sh^2 t),
$$
\item[(II)]
$n= 2m - 1$ odd,
$$ \xi_\lambda (k_\theta a_t) =
\cos \theta\ch t \,\,\phi_{n, m}(\sh^2 t).
$$
\end{enumerate}
Here $\phi_{n,m}$ is the function on $\R^+$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{defi phi}
\phi_{n, m}(s^2)= [\omega^m(1+x^2)^{n-\rho_c}]_{|x=(s, 0, ... ,0)},
\end{equation}
where $x\in\R^p$, and where
$\omega$ denotes the Laplace operator on $\R^p$.
Note that $\xi_\lambda$ differs from the function constructed
in \cite{FJO} by being $K\cap H$-invariant.
In the notation of \cite{FJO}, the $K\cap H$-invariant
generating function is $\int_{K\cap H}\xi^o_{\lambda,\omega^m} (kg)\, dk $.
In order to prove the proposition it now suffices to show
for each relevant pair $(n,m)$ that there exists a polynomial
$P$ of degree $m$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{expression phi}
\phi_{n,m}(s^2)=P(s^2)(1+s^2)^{n-2m-\rho_c},\quad(s\in\R)
\end{equation}
for all $s\in\R$.
The expression (\ref{expression phi}) is derived from (\ref{defi phi})
by successive use of the following lemma. Note that
$n-\rho_c=-\lambda-\rho+\rho_c<-\frac p2.$
\qed\end{proof}
\begin{Lemma}
Let $Q$ be a polynomial of degree $d$ and let $\nu\in\R$. Then
there exists a polynomial $P$ of degree $\le d+1$ such that
$$
\omega(Q(x^2)(1+x^2)^\nu)=P(x^2)(1+x^2)^{\nu-2},\quad(x\in\R^p).
$$
If $\nu+d\neq 0$ and $\nu+d\neq -\frac{p-2}2$ then $\deg P=d+1$
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} The existence of the polynomial $P$ is an easy
computation. The statement about its degree follows from
the fact that
$$
Q(x^2)(1+x^2)^\nu=(x^2)^{\nu+d}+\text{ lower order terms,}
$$
since $\omega(x^\mu)=\mu(\mu+p-2)x^{\mu-2}$ for all $\mu\in\R$.\qed
\end{proof}
\section{A unipotent subgroup}
Define
$$
n_{u,v}=\exp(Z_{u,v})\in G, \quad\text{with}\quad
Z_{u,v}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc
0 & u & v & 0\\
-u^t & 0 & 0 & u^t\\
v^t & 0 & 0 & -v^t \\
0 & u & v & 0
\end{array}
\right)\in \fg,
$$
where $u\in\R^{p-1}$ and $v\in\R^q$ are considered as rows,
and $u^t$, $v^t$ are the corresponding columns.
If $Y$ denotes the infinitesimal generator of $a_t$, then
$[Y,Z_{u,v}]=Z_{u,v}$ for all $u,v$.
The matrices $Z_{u,v}$ span a commutative subalgebra $\fn$ of $\fg$,
and the subgroup $N=\exp(\fn)$
is the unipotent radical of a minimal
$\sigma\theta$-stable parabolic subgroup $P$ in $G$. In particular,
we note that $N\cap H$ is trivial.
Easy calculations show
\begin{equation}\label{nx0}
n_{u,v} x_0 = (\half (u^2 - v^2),u;{-}v,1 + \half (u^2 - v^2)),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{anx0}
a_s n_{u,v} x_0 = (\sh s + \half \es (u^2 - v^2),u;{-}v
,\ch s + \half \es (u^2 - v^2)),
\end{equation}
for all $s\in\R$, where $u^2=u\cdot u$ and $v^2=v\cdot v$ as usual.
\begin{Lemma}\label{diverging integrals}
Assume $p>1$ and
$p+q>3$. Then there exists a non-negative $K$-invariant
Schwartz function $f\in\cC(G/H)$ for which the integral
$\int_N f(n)\,dn$ diverges.
Assume in addition
$q>p+1$. Then the integral diverges for the
$K$-invariant discrete series function $f=\psi_\lambda$
where $\lambda=\frac12(q-p-1)$ (see Proposition
\ref{generating function1}(i)).
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $f(ka_tH)=(\cosh t)^{-\rho-\nu}$, with $\nu>0$, then
$f\in \cC(G/H)$ (see the remark after Theorem \ref{first prop}).
Using (\ref{kax0}) and (\ref{nx0}), we find
$$
\begin{aligned}
\int_N f(n)\,dn&=\int_{\R^q} \int_{\R^{p-1}} f(n_{u,v})\, du\, dv\\
&=\int_{\R^q} \int_{\R^{p-1}} (v^2+(1+\frac12(u^2-v^2))^2)^{-\frac12(\rho+\nu)}\, du\, dv\\
&=\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty (y^2+(1+\frac12(x^2-y^2))^2)^{-\frac12(\rho+\nu)}
x^{p-2} y^{q-1}\, dx\, dy.
\end{aligned}
$$
In particular, for $1\le y\le x\le y+1$, we have
$0\le x^2-y^2=(x-y)(x+y)\le 2y+1$, and hence
$$y^2+(1+\frac12(x^2-y^2))^2\le 10y^2.$$
Hence
$$
\begin{aligned}
\int_N f(n)\,dn
&\geq \int_1^\infty \int_{y}^{y+1}
(10y^2)^{-\frac12(\rho+\nu)} x^{p-2} y^{q-1}\, dx\, dy\\
&\geq C\int_1^\infty
y^{-(\rho+\nu)+p+q-3}\, dy,
\end{aligned}
$$
with $C>0$. This integral
diverges when $\nu\le \frac12(p+q-3)$.
If $q>p+1$ and $\lambda=\frac12(q-p-1)$, then the function $f$ defined above
with $\nu=\lambda$ is exactly $\psi_\lambda$. The integral diverges
since in this case $\lambda=\frac12(q-p-1)\le\frac12(p+q-3)$.
\qed\end{proof}
If $p+q\le 3$, it is likely that the $N$-integral converges for all
Schwartz functions, but we shall not consider this question here.
Motivated by Section \ref{general theory},
we now define the following subgroup of $N$.
Let
$$u=(u_1,\dots,u_{p-1})\in \R^{p-1}\quad\text{and}\quad
v = (v_q, \dots ,v_1)\in\R^q.$$
It is convenient to number the entries of $v$ from right to left
as indicated. It is not difficult to verify that the following agrees with
(\ref{defin*}).
\begin{Def} Let $N^*\subset N$ be the $\max (p-1, q)$-dimensional subgroup
$$
N^*=\{ n_{u,v} \mid u\in\R^{p-1}, v\in\R^q, u_j=v_j \text{ for } j=1,\dots,l \},
$$
where $l = \min (p-1, q)$.
\end{Def}
We want to integrate $K\cap H$-invariant functions on $G/H$
over sets of the form $a_sN^*$,
where $s\in\R$, with respect to Haar measure of $N^*$.
For this purpose we shall need the following,
which is easily deduced from
(\ref{kax0}) and (\ref{anx0}).
The relation
$$(K\cap H)k_\theta a_t H = (K\cap H) a_s n_{u,v}H $$
implies
$$\ch^2 t = v^2 + (\ch s + \half\es (u^2 - v^2))^2$$
and
$$ \cos \theta = (\ch s + \half\es (u^2 - v^2))/ \ch t$$
for all $\theta$, $t$, $s$, $u$ and $v$.
When $p = 1$, the value of $t$, including its sign,
can also be determined by
$$ \sh t = \sh s + \half\es (- v^2), $$
whereas if $p > 1$ the sign is redundant since by (\ref{kax0})
the double cosets $(K\cap H)k_\theta a_t H$ and $(K\cap H)k_\theta a_{-t} H$
are identical. We assume in this case that $t\ge 0$.
With these relations between $(s,u,v)$ and $(\theta,t)$,
we have $f(a_s n_{u,v}H)= f(k_\theta a_t H)$
for $K\cap H$-invariant functions $f$ on $G/H$.
We assume now $n_{u,v} \in N^*$. Then the expression $u^2-v^2$ simplifies.
We distinguish the two cases:
\smallskip
{\bf A.} $p> q$. Then $u=(v_1,\dots,v_q,u')$, where
$u'\in\R^{p-1-q}$. We put $x=\|u'\|$ and $y=\|v\|$, and obtain
\begin{equation}\label{first cosh}
\ch^2 t= y^2+(\ch s+\half\es x^2)^2.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{first cos}
\cos \theta = (\ch s + \half\es x^2)/ \ch t.
\end{equation}
For the integration over $N^*$ we use polar coordinates
for $u'$ and $v$ with
\begin{equation}\label{first alphabeta}
\alpha=p-2-q, \quad \beta=q-1.
\end{equation}
We conclude that the measure on $N^*$ can be normalized such that
for a $K\cap H$-invariant function,
\begin{equation}\label{N*integral}
\int_{N^*} f(a_s n^*H)\,dn^*
=\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty f(k_\theta a_tH)\, x^\alpha y^\beta\, dx\, dy,
\end{equation}
where $t=t(s,x,y)\geq 0$ is determined
by (\ref{first cosh}) and $\theta= \theta(s,x,y)$ by (\ref{first cos}).
Note that in the degenerate case $p-1=q$,
we have $u'=0$. Hence $x=0$ in (\ref{first cosh}),
and the right hand side of (\ref{N*integral})
has to be interpreted without the integration over $x$.
\smallskip
{\bf B.} $q \ge p $. Then $v=(v',u_{p-1},\dots,u_1)$, where
$v'\in\R^{q-p+1}$. We put $x=\|u\|$ and $y=\|v'\|$, and obtain
\begin{equation}\label{second cosh}
\ch^2 t= x^2+y^2+(\ch s-\half\es y^2)^2.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{second cos}
\cos \theta = (\ch s - \half\es y^2)/ \ch t.
\end{equation}
We use polar coordinates
for $u$ and $v'$ with
\begin{equation}\label{second alphabeta}
\alpha=p-2, \quad \beta=q-p.
\end{equation}
Then (\ref{N*integral}) holds with $t=t(s,x,y)\geq 0$ determined
by (\ref{second cosh}) and $\theta= \theta(s,x,y)$ by (\ref{second cos}).
In the degenerate case $p=1$, the sign of $t$ is determined by
$$ \sh t = \sh s - \half\es (y^2). $$
Note also that in this case $u=0$, so that
$x=0$ in (\ref{second cosh}), and again (\ref{N*integral})
is interpreted without integration over $x$.
\medskip
To summarize, let us define
for $s,x,y\in\R$
\begin{equation}\label{def Theta}
\Theta(s,x,y)=\begin{cases}
y^2+(\ch s+\half\es x^2)^2, & (p> q) \\
x^2+y^2+(\ch s-\half\es y^2)^2, \quad& (q \ge p).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then in particular
for a $K$-invariant function on $G/H$, we can write
\begin{equation}\label{N*integral2}
\int_{N^*} f(a_s n^*H)\,dn^* =
\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty F(\Theta(s,x,y)) x^\alpha y^\beta\, dx\, dy,
\end{equation}
where $F$ is the function $F(\ch^2 t)=f(a_tH)$ on $\R_+$,
and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are given by either (\ref{first alphabeta}) or (\ref{second alphabeta}).
We have normalized the measure on $N^*$ such that
this integral equation is valid without a constant.
\section{Main results for real hyperbolic spaces}
For functions on $G/H$ we define, assuming convergence,
$$Rf(g) = \int _{N^*} f(g n^*H)\, dn^*, \qquad (g\in G),$$
in accordance with the definition of the Radon transform
in Section \ref{general theory}.
We shall be particularly interested in the values of
$Rf$ on the elements $a_s$. For simplicity we write
$$ Rf(s) = Rf(a_s)= \int _{N^*} f(a_s n^*H)\, dn^*,\quad (s\in\R). $$
For $K$-invariant functions this integral is explicitly
expressed in (\ref{N*integral2}).
Referring to Lemma \ref{Af eigenfunction}, we find
$$\rho_1=
\begin{cases}
\frac12(p-q-1)\, & \text{if } p> q \\
\frac12(q-p+1) & \text{if } p\le q,
\end{cases}
$$
and recall that $\cA f(a)=a^{\rho_1} Rf(a)$.
It follows from (\ref{eigenvalue})
that if $Lf=(\lambda^2-\rho^2)f$, then $(d/ds)^2\cA f=\lambda^2\cA f$,
and hence $Rf$ is a linear combination
\begin{equation}\label{exponential function combination}
Rf(s)=C_1e^{(-\rho_1+\lambda)s}+C_2e^{(-\rho_1-\lambda)s}.
\end{equation}
\begin{Thm}\label{first prop}
Let $f$ be a continuous function on $G/H$, and assume
there exists a constant $C>0$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{Schwartz1}
|f(ka_t)| \le C\ (\ch t)^{-\rho}\, (1+\log(\ch t))^{-{2}},
\end{equation}
for all $t\in\R$, $k\in K$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] {\rm Convergence.} The defining integral of $Rf(s)$
converges absolutely for all $s\in\R$.
\item[(ii)]{\rm Compact support.} If $f(ka_t) = 0$ for all
$k\in K$ and $|t| \ge t_0 >0 $, then
$$Rf(s) = 0,$$
\begin{description}
\item[A] for all $|s|\ge t_0$ if $p>q$,
\item[B] for all $s\le -t_0$ if $p\le q$.
\end{description}
\item[(iii)]{\rm Decay.} Let $N\ge {2}$, and put
\begin{equation}\label{SchwartzN}
\|f\|_N=\sup_{t\in\R, k\in K} \,(\ch t)^{\rho}\, (1+\log(\ch t))^{N}\,|f(ka_t)|.
\end{equation}
Assume $\|f\|_N <\infty$. There exists a constant $C_N>0$ (independent of $f$), such that
$$e^{\rho_1 s}\, |Rf(s)| \leq C_N \|f\|_N(1+|s|)^{-(N-{2})}, $$
\begin{description}
\item[a] for all $s\in\R$ if $p\ge q$,
\item[b] for all $s\le 0$ if $p< q$.
\end{description}
\item[(iv)]{\rm Limits.} Assume that $p < q$.
The function $\es Rf(s)$ is bounded on $\R^+$.
If $f$ is $K$-invariant, then the limit $\lim_{s\to\infty}\es Rf(s)$
exists, and if in addition $f$ is positive and
not identically zero,
then this limit is positive.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
Note the difference between the conditions for {\bf A}, {\bf B}
versus {\bf a}, {\bf b}.
We also remark that a Schwartz function $f\in\cC(G/H)$ by definition, see \cite{NBA}, Definition 2.1, satisfies
the growth conditions $\|D f\|_N <\infty$, for all $D\in\D(G/H)$ and all $N\in \N$, with $\|\cdot\|_N$ defined
by (\ref{SchwartzN}). In particular, $f\in\cC(G/H)$ satisfies (\ref{Schwartz1}).
\begin{Thm}\label{second thm}
Let $\lambda \ne 0$ be a discrete series parameter,
and let $f$ be the generating function of
Proposition~\ref{generating function1}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\lambda > 0$ and $\mu_\lambda> 0$, then
$Rf=0$. Likewise if $\lambda <0$ and $\mu_\lambda< 0$.
\item If $\lambda > 0$ and $\mu_\lambda\le 0$, then
$Rf(s) = Ce^{(-\rho_1+\lambda)s}\,(s\in\R)$,
for some $C\neq 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
Notice that the second statement in (1) is only relevant when $q=1$.
In this case (2) never occurs, and we always have $Rf=0$.
This is also the case for all relative discrete series
parameters (see Subsection \ref{subs ds}).
In conclusion, we have the following characterization of the cuspidal and non-cuspidal discrete series.
\begin{Thm}\label{third thm}
Let $\lambda \ne 0$ be a discrete series parameter.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $q>1$. Then the discrete series representation $T_\lambda$
is cuspidal if and only if $\mu_\lambda>0$.
\item Let $q\le p+1$. Then all discrete series are cuspidal
(if $q=1$, then all the relative discrete series
are also cuspidal).
\item All spherical discrete series for G/H are non-cuspidal.
These representations exist if and only if $q>p+1$.
\item There exist non-spherical non-cuspidal discrete series
if and only if $q>p+3$. These representations do not descend to discrete series
of the real projective hyperbolic space.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
This follows easily from Theorem \ref{second thm} and the
description of the discrete series in Subsection \ref{subs ds}.
\section{Proofs}
The proofs are based on the following two lemmas.
\begin{Lemma}\label{bound Theta}
For each $s\in\R$, there exist numbers $a,b>0$ such that
$$
\Theta (s,x,y) \ge
\begin{cases}
y^2+ax^4+b \quad &\text{if} \quad p>q \\
x^2+ay^4+b \quad &\text{if} \quad q\ge p ,
\end{cases}
$$
for all $x,y\in\R$. If $p>q$ or $s\le 0$, then
the numbers $a,b$ can be chosen as follows
$$
a=\frac14 e^{2s},\, b=\cosh^2s.
$$
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} The statements for $p>q$ are straightforward from
(\ref{def Theta}). Assume $p\le q$. From (\ref{def Theta})
we obtain
$$\Theta(s,x,y)=x^2+\frac14e^{2s}y^4+\frac12(1-e^{2s})y^2+\cosh^2s.$$
The statements for $s\leq0$ follow. By rewriting
\begin{equation}\label{Theta}
\Theta(s,x,y)=x^2+
\frac14e^{2s}(y^2-1)^2+\frac12y^2+\frac12+\frac14e^{-2s},
\end{equation}
we finally see that for $s\geq0$
$$\Theta(s,x,y)\ge x^2+
\frac14(y^2-1)^2+\frac12y^2+\frac12=x^2+\frac14y^4+\frac34.\qquad\square$$
\end{proof}
\begin{Lemma}\label{integrabilitet}
Let $a,b,c,d$ and $\gamma$ be $> 0$, then
$$ \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty (1+x^a+y^b)^{-\gamma} x^{c-1} y^{d-1}\, dx\, dy < \infty,$$
if $$\frac{c}a + \frac{d}b <\gamma .$$
Furthermore
$$ \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty (1+x^a+y^b)^{-\gamma} x^{c-1} y^{d-1}
(1+\log(1+x^a+y^b))^{-{\delta}}\, dx\, dy < \infty,$$
if {$\delta>1$ and}
$$\frac{c}a + \frac{d}b =\gamma .$$
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} Easy. \qed\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{first prop}}
We may assume that $f$ is $K$-invariant, since otherwise
we can replace it by the continuous function
$gH\mapsto \sup_{k\in K} |f(kgH)|$.
The defining integral (\ref{N*integral2}) of $Rf(s)$
is bounded by the following integral
$$|Rf(s)| \le
\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty x^\alpha y^\beta\,
\Theta(s,x,y)^{-\rho/2}\,
(1+\log{\Theta(s,x,y))}^{-{2}} \,dx\, dy,$$
with the values of $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\rho$
from (\ref{first alphabeta}), (\ref{second alphabeta}),
and (\ref{defi rho}). The convergence of this
integral is an easy consequence of the preceding lemmas.
Note that the logarithmic term is
needed for the convergence. This proves (i).
It is seen from Lemma \ref{bound Theta}
that if $p>q$ or $s \le 0$, then
$$
\Theta (s,x,y) \ge \ch^2 s.
$$
We can thus conclude that
if $f(a_t) = 0$ for all $|t| \ge t_0$, then
the integrand in (\ref{N*integral2}) vanishes
for $|s|\ge t_0$ if $p>q$, and for
$s\le -t_0$ if $p\le q$.
This proves (ii).
We now study the asymptotic behavior of
$Rf(s)$ as $s \to \pm \infty$. The following arguments
have to be adapted slightly in the degenerate cases $p=q+1$ and $p=1$,
where there is no $x$-integral.
Assume first that $p>q$.
Recall that $\alpha=p-2-q$ and $\beta=q-1$, and that
\begin{equation}\label{A integral}
Rf(s) = \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty
F(\Theta(s,x,y))\, x^\alpha y^\beta\, dx\,dy.
\end{equation}
From Lemma \ref{bound Theta}
$$
\Theta(s,x,y)\ge y^2+\frac14e^{2s}x^4+\ch^2s,
$$
and by the definition of $\|f\|_N$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{upper bound F(Theta)}
|F(\Theta)|\le C \|f\|_N \Theta^{-\rho/2}\, (1+\log(\Theta))^{-N}.
\end{equation}
We insert this bound in (\ref{A integral}),
replace $\Theta(s,x,y)$ by the lower bound, and
substitute $\frac12e^sx^2=\ch(s) \xi^2$ and $y=\cosh(s) \eta$,
so that
\begin{equation}\label{subst result}
y^2+\frac14e^{2s}x^4+\ch^2s=(1+\eta^2+\xi^4)\cosh^2s.
\end{equation}
Simplifying by the relation $\frac12(\alpha+1)+\beta+1=\rho$,
we finally obtain
$$
|Rf(s)|\le C \|f\|_N e^{-\frac12(\alpha+1)s}\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty
(1+\eta^2+\xi^4)^{-\rho/2}
(1+\log(\cdot))^{-N}
\eta^\beta \xi^\alpha\, d\eta\,d\xi,
$$
where (\ref{subst result}) is the omitted argument in the logarithm.
The logarithmic term is bounded above by a constant times
$$
(1+\log(1+\eta^2+\xi^4))^{-{2}}(1+|s|))^{-(N-{2})}.
$$
With Lemma \ref{integrabilitet} statement (iii)a follows,
except for the case $p=q$.
We now assume $p\le q$. Then $\alpha=p-2$ and $\beta=q-p$.
For $s\leq 0$, we use the estimate
$$
\Theta(s,x,y)\ge x^2+\frac14e^{2s}y^4+\ch^2s,
$$
from Lemma \ref{bound Theta}. Proceeding as before, with
the roles of $x$ and $y$ interchanged, we obtain (iii)b
and the negative direction of the remaining case in (iii)a.
If instead we use the estimate
$$
\Theta(s,x,y)\ge x^2+\frac14e^{2s}(y^2-1)^2,
$$
which follows from (\ref{Theta}), and
substitute $x=\frac12e^{s}|y^2-1|\xi$, we obtain for $s>0$
$$
|Rf(s)|\le C e^{-s/2} (1+s)^{N-{2}}.
$$
Here $C\in]0,\infty]$ is given by
$$
C=\int_0^\infty
(1+\xi^2)^{-\rho/2}\xi^\alpha\,d\xi
\int_0^\infty
|y^2-1|^{(p-q-1)/2}
(1+\log(\cdot))^{-{2}}
y^\beta\, dy,
$$
where argument in the logarithm is the maximum of $1$ and
$(y^2-1)^2$. The integral is finite precisely when $p=q$, and in this case we
thus obtain the desired bound in the positive direction.
This finishes the proof of (iii).
Assume $p<q$. Recall that $$\Theta(s,x,y)=x^2+y^2+(\ch s-\half\es y^2)^2.$$
Let $v =-\sh s + 1/2\es y^2$, then $y^2 = 1 +2\e-s v - \de-s$ and
$$\Theta(s,x,y)=1+x^2+v^2.$$
With this substitution, we find
\begin{equation}\label{zz}
Rf(s) = \e-s \int_0^\infty \int_{-\sh s}^\infty F(1 + x^2 + v^2)
(1 +2\e-s v - \de-s)^{(\beta -1)/2} x^\alpha\, dv\, dx,
\end{equation}
with the following upper bound, for $s\ge 0$, since $\beta \ge 1$:
$$
|Rf(s)|\le C \e-s \int_0^\infty \int_{-\infty} ^\infty
\frac{(1 + x^2 + v^2)^{-\rho/2}}
{{[}1+\log(1 + x^2 + v^2){]^2}}
(1+2|v|)^{(\beta -1)/2} x^\alpha\, dv\, dx < +\infty.
$$
Applying Lebesgue's theorem, we get
$$ \lim_{s\to\infty}\es Rf(s) =
\int_0^\infty \int_{-\infty}^\infty F(1 + x^2 + v^2) x^\alpha dv dx$$
from which (iv) follows. \qed
Before we proceed, we note that if $f$ satisfies a sharper decay
than (\ref{Schwartz1}), we can improve on the decay of $Rf(s)$
expressed in (iii).
\begin{Lemma}\label{exponential decay lemma}
Let $f$ be a continuous function on $G/H$, and assume that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{t\in\R, k\in K}\, (\ch t)^{\rho+\gamma} |f(ka_t)| <\infty
\end{equation*}
for some $\gamma>0$. Then for each $\epsilon > 0$
there exists a constant $C>0$, such that
$$ e^{\rho_1s}\, |Rf(s)| \leq C (\ch s)^{-\gamma + \epsilon}, $$
\begin{description}
\item[a]
for all $s\in\R$ if $p\ge q$,
\item[b]
for all $s\le 0$ if $p < q$.
\end{description}
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Replace (\ref{upper bound F(Theta)}) by
\begin{equation*}
|F(\Theta)|\le C \Theta^{-(\rho+\gamma)/2}
\end{equation*}
in the proof of (iii) above and proceed as before.\qed
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{second thm}}
Let $\lambda$ be a discrete series parameter, and let
$f$ be the generating function of Proposition
\ref{generating function1}.
We know, see (\ref{exponential function combination}), that
$s\mapsto Rf(ka_s)$ is a linear combination of
$e^{(-\rho_1 +\lambda)s} $ and $e^{(-\rho_1 -\lambda) s}$
for each $k\in K$.
We shall first establish conclusion
(1) in the theorem. Here
we use the following lemma.
The vanishing of $Rf$ will be established by showing that,
for some $\alpha\in\R$ and all $k\in K$,
$e^{\alpha s}Rf(ka_s)$ decays to $0$
as $s\to -\infty$, and that it is bounded in the other direction.
\begin{Lemma} Let $\phi\colon\R\to\R$ be a linear combination
of exponential functions with real exponents.
If $\phi(s)$ is bounded as $s\to\infty$,
and decays to $0$ as $s\to -\infty$, then $\phi=0$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} The maximal exponent is $\le 0$
and the minimal exponent is $>0$. \qed\end{proof}
For simplicity we assume in what follows that $p>1$.
The arguments for the case $p=1$ are similar.
Notice that if $q=1$ and $\lambda < 0$, then by definition
$\psi_\lambda$ equals the complex conjugate of
$\psi_{-\lambda}$. Hence $R\psi_\lambda$ is the complex
conjugate of $R\psi_{-\lambda}$. Therefore, to prove
Theorem \ref{second thm}(1), we may assume $\lambda>0$.
We first assume $\mu_\lambda > 0$.
It follows from the expression for $f=\psi_\lambda$
in Proposition \ref{generating function1}(i) that
$$|f(k a_t)|\le C (\ch t)^{-\lambda-\rho},$$
for all $k\in K$ and $t\in \R$.
For $p\ge q$, it follows from Theorem \ref{first prop} (iii)a
that
$$e^{\rho_1s}Rf(ka_s)\to 0$$ in both directions $s\to\pm\infty$,
thus $Rf(ka_s)=0$, for all $s\in\R$ and $k\in K$, and hence
$Rf=0$.
For $p<q$, it follows from Lemma \ref{exponential decay lemma} that
$e^{(\rho_1-\lambda+\epsilon)s}Rf(ka_s)$ is bounded for $s\to-\infty$,
for all $\epsilon>0$.
Since $\rho_1-\lambda=-\mu_\lambda+1<1$, we can choose
$\epsilon=\frac12(1-\rho_1+\lambda)$, and conclude that
$$\es Rf(ka_s)=e^{\epsilon s}e^{(\rho_1-\lambda+\epsilon)s}Rf(ka_s)
\to 0$$ for $s\to-\infty$.
On the other hand, from Theorem
\ref{first prop} (iv),
we infer that $\es Rf(ka_s)$ is bounded at $+\infty$. Thus again $Rf=0$.
This proves Theorem \ref{second thm}(1).
Assume now that $\mu_\lambda =0$. This only happens when $p+1<q$.
From Lemma \ref{exponential decay lemma}, we see
that $e^{\rho_1 s}Rf(s)\to 0$ as $s\to -\infty$.
We know that $e^{\rho_1 s}Rf(s)$ is a
linear combination of the exponential
functions $e^{\lambda s}$ and $e^{-\lambda s}$,
but because of the limit relation at $-\infty$,
only the first one can occur. Hence $Rf(s)$
is a multiple of $e^{(-\rho_1+\lambda)s}=\e-s$.
Since $f\ge 0$, we conclude from
Theorem \ref{first prop}(iv) that
$\lim_{s\to\infty} \es Rf(s)=C\neq 0$.
Hence $Rf(s)=C\e-s$.
Assume finally that $\mu_\lambda <0$, then $p+3<q$ and $f=\xi_\lambda$
in Proposition \ref{generating function1}(ii).
From the expressions in (ii), we infer immediately
\begin{equation}\label{bound xi}
|\xi_\lambda(k_\theta a_t)| \le C (\ch t)^{-(\lambda+\rho)}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, since $P_\lambda $ has degree $m$, the limit
\begin{equation}\label{limit xi}
\lim_{t\to\infty}(\ch t)^{\lambda+\rho} \xi_\lambda(a_t)
\end{equation}
exists and is non-zero.
We first consider the even case $n=2m$, where $\xi_\lambda$
is $K$-spherical. We shall need the following lemma.
\begin{Lemma}\label{exponential limit lemma}
Assume $p<q$.
Let $f$ be a $K$-invariant continuous function on $G/H$, and assume that
there exists $\gamma>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{t\in\R}\, (\ch t)^{\rho+\gamma} |f(a_t)| <\infty,
\end{equation*}
and such that
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t\to \infty}\, (\ch t)^{\rho+\gamma} f(a_t)
\end{equation*}
exists and is non-zero. Then
$$ \lim_{s\to -\infty} e^{(\rho_1-\gamma)s}\, Rf(s) $$
exists and is non-zero.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} Recall that for $p<q$, we have
$$\Theta(s,x,y)=x^2+y^2+(\ch s-\half\es y^2)^2.$$
We make the substitutions
\begin{equation}\label{subst}
v = \frac12 (1+\des (y^2 - 1)),\quad u=\es x,
\end{equation}
and find
\begin{equation}\label{subst1}
y^2=e^{-2s}(2v+\des-1),\qquad \ch s-\frac12\es y^2=\e-s(1-v),
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}\label{subst2}
\Theta(s,x,y)=e^{-2s}(u^2+v^2)+1.
\end{equation}
Hence $Rf(s)$ equals
$$ e^{-s(\alpha + \beta +2)}\int_0^\infty \int_{(1-\des)/2} ^\infty
F(1+\de-s (u^2 + v^2)) (2v + \des -1)^{(\beta -1)/2} u^\alpha\, dv\, du.$$
Note that $\alpha+\beta+2=q$.
For $s$ sufficiently large negative we obtain a uniform bound
$$
\begin{aligned}
&e^{qs}|Rf(s)| \\
&\quad\le C \int_0^\infty
\int_{(1-\des)/2} ^\infty [1+e^{-2s}(u^2 + v^2)]^{-(\gamma +\rho)/2}
(2v + \des -1)^{(\beta -1)/2} u^\alpha\, dv\, du
\\
&\quad\le C e^{s(\gamma +\rho)}\int_0^\infty \int_{1/4} ^\infty
(u^2 + v^2)^{-(\gamma +\rho)/2} v^{(\beta -1)/2}
u^\alpha\, dv\, du < +\infty.
\end{aligned}
$$
It follows that we can apply Lebesgue's theorem to the limit
$$
\lim_{s\to-\infty}e^{(\rho_1-\gamma)s}\, Rf(s)
=\lim_{s\to-\infty} e^{(-\gamma-\rho+q)s}\, Rf(s)
.$$
Since
$r^{\gamma+\rho} F(r^2)$
allows a non-zero limit $c$ for $r\to\infty$,
it follows that
$$e^{-(\gamma+\rho)s} F(1+\de-s (u^2 + v^2))
\to c(u^2+v^2)^{-(\gamma+\rho)/2}$$
for $s\to-\infty$.
We conclude that $e^{(-\gamma-\rho+q)}\, Rf(s)$ tends to
$$ c\int_0^\infty \int_{1/2} ^\infty
(u^2 + v^2)^{-(\gamma +\rho)/2} (2v-1)^{(\beta -1)/2}
u^\alpha\, dv\, du\neq 0
$$
as $s\to-\infty$.
\qed
\end{proof}
Proceeding with the proof of Theorem \ref{second thm},
we recall that $f=\xi_\lambda$. It follows from (\ref{bound xi})
and (\ref{limit xi}) that Lemma \ref{exponential limit lemma}
is applicable in the even case $n=2m$, and we conclude that
$ C:=\lim_{s\to -\infty} e^{(-\lambda+\rho_1)s}\, Rf(s) $ exists and is
non-zero. As $Rf(s)$ is known to be a combination
$C_1e^{(\lambda-\rho_1)s}+C_2e^{(-\lambda-\rho_1)s}$,
we conclude that $C_1=C$ and $C_2=0$.
Hence in this case
$$Rf(s)=Ce^{(\lambda-\rho_1)s}=Ce^{(\mu_\lambda-1)s}.$$
Finally, we consider the odd case, $\mu_\lambda = -n = -2m+1$,
where
$$f(k_\theta a_t)=\cos\theta\,
P_\lambda(\cosh^2t)(\cosh t)^{-\lambda-\rho-2m}.$$
Since $f$ is not $K$-invariant, Lemma
\ref{exponential limit lemma} is not directly applicable.
However, we shall adapt its proof.
It follows from (\ref{second cos}) that
$\cos\theta\ch t=\ch s-\frac12\e-s y^2$, and hence
$$Rf(s)=
\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty x^\alpha y^\beta\,
(\ch s-\frac12e^sy^2)\,Q(s,x,y)
\,dx\,dy,
$$
where
$$Q(s,x,y)=P_\lambda(\Theta(s,x,y))
(\Theta(s,x,y))^{-\frac12(\lambda+\rho+1)-m}.$$
As in the proof of Lemma
\ref{exponential limit lemma} we perform
the substitutions (\ref{subst}). By application
of (\ref{subst1})-(\ref{subst2}) we see
$$e^{(q+1)s}Rf(s)=
\quad
\int_0^\infty \int_{(1-\des)/2}^\infty
u^\alpha
(2v + \des -1)^{(\beta -1)/2}(1-v)\,
\tilde Q(s,u,v)\,dv\,du,
$$
where
$$
\tilde Q(s,u,v)=P_\lambda(1+e^{-2s}(u^2 + v^2))
(1+e^{-2s}(u^2 + v^2))^{-\frac12(\lambda+\rho+1)-m}.
$$
This gives the domination for $s$ sufficiently large negative
$$
\begin{aligned}
&e^{(q+1)s}|Rf(s)| \\
&\ \le C \int_0^\infty
\int_{(1-\des)/2} ^\infty |1-v|\,[1+e^{-2s}(u^2 + v^2)]^{-(\lambda +\rho+1)/2}
(2v + \des -1)^{(\beta -1)/2}\,u^\alpha\, dv\, du
\\
&\ \le C e^{s(\gamma +\rho+1)}\int_0^\infty \int_{1/4} ^\infty
(u^2 + v^2)^{-(\lambda +\rho+1)/2} v^{(\beta +1)/2}
u^\alpha\, dv\, du < +\infty.
\end{aligned}
$$
Again we can apply Lebesgue's theorem and obtain
$$ \lim_{s\to-\infty}e^{(1-\mu_\lambda)s} Rf(s) =
c\int_0^\infty \int_{1/2} ^\infty (1-v)(u^2 + v^2)^{-(\lambda +\rho+1)/2}u^\alpha
(2v -1)^{(\beta -1)/2}\, dv\, du,$$
with $c=\lim_{r\to \infty} r^{-(\lambda +\rho+1)}\phi_{n,m}(r^2)\neq 0$.
In order to prove that $Rf(s)= C e^{(\mu_\lambda - 1) s}$, with $C \ne 0$,
we argue as before. We only
need to establish that the following integral is non-zero:
$$I:=\int_0^\infty \int_{1/2} ^\infty
(1-v)(u^2 + v^2)^{-(\lambda +\rho+1)/2}u^\alpha (2v -1)^{(\beta -1)/2}\, dv\, du. $$
We rewrite this by setting $u=vx$ and $2v-1 = y$.
Up to a power of $2$ we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{integral not 0?}
\int_0^\infty (1+x^2)^{-(\lambda +\rho + 1)/2}x^\alpha dx \int_0^\infty
(1-y)y^{(\beta -1)/2}(y + 1)^{-(\lambda + \rho - \alpha)} dy,
\end{equation}
in which the first integral is clearly finite and non-zero.
We now use the formula
$$ \int_0^\infty y^{k-1} (1+y)^{-l} dy =
B(k,l-k)= \frac{\Gamma(k)\Gamma(l-k)}{\Gamma(l)}, $$
valid for $0<k<l$. It follows that for $0<k<l-1$
$$ \int_0^\infty (1-y)y^{k-1} (1+y)^{-l} dy =
(l-2k-1)\frac{\Gamma(k)\Gamma(l-k-1)}{\Gamma(l)}.$$
Hence the second integral
in (\ref{integral not 0?}) is zero
if and only if
$$(\lambda + \rho - \alpha)-(\beta +1)-1=0.$$
With the current values of $\alpha,\beta,\lambda$ and $\rho$,
we have $\lambda + \rho - \alpha-\beta-1=-n$, and hence
$I\neq0$.
This finishes the proof of Theorem \ref{second thm}.\qed
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
The idea of unification has been central to the development of modern physics. Supersymmetric (SUSY) Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) unify the gauge groups of the standard model as well as fermions and
bosons, in addition to potentially providing explanations of a variety of theoretical and observational problems or phenomena~\cite{Mohapatra:1999vv, Raby:2004px}. The choice of $SO(10)$ allows for the unification of all matter superfields (of each generation) into a 16-dimensional spinor representation, provided we add a superfield containing a right-handed neutrino to complete the multiplet~\cite{Georgi:1974my, Fritzsch:1974nn, GellMann:1976pg}. An advantage of including right-handed neutrinos is that it allows for the natural incorporation of the see-saw mechanism to
generate neutrino masses~\cite{Minkowski:1977sc, GellMann:1980vs,Yanagida:1979as, Yanagida:1980xy, Mohapatra:1979ia}. Finally, in the simplest $SO(10)$ SUSY GUT models one has Yukawa unification, by which one means that e.g.
\begin{equation}
y_t = y_b = y_\tau,
\end{equation}
where $y_t$, $y_b$, and $y_\tau$ are the top, bottom, and tau Yukawa couplings at the GUT scale. (Simple Yukawa unification is not phenomenologically viable for the first and second generation.)
A great deal of work has gone into studying Yukawa unification (see for example \cite{Banks:1987iu,Olechowski:1988gh,Giudice:1988za,Ananthanarayan:1991xp, Anderson:1992ba,Ananthanarayan:1992cd,Anderson:1993fe,Barger:1993gh,Ananthanarayan:1994qt,Rattazzi:1995gk,Blazek:1996yv,Blazek:1996wa,Blazek:1997cs,Blazek:1999ue,Baer:1999mc,Gomez:1999dk,
Blazek:1999hz,Baer:2000jj,Baer:2001yy,Blazek:2001sb,Chattopadhyay:2001va,Blazek:2002ta,Gomez:2002tj,Tobe:2003bc,Gomez:2003cu,Gogoladze:2003ci,Auto:2003ys,Balazs:2003mm,Pallis:2003aw,Profumo:2003ema,Dermisek:2003vn,
Auto:2004km,Gomez:2005nr,Dermisek:2005sw,Baer:2008jn,Altmannshofer:2008vr,Antusch:2008tf,Baer:2008xc,Guadagnoli:2008ui,Baer:2008yd,Antusch:2009gu,Gogoladze:2009ug,
Guadagnoli:2009ze,Baer:2009ie,Enkhbat:2009jt,Baer:2009gg,Baer:2009ff,Choi:2010dk,Gogoladze:2010fu,Gogoladze:2011db,Gogoladze:2011be,Dar:2011sj,Monaco:2011wv, Karagiannakis:2011pb,Gogoladze:2011ce,Ajaib:2011pc,Badziak:2011wm,Badziak:2011he,Hall:1993gn,Hempfling:1993kv,Carena:1994bv,Murayama:1995fn})
and in particular understanding whether Yukawa unification is theoretically consistent and compatible with observation. This is an important and non-trivial question, due in part to the large weak scale threshold corrections (corrections that occur when one matches the SM to the MSSM), especially to the bottom mass\cite{Hall:1993gn, Hempfling:1993kv, Carena:1994bv}. These threshold corrections make unification of third generation Yukawa couplings at the GUT scale dependent on the SUSY spectrum. Thus it is only for certain values of the soft SUSY breaking parameters that Yukawa unification is obtained.
To be more specific, the parameters of the SUSY $SO(10)$ models considered here are
\begin{equation}\label{parameters}
m_{\nicefrac{1}{2}},~m_{16},~m_{10},~M_D^2,~A_0,~\tan\beta,
~\text{
and sign}(\mu ).
\end{equation}
We assume the following boundary conditions at the GUT scale,
\begin{eqnarray}
m_Q^2 = m_E^2 = m_U^2 = m_{16}^2 + M_D^2 \\ \label{3}
m_D^2 = m_L^2 = m_{16}^2 - 3 M_D^2 \\ \label{4}
m_{\nu_R}^2 = m_{16}^2 + 5 M_D^2 \\ \label{5}
m_{H_{u,d}}^2 = m_{10}^2 \mp 2 M_D^2. \label{6}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the parameters $m_Q^2$, $m_E^2$, $m_U^2$, $m_D^2$, and $m_L^2$ refer to the squared SUSY breaking masses for the left-handed squarks, right-handed sleptons, right-handed up-type squarks, right-handed down-type squarks, and left-handed sleptons respectively. Of course, to obtain physical sfermion masses, one must find the eigenvalues of the relevant sfermion mixing matrix. Similarly $m_{\nu_R}^2$ is the squared mass of the right-handed sneutrino, and $m_{H_{u,d}}^2$ give the squared Higgs mass terms for the Higgs doublets which couple to up-type quarks, and down-type quarks and leptons, respectively. The parameters $m_{\nicefrac{1}{2}}$, $m_{16}$, and $m_{10}$ are the GUT scale masses of the gauginos, the sfermions, and the Higgs soft terms, respectively. D-term contributions to GUT scale Higgs and sfermion soft terms are parameterized by $M_D^2$. These terms are necessary to ensure radiative electroweak symmetry breaking~\cite{Murayama:1995fn}. While in principle, either sign of $M_D^2$ is possible, we will only consider $M_D^2 > 0$ as this is the sign which lowers $m^2_{H_u}$ with respect to $m^2_{H_d}$ and hence aids in allowing radiative electroweak symmetry breaking when $y_b \sim y_t$. Yukawa unification only occurs for special regions in the parameter space defined above. Generally these are regions with quite heavy scalars
and fairly light gauginos. Typically there is also an inverted mass hierarchy, which is radiatively generated~\cite{Pierce:1996zz, Feng:1998iq, Bagger:1999ty, Bagger:1999sy, Baer:1999md, Baer:2001vw}.
There are several difficulties with this parameter space. First, the relatively light gluino is disfavored by the non-observation of any excess in jets plus missing energy at the LHC
\cite{Aad:2011qa,:2011iu,Aad:2011ib,ATLAS-bjet-lep-missing,ATLAS-jet-missing,
ATLAS-90,ATLAS-bjet-missing, ATLAS-01lep-missing,Aad:2011xm, Aad:2011ks,
daCosta:2011qk, Aad:2011hh,Chatrchyan:2011zy,CMS-SUS-11,CMS-SUS-10,
CMS-SUS-09,CMS-SUS-05,CMS-SUS-04, Collaboration:2011ida, Chatrchyan:2011ek,
Chatrchyan:2011bj, Khachatryan:2011tk}.
Secondly, in this region of parameter space, the mostly bino Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP) will tend to have too small of an annihilation cross section to be a (thermal) dark matter candidate~\cite{Baer:2008jn, Baer:2008yd, Auto:2004km}. Finally, raising the sfermion masses tends to suppress contributions to the $g-2$ of the muon, which therefore remain in tension with the experimental value~\cite{Bennett:2006fi}. Thus, we are interested in finding a way to preserve the elegance of Yukawa-unified $SO(10)$ models while also allowing for somewhat heavier gauginos and lighter sfermions.
Our approach will be to unify the top and bottom Yukawa couplings at the GUT scale with the third generation diagonal element of the charged lepton Yukawa matrix, but to introduce an arbitrary mixing angle between the second and third generation charged leptons~\cite{Carena:1999xz}.
Additionally, we will assume that the right-handed neutrino in the
third generation $\mathbf{16}$ mixes with additional $SU(5)$
singlet states at the scale at which $SO(10)$ is broken to $SU(5)$;
this effectively lowers the neutrino Yukawa coupling.
Assuming that these are the only large mixings, the charged lepton mixing angle will translate to the $\theta_{23}$ of the PMNS matrix~\cite{Pontecorvo:1957cp,Maki:1962mu} which governs the neutrino sector. Thus we can view the parameter which we have added to the standard Yukawa-unified SUSY picture as postdicting (or being constrained by) large mixing in the neutrino sector. This scenario could be embedded into some specific GUT realization. We will not consider a specific embedding here; a discussion of this possibility was presented in~\cite{Carena:1999xz}.
In Section~\ref{scenario} we will describe this alternative scenario, in which second and third generation mixing in the charged lepton sector is used to accommodate third generation Yukawa unification, in more detail. The consequences of this mixing for the neutrino sector will be discussed in Section~\ref{neutrino}. In Section~\ref{scan} we will describe a scan of the parameter space
described in Eq.~(\ref{parameters}). In particular we will note the preferred values for the mixing angle and its consequences for the neutrino sector in Section~\ref{sin23}, while we will discuss
the collider and dark matter phenomenology of parameter space points allowed by the scan in Section~\ref{pheno}. We present our conclusions in Section~\ref{conclusions}.
\section{The Scenario}\label{scenario}
In the absence of threshold corrections, Yukawa unification is relatively easy to achieve. In fact values of the top mass close to that which was in fact measured had been predicted in Yukawa unified scenarios (see e.g.~\cite{Ananthanarayan:1991xp, Anderson:1992ba, Hall:1993gn, Carena:1994bv}). Due to the threshold corrections mentioned above, however, the bottom Yukawa at the weak scale is different from what it would be naively. These corrections lower the bottom mass when $\mu M_3 > 0$, as is suggested by the observed discrepancies in $g-2$~\cite{Bennett:2006fi}. In this case, a larger value of $\tan \beta$ than the $\sim 55$ expected from taking the ratio of the running top and bottom masses at the weak scale is required for the unification of $y_t$ and $y_b$ at the GUT scale. The corresponding threshold corrections to the tau mass tend to be smaller than those to the bottom mass, due to the absence of SUSY QCD contributions. As a result, for the values of $\tan \beta$ required for top-bottom unification with threshold corrections, the tau Yukawa at the GUT scale tends to be larger than the (unified) top and bottom Yukawa couplings.
Here we consider a scenario where instead of unifying the tau Yukawa with the the top and bottom Yukawas at the GUT scale, we take the second and third generations of the charged lepton Yukawa matrix to be described by
\begin{equation}\label{charged lepton 1}
Y_e(M_{\text{GUT}}) =
\begin{pmatrix}
y_{22} & x \\
x & y_{t/b}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $y_{t/b}$ is the (unified) top and bottom Yukawa coupling at the GUT scale. We have limited ourselves to a symmetric matrix for simplicity. In this paper, we will consider only the second
and third generations. We do not expect that considering all three generations would qualitatively affect our results, though future research will evaluate this claim.
The form of the Yukawa matrix in Eq.~(\ref{charged lepton 1}) describes a scenario where the third generation Yukawa coupling at the GUT scale is $y_{t/b}$ for an entire $\mathbf{16}$ of $SO(10)$, but the charged leptons in this $\mathbf{16}$ mix with the charged leptons in the second generation $\mathbf{16}$. To be precise, both the left and right-handed charged leptons in the ``third generation'' $\mathbf{16}$ mix with their counterparts in
the second generation $\mathbf{16}$ with the same mixing angle $\Theta$.
As a result of the assumption that the mixing angle is the same for both charged lepton states, the transformation of the Yukawa matrix from the basis in which it is diagonal is simply that resulting from a rotation. Thus, due to the invariance of the trace and the determinant under rotations, the parameters in Eq.~(\ref{charged lepton 1}) are given by
\begin{equation}\label{y22}
y_{22} = y_\tau + y_\mu - y_{t/b}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{x}
x^2 = (y_{t/b})y_{22} - y_\tau y_\mu.
\end{equation}
In these equations, as in Eq.~(\ref{charged lepton 1}) above, all Yukawas are to be evaluated at the GUT scale.
We can also write the non-diagonal charged lepton Yukawa matrix of Eq.~(\ref{charged lepton 1}) in terms of $y_\tau$, $y_\mu$, and the mixing angle $\Theta$, as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{charged lepton 3}
\frac{y_\tau + y_\mu}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
+
\frac{y_\tau - y_\mu}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
- \cos{2\Theta} & \sin{2\Theta} \\
\sin{2\Theta} & \cos{2\Theta}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $\Theta$ describes the mixing of the charged leptons in the $\mathbf{16}$ with the top and bottom with the charged leptons in another multiplet.
We see immediately that
\begin{equation}\label{sin2 2 Theta}
\sin^2{2\Theta} = \frac{4 x^2}{(y_\tau - y_\mu)^2},
\end{equation}
where we consider the particular quantity $\sin^2{2\Theta}$ here due to its significance in the induced mixings in the neutrino sector, which are discussed in Section~\ref{neutrino} below.
Using Eq.~(\ref{y22})~and~Eq.~(\ref{x}), Eq.~(\ref{sin2 2 Theta}) can be written explicitly as
\begin{equation}\label{sin2 2 Theta 2}
\sin^2{2\Theta} = \frac{4(y_{t/b}(y_\tau+y_\mu-y_{t/b}) -y_\tau y_\mu)}
{(y_\tau - y_\mu)^2}.
\end{equation}
We now define
\begin{equation}\label{R}
R = \frac{y_\tau}{y_{t/b}}
\end{equation}
for convenience. We note that in the case where the top and bottom Yukawas are equal at the GUT scale, this corresponds to the $R$ in e.g.~\cite{Baer:2009ie} when $y_\tau > y_{t/b}$, as is in fact obtained in this scenario. Ignoring $y_\mu$, as compared with $y_\tau$, Eq.~(\ref{sin2 2 Theta 2}) can be re-expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{sin2 2 Theta 3}
\sin^2 2\Theta \approx 4 \frac{R-1}{R^2}
\end{equation}
Thus, we will find $\sin^2 2\Theta \approx 1$ when $R \approx 2$. In fact, this result is quite stable for $R \approx 2$; to be more precise, if $R = 2 + \epsilon$, then Eq.~\ref{sin2 2 Theta 3} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{sin2 2 Theta 4}
\sin^2 2\Theta \approx \frac{4 + 4\epsilon}{4 + 4 \epsilon + \epsilon^2}
\approx 1 - \epsilon^2/4.
\end{equation}
Therefore, if we write our charged Yukawa matrix at the GUT scale in the form given in Eq.~(\ref{charged lepton 1}) or Eq.~(\ref{charged lepton 3}), where the Yukawa matrix has a diagonal element equal to the top and bottom Yukawas at the GUT scale, then the mixing will be maximal when the tau Yukawa at the GUT scale is approximately twice the (unified) top and bottom Yukawa coupling.
The value of $\Theta$ obtained above will, in general, evolve as the charged lepton Yukawa matrix is run from the GUT or Majorana mass scale to the weak scale. However, in the limit where neutrino Yukawa couplings vanish, every term in the one or two loop $\beta$ functions~\cite{Martin:1993zk} for ${\bf Y}_e$ is either proportional to ${\bf Y}_e$, ${\bf Y}_e {\bf Y}_e^\dagger {\bf Y}_e$, or ${\bf Y}_e {\bf Y}_e^\dagger {\bf Y}_e {\bf Y}_e^\dagger {\bf Y}_e$. Writing ${\bf Y}_e = U^\dagger \mathbf{D}_e U$, we find that we can write ${\bf Y}_e {\bf Y}_e^\dagger {\bf Y}_e = U^\dagger \mathbf{D}_e \mathbf{D}^*_e \mathbf{D}_e U$, etc. Thus we can write the Renormalization Group Equations (RGE) in the schematic form:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d ( U^\dagger \mathbf{D}_e U )}{dt} =
U^\dagger f(\mathbf{D}_e) U,
\end{equation}
where $f(\bf{D}_e)$ is the right hand side of the RGE in terms of diagonal Yukawa matrices. Since the RGE (obviously) take the same form for diagonal Yukawa matrices as for general Yukawa matrices, we have that
\begin{equation}
U^\dagger \frac{d \mathbf{D}_e}{dt} U = U^\dagger f(\mathbf{D}_e) U,
\end{equation}
and, as a result,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d U^\dagger}{dt} \mathbf{D}_{e} U +
U^\dagger \mathbf{D}_e \frac{U}{dt} = 0.
\end{equation}
Plugging in the general form of the rotation matrix for $U$ and our specific values for the entries of $\bf{D}_e$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\bigg(\frac{d\Theta}{dt}\bigg) (y_\tau - y_\mu)
\begin{pmatrix}
\sin{2\Theta} & \cos{2\Theta} \\
\cos{2\Theta} & -\sin{2\Theta}
\end{pmatrix} = 0 ,
\end{equation}
which, given the non-degeneracy of $y_\tau$ and $y_\mu$, can only hold if
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\Theta}{dt} = 0.
\end{equation}
Thus, in the limit where neutrino Yukawa couplings are zero, the value of $\Theta$ (or functions of $\Theta$) obtained, e.g. in Eq.~(\ref{sin2 2 Theta 3}) is the value at any scale, not just at the GUT scale. While neutrino Yukawa couplings are non-zero, and in fact generally large in Yukawa unified models (at least for the third generation), as mentioned before we will assume a
dilution of neutrino Yukawa couplings
via the mixing of the right-handed neutrino in the third generation $\mathbf{16}$ with other states.
Therefore the RGE effects on the mixing angle $\Theta$ become negligible.
\section{Neutrino Sector}\label{neutrino}
\subsection{Mixing}
As noted above, in this scenario, the third generation fermions are part of a $\mathbf{16}$ of $SO(10)$ for which Yukawa unification at the GUT scale holds, but where the right- and left-handed charged leptons in this multiplet mix with the right- and left-handed charged leptons in the second generation $\mathbf{16}$. We assume that there is no similar inter-generation mixing in the neutrino sector.
As the $W$ will only couple states within these multiplets, the left-handed neutrino in the $\mathbf{16}$ will couple to a linear combination of the physical muon and tau. Considering instead the combinations of left-handed neutrino eigenstates from the two multiplets which couple to a given charged lepton mass eigenstate, we find
\begin{equation}\label{nu mu}
\nu_\mu= \cos{\Theta}~\nu_2 - \sin{\Theta}~\nu_3 ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{nu tau}
\nu_\tau= \sin{\Theta}~\nu_2 + \cos{\Theta}~\nu_3,
\end{equation}
where we have defined the non-diagonal charged lepton matrix in terms of the mixing angle $\Theta$, as in Eq.~(\ref{charged lepton 3}) above. This gives the $2$ by $2$ PMNS matrix $U$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{PMNS}
\begin{pmatrix}
\nu_\mu \\
\nu_\tau
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos{\Theta} & - \sin{\Theta} \\
\sin{\Theta} & \cos{\Theta}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\nu_2 \\
\nu_3
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
From this we find that
\begin{equation}
\theta_{23} = -\Theta
\end{equation}
Thus, in particular, we find
\begin{equation}\label{neutrino mixing conclusion}
\sin^2 2 \theta_{23} = \sin^2 2 \Theta.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Yukawa Couplings}
It has been noted, for example in~\cite{Borzumati:1986qx, Hisano:1995nq,Masiero:2002jn,Campbell:2003wp,Masiero:2004vk, Masiero:2004js}, that large values of neutrino Yukawa couplings generically lead to large lepton flavor violation (though for a somewhat contrary perspective see~\cite{Barger:2009gc}). This flavor violation arises from the contribution of this Yukawa term to the RGE running of the slepton mass matrix. As noted above, we assume a dilution of neutrino Yukawa couplings, e.g. through additional mixing between the right-handed neutrinos and unspecified additional states at the GUT scale.
We demand sufficient dilution to reduce $BR (\mu \to e \gamma)$
to below the experimental bounds, in particular the $90$\%
C.L. upper limit on this quantity, $2.4 \times 10^{-12}$~\cite{Adam:2011ch}).
We will examine this mixing and the resultant dilution of the neutrino
Yukawa couplings in greater detail in future work.
\section{Scan of Parameter Space}\label{scan}
As a step toward determining which regions in the parameter space of this scenario are allowed by existing constraints, we performed a scan of the parameter space using the SUSY spectrum generation and analysis code \texttt{SOFTSUSY~3.1.7}~\cite{Allanach:2001kg}, as well as the dark matter calculation code \texttt{DarkSUSY~5.0.5},~\cite{Gondolo:2004sc} and the code for NLO calculation of $BR( b \to s \gamma)$ in the MSSM, \texttt{SusyBSG~1.4}~\cite{Degrassi:2007kj}. We modified the GUT-scale boundary conditions in \texttt{SOFTSUSY} to be those of this scenario (Eq.~(\ref{3}) - (\ref{6})).
In this scan, the supersymmetric parameter $\mu$ was always chosen to be positive, in order to reduce the tension with the observed value of muon $g-2$~\cite{Bennett:2006fi}. The ranges for the other parameter regions in which the points are found are given in Table~\ref{parameter}; points were scanned using a grid search.
We found that with the exception of the upper bound for $m_{16}$, the
specific values of the bounds used in the grid search were not
particularly important, as very few points in the parameter space that
satisfied the constraints we impose (detailed below) were near the
boundary of the parameter space scanned. The upper bound on $m_{16}$
was used to restrict our focus to regions of parameter space with
somewhat lighter sfermions.
\begin{table}\label{parameter}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
Parameter & Min & Max & Step width\\
\hline
\hline
$m_{\nicefrac{1}{2}}$ & 400 GeV & 2000 GeV & 25 GeV \\
\hline
$m_{16}$ & 300 GeV & 2000 GeV & 20 GeV \\
\hline
$\nicefrac{m_{10}}{m_{16}}$ & 1.1 & 1.4 & 0.05 \\
\hline
$\nicefrac{M_D}{m_{16}}$ & 0.275 & 0.4 & 0.025\\
\hline
$A_0$ & -2000 GeV & -200 GeV & 30 GeV\\
\hline
$\tan{\beta}$ & 58 & 64 & 0.3 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Ranges of parameters used in the parameter
scan described in Section 4.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
A given point was only considered for further study if the following criteria were satisfied
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Consistency of spectrum.}
Specifically none of the ''problem flags'' listed in Appendix B of Ref.~\cite{Allanach:2001kg} are triggered. These flags are triggered if the spectrum calculation does not converge to the specified tolerance, if couplings become non-perturbative, if a Landau pole is encountered in the RGE running, if electroweak symmetry is not broken, if there are tachyons in the model,
if the $\rho$ parameter cannot be calculated, if the Higgs potential is unbounded from below, or if the GUT scale is less than $10^4$ or greater than $5 \times 10^{17}$ GeV.
\item \textbf{Top/ bottom Unification.}
The top and bottom have the same Yukawa coupling at the GUT scale. Specifically we demand
\begin{equation}
| \frac{y_t - y_b}{y_t + y_b} | < 0.02
\end{equation}
where $y_t$ and $y_b$ are the top and bottom Yukawa couplings at the GUT scale.
\item \textbf{$R$ in desired range.}
In the scenario described, if $R > 2$, then $y_{22} > y_{33}$. ($R$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{R}).) We have restricted our analysis to the case in which $y_{33} > y_{22}$ and hence $R<2$. Very few parameter points were eliminated by this constraint.
\item \textbf{SUSY spectrum constraints.}
Charged sparticles must be heavy enough to have evaded detection at LEP; specifically we demand that the chargino mass be greater than $94$ GeV. Correspondingly, the neutralino mass is greater than $46$ GeV. In addition, we require that the light SM-like Higgs mass is greater than $114$ GeV. We note that some of these constraints on the SUSY spectrum are conservative; our main concern is with determining the general properties of the allowed parameter space, rather than exploring ways in which naive bounds could be circumvented.
\item \textbf{Dark Matter Constraints.}
We demand that the LSP be a neutralino, and that its thermal relic density satisfy $0.1<\Omega_\chi h^2<0.12$, following~\cite{Hinshaw:2008kr}.
We implement the bound on the spin-independent dark matter direct
detection cross section from XENON100~\cite{Aprile:2011hi},
which is $\sim 10^{-44}$~cm$^2$ for most LSP masses.
Likewise, to avoid bounds e.g. from COUPP\cite{Behnke:2010xt}, we demand that the spin-dependent WIMP-nucleon cross section be less than $10^{-41}$~cm$^2$.
\item \textbf{B Physics Constraints.}
We demand that the calculated value of $BR( b \to s \gamma)$
be in a range consistent with the world-average experimental value
$3.55 \pm 0.24 \pm 0.09$~\cite{Asner:2010qj}.
Specifically, we demand that the value of $BR( b \to s \gamma)$,
calculated with \texttt{SusyBSG 1.4}~\cite{Degrassi:2007kj},
be in the range
$3.04 \times 10^{-4} < BR( b \to s \gamma) < 4.06 \times 10^{-4}$.
Likewise, we demand $BR( B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-) < 1.2 \times 10^{-8}$,
for consistency with recent LHCb and CMS searches~\cite{Bettler:2011rp,
Serrano:2011px,Chatrchyan:2011kr,CMS_plus_LHCb,Akeroyd:2011kd}
for this rare decay.
We do not add a separate contraint from $BR(B \to \tau \nu)$,
as the value of this quantity in the parameter space points which
satisfy the preceding constraints, epsecially the limit on
$BR( B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^- )$, is always consistent with experiment
as will be discussed in more detail below.
Both $BR(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$ and $BR(B \to \tau \nu)$ were calculated
with \texttt{SuperIso 3.2}~\cite{Mahmoudi:2008tp,Mahmoudi:2009zz};
the calculations for all Higgs masses and B physics observables
were verified using \texttt{CPsuperH2.0}~\cite{Lee:2007gn}.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Values of $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}$}\label{sin23}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{sin2-2-theta23.eps}
\caption{Distribution of $\sin^2{\theta_{23}}$ (obtained from taking $\theta_{23} = - \Theta$, and using Eq.~(\ref{sin2 2 Theta 2}) to determine $\Theta$) for the models found in the scan. }
\label{sin2 2 theta23}
\end{figure}
The distribution of $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}$ for models obtained in the scan described above is presented in Fig.~\ref{sin2 2 theta23}. Note that all of the models found in the scan are consistent with the experimental observation that $\sin^2 2\theta_{23} \approx 1$. We now examine why this relation holds so generally.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{ytb-hist.eps}
\caption{Distribution of the (unified) top/bottom Yukawa coupling at the GUT scale in the models found from the scan. (In our scan, we demand that these top Yukawa couplings be unified to within $4\%$ at the GUT scale; we take the geometric mean of these quantities when constructing these histograms.)}
\label{ytb}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{ytau-hist.eps}
\caption{Distribution of the tau Yukawa coupling at the GUT scale in the models found from the scan.}
\label{ytau}
\end{figure}
The value of $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}$ is found from Eq.~(\ref{sin2 2 Theta 2}). As we see from the approximation in Eq.~(\ref{sin2 2 Theta 3}), this value is mainly a function of the (unified) top and bottom Yukawa coupling $y_{t/b}$ as well as the tau Yukawa coupling $y_\tau$, defined at the GUT scale. The distribution of $y_{t/b}$ and $y_\tau$ are shown in Figs.~\ref{ytb}~and~\ref{ytau} respectively. We note that the unified top/bottom Yukawa coupling is always
in the range $0.55 - 0.59$, while the tau Yukawa coupling ranges from $\sim 0.9$ to $\sim 1.1$. We note, following Eq.~(\ref{sin2 2 Theta 3}), that the lower end of this range corresponds to values of $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}$ of $\sim 0.93$, while the upper end of the range corresponds to values of $\sim 1$. Thus having $\sin^2 2 \theta_{23}$ in the desired range is a result of the relatively large tau Yukawa coupling.
We can understand the large Yukawa coupling as follows. In the absence of SUSY corrections to the bottom mass, the value of $\tan{\beta}$ which leads to top-bottom unification yields a value for the GUT scale tau Yukawa coupling which is similar to the value for the
top and bottom Yukawa couplings. Standard Yukawa unification is not hard to obtain in this scenario. Adding the large negative contributions to the bottom mass raises the value of $\tan{\beta}$ needed to obtain top-bottom unification. This has relatively little effect on the value of the unified top-bottom Yukawa coupling, but serves to raise the tau Yukawa coupling into the desired range, as the tau Yukawa is also enhanced by $\tan{\beta}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{sin223-deltaB.eps}
\caption{Distribution of threshold correction to the bottom mass as a fraction of the bottom mass and the value of $\sin^2{2 \theta_{23}}$ (obtained as above) in models found in the scan.}
\label{deltab_sin2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{sin223-tb.eps}
\caption{Distribution of the values of $\tan{\beta}$ and $\sin^2{2 \theta_{23}}$ (obtained as above) in models found in the scan.}
\label{tanb_sin2}
\end{figure}
Hence we would expect the (absolute value) of the fractional correction to the bottom mass to correlate with larger values of $\sin^2{2\theta_{23}}$, which in fact we do find (as shown in Fig.~\ref{deltab_sin2}). Additionally, we would expect that the value of $\tan{\beta}$ is correlated with $\sin^2{2\theta_{23}}$. This expectation is confirmed in Fig.~\ref{tanb_sin2}. Since the dominant corrections to the bottom mass are proportional to the gluino mass, but inversely proportional to the square of the sbottom mass, we expect that models with heavier gauginos, i.e. larger values of $m_{\nicefrac{1}{2}}$ will have larger corrections to the bottom mass, and hence larger values of $\sin^2{2\theta_{23}}$. On the other hand, we expect larger values of $m_{16}$, which
correspond to larger values of the sbottom mass, to suppress the SUSY correction to the bottom mass and hence the value of $\sin^2{\theta_{23}}$ obtained. These expectations for the dependence of $\sin^2{2\theta_{23}}$ on $m_{\nicefrac{1}{2}}$ and $m_{16}$ are born out in the models found by the scan, though the dependence in each case is somewhat weak.
\section{Phenomenology}\label{pheno}
We now consider the consequences of this scenario for collider and dark matter phenomenology. In each case, an important difference between the scenario described here and more standard Yukawa-Unified SUSY scenarios, e.g. as considered in ~\cite{Baer:2009ff}, is that third generation sfermions may be relatively light in this scenario. The consequences of this difference, as well as
the general signatures to be expected from points in the parameter space found by our scan (which we will refer to as ``models'' for convenience), will be discussed below.
\subsection{Higgs Phenomenology}
Models found by the scan all have decoupled Higgs sectors; i.e., in all models the CP-odd Higgs is heavy and the heavy CP-even Higgs and the charged Higgs bosons are nearly degenerate with it.
(Specifically, $0.993~m_A < m_H < m_A$ and $1.001~m_A < m_{H^\pm} < 1.010~m_A$ in all models found by the scan.) The distribution of CP-odd Higgs masses is shown in Fig.~\ref{cp-odd higgs}. In every model found by the scan, the light CP-even (Standard Model-like) Higgs has a mass between $118$ and $122$ GeV; the distribution of these masses in the model set is shown in Fig.~\ref{higgs}.
Thus a Higgs mass between $118$ and $122$ GeV is a prediction of this scenario, up to uncertainties in the Higgs mass calculation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{cp-odd-higgs-hist.eps}
\caption{The distribution of the CP-odd Higgs mass is shown in this histogram. The heavy CP-even Higgs and the charged Higgses are nearly degenerate with the CP-odd Higgs in every model found by the scan, so this histogram also describes the mass distribution of these other Higgses.}
\label{cp-odd higgs}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{light-higgs-hist.eps}
\caption{This histogram shows the distribution of light, CP-even Higgs masses in models found by the scan.}
\label{higgs}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Flavor Physics and Precision Observables}
One can observe from Fig.~\ref{cp-odd higgs} that the
CP-odd Higgs tends to be somewhat heavy.
This is due in part to the constraint on $BR(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$,
which is effectively a constraint on the CP-odd and charged Higgs
masses.
As was noted above, the heavy CP-even Higgs and the charged
Higgs bosons are nearly degenerate with the CP-odd Higgs
in all of the models found by the scan.
The dependence of the values of $BR(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$
on the CP-odd Higgs mass is shown in Fig.~\ref{bsmm}.
While other parameters beside the CP-odd Higgs mass affect
the value obtained for this rate, the requirement that
$BR(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-) < 1.2 \times 10^{-8}$
effectively sets a lower limit of $\sim 600$ GeV on the CP-odd Higgs mass.
Fig.~\ref{btnh} shows the dependence of $BR(B \to \tau \nu)$
on the CP-odd Higgs mass (which is nearly degenerate with the
charged Higgs mass).
The values of $BR(B \to \tau \nu)$ shown in this figure
were calculated using
\texttt{SuperIso 3.2}~\cite{Mahmoudi:2008tp,Mahmoudi:2009zz},
but have been scaled so that the SM value is
$1.22 \pm 0.31 \times 10^{-4}$, which is calculated
using the value of $V_{ub}$ obtained from inclusive
decays~\cite{Lunghi:2010gv}.
Using the experimental average for this branching ratio from the HFAG
collaboration~\cite{Asner:2010qj,HFAGwebpage},
$1.64 \pm 0.34 \times 10^{-4}$,
we find that the $2 \sigma$ lower bound on the ratio of
the MSSM value for $BR( B \to \tau \nu )$ to the SM value is
$0.46$.
This corresponds to a value for $BR( B \to \tau \nu)$ of
$0.56 \times 10^{-4}$, which is somewhat below the
minimum value obtained for parameter space points found by our scan.
Due to the $1/m_{H^\pm}^2$ dependence of the supersymmetric
contribution to the decay amplitude, the smallest values of this decay
rate are obtained for the smallest values of the CP-odd mass, as it is
clearly seen in Fig.~\ref{btnh}. In this case,
$BR ( B \to \tau \nu )$ is large enough when the
CP-odd Higgs mass is $\gtrsim 600$ GeV,
which was necessary for the $BR ( B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^- )$
constraint to be fulfilled.
We note that there is tension between the SM theory value and the
experimental average for $BR ( B \to \tau \nu )$, and that this tension
is somewhat exacerbated in the parameter space points found by
our scan. This is in fact a generic feature of SUSY models.
This tension is significantly increased if one uses the value of $V_{ub}$
obtained from exclusive decays; in this case the SM prediction is
$0.67 \pm 0.15 \times 10^{-4}$~\cite{Lunghi:2010gv},
and the $2\sigma$ lower limit on the ratio of
MSSM $BR ( B \to \tau \nu )$ to SM $BR ( B \to \tau \nu )$
is $0.95$. This corresponds to a value of $0.64 \times 10^{-4}$.
However, if $0.67 \pm 0.15 \times 10^{-4}$ is used for the SM theory value,
the values displayed in Fig~\ref{btnh} would need to be scaled down by
$1.22/0.67 = 1.8$ (as it is the ratio of MSSM to SM rate which has been
calculated).
Thus this constraint would in fact rule out all points found by our scan,
effectively demanding a CP-odd Higgs mass $\gtrsim 1300$ GeV.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{BsMuMu-Higgs.eps}
\caption{This figure shows the dependence of $BR(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$
on the charged Higgs mass.}
\label{bsmm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{BTauNu-Higgs.eps}
\caption{This figure shows the dependence of $BR(B \to \tau \nu)$
on the charged Higgs mass.}
\label{btnh}
\end{figure}
The distribution of the branching ratio for $b \to s \gamma$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{bsg}. We note that the models found by the scan predominantly have values of this quantity, which like the SM value
($3.15 \pm 0.23$~\cite{Misiak:2006zs} ) are somewhat below the world-average experimental value~\cite{Asner:2010qj}, though it should be noted that the theory error is comparable to this discrepancy.
The SUSY contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon is shown in Fig.~\ref{g-2}. We note that the value of this quantity obtained in these models generally reduces the tension between the SM value and experiment (the experimental value is higher by $(22.4 \pm 10) \times 10^{-10}$ to $(26.1 \pm 9.4) \times 10^{-10}$ ~\cite{Bennett:2006fi} depending on the precise method used
to calculate the SM contribution). However the size of the SUSY contribution in models found by the scan is insufficient to account for the experimental central value; generic models found by the scan have a SUSY contribution of $\sim (4-8) \times 10^{-10}$. An extension of scenario presented here, in which the first and second generation sfermion mass terms do not have the same boundary conditions as the third generation sfermion mass terms, might allow for $g-2$ values closer to the observed value.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{bsg-hist.eps}
\caption{This histogram shows the distribution of $BR( b \to s \gamma)$ in the models found by the scan. The upper and lower limits for $BR( b \to s \gamma)$ which we impose are also shown.}
\label{bsg}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{gMin2-hist.eps}
\caption{This histogram shows the distribution of SUSY contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon ($a_\mu = (g-2)/2$) in models found by the scan. The one-loop calculation was done
with \texttt{DarkSUSY}; the two-loop contribution was calculated with \texttt{SoftSUSY}.}
\label{g-2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Gluino Production and Cascade Decays}
The gluino mass and the decay modes of the gluino play a large role in determining what signatures a given SUSY scenario
will have at the LHC. Models found by our scan have gluinos in the $\sim 1.5-3$ TeV range. This is partially a result
of the range scanned, however as $m_{\nicefrac{1}{2}}$ was scanned up to $2$ TeV, the absence of models allowed by
our scan with gluino masses $\gtrsim 3$ TeV, suggests that models with large values of $m_{\nicefrac{1}{2}}$
are somewhat more likely to run afoul of our constraints, in particular the constraint that the thermal
relic density be consistent with the WMAP value.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{neutralino-hist.eps}
\caption{This histogram shows the distribution of neutralino masses in models found by the scan.}
\label{neutralino}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{chargino-hist.eps}
\caption{This histogram shows the distribution of chargino masses in models found by the scan.}
\label{chargino}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{mu-hist.eps}
\caption{This histogram shows the distribution of the Higgsino mass parameter $\mu$ in models found by the scan.}
\label{mu}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{gluino-hist.eps}
\caption{This histogram shows the distribution of gluino masses in models found by the scan.}
\label{gluino}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{squark-hist.eps}
\caption{This histogram shows the distribution of the first and second generation squark masses in models found by the scan.}
\label{squarks}
\end{figure}
Gaugino mass unification at the GUT scale is an assumption of this scenario; this means that there is a mostly bino
LSP with mass in the $\sim 250 - 600$ GeV range, and a mostly wino chargino and neutralino with masses $\sim 2m_{LSP}$.
The Higgsino-like charginos and neutralinos generally have masses similar to the wino-like ones.
The distribution of neutralino masses in these models is shown in Fig.~\ref{neutralino},
while Fig.~\ref{chargino} shows the distribution of chargino masses; Fig.~\ref{mu} shows the distribution
of the $\mu$ parameter in models found by the scan. The distribution of gluino masses is included in Fig.~\ref{gluino}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{gluino-sbottom.eps}
\caption{These scatter plots provide a comparison between the bottom squark
masses and the gluino mass in the models found by the scan.}
\label{delta m sbottom}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{gluino-stop.eps}
\caption{These scatter plots provide a comparison between the top squark
masses and the gluino mass in the models found by the scan.}
\label{delta m stop}
\end{figure}
In all models found by this scan, the light sbottom is the lightest squark and is lighter than the gluino. The relative lightness of this (mostly right-handed) sbottom (though it is not lighter than $\sim 1$ TeV) is due both to the effect of large Yukawa couplings on the sbottom mass RGE and the effect of D-terms, which lower the mass of right-handed down-type squarks when $M_D^2 > 0$ (as we demand in the scan). The lightest stop is also light in our models; generally lighter than the gluino. In an appreciable fraction of the models in this model set, the heavier stop and sbottom squarks are also lighter than the gluino. First and second generation squarks, however, tend to be somewhat heavier than the gluino, as is shown in Fig.~\ref{squarks}.
Since the light sbottom (and generally the light stop and usually the other third-generation squarks) are lighter than the gluino, the dominant decay of the gluino will be two body decays to either sbottom and bottom quark or stop and top quark. The branching fractions for decays to these squarks and quarks are shown in Fig.~\ref{bf}. The branching fractions were obtained using \texttt{SUSY-HIT 1.3}~\cite{Djouadi:2006bz}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{br-hist.eps}
\caption{This histogram shows the distribution of branching fractions of the gluinos to various third generation squark mass eigenstates and the associated quarks in the models found by the scan.}
\label{bf}
\end{figure}
The stops and sbottoms produced in gluino decays will in turn decay to charginos and neutralinos, including the Higgsino-like charginos and neutralinos due to the large bottom and top Yukawas. Then, the charginos and neutralinos will decay either to the LSP and an additional Higgs or electroweak gauge boson or to states with taus, as the stau is generally the Next to Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (NLSP). Thus the primary signatures of the SUSY scenario considered here are cascade decays, with an enriched fraction of b-jets, boosted tops, and taus. Clearly this model is discoverable at the $14$ TeV LHC.
However, at the $7$ TeV LHC it will be very difficult to discover sparticles in the standard channels.
In particular, the inclusive gluino pair production cross section in the model with the lightest gluino
found by the scan ($1438$ GeV) was investigated at NLO using \texttt{Prospino~2.1}~\cite{Beenakker:1996ch}.
The gluino pair production cross section for this model is $\sim 0.07$ fb,
while the associated squark gluino production cross section is $\sim 0.09$ fb.
This suggests that the production cross section for these processes is generically small in this scenario at the $7$ TeV LHC.
\subsection{Dark Matter}
In the scenario considered here, the neutralino LSP can have a thermal relic density in agreement with WMAP. This is largely due to LSP annihilation through the CP-odd Higgs. As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{cp odd ratio}, $m_A$ is roughly $2m_{\text{LSP}}$ in all of the models selected by the scan. As noted above, the lightest stau is often the NLSP; the ratio of the light stau mass and the LSP mass is shown for the models found by the scan in Fig.~\ref{stau ratio}. We note from the distribution of this ratio that there are models found by the scan for which stau coannihilation will be important (those where the mass ratio is $\lesssim 1.1$), however in most models stau coannihilation becomes negligible.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{LSP_Ma.eps}
\caption{This scatter plot shows the distribution of the CP-odd Higgs mass $m_A$ and the mass of the neutralino LSP. That the ratio between the two is generically close to $2$ suggests that neutralino annihilation through the CP-odd Higgs is efficient in all of the models selected by the scan.}
\label{cp odd ratio}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{LSP_stau.eps}
\caption{This scatter plot shows the the distribution of the lighter $\tilde{\tau}$ slepton mass and the neutralino LSP mass. For models with low values of this quantity ($m_{\tilde{\tau}}/m_{LSP}\lesssim 1.1$), stau coannihilation may also play an important role in bringing the thermal LSP relic density down to the WMAP value.}
\label{stau ratio}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{wimp-si.eps}
\caption{Here we show the WIMP mass and WIMP-proton scattering cross section for models found in the scan as compared to the XENON100 limits on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross section.}
\label{wimp}
\end{figure}
We have already noted that efficient annihilation through the CP-odd Higgs and (in some cases) coannihilation with the light stau allow the neutralino relic density to be consistent with WMAP values. This is different than the case in more standard Yukawa Unification scenarios, e.g.\cite{Baer:2008jn,Baer:2008yd}, where the overproduction of bino-like neutralinos in the early universe requires one to introduce a new state, such as an axino, as the true LSP. Fig.~\ref{wimp} shows the LSP mass and WIMP-nucleon cross section as compared with the XENON100 bounds. We note that the models found by the scan, which have the lowest values of spin-dependent WIMP-nucleon cross section, generally have higher
LSP masses. Conversely models found by the scan with lighter LSPs should be discovered or ruled out by the next generation of direct detection experiments. Direct detection constraints were important in setting the lower bound on LSP masses found by the scan of $\sim 250$ GeV.
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
We have presented a scenario which adds to the framework of Yukawa-unified $SO(10)$ SUSY GUTs a mixing between generations in the charged lepton sector, which produces neutrino mixing. We find that the specific values of this mixing angle that one obtains from the values of the top, bottom, and tau Yukawa couplings at the GUT scale, in the specific $SO(10)$ inspired parameter space considered, suggest $\sin^2{2\theta_{23}} \approx 1$, in accordance with data, in the limit where no other large mixings are present.
Thus, while this scenario adds a parameter to the framework, the natural value taken by this parameter explains observed physics. Another property of this scenario is that we find viable points in our parameter space with sparticle masses above the current bounds, and quite generally above the reach of the $7$ TeV LHC, but likely within the reach of the $14$ TeV LHC. Viable points in our parameter space also have neutralino dark matter in agreement with WMAP and direct dark matter detection search constraints. Finally we find viable points in our parameter space for which the SM-like Higgs mass is between $118$ and $122$ GeV; a prediction which the $7$ TeV LHC will test.
In future work, we will consider the collider and flavor phenomenology of this
scenario in more detail and study the importance of the
assumption of small neutrino Yukawa couplings made in this work, as well
as the effects of considering all three generations.
We look forward to tests of this scenario at the LHC.
\section{Acknowledgments}\label{Acknowledgments}
We would like to acknowledge useful conversations with Arjun Menon, Pedro Schwaller, and Lian-Tao Wang. This work is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract numbers
DE-AC02-06CH11357, DE-FG02-91ER40684, and DE-FGO2-96-ER40956.
|
\section{Introduction}
The impact of liquid drops is a rich phenomenon that continues to draw copious research
attention since drop impacts are ubiquitous to many processes in both nature and industry
\cite{Worthington, Edgerton, Peregrine, deGennes, Prosperetti, Bergeron, Bergeron01}. Ink-jet
printing, pesticide deposition, and fuel combustion are just a few examples where the
effective application of a fluid onto a surface relies on the impact and subsequent splash
of drops. Despite the fascination with splashing patterns \cite{Marmanis, Thoroddsen}, the
dominant mechanism that leads to the rim break up, filament formation, and secondary droplets
remains controversial \cite{Allen, Yarin95, Zhang}.
Recently, a better understanding of how to influence splashing, ie. either enhance or
suppress the occurrence of a splash, has been obtained. Drop impacts under different
carefully chosen experimental conditions, such as on compliant surfaces \cite{Pepper},
on moving surfaces \cite{Bird}, on wetted patterned surfaces \cite{Lee}, in environments
of varying pressure and gas composition \cite{Xu}, and with non-Newtonian liquids \cite{Bergeron}
has provided techniques that can precisely control splashing. The dominant mechanism,
however, still remains unclear. One reason for the ambiguity is that for all of the
above cases, the length scale of the target surface is much larger than the impacting
drop diameter. Under such conditions, the impact process is defined by the competition
of inertial, viscous, and capillary forces \cite{Rein, Yarin}. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to distinguish the role played by each force, and as a result, it has been
challenging to formulate reliable theoretical and numerical methods.
In this manuscript we provide insight into the instability governing the break up of
liquid lamella sheets that develop after drop impact. Liquid drops of diameter $D_0$
fall onto a target post of equal diameter with impacting speed $U_0$. A finite amplitude
azimuthal perturbation is produced by varying the target cross-sectional geometry,
which includes a cylinder and regular polygon shapes. Figure~\ref{fig:sideview}
shows the side view of an example drop impact with a cylindrical post with a time
interval between frames in terms of the characteristic impact time, $\tau^* = D_0/U_0$.
Despite the advantage of this simple setup, only a limited number of investigations
have focused on drop impacts with obstacles of similar length scales as a window to
understanding the complexities of drop splashing \cite{Rozhkov02, Rozhkov03, Rozhkov04,
Josserand, Bakshi, Subramani, Villermaux}.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure_1.eps}
\caption{Side view of drop impact on a cylindrical post recorded at 40 000 fps. (a) A drop
of diameter 2.85 mm with impact velocity of 1.56 m s$^{-1}$ makes contact with the target.
The drop deforms and (b) and spreads radially to form (c) a liquid lamella sheet. (d) As the
sheet expands, undulations along the rim emerge followed by the formation of filaments and
secondary smaller droplets. The time interval between frames is equal to the characteristic
impact time, $\tau^{\ast} \approx 1.8$ ms. \texttt{See Supplemental Material at [URL inserted
by publisher] for movie} \cite{SuppMat}.}
\label{fig:sideview}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure_2.eps}
\caption{Top view of drop impact on geometric target posts. (Top row) Geometrically-shaped
lamella $2\tau^*$ after impact with a cylindrical, triangular ($n=3$), square ($n=4$), pentagon
($n=5$), and octagon ($n=8$) post. For $n < 8$, the resulting lamella shapes are identical to
the target geometry but are rotated by $\pi/n$ due to the azimuthal variation of viscous dissipation.
(Bottom row) Filament formation $4\tau^*$ after impact shows that the splashing dynamics depend
on the target cross-sectional geometry. The lamella rims for $n=3$, 4, and 5 break up in a controlled
manner and form the exact number of filaments as the number of target vertices. The lamella rims
for the cylinder post and $n \geq 8$ targets, however, break up in a similar fashion independent
of target shape. \texttt{See Supplemental Material at [URL inserted by publisher] for movies}
\cite{SuppMat}.}
\label{fig:topview}
\end{figure*}
\section{Experimental methods}
Droplets are created as liquid is injected into a capillary tube using a low-noise syringe
pump. The liquid slowly drips out of the tube to form reproducible pendant drops with an
average diameter $D_0$ of $2.85$ mm. The liquid is composed of de-ionized water and glycerol.
Food coloring is added to the solution for image enhancement purposes. The liquid has a
viscosity of $10$ cP and a surface tension with ambient air of $35.3\times 10^{-3}$ N m$^{-1}$.
Drops fall from a height of $15$ cm before striking the target, hitting the surface with a
measured impact velocity $U_0$ of $1.56$ m s$^{-1}$. All experiments are performed at ambient
pressure (101 kPa). The dynamics are described by two dimensionless parameters; the Reynolds
number (Re), defined as $\rho D_0 U_0 / \mu$, and the Weber number (We), defined as $\rho D_0
U_0^2 / \gamma$. Here, $\rho$ is the fluid density, $U_0$ is the impact velocity, $D_0$ is
the drop diameter, $\mu$ is the dynamic viscosity, and $\gamma$ is the surface tension.
For the given set of experimental parameters, this results in a Re of 550, ie. inertial
forces dominate viscous forces, and a We of 250, ie. inertial forces dominate surface forces.
The capillary number, defined as $\mu U_0/\gamma$, is 0.45 meaning that surface forces dominate
over viscous forces. Top and side view images are recorded using high-speed photography
ranging from 30 000 to 40 000 fps.
The target posts are machined out of polyoxymethylene with no surface treatments. The target
cross-sectional geometry is varied and includes a cylinder and regular polygon shapes that
range from a triangle ($n=3$) to a decagon ($n=10$), where $n$ is the number of vertices.
The diameter of the cylindrical post is $2.85$ mm, equal to the impacting drop diameter, and
the impacting cross-sectional surface area is kept constant for all shapes (cylinder and polygons)
at $6.38$ mm$^2$. This geometric constraint allows the polygonal circumradius, the radius
of a circle that passes through all of the polygon vertices, to be expressed in terms of
the initial drop diameter as a function of the number of vertices given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}(n) = D_0 \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2n \sin(2\pi/n) }} \ .
\end{equation}
More importantly, the relevant azimuthal length scale, which is the edge length between vertices,
is given by
\begin{equation}
s(n) = 2 \mathcal{R}(n)\sin(\pi/n) \ .
\label{eqn:sidelen}
\end{equation}
From equation~\eqref{eqn:sidelen}, we note that the edge length is largest for $n=3$ and
decreases as the number of vertices increase. This effectively decreases the amplitude of
the azimuthal perturbation.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Effect of target cross-section on drop impacts}
Figure~\ref{fig:topview} shows snapshots from the top view of a drop impacting target posts of
different cross-sectional geometries. Under similar impacting conditions, ie. constant Reynolds
and Weber numbers, we observe that the spreading and retraction of the liquid lamella is
significantly affected by the target cross-sectional geometry. For example, both regular
($3\leq n <8$) and irregular (cylinder and $n\geq 8$) splashing is observed for impacts on
polygonal posts. We refer to regular splashing as whenever the number of filaments is equal
to the number of target vertices and their location is rotated azimuthally by an angle of
$\pi/n$ with respect to the target orientation. Irregular splashing occurs when the number
of filaments that form, and their location, are independent of the target geometry, or number
of vertices.
For the cylindrical case, the drop deforms and spreads radially upon impact (Figs.~\ref{fig:sideview}
and~\ref{fig:topview}). A thick rim forms at the edge of the lamella sheet due to the accumulation
of ejected fluid. As the rim decelerates due to surface tension, it becomes susceptible to
infinitesimal perturbations that lead to the break up of the lamella sheet into filaments and
secondary droplets. As the cross-sectional geometry of the post is changed, the dynamics of the
resulting lamella are significantly altered. Figure~\ref{fig:topview} (top row) shows example
snapshots of geometric lamella for $n=3$, 4, and 5 at a time $2\tau^*$ after impact, where $\tau^*$
is the characteristic impact time. Strikingly, the resulting splash resembles the shape of the
polygonal target with an azimuthal rotation of approximately $\pi/n$ with respect to the target
orientation, where $n$ is the number of vertices. For example, a drop that impacts a triangular
post results in a triangular-like splash that is shifted by $\pi/3$ with respect to the post
(Fig.~\ref{fig:topview}, $n=3$). For $n \geq 8$, the splashing dynamics are similar to the
cylindrical post case.
\subsection{Dynamics of geometrically-shaped lamella}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Figure_3.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) The lamella splash diameter normalized by the initial drop
diameter plotted as a function of normalized time $\tau$. The average maximum splash
diameter for all targets is $3.74$ which agrees well with both scaling laws of $\beta_m \sim$
Re$^{1/5}$ and $\beta_m \sim$ We$^{1/4}$. (b) The velocity of the expanding splash
diameter exhibits two exponentially decaying regimes. At early times ($0.3 < \tau < 0.7$),
a fast decay is due to the inertia dominated deformation of the drop as it contacts
the target. At later times ($0.7 < \tau < 3$), a second slower decay is due to
viscous dissipation and surface forces impeding lamella expansion. (Inset) The average
strain rate on the expanding lamella sheet, $\dot{\varepsilon} = \dot{\beta}/\beta$, shows
two exponential regimes.}
\label{fig:characterization}
\end{figure}
The dynamics of lamella sheets are characterized by measuring the normalized splash
diameter $\beta$, which is the ratio of the instantaneous splash diameter $D(\tau)$
and the initial drop diameter $D_0$, as a function of normalized time $\tau = t/ \tau^*$
(Fig.~\ref{fig:characterization}a). Here, $\tau = 0$ is taken to be the instant
that the drop makes contact with the surface of the target. The first
few instants, as the lamella spreads along the target surface from the point
of impact, are not able to be resolved and represent the initial flat part of $\beta(\tau)$.
Each plot of $\beta(\tau)$ represents an average of at least five impact events.
The maximum normalized splash diameter $\beta_m$ for all target cross-sections is
$3.74 \pm 0.33$. The average value of the maximum normalized splash diameter agrees
reasonably well with the scaling laws of $\beta_m \sim$ Re$^{1/5}$ and with $\beta_m \sim$
We$^{1/4}$ \cite{Clanet}. This means that inertia, viscous, and surface forces play
important roles in the splashing dynamics despite the minimal interaction between
the drop and the target surface. This is in accordance with an impact number $P\equiv$
We/Re$^{4/5}$ close to unity \cite{Clanet}. Values of $P<1$ describe impacts for
inviscid fluids and $P>1$ describe impacts of viscous fluids. For this study, the
impact number is $P \approx 1.6$ and therefore follows closely with both scaling laws.
The liquid lamella expansion rate, computed from the splash diameter $d\beta/d\tau$, shows
two exponentially decaying regimes (Fig.~\ref{fig:characterization}b). At early times
($0.3 < \tau < 0.7$), the rim expansion follows a fast decay due to the inertia dominated
deformation of the drop as it comes into contact with the target. The initial downward
momentum is transferred horizontally, producing radial expansion parallel to the surface
of the target. At later times ($0.7 < \tau < 3$), the rim expansion is described by a
second slower decay that than first regime. Viscous dissipation is present due to shear
flow at the target surface as well as surface forces due to the increase in surface area,
both working to impede the lamella expansion. For $\tau < 0.3$, the rapid increase in
the expansion rate is due an artifact as the initial transient of spreading along the
target surface is not captured until the lamellae expand beyond the target circumradius.
The corresponding lamella strain rate $\dot{\varepsilon}$, computed here as the ratio
of the expansion rate $d\beta / d\tau$ and the normalized splash diameter $\beta(\tau)$,
shows two exponential regimes in accordance with biaxial extensional flow. This would
suggest that the splashing dynamics could be very different for non-Newtonian fluids
where the extensional viscosity can vary by orders of magnitude under strong
extensional flows \cite{Bergeron, Rozhkov03}.
As noted earlier, the resulting splash resembles the target polygonal shape but with
an azimuthal rotation with respect to the target orientation (eg. Fig.~\ref{fig:topview}, $n=3$).
The rotation of the lamella by $\pi/n$ relative to the target can result from two possible
mechanisms: (i) the rapid decrease in kinetic energy as the drop deforms after impact and
(ii) the azimuthal dependence of viscous dissipation in the boundary layer that is formed
in the vicinity of the target surface. Let us consider a geometric cross-sectional target
that is described by the smallest and the largest radial distance from the origin, the
apogee $r$ and the circumradius $\mathcal{R}$, respectively. For a liquid drop that expands
radially in contact with the surface from the origin, the time it takes for the liquid
lamella to reach the apogee is less than the time it takes to reach the circumradius. The
fluid at the apogee experiences less of a decrease in kinetic energy and less viscous
dissipation than the fluid at the circumradius. Hence, the fluid velocity is larger at
the apogee than at the circumradius resulting in a geometrical lamella that are shifted
by $\pi/n$ with respect to the target vertices, for $n<8$.
\subsection{Rim instability: regular and irregular splashing}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure_4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (Top row) Evolution of the radial profile for expanding lamella
sheets for the time interval $\tau^* < \tau < 3\tau^*$ after drop impact on a cylinder,
hexagon ($n=6$), and octagon ($n=8$) target. Six equidistant peaks are evident over the
entire interval for the hexagon case. The peaks for the cylinder and octagon case are not
evenly spaced and the number decreases due to merging. Scale bar represents 1.75 mm.
(Bottom row) \textit{Left:} The deviations in the undulation amplitude $\sigma$ normalized
by the average lamella radius $\langle R \rangle$ increases exponentially with time.
\textit{Middle:} The periodograms of the radial profiles of the lamella sheets for the
three cases at $2\tau^*$ after impact. There is a single narrow peak at $\pi/3$ for the
$n=6$ case and a broad distribution of values with multiple peaks for the cylinder and
$n=8$ cases. \textit{Right:} A comparison of the target perturbation amplitude $\phi_n$
and the most unstable azimuthal mode $\phi_{\textrm{max}}$ of a toroid jet determined
by the PR instability. Regular splashing occurs when $\phi_n / \phi_{\textrm{max}} > 1$
for targets with $3 \leq n < 8$ and irregular splashing occurs when $\phi_n / \phi_{\textrm{max}}
< 1$ for targets with $n \geq 8$.}
\label{fig:radialFFT}
\end{figure*}
Once the maximum splash diameter is reached, the liquid lamella retracts inward.
Finger formation and secondary droplets result as the outer rim breaks up in
order to minimize the increase in surface energy. We observe that for polygonal targets,
the ability to create geometric lamellae that undergo controlled break up into $n$
filaments depends on the target cross-sectional geometry and holds for targets with
$n < 8$ only (Fig.~\ref{fig:topview}, bottom row). Specifically, there is a transition
in the splashing stability from regular ($3 \leq n < 8$) to irregular ($n \geq 8$) break
up of the liquid lamellae. We propose that there is a competition between the finite
amplitude perturbation imposed from the target cross-sectional geometry and the most
unstable mode determined by the dominant instability, which in this case is similar
to the Plateau-Rayleigh (PR) instability \cite{Eggers97, Rozhkov02, Zhang}. Other
possible mechanisms that have been proposed include the Richtmyer-Meshkov \cite{Gueyffier}
and the Rayleigh-Taylor \cite{Thoroddsen, Allen, Krechetnikov, Villermaux} instabilities.
In order to gain insight into the mechanism responsible for the break up and retraction
of the lamella, an analysis of the corrugations around the expanding rim was performed.
The top row of figure~\ref{fig:radialFFT} shows the evolution of the azimuthal profile of
lamella sheets after drop impact on a cylinder (left), hexagon (center), and octagon (right)
target over the time interval of $\tau^*$ to $3\tau^*$. At early times ($\tau = \tau^*$),
the amplitude of rim undulations is similar for all three cases. At later times however
($\tau^* < \tau \leq 3\tau^*$), it is evident that the radial profile for the hexagon case
is different than the profiles for the cylinder and octagon cases. Typical behavior of
lamella sheets for impacts on targets with $3 \leq n<8$ is that there are $n$ equidistant
peaks apparent over the entire splash process, similar to the six equidistant peaks for
the hexagon case. For other targets ($n \geq 8$) the peaks are unevenly distributed and
the number decreases as filaments merge during the sheet expansion, similar to the profiles
for the cylinder and octagon cases (Fig.~\ref{fig:radialFFT}, top row).
For all cases ($3 \leq n \leq 10$ and cylinder), the amplitude of rim undulations
increase with time. The fluctuations of the corrugations, which are quantified by the ratio
of the standard deviation $\sigma$ about the average lamella sheet radius $\langle R \rangle$,
grow exponentially with time (Fig.~\ref{fig:radialFFT}, bottom left). The rates of growth,
evident by the slope of the straight portion of the curves for $\tau > 2$, are similar for
all cases independent of the target cross-sectional geometry. This is not surprising because
the mechanism behind every lamellae break up, whether it undergoes regular or irregular
splashing, is driven by surface tension. The exponential growth rate, however, is indicative
of a PR instability. The dispersion relation associated with the most unstable mode of the
PR instability is given by $\omega_{\textrm{PR}} = 0.34 \sqrt{ \gamma / \rho a^3 }$,
where $\gamma$ is the surface tension, $\rho$ is the fluid density, and $a$ is the radius
of the fluid jet \cite{Lhuissier}. For the current experimental parameters, the time scale
of the PR instability would be approximately $2.7$ ms. The average characteristic time scale
of growth in fluctuations of expanding lamellae, extracted by fitting an exponential function
to the curve for $\tau > 2$, is measured to be $2.1 \pm 0.4$ ms, in good agreement with the
PR time scale.
For further comparison, we compute the periodograms of the radial profiles for the three
cases (cylinder, $n=6$, and $n=8$) at $2\tau^*$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:radialFFT}, bottom middle).
The periodogram of the radial profile for the hexagon case is a single narrow peak centered
about $\pi/3$. It is typical for the periodograms to contain a single peak centered about
$\pi / n$ for targets with $3 \leq n < 8$ vertices. The periodograms for other targets
(cylinder and $n \geq 8$), however, are broad and contain multiple peaks, represented in
the periodograms for the cylinder and octagon cases. This supports the idea that the
perturbation imposed from the target cross-sectional geometry for $3 \leq n < 8$
overwhelms the most unstable mode and is therefore a determining factor in the evolution
of the lamella. The cylinder and octagon cases, however, contain a distribution of values
as the imposed target perturbation is small compared to the most unstable mode, making
the rims unstable and susceptible to infinitesimal perturbations.
It seems reasonable to conclude that a regular splash will occur when the azimuthal
perturbation imposed by the target cross-sectional geometry is larger than the most
unstable mode of the expanding toroidal jet, experimentally equivalent to the thick
outer rim. The thin liquid lamella sheet that connects the outer rim to the target post
is neglected since we believe that it does not contribute to the rim instability. This
simplification is supported by our observations that, for moderate Re, there are no ripples
in the lamella sheet (Fig.~\ref{fig:topview}) as seen for high Re impacts of $\mathcal{O}(10^4)$
\cite{Rozhkov02}. Furthermore, the lamellae are seen to break from the outer most
points of the rim rather than from within the sheet connecting the target to the rim.
Utilizing the observations that the fluctuations in the rim corrugations increase
exponentially with a characteristic time similar to that associated with the PR dispersion
relation $\omega_{\textrm{PR}}$, we approximate the most unstable mode of a toroidal jet as
determined by the PR instability and compare it to the azimuthal perturbation imposed due to
the target geometry. The rim volume can be expressed as a fraction of the initial drop volume
$V_r = \varepsilon V_0$, with $0 < \varepsilon < 1$. Denoting $a$ as the minor radius of the
toroid, $R_m$ as the major radius of the toroid, and $R_0$ as the initial radius of the
impacting drop, the rim volume is given by
\begin{equation}
2 \pi^2 a^2 R_m = \frac{4}{3} \pi \varepsilon R_0^3 \ .
\end{equation}
At maximum expansion, the torus minor radius can be written in terms of the maximum splash
radius $R_m$ and the normalized splash radius $\beta_m$ and is given by
\begin{equation}
a = R_m \sqrt{ \frac{2 \varepsilon}{3 \pi \beta_m^3} } \ .
\label{eqn:minorrad}
\end{equation}
Using the scaling relations for $\beta_m$ \cite{Clanet} and an average measured value for
$\varepsilon$ of $0.65$ \cite{Rozhkov02, Rozhkov04}, equation~\eqref{eqn:minorrad} predicts
the minor radius $a$ to be $0.27$ mm. This value agrees well with observations of the rim
thickness for geometric lamella, measured to be $a = 0.3$ mm.
Analogous to the most unstable wavelength of a cylindrical jet \cite{Rayleigh}, the most
unstable azimuthal mode for a toroid jet determined by the PR instability \cite{Pairam, McGraw}
is given by
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\textrm{max}} = \frac{\lambda_{\textrm{max}}}{R_m} = \frac{9.02 \ a}{R_m} = 9.02 \ \sqrt{
\frac{2 \varepsilon}{3 \pi \beta_m^3} } \ .
\label{eqn:phimax}
\end{equation}
The amplitude of the azimuthal perturbation imposed for regular polygon targets is taken
to be
\begin{equation}
\phi_n = \pi / n \ .
\label{eqn:phitarget}
\end{equation}
The ratio of the target perturbation $\phi_n$ and the most unstable azimuthal mode of a
toroid jet $\phi_{\textrm{max}}$ is plotted as a function of target vertices $n$
(Figure~\ref{fig:radialFFT}, bottom right). Interestingly, we see that for targets with
$3 \leq n < 8$ vertices, the azimuthal perturbation imposed by the target geometry is
larger than the most unstable azimuthal PR mode, or that $\phi_n / \phi_{\textrm{max}} > 1$.
These conditions will produce a regular splash, in agreement with observations (Fig.~\ref{fig:topview}).
For targets with $n \geq 8$, however, the azimuthal perturbation is smaller than the
most unstable PR mode, $\phi_n / \phi_{\textrm{max}} < 1$, suggesting that the lamella
rim is susceptible to infinitesimal perturbations and will produce an irregular splash,
independent of target geometry. We note that $R_m$ does not explicitly appear in
equation~\eqref{eqn:phimax} as we assume that the maximum radius for the toroid jet is
similar to circumradius of a geometrically-shaped lamella, a reasonable assumption from
Fig.~\ref{fig:characterization}(a). Finally, to show that these results are independent
of scaling arguments, both $\beta_m \sim$ We$^{1/4}$ and $\beta_m \sim$ Re$^{1/5}$ are
used in place of the normalized splash radius in equation~\eqref{eqn:phimax}, and the
upper and lower bounds are shown with error bars.
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown that the expansion and subsequent break up of the outer rim of
liquid lamellae can be controlled by length scales on the order of the impacting
drop diameter. Under identical impact conditions of constant Reynolds and Weber
numbers, we observe unique splashing dynamics by simply varying the target cross-sectional
geometry to include a cylinder and regular polygon shapes. For polygon targets with
$3 \leq n < 8$ vertices, the expanding lamellae resemble the geometric cross-section
of the target, but are rotated by an angle of $\pi/n$ with respect to the target
orientation. We find that the break up of the outer rim and liquid lamellae are well
controlled and reproducible. The number of filaments that form during splashing is
equal to the number of vertices $n$ of the target. For other targets (cylinder and
$n \geq 8$), the expansion and break up of the outer rim and liquid lamellae are
independent of the target geometry.
We find that there are two distinct splashing regimes depending on the number of
target vertices, regular splashing ($3 \leq n < 8$) and irregular splashing (cylinder
and $n \geq 8$). We propose that the transition in splashing stability is a result
of the competition between the amplitude of the azimuthal perturbation imposed by
the target cross-sectional geometry and the most unstable azimuthal mode, determined
by the Plateau-Rayleigh instability, of the expanding outer rim. For $3 \leq n < 8$
polygon targets, regular splashing occurs since the imposed target perturbation is
large enough to overwhelm the most unstable mode and effectively control the dynamics
of the splash. For the cylinder and $n \geq 8$ targets, irregular splashing occurs
since the imposed target perturbation is smaller than the most unstable mode and the
resulting splash dynamics are independent of the target geometry. The rim dynamics are
instead governed by the most unstable azimuthal Plateau-Rayleigh mode.
In summary, we show that drop splashing can be potentially controlled by the target
geometric features. The experiments presented here provide a new method that systematically
probes the effect of azimuthal perturbations to expanding lamellae after drop impact.
While our experimental observations indicate that the splashing phenomenon is dominated
by the Plateau-Rayleigh instability, questions still remain. One important parameter to
investigate further is the dependence of the ratio of the maximum splash radius to the
minor radius of the outer rim, expressed in equation~\eqref{eqn:minorrad}, on varying
impact conditions, ie. changing both the Re and the We. This would provide a better
understanding on the limiting case for irregular splashing of liquid lamellae.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank D. Hu, D. Lohse, N. C. Keim, V. Garbin, X. N. Shen, and M. Garcia for helpful
discussions. We also thank P. Rocket for fabricating the regular $n-$sided polygon
target posts. This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation
through the award CBET-0932449.
|
\section{Supplemental Material}
{\em Definitions.---}In \cite{CSW10} it is shown that any connected graph $G$ can be associated to a noncontextual inequality such that: (i) its noncontextual bound $\Omega_\mathrm{NC}$ is given by the independence number $\alpha(G)$, (ii) its maximum quantum value $\Omega_\mathrm{Q}$ is given by the Lov\'asz number $\vartheta(G)$, and (iii) its maximum value for general theories satisfying that the sum of probabilities of mutually exclusive propositions cannot be larger than 1, $\Omega_\mathrm{C}$, is given by the fractional packing number $\alpha^*(G)$. The definitions follow:
The independence number $\alpha(G)$ is the maximum number of pairwise nonlinked vertices \cite{Diestel10}.
The Lov\'asz number \cite{Lovasz79} is
\begin{equation}
\vartheta(G) = \max \sum_{i=1}^{n}
|\langle\psi|v_{i}\rangle|^{2},
\end{equation}
where the maximum is taken over all unit vectors $|\psi\rangle$ and $|v_{i}\rangle$, where each $|v_{i}\rangle$ corresponds to a vertex of $G$ and two vertices are linked if and only if the vectors are orthogonal. The set $\{|v_{i}\rangle\}$ provides an orthogonal representation of the complement of $G$ (the graph such that two vertices are adjacent if and only if they are not adjacent in $G$).
The fractional packing number \cite{SU97} is
\begin{equation}
\alpha^* (G) = \max
\sum_{i\in V} w_i,
\end{equation}
where $V$ is the set of vertices of $G$, and the maximum is taken for all $0 \leq w_i\leq 1$ and for all cliques $c_j$ (subsets of mutually linked vertices) of $G$, under the restriction $\sum_{i \in c_j} w_i \leq 1$.
{\em Methods.---}We generated all nonisomorphic graphs with less than 11 vertices using {\tt nauty} \cite{McKay90}. There are 11989764 of them. For each of them we calculated $\alpha(G)$ using {\tt Mathematica} \cite{Mathematica} and $\vartheta(G)$ using {\tt SeDuMi} \cite{SeDuMi} and {\tt DSDP} \cite{Benson, BYZ00}. There are 992398 graphs for which $\alpha(G) < \vartheta(G)$. Then, we calculated $\alpha^*(G)$ using {\tt Mathematica} from the clique-vertex incidence matrix of $G$ obtained from the adjacency matrix of $G$ using {\tt MACE} \cite{MACE, MU04}, an algorithm for enumerating all maximal cliques. There are only four graphs for which $\alpha(G) < \vartheta(G)=\alpha^*(G)$; all of them have 10 vertices. The minimum dimension of the quantum system needed for the maximum quantum violation is given by the minimum dimension of the orthogonal representation of the complement of the graph leading to $\vartheta(G)$. Using this, it can be shown that only the complement of the graph in Fig.\ 1 admits an orthogonal representation in dimension four. A list containing $G$, $\alpha(G)$, $\vartheta(G)$, and $\alpha^*(G)$ for all graphs with less than 11 vertices for which $\alpha(G) < \vartheta(G)$ is provided in \cite{Web}.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
When modeling photonic crystals (PCs), it is important to consider all the relevant Bloch modes. Light at a fixed frequency, polarization, and incident angle exists in a PC as a superposition of a set of propagating and evanescent Bloch modes, the PC's eigenstates. At low frequencies, only one mode generally needs to be considered. For light at frequencies above the first Wood anomaly \cite{wood}, each row of holes in the PC diffracts light into several propagating orders, so the PC may support multiple propagating Bloch modes. At the PC's front and back interfaces, some of its modes couple via reflection, affecting the overall reflection and transmission through the PC, so it is important to model all relevant modes.
It is often important to include evanescent modes \cite{Smaali2003443}. If the PC is not long---for example, if it is a layer in a thin antireflection coating---then evanescent modes can play a role in energy transport \cite{Stefanou:92}. Evanescent modes can also play a role in field matching across an interface between PCs \cite{Lawrence:2008p79} or PC waveguides \cite{deSterke:09}. The propagative qualities of an evanescent mode are well-represented by its complex band structure \cite{heine1964}, which augments the traditional band structure, conveying information about the rate at which the mode accumulates phase together with information about the mode's decay rate.
There have been a number of studies seeking to derive impedance-like quantities to characterize reflection at PC interfaces by a scalar \cite{Biswas:2004p465, Smigaj:2011p1695}. Furthermore, a number of studies have adapted metamaterial parameter extraction techniques \cite{Simovski:2007p1704} to photonic crystals, and used them to design antireflection coatings \cite{Miri:2010p791, Kim:2009p1688}. However, since these techniques characterize reflection and transmission by a single complex number each, they cannot handle problems involving multiple modes, where every mode reflects into every other mode. Scalar-based methods generally give manifestly incorrect results for light at frequencies above the first Wood anomaly, which ranges from $a_x/\lambda =1/n$ for normally incident light to $a_x/\lambda = 1/2n$ for light at the Brillouin-zone edge, where $a_x$ is the length of the lattice vector parallel to the interface, $\lambda$ is the free space wavelength and $n$ is the PC's background index. Above this frequency, generally several Bloch modes must be simultaneously considered in each PC, regardless of whether these modes are propagating or evanescent. Reflection at a PC/PC interface is well-described by a matrix that maps incident modes to reflected modes, as we have shown previously \cite{Lawrence:2008p79, Lawrence:2009p11}. In our experience, the minimum acceptable dimension of this reflection matrix, as argued in Sec.~\ref{sub:background_theory}, is usually
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:numprop}
M_{\text{min}} =
\left\lfloor\frac{a_x}{n\lambda}(1+\sin\theta_i)\right\rfloor +
\left\lfloor\frac{a_x}{n\lambda}(1-\sin\theta_i)\right\rfloor + 1,
\end{equation}
where $\theta_i$ is the incident angle from a uniform dielectric with the PC's background index, and $\lfloor x \rfloor$ denotes the \emph{floor} of $x$.
We have previously achieved accurate results modeling PC stacks using impedance matrices of this dimension and higher \cite{Lawrence:2008p79, Lawrence:2009p11, Lawrence:2010p1345}.
A number of methods for finding multiple Bloch modes and complex band structures have been demonstrated. Transfer-matrix \cite{Gralak:00} and scattering-matrix \cite{Botten:2001p9} based methods were developed to derive a PC's Bloch modes from the properties of a single grating layer. The plane wave expansion method has also been extended to include evanescent modes \cite{Hsue:2004}. Finally, Ha \emph{et al.} presented a method for extracting Bloch modes from the output of an EM solver \cite{Ha:2009p1388}, or even near-field measurements \cite{Sukhorukov:09, Ha:2011p2082}. We improve the accuracy, stability and efficiency of Ha \emph{et al.}'s method and extend it to calculate PC impedances for two-dimensional (2D) PCs, which can be used to calculate reflection and transmission at interfaces \cite{Lawrence:2008p79, Lawrence:2009p11}. These PC impedances and the reflection and transmission operators are represented by matrices; our method supports the presence and interaction of multiple Bloch modes and so it can work well both above and below the first Wood anomaly.
We have made software available that uses the method described in this paper to calculate PCs' Bloch modes, complex band structures, and impedances. The software, called BlochCode, can then use these complex band structures and impedances to calculate reflection and transmission matrices and coefficients for arbitrary stacks of PCs. BlochCode is open-source and is available on the internet \cite{blochcodeurl}.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:theory}, we present our method for finding Bloch modes from the electric field $E$ and the magnetic field $H$ in a PC structure. Sec.~\ref{sub:background_theory} recaps some useful results from our previous work \cite{Lawrence:2009p11} and provides some background theory. Sec.~\ref{sub:finding_modes} details our improvements to Ha \emph{et al.}'s method \cite{Ha:2009p1388} of finding Bloch factors and modal fields, and Sec.~\ref{sec:numerical_procedure} outlines our procedure for successfully applying this method to minimize the residual derived in Sec.~\ref{sub:finding_modes}. Sec.~\ref{sub:calculating_impedance} explains how we calculate PC impedance matrices from the modal fields. In Sec.~\ref{sec:application} we apply our method to demonstrate its utility. In Sec.~\ref{sub:complex_band_structure} we calculate the complex band structure for light normally incident on a triangular lattice PC. In Sec.~\ref{sub:oldcoating} we reproduce the design process of a known antireflection coating for a PC, at a frequency and incident angle for which it is critical to include at least two Bloch modes in the calculations. Finally, in Sec.~\ref{sub:park_coating} we use our method to design an all-polarization antireflection coating for a square lattice self-collimating PC, at a high frequency where a scalar method cannot find a coating for the PC \cite{Park:2010p651}.
\section{Theory}
\label{sec:theory}
Our method uses a two-step process to extract a PC's modes and impedance from the field in a finite length of the PC. The PC is assumed to be two-dimensional, lossless, and to have relative permeability $\mu_r = 1$. Like Ha \emph{et al.}'s method \cite{Ha:2009p1388}, we could use data generated by FEM or FDTD simulations, or even experimentally measured by a near-field probe such as a SNOM \cite{Ha:2011p2082}, although the impedance part of our method is not valid for SNOM data, which is derived from a 3D object. First, the Bloch factors and the Bloch modal fields are found (Sec.~\ref{sub:finding_modes}), then these modes are analyzed to calculate the PC's impedance (Sec.~\ref{sub:calculating_impedance}).
\subsection{Background Theory}
\label{sub:background_theory}
Two-dimensional PCs in the $x-y$ plane may be described as a stack of gratings parallel to the $x$ axis \cite{Botten:2000p505}, each of which diffracts incident light into an infinite set of grating orders. At the edge of each unit cell, the PC's Bloch modes may be written as a superposition of the underlying grating orders \cite{Botten:2001p9}. Their directions are given by the grating equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:grating}
k_x^{(p)} = k_x + \frac{2 \pi p}{a_x} = k \sin\theta_i + \frac{2 \pi p}{a_x},
\end{equation}
where $k_x$ is the $x$ component of the incident plane wave's wavevector, $k_x^{(p)}$ is that of the $p$th diffraction order, and $a_x$ is the length of the lattice vector parallel to the $x$-axis. The wavevector component in the direction perpendicular to the grating is $k_y^{(p)} = \sqrt{k^2 - {k_x^{(p)}}^2}$ where $k$ is the wavenumber in the medium. Evanescent grating orders have imaginary $k_y^{(p)}$, so for a given $k$ and $k_x^{(p)}$, the number of propagating grating orders is the number of solutions to Eq.~\eqref{eq:grating} with real $k_y^{(p)}$, or $M_\text{min}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:numprop}. In our experience, $M_\text{min}$ also provides an upper bound on the number of propagating Bloch modes, and at non-normal incidence is a lower bound on the number of Bloch modes required to model a PC accurately. At normal incidence, symmetry allows odd modes to be ignored, so in this case good results may be obtained with fewer than $M_{\text{min}}$ modes---see Sec.~\ref{sub:park_coating}. Using Bloch modes found from accurate multipole and FEM transfer matrix methods \cite{McPhedran:2000p784, Botten:2004p5}, we have consistently had success modeling PCs with no more than $M_\text{min} + 2$ Bloch modes.
Bloch's theorem relates the electric and magnetic fields associated with each mode at equivalent points in different unit cells of a PC. The ratio of each mode's field at points separated by the lattice vector $\mathbf{e}_1 = (a_x, 0)$ is $e^{i k_x a_x}$. For the PC's other lattice vector $\mathbf{e}_2$, this ratio is different for each mode and is the mode's Bloch factor, denoted by $\mu$. Calculating $\mu$ for each mode is the goal of Sec.~\ref{sub:finding_modes}. For square and rectangular lattices, $\mathbf{e}_2 = (0, a_y)$ and $\mu = e^{ik_y a_y}$, where $k_y$ is the $y$ component of the mode's wavevector. For triangular lattices, the lattice vector $\mathbf{e}_2$ is $(a_x/2, a_y)$ and so the Bloch factor may be written $\mu = e^{i(k_x a_x/2+k_y a_y)}$.
Bloch modes come in forward/backward pairs. Popov \emph{et al.} provide a useful discussion of symmetry properties \cite{Popov:1986p1233}. We assume mirror symmetry in each unit cell, which means that each backward mode's field profile in a unit cell is the reflection on the $x$-axis of its forward partner's. The Bloch factors of a pair are related because of this: for square and rectangular lattices, $\mu_b = 1/\mu_f$, where $\mu_f$ and $\mu_b$ are respectively the Bloch factors of the forward and backward modes. For triangular-like lattices, the symmetry is more complicated since the reflection of $\mathbf{e}_2$ is not $-\mathbf{e}_2$, the translation corresponding to the field ratio $1/\mu_f$, but $(a_x/2, -a_y)$; these vectors differ by $-\mathbf{e}_1$. Accounting for this discrepancy, we find $\mu_b = e^{-i k_x a_x} / \mu_f$ for triangular lattices.
A PC's impedance is defined in terms of two matrices, $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{H}$ \cite{Lawrence:2009p11}. For $E = E_z$ polarized light, each matrix maps a vector of forward Bloch mode amplitudes $\mathbf{c}_+$ to a vector of the $E_z$ or $H_x$ fields associated with each grating diffraction order.
Specifically, $E_{p,m}$, the $(p,m)$th element of $\mathbf{E}$, is the $E_z$ field of normalized mode $m$ due to forward and backward plane waves in grating order $p$, at the centre ($x=0$) of a unit cell's edge.
Thus, for a set of forward propagating/decaying Bloch modes $\mathbf{c}_+$, the field components along the edge of the unit cell, i.e., the quantities that are continuous across an interface between PCs or dielectrics, are
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eh_demonstration}
E_z(x) = \sum_p \mathbf{E}_p~\!\mathbf{c}_+ e^{i k_x^{(p)}x},~H_x(x) = \sum_p \mathbf{H}_p~\!\mathbf{c}_+ e^{i k_x^{(p)}x},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{E}_p$ and $\mathbf{H}_p$ are the rows of $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{H}$ corresponding to grating order $p$. In the $H = H_z$ polarization, $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{H}$ map to $E_x$ and $H_z$ fields, and these quantities replace $E_z$ and $H_x$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:eh_demonstration}.
Previously \cite{Lawrence:2009p11}, we defined PC impedances in terms of these matrices. For $E_z$ polarized light, the impedance of a PC is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Z_Ez}
{\cal Z} = {\mathbf{H}_0}^T (\mathbf{I} + \mathbf{Q}) \mathbf{E} + {\mathbf{E}_0}^T (\mathbf{I} - \mathbf{Q}) \mathbf{H},
\end{equation}
and for $H_z$ polarized light it is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Z_Hz}
{\cal Z} = -\left({\mathbf{H}_0}^T (\mathbf{I} - \mathbf{Q}) \mathbf{E} + {\mathbf{E}_0}^T (\mathbf{I} + \mathbf{Q}) \mathbf{H}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{H}$ are calculated for the PC, and $\mathbf{E}_0$ and $\mathbf{H}_0$ are calculated for a reference material, usually free space. $\mathbf{Q}$ is a diagonal matrix that takes into account the half-period shift of gratings in triangular lattice PCs: for square lattices $\mathbf{Q} = \mathbf{I}$, and for triangular lattices $\mathbf{Q} =\text{diag}((-1)^p)$, where $p$ is the grating order.
Given impedances $\mathcal{Z}_1$ and $\mathcal{Z}_2$ for two PCs, it is simple to calculate the reflection and transmission matrices across their interface \cite{Lawrence:2009p11}:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:r_t_of_Z}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{T}_{12} &=& (\mathbf{A}_{12}^T \mathbf{A}_{12} + \mathbf{I})^{-1} 2 \mathbf{A}_{12}^T, \label{eq:t12}\\
\mathbf{R}_{12} &=& (\mathbf{A}_{12} \mathbf{A}_{12}^T + \mathbf{I})^{-1} (\mathbf{A}_{12} \mathbf{A}_{12}^T - \mathbf{I}), \label{eq:r12}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where $\mathbf{A}_{12} = \mathcal{Z}_1^{-1} \mathcal{Z}_2$.
\subsection{Finding modes}
\label{sub:finding_modes}
Our method of finding the Bloch modes and Bloch factors is based on the method presented by Ha \emph{et al.} \cite{Ha:2009p1388}, although our method offers some significant improvements in accuracy and efficiency. We take field data for several unit cells of a PC, and try to write it as a superposition of Bloch modes, thus finding the modal fields and Bloch factors. The final steps of our mode-finding method impose symmetry relationships between forward and backward modal fields, increasing accuracy by almost halving the number of unknowns in the problem. We now outline our method.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[]{simmoschem.pdf}
\caption{Schematic of $L=5$ PC structures for a square and a triangular PC lattice. The squares with solid edges are the unit cells used by our method. For the triangular lattice PC, the field in the solid-edge unit cells are calculated from the unit cells of the simulated structure (dashed edges) using Bloch's theorem, with the ratio $e^{i k_x a_x}$ between adjacent cells' fields.}
\label{fig:simmoschem}
\end{figure}
In an EM solver, we simulate a section of 2D PC with Bloch-Floquet periodic boundary conditions on two boundaries, and uniform dielectric on the others (Fig.~\ref{fig:simmoschem}). We sample the $E_z$ or $E_x$ (depending on polarization) field component at many ($N_p$) points in unit cell $\ell = 0$, and then at the equivalent points in each of the other unit cells. If desired, $E_y$, $H_x$, $H_y$, or $H_z$ may be used in place of or in addition to $E_z$ and $E_x$. For triangular lattice PCs, we use the field in the simulated unit cells (dashed edges in Fig.~\ref{fig:simmoschem}) to calculate the field in the unit cells separated by a lattice vector (solid edges); we apply Bloch's theorem with integer multiples of the lattice vector $(a_x, 0)$.
We seek to write these electric field components as a superposition of forward and backward Bloch modes. So we want to express every $U_\ell(\mathbf{r})$, i.e., the $E_z$ or $E_x$ field component for sampled point $\mathbf{r}$ in unit cell $\ell$, as
\begin{equation}
U_\ell(\mathbf{r}) = \sum_{m} \mu_m^\ell A_m(\mathbf{r}) + \sum_{m^\prime} (1/{\mu_{m^\prime}}^{L-1-\ell}) A_{m^\prime}(\mathbf{r}) + w(\ell, \mathbf{r}),
\label{eq:EAMu}
\end{equation}
where $A_m(\mathbf{r})$ and $\mu_m$ are respectively the modal field and the Bloch factor of forward mode $m$; $m^\prime$ denotes backward modes, and $w(\ell,\mathbf{r})$ is the residual error. More specifically, for forward modes, $A_m(\mathbf{r})$ is the field component of mode $m$ at point $\mathbf{r}$ of the first unit cell, $\ell = 0$. The Bloch factor $\mu_m$ is the ratio of the field in cells $\ell + 1$ and $\ell$, so $\mu_m^\ell A_m(\mathbf{r})$ is the field component of forward mode $m$ at point $\mathbf{r}$ of unit cell $\ell$. To avoid ill-conditioning, the field $A_{m^\prime} (\mathbf{r})$ at point $\mathbf{r}$ of each backward mode $m^\prime$ is defined in the last unit cell, $\ell = L-1$. This means that the coefficients of $A_m(\mathbf{r})$ and $A_{m^\prime}(\mathbf{r})$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:EAMu} have moduli no greater than 1. As noted in Sec.~\ref{sub:background_theory}, the Bloch factor $\mu_{m^\prime}$ of each backward mode is related to that of its forward partner; we enforce this relationship in practice, thereby halving the number of Bloch factors that must be found.
Equation \eqref{eq:EAMu} for all $\ell$ and all sampled $\mathbf{r}$ may be written in matrix form as:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{U} = \mathbf{C} \mathbf{A} + \mathbf{W},
\label{eq:CA_eq_U}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{U}$ contains the $E_z$ or $E_x$ field components from the EM solver, $\mathbf{A}$ is a matrix of modal fields, $\mathbf{C}$ is a matrix constructed from Bloch factors, and $\mathbf{W}$ is a matrix of residuals $w(\ell,\mathbf{r})$ that must be minimized. $\mathbf{U}$ is a $L \times N_p$ matrix: the field in its $\ell$th row and $r$th column is $U_{\ell, r}= U_\ell(\mathbf{r})$, the field component at point $\mathbf{r}$ in unit cell $\ell$. Similarly, $\mathbf{A}$ is a $M \times N_p$ matrix; the field in its $m$th row and $r$th column is $A_{m,r} = A_m(\mathbf{r})$, the field of mode $m$ at point $\mathbf{r}$ in cell $\ell = 0$ for forward modes, or cell $\ell = L-1$ for backward modes. $\mathbf{C}$ is a $L \times M$ matrix. For a forward mode $m$, the $(\ell,m)$th element of $\mathbf{C}$ is ${\mu_m}^\ell$, and for a backward mode $m^\prime$, the $(\ell,m^\prime)$th element is ${1/\mu_{m^\prime}}^{L-1-\ell}$. If multiple field components (e.g. $E_z$, $H_x$ and $H_y$) are to be used to find the modes, then the additional data can be added as extra columns in $\mathbf{U}$.
We start the optimization process knowing $\mathbf{U}$, and with information about the structure of $\mathbf{C}$, and no direct information about $\mathbf{A}$. In our method, we first find the Bloch factors that determine $\mathbf{C}$, a relatively difficult problem. Once $\mathbf{C}$ is known, solving Eq.~\eqref{eq:CA_eq_U} for the modal fields $\mathbf{A}$ becomes a pure least-squares problem that can be solved accurately and efficiently using standard techniques.
To find the modes, we seek to minimize the difference between the observed field $\mathbf{U}$ and the superposition of Bloch mode fields $\mathbf{CA}$. That is, we seek to minimize $||\mathbf{W}||_F^2$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:CA_eq_U}, the sum of squared moduli of the elements of $\mathbf{W}$. Constraining the problem by dividing by the squared Frobenius norm $||\mathbf{U}||_F^2$ of $\mathbf{U}$, the quantity we minimize is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CA_residual}
w^2 = \frac{||\mathbf{U} - \mathbf{CA}||_F^2}{||\mathbf{U}||_F^2},
\end{equation}
where $w^2 = ||\mathbf{W}||_F^2/||\mathbf{U}||_F^2$.
First we eliminate $\mathbf{A}$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:CA_residual} in order to find $\mathbf{C}$ with a numerical minimizer.
We use an alternative representation of the Frobenius norm, $||\mathbf{U}||_F = \sqrt{\text{tr}(\mathbf{U}^H \mathbf{U})}$, to write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CA_residual_factorised}
w^2 = \frac{{\text{tr}((\mathbf{U}^H - \mathbf{A}^H \mathbf{C}^H)(\mathbf{U} - \mathbf{CA}))}}
{||\mathbf{U}||_F^2}.
\end{equation}
Finding $\mathbf{A}$ for arbitrary $\mathbf{C}$ is a standard least-squares problem; the optimal $\mathbf{A}$ satisfies $\mathbf{C}^H \mathbf{CA}=\mathbf{C}^H \mathbf{U}$. We expand Eq.~\eqref{eq:CA_residual_factorised}, twice apply this relation, and rearrange to get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:C_residual}
w^2 = 1 - \frac{\text{tr}(\mathbf{U}^H \mathbf{CC}^+\mathbf{U})}{||\mathbf{U}||_F^2},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{C}^+ = (\mathbf{C}^H \mathbf{C})^{-1} \mathbf{C}^H$ is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of $\mathbf{C}$.
Using Eq.~\eqref{eq:C_residual} and a numerical minimizer, the Bloch factors that determine $\mathbf{C}$ may often be found to a useful level of accuracy (see Sec.~\ref{sec:numerical_procedure} for implementation details). In order to improve the accuracy and reliability of the results, we impose further physical constraints.
The PC impedance method \cite{Lawrence:2008p79, Lawrence:2009p11} assumes the unit cell to be up-down symmetric, which causes the forward and backward modes to be related. So far, we have only imposed a relationship between the forward and backward Bloch factors, not the modal fields within each unit cell. We can halve the number of unknowns in $\mathbf{A}$ and strongly improve the quality of our results by enforcing this relationship in the minimization process.
We commence by partitioning the forward ($f$) and backward ($b$) modes, and the points in the left ($L$; $y \leq a_y/2$) and right ($R$; $y \geq a_y/2$) halves of the unit cell:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{U} = \left(\mathbf{U}_L, \mathbf{U}_R\right),~\mathbf{C} = \left(\mathbf{C}_f, \mathbf{C}_b\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{A} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{A}_{L,f} & \mathbf{A}_{R, f}\\
\mathbf{A}_{L,b} & \mathbf{A}_{R, b}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
After normalization, the field of a backward mode is the field of its forward partner reflected about the $x$-axis, thus
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:A_constraint}
\left(\mathbf{A}_{L,b}, \mathbf{A}_{R, b}\right) =
\left(\gamma \mathbf{A}_{R,f}\mathbf{P}, \gamma \mathbf{A}_{L,f} \mathbf{P}^{-1}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{P}$ is the permutation matrix that maps points $(x,a_y - y)$ to $(x, y)$, and $\gamma$ is a normalizing diagonal matrix whose elements are the ratio of backward and forward mode amplitudes.
The columns of $\mathbf{A}_{R,f}$ and $\mathbf{A}_{R,b}$, corresponding to points in the right half of the unit cell, can easily be ordered so that $\mathbf{P} = \mathbf{I}$; from now on we assume this ordering.
Eq.~\eqref{eq:CA_eq_U} can now be written with roughly half as many unknowns,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CpCm_multiplied}
\left(\mathbf{U}_L, \mathbf{U}_R \right) =
\left(\mathbf{C}_f, \mathbf{C}_b \gamma \right)
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{A}_{L,f} & \mathbf{A}_{R, f}\\
\mathbf{A}_{R,f} & \mathbf{A}_{L, f}
\end{pmatrix}
+ \mathbf{W}.
\end{equation}
$\mathbf{C}_b \gamma$ represents each backward mode's amplitude in each cell, relative to that of the corresponding forward mode in cell 0.
The constraints on $\mathbf{A}$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:A_constraint}) mean that Eq.~\eqref{eq:CpCm_multiplied} does not have a least-squares form, so may not be immediately simplified in the way that Eq.~\eqref{eq:CA_residual} led to Eq.~\eqref{eq:C_residual}. To transform Eq.~\eqref{eq:CpCm_multiplied} into a more useful form, we block-diagonalize $\mathbf{A}$ and right-multiply by the matrix $
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\mathbf{I} & \mathbf{I} \\
\mathbf{I} & -\mathbf{I}
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$,
to show
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:UpUm}
(\mathbf{U}_+,~\mathbf{U}_-) = (\mathbf{C}_+ \mathbf{A}_+,~\mathbf{C}_- \mathbf{A}_-) + \mathbf{W^\prime}.
\end{equation}
Here we have introduced the symmetric and antisymmetric forms $\mathbf{U}_\pm = \mathbf{U}_L \pm \mathbf{U}_R$, $\mathbf{C}_\pm = \mathbf{C}_f \pm \mathbf{C}_b \gamma$, and $\mathbf{A}_\pm = \mathbf{A}_{L,f} \pm \mathbf{A}_{R,f}$.
Eq.~\eqref{eq:UpUm} takes the form of two independent least-squares equations, each with half the dimension of Eq.~\eqref{eq:CpCm_multiplied}. The two equations must be satisfied simultaneously, so to find the Bloch factors we can minimize
\begin{equation}
w^2 = \frac{||\mathbf{U}_+ - \mathbf{C}_+ \mathbf{A}_+||_F^2 + ||\mathbf{U}_- - \mathbf{C}_- \mathbf{A}_-||_F^2}
{||\mathbf{U}_+||^2_F + ||\mathbf{U}_-||^2_F},
\end{equation}
or equivalently
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:final_minimise}
w^2 = 1 - \frac{\text{tr}(\mathbf{U}_+^H \mathbf{C}_+ \mathbf{C}_+^+ \mathbf{U}_+) +
\text{tr}(\mathbf{U}_-^H \mathbf{C}_- \mathbf{C}_-^+ \mathbf{U}_-)}
{||\mathbf{U}_+||_F^2 + ||\mathbf{U}_-||_F^2}.
\end{equation}
Again, this quantity may be minimized by a numerical optimizer. The residual $w^2$ for any solution to Eq.~\eqref{eq:final_minimise} is equal to the residual obtained by inserting the solution into Eq.~\eqref{eq:C_residual}: the two equations differ only in the symmetry constraint on backward modal fields (Eq.~\eqref{eq:A_constraint}). Compared to Eq.~\eqref{eq:C_residual}, we have removed $N_p M$ unknowns from $\mathbf{A}$ (where $N_p \gg M$ is the number of sampled points in each unit cell), halving its dimension at the cost of adding $M$ unknowns to $\mathbf{C}_\pm$ as $\gamma$. These new unknowns must be found simultaneously with the Bloch factors using a numerical minimizer, so it is important to supply a good starting estimate; our method for doing so is detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec:numerical_procedure}.
\subsection{Calculating impedance}
\label{sub:calculating_impedance}
Once the Bloch factors and $\gamma$ are known, the modal fields can be reconstructed and analyzed to determine the PC's impedance. The essential quantities for this calculation are the $E$ and $H$ field components in the plane of the PC interface (i.e., $E_z$ and $H_x$, or $E_x$ and $H_z$, depending on polarization) of each Bloch mode $m$ along the left edge ($y=0$) of a unit cell (see Fig.~\ref{fig:simmoschem}). These quantities, $E_m(x)$ and $H_m(x)$, may be found from Eq.~\eqref{eq:UpUm} using the known values for $\mathbf{C}_+$ and $\mathbf{C}_-$ and inserting the appropriate $E$ or $H$ fields into $\mathbf{U}_+$ and $\mathbf{U}_-$.
To calculate the impedance, we find the $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{H}$ matrices for the PC, as defined in Sec.~\ref{sub:background_theory}. Inserting multiples of unit vectors $\mathbf{c}_+$ into Eq.~\eqref{eq:eh_demonstration}, we can show that
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
E_m(x) = {\cal A}_m \sum_{p} E_{p,m}~e^{i k_x^{(p)} x},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
H_m(x) = {\cal A}_m \sum_{p} H_{p,m}~e^{i k_x^{(p)} x},
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where ${\cal A}_m$ is the amplitude of the normalized mode $m$, and $E_{p,m}$ and $H_{p,m}$ are the elements of $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{H}$.
It is straightforward to exploit the orthogonality of the plane wave grating diffraction orders to show that
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:EH_elements}
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_m E_{p,m} = 1/a_x \int_{-a_x/2}^{a_x/2} \! E_m(x) e^{-i k_x^{(p)} x} \, dx,\\
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_m H_{p,m} = 1/a_x \int_{-a_x/2}^{a_x/2} \! H_m(x) e^{-i k_x^{(p)} x} \, dx.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Eqs.~\eqref{eq:EH_elements} let us calculate each element of the $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{H}$ matrices, up to a normalization constant ${\cal A}_m$ per column. We remove the constants by calculating the PC's impedance (Eq. \eqref{eq:Z_Ez} or \eqref{eq:Z_Hz}) with the PC itself as the reference material: by reciprocity-derived Bloch mode orthogonality relations \cite{Lawrence:2009p11}, this quantity should be the identity matrix. The diagonal entries of this matrix are the ${{\cal A}_m}^2$; the off-diagonal terms, which should be zero, provide an error estimate. After normalizing the $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{H}$ matrices for the PC, we calculate its impedance matrix $\cal Z$ from Eq. \eqref{eq:Z_Ez} or \eqref{eq:Z_Hz} using a reference medium such as free space.
\section{Numerical Procedure}
\label{sec:numerical_procedure}
Having outlined the theoretical basis of our method for finding the Bloch factors and impedance of a PC at a given frequency, incident angle, and polarization, we now provide some practical detail about our implementation of the method. We outline the procedure for $M = 3$ pairs of Bloch modes.
In COMSOL Multiphysics 4.2, we simulate a $1 \times 8$ unit cell sample of PC, embedded in its background dielectric, with Bloch-Floquet periodic boundary conditions along the two long boundaries (Fig.~\ref{fig:simmoschem} shows a $1 \times 5$ structure). Eq. \eqref{eq:UpUm} is a set of $LN_p$ equations, with $2M$ and $M N_p$ unknowns in $\mathbf{C}_\pm$ and $\mathbf{A}_\pm$ respectively. To be overspecified, the method requires $LN_p > M N_p + 2M$; thus $L=8$ periods and a large $N_p$ is sufficient to find $M=3$ modes. A deeper structure with more unit cells does not necessarily provide useful information about additional evanescent modes, as their amplitude deep inside the structure may be negligible. From COMSOL we export the relevant $E$ and $H$ field components in the $L=8$ unit cells, sampled over a $101 \times (50L+1)$ grid.
In order to compute a mode, it must be present in the structure with sufficient amplitude to be detected. Light at normal incidence often fails to excite odd Bloch modes; these \emph{uncoupled modes} \cite{Sakoda:1995p1955} consequently cannot be found by an optimization, which loses accuracy in searching for modes that are not present. At frequencies above the first Wood anomaly, the frequencies at which the higher order modes are most important, this problem may be avoided by exciting the PC slab not with a normally incident plane wave, but with the first grating diffraction order. This technique is used in Sec.~\ref{sub:complex_band_structure} and Sec.~\ref{sub:park_coating}. If the uncoupled mode is not relevant to a particular problem, it may instead be ignored.
If we seek to find $M=3$ Bloch modes, then finding a global minimum of Eq.~\eqref{eq:final_minimise} involves searching for $2M = 6$ complex numbers. This is a hard problem if attacked directly, but we use an algorithm that gives more consistent success by providing a good starting estimate. We start by minimizing the residual $w^2$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:C_residual}, which forces a relationship between forward and backward Bloch factors but not the modal fields. This involves finding only $M$ complex numbers. As a starting estimate for the forward Bloch factors, we either take the result of a neighboring simulation, or the analytically calculated Bloch factors for the dielectric background of the PC. At every step of the minimization, evanescent modes are sorted into forward and backward decaying modes, based on the moduli of their Bloch factors. The minimization can be done by any standard numerical minimizer, such as SciPy's \cite{scipy} \verb`fmin`, which is a modified Nelder-Mead optimization \cite{Wright:1996:DSM}. At this point, the results are equivalent to those from the method of Ha \emph{et al.} \cite{Ha:2009p1388}, except that we have lessened the likelihood of $\mathbf{C}$ being ill-conditioned by renormalizing the backward Bloch factors $\mu_{m^\prime}$ in Eq. \eqref{eq:EAMu} and setting their phase origin to the end of the PC.
Occasionally, we encounter an instability in which a pair of modes have very large equal and opposite field amplitudes and very small Bloch factors. When this occurs, we follow a Gram-Schmidt-like process: we subtract the field of non-problematic modes (i.e., modes with $|\mu| > 10^{-3}$) from $\mathbf U$ and repeatedly minimize Eq.~\eqref{eq:C_residual} to find each of the remaining modes individually.
Using the solution to Eq.~\eqref{eq:C_residual} as our estimate for the Bloch factors, the modal fields may be found with a least-squares optimization. The average field ratio of each pair of backward and forward modes gives us an estimate for $\gamma$. We now have a plausible estimate for $\gamma$ and the Bloch factors, which we can use as a starting estimate to minimize Eq.~\eqref{eq:final_minimise}.
To further refine the estimates, we repeatedly iterate through the modes, fixing all but one $\mu$ and the corresponding element of $\gamma$, minimizing Eq.~\eqref{eq:final_minimise} to find the two variables. After this process, we finally minimize Eq.~\eqref{eq:final_minimise} across all 6 complex dimensions simultaneously to obtain the correct Bloch factors and modal fields from which we calculate impedances. Forward and backward propagating modes are sorted based on their flux \cite{Botten:2001p9}, before impedances are calculated as outlined in Sec.~\ref{sub:calculating_impedance}.
\section{Applications}
\label{sec:application}
We now apply our method to a range of typical problems. Each of these problems involves frequencies above the first or second Wood anomaly---frequencies at which scalar methods fail and multiple modes are required to describe the system. BlochCode, software that implements our method in Python, using SciPy \cite{scipy} and Sage \cite{sage}, is freely available on the internet \cite{blochcodeurl}; we use it here.
\subsection{Complex band structure}
\label{sub:complex_band_structure}
The first application of our method is to calculate the complex band structure of a PC. The PC is a triangular lattice of circular air holes with radius $r = 0.3~a$ and lattice constant $a_x = a$ in a dielectric background with $n=3$. We calculate the band structure for light polarized with the $\mathbf{H}$ field out of the PC plane ($H_z$ polarization) at frequencies $a/\lambda \in (0,0.5)$ in the $\Gamma-M$ direction, i.e., at normal incidence. Using COMSOL, we calculate the field in an 8 period slab of the PC, and we apply our method to find the largest three Bloch factors. $w^2$ varies: it is less than $10^{-8}$ at low frequencies and less than $10^{-4}$ at high frequencies.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[]{compositefig2.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Complex band structure for the PC. The Wood anomaly ($a/\lambda = 0.333$) is marked. The modes are sorted into colors by $|\mu|$; where two modes are propagating (i.e., have $|\mu| = 1$), they are sorted by $|\text{arg} (\mu)|$. (a) Magnitude of Bloch factors $|\mu|$, with three Bloch modes found at all frequencies. (b) $|\mu|$ with two Bloch modes found below the Wood anomaly, three above. (c) Argument of Bloch factors. (d) Complex band structure in 3D.}
\label{fig:bandstructure}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:bandstructure} summarizes the propagation properties of the two/three most dominant modes. The moduli of the Bloch factors $|\mu|$, which quantify how the modes' amplitudes vary with propagation, are shown in Figs.~2(a) and 2(b). Below the Wood anomaly, an inspection of $\mathbf{A}$ and $\gamma$ shows that the third mode is barely excited by the normally incident plane wave, and this reduces the accuracy of the results (Fig.~2(a)). Ignoring the uncoupled mode at low frequencies (where the $p=1$ grating order is evanescent and so may not be used to excite the structure, as mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:numerical_procedure}) increases the accuracy of the other two modes (Fig.~2(b)). The complex arguments of the Bloch factors, which quantify how phase is acquired through propagation, are shown in Fig.~2(c), and the information about amplitude and phase is summarized in a single plot in Fig.~2(d). Aside from slight errors in the phase of strongly evanescent modes in Fig.~2(c), there is good agreement between Fig.~\ref{fig:bandstructure} and Bloch factors calculated by highly accurate multipole techniques.
Figure~\ref{fig:bandstructure} shows that at frequencies below the Wood anomaly there is at most one propagating Bloch mode, which becomes evanescent in the first bandgap with a decay factor $|\mu|$ of no less than 0.5; it still decays far more slowly than the other evanescent Bloch modes at that frequency. Fig.~2(c) shows that for the evanescent modes, either 0 or $\pi$ phase is acquired across each unit cell.
\subsection{Antireflection coating}
\label{sub:oldcoating}
Our next application is to reproduce the design of an antireflection coating we presented previously \cite{Lawrence:2009p11}, found using PC impedances calculated with a specialized transfer-matrix method \cite{Botten:2004p5}. As in this previous paper, our design strategy is to try out a very large number of potential coatings, and choose the coating that gives the lowest reflectance off the coated structure. The use of PC impedances makes this a feasible problem, as the evaluation of each coating is quick, involving a few operations on $M \times M$ (here $3\times 3$) matrices.
The target PC is a triangular lattice with lattice constant $a_x = a$, consisting of air holes in a dielectric background with $n=2.86$. The holes are cylinders with radius $r = 0.25~a$. We seek to coat the PC to minimize reflection for light with frequency $a/\lambda = 0.38$, incident from air at an angle of $30^\circ$ in the $E_z$ polarization. At this frequency and incident angle, $M_\text{min} = 2$; we consider a total of 3 modes to ensure accuracy. As in our previous work \cite{Lawrence:2009p11}, we seek a two-layer coating, where the degree of freedom is $a_y$, the lattice vector component perpendicular to the air/PC interface. For a regular triangular lattice, $a_y = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} a$.
We choose 121 candidate PCs with $a_y \in [0.6,1.8]~\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} a$ and simulate 8 periods of each in COMSOL. We apply our method to the resulting data, using the Bloch factors of the previous PC as the starting estimate for the next. BlochCode processes the 121 PCs in approximately 13 minutes on a 3.06~GHz Intel Core~2~Duo desktop computer. An equivalent approach that only requires one PC to be evaluated is detailed in Sec.~\ref{sub:park_coating}; we do not use it here since the purpose of this section is to demonstrate the reliability and consistency of the optimization procedure.
We then calculate the reflectances off the $121^2 = 14641$ coated stacks (Fig.~\ref{fig:pracoat}), which takes 34 seconds on a single core of the desktop computer. The optimal coating is found to have thicknesses $a_{y1} = 1.53~\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} a$ and $a_{y2} = 0.65~\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} a$, and reduces the reflectance of the structure from $R = 0.945$ to $R = 1.96\times 10^{-4}$.
The results in Fig.~\ref{fig:pracoat} agree well with data calculated by a highly accurate multipole scattering matrix method: the RMS difference is $3.4 \times 10^{-3}$, and the only noticeable differences occur on the two sharp resonant features near the lower edge of the figure. Specifically, the multipole-based calculations show that the coating reduces the PC's reflectance from $R=0.943$ to $R=4.29 \times 10^{-4}$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[]{pra-redux-comsol.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Reflectance of the coated PC as a function of $a_{y1}$ and $a_{y2}$, the relative thicknesses of the two coating layers, calculated using PC impedances from BlochCode. The minimum reflectance is marked.}
\label{fig:pracoat}
\end{figure}
\subsection{All-polarization antireflection coating}
\label{sub:park_coating}
Finally, we apply our methods to find an all-polarization antireflection coating for a silicon-based self-collimating square-lattice photonic crystal presented by Park \emph{et al.} \cite{Park:2010p651}. They investigated this class of structures using a scalar treatment of reflections, and were able to design an all-polarization coating at $a/\lambda=0.28$, below the first Wood anomaly. Since their scalar treatment does not support multiple propagating or evanescent Bloch modes, it generally does not work above the Wood anomaly. Our method does not have this limitation and we demonstrate this by designing an antireflection coating for both polarizations at a frequency well above the Wood anomaly, using more than one Bloch mode.
Park \emph{et al.} \cite{Park:2010p651} showed that at $a/\lambda = 0.368$, a 2D silicon ($n=3.518$) PC with $r = 0.45~a$ is self-collimating for both polarizations at normal incidence. The large radius is an extreme case that is challenging to simulate accurately. At this frequency $M_{\text{min}} = 3$, so for $E_z$ polarized light we include $M = 3$ modes in our calculations, with light incident from the $p=1$ grating order so that the otherwise uncoupled mode is excited. For $H_z$ light, this procedure does not yield accurate results---Bloch factors are calculated accurately, but the calculated reflection coefficients differ from those calculated directly in COMSOL. The calculated impedances prove sufficiently accurate to design an effective antireflection coating, but the inaccuracies mean that the coating is not optimal.
To avoid these inaccuracies in $H_z$ polarization, we exploit the symmetry that causes the uncoupled mode. The physical structure and normally incident field are both symmetric about the $y$-axis, and so modes without even symmetry are not coupled to. Therefore we formally ignore the uncoupled odd mode, in each PC and in the reference medium, setting $M = 2$. In our $H_z$ COMSOL simulations for this structure, light is normally incident.
In Fig.~2 of Park \emph{et al.}'s paper \cite{Park:2010p651}, they state that $R\simeq 0.28$ for $E_z$ polarized light, and $R\simeq 0.35$ for $H_z$ light. We calculate with BlochCode that a semi-infinite slab of the PC has $R= 0.284$ for $E_z$, and $R= 0.354$ for $H_z$ polarized light at this frequency, when incident from silicon. Specialized FEM-based transfer-matrix calculations agree, showing $R = 0.284$ for $E_z$ polarization, and $R = 0.357$ for $H_z$ polarization.
At $a/\lambda = 0.368$, normally incident light is reflected by the PC into three propagating diffraction orders. Due to the symmetries of the problem, the $\pm1$ orders are only excited in an even superposition, so light is reflected into two modes. A successful coating needs to suppress reflection into both these modes simultaneously, and so must balance two modes' amplitudes and two modes' phases simultaneously for each polarization. Thus the design of a perfect all-polarization coating requires 8 continuous degrees of freedom. Rather than trying to search an 8-dimensional parameter space, which is computationally expensive even when the evaluation of each point is efficient, we consider coatings with four degrees of freedom and accept that we are unlikely to find an all-polarization coating with zero reflectance. Nevertheless, this is a particularly difficult problem: not only do we need many degrees of freedom to find a satisfactory coating, but if either of the Bloch factors in a PC is incorrect or any element of the PC's impedance matrix is wrong, then the calculated net reflection off the structure is incorrect as well.
To limit the coating's thickness, we embed the four degrees of freedom into two rows of holes by varying both the hole radii, $r_1$ and $r_2$, and the space after the layers, $d_1$ and $d_2$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:dualpolschem}). Increasing $d_1$ and $d_2$ is similar to increasing $a_y$, as in Sec.~\ref{sub:oldcoating}, but because the candidate PCs are independent of $d$, only one PC per radius needs to be simulated in COMSOL. Furthermore, the properties of the layers of silicon with thickness $d_i$ may be calculated analytically. We consider 36 possible hole radii in the range $r_i \in [0.10,0.45]~a$ and 99 values of $d_i \in (0,1)~a$. To allow a thin coating, we set $a_y = 2r + 0.1a$ for each PC. If necessary, additional degrees of freedom could be added to find a coating with even lower reflectances.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[]{dualpolschem.pdf}
\caption{Schematic of the all-polarization antireflection coating. $r_1$ and $r_2$ are the radii of the holes in the first two layers, and $d_1$ and $d_2$ are the thicknesses of the extra silicon background layers between the first few rows of holes. For this coating, $r_1 = 0.13~a$, $d_1 = 0.89~a$, $r_2 = 0.17~a$, and $d_2 = 0.9~a$.}
\label{fig:dualpolschem}
\end{figure}
On a single core of a $16 \times 2.4$~GHz Intel Xeon-Quad workstation, it took a total of 15 minutes to find the modes of the 36 PCs in the two polarizations. For $E_z$ polarization, $w^2 \simeq 10^{-5}$ for most radii, and for $H_z$ polarization $w^2$ ranged roughly from $3 \times 10^{-3}$ for thin unit cells to $10^{-7}$ for the thicker cells with larger radius. Due to the large number of candidate coatings ($\sim 1.3 \times 10^7$), the embarrassingly parallel problem was split over 16 cores of the workstation, taking approximately 80 minutes per polarization.
The best $E_z$ coating reduces $R$ from 0.284 to $9.56 \times 10^{-5}$, and the best $H_z$ coating reduces $R$ from 0.354 to $3.33 \times 10^{-4}$. The best all-round coating is taken to be the one with the lowest total reflection in the two polarizations. This coating has $r_1 = 0.13~a$, $d_1 = 0.89~a$, $r_2 = 0.17~a$, and $d_2 = 0.90~a$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:dualpolschem}). In $E_z$ it reduces $R$ to 0.0141, and in $H_z$ it reduces $R$ to 0.0197. Calculations from a specialized transfer matrix method \cite{Botten:2004p5} agree with these results, giving $R = 0.0142$ in $E_z$ polarization and $R = 0.0211$ in $H_z$.
To verify these results without the aid of our specialized methods, implementations of which are not publicly available, we simulate the structure using COMSOL Multiphysics. Since COMSOL cannot directly calculate reflection coefficients off semi-infinite PCs, we simulate a 20-period section of the uncoated PC surrounded by the background dielectric, and compare the results to a simulation with the antireflection coating on both sides of the PC section. BlochCode calculates the reflectance of the uncoated and coated structures to be 0.407 and 0.0124 respectively in the $E_z$ polarization, and 0.574 and 0.0074 in the $H_z$ polarization. The COMSOL simulations agree with these results, showing that the coating reduces $R$ from 0.407 to 0.0129 in the $E_z$ polarization, and from 0.585 to 0.0055 in the $H_z$ polarization.
\section{Discussion \& Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We have detailed a method for calculating the complex band structure and impedance of PCs. The method takes into account structural symmetries in the PC, and enforces relationships between the fields of forward and backward modes, thus improving the method's accuracy by eliminating ill-conditioning and constraining modal fields. We have applied the method to three cases, and have demonstrated that it works for a variety of square and triangular lattice 2D photonic crystals, for light in both polarizations and at different incident angles. We have demonstrated that our method works at frequencies both above and below the first Wood anomaly, the frequency above which scalar methods cannot adequately describe light propagation and reflection in PCs.
The stronger the excitation of a Bloch mode, the more accurately our method calculates its properties. Thus the method is well-suited to calculating reflection and transmission through arbitrary PC stacks, where the most important modes are those that are strongly excited. Since PC impedances make it so easy to calculate the reflection and transmission properties of many combinations of PCs in a stack, it is feasible to search large parameter spaces of PC stacks for particular reflective properties over a range of frequencies, incident angles and polarizations. The method can be used to design not only all-polarization antireflection coatings, but also broadband antireflection coatings \cite{Lawrence:2009p11}, polarization filters, angular filters, and other devices.
Ha \emph{et al.} have applied their method to slab PC waveguides \cite{Ha:2011p2082}.
We have not yet applied our method to any 3D structure.
As long as the $x-z$ plane mirror symmetry is present, our method for finding the complex band structure remains valid.
The field of a slab waveguide might be sampled only over the PC's surface (as in a SNOM experiment \cite{Ha:2011p2082}) or throughout the entire volume of the structure (as in a simulation); either case provides sufficient information to determine the modal fields within the sampled region and the associated complex band structure.
However, the impedance formalism is yet to be developed for 3D structures.
Our method is also valid for finding modes of PC waveguides, using supercells. Calculation of reflection and transmission matrices between PC waveguides is yet to be demonstrated using impedances, but they have previously been calculated directly from the supercell's $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{H}$ matrices \cite{deSterke:09}.
Bloch mode analysis is a valuable tool in understanding light's interactions with PCs. Using an EM solver and our method, for which source code is available \cite{blochcodeurl}, it is straightforward to find a PC's complex band structure and its impedance. Respectively, these quantities dictate how the Bloch modes travel through the PC, and which modes they couple with at a PC interface. If these quantities are known for a set of PCs, then it is fast and efficient to calculate how light travels through arbitrary stacks of the PCs.
\acknowledgments
This research was conducted by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Ultrahigh bandwidth Devices for Optical Systems (project number CE110001018).
|
\section{Introduction}
Field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA) offer a number of special options in computation. Utilizing the unique properties of an FPGA, some algorithms that are impractical to implement on a more traditional architecture can become both convenient to create and resource-efficient. The programmable array of look-up tables commonly found on an FPGA provide both flexibility in creating logic to suit specific needs and naturally lend themselves to great parallelism in computations.
Fast operations on matrices are of great practical interest. Ways to speed up certain matrix calculations still find their way into numerous applications.
Faster implementations of matrix algorithms can be achieved either from a ``software'' point of view, by improving upon the algorithm itself, or from a ``hardware'' point of view, by using faster or differently structured architectures.
Theoretical improvements on matrix algorithms include Strassen's algorithm \cite{c12} and the Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm \cite{c2}. The naive algorithm for matrix multiplication is a well-known $\Theta(n^3)$ algorithm. Strassen's algorithm uses an idea similar to the Karatsuba-multiplication. It has a time complexity of $O(n^{\lg 7})$ by dividing the matrices into sub-matrices. Then by multiplying them in a different arrangement, it manages an overall lower multiplication count compared to the classical algorithm. Research implementing it on the Cell Broadband Engine can be found in \cite{c5}. Strassen's algorithm and its applicability to the project is briefly discussed in Section 7. The Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm further improves the complexity to $O(n^{2.376})$ by combining the idea of Strassen with the Salem-Spencer theorem. \cite{c9} discusses and compares the performance of implementations of these algorithms.
Numerous research has been done on creating efficient realizations of different matrix operations on different architectures. \cite{c8} and \cite{c10} both use FPGAs to perform matrix inversion.
The design presented here is an implementation of matrix multiplication on an FPGA. Works of similar nature can be found in \cite{c1} and \cite{c4}, dealing with FPGA configurations used for floating point matrix multiplication. \cite{c11} uses an FPGA design for digital signal processing. \cite{c3} discusses another FPGA implementation for accelerating matrix multiplication.
The research in this paper is related to an algorithm for the construction of pseudo random number generators. It requires the exponentiation of large matrices to an extremely high power. This allows for numerous optimizations to be made on the FPGA implementation, resulting in an extremely fast design. A speedup factor of $\sim$200 is achieved compared to a highly optimized program on a more traditional architecture.
We give the details of a design implemented on a Virtex-5 XC5VLX110T FPGA that multiplies two $896 \times 896$ sized matrices. The matrices are defined over the mod 4 residue class ring. Using this property and the fact that the hardware uses 6-LUTs (Lookup Tables), we describe first a module that computes the dot product of vectors taken from $\mathbb{Z}_4^{28}$ in a single clock cycle at 100MHz clock speed. With these modules we construct a matrix multiplier module that computes the $C \in \mathbb{Z}_4^{20 \times 20}$ product matrix of $A \in \mathbb{Z}_4^{20 \times 28d}$ and $B \in \mathbb{Z}_4^{28d \times 20}$ in $d$ clock cycles at 100MHz. The significance of the value 28 in the implementation and its experimental determination is also discussed. Finally, we describe how to use these modules for multiplying matrices taken from $\mathbb{Z}_4^{896 \times 896}$. The proposed algorithm deals with the management of stored data in such a way that it can be accomplished completely in parallel with the computations. The resulting design completes the multiplication in 64800 clock cycles at 100MHz.
Future work for increasing the size of the used matrices, and further optimizing the design's performance using Strassen's algorithm is also described.
\section{Mathematical background}
The present work is initiated by a method for the construction of uniformly distributed pseudo random number generators. (See \cite{c7}.) The generator uses recurring sequences modulo powers of 2 of the form
\begin{align*}
u_n \equiv a_{d-1}u_{n-1}+a_{d-2}u_{n-2}+\cdots+a_{0}u_{n-d} \mod{2^s}, \ a_i \in \{0,1,2,3\}, s \in \mathbb{Z}^+
\end{align*}
The theoretical background can be found in \cite{c6}.
The construction assumes that the values $a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_{d-1}$ are such that
\[
x^{d}-a_{d-1}x^{d-1}-\cdots-a_0 \equiv (x-1)^{2}P(x) \mod{2}
\]
holds for some $P(x)$ irreducible polynomial. It is practical to choose $P(x)$ to have maximal order, since the order of $P$ is closely related to the period length of the corresponding recurring sequence.
The sequence $u_n$ obtained this way does not necessarily have uniform distribution, however exactly one of the following four sequences does:
\begin{align*}
&u_n^{(0)}\equiv a_{d-1}u_{n-1}^{(0)}+a_{d-2}u_{n-2}^{(0)}+\cdots+a_{1}u_{n-d+1}^{(0)}+a_{0}u_{n-d}^{(0)} \mod{2^s}\\
&u_n^{(1)}\equiv a_{d-1}u_{n-1}^{(1)}+a_{d-2}u_{n-2}^{(1)}+\cdots+a_{1}u_{n-d+1}^{(1)}+(a_{0}+2)u_{n-d}^{(1)} \mod{2^s}\\
&u_n^{(2)}\equiv a_{d-1}u_{n-1}^{(2)}+a_{d-2}u_{n-2}^{(2)}+\cdots+(a_{1}+2)u_{n-d+1}^{(2)}+a_{0}u_{n-d}^{(2)} \mod{2^s}\\
&u_n^{(3)}\equiv a_{d-1}u_{n-1}^{(3)}+a_{d-2}u_{n-2}^{(3)}+\cdots+(a_{1}+2)u_{n-d+1}^{(3)}+(a_{0}+2)u_{n-d}^{(3)} \mod{2^s} \ .\\
\end{align*}
For the details see \cite{c7}. Finding the sequence with uniform distribution is of interest.
Let
\begin{align*}
M(u)=
\left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & 1 & \hdots & 0 & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \hdots & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \hdots & 0 & 1 \\
a_0 & a_1 & \hdots & a_{d-2} & a_{d-1}
\end{matrix}
\right)
\end{align*}
be the companion matrix of sequence $u$. To find which of the above sequences has a uniform distribution, we have to compute $M(u)^{2^{d+1}-2}\mod 4$. If $M(u)^{2^{d+1}-2}\mod 4$ equals the identity matrix, then the period length of $u_n$ is $2^{d+1}-2$, which means it is not the sequence we are searching for.
The exponentiation of matrices to high powers can quickly become time consuming on traditional computers. The aim of the project was to utilize the special properties of an FPGA to achieve a significant upgrade in speed compared to implementations on more traditional architectures.
\section{Hardware used in the implementation}
The project was implemented on a Xilinx XUPV505-LX110T development platform. The board features a variety of ports for communication with the device. As a first approach the RS-232 serial port was used to send data between the board and a PC. A high-speed PCI Express connection is also available if the amount of data transferred would necessitate its use.
The board's most prominent feature is the Virtex-5 XC5VLX110T FPGA. The FPGA's main tool for computation is the array of 6-input look-up tables, arranged into 17280 Slices, with four look-up tables found in each Slice, adding up to a total of 69120 LUTs. A single 6-input LUT can store 64 bits of data, where its six input bits are used as an address to identify the single bit of data that is to be outputted. By manipulating the 64 bit content of the look-up table, it can be configured to carry out arbitrary Boolean functions with at most six input bits. In our design they are used to create LUTs performing a multiply-accumulate function, which are hierarchically arranged into larger and more complex modules. One out of four LUTs on the device can also be used as a 32 bit deep shift register; these are the basis to implement containers storing the data, which is directly fed to the computational module.
Attached to the board, there is a 256MB DDR2 SODIMM module, which is used for storing data exceeding the amount that can be practically stored on the FPGA.
\section{Structure of modules used in the computation}
The basic elements of the design are the LUTs denoted by $L(a,b,s)=c$, where $a,b,c$ and $s$ are two-digit binary numbers. The function carried out by $L$ is a multiply-accumulate (for short: MA) function, i.e.:
\[
c \equiv(a \cdot b)+s \mod{4} \ .
\]
Let $a=2\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{0}$, $b=2\beta_{1}+\beta_{0}$, $s=2\sigma_{1}+\sigma_{0}$, $c=2\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{0}$, where $\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\beta_0,\beta_1,\sigma_0,$ $\sigma_1,\gamma_0,\gamma_1 \in \{0,1\}$, and $L=(l_{1},l_{0})$ where $l_{1}$ and $l_{0}$ are two single bit LUTs, according to the following:
\\
\begin{itemize}
\item $l_{0}(\alpha_{0},\beta_{0},\sigma_{0})=\gamma_{0}$
\item $l_{1}(a,b,s)=\gamma_{1}$
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.17in,height=1.2in]{L3.eps}
\caption{The structure of $L(a,b,s)$}
\end{figure}
We remark that while $l_0$ needs only three input bits to accomplish its function, $l_1$ requires all six bits of input.
The LUTs $l_{0}$ and $l_{1}$ were configured to the values shown in Table 1 and Table 2 to perform the multiply-accumulate function.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular} { | c | c | c |}
\hline
\backslashbox{($\alpha_{0},\beta_{0}$)}{$\sigma_{0}$} & 0 & 1 \\ \hline
(0,0) & 0 & 1 \\ \hline
(0,1) & 0 & 1 \\ \hline
(1,0) & 0 & 1 \\ \hline
(1,1) & 1 & 0 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Contents of $l_{0}$}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular} { | c | c | c | c | c |}
\hline
\backslashbox{($a,b$)}{$s$} & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 \\ \hline
(0,0) & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
(0,1) & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
(0,2) & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
(0,3) & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
(1,0) & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
(1,1) & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\ \hline
(1,2) & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
(1,3) & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline
(2,0) & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
(2,1) & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
(2,2) & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
(2,3) & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
(3,0) & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
(3,1) & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline
(3,2) & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
(3,3) & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Contents of $l_{1}$}
\end{table}
With the help of these basic units one can compute the dot product $w$ of two vectors $u=(u_{0},u_{1},\ldots,u_{n-1})$ and $v=(v_{0},v_{1},\ldots,v_{n-1})$. Let us define a module $m=(L[0],L[1],\ldots,L[n-1])$ by cascading $n$ MA units denoted by $L[i]$. In this module $m$ we use the output of a given MA unit as the sum input of the next unit, i.e. $s_{i+1}=c_{i}$ for $i=0,1,\ldots,n-2$, where $s_{i}$ and $c_{i}$ are the $s$ input and $c$ output of $L[i]$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.5in,height=1.2in]{m.eps}
\caption{The structure of $m(u,v)$}
\end{figure}
Therefor $m$ is a function that accepts a pair of vectors $u,v$ of two-digit numbers of length $n$ and outputs on $c_{n-1}$ the two-digit dot-product of the two vectors, i.e. $m(u,v)=w$.
In total, the number of LUTs used in $m$ is $2n$. Note that vectors of arbitrary length can be used in the computation if we connect the output of module $m$ to the sum input of $L[0]$ ($c_{n-1}=s_0$), and then iteratively shift $u$ and $v$ onto the module's input by $n$ elements at a time:
\\
\\
\\
\begin{tabbing}
Function \= $iterated\_m(u,v)$ \ \ \ // $k=length(u)=length(v)$\\
\>1. Define $\kappa=\lceil \frac{k}{n} \rceil$, $v',u' \in \mathbb{Z}_{4}^{\kappa \cdot n}$ \\
\>2. for \= $i=0$ to $\kappa \cdot n -1$ do \ \ \ // fill $v$ and $u$ with 0's\\
\> \>3. if $i<k$ then $v'_{i}=v_{i}$ else $v'_{i}=0$ \\
\> \>4. if $i<k$ then $u'_{i}=u_{i}$ else $u'_{i}=0$ \\
\>5. end for \\
\>6. Define $v_{temp},u_{temp},w$, let $w=0$ \\
\>7. for $i=0$ to $\kappa-1$ do \ \ \ // shift $v'$ and $u'$ to $v_{temp}$ and $u_{temp}$\\
\> \>8. $v_{temp}=(v'_{i \cdot n},v'_{1+(i \cdot n)},\ldots,v'_{n-1+(i \cdot n)})$ \\
\> \>9. $u_{temp}=(u'_{i \cdot n},u'_{1+(i \cdot n)},\ldots,u'_{n-1+(i \cdot n)})$ \\
\> \>10. $w=w+m(v_{temp},u_{temp})$ \\
\>11. end for \\
\>12. return $w$ \\
end Function \\
\end{tabbing}
Here $u'$ and $v'$ are the extensions of $u$ and $v$ by 0's.
We shall see that the number chosen for $n$ is critical in setting many characteristics of the entire project. The experiment used for determining $n$ will be discussed in the following chapter.
Our aim is to obtain a module that performs the matrix multiplication of $A,B\in \mathbb{Z}_{4}^{k \times k}$, where $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ is the mod 4 residue class ring. In the following, let $C\in \mathbb{Z}_{4}^{k \times k}$ be the output matrix, such that $C=A \times B$. Furthermore, let $a_{i}$ be the $i$th row of matrix $A$ and let $b_{j}$ be the $j$th column of matrix $B$.
The multiplier units denoted by $m$ are used to create more complex modules in a hierarchical manner. First, by taking ten $m$ multiplier blocks we create a row of multipliers $R=(m_{0},m_{1},\ldots,m_{9})$. This is used to compute ten consecutive elements of a single row of the output matrix:
\[
R(a_{i},b_{j},b_{j+1},\ldots,b_{j+9})=(c_{i,j},c_{i,j+1},\ldots,c_{i,j+9})\ ,
\]
where $c_{i,j}=a_{i} \cdot b_{j}$. The input vector $a_i$ is used by all ten multiplier units of $R$. The length of these vectors, as mentioned above, can be arbitrary, but vectors of length greater than $n$ will need to be iteratively shifted to the input of $R$.
By taking ten row multipliers we can create a unit $M_{10 \times 10}=(R_{0},R_{1},\ldots,R_{9})$ which outputs a $10 \times 10$ sub-matrix of $C$:
\newpage
$M_{10 \times 10}(a_{i},a_{i+1},\ldots,a_{i+9},b_{j},b_{j+1},\ldots,b_{j+9})=$
\begin{align*}
\left(
\begin{matrix}
c_{i,j} & c_{i,j+1} & \cdots & c_{i,j+9} \\
c_{i+1,j} & c_{i+1,j+1} & \cdots & c_{i+1,j+9} \\
\vdots & \ddots \\
c_{i+9,j} & c_{i+9,j+1} & \cdots & c_{i+9,j+9} \\
\end{matrix}
\right).
\end{align*}
Finally, four such units are arranged so that a $20 \times 20$ sub-matrix of $C$ could be obtained as output:
$M_{20 \times 20}(a_{i},a_{i+1},\ldots,a_{i+19},b_{j},b_{j+1},\ldots,b_{j+19})=$
\begin{align*}
\left(
\begin{matrix}
c_{i,j} & c_{i,j+1} & \cdots & c_{i,j+19} \\
c_{i+1,j} & c_{i+1,j+1} & \cdots & c_{i+1,j+19} \\
\vdots & \ddots \\
c_{i+19,j} & c_{i+19,j+1} & \cdots & c_{i+19,j+19} \\
\end{matrix}
\right).
\end{align*}
The $M_{20 \times 20}$'s inputs are twenty vectors from both matrices $A$ and $B$.
Because of hardware constraints --- in particular the number of LUTs on the used device --- a larger arrangement of multipliers would be impractical to implement. The module $M_{20 \times 20}$ is comprised of 400 $m$ multiplier units. Figure 3 shows the hierarchy of units used to build $M_{20 \times 20}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.91in,height=1.82in]{M20x20_2.eps}
\caption{The structure of $M_{20 \times 20}$}
\end{figure}
The $M_{20 \times 20}$ unit can be used iteratively to multiply matrices of arbitrary size, producing $20 \times 20$ sub-matrices of the output matrix $C$ with each iteration. After inputting twenty rows from matrix $A$ and twenty columns from matrix $B$ and obtaining the desired output, we can simply repeat the process for a set of rows and columns of $A$ and $B$ respectively, until we obtain the entire output matrix $C$:
\begin{tabbing}
Function \= $large\_matrix\_mult(A,B)$ \\
\>1. Define $\kappa=\lceil \frac{k}{20} \rceil$, $A',B',C' \in \mathbb{Z}_{4}^{\kappa \cdot n \times \kappa \cdot n}$ \\
\>2. for \= $i=0$ to $20\kappa -1$ do \\
\> \ \ 3. for $j=0$ to $20\kappa -1$ do \\
\> \>4. if $i<k$ and $j<k$ $a'_{ij}=a_{ij}$ else $a'_{ij}=0$ \\
\> \>5. if $i<k$ and $j<k$ $b'_{ij}=b_{ij}$ else $b'_{ij}=0$ \\
\>6. end for end for \\
\>7. for $i=0$ to $\kappa -1$ do\\
\> \ \ 8. for $j=0$ to $\kappa -1$ do \\
\> \>9. $C'[_{i+19,j+19}^{i,j}]=M_{20 \times 20}(a_{i},a_{i+1},\ldots,a_{i+19},b_{j},b_{j+1},\ldots,b_{j+19})$ \\
\>10. end for end for \\
\>11. return $C'[_{k-1,k-1}^{0,0}]$ \\
end Function \\
\end{tabbing}
Here
\[
C'[_{k,l}^{i,j}]=
\left(
\begin{matrix}
c'_{i,j} & c'_{i,j+1} & \cdots & c'_{i,l} \\
c'_{i+1,j} & c'_{i+1,j+1} & \cdots & c'_{i+1,l} \\
\vdots & \ddots \\
c'_{k,j} & c'_{k,j+1} & \cdots & c'_{k,l} \\
\end{matrix}
\right).
\]
Note that in the naive algorithm $large\_matrix\_mult(A,B)$, during the main loop (lines 7-10), for each twenty rows read from $A$, the entire matrix $B$ is read. During the whole procedure, matrix $A$ will be read entirely exactly once, while matrix $B$ will be read $\kappa$ times. Methods improving on this number are described in section 6.
Since for almost all practical cases the size $k$ of matrices $A,B\in \mathbb{Z}_{4}^{k \times k}$ will be greater than the parameter $n$, the vectors taken from these matrices will need to be iteratively shifted onto the input of the multiplier $M_{20 \times 20}$, $n$ elements at a time. Therefore, an efficient way to both store and then use the vectors taken from the matrices is the creation of FIFO type containers made of shift registers.
Let $t_{n}^{d}$ be a shift register of width $n$ and depth $d$. It means that $t_{n}^{d}$ can store at most $d$ vectors of length $n$, or equivalently a single vector of length at most $nd$. We choose $d$ such that $nd \geq k$, thus it can store one row or column from the input matrices $A$ or $B$. Let the vector filling $t_{n}^{d}$ be $f=(f_{0},f_{1},\ldots, f_{d-1})$, where $f_{i} \in \mathbb{Z}_{4}^{n}, \ i=0,1,\ldots,d-1$. In practice, $t_{n}^{d}$ is a queue data structure. In a single step, $t_{n}^{d}$ outputs a vector of length $n$ and shifts its content by $n$ places. For the $i^{th}$ activation, the container will output $f_{i}$. After $d$ activations, the container becomes empty.
One container $t_{n}^{d}$ is used to store a single row or column of matrices $A$ or $B$ respectively. Connecting twenty of them in parallel, denoted by $T_{20n}^{d}=(t_{n}^{d}[0],t_{n}^{d}[1],\ldots,t_{n}^{d}[19])$, we obtain a container that stores twenty rows or column\-s. This is exactly the amount of data the $M_{20 \times 20}$ multiplier structure requires as input in $d$ iteration steps. After $d$ activations $T_{20n}^{d}$ has shifted all its stored data to $M_{20 \times 20}$, broken up into pieces of length $n$ for each activation. Two such $T_{20n}^{d}$ containers are connected to $M_{20 \times 20}$, one for the rows taken from matrix $A$ and one for the columns taken from matrix $B$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in,height=1.6in]{tnd.eps}
\caption{The structure of $T_{20n}^{d}$}
\end{figure}
Using $M_{20 \times 20}$ and $T_{20n}^d$ in a proper structure, we can execute one iteration cycle of the computation. After filling one $T_{20n}^{d}$ container with the desired twenty rows from matrix $A$ and one $T_{20n}^{d}$ container with the desired twenty columns from matrix $B$, we simply send $d$ activation signals to the containers. This will shift the data onto $M_{20 \times 20}$, which computes the $20 \times 20$ product matrix in the way described in function $iterated\_m(u,v)$. The number of steps in one iteration cycle is $d$.
\section{Experimental determination of parameters}
Now, we turn to the determination of $n$ (how many MA modules should be connected into a single multiplier $m$). This sets the length of the vectors that we use in the computation in a single step and thus has an effect on many other technical parameters of the design. The goal was to find the greatest number such that the multiplier would still reliably produce the correct dot product in a single clock cycle. Clearly, this number dependents on the used hardware and the clock frequency. For the device used, the chosen clock frequency was 100 MHz, the default frequency provided by the board.
The following experiment was devised to determine the value of $n$:
Let $S$ be a multiplier $m$, called the ``Subject'', and let $E_{0},E_{1},\ldots ,E_{9}$ be ten more $m$ multipliers, called the ``Examiners''. Informally, the Examiners' duty was to verify the answers given by the Subject to questions they already knew the answer to. The ``questions'' here are test data: two vectors $v,u$ of length $n$ generated by the following sequence to obtain suitable pseudo-random values:
\[
D_{i}=D_{i-1}+D_{i-2}+2D_{i-4}+D_{i-5},
\]
where $D_{0}=D_{1}=D_{2}=D_{3}=0, \ D_{4}=1$.
More formally, let $p \in \mathbb{Z}_{10}$ be a counter that cycles between values $0,1, \ldots,9$, incrementing its value by one with each clock cycle, and returning to value $0$ after $9$. For each clock cycle during the experiment, the following happens depending on the value of $p$:
\begin{itemize}
\item The output of $S$ is checked for equality with the output of $E_{p}$. If inequality is detected, then an error is noted.
\item The test data $E_{p+1}$ is currently working on is given to $S$.
\item New test data is given to $E_{p-1}$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{tabbing}
Procedure \= testing \\
\>1. Let $S,E_{0},E_{1},\ldots,E_{9}$ be $m$ multipliers \\
\>2. Let $D$ be the test data generator \\
\>3. Let $i \in \mathbb{N}, p \in \mathbb{Z}_{10}$ \\
\>4. forever \= do \\
\> \>5. $i=i+1$ \\
\> \>6. $p \equiv i \mod{10}$ \\
\> \>7. if $S_{out} \neq E_{p\_out}$ then return ERROR \\
\> \>8. $E_{p-1\_in} \leftarrow D(i)$ \\
\> \>9. $S_{in} \leftarrow E_{p+1\_in}$ \\
\>10. end forever \\
end Procedure \\
\end{tabbing}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.5in,height=2.9in]{teszt.eps}
\caption{Activity of testing module when counter's value is $p$}
\end{figure}
Note that the output of $S$ is checked every clock cycle, which yields that $S$ has only a single cycle to calculate its answer to the question it was given in the preceding clock cycle. A given Examiner, however, has ten times more time to work on its test data. Once in every ten clock cycles, new data is given to the Examiner to work on, and its output is only checked nine clock cycles later, just before it is given new input again. This way the Examiners have enough time to compute the correct answer to the question by the time it is needed.
As the initial value for $n$, we have chosen 16, a number small enough to be reasonably expected to pass the criteria set for $n$, but large enough to be of interest. If the experiment reported no error, meaning the Subject was flawlessly able to calculate the dot product for a sufficiently long time, then the value of $n$ was increased and the experiment repeated. After the first error was encountered, meaning the Subject was not able to keep up with the calculations, the largest value was chosen for $n$ for which there were no errors.
On the used device, the largest such value was found to be $28$ at a clock speed of 100 MHz and setting the length of $m$ multipliers to $n=28$ were able to work error-free for days without interruption.
\section{Computation of large matrices}
In the Section 4 we gave an algorithm for using the described modules for computing the product of large matrices. Following the description, the implemented design would make use of the parallelism offered by the FPGA only in the computation of dot products. Making further use of parallel operations, the design's performance can be significantly improved. In this section we describe the implementation choices made to raise the overall performance.
The biggest factor to consider is the management of data. When computing the product of large matrices, the amount of data to store and to move between the computation modules can easily exceed the size which can be practically stored on the FPGA. Fortunately, as mentioned before, a 256MB DDR2 SODIMM is connected to the board as the main data storage device. A module is generated using the Memory Interface Generator v3.5 intellectual property core provided by Xilinx to implement the logic needed to communicate with the DDR2 RAM. The module is structured hierarchically, connecting the memory device to a user interface. All communication with the device is done through two FIFO queues: one queue to send the command and address signals, while the other queue is used for write data and write data mask (when masking is allowed).
A naive utilization of the memory would be to simply read the required data before each iteration of the computation, and writing the output back after it is finished. An undesirable effect of this approach would be that the design would spend significantly more time with memory management than with the actual computation. The desired result would be that memory management (and all other auxiliary operations) were done during the time interval of the computation. Note that since both the size of the matrices and the multiplier module is fixed, the time the multiplication consumes is a fixed constant, which cannot be lowered. Optimally, the time of the computation should be an upper bound for the running time of the entire design. The difficulty of reaching this optimum lies in the high speed of the multiplier modules compared to the memory module.
One way to resolve the problem caused by slow transmission speed is to increase the amount of data stored on the FPGA. Informally, the main idea is to keep enough data in a prepared state, i.e. by the time the multiplier module finishes all of its computations, we have enough new data to continue working. More formally, let us define the following quantities:
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $d$ be the time necessary to complete one iteration of the computation. As described in the previous sections, this is equal to the depth of the containers $T_{20n}^{d}$.
\item Let $\kappa=\lceil \frac{k}{20} \rceil$, where $k$ is the size of the matrices. ($A,B \in \mathbb{Z}_4^{k \times k}$) This quantity is already used in algorithm $large\_matrix\_mult$. For the rest of the section, it is practical to think of $A$ and $B$ as $\kappa \times \kappa$ sized block matrices, where each element is a $20 \times 20$ matrix.
\item Let $f(A,B)$ be an arbitrary algorithm executing matrix multiplication on $A$ and $B$, including the memory management needed for the computation. Let $K(f)$ be the number of times the algorithm needs to fill a $T_{20n}^{d}$ container, i.e. the number of times it has to read twenty rows or columns from the matrices. Note that completely reading either input matrices once means filling $T_{20n}^{d}$ containers $\kappa$ times, since one $T_{20n}^{d}$ can store twenty rows or columns at a time. Algorithm $large\_matrix\_mult$'s main loop (starting at line 7) reads twenty rows from matrix $A$ (filling a $T_{20n}^{d}$ once) and reads matrix $B$ entirely for each step. Since the loop has $\kappa$ steps, it follows that $K(large\_matrix\_mult)=\kappa^2+\kappa$.
\item Let $\delta$ be the time it takes to fill a $T_{20n}^{d}$ container. This quantity depends on both the width and depth of the container. The total time $f(A,B)$ spends on reading from memory to fill the containers is $K(f)\delta$.
\item Let $\Phi(f)$ be the total time the design has to spend with memory management. This is the sum of the time it spends on reading matrices $A$ and $B$ from the memory and the time it spends on writing the product matrix $C$ into the memory. The number of times $f$ has to read $A$ and $B$ from the memory depends on $f$. Note that since the size of the total output matrix $C$ is the same as the size of $A$ and $B$, writing $C$ into the memory takes time equal to reading either matrices once from the memory. In other words, it takes $\kappa\delta$ time. The total time the design has to spend with memory management is $\Phi(f)=K(f)\delta+\kappa\delta$.
\item Let $\Gamma(f)$ be the time $f(A,B)$ spends on the computation itself. From the definition of $d$ and $\kappa$ it follows that $C(large\_matrix\_mult)=d\kappa^2$.
\end{itemize}
The goal here is to reduce $K(f)$ in such a way that the data required for the next iteration of the computation is always ready by the time the previous iteration ends. If this arrangement is achieved then $C(f)$ becomes the upper bound for the running time of the design.
Storing more data on the FPGA can be done by adding more $T_{20n}^{d}$ containers to the design. During an iteration only two such containers are used directly. The rest can be used to load data necessary for the forthcoming iteration steps.
Suppose the design has $z+2$ pieces of $T_{20n}^{d}$ containers. We assign $z$ of the containers to store rows from matrix $A$, called ``row-stores'', and two of them to store columns from matrix $B$, called ``column-stores''. With this arrangement, we can carry out $z-1$ iterations of the computation, using up the data stored in $z-1$ row-stores and one column-store. This leaves one row-store and one column-store to load new data into during the computation. Using the above definitions, the allover computation takes $(z-1)d$ time.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.7in,height=3.13in]{iter.eps}
\caption{Configuration of data stored on the FPGA}
\end{figure}
If we use all $z$ row-stores and one column-store for the computation while the remaining column-store is devoted to loading new columns into, then we would have to load all $z$ row-stores with new rows once we read all the columns before we can continue the computation. This would take $z\delta$ time for each case where we read all the columns but haven't read all the rows yet, which happens $\lfloor \frac{\kappa}{z} \rfloor$ times. In total, it would add $\lfloor \frac{\kappa}{z} \rfloor z\delta$ to the running time.
Instead, the computation of the output matrix moves slightly diagonally. See Figure 7. The $z-1$ row-stores used in the computations store a total of $(z-1) \cdot 20$ rows. Initially, the row-stores are filled with rows $a_0 \rightarrow a_{(z-1)\cdot 20 -1}$. New rows are loaded in at a slower pace than columns are. By the time all columns are read once, the contents of the row-stores have shifted exactly to the next segment of data needed, the next $(z-1)\cdot 20$ rows. After matrix $B$ is completely read once, the row-stores are filled with rows $a_{(z-1)\dot 20} \rightarrow a_{2(z-1)\cdot 20 -1}$. Reading rows and columns proceeds in this manner until we've completely read matrix $A$ once. For this reason, it is practical to choose $z$ such that $(z-1)\mid \kappa$. All together we read matrix $B$ $\frac{\kappa}{z-1}$ times and matrix $A$ once. During each $z-1$ iterations shown in Figure 6, twenty new columns and $\frac{(z-1)\cdot 20}{\kappa}$ new rows are loaded into the column-store and row-store currently unused by the computation. When the unused row-store is filled with twenty new rows, it becomes active, to be used in the following iterations. The row-store containing the rows with the least index becomes inactive in the computation and starts accepting the new rows read.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.7in,height=2.6in]{comp.eps}
\caption{Progression of computations through matrix $C$}
\end{figure}
\begin{tabbing}
Function \= $improved\_matrix\_mult(A,B)$ \\
\>1. Define $z,\kappa=\lceil \frac{k}{20} \rceil$, $A',B',C' \in \mathbb{Z}_{4}^{\kappa \cdot n \times \kappa \cdot n}$ \\
\>2. for \= $i=0$ to $20\kappa -1$ do \\
\>3. for $j=0$ to $20\kappa -1$ do \\
\> \>4. if $i<k$ and $j<k$ then $a'_{ij}=a_{ij}$ else $a'_{ij}=0$ \\
\> \>5. if $i<k$ and $j<k$ then $b'_{ij}=b_{ij}$ else $b'_{ij}=0$ \\
\>6. end for end for \\
\>7. Fill the row-stores with rows $a_0 \rightarrow a_{(z-1)\cdot 20-1}$ \\
\>8. Fill the column-stores with columns $b_0-b_{19}$ \\
\>9. For $i=1$ to $\frac{\kappa^2}{z-1}$ \\
\>Do in parallel: \=$|$perform $z-1$ iterations of the computation\\
\> \> $|$READ the next 20 columns mod $\kappa \cdot 20$\\
\> \> $|$READ the next $\frac{(z-1)\cdot 20}{\kappa}$ rows mod $\kappa \cdot 20$\\
\> \> $|$WRITE the result of the previous $z-1$ iterations\\
\>11. return $C'[_{k-1,k-1}^{0,0}]$ \\
end Function \\
\end{tabbing}
The possible values for the parameters used in this section depend on the used hardware.
The size of the matrices used in the implementation are determined by parameters $n=28$ and $d=32$. The LUTs on the device that comprise the $T_{20n}^{d}$ containers can be configured as $d=32$ bit deep shift registers. For this reason the matrices are of size $896 \times 896$. Rows with length $k=896$ are the largest that can be stored in containers that are one LUT deep, making them any larger would double the number of LUTs needed for creating a $T_{20n}^{d}$. Because of the limited number of LUTs which can be used for storage purposes, $z=10$ was chosen. This yields that twelve $T_{20n}^{d}$ containers are defined in the design. Dealing with matrices larger than $k=896$ is part of future work.
For convenience, time quantities are measured in clock cycles at 100MHz, the clock speed of the $M_{20 \times 20}$ multiplier.
The value of $\delta$ depends on the DDR2 RAM used. The device was used at 200MHz, and has a 64 bit wide physical data bus.
From these values we determine the following parameters:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\kappa=\lceil \frac{896}{20} \rceil=45$,
\item $K(improved\_matrix\_mult)=\frac{\kappa}{z-1}\kappa+\kappa=\frac{45}{9}\cdot 45 + 45=270$,
\item $\delta=140$ clock cycles at 100MHz,
\item $\Phi(improved\_matrix\_mult)=K(improved\_matrix\_mult)\delta+\kappa\delta=270\cdot 140 + 45 \cdot 140=44100$ clock cycles at 100MHz,
\item $\Gamma(improved\_matrix\_mult)=d\kappa^2=32 \cdot 45^2=64800$ clock cycles at 100MHz.
\end{itemize}
The goal of $\Gamma(improved\_matrix\_mult)>\Phi(improved\_matrix\_mult)$ is a\-chieved, meaning that the running time of the design is equal to the time used by the computation.
The speedup provided by the configuration can be shown by comparing its performance to a similar implementation created on a more traditional architecture. A highly optimized C++ program was created for a machine using an Intel E8400 3GHz Dual Core processor with 2GB RAM. The algorithm is strongly specialized for the task, making use of all available options for increasing performance. It uses 64 bit long variables to perform multiplication on 16 pairs of two-digit elements at once in parallel on both processor cores.
The running time of the multiplication of matrices of the same size is over 100 ms. The FPGA implementation, as mentioned above, achieves a runtime of $\sim$0.6 ms. On average, a speedup factor of 200 is reached using the described FPGA design.
\section{Future work}
The future course of research will focus on increasing the size of the used matrices.
As mentioned in the previous section, simply increasing the depth $d$ of the $T_{20n}^{d}$ containers would be impractical. Since a single LUT on the device can only be configured as a 32 bit deep shift register, setting $d>32$ would double the number of LUTs needed for a $T_{20n}^{d}$, and the design is already using well over half of the device's LUTs that can be configured this way (13440 out of 17280, to be exact). Increasing the size of the matrices this way would require the restructuring of both the multiplier module and the algorithm used for memory management.
Instead, the currently implemented module can be used as a basic unit for the multiplication of larger matrices. Then the entries of the large matrices are $896 \times 896$ blocks.
This also allows for further optimization using Strassen's algorithm. Suppose we double the matrix sizes, interpreting them as matrices with four blocks. Using the classical algorithm, multiplying two $1792 \times 1792$ sized matrices would take eight multiplication of the blocks. Using a divide-and-conquer strategy, we can exchange one multiplication for a few extra additions.
\[
\left[
\begin{matrix}
A_{11} & A_{12} \\
A_{21} & A_{22} \\
\end{matrix}
\right]
\cdot
\left[
\begin{matrix}
B_{11} & B_{12} \\
B_{21} & B_{22} \\
\end{matrix}
\right]
=
\left[
\begin{matrix}
-D_2+D_4+D_5+D_6 & D_1+D_2 \\
D_3+D_4 & D_1-D_3+D_5-D_7 \\
\end{matrix}
\right],
\]
where
\begin{align*}
&D_1=A_{11}(B_{12}-B_{22}) \\
&D_2=(A_{11}+A_{12})B_{22} \\
&D_3=(A_{21}+A_{22})B_{11} \\
&D_4=A_{22}(B_{21}-B_{11}) \\
&D_5=(A_{11}+A_{22})(B_{11}+B_{22})\\
&D_6=(A_{12}-A_{22})(B_{21}+B_{22})\\
&D_7=(A_{11}-A_{21})(B_{11}+B_{12}).\\
\end{align*}
This algorithm, with its $O(n^{\lg 7})$ time complexity, could speed up the design on large matrices. We should note however, that the speed of the extra additions have to be carefully considered. Since the multiplication is already extremely fast, a similar improvement may also be necessary for additions if the overall performance upgrade is to remain significant.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Research supported by the T\'AMOP 4.2.1/B-09/1/KONV-2010-0007 project and TARIPAR3 project grant Nr. TECH 08-A2/2-2008-0086.
|
\section{Introduction}
In solid-state theory, multi-band Hubbard models
are used to study transition metals and
their compounds. In these models only
the local (atomic)
part of the Coulomb interaction is explicitly taken into account. All
non-local terms are included on the level of a `Density-Functional
Theory' calculation, which is used to set up a proper tight-binding
Hamiltonian, see Sect.~\ref{sec1}.
Despite the relative simplicity of
Hubbard models, as compared to the full electronic Hamiltonian, calculating
their properties still constitutes a very difficult many-particle
problem. In recent years, significant progress has been made
in this direction by the systematic study of models in
the limit of infinite spatial dimensions
($D\to \infty$). The exact solution of Hubbard models in this limit leads
to the Dynamical Mean Field Theory (DMFT), in which the original lattice model
is mapped onto an effective single-impurity system that has to be solved
numerically \cite{metzner1989,vollhardt1989,vollhardt1993,georges1996,gebhard1997}. Although significant progress has been made in recent years
in developing numerical techniques for the solution of the DMFT equations,
it is still quite challenging and can be carried out only with
limited accuracy.
An alternative method, that also relies on infinite-$D$ techniques, is the
Gutzwiller
variational approach. It allows for the approximate study of ground-state
properties and single-particle excitations
with much less numerical
effort than within DMFT and has been applied in a number of works in
recent years \cite{buenemann1997c,buenemann1998,buenemann2003,attaccalite2003,buenemann2003b,ferrero2005,julien2005,buenemann2005,buenemann2007b,buenemann2007d,buenemann2008,lanata2008,ho2008,deng2009,zhouang2009,borghi2009,hofmann2009,wang2010,zhou2010,buenemann2011,yao2011,buenemann2011e}. A related approach that leads to the
same energy functional for multi-band models is the slave-boson
mean field theory
\cite{lechermann2007,buenemann2007c,ferrero2009,isidori2009,lechermann2009,buenemann2010,piefke2011}. Starting from the approximate ground-state description, it is
also possible to study two-particle excitations within the
`time-dependent Gutzwiller
theory' \cite{seibold1998b,seibold2003,lorenzana2003,seibold2004,seibold2004b,lorenzana2005,seibold2005,seibold2006,seibold2007,seibold2008,seibold2008b,guenther2010,buenemann2011b,buenemann2011c}.
The main numerical problem in the Gutzwiller theory is
the minimisation of the energy functional with respect to the variational
parameters since their number can be quite large in investigations
of multi-band models.
We have developed an efficient numerical scheme
for this minimisation which has already been applied successfully in our
studies on nickel \cite{buenemann2003,buenemann2008} and iron-pnictides
\cite{buenemann2011,buenemann2011e}. In particular, the studies on the
spin-orbit coupling effects in nickel were numerically demanding
since they required a rather fine energy resolution and the handling of up
to 8000 variational parameters \cite{buenemann2008}. To the best of our
knowledge, no Gutzwiller minimisation of
similar complexity has been reported in other works.
We are therefore convinced that our minimisation algorithm will be of
significant interest for all researchers who intend to apply the
Gutzwiller theory to real materials. It is the purpose
of this work to give detailed account of our method. Note that an alternative
method for the minimisation of a restricted class
of Gutzwiller energy functionals has been proposed in a
recent work~\cite{lanata2011}.
Our presentation is organised as follows. In Sections~\ref{sec1}
and~\ref{chap2b} we summarise the main results on multi-band
Gutz\-willer wave functions and their energy functionals in infinite
spatial dimensions. Our minimisation algorithm is described in detail
in Section~\ref{app7}. Some technical parts of the presentation
are referred to four appendices.
\section{Multi-Band Hubbard models}\label{sec1}
We aim to study the physics
of multi-band Hubbard models
\begin{equation}\label{h2}
\hat{H}=\sum_{i\neq j} \sum_{\sigma,\sigma'}
t^{\sigma,\sigma'}_{i,j} \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i,\sigma}\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{j,\sigma'}+
\sum_i \hat{H}_{i,{\rm loc}}\;.
\end{equation}
Here, we introduced the `hopping parameters' $t^{\sigma,\sigma'}_{i,j}$ and
the operators $\hat{c}^{(\dagger)}_{i,\sigma}$, which annihilate (create)
an electron with spin-orbital index $\sigma$ on a lattice site $i$.
The local Hamiltonian
\begin{eqnarray}\label{4.10a}
\hat{H}_{i;{\rm loc}}&=&\sum_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2}\varepsilon_{i;\sigma_1,\sigma_2}
\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i,\sigma_1} \hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i,\sigma_2}\\ \nonumber
&&+\sum_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3,\sigma_4}
U_i^{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3,\sigma_4}
\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i,\sigma_1} \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i,\sigma_2}\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i,\sigma_3} \hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i,\sigma_4}\;
\end{eqnarray}
is determined by the orbital-dependent on-site energies
$\varepsilon_{i;\sigma_1,\sigma_2}$
and by the two-particle Coulomb interaction matrix elements
$U_i^{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3,\sigma_4}$.
We assume that the $2N$ spin-orbital
states $\sigma$ are ordered in some arbitrary
way, $\sigma= 1,\ldots,2N$ where $N$ is the number of orbitals
per lattice site.
In order to set up a proper basis of the local Hilbert space,
we introduce the following notations for the $2^{2N}$ possible
configurations.
\begin{itemize}
\item[i)\,] An atomic configuration $I$ is characterised by the electron
occupation of the orbitals,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{4.20a}
I &\in& \{\emptyset;
(1),\ldots,(2N);
(1,2),\ldots,(2,3),\\\nonumber
&&\ldots (2N-1,2N);
\ldots;
(1,\ldots,2N)
\}\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where the elements in each set $I=(\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\ldots)$
are ordered, i.e., it is $\sigma_1<\sigma_2<\ldots$. The symbol
$\emptyset$ in~(\ref{4.20a}) means that the site is empty.
In general, we interpret the indices $I$ as sets in the usual
mathematical sense.
For example, in the atomic configuration
$I\backslash I'$
only those orbitals in $I$ that are not in $I'$
are occupied.
The complement of $I$ is
$\overline{I}\equiv(1,2,\ldots,2N)\backslash I$,
i.e., in the atomic configuration $\overline{I}$ all orbitals but those
in $I$ are occupied.
\item[ii)\,] The absolute value $|I|$ of a configuration
is the number of elements in it, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{4.25a}
&&|\emptyset|=0;|(\sigma_1)|=1;|(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)|=2;\\\nonumber
&&\ldots;|(1,\ldots,2N)|=2N
\;.
\end{eqnarray}
\item[iii)\,] A state with a specific configuration $I$ is given as
\begin{equation}\label{4.30a}
\ket{I}=\hat{C}_{I}^{\dagger}\ket{0}\equiv\prod_{\sigma \in I}\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\sigma}\ket{0}=
\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\sigma_1}\dots\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\sigma_{|I|}}\ket{0}\;,
\end{equation}
where the operators $\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\sigma}$ are in ascending order, i.e., it is
$\sigma_1<\sigma_2\ldots<\sigma_{|I|}$.
Products of annihilation operators, such as
\begin{equation}\label{4.35a}
\hat{C}_{I}^{}\equiv\prod_{\sigma\in I}\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\sigma}=\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\sigma_1}\dots\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\sigma_{|I|}},
\end{equation}
will be placed in descending order, i.e., with
$\sigma_1>\sigma_2\ldots>\sigma_{|I|}$. Note that we have introduced the operators
$\hat{C}_{I}^{\dagger}$ and $\hat{C}_{I}^{}$ just as convenient abbreviations.
They must not be misinterpreted as
fermionic creation or annihilation operators.
\item[iv)\,] The operator $\hat{m}_{I,I'}\equiv \ket{I}\bra{I'}$
describes the transfer
between configurations $I'$ and $I$. It can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{4.50a}
\hat{m}_{I,I'}=
\hat{C}_{I}^{\dagger}
\hat{C}_{I'}^{}
\prod_{\sigma''\in J}(1-\hat{n}_{\sigma''})
\end{equation}
where $J\equiv \overline{I\cup I'}$. A special case,
which derives from~(\ref{4.50a}), is the occupation operator
\begin{equation}\label{4.52a}
\hat{m}_{I}\equiv \ket{I}\bra{I}=\prod_{\sigma\in I}\hat{n}_{\sigma}
\prod_{\sigma'\in \bar{I}}(1-\hat{n}_{\sigma'})\;.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
The states $\ket{I}$ form a basis of the atomic Hilbert space. Therefore,
we can write the eigenstates of the local Hamiltonian~(\ref{4.10a}) as
\begin{equation}\label{4.60a}
|\Gamma\rangle =\sum_{I}T_{I,\Gamma}\ket{I}
\end{equation}
with coefficients $T_{I,\Gamma}$.
With these eigenstates, the atomic Hamiltonian has the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eft}
\hat{H}_{i,{\rm loc}}&=&\sum_{\Gamma}
E_{i;\Gamma}\hat{m}_{i;\Gamma,\Gamma}\;,\\
\hat{m}_{i;\Gamma,\Gamma'}&\equiv&
| \Gamma\rangind{i}
\langind{i} \Gamma'| =
\sum_{I,I'}T_{I,\Gamma}T^*_{I',\Gamma'}|
I\rangind{i}
\langind{i} I'|
\;.
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Gutzwiller Energy Functional}\label{chap2b}
Multi-band Gutz\-wil\-ler wave-functions have the form
\begin{equation}\label{1.3}
|\Psi_{\rm G}\rangle=\hat{P}_{\rm G}|\Psi_0\rangle=\prod_{i}\hat{P}_{i}|\Psi_0\rangle\;,
\end{equation}
where $|\Psi_0\rangle$ is a normalised single-particle product state and the
local Gutzwiller correlator is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{1.4b}
\hat{P}_{i}=\sum_{\Gamma,\Gamma^{\prime}}\lambda_{i;\Gamma,\Gamma^{\prime}}
|\Gamma \rangle_{i} {}_{i}\langle \Gamma^{\prime} |\equiv
\sum_{\tilde{\Gamma}}\lambda_{i;\tilde{\Gamma}}
| \tilde{\Gamma} \rangle_{i} {}_{i}\langle \tilde{\Gamma} | \;,
\end{equation}
where we introduced the matrix of variational parameters
$\lambda_{i;\Gamma,\Gamma^{\prime}}$ which allows us to optimise the occupation
and the form of the eigenstates $|\tilde{\Gamma} \rangle_{i}$ of $\hat{P}_{i}$.
The evaluation of expectations values with respect to the
wave function~(\ref{1.3}) is a difficult many-particle problem,
which cannot be
solved in general.
As shown
in~Refs.~\cite{buenemann1998,buenemann2005},
one can derive analytical expressions for the
variational ground-state energy in the limit of infinite spatial dimensions
($D\to \infty$). Using this energy functional
for the study of finite-dimensional systems is usually
denoted as the `Gutzwiller approximation'. This approach is the basis
of most applications of Gutzwiller wave functions in studies
of real materials and it will also be addressed in this work.
One should keep in mind, however, that the Gutzwiller approximation has its
limitations and the study of some phenomena requires an evaluation
of expectation values in finite dimensions~\cite{buenemann2011d}.
\subsection{Local basis}
In general, the local density matrix for non-interacting electrons
\begin{equation}\label{xc}
C_{i;\sigma,\sigma'}=\langle \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i,\sigma}\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i,\sigma'} \rangle_{\Psi_0}
\end{equation}
is non-diagonal with respect to $\sigma,\sigma'$. For a fixed state
$\ket{\Psi_0}$, one can always find a local basis with a
diagonal density matrix.
This will turn out to be quite useful in the minimisation with respect to
the variational parameters $\lambda_{i;\Gamma,\Gamma^{\prime}}$
because, with such a basis, the energy functional has a much simpler form.
We introduce the explicit expression of this simplified functional
in the following Sects.~\ref{con1} and~\ref{exp}.
If one minimises the energy with respect to $\ket{\Psi_0}$, however,
the diagonality of~(\ref{xc}) is only ensured in systems with
high symmetries. Therefore, we also need the general expression
for the variational ground-state energy with an arbitrary local
basis. This is given in Appendix~\ref{ka}.
Note that, in general, the {\sl correlated} density matrix
\begin{equation}\label{xc1}
C^{\rm c}_{i;\sigma,\sigma'}=\langle \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i,\sigma}\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i,\sigma'}
\rangle_{\Psi_{\rm G}}
\end{equation}
is different from the {\sl non-interacting} density matrix~(\ref{xc}).
In the following, however, we will frequently use the short term
`density matrix'
for~(\ref{xc}) since the correlated density
matrix~(\ref{xc1}) is not considered in this work.
Moreover, we only study systems and wave functions
which are translationally invariant. Therefore we drop lattice
site indices whenever this does not create ambiguities.
\subsection{Constraints}\label{con1}
As shown in Refs.~\cite{buenemann1998,buenemann2005}, it is most
convenient for the evaluation of Gutzwiller wave functions in
infinite dimensions to impose the following (local) constraints
\begin{eqnarray}\label{1.10a}
\langle\hat{P}^{\dagger}\hat{P}^{}\rangle_{\Psi_0}&=&1\;,\\
\label{1.10b}
\langle \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\sigma} \hat{P}^{\dagger}\hat{P}^{} \
\hat{c}^{}_{\sigma'}\rangle_{\Psi_0}&=&\langle
\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\sigma}\hat{c}^{}_{\sigma'} \rangle_{\Psi_0}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that moving the operator $\hat{P}^{\dagger}\hat{P}^{}$ relative to
$\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\sigma}$ or $\hat{c}^{}_{\sigma'}$
in (\ref{1.10b}) does not alter the whole
set of constraints. With the explicit form of the
correlation operator~(\ref{1.3}) and an orbital basis with a diagonal
local density matrix,
\begin{equation}\label{xc2}
C_{\sigma,\sigma'}=\delta_{\sigma,\sigma'}n_{\sigma}\;,
\end{equation}
the constraints read as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{5.5}
\sum_{\Gamma,\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2}
\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma_1}^{*}\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma_2}^{}
m^{0}_{\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2}&=&1\;,\\\label{5.5b}
\sum_{\Gamma,\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2}
\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma_1}^{*}\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma_2}^{}
m^{0}_{\Gamma_1\cup \sigma,\Gamma_2\cup \sigma'}
&=&\delta_{\sigma,\sigma'}n_{\sigma}\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{wet}
|\Gamma\cup \sigma \rangle
&\equiv& \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\sigma}|\Gamma \rangle
=\sum_{I(\sigma \notin I)}T_{I,\Gamma}|I \cup \sigma\rangle\;,\\\label{wet2}
m^{0}_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}&=&\langle \hat{m}_{\Gamma,\Gamma'} \rangle_{\Psi_0}=
\sum_{I}T_{I,\Gamma}T^*_{I,\Gamma'}m^{0}_{I}\;,\\
m^{0}_{I}&=&\prod_{\sigma \in I}n_{\sigma}\prod_{\sigma \notin I}(1-n_{\sigma}) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
For a general orbital basis the explicit form of the constraints is given
in Appendix~\ref{ka}.
\subsection{Expectation values}\label{exp}
Each local operator $\hat{O}_i$, e.g., the local Hamiltonian~(\ref{4.10a}),
can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{O}_i=\sum_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}O_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}\hat{m}_{i;\Gamma,\Gamma'}\;.
\end{equation}
In infinite dimensions, its expectation value with respect to~(\ref{1.3})
is given as
\begin{equation}
\langle
\hat{O}\rangle_{\Psi_{\rm G}}
=\sum_{\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,\Gamma_3,\Gamma_4}
O_{\Gamma_2,\Gamma_3}
\lambda_{\Gamma_2,\Gamma_1}^{*}\lambda_{\Gamma_3,\Gamma_4}^{}
m^0_{\Gamma_1,\Gamma_4}\;,
\end{equation}
where the expectation values $m^0_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$ have been introduced
in~(\ref{wet2}).
Hence, the expectation value of the local Hamiltonian~(\ref{eft}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{kdr}
\langle
\hat{H}_{i,{\rm loc}}\rangle_{\Psi_{\rm G}}
=\sum_{\Gamma,\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2}E_{\Gamma}
\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma_1}^{*}\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma_2}^{}
m^0_{\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2}\;.
\end{equation}
The expectation value for a hopping operator in infinite dimensions
has the form
\begin{equation}\label{8.410}
\big \langle \hat{c}_{i,\sigma_1}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{j,\sigma_2}^{\phantom{+}} \big \rangle_{\Psi_{\rm G}}
=\sum_{\sigma'_1,\sigma'_2}q_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma'_1}\left( q_{\sigma_2}^{\sigma'_2}\right)^{*}\big \langle
\hat{c}_{i,\sigma'_1}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{j,\sigma'_2}^{\phantom{+}} \big \rangle_{\Psi_{0}}\;,
\end{equation}
where, for an orbital basis with diagonal local density matrix,
the (local) renormalisation matrix reads
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
q_{\sigma}^{\sigma'}&=&\frac{1}{n_{\sigma'}}
\sum_{\Gamma_1\ldots\Gamma_4}\lambda^{*}_{\Gamma_2,\Gamma_1}
\lambda^{}_{\Gamma_3,\Gamma_4}
\langle \Gamma_2|
\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\sigma}
|\Gamma_3\rangle\\\label{8.460}
&&\times \Big \langle
\big (|\Gamma_1 \rangle
\langle \Gamma_4 | \hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\sigma'}\big )
\Big \rangle_{\Psi_0}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
The expressions for the on-site energy and the renormalisation matrix
with a general
orbital basis are given in Appendix~\ref{ka}.
\subsection{Energy functional}
In a translationally invariant system, the expectation values, which we
introduced in the previous section, lead to the
following variational energy functional (per lattice site)
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ap7.1}
E_{\rm G}\big (\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'},\ket{\Psi_0}\big)&=&
\sum_{\substack{\sigma_1,\sigma_2 \\ \sigma'_1,\sigma'_2}}
q^{\sigma'_1}_{\sigma_1}\left(q^{\sigma'_2}_{\sigma_2}\right)^*
E_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma'_1,\sigma'_2}\\\nonumber
&&+
\sum_{\Gamma,\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2}E_{\Gamma}
\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma_1}^{*}\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma_2}^{}
m^0_{\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, we introduced the tensor
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ap7.2}
E_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma'_1,\sigma'_2}&\equiv&
\frac{1}{L}\sum_{i\neq j} t^{\sigma_1,\sigma_2}_{i,j}
\langle
\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i,\sigma'_1}\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{j,\sigma'_2}
\big \rangle_{\Psi_0}\\
&=& \frac{1}{L}\sum_{\ve{k}}
\varepsilon_{\ve{k};\sigma_1,\sigma_2}
\big \langle
\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\ve{k},\sigma'_1}\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\ve{k},\sigma'_2}
\big \rangle_{\Psi_0}
\end{eqnarray}
with the bare dispersion
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{\ve{k};\sigma,\sigma'}\equiv\frac{1}{L}\sum_{i\neq j}
t^{\sigma,\sigma'}_{i,j}
e^{{\rm i} \ve{k}(\ve{R}_{i}-\ve{R}_{j}) }\;.
\end{equation}
The energy~(\ref{ap7.1}) is a function of $\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$
and $\ket{\Psi_0}$ where $\ket{\Psi_0}$ enters~(\ref{ap7.1}), (\ref{ap7.2})
solely through the (non-interacting) density matrix $\tilde{\rho}$
with the elements
\begin{equation}
\rho_{(i\sigma),(j\sigma')}\equiv
\langle \hat{c}_{j,\sigma'}^{\dagger}
\hat{c}_{i,\sigma}^{\phantom{+}}\rangle_{\Psi_0}\;.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the energy
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm G}=E_{\rm G}(\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'},\tilde{\rho})
\end{equation}
has to be minimised with respect to the
variational parameters $\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$ and the
density matrix $\tilde{\rho}$ obeying the
constraints~(\ref{5.5}), (\ref{5.5b}),
(or~(\ref{qwa}), (\ref{qwa2})) and
\begin{equation}
\label{16}
\tilde{\rho}^2=\tilde{\rho}\;.
\end{equation}
This additional constraint ensures that $\tilde{\rho}$
corresponds to a single-particle wave function.
\section{Numerical Minimisation of the Gutzwiller Energy Functional}
\label{app7}
In principle, it is conceivable
to minimise the energy with respect to the variational parameters
$\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$ and the density matrix
$\tilde{\rho}$ simultaneously. However, we found it more efficient to
use consecutive cycles of `inner minimisations' (with respect to
$\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$ and with fixed $\tilde{\rho}$) and `outer
minimisations' (with respect to $\tilde{\rho}$ and with fixed
$\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$) until a self-consistent minimum is reached.
In the following we assume that all quantities in the energy functional and
in the constraints are real. This is allowed since, in case of complex
variational parameter or constraints~(\ref{5.5}), (\ref{5.5b}), we may
introduce the (independent) real and imaginary parts of these quantities.
\subsection{`Inner' Minimisation}\label{app7.1}
Before we explain our minimisation algorithm in Sect.~\ref{inmin},
it is essential to resolve the fundamental structure of our
energy function.
\subsubsection{Structure of the energy function}
For a fixed density matrix $\tilde{\rho}$, the energy function
is given as
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
E_{\rm G}(\ve{v})&=&
\sum_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma'_1,\sigma'_2}
q^{\sigma'_1}_{\sigma_1}(\ve{v})q^{\sigma'_2}_{\sigma_2}(\ve{v})
E_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma'_1,\sigma'_2}\\\label{ap7.1dd}
&&+\sum_{Z,Z'}U_{Z,Z'}
v_Zv_{Z'}\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where we used the abbreviation
$v_Z$ for the $n_{\rm v}$ variational
parameters
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.1d}
v_Z=\frac{\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}}{\sqrt{m_{\Gamma}^0 m_{\Gamma'}^0}}\;,
\end{equation}
which are
considered as the elements
of a vector $\ve{v}$.
In our numerical calculations
we found that the inner minimisation,
as it will be described in Sect.~\ref{inmin},
is much faster if we use the variational parameters
(\ref{ap7.1d}) instead of
$\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$.
The renormalisation matrix
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.3}
q^{\sigma'}_{\sigma}(\ve{v})=\sum_{Z,Z'}S^{\sigma'}_{\sigma}(Z,Z')
v_Zv_{Z'}
\end{equation}
and the $n_{\rm c}$ (independent) constraints~(\ref{5.5}), (\ref{5.5b}),
which we denote as
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.7}
g_{l}(\ve{v})=\sum_{Z,Z'}f_{l}(Z,Z')v_Zv_{Z'}-g^0_{l}=0\;\;\;\;\;(l=1,\ldots,n_{\rm c})\;,
\end{equation}
are quadratic functions of the variational parameters $v_Z$. The
numbers $g^0_{l}$ in~(\ref{ap7.7}) correspond to the r.h.s.\
of Eqs.~(\ref{5.5}), (\ref{5.5b}).
Note that, for a fixed density matrix $\tilde{\rho}$, the coefficients
$C_{Z,Z'}=\{S^{\sigma'}_{\sigma}(Z,Z'),f_{l}(Z,Z'),U_{Z,Z'}\}$ need
to be calculated only once. Moreover, we are free to work with an orbital
basis with a diagonal local density matrix, which allows us to calculate
these coefficients with the
simplified energy expressions introduced in Sect.~\ref{chap2b}.
It is important in our algorithm that
the coefficients $C_{Z,Z'}$ are stored in the main memory of the
computer because,
in this way, derivatives of all quadratic functions can be
calculated very fast, see below. Even for large numbers $n_{\rm v}$ of
variational parameters this can be achieved, since only a small fraction
of the coefficients $C_{Z,Z'}$ is, in fact, finite and needs to be stored.
In case that the main-storage capacity is exceeded, there are several
strategies to reduce the number of variational parameters, which we have
tested. They are discussed in Appendix~\ref{redpar}.
The energy functional can be further simplified if we introduce
the matrix
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.5}
r^{\sigma'}_{\sigma}(\ve{v})
\equiv\sum_{Z,Z'}R^{\sigma'}_{\sigma}(Z,Z')
v_Zv_{Z'}
\end{equation}
with the coefficients
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.6}
R^{\sigma'_1}_{\sigma_1}\equiv
\sum_{\sigma_2,\sigma'_2}E_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma'_1,\sigma'_2}
S^{\sigma'_2}_{\sigma_2}(Z,Z')\;.
\end{equation}
It allows us to write the energy as
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.4}
E_{\rm G}(\ve{v})=
\sum_{\sigma_1,\sigma'_1}
q^{\sigma'_1}_{\sigma_1}(\ve{v})r^{\sigma'_1}_{\sigma_1}(\ve{v})+\sum_{Z,Z'}U_{Z,Z'}
v_Zv_{Z'}\;.
\end{equation}
Note that the coefficients in~(\ref{ap7.5}) also need to be calculated only
once in an inner minimisation and should be stored in the main memory.
In this way, the
energy~(\ref{ap7.4}) and its gradient $\ve{E}(\ve{v})$ with the elements
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
E^{}_Z(\ve{v})&\equiv &\frac{\partial }{\partial v_{Z}}
E_{\rm G}(\ve{v})= 2\sum_{Z'}\Big[
\sum_{\sigma_1,\sigma'_1}
\big(q^{\sigma'_1}_{\sigma_1}(\ve{v})R^{\sigma'_1}_{\sigma_1}(Z,Z')\\\label{ap7.9}
&&+
r^{\sigma'_1}_{\sigma_1}(\ve{v})S^{\sigma'_1}_{\sigma_1}(Z,Z')\big)
+U_{Z,Z'}\Big]v_{Z'}
\;
\end{eqnarray}
can be calculated very fast. The same holds for the gradients
$\ve{F}^{l}(\ve{v})$ of the constraints which have the elements
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.8}
F^l_Z(\ve{v})\equiv \frac{\partial }{\partial v_{Z}}
g_{l}(\ve{v})= 2\sum_{Z'}f_l(Z,Z')
v_{Z'}\;.
\end{equation}
Note that in~(\ref{ap7.9}) and~(\ref{ap7.8}) we have used the symmetry
$C_{Z,Z'}=C_{Z',Z}$, which we are free to impose.
\subsubsection{Algorithm for the inner minimisation}\label{inmin}
We aim at a minimisation of the energy~(\ref{ap7.4}) in the
manifold $\mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$ defined by the
constraints~(\ref{ap7.7}). To this end, we can always start our minimisation
in the uncorrelated limit, i.e., at the point
$\ve{v}_0$ (with
$\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}=\delta_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$) for which
$\ve{v}_0 \in \mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$ is
automatically fulfilled. We found numerical strategies that try
to move {\sl exactly} along $\mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$
to be quite cumbersome. Therefore, starting
from a certain point $\ve{v}_0\in \mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$, we allow
the minimisation algorithm to violate the constraints
by making `short' steps to
points $\ve{v}_1\notin \mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$.
To keep the violation of the
constraints minimal, these steps have to take place in the
subspace $\mathcal{M}_{\parallel}(\ve{v}_0)$
that is tangential to $\mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$ at the point $\ve{v}_0$.
The optimal direction of a step in
$\mathcal{M}_{\parallel}(\ve{v}_0)$ is determined by
the tangential component of the gradient $\ve{E}(\ve{v}_0)$ since it
leads to a decrease of the energy.
In summary, and more precisely,
these ideas lead to the following algorithm for
the inner minimisation:
\begin{itemize}
\item[i)\,] Find a point $\ve{v}_0$ in the variational parameter space $\mathcal{V}$ that
obeys the constraints~(\ref{ap7.7}) (i.e, $\ve{v}_0\in \mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$).
\item[ii)\,] Determine the gradients
$\ve{F}^{l}(\ve{v}_0)$ and $\ve{E}(\ve{v}_0)$.
\item[iii)\,] Calculate the component $\ve{E}_{\parallel}(\ve{v}_0)$
of $\ve{E}(\ve{v}_0)$ in $\mathcal{M}_{\parallel}(\ve{v}_0)$ by
the following procedure.
The gradient $\ve{E}(\ve{v}_0)$ is written as
\begin{equation} \label{ap7.10}
\ve{E}(\ve{v}_0)=\ve{E}_{\parallel}(\ve{v}_0)+
\ve{E}_{\perp}(\ve{v}_0)\;,
\end{equation}
where the tangential component $\ve{E}_{\parallel}(\ve{v}_0)$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.11}
\ve{E}_{\parallel}(\ve{v}_0)\cdot \ve{F}^{l}(\ve{v}_0)=0
\;\;\;\forall l\;.
\end{equation}
The perpendicular component can be expressed as a linear combination
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.12}
\ve{E}_{\perp}(\ve{v}_0)= \sum_{l=1}^{n_{\rm c}}\alpha_l
\ve{F}^{l}(\ve{v}_0)
\end{equation}
of the vectors
$\ve{F}^{i}(\ve{v}_0)$. In order to determine the
coefficients $\alpha_i$, we multiply equation
(\ref{ap7.10})
with a vector $\ve{F}^{m}(\ve{v}_0)$ and use the expansion
(\ref{ap7.12}). This leads to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ap7.13}
\ve{E}(\ve{v}_0)\cdot \ve{F}^{m}(\ve{v}_0)
&=&\sum_{l}
\ve{F}^{l}(\ve{v}_0)\cdot\ve{F}^{m}(\ve{v}_0)\alpha_l\\\nonumber
&=&
\sum_{l}W_{m,l}(\ve{v}_0)\alpha_l\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where we used equation~(\ref{ap7.11}) and introduced the (symmetric)
matrix $\tilde{W}(\ve{v})$ with the elements
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.14}
W_{m,l}(\ve{v})\equiv \ve{F}^{l}(\ve{v})\cdot\ve{F}^{m}(\ve{v})\;.
\end{equation}
The linear equations~(\ref{ap7.13}) for
$\alpha_l$ have a unique solution, as
long as the vectors $\ve{F}^{l}(\ve{v}_0)$ are linearly independent.
A linear dependency of these vectors can only arise if
certain constraints~(\ref{ap7.7}) are redundant.
In that case, the redundant constraints
have to be eliminated right from the start.
With the coefficients $\alpha_l$, we calculate the tangential component
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.16}
\ve{E}_{\parallel}(\ve{v}_0)=\ve{E}(\ve{v}_0)-
\sum_{l}\alpha_l\ve{F}^{l}(\ve{v}_0)\;.
\end{equation}
of $\ve{E}(\ve{v}_0)$.
\item[iv)\,] Make a `proper' step in the direction of
$-\ve{E}_{\parallel}(\ve{v}_0)$
to a new vector
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.17}
\bar{\ve{v}}_1=\ve{v}_0-\beta \ve{E}_{\parallel}(\ve{v}_0)\;.
\end{equation}
For the choice of the parameter $\beta$, various strategies are
conceivable. Since the point $\bar{\ve{v}}_1$ is not in
$\mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$, the energy gain is not necessarily a useful
criterion and it is also rather time consuming to be determined.
Instead, we calculate
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.18}
\Delta g(\bar{\ve{v}}_1) \equiv \sum_{l}[g_l(\bar{\ve{v}}_1)]^2\geq 0
\end{equation}
as a measure for the violation of the constraints and choose the parameter
$\beta$ such that $\Delta g$ does not exceed a certain critical
value $\Delta g_{\rm c}$. This critical value should be
automatically adjusted by the algorithm
to ensure that, after returning to the hyper-surface $\mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$,
there is a sufficient energy gain.
\item[v)\,] In order to return to $\mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$
from the point $\bar{\ve{v}}_1\notin \mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$,
the following algorithm turned out to be very useful.
We seek a vector $\ve{v}_1$ that solves the constraint equations
$g_l(\ve{v}_1)=0$ and is as close as possible to $\bar{\ve{v}}_1$.
To this end, we could calculate the gradients
$\ve{F}^{l}(\bar{\ve{v}}_1)$
and try to solve the set of equations
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.19}
g_l\bigg(\bar{\ve{v}}_1+\sum_m \gamma_m\ve{F}^{m}(\bar{\ve{v}}_1)\bigg)=0
\end{equation}
by a proper choice of the coefficients $\gamma_m$. Such an exact solution of
equations~(\ref{ap7.19}), however, is quite time consuming.
Therefore, we consider the linear set of equations
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.20}
g_l(\bar{\ve{v}}_1)+\sum_{m}W_{l,m}(\bar{\ve{v}}_1)\gamma_m=0\;,
\end{equation}
which results from an expansion of~(\ref{ap7.19})
to leading order in $\gamma_m$. Equations~(\ref{ap7.20}) can be readily
solved with respect to $\gamma_m$.
This yields a new vector
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.22}
\bar{\ve{v}}_1 \to\bar{\ve{v}}'_1=\bar{\ve{v}}_1+
\sum_m\gamma_m\ve{F}^{m}(\bar{\ve{v}}_1)\;.
\end{equation}
which, in general, is not yet a solution of
$g_l(\bar{\ve{v}}'_1)=0$. However, this vector is closer to
$\mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$ than
$\bar{\ve{v}}_1$ because
$\Delta g(\bar{\ve{v}}'_1)<\Delta g(\bar{\ve{v}}_1)$.
By an iteration of equations~(\ref{ap7.20})-(\ref{ap7.22})
we eventually approach a vector
$\ve{v}_1\in\mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$. Note that the fast convergence of this
procedure is crucial for our algorithm. We have tried several other ways
to return to $\mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$ that all turned out to be much slower.
\item[vi)\,] If $E_{\rm G}(\ve{v}_1)<E_{\rm G}(\ve{v}_0)$
we restart the procedure at point ii) with $\ve{v}_0$ replaced by $\ve{v}_1$.
In case that $E_{\rm G}(\ve{v}_1)>E_{\rm G}(\ve{v}_0)$,
the critical value $\Delta g_{\rm c}$ has to be lowered and the
algorithm continues
with point iv). A useful measure for the convergence of the
whole iteration is the norm of $\ve{E}_{\parallel}$. This number
goes to zero near a
minimum $\ve{v}_{\rm min}$ of the energy functional
$E_{\rm G}(\ve{v})$ for vectors $\ve{v}\in \mathcal{M}_{\rm c}$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{`Outer' Minimisation}\label{app7.2}
With the optimum variational parameters $\ve{v}^{\rm min}$
from the inner minimisation, described in Sect.~\ref{app7.1},
we have to minimise the energy
\begin{eqnarray}\label{4.7}
E_{\rm G}(\tilde{\rho})&=&\sum_{i\ne j}\sum_{\sigma,\sigma'}
\bar{t}^{\sigma,\sigma'}_{i,j}(\tilde{\rho})\rho_{(j\sigma'),(i\sigma)}\\\nonumber
&&+L\sum_{Z,Z'}U_{Z,Z'}(\tilde{\rho})
v^{\rm min}_Zv^{\rm min}_{Z'}
\end{eqnarray}
with respect to $\tilde{\rho}$. Here we introduced the renormalised
hopping parameters
\begin{equation}\label{4.7b}
\bar{t}^{\sigma_1,\sigma_2}_{i,j}(\tilde{\rho})=\sum_{\sigma'_1,\sigma'_2}
q^{\sigma_1}_{\sigma'_1}(\tilde{\rho})q^{\sigma_2}_{\sigma'_2}(\tilde{\rho})
t^{\sigma'_1,\sigma'_2}_{i,j}
\end{equation}
and the renormalisation factors
\begin{equation}\label{ap7.3sss}
q^{\sigma'}_{\sigma}(\tilde{\rho})=\sum_{Z,Z'}
S^{\sigma'}_{\sigma}(Z,Z';\tilde{\rho})
v^{\rm min}_Zv^{\rm min}_{Z'}\;.
\end{equation}
In addition, the (independent) constraints~(\ref{qwa}), (\ref{qwa2}),
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ap7.7b}
&&g_{l}(\tilde{\rho})=\sum_{Z,Z'}f_{l}(Z,Z',\tilde{\rho})
v^{\rm min}_Zv^{\rm min}_{Z'}-g^0_{l}=0\\\nonumber
&&(l=1,\ldots,n_{\rm c})\;,
\end{eqnarray}
and~(\ref{16}) need to be obeyed.
The local elements of the density matrix
\begin{equation}\label{782}
C_{\sigma,\sigma'} =\rho_{(i\sigma'),(i\sigma)}
\end{equation}
play a special role in the
energy function because only they enter the coefficients in~(\ref{4.7}),
(\ref{ap7.3sss}), (\ref{ap7.7b}),
\begin{eqnarray}
U_{Z,Z'}(\tilde{\rho})&=&U_{Z,Z'}(\tilde{C})\;\;, \\
S^{\sigma'}_{\sigma}(Z,Z';\tilde{\rho})&=&S^{\sigma'}_{\sigma}(Z,Z';\tilde{C})\;\; , \;\;\\
f_{l}(Z,Z',\tilde{\rho})&=&f_{l}(Z,Z',\tilde{C})\;.
\end{eqnarray}
If they are kept fixed, only the hopping
term in~(\ref{4.7}) and the constraint~(\ref{16}) need to be taken
into account in the minimisation with respect to $\tilde{\rho}$.
This leads to a minimisation strategy which we discuss in Sect.~\ref{sw2}.
An alternative way of minimising~(\ref{4.7}) with respect to {\sl all}
elements of $\tilde{\rho}$ will be introduced in Sect.~\ref{sw1}.
The Hermiticity of the density matrix,
$\tilde{\rho}^{\dagger}=\tilde{\rho}^{}$, is a constraint which
is obeyed automatically in our outer minimisation algorithm in
Sect.~\ref{sw1}. To this end, however, the
functional dependence of the energy with respect to $\tilde{\rho}^{}$,
which is not unique, must be chosen such
that
\begin{equation}\label{axd}
\frac{\partial E_{\rm G}}{\partial \rho_{(i\sigma),(j\sigma')}}=
\left(\frac{\partial E_{\rm G}}{\partial \rho_{(j\sigma'),(i\sigma)}}\right)^*\;.
\end{equation}
This can always be achieved by employing the Hermiticity of
$\tilde{\rho}$. We further assume that equation~(\ref{axd}) is also
satisfied by the constraints~(\ref{ap7.7b}).
\subsubsection{Fixed local density matrix}\label{sw2}
If the local density matrix is fixed, we have to minimise
\begin{equation}\label{4.7sss}
E_{{\rm G},0}(\tilde{\rho})\equiv\sum_{i\ne j}\sum_{\sigma,\sigma'}
\bar{t}^{\sigma,\sigma'}_{i,j}\rho_{(j\sigma'),(i\sigma)}
\end{equation}
with respect to $\tilde{\rho}$ obeying the constraints~(\ref{16})
and~(\ref{782}). We impose these constraints by means of
Lagrange parameters $\eta_{\sigma,\sigma'}$ and $\Omega_{(i\sigma),(j\sigma')}$,
which leads to the `Lagrange functional'
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
L_{\rm G}&\equiv& E_{{\rm G},0}(\tilde{\rho})
-\sum_{\sigma,\sigma'}\eta_{\sigma,\sigma'}
\sum_i(C_{\sigma,\sigma'}-\rho_{(i\sigma'),(i\sigma)})\\\label{4.7bss}
&&-\sum_{i,j}\sum_{\sigma,\sigma'}\Omega_{(i\sigma),(j\sigma')}
[\tilde{\rho}^2-\tilde{\rho}]_{(j\sigma'),(i\sigma)}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
As recalled in Appendix~\ref{ap3}, the minimisation of~(\ref{4.7bss}) with
respect to $\tilde{\rho}$ leads to
the effective single-particle Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}\label{tzs}
\hat{H}^{\rm eff}_0=\sum_{i\ne j}\sum_{\sigma,\sigma'}(\bar{t}^{\sigma,\sigma'}_{i,j}
+\delta_{i,j}\eta_{\sigma,\sigma'})\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i,\sigma}\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{j,\sigma'}\;.
\end{equation}
The optimum single-particle state $\ket{\Psi_0}$ is the ground state of
$\hat{H}^{\rm eff}_0$ where the parameters $\eta_{\sigma,\sigma'}$ have to be
chosen such that $C_{\sigma,\sigma'}=\langle \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i,\sigma}\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i,\sigma'} \rangle_{\Psi_0}$ is satisfied.
With the state $\ket{\Psi}_0$, we may determine
a new tensor~(\ref{ap7.2}) and start another run of the
inner minimisation until self-consistency with respect to
$\ket{\Psi}_0$ is reached. In this way, we find the ground-state energy
$E=E_0(\tilde{C} )$ for a fixed local density matrix $C_{\sigma,\sigma'}$.
To obtain the total variational ground-state energy, $E_0(\tilde{C} )$
still needs to be minimised with respect to $\tilde{C}$
with the constraint of total particle number conservation,
$\sum_{\sigma}C_{\sigma,\sigma}=N/L$.
Alternatively, one may start a self-consistency cycle of inner
and outer minimisation for a fixed set
of `effective crystal fields' $\eta_{\sigma,\sigma'} $
(and a fixed particle number). This defines an energy function
$E_0(\tilde{\eta})$ which has to be minimised with respect to
$\eta_{\sigma,\sigma'}$.
Obviously, these two ways of minimising the energy are feasible only when
the number $n_{\rm i}$ of independent elements in $\tilde{C}$
(or fields $\tilde{\eta}$) is small.
It can also be useful,
when there are physical reasons to minimise $E_0(\tilde{C} )$
(or $E_0(\tilde{\eta})$)
only in some subspace of possible density matrices $\tilde{C}$ (or fields
$\tilde{\eta}$)).
Such a strategy has been used, e.g., in our calculations on the
spin-orbit coupling effects in nickel. There, we could clearly identify
the relevant fields
$\eta_{\sigma}$: the dominant
term in nickel is the effective exchange splitting
accompanied by a smaller orbital-energy splitting and an effective
spin-orbit coupling. In this way, the energy $E_0(\tilde{\eta})$
had to be minimised only in a $3$-dimensional subspace of
fields $\tilde{\eta}$. However, such a procedure is bound to fail
when the number $n_{\rm i}$ of parameters $\eta_{\sigma,\sigma'}$ is too
large and cannot be reduced by any physical
arguments. In that case, one may use the algorithm
which we introduce in the following section.
\subsubsection{Unrestricted outer minimisation}\label{sw1}
In order to minimise the energy with respect to
{\sl all} elements of the density matrix we impose the
constraints~(\ref{ap7.7b}) by means of Lagrange parameters $\Lambda_l$.
This leads us to the functional
\begin{eqnarray}\label{sgh}
L_{\rm G}&\equiv&
E_{\rm G}(\tilde{\rho})-\sum_l\Lambda_lg_{l}(\tilde{\rho})\\\nonumber
&&-\sum_{i,j}\sum_{\sigma,\sigma'}\Omega_{(i\sigma),(j\sigma')}
[\tilde{\rho}^2-\tilde{\rho}]_{(j\sigma'),(i\sigma)}
\end{eqnarray}
where $E_{\rm G}(\tilde{\rho})$ has been defined in~(\ref{4.7}). The
minimisation with respect to $\rho$ yields again an
effective single-particle Hamiltonian of the form~(\ref{tzs}) where
the fields $\eta_{\sigma,\sigma'}$ are now given as
\begin{equation}\label{sdfj}
\eta_{\sigma,\sigma'}=\frac{\partial}{\partial C_{\sigma,\sigma'}}E_{\rm G}(\tilde{\rho})-
\sum_l\Lambda_l\frac{\partial}{\partial C_{\sigma,\sigma'}}g_{l}(\tilde{\rho})\;.
\end{equation}
To determine these fields we need to calculate the Lagrange
parameters $\Lambda_l$. This can by achieved if we use the fact that, in
the variational ground state, the Lagrange functional (\ref{sgh})
is also minimal
with respect to the variational parameters $v_Z$. This leads to
the equations
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial v_{Z}}E_{\rm G}(\tilde{\rho},\ve{v})\Big|_{\ve{v}
=\ve{v}^{\rm min}}-\sum_l\Lambda_l\frac{\partial}{\partial v_{Z}}
g_{l}(\tilde{\rho},\ve{v})\Big|_{\ve{v}=\ve{v}^{\rm min}}=0
\end{equation}
which can be written in matrix-vector form as
\begin{equation}\label{dfg}
\tilde{G}\ve{\Lambda}=\ve{E}\;,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{G}$ and $\ve{E}$ have the elements
\begin{eqnarray}\label{dfg7}
\tilde{G}_{l,Z}&\equiv& \frac{\partial}{\partial v_{Z}}
g_{l}(\tilde{\rho},\ve{v})\Big|_{\ve{v}=\ve{v}^{\rm min}}\;,\\
E_{Z}&\equiv&\frac{\partial}{\partial v_{Z}}
E_{\rm G}(\tilde{\rho},\ve{v})\Big|_{\ve{v}
=\ve{v}^{\rm min}}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
The number of equations in~(\ref{dfg}) is usually much larger
then the number of parameters $\Lambda_l$. For physical reasons,
however, Eq.~(\ref{dfg}) must have a unique solution. Therefore
we can alternatively solve the equation
\begin{equation}\label{dfgd}
\tilde{G}^{\rm T}\tilde{G}\ve{\Lambda}=\tilde{G}^{\rm T}\ve{E}\;,
\end{equation}
since it gives us the same solution for $\ve{\Lambda}$ as~(\ref{dfg}).
Note that the calculation of the
derivatives in~(\ref{sdfj}) is much easier if we work with an orbital
basis with a diagonal density matrix, see Appendix~\ref{ka4}. This leads
us to the following algorithm for the outer minimisation.
\begin{itemize}
\item[i)\,] Set $q^{\sigma'}_{\sigma}=\delta_{\sigma,\sigma'}$ and choose a
reasonable set of fields
$\eta^{({\rm i})}_{\sigma,\sigma'}$, e.g.,
$\eta^{({\rm i})}_{\sigma,\sigma'}=\varepsilon_{\sigma,\sigma'}$
with the bare on-site energies $\varepsilon_{\sigma,\sigma'}$
in the local Hamiltonian~(\ref{4.10a}).
\item[ii)\,] Find the ground state $\ket{\Psi_0}$ of the effective
Hamiltonian~(\ref{tzs}) with
$\eta_{\sigma,\sigma'}=\eta^{({\rm i})}_{\sigma,\sigma}$
and determine $C_{\sigma,\sigma'}$. If $C_{\sigma,\sigma'}$ is not
diagonal,
find an orbital basis with a diagonal
local density matrix. Continue the algorithm with this new basis
and its values for $C_{\sigma,\sigma'}=\delta_{\sigma,\sigma'}n_{\sigma}$
and $E_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma'_1,\sigma'_2}$.
\item[iii)\, ] Carry out an inner minimisation, as described in section
\ref{app7.1}, and determine the Lagrange parameters $\Lambda_l$ by solving
Eq.~(\ref{dfgd}).
\item[iv)\,] Use Eq.~(\ref{sdfj}) to determine a new set of
parameters $\eta^{({\rm o})}_{\sigma,\sigma'}$.
Set $\eta^{({\rm i})}_{\sigma,\sigma'}\equiv \eta^{({\rm o})}_{\sigma,\sigma'}$ and
go back to ii) until self-consistency, $\eta^{({\rm o})}_{\sigma,\sigma'}\approx
\eta^{({\rm i})}_{\sigma,\sigma'} $ is reached.
\end{itemize}
This algorithm obviously relies on a certain `proximity' to the
true variational
ground-state, in particular, when there is more than one (local) minimum.
In the latter case, the algorithm
may have to be supported by a preliminary manual scan of the
variational space as
described in Sect.~\ref{sw2}. Moreover, it can be necessary to introduce
some kind of 'damping` by setting
\begin{equation}
\eta^{({\rm i})}_{\sigma,\sigma'}\equiv
\eta^{({\rm i})}_{\sigma,\sigma'}
+\beta
(\eta^{({\rm o})}_{\sigma,\sigma'}-\eta^{({\rm i})}_{\sigma,\sigma'})
\end{equation}
with $0<\beta<1$ instead of
$\eta^{({\rm i})}_{\sigma,\sigma'}\equiv \eta^{({\rm o})}_{\sigma,\sigma'}$
in step iv). The value of $\beta$ must be small enough to ensure that
the energy decreases in each step of the cycle. In our numerical
tests, we found that $\beta$ may sometimes have to be smaller than $1$
even in the immediate vicinity of the variational ground state.
Note that the calculation of the
derivatives in~(\ref{sdfj}) and~(\ref{dfg7}) in steps iii) and iv) of the
algorithm is very much simplified by
the fact that the local density matrix is diagonal with respect to
$\ket{\Psi_0}$. This does {\sl not} mean, however, that
the derivatives with respect to non-diagonal elements $C_{\sigma,\sigma'}$
necessarily vanish, see Appendix\ref{ka4}. Therefore, the orbital
basis will, in general, be changing in each cycle of the algorithm until
a self-consistent minimum is reached.
\section{Summary}
In summary, we have given a detailed account of a numerical
scheme for the minimisation of Gutzwiller energy functionals,
which we found to be quite efficient in previous studies on
transition metals and transition metal compounds. We are confident
that our algorithm is of significant interest for other
researchers who intend to apply the multi-band Gutzwiller
theory to other materials.
\begin{appendix}
\section{Energy functional for an arbitrary local density matrix}
\label{ka}
The constraints~(\ref{5.5}), (\ref{5.5b}) for a general orbital basis
read
\begin{eqnarray}\label{qwa}
\sum_{\Gamma,\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2}
\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma_1}^{*}\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma_2}^{}
m^{0}_{\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2}&=&1\;,\\\label{qwa2}
\sum_{\Gamma,\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2}
\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma_1}^{*}\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma_2}^{}
m^{0}_{\Gamma_1\cup \sigma,\Gamma_2\cup \sigma'}
&=&C_{\sigma,\sigma'}\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
|\Gamma\cup \sigma \rangle
&\equiv& \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\sigma}|\Gamma \rangle
=\sum_{I(\sigma \notin I)}T_{I,\Gamma}|I \cup \sigma\rangle\;,\\\label{utr}
m^{0}_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}&=&\langle \hat{m}_{\Gamma,\Gamma'} \rangle_{\Psi_0}=
\sum_{I,I'}T_{I,\Gamma}T^*_{I',\Gamma'}m^{0}_{I,I'}\;,\\
m^{0}_{I,I'}&=&\langle \hat{m}_{I,I'} \rangle_{\Psi_0}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
The result for the local energy is the same as in Eq.~(\ref{kdr}) only with
$m^{0}_{\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{utr}).
With Wick's theorem, the expectation values $m^{0}_{I,I'}$ in~(\ref{utr})
can be written as the determinant
\begin{equation}\label{miiprime}
m^{0}_{I,I'}=\left|
\begin{array}{cc}
\Omega^{I,I'}&-\Omega^{I,J}\\
\Omega^{J,I'}&\bar{\Omega}^{J,J}
\end{array}
\right|\;.
\end{equation}
Here, $\Omega_{I,I'}$ are the matrices
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{I,I'}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
C_{\sigma_1,\sigma'_1}&C_{\sigma_1,\sigma'_2}&\ldots&C_{\sigma_1,\sigma'_{|I'|}}\\
C_{\sigma_2,\sigma'_1}&C_{\sigma_2,\sigma'_2}&\ldots&C_{\sigma_2,\sigma'_{|I'|}}\\
\ldots&\ldots&\ldots&\ldots\\
C_{\sigma_{|I|},\sigma'_1}&C_{\sigma_{|I|},\sigma'_2}&\ldots&C_{\sigma_{|I|},\sigma'_{|I'|}}
\end{array}
\right)\;,
\end{equation}
in which the entries are the elements of the
uncorrelated local density matrix~(\ref{xc}),
that belong to the configurations $I=(\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_{|I|})$ and
$I'=(\sigma'_1,\ldots,\sigma'_{|I'|})$. The matrix $\bar{\Omega}^{J,J}$
in~(\ref{miiprime}) is defined as
\begin{equation}
\bar{\Omega}_{J,J}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1-C_{\sigma_1,\sigma_1}&-C_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2}&\ldots&-C_{\sigma_1,\sigma_{|J|}}\\
-C_{\sigma_2,\sigma_1}&1-C_{\sigma_2,\sigma_2}&\ldots&-C_{\sigma_2,\sigma_{|J|}}\\
\ldots&\ldots&\ldots&\ldots\\
-C_{\sigma_{|J|},\sigma_1}&-C_{\sigma_{|J|},\sigma_2}&\ldots&1-C_{\sigma_{|J|},\sigma_{|J|}}
\end{array}
\right)\;,
\end{equation}
with $\sigma_i\in J\equiv (1,\ldots,N)\backslash (I\cup I') $.
The renormalisation matrix in~(\ref{8.410}) has the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{qmat}
q_{\sigma}^{\sigma'}&=&\sum_{\Gamma_1,\ldots,\Gamma_4}\lambda^{*}_{\Gamma_2,\Gamma_1}
\lambda^{}_{\Gamma_3,\Gamma_4}\langle \Gamma_2|\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\sigma}
|\Gamma_3 \rangle\\\nonumber
&&\times \sum_{I_1,I_4}T_{I_1,\Gamma_1}T^{*}_{I_4,\Gamma_4}
H^{\sigma'}_{I_1,I_4}\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where the matrix $H^{\sigma'}_{I_1,I_4}$ contains three different contributions
depending on whether the index $\sigma'$ is an element
of $I_1\cap I_4$,
$I_4\backslash (I_1\cap I_4)$, or $J=(1,\ldots,N)\backslash(I_1\cup I_4)$.
With the abbreviation
$f_{\sigma,I}\equiv\langle I |\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\sigma}\hat{c}^{}_{\sigma} |I \rangle$
we can write $H^{\sigma'}_{I_1,I_4}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{8sgdd}
H^{\sigma'}_{I_1,I_4}&\equiv&(1-f_{\sigma',I_1})\langle I_4 |\hat{c}^{}_{\sigma'} |I_4\cup \sigma' \rangle
m^{0}_{I_1,I_4\cup \sigma'}\\\nonumber
&&+\left(
f_{\sigma',I_4}m^{0}_{I_1\backslash \sigma',I_4}+
(1-f_{\sigma',I_4})m^{0;\sigma'}_{I_1\backslash \sigma',I_4}
\right)\\\nonumber
&&\times \langle I_1 \backslash \sigma' |\hat{c}^{}_{\sigma'} |I_1 \rangle
\;.
\end{eqnarray}
The expectation value $m^{0;\sigma'}_{I_1\backslash \sigma',I_4}$ in~(\ref{8sgdd})
has the same form as the one in~(\ref{miiprime}), except that the index $J$
has to be replaced by $J \backslash \sigma'$.
\section{Strategies to treat large numbers of `inner' variational parameters}
\label{redpar}
Our algorithm is particularly fast for the inner minimisation
if we can store
all the second-order coefficients $C_{Z,Z'}$ in the main memory of our
computer, see Sect.~\ref{app7.1}. Unfortunately, this cannot always be achieved
in multi-band studies, in particular,
when we include
non-diagonal variational
parameters $\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$. In this case we may try to reduce
the number of variational parameters, e.g., by symmetry considerations,
see Appendix~\ref{redparb}.
Alternatively, one can employ additional numerical schemes that complement
our inner minimisation algorithm, see Appendix~\ref{redparc}.
\subsection{Reduction of the variational space }\label{redparb}
It is obvious that, due to symmetries, many parameters
$\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$ vanish automatically in the variational
ground state and can be discarded from the outset. In order to identify
these parameters one may use, e.g., the expectation values~(\ref{wet2})
which vanish for such parameters.
A further reduction can be achieved if we take only those
variational parameters
into account which couple states $|\Gamma\rangle,|\Gamma'\rangle$ that
belong to the same (degenerate) multiplet of the atomic Hamiltonian
in~(\ref{4.10a}). Such a strategy has been used in our calculations
on the spin-orbit coupling effects in nickel~\cite{buenemann2008}.
Although clearly an approximation, this scheme is justified since
one is usually bound to make similar approximations already on
the level of the operators in the local Hamiltonian~(\ref{4.10a}).
For example, in
studies on transition metals and their compounds
a spherical approximation is often used which allows one to express
all Coulomb-interaction
parameters by the three Racah or the three Slater--Condon parameters. To
go beyond this spherical approximation is actually simple within the
Gutzwiller theory, however, it increases the number of independent
Coulomb-interaction parameters significantly. Since there exists no
established way to calculate these
parameters from first principles, they have to be determined by
some fitting procedure, which only makes sense if their number is not too
large.
For sufficiently large Coulomb interactions, atomic charge fluctuations are
significantly suppressed. For example, in elementary nickel with its
approximately nine $3d$~electrons per atom the occupation of states with
less than six $3d$-electrons is negligibly small.
Hence, the variational parameters
$\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$ of such shells may be assumed to be
diagonal or even to vanish.
\subsection{Additional numerical schemes}\label{redparc}
In case that, even after all symmetry considerations, the number of
variational parameters $\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$ is still too large for our
inner minimisation algorithm, one may employ one of the following numerical
schemes.
The simplest scheme is to
split up the whole set of variational parameters into sub-sets, for
which the main storage of our computer is adequate and the minimisation
algorithm in
Sect.~\ref{inmin} can be applied. The minimisation with respect to each of
these sub-sets of parameters has then to be repeated until
a total minimum is reached.
Another scheme is based on the observation that the multiplet states
$|\Gamma\rangle$ do not necessarily have to be the eigenstates of
our local Hamiltonian~(\ref{4.10a}). Instead, the states $|\Gamma\rangle$
themselves are considered as variational objects in the following
algorithm.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)\,] Choose a certain basis of multiplets states
$|\Gamma\rangle^{\rm (i)}$
\item[(ii)\,] Set $|\Gamma\rangle=|\Gamma\rangle^{\rm (i)}$ and determine the
most `relevant' non-diagonal variational parameters
$\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$ such that their number still allows for the use
of the minimisation algorithm in Sect.~\ref{inmin}. A criterion for the
`relevance' of the parameters $\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$ may be the size
of the non-interacting expectation value~(\ref{wet2}). Alternatively one
could use the corresponding correlated expectation value which can
be calculated in a preceding calculation with a diagonal variational parameter matrix
$\lambda_{\Gamma,\Gamma}$.
\item[(iii)\,] Determine the optimum values $\lambda^{\rm opt}_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}$ of the
parameters chosen in (ii). Calculate the eigenstates
$|\Gamma\rangle^{\rm (o)}$ of the optimal correlation operator
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}^{\rm opt}=\sum_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}\lambda^{\rm opt}_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}
\hat{m}_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}\;.
\end{equation}
\item[(iv)\,] Set $|\Gamma\rangle^{\rm (i)}=|\Gamma\rangle^{\rm (o)}$ and
go back to (ii) until self-consistency
$|\Gamma\rangle^{\rm (i)}\approx|\Gamma\rangle^{\rm (o)}$ is
reached.
\end{itemize}
We have tested both numerical schemes, discussed in this Appendix.
From these preliminary calculations, however, we are not yet able
to draw any final conclusions on the efficiency of both approaches.
\section{Minimisation of functions with respect to non-interacting
density matrices}\label{ap3}
We consider a general function $E(\tilde{\rho})$ of a non-interacting
density matrix $\tilde{\rho}$ with the elements
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\gamma,\gamma'}=\langle \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\gamma'} \hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\gamma}\rangle_{\Phi_0}\;.
\end{equation}
The fact that $\tilde{\rho}$ is derived from a
single-particle product wave function $\ket{\Phi_0}$ is equivalent to the
matrix equation $\tilde{\rho}^2=\tilde{\rho}$.
Hence, the minimum of $E(\tilde{\rho})$ in the `space' of all
{\sl non-interacting}
density matrices is determined by the condition
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_{\gamma',\gamma}}L(\tilde{\rho})=0\;,
\end{equation}
where we introduced the `Lagrange functional'
\begin{eqnarray}\label{sfg}
L(\tilde{\rho})&\equiv& E(\tilde{\rho})-\sum_{l,m}\Omega_{l,m}
\big[\tilde{\rho}^2-\tilde{\rho}\big]_{m,l} \\
&=& E(\tilde{\rho})-\sum_{l,m}\Omega_{l,m}\Big(
\sum_p \rho_{m,p} \rho_{p,l}-\rho_{m,l}\Big)
\end{eqnarray}
and the matrix $\tilde{\Omega}$ of Lagrange parameters $\Omega_{l,m}$.
The minimisation of~(\ref{sfg}) leads to the matrix equation
\begin{equation}
\tilde{H}=\tilde{\rho}\tilde{\Omega}+\tilde{\Omega}\tilde{\rho}-\tilde{\Omega}
\end{equation}
for the `Hamilton matrix' $\tilde{H}$ with the elements
\begin{equation}
H_{\gamma,\gamma'}=
\frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_{\gamma',\gamma}}
E(\tilde{\rho})\;.
\end{equation}
This equation is satisfied if $\tilde{\rho}^2=\tilde{\rho}$ and
\begin{equation}
[\tilde{H},\tilde{\rho}]=0\;.
\end{equation}
Hence, $\tilde{H}$ and $\tilde{\rho}$ must have the same basis
of (single-particle) eigenvectors and, consequently,
$\ket{\Phi_0}$ is the ground state of
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_0^{\rm eff}=\sum_{\gamma,\gamma'}H_{\gamma,\gamma'}
\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\gamma} \hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\gamma'}\;.
\end{equation}
\section{Derivatives of the general energy functional} \label{ka4}
In Sect.~\ref{sw1}, we have to calculate the derivative of the ground-state
energy and of the constraints with respect to the elements of the
local density matrix, see Eq.~(\ref{sdfj}).
Equations~(\ref{qwa})--(\ref{8sgdd})
reveal that, in fact, we only need the derivatives of
$m^0_{I,I'}$ (and of $m^{0;\bar{\sigma}}_{I\backslash \bar{\sigma} ,I'}$).
For a general density matrix
$C_{\sigma,\sigma'}$, their calculation requires an evaluation of
determinants such as~(\ref{miiprime}). However, in Sect.~\ref{sw1} we work
with an orbital basis for which $C_{\sigma,\sigma'}
=\delta_{\sigma,\sigma'}n_{\sigma}$. Hence the derivatives with respect to
$C_{\sigma,\sigma'}$ have a much simpler form. For example, for the
derivatives of
$m^0_{I,I'}$ we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial }{\partial C_{\sigma,\sigma}}m^0_{I,I'}=\delta_{I,I'}m^0_{I,I}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
1/n_{\sigma}&{\rm for}\;\; \sigma \in I\\
-1/(1-n_{\sigma})&{\rm for}\;\; \sigma \notin I
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
for $\sigma=\sigma'$, and
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial }{\partial C_{\sigma,\sigma'}}m^0_{I,I'}
=\delta_{\bar{I},I \backslash \sigma}
\delta_{\bar{I},I'\backslash \sigma'}\frac{m^0_{\bar{I},\bar{I}}}
{(1-n_{\sigma})(1-n_{\sigma'})}
\end{equation}
for $\sigma\ne \sigma'$, where $\sigma \in I$ and $\sigma' \in I'$. The
derivatives of $m^{0;\bar{\sigma}}_{I\backslash \bar{\sigma} ,I'}$ are
given accordingly.
\end{appendix}
\providecommand{\WileyBibTextsc}{}
\let\textsc\WileyBibTextsc
\providecommand{\othercit}{}
\providecommand{\jr}[1]{#1}
\providecommand{\etal}{~et~al.}
|
Subsets and Splits